SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Clearly Veg reports:
Barbara Hendricks, Germany's environment minister, has banned meat in all official functions and called for only vegetarian food to be served. The ban became clear through an email "to department heads from a senior civil servant in the environment ministry", according to The Telegraph . The e-mail noted that the ministry had a responsibility and should set an example to combat the "negative effects of meat consumption", with a statement by the ministry reading:
"We're not telling anyone what they should eat. But we want to set a good example for climate protection, because vegetarian food is more climate-friendly than meat and fish."
Unsurprisingly, the ban has caused a lot of controversy. Minister of food and agriculture Christian Schmidt, who has previously stated that he will push for a ban on "misleading" vegan labels such as vegan curry sausages, stated that he will not be having this "Veggie Day through the back door", and that "meat and fish are also part of a balanced diet".
[Ed Note: This submission vandalized by cmn32480.]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BenJeremy on Friday February 24 2017, @01:23PM
Actually, it is. Our company, for example, provides inclusive meals for everybody when they provide those meals. There are vegan, vegetarian, and meat options.
What this ministry is doing is paying for vegetarians' lunches and dinners during those official functions, while EXCLUDING meat eaters from the same benefit. I'd argue either all or none. Excluding one groups specifically from benefiting from the "free meal" provided out of the ministry's coffers is most certainly over the line, and the rationalization is simply over the top.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 24 2017, @04:10PM
What this ministry is doing is paying for vegetarians' lunches and dinners during those official functions, while EXCLUDING meat eaters from the same benefit. I'd argue either all or none.
I'm assuming you are a meat-eater. Do you have meat at every single meal? Will you suffer some sort of medical condition if your "meat needs" aren't met?
I personally love meats of various kinds. But both because of expense and nutritional concerns, I generally eat it at only a few meals per week. I've shown up to catered dinners and meals at lots of places that have no "meat option," and I don't have a fit. I like all kinds of food. I wasn't aware that meat-eaters had some sort of special dietary requirement that they NEED to consume meat all the time or they will keel over or something.
I'd argue either all or none. Excluding one groups specifically from benefiting from the "free meal" provided out of the ministry's coffers is most certainly over the line, and the rationalization is simply over the top.
We can argue about the validity for rationalization for it, but I really don't see how it harming or "excluding" meat eaters to give them a few more vegetables. Are there really people out there who exclusively ONLY ever eat meat? If so, I suppose an argument can be made that those people are excluded. But there are all sorts of potential reasons to avoid offering a "meat option." Personally, if I were a minister, I'd point out this is also an economy issue: meat almost always costs more, regardless of environmental impact. And frankly, I am grateful for the vegetarian dinners and events I attended, because they made me realize there's lots of great food out there, and having a hunk of meat is only one limited way of conceiving the "center" of a meal. (When I was growing up, having some sort of meat at the center of dinner was pretty pervasive; my parents wouldn't have understood living vegetarian, and neither would I have until I started realizing how many great meals I can make without meat at the center of a meal.)
Meat through most of history was a luxury. I can understand the reaction to this, particularly from meat-eaters who seethe at the vegetarians who ask for their special treatment and "vegetarian options." But I also just don't get the similarity. People who are vegetarian or vegan often are so for religious, cultural, ethical, or nutritional reasons. And I don't think it's an ethical lapse to NOT have a "vegan" option -- seriously, I've been with vegetarian or vegan friends a couple times at a BBQ joint, and there's basically nothing on the menu for them. That's not the BBQ restaurant's fault, and while it's nice to options for various diners, I don't think it should be required of all restaurants or something.
Also, does it really violate your religion or morality to NOT be served meat? Perhaps I'm just not sufficiently "pro-meat" to understand this. I really do LOVE meat, but I eat meals without it all the time. I don't see why I have the right to force anyone to serve it to me at a free meal.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday February 24 2017, @07:08PM
Well, at one time Eskimo, or possibly it was Inuit, diet consisted solely of meat for about 6-8 months out of the year. (IIUC, this only works if you eat raw fish guts.) And Scandinavian traditional crusine was in places heavily meat/fish based.
