Assumed ingredients in food/drink ordered?

witchgirl26 wrote: »

But it is imposing if you don't inform. That is what I'm getting at. If you haven't made it really clear that there is no dairy in use and someone has ordered a coffee, doesn't like it because it doesn't have dairy in it (which they didn't know) will you make them pay for it because the drink has already been made? Because they really don't have a choice then. And people do have a choice now. I have friends who will regularly ask for almond milk in a coffee because they prefer it (rather than getting the artificial syrup in) so the choice is there & they're taking it.

I agree that having alternatives as normal options would be great as someone who can't have dairy. They are there in a lot of places. I just don't agree with replacing out the standard for the minority who want something different. Option is good but replacing without something up to say it in the cafe isn't good.

I don't get that. Just because I eat meat and animal products doesn't mean I don't think or have consideration. I will always look for free range etc. It doesn't make me less considerate than a vegan and it's that attitude that can really turn people away from veganism.

Veganism is a movement correct but a vegan diet is a different thing and is purely around the non-use of animal products. I would still call someone a vegan if their diet was vegan but they weren't spending time protesting about animal food production in some way.

I still don't see it as imposing anything. It's in everyone's best interest to increase their awareness on what they are actually consuming. People will buy/eat/drink almost anything because it looks/smells/tastes nice without actually knowing what affect it will have on them/the environment etc. Just because it's "normal" to eat/drink something or because you see it advertised on TV, it doesn't mean that norm has a moral justification. This applies to anything, whether it's vegan or not. There's plenty of vegan junk food. It's not a bad thing for people to be more clued in as to what they are consuming and I think something like this would normalise the notion that it makes sense to find out what you're asking to buy before blindly just accepting it. There's so much false advertising and claims about all kinds of food like free range, laughing or happy cows, sugar free this and that and everything else that you could argue that the very notion of ordering a coffee with dairy is in itself a decision that is the result of imposed views.

As mentioned, my idea of the workings of this would be to have a default milk that is used to normalise the position that plant based milks have in our society. If the customer has an issue with it and assumed it was going to be dairy and wanted their money back and it was a genuine case, then of course, business sense would be to take the hit on what's essentially a small cost. The staff would then hopefully be able to explain the reasoning and could either give a refund and take the cup back, or give a voucher for a free cup of the same next time if they were willing to give it a chance and consider it again. This would all be done by means of good customer service as it's still a non defined term they used when ordering.

Replacing what is standard with what is minority doesn't have to be a bad thing. Normal and accepted does not mean good and justified. The only hesitation I'd have with any of this would be the allergen thing. It would be a lot easier in the case of there being no allergy issues and this is something that would need to be threaded carefully with.

I'm not saying you're not considerate or thoughtful. However in the eyes of the life that is being harmed and in the eyes of anyone that cares for that life, the person who consciously chooses not to contribute to that life suffering on the basis of it being wrong to do so, is, in relation to this scenario, more considerate of that life. Unfortunately free range, grass fed etc all contribute to the unnecessary use of another life for what is essentially a want and not a need and in the eyes of the exploited life, they would surely prefer just be left alone.

A vegan diet is a vegan diet. That's what it's referred to commonly and is based on a diet followed by vegans, then ok, call it a vegan diet. Just remember a vegan diet is the consumption of no animal products or animal derived products so wine filtered through fish bladders, honey etc too. A lot of non vegans who portray themselves to be following a vegan diet would overlook these things. There's plenty of reasons for people to adopt a vegan diet for health and environment, but calling anyone who follows a vegan diet a vegan is incorrect. You can still consume what qualifies as a vegan diet and go out and buy fur and bet on greyhounds and horses, go to the zoo, use cosmetics tested on animals, ride elephants and horse and carts, buy wool and any other of the thousands of unnecessary animal exploits in our society. A vegan will consciously try and avoid partaking or contributing to anything that is a product of animal exploitation. It's quite a big difference in meaning and isn't the same as the hoover/vacuum cleaner situation at all

Anyone who is following a vegan diet, or reducing meat or avoiding dairy etc should be commended and a lot of the time the more they differentiate between the need and the want, they will often progress further with the same thinking so instead of choosing the solution that exploits animals, they choose the one that doesn't. Anyone who is not aware that the need is in fact a want and that suffering doesn't have to take place on account of their want, it doesn't make them a bad person and aligning their moral principals with their actions can come with time if they expand their knowledge.

Faith Fit Shrimp wrote: »

Yeah and you can insist on correcting people when they call a vacuum cleaner a Hoover or a ball point pen a biro even though absolutely everyone is clear on what's being referred to.

I'm fcuked if I'm going around saying "people exclusively following a plant based diet" all the time.

OP, I wouldn't imagine something like "latte", "cappuccino" legally have to contain dairy. But

a) I take nut or soya milk in my hot drinks. They do not taste the same as dairy. Nobody, and I mean nobody, will go "oh gosh, I didn't even notice, must use this alternative more in future". "What is this, where's my money back, this is why people hate vegans" is far more likely. An outcome that's actually inimical to your intentions is probably what'd happen.

b) you seem quite interested in where the legal responsibility lies about flagging / asking about allergens, there is also the wee little matter of the moral and social responsibility; nut allergies can KILL people.

There's plenty of a market for alternatives to dairy, any well advertised vegan place with nice food attracts customers following that diet, strictly or otherwise. Fewer and fewer people have what used to be a common aversion to vegan food, plenty of people avoid dairy. I'm not even sure what it is you''re trying to achieve.

