I often see simple menus or product lines lauded on HN. I think this is a good example of getting it wrong. What was the bigger mistake? The signage or having bacon in the beans in the first place? I think having bacon in the beans was a bad idea for Chipotle, since customers who want pork flavor can order pork (carnitas), and Chipotle bills itself as paying more attention to the ingredients than its competitors.
I also feel bad for all of the people who are just finding out that they unwittingly consumed bacon.
Edit: I should have been more clear. I think that improving their signage will completely solve the problem. I was just exploring the possibility that having bacon in their beans was inconsistent with the simple design of their restaurant.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with composite food substances. The blame here falls squarely on Chipotle's inadequate sign-age. Adding bacon for flavour is a good deal different than adding pork, they are different foods, despite coming from the same animal.
Perhaps they should simply offer the beans without the bacon in addition, but the half-dozen or so people I know that keep kosher would never eat at a restaurant that itself wasn't kosher or at least vegan. Is there a significant number of people who will not eat pork but also wouldn't mind if the establishment cooks with pork? I'm not sure how much of an issue this is in practice, I think it's kind of assumed here by people in the states that unless it says vegetarian/vegan/kosher, it's not vegetarian/vegan/kosher.
1. It's not realistic to demand that Chipotle "simply" offer the beans without bacon. Have you see the standardized, efficient layout of a Chipotle? Every inch of prep space has been planned out. They don't have an extra square foot back there for a third kind of beans. They already offer black beans, prepared without bacon, for those who want a vegetarian or kosher option. In my opinion, this goes far enough to address the needs of reasonable customers and does a good job of satisfying as many people as possible while still being workable for them.
2. Just to clarify, are you really saying that you would not eat at any restaurant in which EVERY dish and EVERY ingredient was kosher? This seems overboard to me. I certainly respect religious dietary customs (although honestly, I find some of them to be silly in the way that arbitrary rules from thousands of years ago are often silly), but this is a restaurant that clearly goes out of its way to be above-board about its ingredients. For instance, when they run out of their normal, organic chicken, there's always a sign informing you that they are using another chicken source temporarily, etc.
I agree. I just think having bacon in their pinto beans doesn't do the rest of their simple design justice. I have no moral objection to them having bacon in their pinto beans if they have proper signage.
2) I do not keep kosher, however those who I know that do, do in fact do this. There are requirements kitchens have to fulfill to be kosher themselves. It's not my religion, don't expect me to explain or defend it.
3) I am suggesting that their signage was below par in this instance. I think they have resolved this well.
I disagree. If you've made the choice not to eat bacon then it's your job to pay attention to the ingredients in things. It's pretty common to flavor beans with bacon.
Bacon is just one of many food items used for flavoring in foods. Removing it would, I assume, have a negative impact on the flavor of the food, otherwise Chipotle wouldn't have chosen to include it in the first place.
The "pork flavor" of Carnitas and the "pork flavor" in the beans aren't the same thing, and to suggest they are interchangeable (or that people order the pinto beans thinking that it is the only way to get "pork flavor") makes no sense to me. Most people, at least repeat customers, are getting the pinto beans because they have tasted them before, and decided they like the taste, not that they feel some need to increase the porkiness of their meal.
Every time I order a "vegetarian" bowl I am reminded that the pinto beans contain pork, so I assume this is an issue they have been aware of for a while. It makes sense to put a disclaimer and continue exactly as they have.
It makes little sense to alter their recipes to avoid every potential ingredient that might cause issue.
I live close to the original Chipotle restaurant, and though I'm not vegetarian, I have ordered vegetarian tacos with pinto beans before (free guac) and not been informed that pinto beans contain pork. A friend of mine also said on twitter today that he's ordered a vegetarian burrito and been asked what kind of beans he'd like.
I believe they warn people a lot, but I don't think they can rely entirely on their employees to communicate a detail like this to customers. I think it's good that they're fixing their menu but that they should keep telling people at least as often as they do now that their pinto beans have pork in them. Some will miss the menus, and some will miss the verbal warnings.
The author said he "felt ill" from hearing about the bacon in the beans. Apparently not ill enough that it stopped him from eating there for the better part of a decade, though.
I have nothing against not eating pork, by the way. Some people do it for religious reasons, some for ethical/vegetarian reasons, etc.
However it is hard to argue with the fact that it makes things tasty.
11 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 28.8 ms ] threadI also feel bad for all of the people who are just finding out that they unwittingly consumed bacon.
Edit: I should have been more clear. I think that improving their signage will completely solve the problem. I was just exploring the possibility that having bacon in their beans was inconsistent with the simple design of their restaurant.
Perhaps they should simply offer the beans without the bacon in addition, but the half-dozen or so people I know that keep kosher would never eat at a restaurant that itself wasn't kosher or at least vegan. Is there a significant number of people who will not eat pork but also wouldn't mind if the establishment cooks with pork? I'm not sure how much of an issue this is in practice, I think it's kind of assumed here by people in the states that unless it says vegetarian/vegan/kosher, it's not vegetarian/vegan/kosher.
2. Just to clarify, are you really saying that you would not eat at any restaurant in which EVERY dish and EVERY ingredient was kosher? This seems overboard to me. I certainly respect religious dietary customs (although honestly, I find some of them to be silly in the way that arbitrary rules from thousands of years ago are often silly), but this is a restaurant that clearly goes out of its way to be above-board about its ingredients. For instance, when they run out of their normal, organic chicken, there's always a sign informing you that they are using another chicken source temporarily, etc.
2) I do not keep kosher, however those who I know that do, do in fact do this. There are requirements kitchens have to fulfill to be kosher themselves. It's not my religion, don't expect me to explain or defend it.
3) I am suggesting that their signage was below par in this instance. I think they have resolved this well.
The "pork flavor" of Carnitas and the "pork flavor" in the beans aren't the same thing, and to suggest they are interchangeable (or that people order the pinto beans thinking that it is the only way to get "pork flavor") makes no sense to me. Most people, at least repeat customers, are getting the pinto beans because they have tasted them before, and decided they like the taste, not that they feel some need to increase the porkiness of their meal.
Every time I order a "vegetarian" bowl I am reminded that the pinto beans contain pork, so I assume this is an issue they have been aware of for a while. It makes sense to put a disclaimer and continue exactly as they have.
It makes little sense to alter their recipes to avoid every potential ingredient that might cause issue.
I believe they warn people a lot, but I don't think they can rely entirely on their employees to communicate a detail like this to customers. I think it's good that they're fixing their menu but that they should keep telling people at least as often as they do now that their pinto beans have pork in them. Some will miss the menus, and some will miss the verbal warnings.
I have nothing against not eating pork, by the way. Some people do it for religious reasons, some for ethical/vegetarian reasons, etc.
However it is hard to argue with the fact that it makes things tasty.
If the author is not allowed to eat pork for religious reasons, I can easily understand him feeling ill.