It’s the moment chefs long for and dread every year: the publication of the Michelin Guide. Gaining a star, or being stripped of them can make or break a restaurant. This year’s Guide added a new marker by which to judge our fine-dining establishments – the green clover. First revealed at the French awards ceremony in January, and then at the event for the Nordic countries, the green clover claims to recognise and encourage the work of restaurants committed to preserving the environment through sustainable practices.
The ‘Sustainability Emblem’ will “help uncover the most dedicated chefs, who are fully invested in sustainable gastronomy and, therefore, a sustainable society,” according to Gwendal Poullennec, international director of the Michelin Guides. So far, 50 restaurants in France and 27 in Scandinavia have been named as ‘Industry Role Models’.
Highlighting restaurants using innovative initiatives to embrace a more sustainable way of cooking appears to be a step in the right direction for the 120-year old institution. Long a revered entity in gastronomy, the guide has faced criticism in recent years for the perfectionism it demands – which may encourage the wasteful use of produce and promote working cultures that include high stress levels.
Some chefs have gone as far as giving back their stars, decrying them more a curse than a blessing. Famously, Marco Pierre White returned all three of his in 1999, citing disillusion with the Michelin world and the pressures it brings. And now a growing trend of restaurateurs and customers are beginning to view the iconic red guide as an outdated measure of dining.
With such criticisms in mind, the green clover, and the accompanying Sustainability Awards, appeared to point towards a more sustainable future of fine-dining, for both chefs and the environment. Finally, it seemed, Michelin was recognising those at the forefront of gastronomy and harnessing its means and influence to create a more environmentally-friendly food scene.
But some chefs disagree. In an emotional video blog posted on his Instagram channel in February Italian chef Chris Puglisi, owner of one-starred Relae in Copenhagen, lambasts the approach to cooking at the core of the fine-dining tradition which Michelin represents. He says it “punches out nature’s bountiful gifts into small dots and circles,” and believes it is fundamentally at odds with the responsibility chefs have to creating environmentally sustainable practices. In an article on the Relae Community website, he casts doubt on the legitimacy of the little five-leafed green clover.
Having set up the Farm of Ideas in 2017, an experimental agriculture project where the restaurant’s produce is grown, Puglisi was initially excited to hear that the Michelin’s guide wanted to take sustainability seriously. But pausing for a moment to ask just how he had come to be listed among the selection, he discovered that the entire review process had been formed of a single phone call to his restaurant. On the basis of two questions, Relae earned the right to display a Sustainability Emblem next to its name. A phone call – “not an audit, not a questionnaire… and by no means a critical question of any type” Puglisi writes, placed Relae as a gastronomic pioneer of sustainability in the Michelin’s eyes.
Michelin did not respond to a request for comment. The group has previously said that restaurants considered for the sustainability recognition were "initially selected based on our inspectors’ findings and research from their anonymous visits". It adds the questionanaire and phone calls were used to help "finalise the establishment’s commitment and chef’s vision to publish on the Michelin Guide website.”
Relae is a two-time winner of the World’s Most Sustainable Restaurant. Every morning produce arrives from the farm to be crafted into beautiful dishes for its guests. Despite Puglisi’s own admittance that much still needs to be improved, it is a restaurant invested in developing sustainable gastronomy initiatives and a sustainable society through experimentation and education. So, why does Puglisi feel so strongly that the Michelin’s sustainability emblem is at odds with the work he is doing?
Despite losing some of the influence of former years, the Michelin Guide is still one of the most prestigious institutions in gastronomy. Because of this, is powerfully placed to hold restaurants to account when it comes to questions of environmental responsibility. Without any review process to speak of, however, Puglisi sees the green clover as an attempt to “young up” the guide and appeal to a new generation of diners.
Puglisi claims it amounts to little more than a marketing ploy. A passionate advocate for organic, sustainable agriculture and zero-waste initiatives, working alongside other Nordic chefs to change the way we eat, Puglisi slams the green clover for “ridiculising” the real efforts of the gastronomic community.
An empty award could set a dangerous precedent for what we accept as sustainable practice. Michelin does not have a reputation for transparency. The criteria and process for getting a star is kept under lock and key, with pretty much the only known factor that restaurants are visited anywhere between three and ten times. This process, while elusive, holds chefs to account, testing the continuity of quality across multiple anonymous visits.
The criteria for getting a green clover, on the other hand, is somewhat less defined. “There was absolutely no fact checking,” says Matt Orlando, patron chef of Amass in Copenhagen, “I could have said anything and it would have qualified me for the award.” Orlando is confident that many restaurants on the list are playing a vital role in changing how we eat and true, but for him, the new emblem has “done more harm than good” in recognising this work.
“Right now, we are at a critical tipping point in terms of even having ingredients to work with in the near future” says Orlando. “We need to change the way we source and use food, and fast. Empty gestures trying to jump on the sustainability bandwagon are in real danger of completely discrediting the work a small number of people are dedicating their life to.”
A lack of transparency undermines the role of the sustainability lists and awards for these chefs. Without any framework by which to judge a restaurant’s sustainability practices the Michelin Guide cannot legitimately recognise the real, complex work of the community. Neither can a little green emblem hold chefs to account or challenge those in the industry to push for better. With no accountability to speak of, “terms like ‘locally sourced,’ ‘zero-waste’ and ‘sustainably responsible’ will soon become as meaningless as the word organic,” says Orlando.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
