Sunday, June 30, 2019

The SF Chronicle's Restaurant Critics Failed Their Ethics Test Once Again

Tina Martin <tina_martin@sbcglobal.net>
To:soleil.ho@sfchronicle.com
Jun 30 at 3:35 PM
Dear Ms. Ho,

I appreciate the fact that "Plant-based options" became part of the restaurant reviews when you came on, but it's really disappointing that you and your team couldn't find a single vegan restaurant to list among the top 100.  It's also alarming that you can address the question "Where do ethics fit in?" without mentioning  plant-based dishes.  

I agree that it's ethical to factor in sexual harassment and assault allegations when going through the list as well as how the restaurant staff are treated.  But it's essential to consider the move to a plant-based diet when considering ethics.  

The way animals are treated in factory farms is unethical.  

It's unethical to expose workers on factory farms to what they have to face. 

 It's not sustainable to have animals given the space that would be their natural habitat if they're going to be used for meat on a planet with more than 7 billion people.

It's unethical to let our habitual diet harm the environment when we could change our habits and move towards a plant-based diet..

I feel sympathetic to you (and slightly envious) that you have to sample so many restaurants in a year, but if you can't make it to vegan restaurants, couldn't you hire a vegan reviewer who could?  

Sincerely,
Tina Martin