Thrown out of Vegetarian restaurant

[Fat Guy]

when you label something as vegetarian you do have a duty of care to be accurate, something that trading standards (a governmental body) can and do police

Let's take a look at the standards of the organization that certifies your establishment:

On this page of the organization's Web site there are set out "KITCHEN HYGIENE" standards. These include:

Work surfaces and chopping boards, utensils and all other kitchen equipment and facilities must either be kept separate from those used for non-vegetarian food preparation, or cleaned thoroughly before vegetarian food preparation.

(my emphasis)

So it would seem that even a person who took the time to read up on the exact standards mught suffer from some lack of clarity regarding why their meat-based baby food would never even be allowed through the door or in contact with any utensil. Because the rules say thorough cleaning is sufficient. Which isn't to say I agree or disagree with those rules. I just think there's plenty of ambiguity here.

[rendezvous]

Rendezvous,

In hindsight, do you wish you just gave the customer a cup of hot water...?

Certainly not, if presented with the same set of circumstances we would do the same thing again - if we were somehow prevented from being able to operate in a meat free environment we'd close the doors. The whole reason we opened the restaurant was to present a meat free choice to customers for whom that is their preference - which includes ourselves. That's not an issue that will ever be up for compromise.

But thats not to say that we've not listened to what people have said with a view to preventing, or at least reducing the likelihood of those same circumstances arising again.

[sherribabee]

People are made out of meat.

[rendezvous]

So it would seem that even a person who took the time to read up on the exact standards mught suffer from some lack of clarity regarding why their meat-based baby food would never even be allowed through the door or in contact with any utensil. Because the rules say thorough cleaning is sufficient. Which isn't to say I agree or disagree with those rules. I just think there's plenty of ambiguity here.

I agree, but bear in mind we are exclusively vegetarian and the approval applies to the whole restaurant and not just a single product line (which can also be approved - like burger king have a veg burger approved over here).

But surely there is at least an element of "if unsure - ask" at play in any environment where ambiguity exists?

[Fat Guy]

But surely there is at least an element of "if unsure - ask" at play in any environment where ambiguity exists?

It would indeed be great if, when unsure about things, people asked for clarification; and if, when people made honest mistakes, others were understanding. But those situations don't test a restaurant's crisis-management skills. The big test is when the unstoppable force hits the immovable object. That's when the fun starts.

[Hest88]

I think precisely because we're food people that we're getting all caught up in the minutia of what is "actually" vegetarian. "Meat-free" shouldn't need to be spelled out because it's implied in the word "vegetarian" as it is commonly understood.

For most people, if you take them to a vegetarian restaurant, they will assume it will be meatless. No cows, no chicken, no floppy fish. No beef stock, no chicken stock, no fish stock.

If you take them to a vegan restaurant, then we eliminate the eggs, cheese, etc.

The whole reason you have the lacto, ovo, etc. terminology is because people have felt the need to qualify what is a very basic concept.

I'm not going to argue whether or not the mother is correct or not, but I do think it's a little facetious to say anyone walking into a vegetarian restaurant wouldn't understand what they were getting into without a long laundry-list definition.

Edited September 22, 2003 by Hest88 (log)

[bergerka]

I'm with Hest88. I don't see the ambiguity here.

If you can find ONE menu item containing meat in ONE restaurant that ADVERTISES itself as vegetarian--I will concede that point. Not otherwise. I think advertising a restaurant as vegetarian is just a bit different than a person who says "I'm a vegetarian" and then orders the chicken tenders or the fish sticks or whatever.

Oh and the woman from the original post? Idiot.

JMHO.

K

[=Mark]

just because someone self labels doesn't make it accurate

Just because the UK Vegetarian Society presents a definition doesn't make it accurate either. Nor does it mean anybody has ever heard of the UK Vegetarian Society, nor does it mean anybody should be presumed to be familiar with that organization's rules. For example, like it or not, the term "pesce-vegetarian" is well accepted by millions of people around the world, not just by a few idiosyncratic self-labelers.

I'm a bovo/porco-vegetarian. I like to eat beef and pork with my vegetables.

