99¢ per month. Save 90%.
99¢ per month. Save 90%.


Esther Davidowitz

Eating out at restaurants has never been so fraught or controversial. It's hard not to be nervous about sitting in a public space during this pandemic, even if you're outside, even if the waiters are wearing masks, even if the person across the table has been as scrupulous as you have, and even if other diners are at least 6 feet away.

It's difficult to enjoy the food when your stomach is tied up in knots. And now there's a new concern: Is your patronage really good for restaurants and their workers?  

Pete Wells, The New York Times' award-winning restaurant critic, readily admits that he was "hugely relieved" when indoor dining was postponed in New York City. He worries about his safety and the safety of those around him, but he also wonders if dining out during the pandemic is the right thing to do.

Outdoor dining at Cenzino in Oakland

"There are other reasons not to do indoor dining that don't revolve around oneself," he said. "Do I have the guilt of getting a server sick?"

You've heard the argument that spending money at a local place is crucial to keep it in business and its staff employed. But is a parade of people coming in, some of whom unknowingly may have the virus, really fair to those who work there? Are you, in other words, helping or hurting the people involved in the restaurant business by dining out?

If you love restaurants, don't dine in them now

Some take the staunch and perhaps counterintuitive position that if you care about restaurants and their workers, you should not eat or drink at them while the pandemic lasts. Among them are some of the men and women who dine out for a living, including the New York Times California critic Tejal Rao, Los Angeles Times critic Bill Addison and Arizona Republic critic Dominic Armato. They say eating out not only puts them and other diners at greater risk for contracting COVID-19 but threatens restaurant workers, some of whom, they argue, may not have any choice: They need the money and their jobs to survive.

Ryan Sutton, the chief food critic for Eater NY, a James Beard-award-winning food blog, went so far as to call dining out, even in reportedly safer outdoor spaces, immoral.

In a column, titled "Why This Restaurant Critic Isn’t Dining Out Right Now," Sutton, who himself was sickened by COVID-19, wrote: "For me, the low risk of sending a single uninsured waiter to an ICU bed, someone who isn’t really there by choice, in exchange for the pitcher of frozen margaritas you happen to be craving in the late afternoon, is a morally indefensible transaction."

In explaining why he won't be dining out, Armato put it this way: "The easy thing would be to ignore the ethical implications. Everyone will make their own decisions, after all. But in a pandemic, 'personal choice' is a fig leaf ... Those who choose to dine out may be putting others at grave risk in a very direct and substantial way."

They recommend that we stick to delivery and takeout. As Rao of The New York Times put it: "For now, I’m devoted to cooking for myself, or picking up takeout ... and bringing it all home. There’s enough tension as it is, standing in line, masked up, 6 feet away from other customers, just to get my order. And it’s far more stressful for restaurant workers." 

Jamie Knott, owner and chef of Saddle River Inn.

Takeout and delivery not enough for survival

It should come as no surprise that restaurants have a different point of view.

"Are you going to have a society that lives indoors on takeout?" asked celebrity chef David Burke, who oversees the kitchens at several New Jersey restaurants, including Ventanas in Fort Lee, Nauti Bar in Sea Bright, David Burke at Orange Lawn in South Orange and Drifthouse in Sea Bright. "Ryan Sutton isn't worried about the waitstaff. They need to make a living. Not everyone can make a living like he behind a computer."

Besides, restaurateurs argue, they not only run profoundly sanitary, clean establishments — "We're like hospitals," Burke said — but they are taking every precaution the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health departments recommend to ensure the safety of their staffs and customers.

Their servers wear masks and gloves, their tables are set at least 6 feet apart, they continually scrub and clean their kitchens and dining rooms, their menus are throwaway and they provide hand sanitizers aplenty. (Some restaurants have taken to using sanitizers as centerpieces or takeaway gifts. "Instead of a mint, you get a hand sanitizer at the end of your meal," said Tom Sietsema, restaurant critic for The Washington Post.) Of course, diners are required to wear face coverings unless they're seated.

Chef David Burke argues that restaurants won't survive without diners -- now

"We mitigate every risk that we know of," said John Vitale, chef-owner of Caffe Anello in Westwood.

All of that is costly, but restaurants do it because they need the money.

