Photo credit: www.eater.com
This story was produced in partnership with Civil Eats.
The “PLNT Impact Tracker” on PLNT Burger’s website encourages consumers to reflect on their dietary choices. This digital tool, stemming from an East Coast vegan chain, resembles a traditional mechanical display and is integrated within the chain’s ordering app. It calculates the estimated amounts of water, land, CO2 emissions, and oil conserved by opting for vegan burgers. These statistics are derived from the 2022 environmental, social, and governance (ESG) report of Beyond Meat, the supplier of PLNT Burger’s patties.
However, it is essential to note that these figures are largely theoretical. The most meaningful gauge of resources conserved by purchasing a PLNT Burger can only be accurately determined if each sale substitutes an intended beef burger. Additionally, it’s misleading to suggest that selling one PLNT Burger leads to substantial land or animal liberation in the meat industry. Furthermore, a 2023 report indicates that plant-based diets have not significantly affected overall beef production levels.
Despite these limitations, the figures do serve a purpose—encouraging consumers to engage with a complex issue in a more tangible manner. Jonah Goldman, co-founder of PLNT Burger, explains, “In our app, we track your individual resource savings and share that information within our community to inspire further action.” This initiative aims to strengthen the connection for consumers between their daily choices and their environmental consequences: “You’ve saved a certain number of gallons of water, a specified amount of land and energy,” he states, adding, “Congratulations. Thank you.” Moreover, PLNT Burger utilizes this data to reward customers through a loyalty program, offering complimentary items based on the quantified resources they have “saved.”
When visiting one of PLNT Burger’s twelve locations, patrons won’t see extensive information regarding meat consumption’s environmental toll. Instead, the focus is placed on the health benefits associated with plant-based diets. As Goldman notes, “The primary motivators for consumer choices tend to be personal benefit.” Although staff members are educated about the environmental advantages of plant-based eating, the emphasis during customer interactions remains on providing a positive dining experience. Discussions about the chain’s environmental objectives may occur subsequently.
The impact of climate change on the restaurant sector is profound. Altered weather patterns have made sourcing once plentiful ingredients more challenging and sometimes cost-prohibitive when aiming to support sustainable farming. Many restaurateurs believe that by promoting local ingredients and sustainably sourced seafood, diners can better understand what constitutes a climate-friendly diet. However, Goldman points out, excessive “preaching” can alienate customers seeking enjoyment in dining out, creating a delicate balance between informative messaging and maintaining a positive experience.
Yang’s Kitchen, established by Chris Yang and his wife in Los Angeles in 2019, is another example of prioritizing quality ingredients. The restaurant sources locally milled flour for its scallion pancakes and works with Food Roots, which connects chefs to local suppliers of Asian produce. Their website emphasizes a commitment to local, sustainable, and organic sourcing, featuring a list of their farmers on the menu. Initially, Yang’s focus was on flavor and ingredient quality, but the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a broader recognition of the interconnectedness of food sourcing and environmental sustainability. Yang reflects, “The handling of COVID made me realize that if we struggle with this crisis, we might not cope well with climate change.”
Motivated by this insight, Yang sought to increase his commitment to local farms. During the pandemic’s supply shortages, he established direct links between his customers and the farms providing his eggs and vegetables. Yang focused on suppliers who engaged in regenerative agriculture and partnered with Zero Foodprint, a nonprofit advocating for sustainable farming. This collaboration often introduces a one-percent fee to each bill, which is used to support regenerative agriculture initiatives through farmer grants. Yang discovered the nonprofit through chefs already participating in such initiatives. The Yang’s Kitchen menu notes the restaurant’s commitment to working with Zero Foodprint to restore ecological balance.
Restaurants committed to environmental sustainability have various resources at their disposal to validate their practices. For example, Crave Fishbar claims the title of New York’s “first 100 percent sustainable seafood restaurant” and adheres to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s sustainable seafood guidelines, composts its food waste with Afterlife Ag—which grows mushrooms for culinary use out of the compost—and donates oyster shells to the Billion Oyster Project. Additionally, Crave Fishbar holds a B Corp certification, which recognizes its social and environmental responsibility.
The rise of third-party certifications provides restaurants with an assurance mechanism, allowing them to showcase their commitment to environmentally friendly practices in a way that may resonate better with customers. A certificate displayed at a restaurant conveys credibility and can satisfy diners’ curiosity without necessitating a deep dive into their sourcing practices.
Frequently, restaurants prefer to avoid the specific language related to climate impact, opting instead for the broader term “sustainability,” which emphasizes the positives of sourcing methods without explicitly addressing the negative aspects of practices such as factory farming. The general strategy aims to spotlight smaller, more manageable decisions, with the hope that such focus can lead to greater collective action.
At his recently opened Crave Sushi Bar—a Manhattan offshoot of Fishbar—owner Brian Owens often explains to customers why menu items differ. For example, bluefin tuna, a critically endangered species, is absent from the menu. Owens discusses the importance of transparency in sourcing choices and offers detailed mission statements on the menu that specify the use of “only wild-caught, sustainable, and responsibly farmed seafood.” The restaurant also offers a donation option called “Save the Reef” where customers can add $4 to their bill to support the Billion Oyster Project. The availability of such information fosters an understanding among guests regarding less common items, like Hudson Valley steelhead trout being featured on the sushi menu.
