We reported yesterday about how chef Wolfgang Puck has decided to begin
“buying produce from responsible farmers who grow fruits and vegetables that aren't covered with pesticides or genetically modified…(and) getting meat from ranchers who not only shun the use of antibiotics and growth hormones, but also raise their animals humanely in a free-roaming environment.”
One MNB user responded:
Mr. Puck expresses. noble ideas and sentiments. And it may work in a few small operations like Mr. Puck's restaurants. But how will good, healthy foods be provided to the masses? Who believes that the volume of fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, fish, etc. that we enjoy in this country, and which many countries would like to enjoy, can be achieved by small-scale practices? Which is better: Less availability of products grown in the manner advocated by Mr. Puck? Or ready availability of these products through large-scale operations? It is at least worth pondering. And, as with most things, there probably is a reasonable compromise somewhere; if only compromise weren't such a dirty word these days.
To fill our future with fewer doctors, at least in the good old U.S.A., my view is that we to eat smaller portions of all of the good foods available to us and exercise more. Mr. Puck could truly help us all if he could convince restaurants and food service providers to downsize what is on the plate.
And another MNB user wrote:
Puck did not do this because he woke up one morning and had an epiphany. The fact is that he and other high profile celebrity chefs are being targeted by vegetarian groups such as Humane Society of the United States (NOT to be confused with the Humane Society of America where they adopt puppies and kitties). This group essentially told Puck that he would change his menus and make this statement to the press or his restaurant empire would become the target of a never-ending series of vocal picketers, boycotts and other disruptions to his business. Puck is an astute business man and he did what he had to do in order to keep his brand on top.
“buying produce from responsible farmers who grow fruits and vegetables that aren't covered with pesticides or genetically modified…(and) getting meat from ranchers who not only shun the use of antibiotics and growth hormones, but also raise their animals humanely in a free-roaming environment.”
One MNB user responded:
Mr. Puck expresses. noble ideas and sentiments. And it may work in a few small operations like Mr. Puck's restaurants. But how will good, healthy foods be provided to the masses? Who believes that the volume of fruit, vegetables, meat, poultry, fish, etc. that we enjoy in this country, and which many countries would like to enjoy, can be achieved by small-scale practices? Which is better: Less availability of products grown in the manner advocated by Mr. Puck? Or ready availability of these products through large-scale operations? It is at least worth pondering. And, as with most things, there probably is a reasonable compromise somewhere; if only compromise weren't such a dirty word these days.
To fill our future with fewer doctors, at least in the good old U.S.A., my view is that we to eat smaller portions of all of the good foods available to us and exercise more. Mr. Puck could truly help us all if he could convince restaurants and food service providers to downsize what is on the plate.
And another MNB user wrote:
Puck did not do this because he woke up one morning and had an epiphany. The fact is that he and other high profile celebrity chefs are being targeted by vegetarian groups such as Humane Society of the United States (NOT to be confused with the Humane Society of America where they adopt puppies and kitties). This group essentially told Puck that he would change his menus and make this statement to the press or his restaurant empire would become the target of a never-ending series of vocal picketers, boycotts and other disruptions to his business. Puck is an astute business man and he did what he had to do in order to keep his brand on top.
- KC's View:
