# Vegetarians



## jossytt

Just for the record I have no problem with vegetarians (bare with me) I'm a chef in a very busy restaurant and veggies are about 10% of my yearly trade which is great, and I genuinely don't have a dislike for any dietary requirement

but what I really dont get is you make a big fuss about not eating meat, yet have you ever stopped to consider what your shoes are made of? or you handbag? or your coat or the tube of glue in the cupboard and yes even alot of new world wine has fish bladder in it.

I mean are these people just seeking attention?

I have even had some customers who have told me that they are allergic to meat!! ALLERGIC your telling me out of the 1000's of different animals you can eat your allergic to ALL of them!?!  i mean come on seriously?

My point is this think before you make a lifestyle choice of wether you actually are legit or just wanting to be a pain in the ass


----------



## John-H

Are you sure there's no problem? I suppose you couldn't claim to be a vegetarian if you eat your own shoes but just wearing shoes that are made from a bi-product of the meat industry provides little support for it. If nobody eat meat somebody would develop an alternative to leather because it would no longer be cheap. As for glue, I'm struggling to think of an animal based glue anyone is likely to possess these days.

People might chose not to eat meat because they don't like the taste or handling it. They may chose not to for moral, religious, or political reasons. They may make other related choices in pursuit of their aim but perfection is not possible - walk past a fish mongers and you'll smell fish and therefore have ingested some component of fish but it would be ridiculous to give up your way of life for such small inconsistencies

If you set your rules too strict you'll fail but less strict and you may more readily achieve most of what you want and be able to sustain it. That's really a choice for you to make and not others to make for you.


----------



## jossytt

Not exactly the respose i was hoping for :lol:

My opinion was over exaggerated due to the forum room we're in hoping to get comic response for a mild annoyance.

I see veggies as more the irritating aunt that comes to stay and dosnt like anything about everything, but not in an aggressive sense.

Perhaps I mis interpreted this room so i apologise if i offended anyone.

However I do genuinely believe people need a bit more education about the world around them for example You telling more you dont like the taste of any meat or fish etc thats cooked in variety of different ways including smoked, fryed, braised, roasted, poached chefs wouldnt exsist if it were all the same texture, flavour and smell


----------



## Basscube

Vegetarians are gay :lol:

My gf apparently didn't like Lamb untill she met me and ate lamb that was cooked and seasoned well  now she loves it lol. I suppose if you have a bad experience as a child maybe that puts you off?

remember as kids my sister's mate was vegetarian for half a day. We had roast beef that evening and the smell she couldn't resist haha :roll:


----------



## CWM3

Mate, with you, every time you go to or have a dinner party, some sad f**ker is sat there slurping their way through a plate of boiled veggies, knowing they have stressed the hosts who have struggled to come up with a meat substitute and failed, so its rice and veg again, but lets not forget it's spawned a massive industry around it so someones is profitting from it.

Just making me wonder though, does their s**t smell, rabbits don't and they eat veg only.


----------



## John-H

jossytt said:


> Not exactly the respose i was hoping for :lol:
> 
> My opinion was over exaggerated due to the forum room we're in hoping to get comic response for a mild annoyance.
> 
> I see veggies as more the irritating aunt that comes to stay and dosnt like anything about everything, but not in an aggressive sense.
> 
> Perhaps I mis interpreted this room so i apologise if i offended anyone.
> 
> However I do genuinely believe people need a bit more education about the world around them for example You telling more you dont like the taste of any meat or fish etc thats cooked in variety of different ways including smoked, fryed, braised, roasted, poached chefs wouldnt exsist if it were all the same texture, flavour and smell


Not at all - It was late and I'd just put a very difficult washing machine back together. From that perspective I realise you were putting a spin on re-cycling an old argument, banging a big agitator drum and pouring conditionioner onto the fabric of your argument. I'm sure it will all come out in the wash. Now, what address can I send my old shoes to? :wink:


----------



## John-H

CWM3 said:


> Mate, with you, every time you go to or have a dinner party, some sad f**ker is sat there slurping their way through a plate of boiled veggies, knowing they have stressed the hosts who have struggled to come up with a meat substitute and failed, so its rice and veg again, but lets not forget it's spawned a massive industry around it so someones is profitting from it.
> 
> Just making me wonder though, does their s**t smell, rabbits don't and they eat veg only.


What did you just call me?  The massive industry is the meat industry clearly. For your information the smell is due to the putrifaction of flesh in the gut - obviously worse if you eat meat - think cats and dogs and you get the idea :wink:


----------



## Nilesong

My wife has been a veggie for over 30 years. I'm not - I eat meat occasionally. She does, however eat fish! That makes her a pescatarian (don't ask me, I still don't fully understand.) She loves fish, which is just as well, as a lot of restaurants in this country have only one, maybe two dishes at most that she *can* eat when we go out. If she didn't eat fish, we probably wouldn't bother going out to eat. It seems the French are crap at veggie dishes! Try getting a decent salad in an up-market French restaurant! It's a meat-fest!!

She wears leather shoes because leather seems to be the best material for them. Plastic shoes are not ideal in summer as you can imagine. She owns a few leather handbags, hell, she even owns a leather jacket! Function over form. Leather is a very durable by-product of meat, allowing your own skin to breathe while keeping water out. Indeed, it would be ideal if some one came up with a synthetic material that had the same properties, but until then leather is best.
As said, I haven't seen a pot of Cow Gum for years! :lol:

She would never impose her beliefs on me or anybody else for that matter. No demands are ever made on kitchen staff.

Tell me, as a chef in a busy restaurant, why, when there are so many amazing vegetarian recipes in cook books from all countries of the world, does she have the choice of a sweaty vegetarian lasagne or a sad looking goats cheese tart to choose from every time??

Lack of imagination I think.


----------



## John-H

Could do with a few more vegie options on menus for sure. I find most places will oblige if you ask and of course if you go to an Indian restraunt, as most of India is vegetarian there's no problem adapting a westernised menu to suit. Hmmm... Naga :twisted:


----------



## CWM3

John-H said:


> CWM3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mate, with you, every time you go to or have a dinner party, some sad f**ker is sat there slurping their way through a plate of boiled veggies, knowing they have stressed the hosts who have struggled to come up with a meat substitute and failed, so its rice and veg again, but lets not forget it's spawned a massive industry around it so someones is profitting from it.
> 
> Just making me wonder though, does their s**t smell, rabbits don't and they eat veg only.
> 
> 
> 
> What did you just call me?  The massive industry is the meat industry clearly. For your information the smell is due to the putrifaction of flesh in the gut - obviously worse if you eat meat - think cats and dogs and you get the idea :wink:
Click to expand...

John............I am a meat eater mate.....but I draw the line at eating my pets


----------



## WozzaTT

My girlfriend is a vegetarian (who eats fish ) but if you ask her why she's one she can't particularly say. She keeps saying she may go back to eating chicken as long as the meat's from free-range hens, but she never does.

I do find it a bit annoying - humans are omnivores and designed to eat meat. Most of the meat that we eat comes from animals that are bred for the purpose and so I never understand those who say they are vegetarian because they are animal lovers; the animals wouldn't have had life to begin with if it weren't for meat eaters.

It's not 100% healthy either - a friend of mine is a vegetarian and is just about to have her first child but the doctor advised her to eat meat during the pregnancy if she could, so she did!

Fair enough if you just don't like the taste of it.


----------



## Nilesong

Basscube said:


> Vegetarians are gay


What???? 
I suppose there are some veggies that are gay, but please! :lol:



CWM3 said:


> the hosts who have struggled to come up with a meat substitute and failed


Why the struggle? Why meat substitute? Most veggies don't eat 'meat substitute.' What's the point?




























These are just a few. 

Or if you're too lazy to go out, buy a book and treat your veggie friends or family to a culinary delight, the Interwebs has a wealth of great recipes just a click or two away.


----------



## Elite0777

jossytt said:


> I mean are these people just seeking attention?
> 
> I have even had some customers who have told me that they are allergic to meat!! ALLERGIC your telling me out of the 1000's of different animals you can eat your allergic to ALL of them!?!  i mean come on seriously?
> 
> My point is this think before you make a lifestyle choice of wether you actually are legit or just wanting to be a pain in the ass


Spot on! After attention 
Cooking for them is a pain. Line them up and shoot them all ; )


----------



## John-H

As for how we are "designed" - we could have a debate about evolution and our vegetarian based ape ancestory - how we are not really fast enough to catch animals and only really did so when we developed tools, how we don't have the teeth for eating raw meat and how that only became practical with the ability to create fire to break it down, how we have colour vision to identify ripe fruit (unlike meat eaters who see in black and white) and how we have long guts which are designed to digest vegetable based food (unlike short meat eater guts) which then cause us problems on a western based meat diet with meat spending too long in the gut, degrading, producing toxins and causing colon cancer, unlike in eastern cultures where much less meat is consumed. It's only a few hundred thousand years since we developed tools and I'd question how much we have evolved in that time to adapt. We lost some hair, some of us more than others but how much has our physiology adapted? The health aspect in this lifestyle choice is another consideration.


----------



## Nilesong

Elite0777 said:


> Spot on! After attention
> Cooking for them is a pain. Line them up and shoot them all ; )


Genius! :roll:


----------



## Elite0777

Shoot them all and eat them! ; )


----------



## higsta

> My point is this think before you make a lifestyle choice of wether you actually are legit or just wanting to be a pain in the ass


Who makes lifestyle choices just to be "a pain in the ass"?

:?


----------



## BrianR

higsta said:


> My point is this think before you make a lifestyle choice of wether you actually are legit or just wanting to be a pain in the ass
> 
> 
> 
> Who makes lifestyle choices just to be "a pain in the ass"?
> 
> :?
Click to expand...

My sister in law - f#ck me if it eats sleeps or sh*ts she disagrees with talking to it, playing with it or eating it - I hope she joins this forum and reads this - 'You hate meat? Well we f#cking hate you'!!! - Please don't tell my missus I said that


----------



## higsta

Isn't that a personality issue not a lifestyle choice? :lol:


----------



## BrianR

higsta said:


> Isn't that a personality issue not a lifestyle choice? :lol:


Unfprtunately that personality disorder drives the lifestyle choices - maybe thats the same for all of them - or maybe they are right and we are the nutters :lol:


----------



## higsta

I support the Vegetarians... My daughters one :wink:


----------



## CWM3

BrianR said:


> higsta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is this think before you make a lifestyle choice of wether you actually are legit or just wanting to be a pain in the ass
> 
> 
> 
> Who makes lifestyle choices just to be "a pain in the ass"?
> 
> :?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My sister in law - f#ck me if it eats sleeps or sh*ts she disagrees with talking to it, playing with it or eating it - I hope she joins this forum and reads this - 'You hate meat? Well we f#cking hate you'!!! - Please don't tell my missus I said that
Click to expand...


----------



## jossytt

Nilesong said:


> My wife has been a veggie for over 30 years. I'm not - I eat meat occasionally. She does, however eat fish! That makes her a pescatarian (don't ask me, I still don't fully understand.) She loves fish, which is just as well, as a lot of restaurants in this country have only one, maybe two dishes at most that she *can* eat when we go out. If she didn't eat fish, we probably wouldn't bother going out to eat. It seems the French are crap at veggie dishes! Try getting a decent salad in an up-market French restaurant! It's a meat-fest!!
> 
> She wears leather shoes because leather seems to be the best material for them. Plastic shoes are not ideal in summer as you can imagine. She owns a few leather handbags, hell, she even owns a leather jacket! Function over form. Leather is a very durable by-product of meat, allowing your own skin to breathe while keeping water out. Indeed, it would be ideal if some one came up with a synthetic material that had the same properties, but until then leather is best.
> As said, I haven't seen a pot of Cow Gum for years! :lol:
> 
> She would never impose her beliefs on me or anybody else for that matter. No demands are ever made on kitchen staff.
> 
> Tell me, as a chef in a busy restaurant, why, when there are so many amazing vegetarian recipes in cook books from all countries of the world, does she have the choice of a sweaty vegetarian lasagne or a sad looking goats cheese tart to choose from every time??
> 
> Lack of imagination I think.


I couldn't agree more about the lack of imagination from some kitchens however me and my team produce vegetarian freindly dishes that many non veggies eat, the trick in catering is to maximise profit and minimise waste hence why some chefs make little or no effort and you get a dish that has been made a week ago, luckly for me i have alot of local fresh produce on my doorstep to play with so I fully take advantage and change my menu every fortnight to keep things interesting.

The point I'm getting at is most veggies seem to think by not eating meat they're saving all the animals from pain and suffering, which is irrelevant these days due to strict laws in abattoirs to prevent unnecessary suffering. However I dont think people realise the sheer amount of animal byproducts that we use unknowingly. which include sweets, makeup, wine, clothes and MANY more.

Like i said I have no problem with vegetarians, I just like to moan about them every now and again for giving me a hard time :lol:


----------



## Gazzer

errrrrrrr Jossy me owld spunk monkey, isn't a vegetarian just someone that doesn't eat meat and the one you mean is a vegan?
they not only don't eat meat but hate all meat products including leather fur oh and just to prove how mental they are only use soya milk :?

keep ranting mucker..........i loved the curry i had at yours on the day out, lovely place with great food. just a shame it has 20 million dogs bloody barking around the corner lol


----------



## YELLOW_TT

More chance of me becoming a Cannibal than a vegi


----------



## Gazzer

YELLOW_TT said:


> More chance of me becoming a Cannibal than a vegi


MPM= Andy meat pie man lol


----------



## jossytt

Gazzer said:


> errrrrrrr Jossy me owld spunk monkey, isn't a vegetarian just someone that doesn't eat meat and the one you mean is a vegan?
> they not only don't eat meat but hate all meat products including leather fur oh and just to prove how mental they are only use soya milk :?
> 
> keep ranting mucker..........i loved the curry i had at yours on the day out, lovely place with great food. just a shame it has 20 million dogs bloody barking around the corner lol


dogs are gone now needed more curry :lol: but seriously dogs are gone now used to be a kennel was its last week


----------



## Gazzer

tbh bud........where it is based and the menu.......you need to coach them in and rake the bucks in.


----------



## John-H

jossytt said:


> Nilesong said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife has been a veggie for over 30 years. I'm not - I eat meat occasionally. She does, however eat fish! That makes her a pescatarian (don't ask me, I still don't fully understand.) She loves fish, which is just as well, as a lot of restaurants in this country have only one, maybe two dishes at most that she *can* eat when we go out. If she didn't eat fish, we probably wouldn't bother going out to eat. It seems the French are crap at veggie dishes! Try getting a decent salad in an up-market French restaurant! It's a meat-fest!!
> 
> She wears leather shoes because leather seems to be the best material for them. Plastic shoes are not ideal in summer as you can imagine. She owns a few leather handbags, hell, she even owns a leather jacket! Function over form. Leather is a very durable by-product of meat, allowing your own skin to breathe while keeping water out. Indeed, it would be ideal if some one came up with a synthetic material that had the same properties, but until then leather is best.
> As said, I haven't seen a pot of Cow Gum for years! :lol:
> 
> She would never impose her beliefs on me or anybody else for that matter. No demands are ever made on kitchen staff.
> 
> Tell me, as a chef in a busy restaurant, why, when there are so many amazing vegetarian recipes in cook books from all countries of the world, does she have the choice of a sweaty vegetarian lasagne or a sad looking goats cheese tart to choose from every time??
> 
> Lack of imagination I think.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more about the lack of imagination from some kitchens however me and my team produce vegetarian freindly dishes that many non veggies eat, the trick in catering is to maximise profit and minimise waste hence why some chefs make little or no effort and you get a dish that has been made a week ago, luckly for me i have alot of local fresh produce on my doorstep to play with so I fully take advantage and change my menu every fortnight to keep things interesting.
> 
> The point I'm getting at is most veggies seem to think by not eating meat they're saving all the animals from pain and suffering, which is irrelevant these days due to strict laws in abattoirs to prevent unnecessary suffering. However I dont think people realise the sheer amount of animal byproducts that we use unknowingly. which include sweets, makeup, wine, clothes and MANY more.
> 
> Like i said I have no problem with vegetarians, I just like to moan about them every now and again for giving me a hard time :lol:
Click to expand...

I guess if you use fresh produce you don't want my old shoes then :wink:

Seriously though, if someone decides not to eat or buy meat then they do have a proportionate effect - it's why you cater for vegetarians in your restaurant etc. I guess if everyone decided to be vegetarian the supply would follow demand accordingly. It follows surely, that if you didn't eat meat because of the belief that animals suffer, lets say through the whole process of rearing and the lead up to the final slaughter - so not just the act of slaughter (although I don't think that is without pain even if momentary) - then would you not be consistent and proportionate in your aim, your influence and your belief?

Anyway, you mentioned curry. Do you do hot curries? - any interesting chillies by any chance?


----------



## Gazzer

Joss................John is a mental heat merchant!!!! his taste buds are so burnt off he can no longer determine salt from sugar :lol: now i suggest you do a dish that is tasty but dbl hard bastard hot and send him a portion........i will happily pay for the postage if you want mucker.


----------



## jossytt

John-H said:


> jossytt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nilesong said:
> 
> 
> 
> My wife has been a veggie for over 30 years. I'm not - I eat meat occasionally. She does, however eat fish! That makes her a pescatarian (don't ask me, I still don't fully understand.) She loves fish, which is just as well, as a lot of restaurants in this country have only one, maybe two dishes at most that she *can* eat when we go out. If she didn't eat fish, we probably wouldn't bother going out to eat. It seems the French are crap at veggie dishes! Try getting a decent salad in an up-market French restaurant! It's a meat-fest!!
> 
> She wears leather shoes because leather seems to be the best material for them. Plastic shoes are not ideal in summer as you can imagine. She owns a few leather handbags, hell, she even owns a leather jacket! Function over form. Leather is a very durable by-product of meat, allowing your own skin to breathe while keeping water out. Indeed, it would be ideal if some one came up with a synthetic material that had the same properties, but until then leather is best.
> As said, I haven't seen a pot of Cow Gum for years! :lol:
> 
> She would never impose her beliefs on me or anybody else for that matter. No demands are ever made on kitchen staff.
> 
> Tell me, as a chef in a busy restaurant, why, when there are so many amazing vegetarian recipes in cook books from all countries of the world, does she have the choice of a sweaty vegetarian lasagne or a sad looking goats cheese tart to choose from every time??
> 
> Lack of imagination I think.
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't agree more about the lack of imagination from some kitchens however me and my team produce vegetarian freindly dishes that many non veggies eat, the trick in catering is to maximise profit and minimise waste hence why some chefs make little or no effort and you get a dish that has been made a week ago, luckly for me i have alot of local fresh produce on my doorstep to play with so I fully take advantage and change my menu every fortnight to keep things interesting.
> 
> The point I'm getting at is most veggies seem to think by not eating meat they're saving all the animals from pain and suffering, which is irrelevant these days due to strict laws in abattoirs to prevent unnecessary suffering. However I dont think people realise the sheer amount of animal byproducts that we use unknowingly. which include sweets, makeup, wine, clothes and MANY more.
> 
> Like i said I have no problem with vegetarians, I just like to moan about them every now and again for giving me a hard time :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess if you use fresh produce you don't want my old shoes then :wink:
> 
> Seriously though, if someone decides not to eat or buy meat then they do have a proportionate effect - it's why you cater for vegetarians in your restaurant etc. I guess if everyone decided to be vegetarian the supply would follow demand accordingly. It follows surely, that if you didn't eat meat because of the belief that animals suffer, lets say through the whole process of rearing and the lead up to the final slaughter - so not just the act of slaughter (although I don't think that is without pain even if momentary) - then would you not be consistent and proportionate in your aim, your influence and your belief?
> 
> Anyway, you mentioned curry. Do you do hot curries? - any interesting chillies by any chance?
Click to expand...

I make the hottest red thai pork you will ever taste using dorset naga chillis that will hurt you more than you can imagine. If your in somerset give me 24 hours to source my stock and make it for you.


----------



## John-H

Naga - now you're talking :twisted: Can you do a vegetable based version?


----------



## OeTT

I only have one gripe about veggies. If they come for a meal you are expected to lay on a veggie dish. When you go to theirs do they prepare me a steak? Do they fu**!
Rant over.


----------



## jossytt

John-H said:


> Naga - now you're talking :twisted: Can you do a vegetable based version?


i can indeed


----------



## Gazzer

psssssssssssst Joss (this guy tastes dragons blood direct off a spoon) 6.5mil scovilles


----------



## jossytt

Gazzer said:


> psssssssssssst Joss (this guy tastes dragons blood direct off a spoon) 6.5mil scovilles


haha we'll see


----------



## John-H

:lol:


----------



## Gazzer

jossytt said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> psssssssssssst Joss (this guy tastes dragons blood direct off a spoon) 6.5mil scovilles
> 
> 
> 
> haha we'll see
Click to expand...

do not bet him............pm Dani for info m8 trust me he is not normal.


----------



## A3DFU

jossytt said:


> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> psssssssssssst Joss (this guy tastes dragons blood direct off a spoon) 6.5mil scovilles
> 
> 
> 
> haha we'll see
Click to expand...

I'll vouch for it


----------



## jossytt

A3DFU said:


> jossytt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gazzer said:
> 
> 
> 
> psssssssssssst Joss (this guy tastes dragons blood direct off a spoon) 6.5mil scovilles
> 
> 
> 
> haha we'll see
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll vouch for it
Click to expand...

You do realise i'm going to go out of my way to hurt him now :lol:

I'll check my sources to see if the nagas are ready let me know when your ready john


----------



## A3DFU

jossytt said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jossytt said:
> 
> 
> 
> haha we'll see
> 
> 
> 
> I'll vouch for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realise i'm going to go out of my way to hurt him now :lol:
Click to expand...

You won't succeed!!!!


----------



## Stueyturn

jossytt said:


> You do realise i'm going to go out of my way to hurt him now :lol:


I wouldn't underestimate a challenged chef! I love spicy food and one of the chefs at work made a stupid hot curry that they were sure I wouldn't be able to finish - however I did!!
.
.
.
.
Was off work for 2 days though 

Stu


----------



## jossytt

[/quote]
You won't succeed!!!![/quote]

its all about the right ingredients my friend grows these 



 and yes ive tried one and wow! just one flavoured 3kg of pork!

As long as I cook out the nagas long enough they should realise their potential


----------



## John-H

Save some for a fresh perfumed garnish. Scotch Bonnet have a nice perfume too


----------



## pas_55

Only one thing worse than a vegetarian.....................................................................................................................a vegan


----------



## BrianR

pas_55 said:


> Only one thing worse than a vegetarian.....................................................................................................................a vegan


Yeah and all those other Spock type charachters from Star Trek :lol:


----------



## ScoobyTT

jossytt said:


> I have even had some customers who have told me that they are allergic to meat!! ALLERGIC your telling me out of the 1000's of different animals you can eat your allergic to ALL of them!?!  i mean come on seriously?


What's that smell? It's familiar. I know! It's BULLSHIT! :lol: There may be a few of the population who have some crazy allergy to particular proteins or something, but "some" customers? There must be an epidemic of this genetic fault. :lol:



jossytt said:


> My point is this think before you make a lifestyle choice of wether you actually are legit or just wanting to be a pain in the ass


Most vegetarians do just want to be a pain in the arse. :wink:

Attention vegtarians! Humans are omnivorous. Animals are tasty. Enjoy!


----------



## Yodah

BrianR said:


> pas_55 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only one thing worse than a vegetarian.....................................................................................................................a vegan
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah and all those other Spock type charachters from Star Trek :lol:
Click to expand...

Mention Star Wars you don't


----------



## John-H

ScoobyTT said:


> jossytt said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have even had some customers who have told me that they are allergic to meat!! ALLERGIC your telling me out of the 1000's of different animals you can eat your allergic to ALL of them!?!  i mean come on seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> What's that smell? It's familiar. I know! It's BULLSHIT! :lol: There may be a few of the population who have some crazy allergy to particular proteins or something, but "some" customers? There must be an epidemic of this genetic fault. :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> jossytt said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is this think before you make a lifestyle choice of wether you actually are legit or just wanting to be a pain in the ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most vegetarians do just want to be a pain in the arse. :wink:
> 
> Attention vegtarians! Humans are omnivorous. Animals are tasty. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Would you eat any animal? Dog, cat, monkey... Human? It's interesting where the line is drawn and what is deemed acceptable and the arguments used to justify the choice. Just because you eat something doesn't prove you are physiologically best suited to digesting it, especially given consideration of our evolutionary origin. I could eat paper clips but I wouldn't claim it formed a staple diet :wink:


----------



## BrianR

John-H said:


> As for how we are "designed" - we could have a debate about evolution and our vegetarian based ape ancestory - how we are not really fast enough to catch animals and only really did so when we developed tools, how we don't have the teeth for eating raw meat and how that only became practical with the ability to create fire to break it down, how we have colour vision to identify ripe fruit (unlike meat eaters who see in black and white) and how we have long guts which are designed to digest vegetable based food (unlike short meat eater guts) which then cause us problems on a western based meat diet with meat spending too long in the gut, degrading, producing toxins and causing colon cancer, unlike in eastern cultures where much less meat is consumed. It's only a few hundred thousand years since we developed tools and I'd question how much we have evolved in that time to adapt. We lost some hair, some of us more than others but how much has our physiology adapted? The health aspect in this lifestyle choice is another consideration.


well put argument !! would love to see the actual life expectation averages for vegetarian versus meat eater, can it really make that much difference? Has that research already been done? [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## Spandex

BrianR said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for how we are "designed" - we could have a debate about evolution and our vegetarian based ape ancestory - how we are not really fast enough to catch animals and only really did so when we developed tools, how we don't have the teeth for eating raw meat and how that only became practical with the ability to create fire to break it down, how we have colour vision to identify ripe fruit (unlike meat eaters who see in black and white) and how we have long guts which are designed to digest vegetable based food (unlike short meat eater guts) which then cause us problems on a western based meat diet with meat spending too long in the gut, degrading, producing toxins and causing colon cancer, unlike in eastern cultures where much less meat is consumed. It's only a few hundred thousand years since we developed tools and I'd question how much we have evolved in that time to adapt. We lost some hair, some of us more than others but how much has our physiology adapted? The health aspect in this lifestyle choice is another consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> well put argument !! would love to see the actual life expectation averages for vegetarian versus meat eater, can it really make that much difference? Has that research already been done? [smiley=book2.gif]
Click to expand...

I think a lot of those arguments are misleading though. We've been eating meat for at least 2.5 million years - stone tools for butchering meat and fossilised bones with marks matching those tools date back that far. Our teeth are perfectly well designed for a mixed diet of meat and vegetables/fruit and our digestive system doesn't look like a carnivores because it was originally designed for a herbivore diet, but has evolved to also process meat. The human body has changed massively in the last 2.5 million years, so it's a little pointless to argue that a herbivorous diet is more 'natural'.

That being said, I don't think either choice needs justification. If you want to eat meat, then eat it. If not, then don't. I don't understand why it's such an issue for either side.


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> If you want to eat meat, then eat it. If not, then don't.


+1

As goes for any other food some likes/dislikes IMHO


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> BrianR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for how we are "designed" - we could have a debate about evolution and our vegetarian based ape ancestory - how we are not really fast enough to catch animals and only really did so when we developed tools, how we don't have the teeth for eating raw meat and how that only became practical with the ability to create fire to break it down, how we have colour vision to identify ripe fruit (unlike meat eaters who see in black and white) and how we have long guts which are designed to digest vegetable based food (unlike short meat eater guts) which then cause us problems on a western based meat diet with meat spending too long in the gut, degrading, producing toxins and causing colon cancer, unlike in eastern cultures where much less meat is consumed. It's only a few hundred thousand years since we developed tools and I'd question how much we have evolved in that time to adapt. We lost some hair, some of us more than others but how much has our physiology adapted? The health aspect in this lifestyle choice is another consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> well put argument !! would love to see the actual life expectation averages for vegetarian versus meat eater, can it really make that much difference? Has that research already been done? [smiley=book2.gif]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think a lot of those arguments are misleading though. We've been eating meat for at least 2.5 million years - stone tools for butchering meat and fossilised bones with marks matching those tools date back that far. Our teeth are perfectly well designed for a mixed diet of meat and vegetables/fruit and our digestive system doesn't look like a carnivores because it was originally designed for a herbivore diet, but has evolved to also process meat. The human body has changed massively in the last 2.5 million years, so it's a little pointless to argue that a herbivorous diet is more 'natural'.
> 
> That being said, I don't think either choice needs justification. If you want to eat meat, then eat it. If not, then don't. I don't understand why it's such an issue for either side.
Click to expand...

We have a choice true but what would be a wise decision? In evolutionary terms we have not been eating meat that long and how much I'd question. There is some debate as to when man learned to use fire - perhaps only 400 thousand years ago in Europe - but even if this is extended back further to the earliest evidence of tools, it's still a small period in evolutionary terms when you consider the ape line. Has our physiology properly adapted to eat meat without side effects? It'd suggest the evidence of colon cancer and other diseases having a higher occurence in the west needs consideration. By the way, have you tried eating raw meat with your teeth?

Another consideration where some wisdom might be a good idea is the efficiency of food production. It's far more efficient to grow crops for direct human consumption and far less efficient to use the crop growing capacity to rear animals for food.


----------



## techfreak

I've been a vegetarian for about 11/12 years. Don't really keep count. I guess you'll hate people like me more?

a converter! Boooo!

I used to eat so much meat, my mates still bring up how when we'd go for a curry I'd order two dishes to myself when they usually share one amongst two. I'd walk 25 mins to my favourite kebab shop and create an off the menu super kebab, if there were no seats I'd walk back home eating it getting covered in sauce. 
If I was in town I'd have a zinger tower burger (meal) followed by a Maryland chicken burger with 8 wings.

Don't ask me what happened but almost developing feathers I decided to quit, really out of a challenge to myself. I also began training and so had I adjust to a high protein vegetarian diet (yes it does exist). Didn't have any impact on my training. I often hear that as a reason when people say they eat meat - cause they're sexy and they know it...

No I'm not a pescatarian - why is it almost all meat eaters ask me if I eat fish when they find out I'm a vegetarian?

I'm not opposed to meat by products, however i do not eat gelatine. I do wear leather shoes/jackets, and typing this sitting on my leather couch.

I do not however, make a fuss where ever I go, I choose to go places I like that have dishes i like(even nandos) and find most places will adjust the dish slightly if you ask nicely(as they would with anyone including meat eaters).

I go to a monthly work meeting and every morning they have free refreshments laid on including bacon butties. When I tell people I don't want one and they ask why and they learn I'm a vegetarian (after they ask the customary fish question) they say why don't you tell them - I'm sure they'll do something for you. Now, I'm perfectly happy eating breakfast at home before I set off and I'm not so difficult as to create a fuss all for me.

Not all vegetablarians behave in that way - I'm as least painful to anyones arse as they could hope.

I do like quorn and quorn based dishes simply cause its high in protein and tastes great when cooked. Jossy could you perhaps do something with that if I'm ever your way? ;-)


----------



## BrianR

> I do like quorn and quorn based dishes simply cause its high in protein and tastes great when cooked. Jossy could you perhaps do something with that if I'm ever your way? ;-)


Quorn, another name for cardboard, similar texture and tastes no better (in fact cardboard probably has the edge) - noonne could do anything with quorn :lol:


----------



## John-H

I quite like Quorn although I only occasionally have it. I've heard meat eaters come out with the "cardboard" comment but that's really a reflection of them being used to meat which is dripping in saturated animal fats. Yes, Quorn is much healthier and it's texture is accordingly different. It's basically mushroom based in origin - a pretty neat development I think but I don't look on it as a meat substitute - why would I want to imagine I was eating meat? I've been veggie for about 25 years - I see it more as an alternative food in it's own right.


----------



## BrianR

John-H said:


> I quite like Quorn although I only occasionally have it. I've heard meat eaters come out with the "cardboard" comment but that's really a reflection of them being used to meat which is dripping in saturated animal fats. Yes, Quorn is much healthier and it's texture is accordingly different. It's basically mushroom based in origin - a pretty neat development I think but I don't look on it as a meat substitute - why would I want to imagine I was eating meat? I've been veggie for about 25 years - I see it more as an alternative food in it's own right.


Glad you like it. I honestly don't like it because it doesnt taste like meat (I dont expect it to any more than I expect eggs to taste like meat), I genuinely dont like it because it tastes awful (maybe its an aquired taste; I don't like truffles either and I hear everyone raving about them)  I note though that veggies make quorn and things look like meat (quorn sausages and burgers) so what is that about? Genuinely happy for people to eat what every they wish, but I think the opening of this stream was more about the hard work it takes to cater for a vegetarian. Veggy friends we have don't cook meat when we go to their house for dinner, it's the very place I realised I don't like quorn :roll: Suffice to say its the very reason we don't go there for dinner any more :lol:


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> We have a choice true but what would be a wise decision? In evolutionary terms we have not been eating meat that long and how much I'd question. There is some debate as to when man learned to use fire - perhaps only 400 thousand years ago in Europe - but even if this is extended back further to the earliest evidence of tools, it's still a small period in evolutionary terms when you consider the ape line. Has our physiology properly adapted to eat meat without side effects? It'd suggest the evidence of colon cancer and other diseases having a higher occurence in the west needs consideration. By the way, have you tried eating raw meat with your teeth?
> 
> Another consideration where some wisdom might be a good idea is the efficiency of food production. It's far more efficient to grow crops for direct human consumption and far less efficient to use the crop growing capacity to rear animals for food.


2.5 million years is a huge amount of time in our evolution - in fact, it's widely theorised that our increase in brain capacity is due to the meat-rich diet which started back then. It certainly started to increase rapidly at that point. An increase in colon cancer can probably be mostly put down to an increase in life expectancy in general, although meat consumption could of course be a factor. Our bodies are well adapted to eating meat, but that's not to say we don't eat too much of it in Western countries. As for eating raw meat, have *you* tried? If you had, you'd know it was easy. I've eaten raw beef and horse (ironically, both were sashimi in Japan, so they're not _that_ shy about eating meat in the East). Both were delicious by the way - if any meat eaters are offered horse sashimi in Japan, you should definitely try it.

The efficiency issue is true, although we're hardly an environmentally efficient species anyway, so unless you're also going to give up your car and unnecessary electrical goods, you can't really claim that you're a vegetarian for environmental reasons. At best, it's a convenient byproduct of your choice.


----------



## ScoobyTT

BrianR said:


> well put argument !!


Not overly so.. 


John-H said:


> how we are not really fast enough to catch animals and only really did so when we developed tools,


Chimpanzees hunt without tools.



John-H said:


> how we don't have the teeth for eating raw meat


That only says that out ancestors were not carnivorous. It says nothing of whether we should or should not naturally eat meat. In any case, this argument is wrong. We DO have the teeth for eating raw meat. For brevity, here's a comparison between one ancestor and modern human teeth (those of the lovely Dr Alice Roberts):
Skip 20 minutes in. 







John-H said:


> and how that only became practical with the ability to create fire to break it down,


Cooked proteins are easier to digest, but this does not mean that we can only eat cooked meats. It's just more efficient to do so, and this probably gave our evolution a boost.



John-H said:


> how we have colour vision to identify ripe fruit (unlike meat eaters who see in black and white)


This only says that our ancestors had colour vision, which helped them identify ripe fruit. One could spuriously say that we're not suited for eating lots of fruit because consuming a reasonable quantity of fruit or its juices wrecks our teeth, therefore we should eat more meat and vegetables.



John-H said:


> and how we have long guts which are designed to digest vegetable based food (unlike short meat eater guts) which then cause us problems on a western based meat diet with meat spending too long in the gut, degrading, producing toxins and causing colon cancer, unlike in eastern cultures where much less meat is consumed.


Quantity of meat isn't necessarily the only factor. Ironically enough, the suggestions seem to relate to byproducts of the cooking of meats, either from HCAs or NOCs. Processing of meats may be another factor.

Having said that quantity isn't the only factor, I think John may right to make a link to it. Naturally, despite being omnivorous, meat consumption would have been lower than now. Tooled up or not, hunting success rates are usually low so the bulk of our nutrition would have come from plant matter and easier protein sources like insects/grubs. The issue then isn't that we're not "designed" to process meat - we are - the issue is that modern farming methods make meat cheap and excessively accessible. That's a very recent phenomenon, just a few generations, and Asian diets have proportions of meat that are much more similar to the diet of our ancestors.

The issue then isn't so much about meat vs vegetarianism. Balance in diet is what is required, and as you can see from the shape of the average Brit or yank, that's increasingly lacking.


----------



## BrianR

ScoobyTT said:


> BrianR said:
> 
> 
> 
> well put argument !!
Click to expand...

Not overly so..

matter of opinion Scooby, I thought it had merit and was a decently thoght out defence of the subject. You didn't - so be it


----------



## ScoobyTT

Did you only read as far as the first sentence? It's not just a matter of opinion. Not all of John's arguments stood up to cursory scrutiny, but I agree with him where they do. He got many things right but the conclusions were spurious. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## BrianR

ScoobyTT said:


> Did you only read as far as the first sentence? It's not just a matter of opinion. Not all of John's arguments stood up to cursory scrutiny, but I agree with him where they do. He got many things right but the conclusions were spurious. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


No I read it all, but both sides of that particular aspect of the debate appears to be a matter of opinion and interpretation, yours and his - both appear to have merit and both of you are entitled to them - interesting on both sides I think


----------



## A3DFU

Spandex said:


> An increase in colon cancer can probably be mostly put down to an increase in life expectancy in general, although meat consumption could of course be a factor.


That would NOT explain why people in the far east don't suffer colon cancer as frequently as western cultures but a difference in diet would


----------



## Yodah

John-H said:


> I could eat paper clips but I wouldn't claim it formed a staple diet :wink:


Paper clips eat you could?  That would do you no good young Jeddi


----------



## John-H

Scooby,

I watched the video you posted with the lovely Dr Alice Roberts (incidentally a vegetarian) and very interesting it was too. It started with showing how our ancestor's colour vision gave them an advantage recognising ripe fruit and tender leaves. It showed how the same tape worms were found in the guts of our ancestors as was found in lions of the time - the inference being that we eat some of the left overs to catch the same parasite - but that doesn't show that this was a major part of our diet - once you catch a tape worm you'll always have it without medical intervention.

You mentioned that chimpanzees have been observed hunting: This is a rare recently observed behaviour it is believed they have learnt from indigenous tribes of humans, living in the same rain forrest, that they see as superior and whose behaviour they try to "ape" for want of a better expression. They chase down smaller monkeys and make a show of attempting to eat them - not terribly successfully as it's more for show to establish dominance in a social order. It's certainly not a major part of their diet as they are exclusively vegetarian usually - apart from a few grubs.

Regarding my previous reference to teeth: I was really referring to our teeth not being like that of a carnivore - the ability to tear raw flesh from an animal with sharp piercing teeth and the lack of highly leveraged side incisor teeth to cut. Our teeth are more suited to squashing and grinding. I'm sure we can manage small bits of meat we've already chopped with a knife but that's not a natural ability of our teeth.

The video you posted, attempted to show that our smaller modern teeth had become more adapted to eating small pieces of meat compared to our ancestor's larger flatter teeth by use of a robot jaw fitted with the said teeth. Although it is obvious that for the same clamping force, the force per unit area is greater, what seemed to be overlooked was the much greater jaw muscle power of our ancestors - a feature actually mentioned earlier in the programme. I wasn't therefore convinced that this test proved what was being suggested.

Even if true, this would not show how often meat was eaten. Indeed the programme showed, and I think you agree, that eating meat could only be occasional as the success rate of hunting is not high. They showed by saliva analysis that we had adapted, compared to chimpanzees, to eating a more starch based diet from consuming tubas and other root crops.

The programme concluded by saying that it was our use of fire and "cooking" that increased our nutrition which lead to the increase in our brain size and NOT the consumption of meat, as had previously been supposed by some, that made us the successful species that we are today.

This all seems to underline that a high meat content diet is only a recent departure for us, out of kilter with our evolutionary development and it is believed by many nutritionists, the cause of some of the poor heath consequences we are experiencing.


----------



## techfreak

Exactly balance is key, now this IMO should be broken down by food groups/types and their nutritional values/benefits.

I still get enough protein for my personal requirements as I do fruit for its benefits, ironically a rounded vegetable intake is the area im currently lacking in.

Quorn is one of those things I guess, if you've had a bad experience you'll avoid it, rather than simply not liking it.

For example they do 3/4 types of burgers (now for me this is the same as eating any vege burger - not to emulate a meat eater), each burger however is different in taste and texture e.g. The normal brown type burgers they do in the frozen aisle vs their southern breaded burgers.

Also, I tend to use the chicken style pieces and mince to cook up alot of dishes mainly curry based - and I guess this comes down to how it's cooked as to how it tastes as otherwise those are very bland indeed.

Oh and I never invite meat eaters over for dinner, as over here on our side of the fence - you're the moaners and fussers highlighted by those who've complained about it 

Granted Come dine with me would be a one man band if it was with me as I tend not have many dinner parties but that's also due to the rest of the vegetarians out there stuck in their rabbit hutches with their iceberg lettuce.


----------



## wja96

John-H said:


> I quite like Quorn although I only occasionally have it. I've heard meat eaters come out with the "cardboard" comment but that's really a reflection of them being used to meat which is dripping in saturated animal fats. Yes, Quorn is much healthier and it's texture is accordingly different. It's basically mushroom based in origin - a pretty neat development I think but I don't look on it as a meat substitute - why would I want to imagine I was eating meat? I've been veggie for about 25 years - I see it more as an alternative food in it's own right.


Quorn is not made from Mushrooms, it's a fully synthetic mould protein that is used - a Fusarium species. It's a bit like saying that humans are made of gorillas - similar, but not the same.

And the mould itself is genetically modified to grow faster.

And then there is the fact that it doesn't actually work without lumping in huge amounts of egg white.

I can understand people not wanting animals to be farmed, and wanting to eat natural foodstuffs, but there is very little about Quorn that is natural or healthy.

I took part in a modelling exercise once where we assumed that all dairy sites, beef, lamb, pork and poultry producers were closed and the only sources of food were vegetable. what surprised most people was that, obviously, you'd have to go to a zoo to see those animals as they never actually ran about the countryside wild, in herds.

And then the world went crazy. You have to rely on synthetic fertilisers as otherwise the land can't support the crop-loadings and because of the lack of organic matter to put back on the land, the soil dried out and blew away.

At which point we had to revert to spreading human waste on the fields and eating moulds grown from chemicals in huge vats.

You can't use the land previously used for animal production as arable land because generally it won't grow crops (sheep will live on a mountain, wheat won't) so eventually you have to limit population size. How? Easy. Soylent Green. Mmmmm!


----------



## higsta

I always thought that the introduction of meat into our diets was what made it possible for us to develop the size of our brains to a more similar size to today's standards?

Watched an interesting programme the other night about a man who was lost at sea.
Initially he survived by eating the raw flesh of fish he could catch from his dingy. After about 20 days of this he found himself getting cravings for parts of the fish he was throwing away. The eyes, spine, liver etc. Before long he was actually throwing away the flesh and eating all the bits we would normally ignore.
Apparently his brain recognised the severe lack of essential vitamins from his raw fish flesh only diet and encouraged him to find the missing nutrients by giving him cravings for these "nasty bits" of the fish.
They interviewed the guy and he said he actually wanted and enjoyed the raw livers and eyes when normally he wouldn't even of considered them.
On examining the nutritional content of these usual waste parts of the fish they found for the most part they covered a persons vitamin/nutritional requirements.

I thought that was pretty cool. Somehow we have hard wired survival instructions that tells us what to eat when we get in a desperate situation like that.


----------



## John-H

wja96 said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quite like Quorn although I only occasionally have it. I've heard meat eaters come out with the "cardboard" comment but that's really a reflection of them being used to meat which is dripping in saturated animal fats. Yes, Quorn is much healthier and it's texture is accordingly different. It's basically mushroom based in origin - a pretty neat development I think but I don't look on it as a meat substitute - why would I want to imagine I was eating meat? I've been veggie for about 25 years - I see it more as an alternative food in it's own right.
> 
> 
> 
> Quorn is not made from Mushrooms, it's a fully synthetic mould protein that is used - a Fusarium species. It's a bit like saying that humans are made of gorillas - similar, but not the same.
> 
> And the mould itself is genetically modified to grow faster.
> 
> And then there is the fact that it doesn't actually work without lumping in huge amounts of egg white.
> 
> I can understand people not wanting animals to be farmed, and wanting to eat natural foodstuffs, but there is very little about Quorn that is natural or healthy.
> 
> I took part in a modelling exercise once where we assumed that all dairy sites, beef, lamb, pork and poultry producers were closed and the only sources of food were vegetable. what surprised most people was that, obviously, you'd have to go to a zoo to see those animals as they never actually ran about the countryside wild, in herds.
> 
> And then the world went crazy. You have to rely on synthetic fertilisers as otherwise the land can't support the crop-loadings and because of the lack of organic matter to put back on the land, the soil dried out and blew away.
> 
> At which point we had to revert to spreading human waste on the fields and eating moulds grown from chemicals in huge vats.
> 
> You can't use the land previously used for animal production as arable land because generally it won't grow crops (sheep will live on a mountain, wheat won't) so eventually you have to limit population size. How? Easy. Soylent Green. Mmmmm!
Click to expand...

That's correct about Quorn being a mycoprotein derived from what's more correctly called fungus, although initially marketed as "mushroom in origin" because that's what most people acceptably understand. It uses free range egg albumen as a binding agent. They have already introduced a Vegan version which doesn't. It's fermented in tanks and although not "natural" is nonetheless a very healthy food.

I do prefer wild mushrooms when I can find them. Fascinating subject mycology. Did you know that the biggest discovered and possibly oldest organism on the planet is a fungus?

I gree that hill farm land is not much good for current mechanised agriculture but contrast that with the chopping down of rain forrests for ranching and you can see the ruinous path we have been treading in our persuit of meat as a food. We should be more sensible. Efficiency is an important consideration.



higsta said:


> I always thought that the introduction of meat into our diets was what made it possible for us to develop the size of our brains to a more similar size to today's standards?


Apparently not.


----------



## A3DFU

techfreak said:


> For example they do 3/4 types of burgers (now for me this is the same as eating any vege burger - not to emulate a meat eater), each burger however is different in taste and texture e.g. The normal brown type burgers they do in the frozen aisle vs their southern breaded burgers.


Not being the biggest fan of Tesco but they do a really delicious bean burger [smiley=chef.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Regarding my previous reference to teeth: I was really referring to our teeth not being like that of a carnivore - the ability to tear raw flesh from an animal with sharp piercing teeth and the lack of highly leveraged side incisor teeth to cut. Our teeth are more suited to squashing and grinding. I'm sure we can manage small bits of meat we've already chopped with a knife but that's not a natural ability of our teeth.


But that's why we started eating meat around the same time that we started using tools. I don't see how that makes it unnatural, when we've been doing it for 2.5 million years, and have evolved massively in that period. We've been using fire for a much much smaller amount of time, but I'm sure you think it's perfectly natural to cook food.



