"Redaction Parties" (was Re: SC - rare foods at feasts-rant)

[Catherine Deville]

I wrote:
> >
> > And just as an fyi... I rarely add ingredients willy-nilly at the last
> > minute... but there have certainly been times that I've had to adjust
due
> > to necessity.  "that's all I'm sayin' " <s>

And Adamantious said;
> Okay, so maybe here we have a chance to get somewhere.
>
> Perhaps we could examine the _kinds_ of adjustments we can make, and the
> potential effects of each.


alright, while I appreciate the direction that you're trying to take the
conversation, I have a couple of problems here.  The first is that I think
that it bothers me that you're using the term "ethical" to refer to
something which is more a matter of artistic license.  it's hardly morally
reprehensible to change the ingredients in a recipe, whether announced or
not.  it may be unethical to *knowingly* include an allergen or irritant to
someone's food without notifying them, but that's the most extreme
situation that we could be looking at.  (I teach ethics, so I take the
definition pretty seriously... as seriously as some folks on this list take
cooking.  and I'm afraid that I have to take the position creativity is not
inherently unethical.)

and I think that it's even more important in a case like this that we look
at what is "desirable" vs. what we "can" do than it is in trying to define
period and period.

That said, here's my POV on your analysis  (I dislike the use of the word
'heinous" as well ... my... we're using emotionally charged language
today.)

> I see them in three basic classes, in ascending order of heinousness:
>
> 1. Adjustments to the existing (hopefully posted) ingredients. Say, a
> dish containing black pepper needs a bit more than originally planned.
> Essential, last-minute re-seasoning.

that hardly even bears mentioning.  any cook that *doesn't* do this isn't
really a cook in my estimation.  they're just an automaton, or at least
they're acting as such if they can't make the slightest adaptions.

> 2. Additions of [relatively] benign substances. If, for example, you've
> neglected to mention salt on your list, and add some to a dish, how much
> real threat are you posing to someone on a low-sodium diet, given that
> meat, fish and many other foods are fairly high in sodium anyway? In
> broad terms it probably makes little or no difference. Somewhat less
> benign, but still probably harmless, if added in consideration of the
> people that have made known health issues, um, known, would be the
> little splash of vinegar, or pat of butter, added to take the edge off a
> pottage that has acquired a miniscule burnt taste. Yeah yeah yeah, we
> all know we never burn anything and wouldn't serve it if we did. However.

now, see... here's where you get into a slippery slope argument...
    what is "benign" is *always* going to be an individual thing.  i knew a
person (an SCAer, bless his heart, *and* someone prone to volunteer in the
kitchen) who was *so* allergic to cinnamon, that a very small amount
*airborne* could send him into anaphalactic shock.   about that salt... was
it kosher?  how about that butter? ... or maybe the supposedly "benign"
substance was a touch of sugar to counter a little acidity... do you have
any diabetics in the hall?   you're getting into a sticky wicket here.

again, by saying "if added in consideration of the people that have made
known health issues, um, known" you're back to what I said originally... it
is the responsibility of anyone with an allergy, dietary restriction or
food sensitivity to advise the feastcrat if it's an issue and it's the
responsibility of the feastcrat to make the populace aware of the *final*
(*accurate*) ingredients if s/he has folks with concerns.  how you do that
is up to you.  I think that posting the ingredients and making sure that
folks know that they are posted and where is probably the

> 3. Wild cards. It needs a dash of peanut butter. Yeah, that would
> work... . Nobody mentioned a peanut allergy to me, so it's not my fault.
> Except such a person may have read the posted ingredients and determined
> there was no need to discuss this with the cooks. As the name suggests,
> this could range in effect from saving the dish to the death of a
consumer.

I still think that if you make sure that your final list is accurate then
it shouldn't matter exactly *what* you add.... of course, I would be as
unlikely to commit to exact ingredients prior to a feast as I would be to
make most of my foods with the same or similar ingredients so that someone
who had a problem with x ingredient couldn't eat *anything*  (for a *feast*
, that is... at home I might make a themed dinner with similar ingredients,
but I'm fully informed of my family's tastes and dietary considerations.)


> One thing I've found helpful, on occasions when I, or someone else less
> responsible ("Good news! I added lemon juice, shellfish and almonds to
> the salad and it's really good!") has deviated from the posted
> ingredients is to simply add a note stating that you reserve the right
> to make slight adjustments to the ingredients list, and that anyone with
> health issues should please check the list _again_, late in the day, for
> updated information. And, of course, you will have made careful  note of
> all such adjustments, and added them to your list. Obviously doing this
> in the last fifteen minutes or so before service is a Bad Thing.

To your last comment, yes... but this is *exactly* what I'm saying should
be done.  As it is said, 'feces happens" and there are times that
substitutions or adjustments become necessary (as you said) to save a dish,
or even in the most extreme case to save the feast.  If you've tied your
hands before time, then there's nothing to do.  In my own, admittedly very
extreme example, had I *not* changed the feast at the last moment we
wouldn't have had a feast, we would have had about three dishes and nothing
in the way of a "main" dish (the two "main" courses were supposed to have
been prepared ahead of time and were missing ingredients.)  Repairing the
feast was a process of going through the recipes and going, "we can't do
this... we can do this... we can do this, but I'll have to change it
some... we can't do this... hmmm... but we have the ingredients for *this*
instead... o.k.,  we've got the ingredients for 'x' on hand, who remembers
how to make 'x'?"  Now, this is obviously something that never *should*
happen, but it did... and the only way to fix it was to back up and punt
;-)

All I'm really saying is that a good cook, and by extension a good
feastcrat, must always be prepared for such inevitablities... and must
handle them *responsibly*.  And, IMO, the responsible way to handle it is
by using good communication, not by suppressing creativity.

that is, of course, only my personal opinion...

I remain, in service to Meridies,
Lady Celia des L'archier