[ronnie_suburban]

I'm with Hest88.  I don't see the ambiguity here.

If you can find ONE menu item containing meat in ONE restaurant that ADVERTISES itself as vegetarian--I will concede that point.  Not otherwise.  I think advertising a restaurant as vegetarian is just a bit different than a person who says "I'm a vegetarian" and then orders the chicken tenders or the fish sticks or whatever.

I'm with both of you on this. I think the implications of a "vegetarian" restaurant are clear...and again, Ms. Graham was asked to leave the establishment not because of the meat in her baby food per se, but other, subsequent factors, which have already been well-documented up-thread by those who were actually there.

To me, this is simply a story about a rude and self-centered customer who didn't get her way and went crying to the press about it. If she doesn't like the way she was treated, she has every right to never return to the restaurant, inform her friends and notify the press. But, what does the restaurant owe her? Zippo. I get the distinct feeling that Paul and Maggie knew full well what they were risking when they asked her to leave. I doubt they regret doing so. One less P.I.T.A. customer to deal with down the road...and my guess is that by taking this action, they've further endeared themselves to their target customers.

=R=

[Fat Guy]

If you can find ONE menu item containing meat in ONE restaurant that ADVERTISES itself as vegetarian--I will concede that point.  Not otherwise.

Exactly what point do you think you'd be conceding? I don't think anybody has asked for a concession on the point that vegetarian restaurants don't serve meat, though if you go to the macrobiotic, vegetarian, Japanese (at least that's how I always see it listed in guides) restaurant Ozu on the Upper West Side, they have a small ghetto on the menu with a few salmon dishes. But what does that have to do with anything? The question here involves somebody bringing some meat-based baby food into a vegetarian restaurant. Do you believe there is a universal (or even common) assumption among vegetarian-restaurant consumers that the threshold of the restaurant marks a meat-free zone in all respects?

What if somebody goes to a vegetarian restaurant after shopping for groceries and leaves a leg of lamb at the coat check? Is there a universally or commonly understood rule that such conduct is unacceptable at vegetarian restaurants? What if somebody takes vitamin pills at a vegetarian restaurant, and those pills contain meat byproducts? Is there some sort of expectation by the other customers that vitamin pills containing meat byproducts need to be declared at the door? What about the stomach contents of the diners in the restaurant? And yes, though it was dismissed early, I'd still like to know what ethical distinction permits leather shoes and handbags in a vegetarian restaurant but doesn't permit a jar containing a dead bird. The most important question, though, is whether or not it's okay to eat your leather handbag. Is it okay to bring the handbag, but not okay to ask the waiter to heat it up in the microwave so you can feed it to your baby? But I digress . . .

[slkinsey]

The most important question, though, is whether or not it's okay to eat your leather handbag. Is it okay to bring the handbag, but not okay to ask the waiter to heat it up in the microwave so you can feed it to your baby? But I digress . . .

Just for the record, I have always preferred leather handbag thinly sliced across the grain and served just below room temperature.

[TrishCT]

If you can find ONE menu item containing meat in ONE restaurant that ADVERTISES itself as vegetarian--I will concede that point.  Not otherwise.

Exactly what point do you think you'd be conceding? I don't think anybody has asked for a concession on the point that vegetarian restaurants don't serve meat, though if you go to the macrobiotic, vegetarian, Japanese (at least that's how I always see it listed in guides) restaurant Ozu on the Upper West Side, they have a small ghetto on the menu with a few salmon dishes. But what does that have to do with anything? The question here involves somebody bringing some meat-based baby food into a vegetarian restaurant. Do you believe there is a universal (or even common) assumption among vegetarian-restaurant consumers that the threshold of the restaurant marks a meat-free zone in all respects?