John-H said:


> The programme concluded by saying that it was our use of fire and "cooking" that increased our nutrition which lead to the increase in our brain size and NOT the consumption of meat, as had previously been supposed by some, that made us the successful species that we are today.
> 
> This all seems to underline that a high meat content diet is only a recent departure for us, out of kilter with our evolutionary development and it is believed by many nutritionists, the cause of some of the poor heath consequences we are experiencing.


The programme may have claimed it, but it's a fairly controversial theory that has only a small amount of support in the scientific community. Our brains began developing at a rapid rate over the last 2-2.5 million years, but the general consensus is that we've only been able to cook our food for the last few hundred thousand years. Something there obviously doesn't add up, so supporters of the 'cooked food' theory are often found trying to explain away the fact that archeological evidence of the habitual use of fire appears only fairly recently in our history.

I think people have every right to eat whatever they want, and I don't really care how they justify it to themselves (if they feel the need to), but to claim that a vegetarian diet is somehow more 'natural' and therefore better for us is to ignore 2.5 million years of evolution and development. It's just cherry picking things from our evolutionary past that happen to suit the lifestyle you've now chosen.

As has been said here already, it's perfectly feasible that people in Western countries eat too much meat, but to take that as a sign that we would be healthier if we ate no meat is obviously illogical.


----------



## John-H

Spandex said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding my previous reference to teeth: I was really referring to our teeth not being like that of a carnivore - the ability to tear raw flesh from an animal with sharp piercing teeth and the lack of highly leveraged side incisor teeth to cut. Our teeth are more suited to squashing and grinding. I'm sure we can manage small bits of meat we've already chopped with a knife but that's not a natural ability of our teeth.
> 
> 
> 
> But that's why we started eating meat around the same time that we started using tools. I don't see how that makes it unnatural, when we've been doing it for 2.5 million years, and have evolved massively in that period. We've been using fire for a much much smaller amount of time, but I'm sure you think it's perfectly natural to cook food.
> 
> 
> 
> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> The programme concluded by saying that it was our use of fire and "cooking" that increased our nutrition which lead to the increase in our brain size and NOT the consumption of meat, as had previously been supposed by some, that made us the successful species that we are today.
> 
> This all seems to underline that a high meat content diet is only a recent departure for us, out of kilter with our evolutionary development and it is believed by many nutritionists, the cause of some of the poor heath consequences we are experiencing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The programme may have claimed it, but it's a fairly controversial theory that has only a small amount of support in the scientific community. Our brains began developing at a rapid rate over the last 2-2.5 million years, but the general consensus is that we've only been able to cook our food for the last few hundred thousand years. Something there obviously doesn't add up, so supporters of the 'cooked food' theory are often found trying to explain away the fact that archeological evidence of the habitual use of fire appears only fairly recently in our history.
> 
> I think people have every right to eat whatever they want, and I don't really care how they justify it to themselves (if they feel the need to), but to claim that a vegetarian diet is somehow more 'natural' and therefore better for us is to ignore 2.5 million years of evolution and development. It's just cherry picking things from our evolutionary past that happen to suit the lifestyle you've now chosen.
> 
> As has been said here already, it's perfectly feasible that people in Western countries eat too much meat, but to take that as a sign that we would be healthier if we ate no meat is obviously illogical.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the evidence I see is that the majority of our diet has not been based on meat - or at least it wasn't until recently and therein lies a problem.

I don't think the last bit is illogical. I was saying that we eat too much meat in the west and it is not necessary to do so and more efficient not to. That's partly the reason I personally choose not to but there are other reasons and there are benefits. I survivive without it and don't miss it. One shouln't be led to believe it is necessary - it's a counter argument but which argument you believe is your choice.


----------



## Spandex

John-H said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> As has been said here already, it's perfectly feasible that people in Western countries eat too much meat, but to take that as a sign that we would be healthier if we ate no meat is obviously illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the last bit is illogical. I was saying that we eat too much meat in the west and it is not necessary to do so and more efficient not to. That's partly the reason I personally choose not to but there are other reasons and there are benefits. I survivive without it and don't miss it. One shouln't be led to believe it is necessary - it's a counter argument but which argument you believe is your choice.
Click to expand...

It is completely illogical. It is no different to saying "eating too much fruit is bad for you, therefore we would be healthier if we ate no fruit". Both arguments are completely specious.

We're not talking about your survival, we're talking about long-term, statistically relevant studies into diet and health. There is no evidence that a balanced diet which includes meat is worse for you than one which does not.

You're right that we shouldn't mislead people to believe that meat is a necessity to a healthy life, but equally, we shouldn't mislead people that it is the cause of numerous diseases and conditions (when, if it is linked at all, it's likely that it's an excess of meat that results in these conditions). Also, telling people that eating meat is in any way unnatural, or that evolution has not prepared us for meat consumption is misleading.


----------



## Basscube

Nilesong said:


> Basscube said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vegetarians are gay
Click to expand...




> What????
> I suppose there are some veggies that are gay, but please! :lol:


haha it was a joke


----------



## Basscube

Don't get me started on vegans :lol:


----------



## John-H

Not all arguments should be seen in black and white :wink:


----------



## jossytt

John-H said:


> Not all arguments should be seen in black and white :wink:


Heard a great quote today.

"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals"

"I'm a vegetarian because I HATE vegetables"


----------



## BrianR

jossytt said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all arguments should be seen in black and white :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> Heard a great quote today.
> 
> "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals"
> 
> "I'm a vegetarian because I HATE vegetables"
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Yodah

jossytt said:


> Heard a great quote today.
> 
> "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals"
> 
> "I'm a vegetarian because I HATE vegetables"


I wonder how true this is :twisted:


----------



## A3DFU

Yodah said:


> jossytt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Heard a great quote today.
> 
> "I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals"
> 
> "I'm a vegetarian because I HATE vegetables"
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder how true this is :twisted:
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## ScoobyTT

Hi John,


John-H said:


> I watched the video you posted with the lovely Dr Alice Roberts (incidentally a vegetarian)


I know.. I've decided that on balance the best thing to do is let her off. :wink:



John-H said:


> It started with showing how our ancestor's colour vision gave them an advantage recognising ripe fruit and tender leaves.


Yes but in terms of the earlier argument where it was suggested that this is a reason why we wouldn't naturallt eat meat (if I was taking that correctly) then having previosly developed colour vision says nothing other than it was previously advantageous to do so.



John-H said:


> It showed how the same tape worms were found in the guts of our ancestors as was found in lions of the time - the inference being that we eat some of the left overs to catch the same parasite - but that doesn't show that this was a major part of our diet - once you catch a tape worm you'll always have it without medical intervention.


Indeed, but it would be fallacious to suggest based on a tapeworm that eating meat was a major part of the diet. At most it tells you that meat was some part of the diet, and at least that the individual consumed a tapeworm egg.



John-H said:


> You mentioned that chimpanzees have been observed hunting: This is a rare recently observed behaviour it is believed they have learnt from indigenous tribes of humans, living in the same rain forrest, that they see as superior and whose behaviour they try to "ape" for want of a better expression. They chase down smaller monkeys and make a show of attempting to eat them - not terribly successfully as it's more for show to establish dominance in a social order. It's certainly not a major part of their diet as they are exclusively vegetarian usually - apart from a few grubs.


I did not know all that. Thanks.



John-H said:


> Regarding my previous reference to teeth: I was really referring to our teeth not being like that of a carnivore - the ability to tear raw flesh from an animal with sharp piercing teeth and the lack of highly leveraged side incisor teeth to cut. Our teeth are more suited to squashing and grinding. I'm sure we can manage small bits of meat we've already chopped with a knife but that's not a natural ability of our teeth.


**** Habilis evolved around 2.3Mya, and by then Oldowan tools capable of cutting had already been in use for perhaps a few hundred thousand years. It's more than feasible that our teeth developed to their current state due to being able to digest small pieces of scavaenged meat.

And splitting semantics, it is a natural ability of our teeth because the consumption of pieces of meat predates our teeth by about 2 million years 



John-H said:


> The video you posted, attempted to show that our smaller modern teeth had become more adapted to eating small pieces of meat compared to our ancestor's larger flatter teeth by use of a robot jaw fitted with the said teeth. Although it is obvious that for the same clamping force, the force per unit area is greater, what seemed to be overlooked was the much greater jaw muscle power of our ancestors - a feature actually mentioned earlier in the programme. I wasn't therefore convinced that this test proved what was being suggested.


Possibly a valid point as I can't remember whether they used different forces or even mentioned it if they did. However, tooth shape is important - sure with flat teeth and more pressure you could squash meat more, but you can't achieve much more than that. You've perhaps experienced tough meat... I'd say that having flat teeth would make chewing even relatively tender meat tough compared to shapr tooth or something with a better force/area ratio which will do a much better job of it. As such, I find the argument about our teeth more compelling.



John-H said:


> Even if true, this would not show how often meat was eaten. Indeed the programme showed, and I think you agree, that eating meat could only be occasional as the success rate of hunting is not high. They showed by saliva analysis that we had adapted, compared to chimpanzees, to eating a more starch based diet from consuming tubas and other root crops.


Yup, I agree. We can't know how much meat was eaten, but from the physiological changes we can say that meat consumption increased, and must have done with the increase in hunting as tool use increased in sophistication. Also worth noting that back in the day there was a metric fuckton more big game around compared to now.



John-H said:


> The programme concluded by saying that it was our use of fire and "cooking" that increased our nutrition which lead to the increase in our brain size and NOT the consumption of meat, as had previously been supposed by some, that made us the successful species that we are today.


Nevertheless we remained omnivorous. Cooking makes ALL foods easier to digest. The lovely Dr Roberts says at the end "we are naturally able to eat a diverse variety of foods, and through the use of culture, through cooking and farming we've widened that range even further." Meat provides much more protein than a purely vegetarian diet could (ignoring tofu!), so it's not reasonable to expect that our brains would have grown purely by cooking and eating more veg. It's a complex picture.



John-H said:


> This all seems to underline that a high meat content diet is only a recent departure for us, out of kilter with our evolutionary development and it is believed by many nutritionists, the cause of some of the poor heath consequences we are experiencing.


No disagreement from me there. The excessive meat consumption though is a recent phenomenon as I mentioned in my earlier post - merely a few generations - which is why the present level of meat consumption is out of kilter with levels we may be more naturally able to cope with.

Natural selection would (if not interefered with by medicine) root out those individuals not able to sustain the diet, and so over time we would evole to be able to consume more meat. Populations that retained their more "natural" levels would remain similar.

I think we can all agree that human evolution is fucked though. The people who aren't the fittest are able to breed, and even our large brains are becoming redundant as people who really should be allowed outside alone are still able to spawn like fungus. 

Meanwhile, meat is delicious, vegetables are delicious, and Dr Alice Roberts is the kind of woman that most women should try and emulate rather than celebrity fucktards. :lol:


----------



## Dotti

I love my grub too much to give up meat. I love wearing a bit of leather also as well as sitting on it too  :lol:


----------



## Gazzer

Dotti said:


> I love my grub too much to give up meat. I love wearing a bit of leather also as well as sitting on it too  :lol:


i heard you like a good bit of meat dotti :roll:


----------



## techfreak

A3DFU said:


> techfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> For example they do 3/4 types of burgers (now for me this is the same as eating any vege burger - not to emulate a meat eater), each burger however is different in taste and texture e.g. The normal brown type burgers they do in the frozen aisle vs their southern breaded burgers.
> 
> 
> 
> Not being the biggest fan of Tesco but they do a really delicious bean burger [smiley=chef.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Click to expand...

Ah thanks I'll .....wait for it..... Give it a ..... Butchers!

The best thing would be is to get some of those nutritional scientists to tailor our diets every week right down to a molecular level from within our physiology.

Therefore creating the optimum balance of all our daily requirements according to our current and desired lifestyle.

