Assumed ingredients in food/drink ordered?

witchgirl26

cormie wrote: »

Yes and where some will ironically cry for humanity at the unfairness of being served something that's not the conventional, traditional ingredient, others will see the very notion of serving milk taken from another mammal for human consumption as the ultimate act of unfairness.

I think the acceptance of serving an alternative is a lot more common than the anecdotal evidence here anyway. Having spoken to owners of vegan cafes, it seems most non vegan customers are happy to try an alternative milk anyway and very few have issue with the lack of milk meant for cows babies.

I know a lot of people who order their coffees with a variety of different "milks" because they like them or see them as a better alternative for them. That's their choice. What I disagree with is putting these into coffees without asking the patron (who is paying at the end of the day) if they want them or not.

Again - you wouldn't add an animal product to a vegitarian/vegan order so why do the reverse?

Course people in vegan cafes who are ordering drinks know that there isn't going to be normal milk - that would just be a given. And you accept that by walking into a vegan cafe. It is not a given though in a Starbucks that when you order a coffee with milk, it would be served with a milk substitute.

cormie wrote: »

I would hope and I think it may actually eventually be the case, that such presumptions are no longer justified and the original post was more just on trying to decipher the legalities of the scenario.

In that case everyone would have to specify what they wanted and which type of milk. Instead of it being the norm that standard milk is what the majority want (and that is true) and that variants are available but must be requested. I have to do it all the time with my intolerance and same with friends who are vegetarians but it doesn't bother any of us as we know we're the minority.

And I do wholeheartedly agree that calling soy, almond etc "milk" causes more confusion and that they have nothing to do with milk.

dee_mc

Ok just in case you're not aware, you didn't mention that your scenario was based in a vegan premises! You could've specified and it would be made things clearer for people. Actually, that's a good theme:
If I enter a vegan premises obviously I wouldn't expect to be served animal products, as it's specifically vegan.
I would expect the restaurant to be clearly marked as vegan, if only to make it easier to find the place!
I'd expect staff to clarify that the drink was made with non-dairy if it had been ordered by someone who seemed to have wandered in expecting what they might see as a 'normal' coffee shop, ie one using dairy as the default.
But even in a vegan cafÃ႒© I'd want to know which milk alternative my coffee was being made with, so I think a blackboard stating 'we use almond milk for our coffees - please let us know at time of ordering if you'd prefer rice, oat or soya milk instead' or whatever, because they're all totally different in coffee.

cormie

Del2005 wrote: »

You never mentioned vegan. You said can I substitute non dairy milk in a coffee which implies that you are operating a vegan premises but want to trick customers into trying something they don't want. If I went into a premises that wasn't obviously vegan, and why would I think that a coffee shop is vegan?, and they didn't tell me that they were I wouldn't be a happy customer and you know how many people tell of bad experiences. Just like when I found out that my sister only buys decaf tea I wasn't impressed and I've stopped drinking tea in her house, she's of course free to buy what she wants but she, or you, have no right to make decisions for me without asking first.

You run a delivery business would you be happy if your diesel supplier suddenly changed it for kerosene without telling you?

witchgirl26 wrote: »

I know a lot of people who order their coffees with a variety of different "milks" because they like them or see them as a better alternative for them. That's their choice. What I disagree with is putting these into coffees without asking the patron (who is paying at the end of the day) if they want them or not.

Again - you wouldn't add an animal product to a vegitarian/vegan order so why do the reverse?

Course people in vegan cafes who are ordering drinks know that there isn't going to be normal milk - that would just be a given. And you accept that by walking into a vegan cafe. It is not a given though in a Starbucks that when you order a coffee with milk, it would be served with a milk substitute.



In that case everyone would have to specify what they wanted and which type of milk. Instead of it being the norm that standard milk is what the majority want (and that is true) and that variants are available but must be requested. I have to do it all the time with my intolerance and same with friends who are vegetarians but it doesn't bother any of us as we know we're the minority.

