You raise some thought provoking points - particularly about the validity of a movement of the outside vs the desires of the team on the inside. And once again your insider's view gives unique insight.
But I think the issue of alleged abuse is too contentious to be laid to rest, despite the organisational and personnel changes that have been made in recent years. Acknowledgement, apology and personal change are important. But those things do not erase the fact that harm occurred, nor do they negate the entitlement of those who say they were harmed to seek justice.
To take an extreme but clarifying example as context; a few weeks ago the British Media was awash with Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's implication in the Epstein Files and his alleged history of vile abuse. If the former Prince were to come forward tomorrow, admit wrongdoing and apologise, that would not invalidate the right of alleged victims to pursue justice. The passage of time or the act of contrition would not cancel that entitlement.
The same principle applies here. Apology and reform matter, but they do not cancel the rights of those who say they were harmed.
I believe we have reached a point were industry leaders have a duty to demand the accountability of our peers, no matter what position they hold, or how intimidating we may or may not find them, in Hospitality and beyond.
“I was not traumatized, I had not been abused but I can certainly see why some people would have experienced it this way and how his demeanor could have a very different impact on others”
This is textbook gaslighting language. Furthermore, divorcing his actions and abuse from his persona, claiming it comes from ambition is incredibly insulting to anyone who suffered under his leadership.
Abusers are skilled at invoking loyalty in the form of “generosity” which you laid out above, yet in the next moment be an absolute raging psychopath. Both can be true, yet it doesn’t cancel out abuse.
I wrote a more eluqent post, and pressed "cancel" instead of post :( so, just to summarize:
1) Your premise of "no one asks the current employees at Noma" is misinformed at best, a lie at worst. Efforts have been made, but Noma has a very strict gag order in place, and all employees are banned from speaking publicly or directly to involved parties. The Noma machine controls the narrative.
2) The outlook that a protest is invalid from the outside is deeply unfair. You should not disregard protests made in solidarity, when the actual workers (the people INSIDE, as you call them) risk their career, income and reputation. Not an abstract career but the actual income that pays their rent. These protests are not outsiders, they are mainly industry people in solidarity.
You seem to set out that what he did was unquestionably wrong, and then almost justify it for the rest of the essay.
The premise of what you are saying seems to me that for 10 years he didn't realise that verbally abusing and physically assaulting staff and not paying stages was wrong, and then when somebody pointed it to him in 2017 that it was wrong out he suddenly saw the error of his ways and hired a HR department. This is at best a highly credulous take on what happened.
I believe the strength sentiment against him is rooted in the fact that he has been given the platform and opportunity to grow, heal, hire HR, be vaunted as the world's greatest chef and make a small fortune since the serial allegations were made, whereas those he has allegedly abused have melted into the background or out of cooking altogether. There is no excuse for him ever having done what he allegedly did, in any context, period. It doesn't matter if that was the culture in the industry at the time, it was wrong then and it is wrong now, and it is patently so to anyone. It is a crime to physically assault people.
Michelin kitchens are not uniquely stressful environments. For example hospitals, the armed forces, the aviation industry, all work at as high or arguably higher levels of stress, and there are rarely incidents comparable to these occurring in those settings. It is not valid to say that it was effective to verbally abuse people, and that you thrived; the effectiveness is entirely beside the point, when the act is wrong in and of itself. Those entering that environment were subject to vast power imbalances where this all worldly head chef was able to dictate their career path, and thus in effect coerced into accepting that toxic working environment.
You open the Rene section with "... very ill-tempered and emotionally unregulated. I have seen and experienced him yell at me and others in ways that were completely disproportionate to the claimed wrongdoings we had committed," but then you say you weren't abused. That is abuse, plain and simple. You may not be traumatized, but, by your own account, you were abused.
As for the apology, imagine if every battery case was resolved with just an apology. An apology is not enough when people where physically assaulted, as the people in the article credibly were. And I understand this isn't an exclusively-Noma issue, but accountability has to start somewhere.