If someone can beat that then I'm all ears...


----------



## jossytt

techfreak said:


> A3DFU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> techfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah thanks I'll .....wait for it..... Give it a ..... Butchers!
> 
> The best thing would be is to get some of those nutritional scientists to tailor our diets every week right down to a molecular level from within our physiology.
> 
> Therefore creating the optimum balance of all our daily requirements according to our current and desired lifestyle.
> 
> If someone can beat that then I'm all ears...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

A blue fillet steak with chips and a stilton sauce


----------



## Gazzer

blue i cannot do unfortunately joss.........however i can do pink but with mushrooms fried in butter and garlic all covered in that lush stilton......mmmmmmm


----------



## A3DFU

jossytt said:


> A *blue* fillet steak with chips and a stilton sauce


I like fillet steak but NOT blue! [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## John-H

The mushrooms sound good


----------



## Yodah

John-H said:


> The mushrooms sound good


With Stilton


----------



## jossytt

If u like rare steak u'll love blue the trick with steak is to leave it out of the fridge for a couple hours at room temp. And ALWAYS oil the steak not the pan!


----------



## techfreak

Mmmm chips :lol:


----------



## Kell

John-H said:


> As for how we are "designed" - we could have a debate about evolution and our vegetarian based ape ancestory - how we are not really fast enough to catch animals and only really did so when we developed tools.


Actually there's plenty of research to now suggest that our ancestors didn't run much faster than we can now, but what they did do was to wear out our prey. More akin to marathon runners, we played the long game. Chasing prey in groups for many miles as, while we couldn't run faster, we could run a lot farther. And went in for the kill when they couldn't run any more.

That, however, is beside the point.

I'm all for anyone eating whatever they choose to eat (and for whatever reason. What I'm against (in any form) is people who automatically assume that their views or behaviours are 'better' than anyone elses. Even more so, when they're appearing to be hypocrites. Happy condone us for our meat-eating habits, while they're content to wear leather, have leather interiors in their cars, eat sweets.

My uncle is a Vegan, and isn't preachy, but if he were, you could at least have some respect for the validity of his argument, because he follows it through.

Only drinks goat's milk as they produce it all the time (not just when chemically made to think they're pregnant). Doesn't eat any meat, any fish, eggs, cheese. Nor, in fact does he eat any processed foods or sugars. In fact, he's a right old hippy, and I love him for it.

Doesn't wear leather, and most of his clothes are second-hand, or 'locally' made.

Though I do have to say, we get some weird Christmas presents from him.

Finally, I think if we have to cater for vegetarians when they come to visit us, I think they should cater for us when we go to visit them. It's only fair.


----------



## Gazzer

Kell said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for how we are "designed" - we could have a debate about evolution and our vegetarian based ape ancestory - how we are not really fast enough to catch animals and only really did so when we developed tools.
> 
> 
> 
> Though I do have to say, we get some weird Christmas presents from him.
> 
> Finally, I think if we have to cater for vegetarians when they come to visit us, I think they should cater for us when we go to visit them. It's only fair.
Click to expand...

Kell i can just imagine the proposed xmas visit from uncle..........oh bugger what could it be this year!!!! you are correct though on them catering for us on a visit........as long as they don't live like that guy from the papers on "road kill"


----------



## John-H

Kell said:


> John-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for how we are "designed" - we could have a debate about evolution and our vegetarian based ape ancestory - how we are not really fast enough to catch animals and only really did so when we developed tools.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there's plenty of research to now suggest that our ancestors didn't run much faster than we can now, but what they did do was to wear out our prey. More akin to marathon runners, we played the long game. Chasing prey in groups for many miles as, while we couldn't run faster, we could run a lot farther. And went in for the kill when they couldn't run any more.
> 
> That, however, is beside the point.
> 
> I'm all for anyone eating whatever they choose to eat (and for whatever reason. What I'm against (in any form) is people who automatically assume that their views or behaviours are 'better' than anyone elses. Even more so, when they're appearing to be hypocrites. Happy condone us for our meat-eating habits, while they're content to wear leather, have leather interiors in their cars, eat sweets.
> 
> My uncle is a Vegan, and isn't preachy, but if he were, you could at least have some respect for the validity of his argument, because he follows it through.
> 
> Only drinks goat's milk as they produce it all the time (not just when chemically made to think they're pregnant). Doesn't eat any meat, any fish, eggs, cheese. Nor, in fact does he eat any processed foods or sugars. In fact, he's a right old hippy, and I love him for it.
> 
> Doesn't wear leather, and most of his clothes are second-hand, or 'locally' made.
> 
> Though I do have to say, we get some weird Christmas presents from him.
> 
> Finally, I think if we have to cater for vegetarians when they come to visit us, I think they should cater for us when we go to visit them. It's only fair.
Click to expand...

Well it's been an interesting debate which was the point of the invitation.

Just because you choose to wear leather shoes doesn't mean you're a hypocrite if you also chose to have a vetarian diet - you aren't expected to eat your shoes!

If someone chooses to exclude something from their life, such as meat, part of that choice could be the wish not to handle it or have their kitchen surfaces of their own home covered in the residue as well as their diet in not eating it. They may not wish to buy it and may find visiting a butcher's unpleasant. They may consider themselves to be hypocritical to do so.

Would it be reasonable to expect such a person to cook meat for you in their own home just because you choose to include meat in your life? One is a choice of exclusion and the other a choice of inclusion. Insisting they cater for you with meat would be forcing something very unpleasant on that individual - whereas for you to exclude meat from a meal you give them is surely no onerous task?

Compare that with smokers. If you were a non smoker and you invited your friend who was a smoker round, you wouldn't be too pleased if they insisted on smoking in your house and stink the place out would you?

I presume you don't force meat on your vegan uncle or insist on him cooking meat for you? I may be wrong but as with most things in life it's a case of accommodation and reasonableness in a polite society but there's nothing wrong with an interesting debate :wink:


----------



## Kell

> Just because you choose to wear leather shoes doesn't mean you're a hypocrite if you also chose to have a vetarian diet - you aren't expected to eat your shoes!


No you're not, but I think you've either deliberately mis-interpreted my point, or I didn't make myself clear. What I object to (and I believe I said this) is people that try to enforce their views on you. I remember a particular argument with a girl who told me that I was morally wrong to eat meat (she started it by the way). That it was a cruel practice and they didn't enjoy a great life.

She said this while eating Percy Pig sweets - which I pointed out contained gelatine - and wearing leather shoes. Had she just said "I don't eat meat because I don't like it", then fine. But to say, it's cruel to do so, and then see no hypocrisy in her actions annoys me.

Also, the smoking argument is actually nonsensical because it approaches the argument from the wrong direction. The bulk of people eat meat. So to make a smoking correlation, you'd have to start with the idea that everyone smokes in their home and that as a non-smoker, you'd expect everyone to give up just because you choose not to. Not the other way around.

And besides, when I said that Veggies should be made to cook us meat, I was only joking*. :roll: Of course I wouldn't force my uncle (or anyone else for that matter) to cook meat if they don't agree with the practice. But then I'm open-minded enough to try all sorts of different foods. What I'd object to, would be if, during the meal, they insisted on pointing out that I'd eaten a meal with no meat and how much better it was, and would I think about giving it up, and isn't it awful ...

I guess I just have a problem with hugely opinionated people.

*THough I do remember an episode of one of those 'find a chef' type programmes, where one of the potential chefs was a veggie and wouldn't try certain sauces to check them for taste as they contained some animal product. Fine, if you want to do that in your home, the TV chef said, but how can expect to be a top chef if you can't taste the majority off your own food.

Finally


----------



## A3DFU

Live and let live is the best philosophy in my mind as is with most things


----------



## John-H

Yes indeed Dani. 

Kell, I'm glad you're not torturing your poor uncle! :lol: Wasn't sure quite how to take what you said at the end. :wink:

I agree - it's not right to have someone start a serious argument with you just because of your eating habits to make you feel uncumfortable. I've had it from the other side - where someone has had a go at me for being vegetarian and proceeded to cause an embarrassing situation. I wouldn't start a discussion about it. I'd respond to someone politely enquiring why I didn't eat meat and that can be a perfectly friendly conversation where someone is just inquisitive and making conversation - that's great - no problem with that. Even a humerous conversation I'll join in with. Or a conversation between friends might stray onto the subject.

Where the intention is nasty though it crosses a line. Coming back to your pig sweet girl I think you would have been justified to counterpoint her argument to make her feel uncomfortable in the same way. I'd have probably done the same if the tables were reversed.

I don't see that things need to be so black and white about whether you wear leather or eat things with gelatine and call yourself vegetarian though - you can't be perfectly anything in this world. Smell some fish and you've ingested some on a microscopic level - but you can try to be how you want in ways you find practical. I used to eat biscuits with gelatine in but I stopped during the BSE scare and after that it was no longer difficult to find things gelatine free.

Regarding the smoking example - it's not nonsense - I remember when most people seemed to smoke, most of my friends did and more recently pubs were still full of it. It's not a question of majority and if it was you could argue thatmost of the world largely eat a vegetarian diet - that's not the issue - it's a question of two people with opposing views and how they respect and accommodate each other. But I think we've established you were only joking about your uncle


----------



## rustyintegrale

I think the most objectionable part of all of this is the knowledge that kids sweets contain gelatin made from boiled up bits of dead animal carcass.

If ever there was a cause for better labelling then that is it.

Thankfully I don't eat the likes of Haribos etc but I am partial to red and black Jelly Babies!


----------



## A3DFU

rustyintegrale said:


> Ikids sweets contain gelatin made from boiled up bits of dead animal carcass.
> 
> If ever there was a cause for better labelling then that is it.


100% agree [smiley=sick2.gif]


----------



## Spandex

rustyintegrale said:


> I think the most objectionable part of all of this is the knowledge that kids sweets contain gelatin made from boiled up bits of dead animal carcass.


If you're a meat eater, I'm not sure why that's objectionable.


----------



## rustyintegrale

Spandex said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the most objectionable part of all of this is the knowledge that kids sweets contain gelatin made from boiled up bits of dead animal carcass.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're a meat eater, I'm not sure why that's objectionable.
Click to expand...

Well that's for me to know and you to wonder... :wink:


----------



## Yodah

Spandex said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the most objectionable part of all of this is the knowledge that kids sweets contain gelatin made from boiled up bits of dead animal carcass.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're a meat eater, I'm not sure why that's objectionable.
Click to expand...

you ever heard of bse? it wasn't passed on as Creutzfeldt-Jacobs through pure meat consumption


----------



## Spandex

Yodah said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the most objectionable part of all of this is the knowledge that kids sweets contain gelatin made from boiled up bits of dead animal carcass.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're a meat eater, I'm not sure why that's objectionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you ever heard of bse? it wasn't passed on as Creutzfeldt-Jacobs through pure meat consumption
Click to expand...

I have, of course, heard of BSE. I'm not sure why that's relevant though. The WHO has confirmed that the selection and refining process used to make food-grade gelatin is so extensive that there is no risk of BSE transmission.

Regardless, the point is that if you're willing to eat meat, then I find it surprising that eating an animal-based product would be considered 'objectionable'. Is it because meat is considered savoury and sweets are, well, sweet? Or is it because boiled up bones aren't a nice part of an animal (although I'm sure Rusty would rather use a good home-made stock than one from a packet)?


----------



## rustyintegrale

Spandex said:


> Regardless, the point is that if you're willing to eat meat, then I find it surprising that eating an animal-based product would be considered 'objectionable'. Is it because meat is considered savoury and sweets are, well, sweet? Or is it because boiled up bones aren't a nice part of an animal (although I'm sure Rusty would rather use a good home-made stock than one from a packet)?


It's the fact these products are used in childrens' sweets and there is no clear labelling to detail how the gelatin is made that I find objectionable. I'm sure many parents might be more selective of brands armed with that information.