And I do wholeheartedly agree that calling soy, almond etc "milk" causes more confusion and that they have nothing to do with milk.

Yes initially I just wanted to find out the legal side of things as to the assumption of ingredients based on a name and then to assess the practicality and sense of using a plant milk as a default. I think assumption is the issue here and that might become more prevalent as the advantages of plant foods over animal foods becomes more well known, that there will be more and more coffee and food shops that are vegan, but not obviously, like the one linked to above.

There's no trick or deceiving, it's simply a barista preparing a beverage to a level they believe to be the best and representative of their establishment and the ethos behind it. It's not a decision being made for you, it's you either asking for tea at your sisters, or asking for a beverage at an establishment. If it's not what you assumed it to be, then it's not that the decision was made for you, it's just that you didn't specify your particular preference when asking.

I don't think the kerosene/diesel is a good comparison given kerosene will damage the vehicle. To reference it to vehicles, I guess it's like Tesla doing away with offering leather interiors?

Yes it's certainly true that regular milk meant for cows babies is currently the highest in demand, that doesn't mean it should be the norm though and it's actually against most people's moral principles without them even knowing so I certainly believe getting to a stage where people shouldn't assume ingredients and should notify staff of their preference or particulars is actually a positive thing.

Graham wrote: »

I'm not entirely convinced the patrons of a vegan establishments are particularly representative of anything other than the patrons of vegan establishments.

Their opinions would be unlikely to extrapolate across the larger population.

Yeah, there's definitely a higher probability the patrons will have a preference for plant alternatives in a vegan place, but from what I've heard, those who have been unaware of the type of establishment they are ordering from and then find out they only have choices of plant milk, it seems a lot are happy to try it anyway.

cormie

dee_mc wrote: »

Ok just in case you're not aware, you didn't mention that your scenario was based in a vegan premises! You could've specified and it would be made things clearer for people. Actually, that's a go if theme:
If I enter a vegan premises obviously I wouldn't expect to be served animal products, as it's specifically vegan.
I would expect the restaurant to be clearly marked as vegan, if only to make it easier to find the place!
I'd expect staff to clarify that the drink was made with non-dairy if it had been ordered by someone who seemed to have wandered in expecting what they might see as a 'normal' coffee shop, ie one using dairy as the default.
But even in a vegan café I'd want to know which milk alternative my coffee was being made with, so I think a blackboard stating 'we use almond milk for our coffees - please let us know at time of ordering if you'd prefer rice, oat or soya milk instead' or whatever, because they're all totally different in coffee.

Yes, but I was also curious as to how it might work for establishments making the shift from conventional to vegan, or who may not be labelled as vegan at all. As mentioned, a lot of people have misconceptions or misunderstanding of what vegan is, a cult, a fad etc, which is all nonsense so the vegan label can throw people off what may be a product they would love if they would just try it.

Yes, a blackboard with allergens as required and a notice maybe stating what the default is and then it's up to the customer to be vocal if the default doesn't suit them.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

dee_mc

You can dismiss people's misconceptions of veganism all you like but at the end of the day, a person's experience of veganism is informed by the vegans they encounter.
I worked with a militant vegan who enjoyed sitting at the staff room dining table and shreiking at someone who was innocently eating a chicken salad all about battery hens and even pulling up youtube vids to illustrate her point. Horrid comments about 'hen's periods' to someone discussing recipes that used eggs. I'm sensible enough to know that she was just a rude person who couldn't effectively communicate the (valid, reasonable, commendable) vegan message, but if you spoke to others in the room who might never have knowingly encountered another vegan, the chances are they have a distorted and negative view of veganism.
Maybe instead of dismissing the misconceptions as ignorance on the part of non-vegans, address the fact that a small number of vegans can give the rest of them a bad name!
Havjng said that, if i were you I wouldn't avoid the vegan label as such. I know of a vegan restaurant that does a roaring trade and that counts many meat eaters and non-vegans as customers because the food is damn good and the coffee is excellent. Word gets round, especially where great coffee is concerned. Strive for excellence instead of getting caught up in semantics.

cormie

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well the liquid extracted from the flesh of a coconut has been referenced to as coconut milk for I don't know how long. I think it's a practical name for it and any plant derived milky (that's been established as ok to use earlier int he thread ) substance, even if it's not scientifically accurate and I think this impending restriction on its use is clutching at straws by whatever lobbyists introduced it.