Outside of that I don't think anyone had an entirely meat based diet. In pre-refirgeration times there were people who practiced conspicuous consumption by having meat at every meat (because you couldn't save it very long).
That's all I can think of. I do wonder, however, whether she's considering milk to be non-vegetarian...but not enough to check.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday February 24 2017, @08:05PM
Well, at one time Eskimo, or possibly it was Inuit, diet consisted solely of meat for about 6-8 months out of the year. (IIUC, this only works if you eat raw fish guts.) And Scandinavian traditional crusine was in places heavily meat/fish based.
Being "heavy" on the meat/fish or even having it exclusively for part of the year isn't quite the same as requiring it at every meal.
In pre-refirgeration times there were people who practiced conspicuous consumption by having meat at every meat (because you couldn't save it very long).
Yeah, that's simply not true. The very fact that you had to literally slaughter an animal and consume it quickly meant that meat was a rarer thing, particularly in post-agricultural societies. You kept your cows and chickens and goats and sheep for their milk and eggs and wool and such; killing them wasn't something you could generally afford to do unless you were blessed with lots of extra animals around. There's a reason the Bible makes such a big deal about how they "killed the fatted calf" when the Prodigal Son returns: it was an unusual thing done for special feast, not a daily occurrence.
And actually, there were plenty of ways to preserve meat before refrigeration. Just a few that immediately come to mind: Drying, smoking, curing with salt or brine, using a "confit" system by cooking and preserving food anaerobically under congealed fat, and of course in some of the Scandinavian and Inuit cultures you actually mention, there were methods of fermentation and treatment with harsher chemicals (like lye). To this day, Alaska has by far the highest number of botulism cases compared to its population in the U.S., due to the use of traditional meat preservation techniques (some of which obviously don't actually work so well, but that's what people used to do to survive).
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday February 25 2017, @01:08AM
I believe I did state "conspicuous consumption". It wasn't something the common folk could do, but a Roman Emperor or a French King could do it...and some of them did. I wouldn't swear that there weren't any Barons or Merchant Princes that did it, either.
P.S.: There *were* ways of preserving meat so that it didn't need to be eaten immediately, but those weren't used in "conspicuous consumption". Salt pork, various jerkeys, etc. The Romans pickled dormouse in honey, but I'm not sure that doesn't count as "conspicuous consumption" even though it preserved the meat, because honey was quite extravagantly expensive. (At least during the middle ages they didn't know how to harvest the honey without destroying the hive...if not the bees, at least the place they called home.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday February 24 2017, @04:58PM
What this ministry is doing is paying for vegetarians' lunches and dinners during those official functions, while EXCLUDING meat eaters from the same benefit. I'd argue either all or none. Excluding one groups specifically from benefiting from the "free meal"
Dude, you're not going to explode from eating vegetables. Your argument is bull.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by BenJeremy on Monday February 27 2017, @12:47PM
Not going to explode, no, but thanks for the hyperbole.
However, I prefer not to eat vegetarian, and in fact, many vegetarian dishes make me want to puke, so I have that going for me.
Vegetarianism is a choice, as is my own dietary choices. Being forced to eat vegetarian when I choose not to is the same as a vegetarian being force to eat meat when they choose not to. I dislike both situations.
Why is this so hard for vegetarians to understand? Oh, that's right... they want to convert as many people and be as obnoxious as possible in going about that task.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday February 28 2017, @06:50PM
I think the Venn diagram for "may or may not eat meat but don't mind vegetables" is a lot bigger than "eats meat and actively takes offense at vegetables."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday February 24 2017, @06:56PM
What this ministry is doing is paying for vegetarians' lunches and dinners during those official functions, while EXCLUDING meat eaters from the same benefit.
They aren't excluded. They get the same lunch paid for as everyone else.