WHNetwork Blog

Dear Margie,

My husband and I own a wine shipping and storage company and have always been concerned with the tremendous amount of packaging and waste that is associated with shipping wine. Our first policy change was to only ship wine in pulp, thus eliminating the need for Styrofoam. The second change was to implement a new program, we call "ShipSmart Passport", in which the consumer can have us consolidate their wine purchases into single case shipments. Not only does it reduce the amount of packaging required for multiple shipments, it also reduces the carbon footprint of the carriers delivering the shipments. It also saves the consumer time by only having to be available once to sign for the wine, and finally and maybe most importantly to the consumer, they save money on their shipping costs as they only have to pay for one shipment!

Best Regards,

Corrine Appelbaum
Safe Haven Wine Services
"The Place to Store, Ship and Share Wine"
www.SafeHavenWineServices.com

Hello Margie,

I know that some people love the so called 'doggie bag'. It should really be called by its true name, the 'to go' container. I understand that you had a fine repast and was not hungry and wanted to food for later. Personally, I think servers hate food 'to go' and that is why you got bum leftovers. (the only left overs I eat are from what I cook or from my Moms fridge when I visit her)

Restaurants order supplies based on what is available to them and the cost of those supplies. If the manufacturers make better or 'green' products and the price is right they will get bought by the restaurants.

Greg

All recyclable and compostable thanks to the new city of Seattle ordinance Margie!

Thanks,

Ross Lincoff
General Manager
Il Fornaio Cucina Italiana, Seattle, WA

Hi Margie,

I just wanted to touch base and tell you that I carry my own 'doggie' bags in my car. Stainless steel. They come in different sizes. Lunch Bots and T0-Go Ware, those are the commercial names of the products I use. I love to give them away as gifts. Passionfish has a large number of guests who bring their own 'doggie' bags, but in the off chance that we have to package it, we require the server to immediately do it and return the box and we use only completely bio-degradable 'to-go' stuff, right down to our cutlery made from potato starch.

I was happy to read your blog on this. It has been such a pet peeve of mine for so long.


Cindy Walter
Passionfish
Pacific Grove, CA

Agree!

Pamela Saling

This is completely ridiculous. You judge a restaurant on what they package their leftovers in? Come on...I've been to restaurants all over this great nation of ours and abroad. Really, isn't it about the quality of food they serve? You have no idea what resources these restaurants have to buy packaging for those taking food home. Maybe you and your readers should only order what you can finish. I know of many restaurants that do not even offer "doggie bags."
Hooray for them!

M. Betti

Dear Margie,

I have been enjoying your columns for some time now and always find them entertaining and loaded with good information.

Regarding your experience with the "left-overs" you later discovered were not from your untouched plate, I too have had similar experiences. Furthermore, I really don't trust what happens to my food after it leaves my sight and have always felt that way and like you, I always ask for a piece of tin foil to wrap my own leftovers even if the server insists of doing it for me. I hope more "do-it-yourselfers" will take the initiative and wrap their own.

Thank you again for your columns and hopefully, I will find a job soon here in St. Helena where I live.

Mimi Wissa

Hi, Margie,

Just read your previous post (I've been away) on the evils of Styrofoam. I'd like to present a slightly different perspective for your consideration.

First off, you have every right to spend your money and make your decisions based on what you decide is important to you. No beef there. If you decide that you won't frequent any restaurant that uses Styrofoam containers, or for example has mauve chair coverings, it is your absolute right to do so.

At the same time, in my humble opinion, the exactly opposite position is taken by the so-called "Green" movement. It is part holier-than-thou and part nanny-state, and results in restricting the ability of the rest of us to make the same kind of decisions through legislation that may be misguided.

Take a look at incandescent versus CFL bulbs, for example. A much more logical approach for the Greens to take would be to ban CFLs, because they contain the horrible (gasp! choke!) element mercury. You may be old enough to remember (I certainly am!) that fever thermometers used to contain mercury (and gave you accurate readings), but were banned because of the evil mercury they contained.

So why the big push to ban incandescent bulbs? It goes to two things: first is what they call "the habit of compliance." I could go into the psychology, but suffice it to say that people are more willing to accept big restrictions on their freedoms and liberties if they first accept little restrictions along the same lines. If I can get you to ban incandescents first, you'll be much more willing to accept, say, remotely-controlled thermostats in your house.

