AIBU - vegan dinner party guest EATING FISH

[isitginoclock]

We're throwing a dinner party. I've just excused myself to the loo to write this because I'm FUMING!! One of our guests has recently become a vegan. I spent bloody ages making her a mushroom pate for starter which she happily tucked into whilst we ate our salmon tartare. She then asked if she could try some salmon.

Wtf?!?!

I've bought loads of different stuff for her to eat and spent all frigging day cooking it. Why do I bother?!

It isn't a spectrum, its a binary condition. You are or are not vegetarian/vegan. You can't be a little or a lot, you either are or aren't.

What does hack me off are people who say that they are allergic to something when in reality they just don't like it. It is very different leaving say nuts out of a dish than making sure that there is nothing remotely nutty about he whole meal, worktops, etc. I think that's why people get blasé about allergies and forget that they can kill.

I think seeing it as a binary condition is a problem.

When people are so anal absolute about the term I think it puts people off wanting to become "vegetarian" if they maybe want to eat some marshmallows on bonfire night or a bit of Turkey on Christmas day.

We should be encouraging and celebrating people who choose to eat very little animal produce, not getting agitated over whether they are truly vegetarian. It's so much better ethically and environmentally.

And who makes the rules over when Offred's daughter is veggie or Not? How long do you have to have stopped eating meat consciously to be a certified vegetarian?

In the moment she is eating meat on Xmas day, she is not. But the next day, and the day after that, she is, isn't she?

Otherwise, how can anyone who has been vegetarian for 10 years then returned to eating meat ever claim they were veggie?

Why should we be encouraging or celebrating anyone for their food choices? What rot. Some people really do want a medal.

By your logic today I'm a vegan because so far I've only eaten an apple. Where's my parade then?

There's no need to put a label on, or explain eating a normal omnivorous diet.

People can eat as little meat as they like and just eat it very occasionally if that's what they choose to do. But if they don't totally exclude the appropriate animal products from their diet they are not vegetarian/vegan so shouldn't tell people they are. If they don't have an ethical objection to eating animal products that don't look like meat then it is hypocritical to object to eating animal products that do look like meat. They are all products of a dead animal, whether obvious or invisible.

But the problem is, too many people think that a meal has to have meat in it for it to be a meal and then automatically serve meat or fish unless told not to.

People who are arguing that it is not a binary condition are basically saying that it is necessary to provide an explanation for not eating as much meat as modern greedy people who expect to be able to eat great piles of the stuff in unlimited quantitites at every meal.

We need to normalise eating a more plant based diet with occasional meat or fish so that demand is significantly reduced which is better for health, environmental and animal welfare reasons. Because then people wouldn't have to feel obliged to put a label on themselves in order to be served something other than meat.

"I think that's why people get blasé about allergies and forget that they can kill."

I keep seeing this being trotted out in various forms and I have no evidence for it.

"fuzzy language being used by one individual caused another individual to be offered something they couldn't eat"

I don't believe it, frankly. I think the world is divided into people who listen and speak clearly, and people who don't. I do not believe for one second that the second class of people affect the first, or cause people to migrate from class 1 to class 2. I am constantly astonished by how unclear and how wrong people can be about things we have only just talked about and I think this happens a lot with food - only because it happens about everything - and it's a thing about people, not a thing caused by on / off vegans.

FWIW I'm in the first class. My natural tendency as a pedant - and one I stupidly indulged till I was about 9 - was to look down on people who don't think, talk, or listen with precision. Now I am older I think "eh, that's people" and I know I have to say anything that actually matters, at least 6 times in 6 different ways, and hand it over in writing as well, in bullet points rather than sentences.

What bugs me on this thread is that people's natural tendency to think in broad brush categories influenced by emotion and the social moment, is being disproportionately attacked in people who dare to describe themselves as vegan or vegetarian. I think it interesting to think about why; and if people thought about it they would learn something about themselves and get a bit more sophisticated about some stuff. Tragically, they can't be arsed.