So maybe Plant milky is ok :pac:

dee_mc wrote: »

You can dismiss people's misconceptions of veganism all you like but at the end of the day, a person's experience of veganism is informed by the vegans they encounter.
I worked with a militant vegan who enjoyed sitting at the staff room dining table and shreiking at someone who was innocently eating a chicken salad all about battery hens and even pulling up youtube vids to illustrate her point. Horrid comments about 'hen's periods' to someone discussing recipes that used eggs. I'm sensible enough to know that she was just a rude person who couldn't effectively communicate the (valid, reasonable, commendable) vegan message, but if you spoke to others in the room who might never have knowingly encountered another vegan, the chances are they have a distorted and negative view of veganism.
Maybe instead of dismissing the misconceptions as ignorance on the part of non-vegans, address the fact that a small number of vegans can give the rest of them a bad name!
Havjng said that, if i were you I wouldn't avoid the vegan label as such. I know of a vegan restaurant that does a roaring trade and that counts many meat eaters and non-vegans as customers because the food is damn good and the coffee is excellent. Word gets round, especially where great coffee is concerned. Strive for excellence instead of getting caught up in semantics.

And this is exactly my point of why some producers may not want to shout about being vegan as it can make someone think of what may have been only one extreme vegan they knew, it's still enough to make them subconsciously think they don't want to be like them so they push the idea away. Language is very important and proper references such as animal flesh, secretions and chicken's periods certainly have their place in conveying what they really are, but timing and knowing your audience is very important. Someone like your colleague will do more damage than good making people associate what is really quite a simple concept, with militant, extreme behaviour. Everyone eats non vegan food and almost everyone is against animal cruelty. It's just about aligning lifestyle with the simple value of whether causing harm where harm isn't needed is wrong.

Yeah the vegan label definitely works in favour of businesses too. I'd have my own approach which I think would work, but there's no doubt it increases sales for businesses.

Is the restaurant you're referring to in Dublin?

Axwell

@Cormie - I am going to move this thread. It started out with a hypothetical business question but has since moved into a larger discussion on vegan/not vegan etc and is more suited overall to another forum.

ElKavo

cormie wrote: »

Well the liquid extracted from the flesh of a coconut has been referenced to as coconut milk for I don't know how long. I think it's a practical name for it and any plant derived milky (that's been established as ok to use earlier int he thread ) substance, even if it's not scientifically accurate and I think this impending restriction on its use is clutching at straws by whatever lobbyists introduced it.

So maybe Plant milky is ok :pac:

Indeed, the first written mention of plant based milk is from a Baghdad cookery book called "Kitabh al-tabikh" in 1226, you would think at this stage it is an acceptable use of the term.

Axwell

duploelabs wrote: »

Oh FFS, unless there are one of the aforementioned allergens involved in the dish then there is no responsibility on the cafe operator to inform. End of. And your talk of litigation outside display of the 14 allergens is just absolute b*llocks and you'd get laughed out of court

Mod: Keep it civil, if you are going to reply do so but there is no need for the abusive tone..

dee_mc

cormie wrote:

Is the restaurant you're referring to in Dublin?

No, it's in Sligo town.

Scraggs

cormie wrote: »

I was just giving an example to see if naming something that has none of the traditional ingredients is still ok from a legal perspective. Again it's not about deliberately misleading customers. A burger is just a shape. It's not misleading to call something a burger just because it has no meat in it.

