Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Guinness and vegetarianism

Options
  • 23-05-2013 10:36pm
    #1
    emclau
    Registered Users Posts: 155 ✭✭


    I've been vegetarian for the past fortnight and I am really enjoying the changes! I feel much better. What really pushed me to vegetarianism was the health benefits-not so much a consideration for animal welfare (hope I'm not offending anyone!).

    (FYI: based in Sydney, I found the following cookbook really helpful containing some fantastic receipes http://www.revive.co.nz/cookbooks/the-revive-cafe-cookbook-2 and I recommend you watch the Knieves Over Forks documentary if you're looking for some extra motivation!)

    It's been relatively easy so far- but there are some challenges ahead-I imagine my mother won't be too happy at the dinner table when I go home in July, and of course those times when I'm stuck for finding something veggie to eat... I'll tackle those all in due course!

    More immediately, I'm going to the pub for a few drinks tonight and I really want a pint of Guinness! I'm aware that Guinness is not a vegan drink as it contains a settling agent called Isinglass.

    I'm not wanting to start a debate if Guinness is vegetarian or not- this is covered in topic below.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055174494

    I would like to hear from other vegetarians what their view on Guinness is. Are you vegetarian and do you drink Guinness ? (FYI: given I've only been vego for two weeks I think it would be a step too much to cut out a pint of the black tonight at least!)
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Slaphead07
    Registered Users Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Slaphead07


    It's 100% up to yourself. WE all define our own limits so whatever you're comfortable is cool. I like my Guinness and enjoy (a lot) of wine. I'd prefer if it were completely free of all animal products but it's not so...


  • Options
    #3
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    I've been vegetarian for nine months at this point. I used to drink Guinness and Smithwicks but now generally stick to Heineken when I'm out as I try to avoid drinks brewed using isinglass where possible. I say generally as I've relented on one or two occasions!

    I must say though that there are a number of craft beers available now which are a lot tastier than anything Diageo produce which are often vegan / vegetarian friendly. In Ireland, both 8 Degrees in Mitchelstown and the Dungarven Brewing Company produce great stout. Unfortunately they aren't always available in pubs. That isn't going to be much good for you in Sydney but there may be local alternatives. The use of isinglass seems to vary strongly from place to place - very few of the craft breweries in America seem to use it, for example.

    In any case, if you want to drink Guinness, that's entirely your call as Slaphead said. Any time I've given into temptation I wasn't kept awake at night racked with guilt anyway!


  • Options
    #4
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Some drink it, some don't It's up to you, there are no rules. I avoid any such drinks as best I can.


  • Options
    #5
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    There might be no rules but there are definitions. Isinglass is fish gelatine and so is no more vegetarian than beef or pig gelatine. If you knowingly eat it then you are a pescetarian, not a vegetarian.

    Ultimately, people can eat/drink what they like, but bastardising definitions is what leads to the rest of us finding things like chicken stock or salmon in vegetarian options in restaurants.


  • Options
    #6
    Killer_banana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭Killer_banana


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There might be no rules but there are definitions. Isinglass is fish gelatine and so is no more vegetarian than beef or pig gelatine. If you knowingly eat it then you are a pescetarian, not a vegetarian.

    Ultimately, people can eat/drink what they like, but bastardising definitions is what leads to the rest of us finding things like chicken stock or salmon in vegetarian options in restaurants.

    The thing is with isinglass, although used in the production of Guinness and other drinks, it is removed again before the product reaches the customer. There can be trace amounts of it however. So those who drink them are technically not ingesting it or only ingesting trace amounts. If someone is vegetarian for health reasons then possibly consuming trace amounts of isinglass will not bother them to the same extent as those who are vegetarian or vegan for ethical reasons. I do agree people shouldn't define themselves as things they aren't but I feel if someone is possibly consuming trace amounts of isinglass they are still vegetarian. If it wasn't removed during production and was definitely present then I would agree drinking it means you are not vegetarian or vegan.

    I don't consume any drinks with isinglass or other animals products in them. I did once or twice accidentally but never intentionally.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There might be no rules but there are definitions. Isinglass is fish gelatine and so is no more vegetarian than beef or pig gelatine. If you knowingly eat it then you are a pescetarian, not a vegetarian.

    Ultimately, people can eat/drink what they like, but bastardising definitions is what leads to the rest of us finding things like chicken stock or salmon in vegetarian options in restaurants.

    So by the definition it is vegetarian, as none is actually consumed.