It doesnt matter whether you believe it or not, that's what happens. Lots of people will serve fish to vegetarians because they have met people who eat fish but call themselves vegetarian. So they come to the conclusion that vegetarians eat fish (a more sensible conclusion would be that the people they've met are idiots, but perhaps they are more charitable)
Simple cause and effect.

puglife talks sense.

I'm not any expert so I turned to my good friend Google...

Whilst the Veg Society has been quoted on this thread already (no meat or slaughter derived byproducts), and the dictionary definition (no meat and sometimes not meat products), I found that the Veg Resource Group says

"Vegetarianism in a Nutshell
The basics: Vegetarians do not eat meat, fish, and poultry. Vegans are vegetarians who abstain from eating or using all animal products".

Kidshealth.org says

"A vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat meat, and mostly eats foods that come from plants, like grains, fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Some stricter vegetarians avoid more than just meat. They also avoid animal products, which are nonmeat foods that come from animals. Some examples would be milk (from cows) and eggs (from chickens). Vegan (say: VEE-gun): eats no meat or animal products.
And many other people are semi-vegetarians who don't eat meat, but may eat poultry or fish."

It seems to me, that it is not completely black and white, but there are a variety of definitions of vegetarianism and an element of subjectivity. Though the main core principle is not eating meat (I don't think anyone would argue with that), eating meat products, byproducts of slaughter, and in some cases occasional meat or fish (don't overreact, it's not my words!) seem to be not universally or consistently banned.

Let her eat haribo without guilt. She is 9!!
Her principles and choices may well change and she is brave and clever to explore things now. My DD was a veggie for 2 years in childhood (only one in the family) and she reverted to meat eating by choice. Her choice. Her way of defining who she is and what she put in her body. Kudos to her!

I too have experienced the joy of cooking for a 'vegan' who then proceeded to eat smoked salmon like she was a starved bear. Didn't touch any of the other dishes I made specifically with her in mind as apparently I was very rude for not making the same single dish for everyone to eat(?!!!) I had made many dishes, apart from one salmon and one other meat dish, there were around 7 dishes she could eat.

Reader, I'll admit it, after she said, "oh I'll always eat smoked salmon, especially if someone else is paying" - I actually had to be restrained.

But lets me clear, it's not 'all' vegans, she was just a class A PITA. I have other Vegan friends who appreciated every bit of effort you'd make in cooking things for them and everyone to share. They gave me some top recipe tips too.

Some people are just rotters, and yes Rachel, you and your stupid range blanket will always be top of the list. Oh and her ex said she also ate bacon when no-one was looking.

And breathe........

Wow. My parents have been veggie for over 50 years, my brother has never eaten meat in his life.
None of them would ever, EVER think to eat a bit of chicken, a sample of fish, some turkey at Christmas because vegetarians don't eat meat. Or fish. My dad was vegan for three months (I think my mum would have left him had it carried on longer as she found cooking vegan food a rather miserable scenario. Other vegans may not, my mum, who cooks the most incredible vegetarian food, found it soul destroying). I find it really odd that's someone would call themselves either vegan or vegtarian and then eat meat or fish. And yes I would be pissed off if I'd cooked special food for a vegan who then turned out to be a nuanced vegan - I.e not a fucking vegan.

All this "vegan journey" bullshit too - give up the meat/fish/animal products etc or give up the vegan label. It's so often used as an excuse for picky eating and special snowflake syndrome.

This reminds me of the time I went on a yoga holdiday and we watched numerous faddy eating claims fall aside one by one as more wine/ouzo was consumed. I really honestly don't understand people who claim to be intolerant to wheat/gluten/fish/dairy/whatever and then Hoover the stuff up when they feel like it/don't think anyone is looking. It's total food twattery.

stupid range blanket

?

fatandold - it's simple: the Veg Resource Group definition is right. The Kidshealth.org definition is misleading. There is no such thing as a semi-vegetarian. You can be a meat eater who enjoys and eats a lot of meatless food, but you are still a meat eater, and not a vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, quarter-vegetarian or anything like that. There is no shame in that, but there is also no need to blur the definition.