I understand the point you're trying to make but in the example you posted earlier of the drink made with almond milk, sesame and cocoa (with no coffee) being named and sold as a Cappuccino it is misleading to the customer unless the ingredients explain that it's not actually a coffee.

It's not unreasonable for a customer to assume when they order a Cappuncino they will be getting a double espresso with milk foam. A burger is a burger whether it is meat or sweet potato based but a Cappuccino is a specific type of coffee drink.

Edit: Ah ok now I see its a vegan business and not a "Surprise, its vegan" place it makes a lot more sense! That should have been in your original post. For the record I'm a vegetarian of 25 years and an on and off vegan (currently on) if you do end up opening let me know as I love trying new places!

tringle

Me too

cormie

Scraggs, that's understandable as it was just a random string of ingredients I mentioned that could act like an imitation cappuccino without the coffee and was just seeing the situation from a legal/naming perspective.

It's not a vegan place and it's not a surprise it's vegan place :pac: It's a hypothetical situation for a place that doesn't exist but could be anywhere as people become more aware of what's actually involved and contained in animal secreted milk. I think acts like this can help to normalise the wider acceptance of plant milk, that it shouldn't be feared or shunned or thought of as trickery or sneaky to simply make something with a differently derived ingredient and that a particular barista or establishment, simply believe it's a better way to make a cappuccino.

Axwell wrote: »

@Cormie - I am going to move this thread. It started out with a hypothetical business question but has since moved into a larger discussion on vegan/not vegan etc and is more suited overall to another forum.

I think it's still very much a business discussion. It got sidetracked just a little

ElKavo wrote: »

Indeed, the first written mention of plant based milk is from a Baghdad cookery book called "Kitabh al-tabikh" in 1226, you would think at this stage it is an acceptable use of the term.

Haha, you learn something new every day!

OnDraught

cormie wrote: »

as people become more aware of what's actually involved and contained in animal secreted milk.

You’re baffling me with this attitude that people don’t know what goes on in the dairy industry. Surely everyone with a primary level education is aware of where milk comes from.

cormie

I think everyone knows that milk comes from cows, yes. People are led to believe that it's healthy, nutritious and even essential for calcium etc. Images of happy cows are portrayed when the reality is far bleaker and the cows are bred to be nothing more than a commodity, than the sentient individuals that they are, with an exhausting life of being repeatedly raped and having their babies taken away from them so humans can consume the milk meant for the baby, with the boys being slaughtered for veal and the girls to meet the same fate as the mother until the cow is spent and then sent to be inhumanely slaughtered, years premature of their natural life expectancy. All to produce a product that's nothing more than a want for taste and texture, a product with an allowed amount of pus and blood from over milked, mastitis infected udders and teats, the production of which is also having a detrimental affect on environment from deforestation to huge greenhouse gas emissions.

No, I don't think everyone with a primary education is aware of the above.

endacl

cormie wrote: »

No, I don't think everyone with a primary education is aware of the above.

I am, although I wouldn’t phrase it like that. I don’t eat veal. Not for any ethical reason. Although I like the tast of beef and milk, I don’t like the taste of milky beef. Weird...

As to your original question, though. I like nut milks in some things. I prefer dairy in others. If I order a cappuccino, I’m going to presume it’s made from dairy. If it’s not, I’m going to notice, and I’m not going to like it. If I wanted it made with almond, I’d ask for it made with almond. Almond milk is for porridge and smoothies. Not for caffeine.

I’m going to read between the lines, and offer a blunt response. I’m not vegan. I’m not vegetarian. I eat plenty of meals with no meat. I don’t think of them as vegetarian meals. Just meals with no meat. If I’m in an establishment that is clearly a vegan/vegetarian establishment, that’s one thing. In any establishment that is not a vegan/vegetarian one, anybody imposing their ethical values on my choices can shag off. I’ll have my frothy coffee with moo juice, please and thank you.

cormie

endacl wrote: »

I am, although I wouldn’t phrase it like that. I don’t eat veal. Not for any ethical reason. Although I like the tast of beef and milk, I don’t like the taste of milky beef. Weird...