It's not like this is only coming to his attention now; there is a long history of complaints and a long history of abuse. Where is the growth, really?
This piece is just another apology for his bad/criminal behavior.
The restaurant industry is not some isolated ecosystem. It’s simply one of the many mirrors of modern society: hierarchy, ambition, pressure, money, desire, and sometimes abuse of power.
What makes restaurants different is not necessarily the behavior — it’s the visibility. In this industry there are journalists, Instagram, PR machines, myths, and reputations. So when something happens, it becomes a global story.
What happens in hospitals, military barracks, prisons, universities, or law firms, where journalists and social media rarely enter? Do we believe those and other environments are free from the same dynamics?
Justice and spectacle are not the same thing. When powerful figures fall, the ritual is ancient: it is not enough that they lose — they must be publicly humiliated. Societies have always treated fallen rulers this way. The king is brought down, and the crowd gathers.
The real question, Christia, is not just “Now what?” Today it feels more like “What’s next?” ...as long as the "next" generates outrage, traffic, and spectacle.
Christian I've been a fan of you and your cooking/cookbook for years - it made me happy to read in Redzepi's own words that as his sous chef you were the one who confronted him when he treated a young female Colombian chef poorly. So he was made aware of his behavior as early as '07-'09
I’m thankful for your perspective Chef. I’ve always been a big fan, and it’s sad that creating a dialogue for the exchange of ideas so often results in insults instead of a polite exchange of thought. I will continue to follow you and I look forward to your next essay.
René Redzepi resigned today after physical abuse allegations went viral, but the real architect is co-founder Claus Meyer. Meyer is a millionaire entrepreneur who used his TV fame and elite Danish connections to shield Noma’s toxic culture for 20 years while selling "New Nordic purity" to the masses. René is a bully, but Meyer is the one who made the empire possible.
Hi Christian,
You raise some thought provoking points - particularly about the validity of a movement of the outside vs the desires of the team on the inside. And once again your insider's view gives unique insight.
But I think the issue of alleged abuse is too contentious to be laid to rest, despite the organisational and personnel changes that have been made in recent years. Acknowledgement, apology and personal change are important. But those things do not erase the fact that harm occurred, nor do they negate the entitlement of those who say they were harmed to seek justice.
To take an extreme but clarifying example as context; a few weeks ago the British Media was awash with Andrew Mountbatten Windsor's implication in the Epstein Files and his alleged history of vile abuse. If the former Prince were to come forward tomorrow, admit wrongdoing and apologise, that would not invalidate the right of alleged victims to pursue justice. The passage of time or the act of contrition would not cancel that entitlement.
The same principle applies here. Apology and reform matter, but they do not cancel the rights of those who say they were harmed.
I believe we have reached a point were industry leaders have a duty to demand the accountability of our peers, no matter what position they hold, or how intimidating we may or may not find them, in Hospitality and beyond.
Sincerely,
Nicholas
“I was not traumatized, I had not been abused but I can certainly see why some people would have experienced it this way and how his demeanor could have a very different impact on others”
This is textbook gaslighting language. Furthermore, divorcing his actions and abuse from his persona, claiming it comes from ambition is incredibly insulting to anyone who suffered under his leadership.
Abusers are skilled at invoking loyalty in the form of “generosity” which you laid out above, yet in the next moment be an absolute raging psychopath. Both can be true, yet it doesn’t cancel out abuse.
I wrote a more eluqent post, and pressed "cancel" instead of post :( so, just to summarize:
1) Your premise of "no one asks the current employees at Noma" is misinformed at best, a lie at worst. Efforts have been made, but Noma has a very strict gag order in place, and all employees are banned from speaking publicly or directly to involved parties. The Noma machine controls the narrative.