"Takeout and delivery is not enough for survival," said Peter Kelly, chef-owner of X2O in Yonkers and Restaurant X and Bully Boy Bar in Congers, New York. "What are restaurants supposed to do — just roll over and close?"

Chefs and restaurateurs I spoke to maintained that their workers are not being forced to work, but were eager to return, and said they have made sure the working conditions are safe.

"We are taking this hyper seriously," said Chris Cannon, owner of Jockey Hollow Bar & Kitchen in Morristown. "My staff doesn’t feel they are at risk. The last thing I want is to be shut down again. If restaurants are shut down again, we're toast."

Rinda Steck, a Morristown resident, is more than happy to dine out at restaurants now. She does so at least once a week with her wife — to get out, to enjoy good food and to support local businesses.

"We want to support restaurants 100%," Steck said. "And not just financially. I think it boosts their spirits to see happy faces. As long as restaurants are confident in their actions, I’m confident in mine."

Protecting the health of workers vs. protecting restaurants

So it is complicated: protecting the health of restaurant workers versus protecting restaurants and the jobs of those workers.

That's why Wells, of The New York Times, finds himself conflicted. "It's a complex matter," he said. "I haven't worked it all out myself."

Nor has food writer Ruth Reichl, the last editor-in-chief of Gourmet magazine.

"Like everything else these days, there aren't easy answers," she said. "But the truth is that almost everyone along our food chain — meat packers, farm workers, delivery people — is in danger. So it isn't just enough to say you won't go to restaurants; you have to navigate the world very carefully if you really care for the safety of workers. And sadly, that's a luxury most people don't have."  

Ruth Reichl, the last editor-in-chief of Gourmet magazine, understands how complex the issue is

Reichl added: "Many restaurants are only staying open to support their workers and suppliers, and are being very careful in their protocols. Many restaurant workers are eager to be back at work. So if you're patronizing restaurants you know and trust, I think it's fine." She notes, however, that she herself has not set foot in a restaurant since the health crisis began and doubts that she'll be dining out anytime soon. 

Jamie Knott, chef-owner of New Jersey's Saddle River Inn and Saddle River Cafe, says everyone has to make their own decision.

"We all have different views and opinions," he said. "That needs to be OK. If someone doesn’t want to dine out, then stay in. I’m not sure why it has to be a moral issue. I don’t think shaming others for going out to eat is a path we need to go down." 

Clearly the inequities in society that force some people to go out to earn a living while others can do it on their computers at home are a big part of the problem.

Christine Nunn, consulting chef at Fables restaurant at Fairy Tale Forest in Oak Ridge, can't help but feel ashamed. 

"The pandemic has made clear how privileged some of us are," Nunn said. "I feel guilty whenever I go to the grocery store, guiltier when I order on Instacart. As a diner, I would feel horribly guilty dining. As a chef, trust me, it sucks. It sucks to wear a mask in the kitchen. But there's no choice. Do you shut down restaurants? Do you go back to just takeout? Does that support workers? It's lose-lose no matter what."

Sorry, we're closed:No takeout. No delivery. No outdoor dining. Why 7 North Jersey restaurants stayed closed

Dig in:Beat the heat at these 14 North Jersey restaurants with the best summer foods

Summer produce:Eat these must-have hot-weather foods

Michael Gusmano, a professor at the Rutgers School of Public Health in Piscataway and a research scholar at the Hastings Center, a bioethics institution in Garrison, New York, says he doesn't condemn anyone for dining out. But "good ethics require good facts," he said.

"There is no question that dining in restaurants, outdoors or indoors, increases the risk of exposure," he continued, "and certainly more to the people who work in the places, even if the owners are doing all the right things."   

But he said he finds fault not with restaurant goers but with how we in general treat low-wage workers. "We need to rethink how we value and care for low-wage workers," he said. "The morality is less at the feet of the individual than the feet of the government. It is immoral that people are forced to make a ridiculous choice between earning a paycheck and staying alive."

But with the way things now stand, confusion reigns. Armato, of the Arizona Republic, who declared that he won't be dining out, wrote: "I’ve been writing about no-contact takeout and delivery, but I'm nowhere near making peace with it. Am I helping or hurting? I don't know. Every option is terrible. A mantra for our times."


Email: Twitter: @estherdavido