On Thu 2015-02-05 13:47:14 -0500, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> I fail to see why you think that the current proposed wording of "no
> dietary restrictions" implies that every meal will have meat.
I think this because i've seen it happen very often.
Many conference meals i've been at include explicit instructions to the
omnivores to not eat any of the vegetarian food so that the vegetarians
will have enough to eat. This results in more people eating meat than
want to eat meat.
> I don't see anything in this option that guarantees you meat on every
> meal or even on every day. I also don't think we have to offer this at
> all. I at least never heared of a serious diet which requires someone to
> eat meat every day. We also don't offer cheese or apples or whatever
> every day as an option. If there are special needs, then there is always
> the option to contact the organizers.
I'm glad that there seems to be agreement at least among those on this
list that "no dietary restrictions" does not and should not mean "meat
at every meal".
>> Sure, adding "must eat meat/fish at every meal" to the current options
>> would be a fine step to take.
>
> I would strongly oppose to add such an option. This request just seems
> insane to me. The option "no restrictions" should just include as much
> meat the organiziers and the caterer thinks is reasonable.
The questions then, are:
* how much meat do we think is reasonable?
* how do we arrive at that decision?
> I'm all in favor of not offering meat on every meal and for ordering
> more vegetarian meals than the minimum number required to feed those
> that indicated that they only eat vegetarian (or vegan) food.
I'm glad to hear this too. How much more vegetarian and vegan meals
should than the baseline should we request for each sitting? How should
we arrive at this number? How should we communicate it to the people
providing us with food?
--dkg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature