Don’t worry, I’ll be here when you get back.

*whistles* *Taps foot* *looks at watch*

Caught up? Okay, let’s move on, shall we?

If the truth is be told, I didn’t want to write this editorial, for several reasons. One, neither the Well Fed Network nor Accidental Hedonist (my own personal food blog) claims to represent the community. While I love to advocate for and promote the food blog community, my opinions surrounding food blogs are my alone. and likely differ from many folks.

Secondly, Mr. Wells is as entitled to his opinion as any food blogger is of their favorite food, recipe or restaurant. Period. I don’t need to be a chef to know when I’ve been served either good or bad food, and readers who follow food blogs don’t need to be a food blogger to know their likes and dislikes.

From my perspective this is where the story initially ended. A man writes a piece in Food & Wine lauding some very deserving sites in 80% of the article, and in the remaining 20% of the piece gives reasons why he doesn’t like other food blogs. These reasons give credence to his support of the blogs he likes. There’s been plenty of stories lauding food blogs before, so what’s the big deal with this one?

The deal is that the traditional food media’s fascination with the novelty of food blogs is over, and people who are in the position to offer critiques of food blogs have begun to do so. We saw it initially with the LA Times piece a few weeks back, and we see it now with Mr. Wells’ piece in Food and Wine.

Some may question if such critiques are justified. As someone who has been critiqued both privately and publicly, let me answer that justification is never part of the equation. A person doing the critiquing wants for something better. If they get it, fine. If not, they tell their readers where the object of their critique was lacking. It’s up to the reader to decide if the critique was justified.

In my opinion, the real question is in how one responds to criticism. This is where the new story surrounding the Food and Wine article takes off. Because no matter how you slice it, threatening to send Mr. Well’s half eaten cheese sandwiches under the guise of protest and in the name of “community” is an unequivicol overreaction. This is but one of the suggestions that some in the community offered in the (now deleted) comments of a post on Food Blog S’cool.

It is said that the character of a person is often defined by their reaction to adversity. The same can be said of communities. Friends within the food blog community were criticized. What’s the proper reaction to that? Is it to accept the criticism graciously and learn from their words if it is decided the criticisms have merit? Do you organize a satirical response, playing the criticisms off for laughs? Or is it to recommend to all of your friends to cancel your subscriptions to Food & Wine and call Mr. Wells’ editor to voice your displeasure?

Whatever the response, the honeymoon of food blogging is clearly over; from both outside and within.

The foie gras issue is the one surrounding the force feeding of ducks in order to fatten their liver. Called gavage, it’s the act of forcing a tube down the ducks throat and feeding them 1 to 11 ounces of feed. This occurs three times a day. Some people feel that this act is cruel. Others believe it to be no worse than other practices found on the farm.

Rand Richards Cooper goes to a fair amount of effort to cover both sides of the debate (something our own Derrick did at Growers and Grocers), but he never comes down to a full conclusion on whether the force feeding of ducks is a bad thing, or simply part of the necessary efforts required to make the liver. He writes at the end of the article:

What might it mean as a diner to be morally alert? For those of us who accept meat-eating as part of our nature, perhaps the challenge lies in looking beyond what’s on our plate, toward what Michael Pollan in his forthcoming book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, calls “the invisible but crucial transaction between ourselves and the animals we eat.” When we learn more about the transaction, we can decide, one by one, whether to take gastronomy’s glittering gem and cast it from the table.

To tell you the truth, I’m still thinking about it.

You have to admire Bon Appétit to put forth an article on one of the more controversial aspects of the gourmet world and then say that they don’t know whether they’re for it or against it. They want to appear conscionable, as several big name chefs have come out against the force feeding of the ducks, but at the same time, there are other big name chefs covered in their magazine who have thought about the issue and still use foie gras.

Bon Appétit’s waffling on the issue is the perfect microcosm for the larger debate — how does one deal with the fact that animals are going to suffer for our meals? Clearly the magazine cannot go vegetarian, as many individuals have done.

It’s not an easy question to answer on the surface, which is why the question is rarely raised in this day. It’s easier to ignore the issue than address it.

But as we become further detached from the sources of our food, it will become easier to shock the general public with displays of common food practices. Out of context, these scenes will appear gruesome, when in the agriculture industry, they are everyday business practice.

For the record, I eat foie gras. I’m sure you can draw your own conclusions on where I fall in the debate.