What if somebody goes to a vegetarian restaurant after shopping for groceries and leaves a leg of lamb at the coat check? Is there a universally or commonly understood rule that such conduct is unacceptable at vegetarian restaurants? What if somebody takes vitamin pills at a vegetarian restaurant, and those pills contain meat byproducts? Is there some sort of expectation by the other customers that vitamin pills containing meat byproducts need to be declared at the door? What about the stomach contents of the diners in the restaurant? And yes, though it was dismissed early, I'd still like to know what ethical distinction permits leather shoes and handbags in a vegetarian restaurant but doesn't permit a jar containing a dead bird. The most important question, though, is whether or not it's okay to eat your leather handbag. Is it okay to bring the handbag, but not okay to ask the waiter to heat it up in the microwave so you can feed it to your baby? But I digress . . .

Just wondering if the customer wanted a bottle warmed if that would also have been denied... Would the restaurant's decision depend on whether the bottle contained soy products (like Isomil), cow's milk, or breast milk (whatever the heck THAT is...)

The slope...slippery...

[Fat Guy]

Ms. Graham was asked to leave the establishment not because of the meat in her baby food per se, but other, subsequent factors, which have already been well-documented up-thread by those who were actually there.

I assign a high degree of credibility to the account being given here, precisely because it has been presented in an open and level-headed manner. My gut tells me it's the truth. But that's just my gut, and apparently yours too. Nothing at all has been "well-documented." We have one side of a story, that's all. We can choose to believe it. I choose to believe it. And so I'm glad they kicked that apparently crazy and abusive lady out of the restaurant. But we're way past that point now, because as you note the woman was not asked to leave the establishment because of the meat in her baby food per se. Nonetheless, I think we can still discuss the issue of meat in baby food as it pertains to a vegetarian restaurant's mission, and I certainly think we can discuss these larger issues of definitions and expectations. We can have an interesting discussion of internationally relevant food issues, instead of dwelling on what one rogue crank did at a restaurant in Wales.

[ronnie_suburban]

Ms. Graham was asked to leave the establishment not because of the meat in her baby food per se, but other, subsequent factors, which have already been well-documented up-thread by those who were actually there.

I assign a high degree of credibility to the account being given here, precisely because it has been presented in an open and level-headed manner. My gut tells me it's the truth. But that's just my gut, and apparently yours too. Nothing at all has been "well-documented." We have one side of a story, that's all. We can choose to believe it. I choose to believe it. And so I'm glad they kicked that apparently crazy and abusive lady out of the restaurant. But we're way past that point now, because as you note the woman was not asked to leave the establishment because of the meat in her baby food per se. Nonetheless, I think we can still discuss the issue of meat in baby food as it pertains to a vegetarian restaurant's mission, and I certainly think we can discuss these larger issues of definitions and expectations. We can have an interesting discussion of internationally relevant food issues, instead of dwelling on what one rogue crank did at a restaurant in Wales.

Well yeah, you're right...well-documented via personal accounts, albeit credible ones

=R=

[bergerka]

The question here involves somebody bringing some meat-based baby food into a vegetarian restaurant. Do you believe there is a universal (or even common) assumption among vegetarian-restaurant consumers that the threshold of the restaurant marks a meat-free zone in all respects?

What if somebody goes to a vegetarian restaurant after shopping for groceries and leaves a leg of lamb at the coat check? Is there a universally or commonly understood rule that such conduct is unacceptable at vegetarian restaurants? What if somebody takes vitamin pills at a vegetarian restaurant, and those pills contain meat byproducts? Is there some sort of expectation by the other customers that vitamin pills containing meat byproducts need to be declared at the door? What about the stomach contents of the diners in the restaurant? And yes, though it was dismissed early, I'd still like to know what ethical distinction permits leather shoes and handbags in a vegetarian restaurant but doesn't permit a jar containing a dead bird. The most important question, though, is whether or not it's okay to eat your leather handbag. Is it okay to bring the handbag, but not okay to ask the waiter to heat it up in the microwave so you can feed it to your baby? But I digress . . .

Well, frankly, and I'm emphatically not a vegetarian (as I believe was revealed more than adequately by the amount of pork I consumed yesterday), I think that if there is NOT such a common assumption, there ought to be. I would consider--and this is just my opinion, obviously--bringing meat into a vegetarian restaurant as rudeness on a level with bringing pork into a kosher restaurant, or wearing a fur coat to a PETA meeting. I think we're talking more a manners than a morals or rules question here, if you take my meaning.

