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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Assumed ingredients in food/drink ordered?

13»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,206 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    cormie wrote: »
    It's not imposing anything. They have a choice to have it or not, they aren't forced to do anything. I would be thinking more along the lines of expected tastes and textures rather than expected ingredients. It's like somebody above who mentioned about delicatessens asking someone if they want butter when in most, it's not butter at all.

    And again, I think the normalisation of being an expected option that something could be made with is a good thing and this would encourage that.

    I'm not at you because you choose to eat meat, it's just that you being ok with it, doesn't really mean anything as you're not the issue, it's not like saying you're ok with not exercising or something like that which only affects you :) Sorry, I don't mean to sound preachy, I like to just state the reality and hopefully try inspire thought and consideration.

    Elkavo is correct about the definition of veganism. It's a philosophy, not a diet, the diet is just a product of the philosophy.

    Anyone who wouldn't have issue with animal food production or question any animal use is not vegan even though they may eat what would be considered a vegan diet.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭ElKavo


    I would still call someone a vegan if their diet was vegan...

    Then you would be wrong, a plant based diet is for people who do not subscribe to the Vegan philosophy but who just eat plants. Vegans go far further than to just not eat meat etc. That does not have to involve protesting etc.

    You could call snow black too but you would still be wrong.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    ElKavo wrote: »
    Then you would be wrong, a plant based diet is for people who do not subscribe to the Vegan philosophy but who just eat plants. Vegans go far further than to just not eat meat etc. That does not have to involve protesting etc.

    You could call snow black too but you would still be wrong.

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭ElKavo



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

    Plant based is grand, anything else is simply untrue. People who still use products tested on animals, purchase animal skins, have no issue with howanimails are used for their entertainment etc can be plant based as far as their eating goes (but probably aren't) but they are certainly not Vegan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    ElKavo wrote: »
    Plant based is grand, anything else is simply untrue. People who still use products tested on animals, purchase animal skins, have no issue with howanimails are used for their entertainment etc can be plant based as far as their eating goes (but probably aren't) but they are certainly not Vegan.

    And that interaction will go:

    "I'm plant-based"

    "What's that?"

    "I don't eat animal products"

    "So, vegan"


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭ElKavo


    And that interaction will go:

    "I'm plant-based"

    "What's that?"

    "I don't eat animal products"

    "So, vegan"

    Give me the lotto numbers while your predicting the future there will you.

    As I have explained already, that is plant based. If you can not comprehend that, it is not my issue. You are still incorrect.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    ElKavo wrote: »
    Give me the lotto numbers while your predicting the future there will you.

    As I have explained already, that is plant based. If you can not comprehend that, it is not my issue. You are still incorrect.

    Try it on five people and get back to me :)


    I actually can get my head around your completely beside the point technical point. If you can't get the point I'm making then I'll assume that it's wilfully.


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭ElKavo


    Try it on five people and get back to me :)


    I actually can get my head around your completely beside the point technical point. If you can't get the point I'm making then I'll assume that it's wilfully.

    It is not beside the point, it is the point. If you still use products that contain animal products, are tested on animals etc you are not Vegan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    ElKavo wrote: »
    It is not beside the point, it is the point. If you still use products that contain animal products, are tested on animals etc you are not Vegan.

    Do you know what thread you're in. It's nothing like the point. The differences and tensions between descriptive and prescriptive linguistics and the meaning and usage of the word vegan are related to allergen legislation in Ireland in what way? In what way precisely?


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭ElKavo


    Do you know what thread you're in. It's nothing like the point. The differences and tensions between descriptive and prescriptive linguistics and the meaning and usage of the word vegan are related to allergen legislation in Ireland in what way? In what way precisely?

    I did not start the thread, I made the point on the definition of Veganism. It is not a diet, that is only part of it.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭pq0n1ct4ve8zf5


    ElKavo wrote: »
    I did not start the thread, I made the point on the definition of Veganism. It is not a diet, that is only part of it.

    I can read, so I can understand what you're saying. It doesn't change the fact that the word vegan is used to mean diet in the majority of cases, that everyone understands what's meant when it's used that way, and that correcting people on it is pedantic. Correcting people on it and engaging with people in general in the manner in which you've chosen to do is exactly the kind of thing which sets people against veg*ns and damages the cause.