My reply above this addresses anything I don't address below.

I'm not expecting people not to notice. I'd be hoping they would notice, but in a good way. I mean this is the risk anyone takes with doing their own twist on any common dish or drink. It will be received differently by different people. Different twists on common things are done all the time. The fact this just happens to be a vegan twist, may indeed bring people who want to bash veganism an excuse to do so, but really, in more simple terms, it's just somebody doing their own twist on a common product and if people want to relate it to connotations they have based on previous interactions with people they may not have agreed with, that's their choice, but really, all it is, is a different twist on something.

I'm fully aware nut allergies can kill people, as can dairy, rice and oat allergies seemingly. Again, I would be encouraging a society where anyone with an allergy would be aware and observant of what they are consuming, especially from a non packaged product, in an ever changing industry that is currently going under big changes with regards to the use of animal products due to the moral and social responsibility people feel for other sentient beings. There is no moral justification for using animal products and the use of them ultimately lead to death for the victims.

We can all adapt to being aware of the choices people make and the reasoning behind them and adapt our own ways to be aware of what we consume and purchase ourselves.

I think the common aversion to vegan food you mention is again fear of the unknown. I mean, pretty much any food not from an animal source is vegan, that means fruit, veg, nuts, seeds, grains etc so l wouldn't say these are averted at all, it's just that when something is labelled as vegan, it can cause that aversion as people think it's something that's not meant for them due to misunderstanding, when vegans is for everyone and so much of what everyone eats is already vegan

witchgirl26 wrote: »

But if it's in their best interests to be aware of what they are consuming is trying to replace it without informing them really the best way at all?! I would respect a cafe much more if it was openly vegan and promoted why it was using the produce it used and the plant based milks as opposed to a cafe who tried to just put them in instead and preached at the counter if it wasn't the expected.

There's certain expectations that people should be allowed have. I will always question what is in foods because I have intollerances that affect me badly. However before these came to light I would as I wouldn't feel I had to ask what was in everything I was consuming. That takes a quite an amount of time especially in a morning rush with a long queue of people ordering coffee when it would be much easier to advertise it.

It's not the result of imposed views - people like dairy. It's allowed. Just like it's allowed to be against it for varying reasons. And you can't force people to change what they like just because you don't like it. That is imposing views.



But do you not realise that you'd probably have to put somewhere on the menu that your standard milk product is "x" & list other options available if wanted. It could cause serious problems otherwise in regards allergies etc. If you don't put that somewhere then I'm sorry but it is imposing it. People are entitled to know what they are paying for before they buy it not afterwards with a "sorry you didn't like it but let me try to convince you".

Most coffee shops I know have a list of "other milks available" on the side of the menu that can be requested. If people want their coffee with soy, almond or oat milk, then they can request it but it is a choice. What you're talking about is potentially removing that choice from anyone. Which I don't agree with at all.



I'm not saying it's a bad thing but as per my point above. People are entitled to know what they are paying for in advance. In fact it's part of their consumer rights. And allergies are no small thing. One sip of an almond milk made coffee could kill someone with a nut allergy.



Ok I do get what you're saying and you're perfectly entitled to your opinion in regards veganism and that but I'm also entitled to mine and my beliefs. A large amount of my eggs currently come from a friend of mine who's son raises hens and looks after them like pets. They produce eggs and he just collects them. I don't see how this is harming the hens at all. They are fed well, looked after, kept safe from predators. Look I'm not trying to convince you to eat animal products but not everything is produced in a way that negatively impacts the animal.

See my thinking is that the word vegan can throw a lot of people off due to the misconception veganism has. If I was to start a vegan business, even though the word Vegan would probably draw my target audience immediately, I would also like it to be open to no vegans and to show non vegans how nice something can be without it having to contain any animal products.

In the cafe scenario, I'm not saying the staff will be preaching, and I'm not 100% on the idea of not saying anything, so maybe even for customers the staff don't recognise to say when the order is put through "now just to let you know, we don't use any animal products in our ingredients usually use oat milk in our coffees, but if you want, we can use soya or almond (etc etc) too ". My initial query was on the legal side of not saying anything and what needs to be said/written down etc.

People are of course allowed to like dairy, I'm not saying the opposite at all, I'm saying at some stage along the normalisation of consuming another species milk, views were probably imposed to get it to the stage of normalisation I'm not trying to impose anything, rather influence. There's no force, just option with understanding if it's not to be taken.

I'm fully in agreement and support the idea of having the ingredients on the menu/blackboard. I like to know exactly what I'm eating. If there's sulphites in something, even disregarding the fact it's an allergen, I'd still like to know. The scenario I'm describing is if people overlook the menu and order it and then find out after. People will have as much a choice as is commercially viable, just not a choice that goes against the ethos of the business, so no dairy for example.

With regards the eggs, yes, if your adamant on consuming eggs, then yes this is probably the least harmful way, but again, if you read the quote from Sandra Higgins above and think it sounds like a reasonable wish, then it's just putting that wish into practice. The selective breeding she mentions that has their body "prone to the inevitable and unnecessary effects of selective breeding, effects which ultimately end their lives prematurely". Taking the eggs from them encourages them to produce more and puts a huge demand on their body. There's a lot more info on the topic here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utPkDP3T7R4