In Seoul, a celebrated two-Michelin-starred restaurant found itself at the intersection of culinary ambition and regulatory boundary, fined for garnishing desserts with ants — creatures revered as delicacies across many cultures but absent from South Korea's approved list of edible insects. Over nearly four years, some 49,000 ants quietly made their way onto tasting menus, discovered not by inspectors but by the digital traces of diners sharing their wonder online. The case asks an enduring question: who decides what is food, and by what authority does one culture's delicacy become another's v
Seoul's Two-Star Restaurant Fined for Using Unapproved Ants as Dessert Garnish
Nearly 49,000 ants sprinkled over four years, each one a violation
Mark
So a fancy restaurant got caught using ants as a garnish. How does that even happen without anyone noticing for four years?
Mimi
They were posting pictures online. That's how the Ministry found out—customer reviews with photos. The ants were right there in the images.
Luke
But the owner says diners knew about it and could choose something else. How many people actually complained or got sick?
Mimi
The reporting doesn't mention any illness complaints. The heavy metals in the ants were flagged during testing, but there's no record of actual harm.
Mark
Heavy metals—that sounds serious. Were the diners exposed to dangerous levels?
Luke
We don't know the actual concentrations or what the safe threshold is. The judge said they exceeded standards, but we're not told by how much or what the health risk actually was.
Mimi
The owner imported them mostly from the US, some from Thailand. It was deliberate sourcing, not an accident.
Mark
And ants aren't on South Korea's approved insect list at all?
Mimi
Right. Only ten species are approved—grasshoppers, locusts, silkworms. Ants aren't one of them, even though they're eaten in other countries.
Luke
The owner claimed ignorance. Is that plausible, or is that just what you say when you're caught?
Mimi
Hard to say. Ants are genuinely valued in Thai, Cambodian, and Colombian cuisine. But ignorance of South Korean law isn't really a defense.
Mark
What happens to the restaurant now?
Luke
The reporting doesn't say. The owner avoided jail, paid the fine. Whether Evett keeps its stars or stays open—that's not covered.
The Pulse
- A Michelin-starred kitchen quietly served ants to diners for nearly four years, accumulating roughly 49,000 insects before a food safety agency noticed photographs in online reviews.
- The ants — imported from the US and Thailand for their sour flavor — were found to contain heavy metals above safety thresholds, escalating the case from a paperwork violation to a public health concern.
- Prosecutors pushed for a year in prison and a 20 million won fine, framing the practice as a serious breach of South Korea's tightly controlled list of ten approved edible insect species.
- The judge declined to imprison the owner, citing a guilty plea and a clean record, but issued a combined 25 million won fine and made clear the court did not regard the offense lightly.
- The case lands in a global moment of tension between avant-garde gastronomy and national food regulation, with the restaurant's digital reputation ultimately becoming the instrument of its own exposure.
In Seoul, a celebrated two-Michelin-starred restaurant found itself at the intersection of culinary ambition and regulatory boundary, fined for garnishing desserts with ants — creatures revered as delicacies across many cultures but absent from South Korea's approved list of edible insects. Over nearly four years, some 49,000 ants quietly made their way onto tasting menus, discovered not by inspectors but by the digital traces of diners sharing their wonder online. The case asks an enduring question: who decides what is food, and by what authority does one culture's delicacy become another's violation?
A two-Michelin-starred Seoul restaurant called Evett has been fined 15 million won — roughly £8,144 — after authorities determined it had been serving ants as a dessert garnish for nearly four years, in violation of South Korea's Food Sanitation Act. The company operating the restaurant received an additional 10 million won penalty. The practice came to light not through routine inspection but through online reviews, where photographs of the dishes caught the attention of the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety.
The ants, applied three to five per plate, were intended to lend a sour note to sorbets and other elements of the restaurant's 15-course tasting menu. Sourced primarily from the United States, with some arriving from Thailand, they accumulated to approximately 49,000 insects over the period in question. The owner maintained that diners were always offered an alternative topping, and that the garnish featured on only a portion of the menu.
The legal difficulty arose from a straightforward regulatory gap: South Korea recognizes only ten insect species as fit for human consumption — among them grasshoppers, locusts, and certain silkworms. Ants are not on the list. The owner claimed ignorance of the prohibition, pointing to the widespread cultural acceptance of ants as food across parts of Asia, Africa, and Latin America, where they are sometimes prized as highly as caviar.
Prosecutors sought a one-year prison sentence, but the judge — weighing the owner's guilty plea and lack of prior convictions — opted for fines instead. The ruling was not without gravity, however. Laboratory testing had revealed heavy metals in the ants at levels exceeding safety standards, shifting the case from a technical infraction toward a genuine question of public health. The judge's language made clear that leniency in form did not mean leniency in judgment.
A two-star Michelin restaurant in Seoul has been ordered to pay a substantial fine after authorities discovered it had been garnishing desserts with ants for nearly four years. The owner of Evett was fined 15 million won—roughly £8,144—while the company operating the establishment faced an additional 10 million won penalty for breaching South Korea's Food Sanitation Act. The case emerged after the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety spotted online reviews containing photographs of the dishes, which revealed the unconventional topping.
The ants in question were sprinkled across certain dishes in quantities of three to five per plate, intended to impart a sour flavor to sorbets and other components of the restaurant's 15-course tasting menu. Over the nearly four-year period, this practice accumulated to approximately 49,000 individual ants. Most were sourced from the United States, with some shipments arriving from Thailand. The owner maintained that the garnish appeared on only a small portion of the menu and that diners were always offered the option of a different topping if they preferred to avoid the insects.
The legal trouble stems from a fundamental regulatory mismatch. South Korea maintains an official list of ten insect species approved for human consumption, which includes grasshoppers, locusts, and certain silkworm varieties. Ants do not appear on that list. The owner claimed to have been unaware of this prohibition, noting that ants are consumed and sometimes celebrated as delicacies in various Asian, African, and Latin American food traditions—weaver ants feature prominently in Thai and Cambodian cuisine, and in Colombia, queen ants command prices comparable to caviar.
When prosecutors brought charges, they sought a one-year prison sentence along with a 20 million won fine. The judge, however, chose a different path. Weighing the owner's admission of guilt and absence of prior criminal convictions, the court reduced the penalty significantly. Yet the decision was not lenient in spirit. The judge emphasized that the violation carried substantial culpability, particularly because testing of the ants revealed the presence of heavy metals at levels exceeding safety standards—a detail that transformed the case from a mere regulatory technicality into a matter of potential public health concern.
The outcome reflects a tension between culinary innovation and food safety enforcement. Evett's two-star status places it among establishments recognized by the Michelin Guide as offering excellent cooking worthy of deliberate travel. The restaurant had apparently operated this practice without incident for years, discovered only through the digital footprint of satisfied customers sharing their experiences online. The fine stops short of the imprisonment prosecutors requested, yet the judge's language suggests the court viewed the violation seriously enough to warrant a stern financial consequence and a clear message about food safety compliance.
Notable Quotes
The owner claimed to have been unaware that providing ants in food was prohibited in South Korea, as they are used as food elsewhere.— Court proceedings / Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
The judge stated that the culpability is not light, citing both the violation of food standards and the presence of heavy metals exceeding safety standards in the ants.— Judge's ruling
Want the full story?
Read the original at BBC News ↗
Business