The live food debate has always been a contentious one, however regardless of cultural traditions, or modern Chefs blurring the lines in pursuing extreme levels of freshness, and even individuals supposedly ‘proving their metal’ through the bizarre practice; what remains distinctly clear is that there is an underlying moral issue at play. Intentionally placing the diner in the role of executioner, either through the veil of smoke and mirrors, or in the harsher light of reality, is poor judgement at best.
Sustainability, provenance, minimising food miles, and the timely consumption of produce are indeed worthy ambitions for any restaurant, but as in all facets of our existence, there invariably is a line drawn when noble ideals are pushed further that prompts our conscience. Notoriety should not exclude anyone from that simple premise, whether you are Rene Redzepi, an impressionable young Chef overly influenced by his profile, or conversely the humble street hawker.
One argument promoted in Australia is that the traditional custodians of the land frequently consumed live produce, and that in more modern times, oysters are devoured largely without comment. In respect of the first, the issue is more one of relevance, as all restaurants are policed by a rigid set of food safety standards for very good reason. Secondly, the whole issue of sentience, and the undefinable time lapse between freshly shucking an oyster and the undefined point of when it is technically deemed to be dead, considerably diminishes the other comparison.
On a more contemporary note, exceptional produce driven dishes are built on technique, balance and substance; not gimmicks. Each component on the plate needs to have its purpose in building the overall harmony, yet examples of ‘live food’ to date, even at the highest level, cannot transcend or elevate it beyond the intrinsic shock value. One has to question the point of it, or any other similar practice, when the philosophy is flawed on so many levels.
What is really at stake is the fundamental principle that as a forward thinking and responsible society, that has at its disposal a full range of humane methods for culling animals, the consumption of ‘live food’ is a line that should never be crossed. Theatre, innovation, and novelty are no justifications for it, nor are the overblown promises of incomparable flavour and texture profiles.
The RSPCA has recently launched its Choose Wisely initiative, which focusses on eating animals that have been treated humanely, and whilst it is currently focussed with farmed animals, NOMA may attract its attention should it choose to dabble in its interpretation of ‘live food’ on its menu as part of its upcoming Australian pop-up. The position of the Food Safety Authority is also yet to be fully tested on this issue, and the prospect of legal intervention to prevent it from occurring by other parties who oppose the principle, also remains a distinct possibility.
Ultimately, as part of an ethical food community, we primarily want any living produce to have enjoyed a healthy existence, and most importantly to have been assured of a humane ending before it is consumed. There is a whole undiscovered world of food boundaries for Chefs to explore that is both far more meaningful and rational, rather than dabbling in a ‘live food’ fad that in all likelihood will amount to nothing of substance in a culinary sense. When food historians of the future look back upon the legacy of this generation, it will be judged on the longevity of the decisions that collectively inspired us today.
About the author
Dane Richards is the writer and publisher of LBV Le Bon Vivant Food Blog and also reviews food for both industry and media.