The idea I need to get you to accept to do the latter can be given in the form of a false syllogism: power generation is bad for the environment; incandescent bulbs use more power; therefore, incandescent bulbs are bad. Once I get you to accept that premise in a vacuum, and not consider other things like the effect on the economy or on our quality of life, I have you. I can get you to slowly accept legislation that restricts your freedom to choose, regardless of whether those restrictions really have any positive effect. I just tell you to substitute "freedom to choose the temperature in your house" for "incandescent bulbs" in the false syllogism, and you'll comply. Whether you realize it or not, the Greenies have convinced a lot of people that 10% unemployment and a declining standard of living is a small price to pay. I disagree.

For example, the left-leaning Guardian newspaper just published an expose of the effects of the Kyoto treaty on carbon emissions. Europe kept holier-than-thou-ing the US, pointing out that they had cut their carbon emissions by 14%. It cost their economy a lot, and pushed countries like Greece into near-bankruptcy, but look how great it was for "Global Warming." Except when you realize that they did it by shifting jobs to countries like China who have much more inefficient systems, so that the overall contribution was an increase of 40% in carbon emissions when you combine the increase in China's emissions with Europe's decreases. And what effect did that have on he environment, really? Negligible at best.

Look at what the banning of DDT did, based on faulty science (it wasn't DDT that hurt the Pelican eggs, it was natural environmental effects such as red tide - I'll send you references if you'd like). But banning DDT did have one very big effect: it removed the most effective way to kill Malaria-causing mosquitoes, resulting in the deaths of literally millions of people in the third world. It could be argued that Rachel Carson's well-meaning but misguided book "Silent Spring" indirectly caused all those deaths.

Which brings me to Styrofoam. It really isn't that bad. The reason it was excoriated by the Greenies years ago was because it was originally (but no more) manufactured using CFC's. CFC's, you may recall, were accused (wrongly) of causing "holes" in the ozone layer. CFC's are gone, but the seasonal holes in the ozone layer are still there. About the only problem the Greenies are able to say about it now is that it either does break down when water hits it, possibly giving some unknown contamination to the water supply, or it doesn't break down and therefore stays in landfills. Ooh, sounds pretty bad to me.

The point in all of this is that it isn't about the environment, really. It's about exerting control over people's lives, and getting them to accept a political agenda that they wouldn't otherwise accept. When I see an article like yours, it makes me shiver, because I know your heart is in the right place. I just wish more people would do what's correct rather than what's politically correct, especially when the things we endorse in the name of "The Environment" may actually do a lot more harm than good. And those restaurants that use Styrofoam containers may not be as evil as you thought.

Sorry I was so long-winded, but I know it's always a good idea to present the other side of the story in a complete enough way to effectively make the point.

Best regards,

Bruce Harrison
Hercules, CA

Margie,

Interesting topic, one that I do not give much notice to, largely as a result of how excellently and simply this common request is handled by my current and previous employers.

First, I must say that your unpleasant surprise upon opening your "doggie bag" is not only very unfortunate, but it is an assuredly rare occurrence. My interpretation of what actually occurred is that you may have gotten someone else's box, especially if there were 2 boxes with the same dish at the table; and that you might have even been given a box from another table (Yuk!). Typically, take-home boxes/bags are labeled by the Server/Busser who processed them, noting the table number and seat number of the guest. If this step was incorrectly handled, as it most likely was, your experience would be the end result. These take-home items are most often kept in the back of the house, and are then delivered by the server once the check has been presented, so as not to clutter the table during desert. I can assure you that for the most part, take-home boxes are handled with care, and one can be sure that in reputable houses that this is the norm. I can only hope that your previous satisfactions with takehome boxes, likely not logged as anything vastly important in the past, will outweigh a potential blanketing statement of how you intend to request, or not to request take-home boxes in the future. Please do not lower yourself to a "Yelper", and automatically assume that because of your singular unfortunate experience, that all venues are subject to the same service, and should be treated as though they would likely repeat your unfortunate experience. Bottom line here, this kind of treatment is reactionary at best, and not becoming of someone purporting to support better business through open discussion.

