![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the_fantastic_ms_foxWhile I'm sympathetic to the frustration of the waitress, I wish articles like this would try to solve the problem by stressing the difference between an "allergy" and an "intolerance" or "ethical/religious/health preference" rather than blaming people. I am alarmed by the larger cultural backlash against perceived "hypocrisy" when someone strives for ethical and/or healthy behaviour and is only 90% successful. In doing this we create a society that says "it's better to ignore health and ethics entirely than to pursue them imperfectly."
I've even been called out at a conference in front of a room full of people for behaviour roughly relating to the below - which I see as not only internally consistent, but also compassionate.
----
I request vegan food and am lactose-intolerant, but I will have a taste of someone else's cheesecake, and two days ago I ate some steak. Many people ask "why?"
(1) I'm a utilitarian, not a vegan. I never claim to be vegan, I just ask for vegan food. Ethics are, for me, not about the symbolic value of a behaviour but pertain to the consequences of my actions. When I request or order food, someone goes out and buys it on my behalf. My choice fuels an economy - and it's my choice as to whether that economy runs on animal abuse or not. So that steak that I ate? It was from someone else's plate - they were about to be throw it out. And if I order a salad and, after three bites, notice that someone put bacon in it? I could send my half-eaten meal back, but they can't exactly serve it to someone else can they? (...unless it was in this one restaurant I worked at... and later, like most of the staff, quit - but that's another story). When I buy groceries, sometimes I screw up and buy salad dressing where the 35th ingredient is "egg solids." In all cases, the harm is already done, and I can choose whether the animal product winds up in me or in a landfill (in most restaurants) or in the compost (in most Vancouver households).
When asked for my dietary preferences at conferences and on sets, I have tried actually denoting what a utilitarian diet consists of, but there is usually not enough space on a form to do this. And even when I write it down, people on the other end either don't get it at all or draw the strange conclusion that they are obliged to go out of their way to find expensive specialty products (when I'm happy with lentils, shredded greens, and brown rice - which is about the cheapest meal you *can* make). So I just say "vegan" and I do my best to pass on the *numerous* other things that are proscribed. I've heard that people who keep modest kosher might wisely do the same - although, for some reason, their elaborate exegesis from one mitzvah is considered to be "more legitimate" than a meticulous and quantifiable ethical system.
Still, I see that even when I don't request vegan food, but just order the vegan option on the menu *without ever stating a dietary preference*, people are quick to sharply question what they perceive as a violation of a vegan diet. This is especially disturbing, as it implies that you *shouldn't* eat vegan food at all, unless you are 100% vegan. Which is to say that most people are obliged to eat animal products at every meal. That's a real WTF moment - it seems that people have coded eating a vegan meal as an statement about their identity rather than an option available to all.
(2) Lactose intolerance is not an allergy. I can eat lactose just as most people can eat legume-derived oligosaccharides. A tiny amount - like a small bite of the cheesecake that someone else doesn't want - causes no noticeable effect. A small amount isn't unpleasant for me... but it is a unpleasant for someone sitting beside me - and I feel it's a little unkind to inflict on someone. A large amount will cause my intestines to do interesting and personally unpleasant things.
---
And as far as the gluten thing goes. Because of intensive genetic modification (through direct resequencing or just heavy breeding), many of the cereals that we eat today are chemically weird and seem implicated in new and interesting health problems. So I don't blame people for cutting down on them *before* they develop the health problems that turn a preference into an allergy rather than afterwards
I've even been called out at a conference in front of a room full of people for behaviour roughly relating to the below - which I see as not only internally consistent, but also compassionate.
----
I request vegan food and am lactose-intolerant, but I will have a taste of someone else's cheesecake, and two days ago I ate some steak. Many people ask "why?"
(1) I'm a utilitarian, not a vegan. I never claim to be vegan, I just ask for vegan food. Ethics are, for me, not about the symbolic value of a behaviour but pertain to the consequences of my actions. When I request or order food, someone goes out and buys it on my behalf. My choice fuels an economy - and it's my choice as to whether that economy runs on animal abuse or not. So that steak that I ate? It was from someone else's plate - they were about to be throw it out. And if I order a salad and, after three bites, notice that someone put bacon in it? I could send my half-eaten meal back, but they can't exactly serve it to someone else can they? (...unless it was in this one restaurant I worked at... and later, like most of the staff, quit - but that's another story). When I buy groceries, sometimes I screw up and buy salad dressing where the 35th ingredient is "egg solids." In all cases, the harm is already done, and I can choose whether the animal product winds up in me or in a landfill (in most restaurants) or in the compost (in most Vancouver households).
When asked for my dietary preferences at conferences and on sets, I have tried actually denoting what a utilitarian diet consists of, but there is usually not enough space on a form to do this. And even when I write it down, people on the other end either don't get it at all or draw the strange conclusion that they are obliged to go out of their way to find expensive specialty products (when I'm happy with lentils, shredded greens, and brown rice - which is about the cheapest meal you *can* make). So I just say "vegan" and I do my best to pass on the *numerous* other things that are proscribed. I've heard that people who keep modest kosher might wisely do the same - although, for some reason, their elaborate exegesis from one mitzvah is considered to be "more legitimate" than a meticulous and quantifiable ethical system.
Still, I see that even when I don't request vegan food, but just order the vegan option on the menu *without ever stating a dietary preference*, people are quick to sharply question what they perceive as a violation of a vegan diet. This is especially disturbing, as it implies that you *shouldn't* eat vegan food at all, unless you are 100% vegan. Which is to say that most people are obliged to eat animal products at every meal. That's a real WTF moment - it seems that people have coded eating a vegan meal as an statement about their identity rather than an option available to all.
(2) Lactose intolerance is not an allergy. I can eat lactose just as most people can eat legume-derived oligosaccharides. A tiny amount - like a small bite of the cheesecake that someone else doesn't want - causes no noticeable effect. A small amount isn't unpleasant for me... but it is a unpleasant for someone sitting beside me - and I feel it's a little unkind to inflict on someone. A large amount will cause my intestines to do interesting and personally unpleasant things.
---
And as far as the gluten thing goes. Because of intensive genetic modification (through direct resequencing or just heavy breeding), many of the cereals that we eat today are chemically weird and seem implicated in new and interesting health problems. So I don't blame people for cutting down on them *before* they develop the health problems that turn a preference into an allergy rather than afterwards