As to your original question, though. I like nut milks in some things. I prefer dairy in others. If I order a cappuccino, I’m going to presume it’s made from dairy. If it’s not, I’m going to notice, and I’m not going to like it. If I wanted it made with almond, I’d ask for it made with almond. Almond milk is for porridge and smoothies. Not for caffeine.

I’m going to read between the lines, and offer a blunt response. I’m not vegan. I’m not vegetarian. I eat plenty of meals with no meat. I don’t think of them as vegetarian meals. Just meals with no meat. If I’m in an establishment that is clearly a vegan/vegetarian establishment, that’s one thing. In any establishment that is not a vegan/vegetarian one, anybody imposing their ethical values on my choices can shag off. I’ll have my frothy coffee with moo juice, please and thank you.

I'm not sure what you mean in your first sentence, you wouldn't phrase what like what?

As mentioned, the hope would be that due to rising demand and people shifting from animal products to plant, that it would no longer be advisable to assume something made with animal flesh or secretions is indeed the default.

If you're in an establishment that happens to be serving cappuccino's with plant milk, it doesn't necessarily mean they are vegan or vegetarian establishments whatsoever, it may be run by someone like you, who likes nut milks and dairy and prefers nut milk in cappuccinos and serves this by default to stand out from the 10 other coffee shops on the same street. So rather than see it as someone imposing their ethical values, maybe see it as someone making a drink with ingredients that simply aren't what has been conventionally used, that's really all it boils down to.

endacl

cormie wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean in your first sentence, you wouldn't phrase what like what?

As mentioned, the hope would be that due to rising demand and people shifting from animal products to plant, that it would no longer be advisable to assume something made with animal flesh or secretions is indeed the default.

If you're in an establishment that happens to be serving cappuccino's with plant milk, it doesn't necessarily mean they are vegan or vegetarian establishments whatsoever, it may be run by someone like you, who likes nut milks and dairy and prefers nut milk in cappuccinos and serves this by default to stand out from the 10 other coffee shops on the same street. So rather than see it as someone imposing their ethical values, maybe see it as someone making a drink with ingredients that simply aren't what has been conventionally used, that's really all it boils down to.

What I meant was ‘boy cows, girl cows’ etc. Also, ‘boy cows’? Oxymoron? And ‘raped’? Not to get too graphic, but a cow can’t be ‘raped’. A bull can’t do the deed if the cow ain’t receptive. And as long as you continue to use silly talk whatever good and sensible points you have to make will be lost.

And to be fair, what you describe above isn’t what you described in your opening few posts.

OnDraught

cormie wrote: »

I think everyone knows that milk comes from cows, yes. People are led to believe that it's healthy, nutritious and even essential for calcium etc. Images of happy cows are portrayed when the reality is far bleaker and the cows are bred to be nothing more than a commodity, than the sentient individuals that they are, with an exhausting life of being repeatedly raped and having their babies taken away from them so humans can consume the milk meant for the baby, with the boys being slaughtered for veal and the girls to meet the same fate as the mother until the cow is spent and then sent to be inhumanely slaughtered, years premature of their natural life expectancy. All to produce a product that's nothing more than a want for taste and texture, a product with an allowed amount of pus and blood from over milked, mastitis infected udders and teats, the production of which is also having a detrimental affect on environment from deforestation to huge greenhouse gas emissions.

No, I don't think everyone with a primary education is aware of the above.

You’re not giving people very much credit are you though? Lots of people are aware of the plight of dairy cows, almost all of them don’t care. If you spent every second of every day worrying about the plight of animals in the food industry or human rights or whatever you’re into you would go mad.

witchgirl26

cormie I think what a lot of people are getting at is that it's ok to have views and ethical standpoints but trying to impose them on others without making it clear is not the best way of going about changing people's minds.

