Seoul’s culinary scene made headlines this week when Evett, a two‑Michelin‑starred restaurant, was penalised for sprinkling ants onto its desserts. The case highlights the clash between avant‑garde gastronomy and strict national food‑safety rules, and raises questions about how far chefs can push the boundaries of edible novelty.
What happened
The owner of Evett was fined 15 million won (about £8,144 or $10,965) and the operating company received a 10 million‑won penalty for breaching the Food Sanitation Act. According to the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, the restaurant had been adding three to five ants to certain dishes for a sour flavour over a period of nearly four years, amounting to roughly 49,000 ants. Most of the insects were imported from the United States, with a smaller batch coming from Thailand.
Legal context
South Korean law permits only ten insect species for human consumption. The approved list includes grasshoppers, locusts and some silkworms, but ants are not among them. Prosecutors originally sought a one‑year prison term for the owner and a fine of 20 million won. However, the presiding judge took into account the owner’s admission of guilt and his clean criminal record, resulting in the reduced monetary penalties.
In addition to the regulatory breach, laboratory tests detected heavy‑metal concentrations in the ants that exceeded safety standards, prompting the judge to note that “the culpability is not light.” This finding reinforced the seriousness of the violation beyond a simple procedural oversight.
Culinary perspective
Ants are consumed in several cultures – for example, weaver ants and their eggs feature in Thai and Cambodian dishes, while queen ants are prized in Colombia. Evett’s owner argued that the ants were used only in a “small part” of the 15‑course menu and that diners could choose a non‑ant alternative. Nonetheless, the garnish was presented without explicit disclosure, and the Ministry’s investigation was sparked by online reviews that included photographs of the ant‑topped desserts.
While the Michelin Guide awards two stars to establishments that deliver “excellent cooking” and are “worth a detour,” the accolade does not exempt restaurants from complying with local health regulations. The case underscores that culinary innovation must still operate within the legal framework governing food safety.
Implications for food safety and the Michelin brand
For consumers, the incident serves as a reminder that even highly acclaimed venues are subject to the same food‑safety standards as any other eatery. The detection of heavy metals in the ants suggests that imported insects can pose hidden health risks if not properly vetted.
For the broader restaurant industry, the fine illustrates the potential legal and reputational costs of using unconventional ingredients without clear regulatory approval. Chefs who wish to experiment with edible insects may need to seek explicit permission or ensure that the species are on the government‑approved list.
Finally, the episode may prompt the Michelin Guide to consider how it evaluates establishments that push culinary boundaries. While the guide’s focus remains on the quality of the food and the dining experience, it could encourage inspectors to verify that restaurants adhere to local health codes, thereby protecting both diners and the integrity of the brand.
Key take‑aways
- Ants are not among the ten insect species legally permitted for consumption in South Korea.
- Evett was fined 15 million won for using ants as a garnish, with an additional 10 million‑won penalty for the operating company.
- Heavy‑metal contamination in the ants contributed to the judge’s assessment of the violation’s seriousness.
- The case highlights the need for clear disclosure and regulatory compliance when introducing novel ingredients.
As South Korea’s food scene continues to evolve, this incident will likely influence how chefs balance creativity with compliance, ensuring that the pursuit of culinary excellence does not come at the expense of public health.