    There is a difference in the pure vegetarian definition relating to what you intake and the spirit of it, if you are a vegetarian for ethical reasons. In this case it is defined as vegetarian and I do not view it as so.


  • Options
    #8
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I understand what you are saying, Tar .Aldarian and Killer_banana, and realise that isinglass is mostly removed but I still think it is close enough to the end product to be considered non-vegetarian. I can't think of an analogy though to explain my thinking. I can't think of another situation where a harvested part of a slaughtered animal is used but not consumed in food preparation.


  • Options
    #9
    Slaphead07
    Registered Users Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Slaphead07


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I can't think of an analogy though to explain my thinking.

    I understand your thinking perfectly but I will continue to think of myself a vegetarian despite by Guinness and wine consumption. My definition. My conscience.


  • Options
    #10
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Slaphead07 wrote: »
    I understand your thinking perfectly but I will continue to think of myself a vegetarian despite by Guinness and wine consumption. My definition. My conscience.

    It might be your conscience, but its not your definition. No single person owns the definitions of words, they have to be commonly accepted. We need words to mean specific, commonly understood things, if for nothing else than so we don't have people define every single word they use to make sure we understand what they mean when they say things.

    Maybe it is my use of vegetarian that is deviating from the common meaning, I have no problem with that, I will happily add some prefix to my label of vegetarian to explain that. But there still has to be a common meaning of the basic term vegetarian, or else you end up with the likes of people calling themselves vegetarian despite eating chicken and restaurants serving chicken to vegetarians because some other "vegetarians" eat it.


  • Options
    #11
    Killer_banana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭Killer_banana


    I do think people who eat fish or just eat one type of meat etc. should not call themselves vegetarians because it leads to things like being offered fish as a vegetarian option (happened to me before although in fairness it was the college's training restaurant) but I feel if people choose to drink alcohol with animal products in it makes little difference to this really since the vast majority of non-vegetarians have no idea that certain drinks have animal products in them and are very very surprised to find out. Well in my experience anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    superb choice of username
    Registered Users Posts: 140 ✭✭superb choice of username


    Killer_banana wrote: »
    if people choose to drink alcohol with animal products in it makes little difference

    Well, it kinda does. Just because it comes in a liquid form doesn't change the fact of what it is..
    Killer_banana wrote: »
    since the vast majority of non-vegetarians have no idea that certain drinks have animal products in them

    That's some kinda strange variation of 'ignorance is bliss'. And it's a strange moral take that they'd be aware they are consuming animal products, but considering it justified because other people are unaware? Hmmm.

    I know what you're saying that it's your own personal preference and that. But really, it's a clear cut definition, abstaining from the consumption of animal in any shape or form..


  • Options
    #13
    Killer_banana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭Killer_banana


    superb choice of username wrote: »
    Well, it kinda does. Just because it comes in a liquid form doesn't change the fact of what it is..



    That's some kinda strange variation of 'ignorance is bliss'. And it's a strange moral take that they'd be aware they are consuming animal products, but considering it justified because other people are unaware? Hmmm.

    I know what you're saying that it's your own personal preference and that. But really, it's a clear cut definition, abstaining from the consumption of animal in any shape or form..

    Well the person in question was referring to how consuming animal products leads to people to misunderstand definitions, I am saying in this case it does not do that. As an ethical vegan I don't consume drinks which use isinglass because it is used in the brewing process even if it is not in the final product. However as I said if someone is vegetarian or vegan for health reasons and it isn't in the final product then it is still, by their standards, vegetarian and therefore they can consume it. If it was definitely in the drink after brewing then it would not be vegetarian and they would not be vegetarian by drinking it.

    Another thing is everyone does have their personal cut off points and for some people that is alcohol. Mine it vegetables because even if they are fertilised with animal bone meal and blood (which a lot are) I feel like I can't avoid eating them. I am not eating the fertisliser but could be consuming trace amounts of it. Since this is the same idea as isinglass some people feel its okay to drink things which are brewed with it.

    Anyway the OP said in his very first post he did not want to start a debate on this very topic and even linked to a thread where it was previously debated so we are just dragging this off topic at this stage.


  • Options
    #14
    Slaphead07
    Registered Users Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Slaphead07


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It might be your conscience, but its not your definition. No single person owns the definitions of words, they have to be commonly accepted.

    It's my definition of myself. I don't seek, or need, anyone else's approval for that.


  • Options
    #15
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Slaphead07 wrote: »
    It's my definition of myself. I don't seek, or need, anyone else's approval for that.