For example - my OH had a thing against quorn. Thought it would taste horrible and refused point blank to consider it. I made a rice dish with it one day and asked if he would even just try a small bit of it. He did an liked it and ended up not making a separate dinner for himself but eating what was left in the pan of mine. However there's no way he would have been happy if I had just served it to him without telling him it was chicken. It's his right not to want to eat it or try it.

There is the problem with plant based milks that almond ones and establishments using it would have to be very clear and open about it due to nut allergy which can be airborne and not just when ingested (like a lactose intolerance).

I eat eggs and meat and I'm ok with that. It's my choice. I also drink plant "milks". Yes it started due to an intolerance but I genuinely like them. I'm fully aware about the industry having grown up around farms. I would have drunk a lot of milk prior to my intolerance becoming full blown and having been on a dairy farm and seen how much the farmer actually does care for his herd would make me think your comments about dairy farming are a little harsh. Certainly in countries like America dairy farming is a different beast and often more akin to battery chicken farming.

Tar.Aldarion

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Almond milk and other non-dairy milks has been used (and called milk) since medieval times, it's only recently that the EU have decided it can't be called that.

ElKavo

This also raises the whole nut butters thing too. Should Peanut butter not be called butter now too?

Tar.Aldarion

ElKavo wrote: »

This also raises the whole nut butters thing too. Should Peanut butter not be called butter now too?

And coconut milk?

Also these ads have popped up all over and are now surely not allowed as they are quite misleading:

ElKavo

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

And coconut milk?

Also these ads have popped up all over and are now surely not allowed as they are quite misleading:

Wow, are they currently running? If so what locations if you have them.

Tar.Aldarion

They are all over dublin and have been seen in Cork too. Theya re on buses, billboards, bus stops etc. That picture is at the corner of Sheriff Street and Guild Street in Dublin.

Advertising standards in Ireland http://www.asai.ie/make-a-complaint/make-a-complaint/ and for Europe: http://www.easa-alliance.org/content/online-complaint-form probably have something to say about that kind of advertising!

I've already heard a guy complaining that his child is severely allergic to dairy and this was misleading them...

ElKavo

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

They are all over dublin and have been seen in Cork too. Theya re on buses, billboards, bus stops etc. That picture is at the corner of Sheriff Street and Guild Street in Dublin.

Advertising standards in Ireland http://www.asai.ie/make-a-complaint/make-a-complaint/ and for Europe: http://www.easa-alliance.org/content/online-complaint-form probably have something to say about that kind of advertising!

I've already heard a guy complaining that his child is severely allergic to dairy and this was misleading them...

Cheers Tar.

AlanG

cormie wrote: »

Thanks for the info. If a blackboard is enough to relay the info then I guess you could still by default serve something like an almond milk latte instead of using dairy milk and have yourself covered then as long as it's listed properly on the menu?

You need to be careful - just because something covers you for food safety it does not mean you cannot be sued should a customer suffer as a result of swapping a nut product into what is usually a dairy product.

Civil cases of negligence tend to go on what judge considers reasonable. Would a judge deem that a reasonable person would expect a white coffee to come with dairy milk? (probably yes) Would a judge deem that a reasonable person ordering something as simple as a takeaway coffee should check for a blackboard listing allergens? (Probably no)

I would say that the the chance of a finding the cafe owner did not take reasonable care would be quite high in is such a case.
The legal precedence goes back to a case years ago where a dry cleaner put a damage disclaimer on the back of the customer tickets and the judge deemed it was not reasonable to put a disclaimer where a reasonable person would not look at it in a standard circumstance.

DoozerT6

endacl wrote: »

Not to get too graphic, but a cow can’t be ‘raped’. A bull can’t do the deed if the cow ain’t receptive. ]

The cows are artificially and forcibly inseminated by human hands. Ne'er a bull in sight. The semen, incidentally, is also collected from the bull by human hands.

forumuser

DoozerT6 wrote: »

The cows are artificially and forcibly inseminated by human hands. Ne'er a bull in sight.

Sometimes, it's not true to say that AI is always used.