    But hey at least you're technically correct on a point of semantics! Yay!


  • Registered Users Posts: 861 ✭✭✭ElKavo


    I can read, so I can understand what you're saying. It doesn't change the fact that the word vegan is used to mean diet in the majority of cases, that everyone understands what's meant when it's used that way, and that correcting people on it is pedantic. Correcting people on it and engaging with people in general in the manner in which you've chosen to do is exactly the kind of thing which sets people against veg*ns and damages the cause.

    But hey at least you're technically correct on a point of semantics! Yay!

    No need to be sarcastic.

    Its almost like people using the word milk when referring to a plant based alternative.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,838 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    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.


    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 :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,838 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    This is from psychologist and founder of Eden Farmed Animal Sanctuary and Go Vegan World, Sandra Higgins.
    When we witness the terrible rights violations that are part and parcel of standard practice in all forms of animal use, it is easy to become so overwhelmed that we focus on the horror of treatment. But discussion of how they are treated while they are used misses the point of animal rights. For all the farmed animals we use, simply breeding them into mutated bodies, designed to overproduce milk, eggs and muscle tissue is such a violation of them and their lives as to render the issue of treatment completely irrelevant. In our experience at Eden Farmed Animal Sanctuary Ireland, a vegan sanctuary where they receive the utmost respect and the best possible treatment, they are prone to the inevitable and unnecessary effects of selective breeding, effects which ultimately end their lives prematurely.

    Other animals are our sentient equals, not our property. They may be our legal property but that status is not morally justifiable. We are not entitled to use them, regardless of how well we treat them. We are not even entitled to use them if we allow them to live to the end of their natural lifespan and do not slaughter them. That is why our Go Vegan World campaign calls for the complete and immediate cessation of all animal use by humans.

    A vegan would be somebody who, as far as possible and practical, agrees with and follows this notion, so it's much more than just a diet.



    I think it's quite hard for people to communicate the sentiment effectively and thus spark interest and understanding and while they obviously mean well, passion and emotion can get muddled up and they can appear to be pushy, sensationalist, extreme and militant. To actually detach from the associations you may have with such people and consider the above, I think a most people would have to agree it's...


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    ITT
    EtV1Fyh.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,206 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    cormie wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    cormie wrote: »
    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.

    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.
    cormie wrote: »
    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 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.
    cormie wrote: »
    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.

    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,838 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 868 ✭✭✭tringle


    So I have a follow on question about ingredients in food and if you should or should not assume they are there.
    First one, mashed potatoes. If a menu says mashed potatoes should we assume it has salt, pepper, butter and milk added to it. I have never found a menu that specifies this and I always ask but it annoys me so much that most places don't even think about this.
    Porridge is another one. I worked in a country house cooking breakfast. To me porridge is cooked with water only and then milk/cream/ berries/cinnamon/honey etc served on the side to add as you wish. We had a tour group stay a while and one staff would constantly order porridge made with almond milk, porridge cooked with cinnamon etc. I made one big pot of porridge with water and let her serve whatever on the side, she kept giving out to me...why could I not cook it with milk. Well I couldn't separately cook 30 orders of porridge and to me water is the correct way. If I order porridge am I right to assume its made with water.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 868 ✭✭✭tringle


    I also hate when chips have salt on them. I really don't like salt, the chipper always asks if you want salt and vingegar but chains like supermacs MacDonald's etc automatically salt them all before serving.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,838 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    This is what I'm saying about assuming ingredients not being advisable as it's so often the case that things contain more than the name would suggest :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,235 ✭✭✭ceegee


    Surely serving vegan coffee without telling people would be counterproductive. Non-vegans will be annoyed their coffee tastes different and vegans wont drink it as they won't know it's vegan


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,838 ✭✭✭✭cormie


    Well the hope would be that non vegans would like it, the same way they may prefer a higher quality coffee over an instant, that perhaps they would think it tastes much better.

    Then with the vegans, they will be in no worse position than they would be with any coffee shop and would simply have to ask as they probably usually do unless they know the place is vegan.


Advertisement