    You can't define yourself as vegetarian if you aren't actually vegetarian, no more than you define yourself as Irish if you aren't actually Irish.

    Now, again, maybe it is my use of vegetarian that is deviating from the common meaning, I have no problem with that, I will happily add some prefix to my label of vegetarian to explain that. But its people using your reasoning here (although maybe I am understanding you wrong?) that leads us to having deal with fish and chicken in vegetarian options in restaurants.


  • Options
    #16
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Killer_banana wrote: »
    Anyway the OP said in his very first post he did not want to start a debate on this very topic and even linked to a thread where it was previously debated so we are just dragging this off topic at this stage.

    I'm not entirely sure how vegetarians can discuss their views on Guinness without discussing if they think its vegetarian or not.


  • Options
    #17
    fleet
    Registered Users Posts: 546 ✭✭✭fleet


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You can't define yourself as vegetarian if you aren't actually vegetarian

    Harsh, but true.

    I could say that I'm vegetarian and eat meat, but it would be a lie.
    It's a lie because vegetarians don't eat meat.


  • Options
    #18
    Killer_banana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭Killer_banana


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I'm not entirely sure how vegetarians can discuss their views on Guinness without discussing if they think its vegetarian or not.

    Fair point.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Now, again, maybe it is my use of vegetarian that is deviating from the common meaning, I have no problem with that, I will happily add some prefix to my label of vegetarian to explain that.

    Well in regards a prefix isn't that why some people call themselves strict vegetarians?


  • Options
    #19
    Slaphead07
    Registered Users Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Slaphead07


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But its people using your reasoning here (although maybe I am understanding you wrong?) that leads us to having deal with fish and chicken in vegetarian options in restaurants.

    That, with the greatest respect, is absolute nonsense. The reason we're offered chicken or fish is because of ignorance on the part of catering staff and not because of their in depth knowledge of my beer/wine consumption and the refining process in either industry.


  • Options
    #20
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Slaphead07 wrote: »
    That, with the greatest respect, is absolute nonsense. The reason we're offered chicken or fish is because of ignorance on the part of catering staff and not because of their in depth knowledge of my beer/wine consumption and the refining process in either industry.

    Your argument (if I understand you right, correct me if I'm wrong) is that you are a vegetarian according to your definition and you don't have to justify that to anyone. Many "vegetarians" who eat chicken/fish use the same argument and people and places who serve chicken/fish to vegetarians (those not doing it out of ignorance) will point to those "vegetarians" as justification. I've experienced this. So no, my point isn't nonsense.

    You can argue that Guinness is vegetarian (because no dead animal bits remain after processing) and therefore you still satisfy the definition of "vegetarian", but you can't argue that the word "vegetarian" means whatever happens to satisfy you.


  • Options
    #21
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Killer_banana wrote: »
    Well in regards a prefix isn't that why some people call themselves strict vegetarians?

    I would normally use strict vegetarians to mean someone who is very careful to not eat food with meat additives and who wont eat something if they are in anyway unsure if it might. Under the assumption that vegetarian just means no direct meat consumption (isinglass as a process agent, but not ingredient is ok), then I suppose "strict" vegetarian would encompass not drinking Guinness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Slaphead07
    Registered Users Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Slaphead07


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Many "vegetarians" who eat chicken/fish use the same argument and people and places who serve chicken/fish to vegetarians (those not doing it out of ignorance) will point to those "vegetarians" as justification. I've experienced this. So no, my point isn't nonsense.

    I know of no "vegetarians" who eat chicken and/or fish nor have I ever had a restaurant tell me what I should be eating. You may have experienced it but that's an absurd and surreal situation and not something to base any argument on. So... still nonsense.

    I'm not going to go around in circles on something which I'm not interested in debating in the first place. My reply to the OP stands.


  • Options
    #23
    Tar.Aldarion
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    I can understand both points of view, it's very different from most words as it implies both a dietary regime and also a lifeview. There should really be separate words but there are so many differences that we couldn't have enough words. So while say drinking Guinness is technically vegetarian and one can and should call themselves vegetarian if they drink it, it is against the vegetarian ethos for me. So I might not call myself vegetarian if I drank it but I would be.

    There are all sorts of ways I would consider somebody to be an ethical vegetarian even if they do not follow a vegetarian diet. This includes even the possibility of eating meat itself. If somebody ate roadkill, or somebody ate leftovers going to waste that had meat in it and did not raise the amount of animals killed for their action, I would have nothing against that, I would even consider it a vegetarian act, even though it is anathema to it.