These are all lifestyle choices we're talking about here. If you decide that keeping kosher is a necessary part of your religious beliefs, and you go to a kosher restaurant, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable expectation that the other patrons won't be asking the restaurant to heat up their pig-on-a-stick baby food (mmm, pig on a stick). If you decide that excluding meat and meat products from your life is a necessity, ethical or otherwise, and you go to a restaurant that specifically identifies itself as vegetarian, i.e. neither preparing nor serving meat products, then (IMO! IMO!) it seems to me perfectly reasonable that other patrons NOT be allowed to bring edible meat products into the restaurant, and indeed one would think a parent would have thought of that before and brought the organic corn and green bean mush, or whatever, instead. It isn't the same thing, I don't think, as walking into a restaurant that does serve meat and insisting that the other patrons eat only veggies--after all, you are in a place that is by its very description dedicated to your particular lifestyle choice. Besides, don't you you need to get that leg of lamb home and refrigerate it?

In the specific case detailed here, I do wonder what the woman's objection to meat is, since she obviously has no problem feeding it to her baby, but now I digress...

I'm not even going to get into the leather handbag and shoe discussion, as the only argument I can think of is the really really lame one that, well, leather shoes aren't intended to be edible, hence no one thinks of them (told you it was lame ). I've always found leather handbags too tough and stringy for my taste--I much prefer the cloth ones. Denim bags have a particularly nice texture, although they require copious amounts of salt.

K, who to the best of her knowledge has never been to a vegetarian restaurant.

[slkinsey]

These are all lifestyle choices we're talking about here.  If you decide that keeping kosher is a necessary part of your religious beliefs, and you go to a kosher restaurant, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable expectation that the other patrons won't be asking the restaurant to heat up their pig-on-a-stick baby food (mmm, pig on a stick).

Minor point here... as I believe FG pointed out earlier, many people believe that their religion, and whatever dietary guidelines may go along with it, are not a matter of choice. Whatever one may think about religion, this makes, say, keeping kosher fundamentally different from being a non-religion-based vegetarian.

This little digression has no bearing on your good point about the inherrent rudeness of bringing meat into a vegetarian restaurant (and especially expecting to be able to eat it).

[Fat Guy]

In any grade-school civics class, there will always be one wise-ass kid (I assume that was you, Sam; it certainly was me) who, in the lesson the First Amendment's free-exercise clause says, "Yeah, well, my religion is that I don't want to be in school anymore today." Part of growing up is, I think, learning that there's a bit of a difference between, on the one hand, the major organized religions that are thousands of years old and which form the core of the value systems of all the world's nations, and, on the other hand, what some kid in grade school says is his religion-du-jour or what anybody expresses as a personal dietary code.

Moreover, while I know plenty of people who keep kosher (and I assume this is the case for many Hindus and Moslems as well) who refuse to set foot in any restaurant that isn't kosher, and who refuse to have so much as a bite of food in any home that isn't strictly kosher (or insert the relevant religious doctrine here), I don't know a single vegetarian who won't eat vegetarian food in a regular restaurant provided that restaurant demonstrates some willingness to accommodate. The whole idea that, when a forbidden item enters the premises or touches a utensil, it somehow desecrates the whole operation is a religious way of thinking. I'm not sure what objection a non-religious vegetarian would have to eating vegetables cooked in a pan that has been thoroughly cleaned, even if that pan was once used to cook meat.

[tanabutler]

I would not want to judge someone's motivations for being a vegetarian. Even atheists can be completely moral, and who is to say that their integrity is any less important than an external influence like a religious decree?

"Lifestyle"? Not always. A deep commitment is a deep commitment, and it's no one else's place to judge or dismiss that.

(The kosher restaurant scenario? I wouldn't know much about what is and is not permitted, were I to visit one—I don't even know if I'm a shiksa or a goy). I would welcome an education in the event I went to a kosher establishment, and would welcome compassion and understanding even more.)

[rendezvous]

I think one of the main problems is that vegetarian restaurants generally are about more than just a choice in terms of food "style". Its not so much the meals themselves as everything that takes place behind them. Virtually every restaurant offers vegetarian options so its not for lack of choice elsewhere that people look to and use exclusively vegetarian premises to dine.