Although this information is available in print and online, it often remains unspoken during the dining experience unless patrons inquire. Owens emphasizes, “We’re not trying to preach or take up too much space. It’s hard to predict how many people genuinely care about this.” While some customers are drawn to sustainability, others may be indifferent. “People either know about these practices or they simply don’t care,” observes Yang.
For many sustainable restaurants, the larger challenge lies in educating diners about the necessity of supporting environmentally friendly initiatives, like small farms and sustainable projects. Although sustainability has gained traction, maintaining such practices often incurs higher costs compared to conventional food production methods. With government subsidies for large-scale industrial farming totaling approximately $38 billion annually, Alicia Kennedy discusses in Mold, producing and transporting conventional food tends to be less expensive for both restaurants and consumers. Consequently, sourcing from smaller, sustainable operations usually results in higher costs.
Often, restaurateurs or chefs find their personal ethics at odds with economic reality.
While including a contribution to Zero Foodprint on customer bills served as a means to highlight climate issues, Yang ultimately ended the partnership this year after facing criticism from customers. “In anticipation of new policies regarding restaurant service charges and concerns about pricing, we decided to part ways,” Yang said, adding that the higher costs of his restaurant compared to others in his area also contributed to the decision.
An increasing number of consumers expect restaurants to adopt eco-friendly practices. Yet recent surveys indicate that only 34 percent of diners are willing to incur extra costs for them. While many individuals may support sustainability initiatives in theory, higher prices, alongside an additional service fee at the register, seem excessive, particularly as ordinary groceries rise in price.
Effectively informing customers about the price increases associated with sustainability necessitates initiating a conversation most diners do not start. Firetype Chocolate previously offered complimentary chocolate samples as part of a birthday promotion. However, due to increases in ingredient costs tied to climate change and market fluctuations, the bakery recently announced the cancellation of the program. “Last year, we spent $72 for six pounds of chocolate. This year, the same amount costs $129,” they explained on social media.
Owner Dan McKinney shared that while he used to emphasize sourcing quality ingredients in desserts, he has recently shifted from corn syrup to organic alternatives. However, challenges have arisen, particularly with cocoa shortages. “Recently, I was informed that chocolate prices may increase by 40 percent in the fall due to dwindling harvests,” McKinney noted.
He continued, “Our chocolates previously sold for $2.50 each, and now they’re approximately $2.65. I feel like I’m running out of options. Although I have been mindful of climate issues for a while, direct communication with customers about its impact has become necessary.” He expressed concern about the potential negative reactions to what might seem like excessive pricing for a single bite.
Experts largely agree that for agriculture to be sustainably viable, it needs to prioritize local, small-scale operations. Eating local and seasonal produce from non-factory farms typically reduces emissions, conserves water, enriches soil health, and often promotes a more harmonious relationship between humans and livestock.
Despite this knowledge, altering purchasing habits and dining choices to foster sustainability isn’t straightforward for most consumers. Even those who frequent eco-conscious eateries often seek out these experiences without wanting to engage in overt discussions about climate issues. This reality compels restaurateurs to refrain from addressing environmental challenges unless absolutely necessary—primarily in contexts where prices or ingredient availability warrant it—often characterizing the conversation around climate impact as a detriment to the dining experience.
Dining exclusively at sustainability-focused restaurants isn’t feasible for many people, nor does it inherently resolve the broader sustainability challenges in the industry. Just engaging with one climate-conscious establishment does not guarantee a wider application of environmentally friendly practices across the industry. Contributing to sustainability through the purchase of higher-priced regeneratively grown goods does not halt climate change or ensure that food systems can adapt sustainably.
While diners may come to recognize the implications of their dining choices through restaurant messaging, they often feel limited in their ability to act beyond menu selections. Their decisions are often validated without further encouragement, leading to a sense of helplessness akin to pondering the consequences of enjoying the last sustainably raised chicken on a sinking ship.
The genuine impact of these issues will extend beyond the dining experience itself. Enhanced discussions regarding sourcing and environmental implications might inspire customers to support legislation that benefits eco-friendly practices or commit to buying locally sourced produce and minimizing their engagement with factory-farmed meat. Organizations like the James Beard Foundation are working to foster dialogue around climate change issues within the culinary community.
While the success of a single sustainable restaurant does not necessitate adherence to the same practices among neighboring establishments, Owens from Crave notes a growing awareness among the public. “Over the last decade, there have been more proponents for this shift than ever. Awareness is rising,” he remarks. “My role is to keep these discussions ongoing.” For now, restaurateurs continue to navigate the fine line between indulgence and the urgency of addressing climate issues.
Open communication about climate change can remind diners that its consequences are not just looming threats; they are already affecting food production. “This is a direct connection to issues like failing harvests,” McKinney concludes. “People need to understand that these consequences are immediate, not speculative.” Even if a restaurant’s menu avoids mentioning climate concerns, each ingredient is influenced by these environmental challenges. Establishments more vocal about sustainability realize that ignorance is no longer a luxury we can afford.
Source
www.eater.com