SC - Adjustments, ethical or otherwise

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Catherine Deville wrote:
> 
> 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.)

Knock yerself out. I never said Word One about creativity. I was
referring to the difference between responsible and irresponsible
deviations from a posted set of ingredients. 
 
> 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.

Uh, OK.
 
> 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.)

No, I'm exaggerating for effect, and I think most people realized that.
What emotionally charged language are you using?
 
> > 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.

Not in the least. I'm sorry, but this is sheer sophistry. I said
relatively benign, not simply benign, and referred to such ingredients
being added with consideration of known health issues. You've responded
to that by suggesting a number of possible health or other dietary
issues as if I've never heard of them. 
> 
> 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

The what? The best solution? I agree. Why, exactly, are we having this discussion?
 
> > 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.)

Cool. One could argue as a possibility (the fact that it is also my
opinion isn't what I'm on about just now) that it is _better_, when
adding last-minute adjustments or seasonings, to add something that is
vaguely related to the environment and cuisine of the dish you're trying
to prepare, rather than simply saying you can add anything you want as
long as it's posted. That may be so, but it's not an ideal solution. It
may be that a dash of Worcestershire sauce is just what is needed to
bring out the flavor of the cuminade de poissons. I won't add it; I'm
trying to prepare something resembling medieval food. It ought to be
perfectly possible to use a slightly different proportion of the
specified ingredients to achieve the desired effect. Failing that, if I
do have to add something in an emergency, my preference is to use
something that would have been found in a medieval kitchen, something
that doesn't aggravate any known health or other dietary issues, or any
anticipated ones. This is an informed risk, perhaps, but, I think, more
conservative than simply adding anything and adding it to the list. This
is a solution that, to me, is preferable over others, and that doesn't
mean a cook is never forced to do otherwise. 

> 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.

I never found it to be a problem. 

> 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.

I don't know what to say to this, except that I have nothing against
good communications, allegations of emotionally charged language
notwithstanding, and that the suggestions I've outlined aren't
indicative of any lack or suppression of creativity. I think most who
know me and my work would say the opposite is the case. Easy solutions
aren't always the best solutions. 

Adamantius
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com