Vegetarian restaurants are certainly closer to kosher restaurants in terms of their purpose than they are to, say, italian or spanish restaurants. Whilst not everyone will have explicit expectations - there is a significant repetition of expectation for the meal content and the way the premises is run that can't be ignored.

We're going to be adding clear and explicit wording to the restaurant to make the meat free nature clearer for all as a direct result of the comments in this thread.

[bergerka]

Minor point here... as I believe FG pointed out earlier, many people believe that their religion, and whatever dietary guidelines may go along with it, are not a matter of choice.  Whatever one may think about religion, this makes, say, keeping kosher fundamentally different from being a non-religion-based vegetarian.

Ah. So should meat products be allowed inside a non-religion-based vegetarian restaurant, but not in a vegetarian restaurant catering to, say, Hindus? Very reasonable.

I don't believe it unreasonable to define keeping kosher as a "lifestyle choice," but I won't get into that argument, because I believe my point is still valid.

Let us say it this way...you may recognize the wording:

Many people believe that eating meat is wrong, and whatever dietary guidelines may go along with this belief (regardless of the reason for the belief), are not a matter of choice.

Or a different way:

It is not an unreasonable assumption that no pork would be allowed in a restaurant advertising itself as kosher, even though not all of its patrons may keep kosher on a regular basis (e.g. a nonkosher patron may certainly eat in a kosher restaurant), as the term "kosher" has easily recognizable associations with certain dietary rules and restrictions, hence it is a "common assumption" that certain foods will neither be served nor allowed.

It is also not an unreasonable assumption that no meat or meat products would be allowed in a restaurant that advertises itself as vegetarian, as the word "vegetarian" has easily recognizable associations with certain dietary rules and restrictions, hence it is (or should be) a common assumption that certain foods will neither be served nor allowed.

I don't believe that comparing a vegetarian restaurant to a so-called "vegetarian" who happens to eat chicken or fish is a valid analogy; rather, one ought to compare it with products that are marketed or sold as "vegetarian" in your grocery store. Which are not permitted to contain meat. Or meat products. You can buy meat elsewhere in the store, but it won't be contained within the product packaging. Similarly, you can go to a restaurant next door that serves meat, but you ought to have the manners and good sense not to bring it into a restaurant that--for whatever reason--defines itself by the fact that it does not serve meat or meat products.

K

[slkinsey]

I would not want to judge someone's motivations for being a vegetarian. Even atheists can be completely moral, and who is to say that their integrity is any less important than an external influence like a religious decree?

Oh... I completely agree. In fact, I don't think there is any reason to preface your remark with "even."

The point is this: Someone who is born/raised an orthodox Jew and who practices that religious philisophy may not feel like he has any choice in the matter of his religion. For him, he doesn't decide whether or not he is a kosher orthodox Jew, he simply is a kosher orthodox Jew. In this case it is not a matter of making a moral choice about whether or not to eat pork. In fact, from a purely moral standpoint, he may not think there is anything inherrently wrong with eating pork. But, nevertheless, he does not eat it because eating it goes against what he is.

For most non-religion-based vegetarians, it is not the case that they are vegetarians in the same sense. They have made a choice to be vegetarian for whatever their reasoning may be. It doesn't make one better than the other. In fact, one could argue that making a choice rather than following religious dogma is the more moral of the two and indeed one's moral convictions could be such that it doesn't seem to be a choice.

But the two things do strike me as fundamentally different.

[bergerka]

In any grade-school civics class, there will always be one wise-ass kid (I assume that was you, Sam; it certainly was me) who, in the lesson the First Amendment's free-exercise clause says, "Yeah, well, my religion is that I don't want to be in school anymore today." Part of growing up is, I think, learning that there's a bit of a difference between, on the one hand, the major organized religions that are thousands of years old and which form the core of the value systems of all the world's nations, and, on the other hand, what some kid in grade school says is his religion-du-jour or what anybody expresses as a personal dietary code.