I am a meat eater. I see nothing morally wrong with it and I also feel everyone has a right to choose what they put into their mouths. The problem with processed foods is that you're mainly left in the dark about what goes into the product.


----------



## Demessiah

I once dared to ask for sausage and chips in a local fish and chip shop. The hippy looking woman behind the counter barked at me " WE DONT SELL MEAT!" and pointed at the sign behind her saying no meat products.

I said "those fish look pretty meat like to me. I doubt quorn have moved forward that much, what are you on about? no meat products?"

We then had a long debate about whether on not fish was meat and whether or not fish had feelings, LOL, some of these people are nutjobs...

seriously? how can you be against eating meat and saving the poor cows and pigs then proceed to hack the head off an innocent fish.

Its animal racism I tell ya!


----------



## John-H

Some good points there! Yes, you should be better informed where things come from so you can make an educated choice. 
Education is a wonderful thing - :roll: - More than once I've asked if something vegetarian is available and been told, "There's fish..."

Once after rejecting the fish and clarifying "No meat", I was offered chicken! And when I said chicken was meat they insisted chicken wasn't meat! I said "Well, it's not a vegetable!" They then offered me a prawn salad as a main :lol: I was looking for the hidden camera!


----------



## jossytt

John-H said:


> Some good points there! Yes, you should be better informed where things come from so you can make an educated choice.
> Education is a wonderful thing - :roll: - More than once I've asked if something vegetarian is available and been told, "There's fish..."
> 
> Once after rejecting the fish and clarifying "No meat", I was offered chicken! And when I said chicken was meat they insisted chicken wasn't meat! I said "Well, it's not a vegetable!" They then offered me a prawn salad as a main :lol: I was looking for the hidden camera!


Unfortunately some chef/waiting staff can be that ignorant and its REALLY embarrassing because everyone then assumes were all like that


----------



## BrianR

> Once after rejecting the fish and clarifying "No meat", I was offered chicken! And when I said chicken was meat they insisted chicken wasn't meat! I said "Well, it's not a vegetable!" They then offered me a prawn salad as a main :lol: I was looking for the hidden camera!


[/quote]

Incredibly funny John :lol: you could turn that into a comedy tv sketch mate


----------



## John-H

That's what it felt like! :lol: They were young and it was a long time ago - most places have something veggie on the menu now.

It can go the other way. I once stopped at a hotel in Ireland and lined up in the self service queue. I helped myself to a huge plate of Yorkshire puddings, carrots, peas, potatoes, parsnips, red cabbage etc. when I got to the till the bloke said, "Oh you're not got any meat. Call it a pound."


----------



## BrianR

John-H said:


> That's what it felt like! :lol: They were young and it was a long time ago - most places have something veggie on the menu now.
> 
> It can go the other way. I once stopped at a hotel in Ireland and lined up in the self service queue. I helped myself to a huge plate of Yorkshire puddings, carrots, peas, potatoes, parsnips, red cabbage etc. when I got to the till the bloke said, "Oh you're not got any meat. Call it a pound."


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## ScoobyTT

rustyintegrale said:


> It's the fact these products are used in childrens' sweets









rustyintegrale said:


> there is no clear labelling to detail how the gelatin is made that I find objectionable.


a) Parents can easily find out how geletine is made if they're that concerned.
b) You still haven't explained why gelatine is objectionable, apart from a Daily Mail type argument.



rustyintegrale said:


> I am a meat eater. I see nothing morally wrong with it and I also feel everyone has a right to choose what they put into their mouths. The problem with processed foods is that you're mainly left in the dark about what goes into the product.


See (a) above. There's enough information on products as it is. We've now got a kaleidoscope of traffic lights to help fucktards who can't understand nutritional information and who have no apparent ability to determine how much of any given foodstuff is enough. Are you really suggesting that they should be told where gelatine comes from just so they can make an "informed choice" about whether the manufacture of gelatine sounds gross to them or not.

Would you recommend labelling having a complete biography of the lives of cochineal beetles too?


----------



## rustyintegrale

ScoobyTT said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the fact these products are used in childrens' sweets
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no clear labelling to detail how the gelatin is made that I find objectionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> a) Parents can easily find out how geletine is made if they're that concerned.
> b) You still haven't explained why gelatine is objectionable, apart from a Daily Mail type argument.
> 
> 
> 
> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a meat eater. I see nothing morally wrong with it and I also feel everyone has a right to choose what they put into their mouths. The problem with processed foods is that you're mainly left in the dark about what goes into the product.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See (a) above. There's enough information on products as it is. We've now got a kaleidoscope of traffic lights to help fucktards who can't understand nutritional information and who have no apparent ability to determine how much of any given foodstuff is enough. Are you really suggesting that they should be told where gelatine comes from just so they can make an "informed choice" about whether the manufacture of gelatine sounds gross to them or not.
> 
> Would you recommend labelling having a complete biography of the lives of cochineal beetles too?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about childrens' sweets such as Haribos. Just like turkey twizzlers, Happy Meals and all the other garbage disguised as food and marketed to kids, I find it objectionable that manufacturers can profit from selling this stuff without making clear exactly what is in them. Adults are able to make their own choices because they have supposedly got the nous to do so.

Now kids may not know (or even care) what gelatine is made from. They normally make judgements on what goes in their mouths purely on the basis of colour and taste. That's why sweets are bright colours and twizzlers/chicken nuggets covered in 'golden' breadcrumbs. Happy Meals seem to have to rely on the promise of a free toy, but let's not go into that.

Scoob you can't complain about the numbers of fat lardies in this country on the one hand and then defend the food industry for concealing the true ingredients of their produce on the other. The 'traffic light' system you mention is frankly laughable and nutritional labelling so damned small that most of us don't bother. The only 'safe' way to control what you eat is to buy fresh ingredients where possible and make your own meals. Sadly, despite the proliferation of cooking programmes on TV, most of us are content to live on ready meals or takeaways. The end result of that is the obesity problem seen on every street.

As for gelatine, the manufacturers of this stuff are pretty keen that we don't know how its made for fear it puts us off. Well make your own decision. The film is French but you can skip to 3.00 minutes in to see for yourself and also get a taste of what foods this insidious ingredient is hidden in...






What I'd like to know is how and why this stuffed was discovered.


----------



## ScoobyTT

rustyintegrale said:


> I'm talking about childrens' sweets such as Haribos. Just like turkey twizzlers, Happy Meals and all the other garbage disguised as food and marketed to kids, I find it objectionable that manufacturers can profit from selling this stuff without making clear exactly what is in them. Adults are able to make their own choices because they have supposedly got the nous to do so.


I'm still unclear what your objection is. Gelatine is listed in the ingredients. Gelatine-free alternatives to Haribo are available - they're still sweets, they still rot teeth, and they still have no nutritional value. Gelatine is a naturally-derived ingredient that dates back to traditional cooking uses. The fact that it now needs to be processed on an industrial scale is neither here nor there. Your objection seems to be more that its origin grosses you out a bit.



rustyintegrale said:


> Now kids may not know (or even care) what gelatine is made from. They normally make judgements on what goes in their mouths purely on the basis of colour and taste. That's why sweets are bright colours and twizzlers/chicken nuggets covered in 'golden' breadcrumbs.


I would say that sweets are bright colours because adults patronise children and think that they will only eat bright and sweet things. Unfortunately some parents seem to think that their children do only eat these things, primarily because the fools brought their kids up on them, didn't give then a proper diet and then wonder why their kids refuse to eat anything but sweet or salty shit. That's another issue.



rustyintegrale said:


> Scoob you can't complain about the numbers of fat lardies in this country on the one hand and then defend the food industry for concealing the true ingredients of their produce on the other.


a) The use of gelatine is not concealed from anyone. 
b) You made an argument that most people don't look at the information on packets. What more do you want manufacturers to do?
c) If you want to object to the contents of sweets and junk food, you should really be looking at the empty calorie content, colourings, etc. You're letting your argument drift somewhat from a beef about gelatine.




rustyintegrale said:


> As for gelatine, the manufacturers of this stuff are pretty keen that we don't know how its made for fear it puts us off. Well make your own decision. The film is French but you can skip to 3.00 minutes in to see for yourself and also get a taste of what foods this insidious ingredient is hidden in...


I think you need to provide some reasoning as to why gelatine is "insidious".



rustyintegrale said:


> What I'd like to know is how and why this stuffed was discovered.


http://amazingfactsworld.com/history-of-gelatin


----------



## John-H

I think people make choices about what they eat based on things that they find important to them, for all sorts of reasons - nutritional, health, sentimentality, moral, practical, monetary, religious etc. What's important to them guides their choice. Some of these reasons respond to logical analysis but some do not.

Gelatine in it's pure form has both nutritional advantages and health disadvantages depending on quantity. It's production may have involved health risks moreso in the past in this country but now if obtained from dubious sources where the standards are lower. Generally it's low risk if from a quality source.

Even if it's low risk it may not appeal to an individual and they can still find the idea of its source repulsive. Although its pure form is tasteless it's still a matter of "taste" whether you want to have it in your diet. We all have our likes and dislikes with food and can't always explain why we like one thing and not another.

If you have strong feelings about processed foods being delaterious to health in general relative terms, you may well feel gelatine is symptomatic of the incideous (hidden, harmful) spread of food processing values. After all, in the 80's there were some very good reasons to avoid it for fear of BSE CJD etc which all came from the abuse/mismanagement of the food chain of production. That may not be so much of a logical reason now but we learn from our experiences, fear about such repeat episodes and that can form the root of our feelings and rationalle/ethos/behaviour. That probably applies regardless of whether you eat meat or not.


----------



## rustyintegrale

ScoobyTT said:


> Your objection seems to be more that its origin grosses you out a bit...
> 
> ...I think you need to provide some reasoning as to why gelatine is "insidious".


Damned right it grosses me out. For the same reason I wouldn't eat tripe and struggle with some offal. I can do kidneys and livers but I couldn't do brain, tongue. I can't even do haggis! :lol:

Call me a lily-livered pooftah if you like but that's my choice and one I'd also like to make for my children until they can make their own decisions.


----------



## John-H

I must say the Clachaig Inn do a very nice Vegetarian Haggis as part of their veggie fry up breakfast. I've never tried a meat version but their's is delicious  They do a famously fabulous spicey bean stew too - not to mention about 10 real ales and I think about 300 whiskys now. Heaven [smiley=chef.gif] [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## rustyintegrale

John-H said:


> I must say the Clachaig Inn do a very nice Vegetarian Haggis as part of their veggie fry up breakfast. I've never tried a meat version but their's is delicious  They do a famously fabulous spicey bean stew too - not to mention about 10 real ales and I think about 300 whiskys now. Heaven [smiley=chef.gif] [smiley=cheers.gif]


I do like a good bean stew - spicy is good too... 8)

Real ales? Good.

Whiskies? Good but not for my head! Macallan is my favourite... 8)


----------



## ScoobyTT

rustyintegrale said:


> Damned right it grosses me out. For the same reason I wouldn't eat tripe and struggle with some offal. I can do kidneys and livers but I couldn't do brain, tongue. I can't even do haggis! :lol:


  What about making stock? :wink:


----------



## rustyintegrale

ScoobyTT said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damned right it grosses me out. For the same reason I wouldn't eat tripe and struggle with some offal. I can do kidneys and livers but I couldn't do brain, tongue. I can't even do haggis! :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> What about making stock? :wink:
Click to expand...

I can choose what i make that from. :wink:


----------



## Spandex

Ok, so you don't think there's anything wrong with_ other people_ eating gelatin, you just personally find the idea disgusting, so you don't want to eat it. Fair enough.

So, why the whole "think of the children" stuff? Surely if they (or their parents) don't object (and as Scooby has shown, it's use and manufacture are hardly a secret) then why do you care what they eat?


----------



## rustyintegrale

Spandex said:


> So, why the whole "think of the children" stuff? Surely if they (or their parents) don't object (and as Scooby has shown, it's use and manufacture are hardly a secret) then why do you care what they eat?


I don't.