I keep seeing this ["I think that's why people get blasé about allergies and forget that they can kill"] being trotted out in various forms and I have no evidence for it.

Toobad, pretend restrictions make life more difficult for those with genuine restrictions. Pretend allergies are even worse.

People with Coeliac Disease being given unsuitable foods, because gluten-free has been confused with faddish eating.

Other parents complaining about having to keep lunch boxes completely nut-free, even though there's a child in the class who's severely allergic.

Hell, there's probably a thread somewhere about a vegan requesting the vegan option and getting salmon tartare.

But, in terms of actual fatalities, a restaurant owner in Yorkshire is currently being prosecuted for manslaughter by gross negligence, for failing to ensure that a customer with a declared nut allergy received peanut-free food. The customer died from severe anaphylactic shock. The peanut-laced-powder was allegedly used because it was cheaper than the usual ingredient. A 17-year-old girl also nearly died, the same month, from a peanut-tainted dish from the same chain of restaurants. Trading Standards investigated and found potentially lethal doses of peanut in a peanut-free meal.

This was not a one-off tragic case of switched labels or miscommunication -- but neither was it a deliberate attempt to harm. The restaurant chain would never, for example, have laced customers' food with rat poison. It was just totally cavalier to the fact that peanuts might as well be rat poison, for someone with a severe allergy.

The fact that managers, chefs and staff at several restaurants all participated in serving potentially fatal food to customers means that there is a real problem with uninformed, blase, careless attitudes towards genuine allergies, even in the food industry, and every attention-seeker who says 'I'm allergic to this' instead of 'I just don't like it' is contributing to this confusion. It's annoying to be served fish when you've requested the vegan/vegetarian option, but it's potentially fatal to be served peanuts when you've got a stated allergy -- people can and do die because someone who meant them no direct harm just didn't take it seriously.

(And, like OriginalMavis said, it's not even just about the ingredients -- worktops, utensils, cross-contamination has to be considered. No hope of that if the attitude 'a little won't hurt' persists.)

Also, please can we hear more about rotter Rachel and her range blanket?

I suspect it's a "rage blanket" from the poster's POV. I really want to hear that story too!

"The fact that managers, chefs and staff at several restaurants all participated in serving potentially fatal food to customers means that there is a real problem with uninformed, blase, careless attitudes towards genuine allergies"

yes. Undeniable.

"every attention-seeker who says 'I'm allergic to this' instead of 'I just don't like it' is contributing to this confusion" - are you sure?

A cost-cutting dick deciding "allergies schmallergies, let's just use this it anyway" is just a dick. Sadly - even tragically - dicks are not uncommon, but if you interviewed this particular dick and said "what made you think peanuts don't matter?" I think you would get a lot of ill thought out guff about allergies being newfangled things that no one used to have; it was only a tiny bit of peanut, probably; no one has ever died in his restaurant before; etc. All lazy, selfish, crap, obviously. I doubt you would get the relatively logical response "because my brother's girlfriend Jenny says she is allergic to wheat but still eats hot buttered toast when she has a hangover"

but even still:

"It's annoying to be served fish when you've requested the vegan/vegetarian option, but it's potentially fatal to be served peanuts when you've got a stated allergy"

• this is my point. Allergies are absolute. Not everything else is.

The trouble is some people do use supposed allergies as an excuse to be fussy. There are a lot a allergy fads ie gluten free at the moment, or the kinesiologist diagnosed me as allergic to sugar

as for
Other parents complaining about having to keep lunch boxes completely nut-free, even though there's a child in the class who's severely allergic.
Other parents should complain if a school goes nut free, as it is not recommended action that schools should take (ds has nut and seed allergys and dh is allergic to brazil nuts)
My family bbqs are fun to prepare for. DSis is veggie, DH and DS nut and seed allergies ,ds also chickpea and nephew is coeliac

babooshka He has been found guilty. Worse, the restaurant was still serving meals containing nuts and claiming them to be nut free in the days and weeks after the unfortunate customer died.

bruffin I'll take your bbq's and raise you everyday meals in our house. I am pescetarian, ds1 has allergies to eggs, nuts (tree nuts and peanuts), pulses (including peas, beans and lentils) and kiwi fruit, whilst ds2 has allergies to the same as ds1, plus he carries an epipen for his dairy allergy (and yes, the allergies are confirmed by both clinical observation and rast testing in hospital). Thankfully neither have a soya allergy, otherwise we'd be well and truly screwed and the only reason I converted from 25+ years of being veggie to being pescetarian was to allow us, as a family to have at least some meals we could all eat together.

