Number 68 Project and animal abuse

It just so happened that I found out about a bunch of awesome-sounding, high-end food events at the same time: Number 68 Project, Sensorium, and Cochon 555. I'm not going to go into a comparison; I'm going to talk about why I'm not going to Number 68 Project. It's a bit of a story, but I'm going to lay all the details out for you here, so please bear with me.

When I heard of Number 68 Project, I looked at their website and was slightly taken aback by the manufactured exclusivity of it -- you can't just buy tickets to a particular night, you have to "request an invitation" by answering questions like "What is your idea of earthly happiness?" Okay, fine, they don't want just anybody, they want it to be a little more controlled. Seems a bit pretentious to me, but that's their prerogative. I looked at the chef lineup, and it seemed like maybe it would be a fun event, sort of like a salón with awesome food. I could dig it. I also noticed that Ellen Gray was listed as an advisor -- Ellen is the manager of Equinox, as well as being a noted animal rights activist.

I "requested" an invitation Friday, and hadn't yet checked my email Saturday when I saw a tweet by Number 68 Project. The tweet said:

"I was once served a songbird as a delicacy in an illegal eatery in rural USA. Have a memorable meal? Do tell."

Now, I don't know how many of you are seriously into food, or how many of you read B.R. Myers's recent Atlantic article savaging "foodies". If you fit into either of those groups, you might be familiar with the practice of eating ortolan. Ortolan is a tiny songbird that is kept in a cage (sometimes in the dark) for 4-6 weeks, force-fed, and then killed by being drowned in Armagnac before being roasted and eaten whole. I'm not sensationalizing that at all; that's really what happens. It's illegal in France (and illegal to import to the US), though it's because the species is endangered there rather than because the practice is clearly barbaric.

I've written previously about how I've gotten into ethical meat, and when I looked up ortolan, I felt sick (and I'm not prone to being sensitive like that).

So here I was, reading a tweet that seemed to promote this kind of horrible animal treatment. I went away from my computer for a couple hours, and when I came back, I noticed that Number 68 Project had deleted that tweet and replaced it with a similar tweet. This one said:

So, they took out the word "illegal" and replaced it with "underground Vietnamese", perhaps belatedly realizing it's not a good idea to trumpet that you were doing illegal things when you're promoting a business. Clearly, this time I took a screenshot, which turned out to be a good idea.

After thinking about this for a time, I checked my email. I noticed an invitation from Number 68 Project to buy tickets to one of the dinners. This is the email exchange that followed, starting with my reply.

__________

Hi,

I'd like a bit more information about the food philosophy behind Number 68 Project. Specifically, I noticed that you just tweeted about eating what I'm assuming was ortolan. (Further, I notice that you removed the word "illegal" from your tweet and then retweeted basically the same tweet.)

I guess I'm a little concerned, because I try to be as conscientious/humane as possible with my food choices, and ortolan is (as you clearly know) force-fed and drowned in Armangac. Obviously I'm not concerned that there will be ortolan at Number 68 Project; I know that's not going to happen. But, I am worried that your tweet that means that perhaps Number 68 Project solely values taste, and is not conscientious or humane about it. I find this idea especially surprising given that Ellen Gray is listed as an "Advisor" on your website.

Could you respond to my concern please?

Thanks.
__________

The tweet was a reference to an Anthony Bourdain dinner party in Vietnam. We apologize if it was received out of context, but we hope you enjoy our dinner series.

Best,
Hosan and Jill

___________

That's interesting; I guess both the tweets must have been incorrect when they both stated that the dinner party was in the rural USA then.

I guess I was hoping you'd say that you are taking care that your meat in the dinner series is as humane as possible, and I'm pretty sad you ignored my ethical concern totally, as ethics are ethics, regardless of whether they are in Vietnam or the US.

I will have to decline the invitation, as I can no longer feel good about giving Number 68 Project my money.

Thanks for responding.
__________

(Then two responses from them, seeming like one from Hosan and one from Jill)

Sorry to hear you feel that way. We will note your objections.

Good luck and take care,
Hosan and Jill

_________
and:

I understand your decline.

All of our meats are sourced humanely and we take great pride in those efforts. Our immediate concern was that you understood the context of our tweets.

Best,
Number 68 Project

_________

Hmmm. So, a couple things came to mind as a result of their replies.

1. I don't think "context" makes any difference in this case -- it's an inhumane practice.
2. Don't try to change my opinion by name-dropping.
3. Either both tweets lied about the location, or the email lied about the location.
4. The "sorry to hear you feel that way" is a classic non-apology.
5. I'm just taken aback now, and feel a little grossed out by the whole thing.

I went back to look at their twitter feed, and they'd deleted the tweet entirely.

Here's the thing. Their website makes an effort to position Number 68 Project as thought-leaders -- not just a home for amazing gastronomical experiences, but intellectual and artistic ones as well. If you're going to promote yourself as being a home for social leaders, don't go around promoting ortolan also. You don't have to care about the suffering of the ortolans, but it's indisputable that they do suffer when drowned, so just don't promote that [crap]. Really.

I was uncomfortable leaving the matter there, so I actually called up Ellen Gray, and brought it to her attention. She'd had no idea, and was as surprised as I was. Upon her request, I forwarded the email thread to her, along with the screenshot. She also answered the question I'd asked Number 68 Project, saying that each chef participating in Number 68 Project sources their own ingredients, so they are humane if the chefs source them that way.

That was Tuesday, that I had my conversation with Ellen Gray. She said she was going to follow up with the Number 68 Project people. We'll see what comes of it.

I'm certainly not out to destroy Number 68 Project or anything melodramatic like that, and I'm not even sure what sort of outcome I'm looking for. I do feel like I should at least inform people about my dealings with them, and let people be influenced or not as they choose (I report, you decide!). Number 68 Project's tweets and subsequent correspondence with me made me feel uncomfortable giving them my money -- prevented me from doing business with them -- and on a purely practical level, that's something that they should be concerned with.