I care about what _I_ and _my_ kids eat and it is up to every parent to care for what their kids eat. But if the parents don't know because the ingredients list is unclear then they'll either have to risk it or reject it outright. My choice would be the latter.


----------



## ScoobyTT

Why do you consider the ingredients list unclear?


----------



## rustyintegrale

ScoobyTT said:


> Why do you consider the ingredients list unclear?


Do you mean generally or specifically to something?

In general ingredients lists are too small, unless there's nothing to hide. In which case the manufacturers use it as a marketing tool.

Take Becks beer for example. It's made from barley, yeast, water and hops. Nothing else.

Then take Strongbow cider. It's made from apples, sugar, sweetener and cochineal. Cochineal is made from crushed insects.

How many people would know that?


----------



## ScoobyTT

Well I mentioned cochineal before and asked whether you were wanting ingredients on products to provide the life story of a typical cochineal beetle. You didn't answer the question.

You have a point about marketing. Usually any emblazoned "WITH __________" on the front is just a trick to create a healthier impression of the product, and to distract from the rest of the ingredients. Sunny Delight is the most ludicrous example I can think of, where for some unfathomable reason many parents thought it was "good for you". Unfortunately when you see any "ask Joe Public" talking head poll slots in news and documentaries, it's obvious that these tricks work. :roll: A decent product doesn't need to say "hey look at X" whilst sweeping something else under the carpet.

I have no objection to cochineal at all, but if you drink Strongbow or other beverages of that ilk you should expect something made in a hurry and far removed from traditional brewing. That's why those "piss in a can" drinks are on sale for a few quid for a case.


----------



## rustyintegrale

ScoobyTT said:


> Well I mentioned cochineal before and asked whether you were wanting ingredients on products to provide the life story of a typical cochineal beetle. You didn't answer the question.
> 
> You have a point about marketing. Usually any emblazoned "WITH __________" on the front is just a trick to create a healthier impression of the product, and to distract from the rest of the ingredients. Sunny Delight is the most ludicrous example I can think of, where for some unfathomable reason many parents thought it was "good for you". Unfortunately when you see any "ask Joe Public" talking head poll slots in news and documentaries, it's obvious that these tricks work. :roll: A decent product doesn't need to say "hey look at X" whilst sweeping something else under the carpet.
> 
> I have no objection to cochineal at all, but if you drink Strongbow or other beverages of that ilk you should expect something made in a hurry and far removed from traditional brewing. That's why those "piss in a can" drinks are on sale for a few quid for a case.


Life story of the beetle? No, a simple 'crushed insects' in brackets would suffice... :lol:

Sunny Delight was clever marketing indeed. Make it look like orange juice, emblazon it with cheery words like 'sunny' and 'delight', position it in the chiller cabinet alongside 'healthier' drinks and watch the similar colour schemes fool the punter into believing they were buying into a healthier lifestyle.

So why do you think Coca Cola sells so well? Perhaps because it is multi-purpose...

To clean a toilet: 
Pour a can of Coca-Cola into the toilet bowl. Let the "real thing" sit for one hour, then flush clean. The citric acid in Coke removes stains from vitreous china.

To remove rust spots from chrome car bumpers: 
Rub the bumper with a crumpled-up piece of aluminium foil dipped in Coca-Cola.

To clean corrosion from car battery terminals: 
Pour a can of Coca-Cola over the terminals to bubble away the corrosion.

To loosen a rusted bolt: 
Applying a cloth soaked in Coca-Cola to the rusted bolt for several minutes.

Do you fancy joining me for a pint of Cillit Bang? :lol:


----------



## Yodah

Think I'd prefer rust to boiled bones :roll:


----------



## ScoobyTT

Isn't Cillit Bang just coke in a purple bottle?


----------



## rustyintegrale

ScoobyTT said:


> Isn't Cillit Bang just coke in a purple bottle?


Let me know... :wink:


----------



## Yodah

Think the long and short of it is that many/most parents don't know how to make sense of food labels. I'm with Integrale on this.Let's have food labeling that can be understood by everyone: A level, GCSE, or even just 5 years at school.
Guess the food industry is not keen on correct labeling though


----------



## Spandex

Exactly. Never let it be said you can have too much of a nanny state.

Maybe we can all get someone from the government to hold our hands when we go to the supermarket too?


----------



## Yodah

Spandex said:


> Exactly. Never let it be said you can have too much of a nanny state.
> 
> Maybe we can all get someone from the government to hold our hands when we go to the supermarket too?


:lol: :lol:
I like that hand holding idea! Wheres my supermarket guide got to


----------



## ScoobyTT

Yodah said:


> Think the long and short of it is that many/most parents don't know how to make sense of food labels.


Perhaps they aren't qualified to be breeding then. :lol:



Yodah said:


> I'm with Integrale on this.Let's have food labeling that can be understood by everyone: A level, GCSE, or even just 5 years at school.


Sorry but what more do you want?

There's a list of ingredients, put in order. 
There's a neat, clear table of nutritional broken down into a few simple groups. 
They include comparisons to guideline amounts. 
These tables now nearly always have two columns: one giving the percentages, and another giving the amounts per designated portion size to help retards who can't do basic multiplication.

AND! If that wasn't enough, they repeat the same information on the front with comparison to guideline amounts, and COLOUR CODED for the benefit of mouth-breathers who still find it too fucking hard to understand.

All that's left for them to do is be vaguely cognisant of the values, and add up what they eat in a day and not get fat. What is so bloody hard about that? It requires ONE mathematical operator: "+"

*What else in the name of deep-friend monkey shit can they do to try and help!? Robotic spoon feeding? Automated nutrional gruel dispensers?* THey're trying to help people who can't even manage to get fucking dressed before leaving the house. :lol:


----------



## Yodah

:lol: Hillarious Scooby!
Think I can read food labels but does the ordinary parent know that Vitamin C is often marked as an 'emulsifier' or to turn it round: when someone reads 'emulsifier' on the ingrediants' list do they really know it could be Vitamin C? I wonder, ,,,,, 
And the same goes for many other ingrediants as well


----------



## techfreak

I guess the point is clear plain English straightforward transparency within the existing ingredients list would be ideal. Usually I look for the vegetarian sign, if it's not there I check the ingredients..if I'm not sure I either do a quick google on my phone or check when I get home and know for next time.

I don't bust my balls over it, if it reads veg n some ingredient isn't and I'm unaware I don't stress when I find out I just stop using it when I do know and move on.

The rest of it is easy in terms of nutritional content and healthy vs junk stuff. Don't need to use the silly colour codes and I don't take their portion sizes in to account, when I compare i use the per 100g column and then work out my own personal portion size. For example my morning bowl of cereal is usually 60-80g when I realised I was eating 100g of weetos and the sugar content(!) I quit and went back on a reduced portion size of weetabix or cornflakes and started eating lunch again...


----------



## wja96

Yodah said:


> :lol: Hillarious Scooby!
> Think I can read food labels but does the ordinary parent know that Vitamin C is often marked as an 'emulsifier' or to turn it round: when someone reads 'emulsifier' on the ingrediants' list do they really know it could be Vitamin C? I wonder, ,,,,,
> And the same goes for many other ingrediants as well


If you mean Ascorbic Acid (E300) then the reason you can't label it up as Vitamin C is it's not functional in your body, it's already performed it's function as an antioxidant in the foodstuff. It is usually labelled up as Antioxidant or E300 (Antioxidant).

I think you mean well in suggesting that not all chemicals are bad (they're not), and I don't like having to point out that by the time you get to eat it, it's not vitamin C anymore, so forgive me if I've pricked any balloons. To get vitamin C from food you need to eat fresh fruit, vegetables or a fortified product like bread (most bread made since the second world war gives you a full daily requirement of vitamins in about 4 slices).

What at be comforting to know is that most foods do indeed use classic kitchen know-how. Do you want your sliced apples to NOT go brown? You'd squeeze some lemon juice or citric acid over them (a natural antioxidant) and I add something ommercially pure from the following list depending on cost an how much antioxidant power I need.

E330 Citric acid , E331 Sodium citrates (i) Monosodium citrate (ii) Disodium citrate (iii) Trisodium citrate, E332 Potassium citrates (i) Monopotassium citrate (ii) Tripotassium citrate , E333 Calcium citrates (i) Monocalcium citrate (ii) Dicalcium citrate (iii) Tricalcium citrate, E380 Triammonium citrate, E472c Citric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids, E1505 Triethyl citrate.

If I'm asking an expensive product, I'll use E330. If I want cheap I'll use E331 sodium citrate. If I want a low salt product I'll use E332 because the potassium doesn't impact on my declared sodium level (salt in foods isn't actually the salt level, it's the total sodium level expressed as Sodium Chloride).

The most common reason you add milk or milk powder is it's a natural emulsifier (that's why the white fat globules stay suspended in the milk and give it it's white colour).

And then you have all the undeclared processing aids like Sodium Ferrocyanide which is a flow agent used in pretty much all salt, but not declared because it's at too low a level (<1ppm) in the finished foodstuff.

And processed vegetarian foods have some of the best additives in them too. Especially the highly processed ones like Tofu and Quorn.

So maybe not so comforting after all.


----------



## jossytt

wja96 said:


> Yodah said:
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: Hillarious Scooby!
> Think I can read food labels but does the ordinary parent know that Vitamin C is often marked as an 'emulsifier' or to turn it round: when someone reads 'emulsifier' on the ingrediants' list do they really know it could be Vitamin C? I wonder, ,,,,,
> And the same goes for many other ingrediants as well
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean Ascorbic Acid (E300) then the reason you can't label it up as Vitamin C is it's not functional in your body, it's already performed it's function as an antioxidant in the foodstuff. It is usually labelled up as Antioxidant or E300 (Antioxidant).
> 
> I think you mean well in suggesting that not all chemicals are bad (they're not), and I don't like having to point out that by the time you get to eat it, it's not vitamin C anymore, so forgive me if I've pricked any balloons. To get vitamin C from food you need to eat fresh fruit, vegetables or a fortified product like bread (most bread made since the second world war gives you a full daily requirement of vitamins in about 4 slices).
> 
> What at be comforting to know is that most foods do indeed use classic kitchen know-how. Do you want your sliced apples to NOT go brown? You'd squeeze some lemon juice or citric acid over them (a natural antioxidant) and I add something ommercially pure from the following list depending on cost an how much antioxidant power I need.
> 
> E330 Citric acid , E331 Sodium citrates (i) Monosodium citrate (ii) Disodium citrate (iii) Trisodium citrate, E332 Potassium citrates (i) Monopotassium citrate (ii) Tripotassium citrate , E333 Calcium citrates (i) Monocalcium citrate (ii) Dicalcium citrate (iii) Tricalcium citrate, E380 Triammonium citrate, E472c Citric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids, E1505 Triethyl citrate.
> 
> If I'm asking an expensive product, I'll use E330. If I want cheap I'll use E331 sodium citrate. If I want a low salt product I'll use E332 because the potassium doesn't impact on my declared sodium level (salt in foods isn't actually the salt level, it's the total sodium level expressed as Sodium Chloride).
> 
> The most common reason you add milk or milk powder is it's a natural emulsifier (that's why the white fat globules stay suspended in the milk and give it it's white colour).
> 
> And then you have all the undeclared processing aids like Sodium Ferrocyanide which is a flow agent used in pretty much all salt, but not declared because it's at too low a level (<1ppm) in the finished foodstuff.
> 
> And processed vegetarian foods have some of the best additives in them too. Especially the highly processed ones like Tofu and Quorn.
> 
> So maybe not so comforting after all.
Click to expand...

I wish there was a 'LIKE' button for this, are you a food technologist? Its actually scary the amount of additives that are in foods, especially meat substitutes and gluten free products. People seem to think you can just simply extract something and not replace it i.e gluten free cakes they just assume that its just flour with the gluten removed and that it has not other stabilisers involved in the process.


----------



## wja96

No, I'm not a proper food technologist, but I work in the general area.


----------