Apologies everyone... the rage set in.... it was an orange blanket, not range. She draped it about her person post a trip to India where seemingly she had become the most enlightened person on the planet.

I had a total 'does not compute' mental shut-down with her. No matter how nice or welcoming I was she would just be rude. The weirdest mix of faux-hippy attitude mixed with Little Miss Fauntleroy.

On giving her a glass of water - in a normal glass, not a bucket, not a wine glass, not a child's plastic beaker, just a blinking glass - "Oh in my house we have different glasses for different drinks". On giving her a cup of tea - "Oh, matching cups". On eating a pudding I'd made, "Oh it tastes shop bought"..... Even Mary Berry would grow claws at that one I'm sure. Every little thing that came out of her mouth was barbed in some way, but said in this gentle, simple tone as if it was something sage.

Oh and the rage when she turned up at an event she claimed she couldn't make - actually stormed up and demanded to know what there was that she could eat, lots of huffing & sulking that evening. Possibly because I thrust a loaf of bread into her hands and said that should do it. I had had wine. And lets be honest after months of this just didn't care.

She didn't believe in ownership, we (as in everyone else on the planet) were all too materialistic, but as she put it, she did make sure she had friends that owned what she needed.

Oh the cumulative horror. So much more... I may unravel if I don't suppress the memories..... must huddle in the corner.

So back to all the lovely vegan's out there - cheese, I couldn't live without cheese.

Pass the Tunworth.

Oh daffy, am I alone in wanting to hear more about orange scarf owner harridan ? I want to get the retrospective rage on your behalf! had a good day and feel I need something to be indignant about

Oh fatandold, this particular rage is like some sort of Japanese horror movie. Hear the full tale and it will never leave you. It would stay like a second shadow or like Mrs Danvers whispering viciously in your ear. Shake your fists at the sky for all the worlds ills instead and let thoughts of the orange blanket fade away in the wind.

Back on topic - I can recall long ago vegetarian friends back in Australia on more than one occasion being presented with chicken at weddings, parties, anything despite choosing the vegetarian option. "But it's chicken" was the usual reply, said in a tone that implied they were idiots. Not red meat after all mate. One such friend was actually the Bride.... with no dinner on her special day. The caterers couldn't understand why people were incensed. Seems they actually altered menu choices and substituted chicken as an all-round better vegetarian option.

I think a lot of people choose these options these days more as a dietary choice rather than because of animal rights. I know of a lot of vegetarians who only are because they don't like meat which is fair enough. I think to make someone cook special food because you prefer something but will actually eat meat/fish sometimes however is highly inconsiderate, especially vegan! You either are or aren't or you say you prefer not to eat x y z.

but I think it's up to Offred to make the decision to report

Not at all - anyone can report a post. Please do go ahead.

I would consider it deeply patronising if anyone told a child of mine that her strongly held ethical beliefs were less valid than those of an adult, so that she could eat meat or animal products and still call herself vegetarian just because she was 9 years old.

I think to make someone cook special food because you prefer something but will actually eat meat/fish sometimes however is highly inconsiderate, especially vegan! You either are or aren't or you say you prefer not to eat x y z

To give you a hypothetical scenario: I will eat fish, but only if I know it's been ethically sourced and caught, and it's a specific type of fish with good stocks. I won't eat other fish.

Would it be best to say if invited to a dinner party that I only eat fish meeting this criteria, or that I don't eat fish? Surely it's equal amounts of hassle for the host?