Second, if you have a preference on how your remaining food is to be boxed, you need to communicate this preference when you request this service. You cannot assume that any restaurant will meet your personal/political needs of packaging, and to do so is unfair, especially if you are to deliver an unfavourable review to friends/peers as a result. Once you make your preferences known, your server/busser will then have the opportunity to tell you what to expect, and you can make an informed decision as a result. Simply expecting that a restaurant has the wherewithall to meet your personal packaging expectations is just as naive as a Vegetarian expecting every restaurant to be able to completely cater to their needs. The bottom line here is, what is more important to you, the enjoyment of the remaining food, or the packaging? If the packaging is more important, you need to say so.

Third, take-home packaging will vary. To me, the best take-home preparation methods are to provide individual boxes for each dish, regardless of their political correctness. These boxes should be labeled as to their contents, should be presented in an appropriate bag for transport, and they should be accompanied by any utensils and sauces as requested by the guest. In a fine dining house, this could mean nice recyclable boxes, properly labeled, and packed in a nice recyclable handle bag, perhaps with logo seals and some colorful, but unnecessary tissue paper to make your leftovers seem like a parting gift. "Are there some Bubblebath Beads in here?" In casual houses, this will likely involve styrofoam boxes and a plastic bag. That's how it is. Economics are what they are. If you can buy 1000 take-home styrofoam boxes for what 200 recyclable boxes would cost, and you are just trying to make payroll each month, well...the choice is obvious, regardless of your guest's political views on packaging. And frankly, most restaurants place a low priority on expenditures when it comes to take-home packaging. Reiedel vs Schlock glassware can easily force a decision here. Over-packaging is wrong and indulgent, no matter the situation, but still, it is up to each of us to say "I do not need a bag/box/utensils/extra sauce" when we are trying to meet a personal agenda. Bottom line here, why would you ever expect someone's business to meet your own personal packaging agenda?? What else are you able to enjoy at at restaurant because they have chosen to save money on take-home packaging?

Fourth, when it come to being required to box your own food at the table...I relegate this type of "service" to my local/ethnic eateries/diners where I am barely getting table service in the first place. In these locales the service is casual enough to permit the delivery of the equipment and to require the necessity of my efforts. You should never be expected to do this for yourself in any house above the basic eatery. Feeling that you have to do so to insure a proper experience, based on one negative experience, to me, is pretty silly. Can you actually imagine yourself requesting to box your own leftovers at any reputable house? You can be sure that your request will be met with some unmentioned question and disdain, and that your next experience in that house will carry the mark of an amateur/"PITA" (Pain In The Ass). Think before you act. We do remember you, and your quirks.

Honestly Margie, I have high expectations of you, based on your previous posts. But this one seems a bit too personal, too ill informed, and certainly too quick to judge, based on a singular experience. I in no way want to diminish your experience, or the topic at hand, but really, are you truly going to request to bag your own leftovers as a result in all venues? Do you really feel that restaurants are going to be responsible to your own packaging agenda? Do you really feel that they should be? Perhaps this is a pursuit better performed in venues that could really make a difference in what restauranteurs can truly provide to their guests economically. If you were a restauranteur, what choice would you make in today's economy for your take-home packaging? Costco, or a custom purveyor? Have you ever run P+L's for a restaurant? Have you ever had to make hard decisions on where to best spend your money to best take care of your guests?

Keep up the hopefully good work,

Bret Fenton

Margie,

I believe we would all like to be "greener" both as individuals and as responsible service industry decision makers. As an individual I do try to buy, consume and discard with my families health and the earth's future in mind. This is not always an easy task. The more natural, healthy and bio degradable the product, the more costly it is. This holds true in the restaurant industry as well. The Styrofoam containers are six cents apiece or less. The Eco friendly are twenty six cents apiece. The increased cost of any product the restaurant uses will be passed along to the restaurant patrons in meal prices. That is, as long as we have patrons willing to pay the increased costs.

I do not think the question for American consumers should whether or not to buy, shop or use "green". Rather, the question should be how do we get this country, or better yet all countries, to manufacture only eco friendly products and stop gouging the consumer for trying to save our future.

Tricia Knutson
Banquet Director
Delafield Brewhaus
http://www.delafield-brewhaus.com