  • Options
    #24
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Slaphead07 wrote: »
    I know of no "vegetarians" who eat chicken and/or fish nor have I ever had a restaurant tell me what I should be eating. You may have experienced it but that's an absurd and surreal situation and not something to base any argument on. So... still nonsense.

    But the basis of your argument is the basis of that argument, so it can't be nonsense unless you admit your argument is also talking nonsense.

    Instead of arguing that "X" is vegetarian for "Y" reason and therefore vegetarians can eat/drink it, you are arguing that vegetarians can eat anything as long as they are happy to call themselves vegetarian. The word vegetarian becomes entirely subjective and loses all meaning then. This is the same problem we see with people calling themselves Roman Catholic in this country despite believing almost nothing the religion represents.

    Words and labels have commonly accepted meanings - they have to for language to work. Imagine we applied your argument to things like nationality or age or job qualifications? You are the nationality or age or qualification you can justify to yourself and who cares if anyone else understands any different. How would that work?


  • Options
    #25
    Slaphead07
    Registered Users Posts: 2,323 ✭✭✭Slaphead07


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But the basis of your argument is the basis of that argument
    No it's not.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    you are arguing that vegetarians can eat anything as long as they are happy to call themselves vegetarian.

    No I'm not.
    You can't seem to grasp what I've actually said but it doesn't matter.

    End of.


  • Options
    #26
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Slaphead07 wrote: »
    No I'm not.
    You can't seem to grasp what I've actually said but it doesn't matter.

    End of.

    You said:
    It's my definition of myself. I don't seek, or need, anyone else's approval for that.

    Now, unless the "It" you are referencing here is not "vegetarian" (and I have given you ever opportunity to clarify if it is) then you are using the argument as I am describing it. You are taking a word that already has a meaning to everyone else and using it under a different meaning, simply to satisfy your desire of the label.


  • Options
    #27
    liz1991
    Registered Users Posts: 19 ✭liz1991


    I realise this thread has been abandoned for a few weeks, but on the Guinness front, if you want Guinness but have issues with the ethical side of things, go for Guinness Extra Stout. No isinglass is used, it's completely vegan. I use it to make my vegan Christmas pudding every year.

    (I've contacted Diageo about this and they have confirmed that Guinness Extra Stout is vegan.)


  • Options
    #28
    perfectisthe
    Registered Users Posts: 289 ✭✭perfectisthe


    liz1991 wrote: »
    I realise this thread has been abandoned for a few weeks, but on the Guinness front, if you want Guinness but have issues with the ethical side of things, go for Guinness Extra Stout. No isinglass is used, it's completely vegan. I use it to make my vegan Christmas pudding every year.

    (I've contacted Diageo about this and they have confirmed that Guinness Extra Stout is vegan.)

    Are you referring to the GES that's sold in Ireland? If you are then that's incorrect unfortunately. All of the Guinness products that are brewed in St. James Gate and sold in Ireland use Isinglass.

    Source: I'm vegan and I work for Guinness.


  • Options
    #29
    liz1991
    Registered Users Posts: 19 ✭liz1991


    perfectisthe wrote: »
    Are you referring to the GES that's sold in Ireland? If you are then that's incorrect unfortunately. All of the Guinness products that are brewed in St. James Gate and sold in Ireland use Isinglass.

    Source: I'm vegan and I work for Guinness.

    What???? When did this happen? I email them every November to check before I put it in the pudding and they always tell me there's no isinglass used! :( Damn.


  • Options
    #30
    Killer_banana
    Registered Users Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭Killer_banana


    perfectisthe wrote: »
    Are you referring to the GES that's sold in Ireland? If you are then that's incorrect unfortunately. All of the Guinness products that are brewed in St. James Gate and sold in Ireland use Isinglass.

    Source: I'm vegan and I work for Guinness.

    Thanks for clearing this up. I've found mixed information in the past and when I tried emailing them they didn't get back to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    perfectisthe
    Registered Users Posts: 289 ✭✭perfectisthe


    liz1991 wrote: »
    What???? When did this happen? I email them every November to check before I put it in the pudding and they always tell me there's no isinglass used! :( Damn.

    Is there any possibility that they may have been referring to the North American variant Liz?

    It's strange that you got that response. I checked on Barnivore and every inquiry that other people have made to Diageo confirms that all UK and Ireland Guinness products use Isinglass - http://www.barnivore.com/beer/26/Guinness


Advertisement