Moreover, while I know plenty of people who keep kosher (and I assume this is the case for many Hindus and Moslems as well) who refuse to set foot in any restaurant that isn't kosher, and who refuse to have so much as a bite of food in any home that isn't strictly kosher (or insert the relevant religious doctrine here), I don't know a single vegetarian who won't eat vegetarian food in a regular restaurant provided that restaurant demonstrates some willingness to accommodate. The whole idea that, when a forbidden item enters the premises or touches a utensil, it somehow desecrates the whole operation is a religious way of thinking. I'm not sure what objection a non-religious vegetarian would have to eating vegetables cooked in a pan that has been thoroughly cleaned, even if that pan was once used to cook meat.

You have, however, totally missed my point.

"Personal dietary code," "religion-du-jour" or whatever you may choose to call it, the idea that meat or meat products would be--or should be--welcome in an atmosphere that defines itself as vegetarian is rude. Nor did I say that a vegetarian WOULDN'T eat in a restaurant that otherwise serves meat. I was ONLY addressing the question of whether or not one ought to bring meat into a vegetarian restaurant. I don't really care what vegetarians do or don't eat elsewhere.

I don't really think the point here is whether or not YOU consider vegetarianism to be a deep commitment or the equivalent of the wise-ass kid in grade school. Furthermore, I think anyone who brought your suggested leg of lamb into a vegetarian restaurant would be the equivalent of the kid who deliberately tries to piss off the kids on the playground who espouse a philosophy with which he disagrees. Eventually, that kid gets a really nasty wedgie.

Tana, you said:

>"Lifestyle"? Not always. A deep commitment is a deep commitment, and it's no one else's place to judge or dismiss that. <

I was neither judging nor dismissing it by calling it a "lifestyle choice," and I'm sorry you took it that way. Lifestyle choices are frequently deeply felt and committed to, and I do not feel the term implies any shallowness. Being an opera singer is a "lifestyle choice," and I would bristle mightily if anyone attempted to dismiss it (I don't really give a damn if they judge it or not).

[slkinsey]

It is also not an unreasonable assumption that no meat or meat products would be allowed in a restaurant that advertises itself as vegetarian, as the word "vegetarian" has easily recognizable associations with certain dietary rules and restrictions, hence it is (or should be) a common assumption that certain foods will neither be served nor allowed.

The evidence would seem to indicate that is is not the case that "the word 'vegetarian' has easily recognizable associations with certain dietary rules and restrictions," as there are plenty of people who call themselves "vegetarians" who eat fish and other animal and animal-derived products. We also have the example of restaurants (one was cited by FG) that are described as "vegetarian" and yet serve some animal products.

Furthermore, where is the line drawn? Are "vegetarian restaurants" allowed to use butter, cheese and eggs? If not, then there are an awful lot of restaurants calling themselves "vegetarian" that don't fit the bill.

[ingridsf]

And we haven't even begun to discuss the propriety of breast-feeding in a vegan restaurant.

[Fat Guy]

It is also not an unreasonable assumption that no meat or meat products would be allowed in a restaurant that advertises itself as vegetarian, as the word "vegetarian" has easily recognizable associations with certain dietary rules and restrictions, hence it is (or should be) a common assumption that certain foods will neither be served nor allowed.

It's a big jump from "served" to "allowed" -- a jump that I don't think the evidence supports. Again, on the Web site of that vegetarian certification group that RendezVous relies upon, the hygeine standards for vegetarian restaurants state:

Work surfaces and chopping boards, utensils and all other kitchen equipment and facilities must either be kept separate from those used for non-vegetarian food preparation, or cleaned thoroughly before vegetarian food preparation.

(again, my emphasis)

As far as I can tell, this is the rule for restaurants and caterers, not for product manufacturers. The page in question says to look at a different page if you're a manufacturer.

So we have an organization -- a fairly strict one it seems -- that claims "We set standards for what is truly vegetarian," and this group seems to be totally fine with, for example, heating some chicken-based baby food in a pot of hot water and then running the pot through a commercial dishwasher. That would qualify as vegetarian by the standards of The Vegetarian Society of the United Kingdom.