2) The outlook that a protest is invalid from the outside is deeply unfair. You should not disregard protests made in solidarity, when the actual workers (the people INSIDE, as you call them) risk their career, income and reputation. Not an abstract career but the actual income that pays their rent. These protests are not outsiders, they are mainly industry people in solidarity.
You seem to set out that what he did was unquestionably wrong, and then almost justify it for the rest of the essay.
The premise of what you are saying seems to me that for 10 years he didn't realise that verbally abusing and physically assaulting staff and not paying stages was wrong, and then when somebody pointed it to him in 2017 that it was wrong out he suddenly saw the error of his ways and hired a HR department. This is at best a highly credulous take on what happened.
I believe the strength sentiment against him is rooted in the fact that he has been given the platform and opportunity to grow, heal, hire HR, be vaunted as the world's greatest chef and make a small fortune since the serial allegations were made, whereas those he has allegedly abused have melted into the background or out of cooking altogether. There is no excuse for him ever having done what he allegedly did, in any context, period. It doesn't matter if that was the culture in the industry at the time, it was wrong then and it is wrong now, and it is patently so to anyone. It is a crime to physically assault people.
Michelin kitchens are not uniquely stressful environments. For example hospitals, the armed forces, the aviation industry, all work at as high or arguably higher levels of stress, and there are rarely incidents comparable to these occurring in those settings. It is not valid to say that it was effective to verbally abuse people, and that you thrived; the effectiveness is entirely beside the point, when the act is wrong in and of itself. Those entering that environment were subject to vast power imbalances where this all worldly head chef was able to dictate their career path, and thus in effect coerced into accepting that toxic working environment.
You open the Rene section with "... very ill-tempered and emotionally unregulated. I have seen and experienced him yell at me and others in ways that were completely disproportionate to the claimed wrongdoings we had committed," but then you say you weren't abused. That is abuse, plain and simple. You may not be traumatized, but, by your own account, you were abused.
As for the apology, imagine if every battery case was resolved with just an apology. An apology is not enough when people where physically assaulted, as the people in the article credibly were. And I understand this isn't an exclusively-Noma issue, but accountability has to start somewhere.
It's not like this is only coming to his attention now; there is a long history of complaints and a long history of abuse. Where is the growth, really?
This piece is just another apology for his bad/criminal behavior.
The restaurant industry is not some isolated ecosystem. It’s simply one of the many mirrors of modern society: hierarchy, ambition, pressure, money, desire, and sometimes abuse of power.
What makes restaurants different is not necessarily the behavior — it’s the visibility. In this industry there are journalists, Instagram, PR machines, myths, and reputations. So when something happens, it becomes a global story.
What happens in hospitals, military barracks, prisons, universities, or law firms, where journalists and social media rarely enter? Do we believe those and other environments are free from the same dynamics?
Justice and spectacle are not the same thing. When powerful figures fall, the ritual is ancient: it is not enough that they lose — they must be publicly humiliated. Societies have always treated fallen rulers this way. The king is brought down, and the crowd gathers.
The real question, Christia, is not just “Now what?” Today it feels more like “What’s next?” ...as long as the "next" generates outrage, traffic, and spectacle.
Christian I've been a fan of you and your cooking/cookbook for years - it made me happy to read in Redzepi's own words that as his sous chef you were the one who confronted him when he treated a young female Colombian chef poorly. So he was made aware of his behavior as early as '07-'09
I’m thankful for your perspective Chef. I’ve always been a big fan, and it’s sad that creating a dialogue for the exchange of ideas so often results in insults instead of a polite exchange of thought. I will continue to follow you and I look forward to your next essay.
René Redzepi resigned today after physical abuse allegations went viral, but the real architect is co-founder Claus Meyer. Meyer is a millionaire entrepreneur who used his TV fame and elite Danish connections to shield Noma’s toxic culture for 20 years while selling "New Nordic purity" to the masses. René is a bully, but Meyer is the one who made the empire possible.
Very thoughtful and thought provoking. We need more of this sort of nuanced analysis.