So I've only just been recently been following the hullaballoo about the open letter that Alice Waters had written regarding getting a new White House chef that was in line with their organic, natural, etc. etc. way of eating/cooking/living.
From the letter, it seemed as though the current chef Cristeta Comerford is not the right woman for the job.
I quote "We would be honored to present ourselves as a small advisory group—a 'Kitchen Cabinet' if you will—to help with your selection of a White House chef. A person with integrity and devotion to the ideals of environmentalism, health, and conservation would send a powerful message to our country: that food choices matter."
Sorry, the emphasis is mine. I personally found that incredibly tactless and uninformed, as there have been plenty of followup -- especially from the previous WH chef Walter Scheib -- that the White House already follows an organic/sustainable/locavore/whathaveyou approach to food. And that Ms. Comerford is a huge proponent of all things local and organic.
Now, I don't know what tone Ms. Waters was trying to aim for, but it sure read like she was campaigning for the ousting of a chef with talent, "integrity and devotion." What was that implying, exactly? That WH chefs don't have the above?
My question: why isn't there a letter to say "Hey, my mistake. Obviously, I wrote that letter without doing any kind of research as to the kind of cooking/eating/sourcing in the White House kitchens, and I think Ms. Comerford is doing a fantastic job."
Eating right, being healthy, encouraging sustainable and organic practices is the hallmark of Ms. Water's whole career, and I'm usually for that. But is it just me who had the nastiest taste in the mouth after reading her original letter?