Today's Guardian: Why I Must Not Teach My Children What I Think Is Ethical Behaviour But Omnis Can

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/20/veganism-safe-children  - "Is veganism safe for children?"

I really don't have time to read the comments, but here's one that always sticks in my craw: "Why do you force your beliefs on to your children?".

For the same reason I will teach them to be kind to others, not to hit, to tell the truth and to share. Because ALL parents teach their kids the things they think are right. The assumption in the question is that the default - meat-eating etc - is a morally neutral default and that my wacky, crazy beliefs are intrinsically damaging. 

I wonder if we might term this 'omni privilege'. 

I find it interesting that when vegan parents write about their own experiences here, the response is "And here are the vegan zealots coming out of the woodwork". The question is about veganism and kids; these people have experience with it and choose to write about it, but suddenly they're proselytising weirdos. Each of them has said their kids are healthy but apparently their direct evidence is suspect because they don't take their kids to the local fried chicken shop.

 

Lord, hear our prayer, or: unvegan shoppering

Hi Jeans Manufacturers (especially Lee and Mavi), 

Could you please stop using leather labels on the back of your jeans. It makes them unvegan. It is religious discrimination because it stops me worshipping at my church, The Holy Sepulchre of the Blessed Sacred Heart of the Sainted Mercy of Shopping. I cannot lay my purchases at the feet of Our Lady of Purchase and seek her holy blessing for my next shopping trip. I will never be heard by the Archangel Amex if I cannot flagellate myself in the Changing Room of Small Sizing Horror. I cannot sing with the Heavenly Choir of Consumer Cherubim. I will never be able to join the Seraphim of Sales.  Preventing me from buying jeans means that I will never achieve the Rapture of the Perfect Denim. 

You are losing my business. 

Your sincerely, 

A Poor Penitent

Haigh's is back in my good books, or: I receive a phone call

I should have written this post a couple of weeks ago when Haigh's contacted me again in response to my complaints. 

Upfront, I'll be clear: I still disagree with the conclusion that Haigh's has come to. I think they've fallen on the wrong side of conservative. But ... I now have a lot of respect for their methods. 

After my letters to Haigh's (here and here) I received an email asking if I would speak to a member of the executive management team. Thinking this could go either way, I agreed, and after playing a bit of phone tag I received a call from Susan. 

I liked her. She was nice. She was genuine. She was really concerned to explain to me their thinking at every step, and I respected the lengths she had gone to. 

My biggest gripe with the labelling chocolate/allergen issue was that it wasn't a legal requirement. Using my super-sleuth skills, I tracked through legislation and guidelines to try to find out exactly what was required, and as far as I could see, my dark chocolate frogs were being unfairly labelled and taken away from me. 

Susan gave me the background to Haigh's' (how do I apostrophise that one eh?) decision. In early 2009 Susan attended a training session which used the VITAL risk assessment tool (Voluntary Incidental Trace Allegen Label), which is recommended by the Australian Food and Grocery Council. (If you're more interested than I am, you can read about it here).  On testing Haigh's products they realised that if they applied the VITAL tool then they should be labelling milk as an ingredient in their dark chocolate. 

So I get this. As a company Haigh's chose to use a particular analytical tool which gave them this answer. It had nothing to do with their legal obligations and everything to do with their corporate  risk assessment decisions. In my view these are the actions of a company acting sensibly and responsibly. Apparently testing also showed that the level of trace milk in the dark chocolate varied so wildly that one batch to another would record ingredient-level or trace-level amounts. In Haigh's view it was not safe to label this variation as simply 'may contain'.

Susan also told me that she contacted the SA Department of Health for advice, as well as holding discussions with Anaphylaxis Australia (can you believe that parents with dairy-allergic kids will still give them foods that 'may contain traces of'? Crazy and reckless).

On the bright side, Haigh's is moving towards having a dedicated dairy-free facility. Not being a player on the scale of Cadbury this is a costly and time-consuming process, but I like that Haigh's recognises a need for it and is working towards it.

I still disagree about the ultimate outcome - I maintain that 'may contain traces of' should be a sufficient warning and is an accurate reflection of the product - but I accept that the VITAL tool renders a different result and that Haigh's has chosen, as a responsible producer, to use this industry standard. I stil want dark chocolate frogs. But I respect the process and the decision, even if I disagree with it. 

So there you have it - Haigh's have gained my respect for not only their risk assessment processes but also for the way in which they handled my complaint (I even got a follow up email to check I was happy with the outcome of the conversation). I am confident that Haigh's did what they thought was best for their business and customers, following consultation and due process. I don't like the lack of frogs in my life, but I can live with it.

Tenth Muse is deeply disappointing, or: I don't finish

I often leave meals languishing in my iPhoto for months before blogging them. This one's really fresh; just hours old and driven by my deep and desperate disappointment. 

The Tenth Muse boasts wide range of omni, vegetarian, vegan and gluten free options.  I love ordering a vegan meal directly off the menu without going through all the 'no dairy' specifics. This morning I ordered the big vegan fry-up with beans and avocados. 

Coffee (watery) came and went. I read the paper cover to cover. We were the only customers. The music alternated between ear-bleeding and silent. 

Breakfast came. It was big. 

It was the worst cooked breakfast I can recall.

The Turkish bread was doused in what must have been at least two tablespoons of Nuttelex. The tomatoes were barely cooked. The scrambled tofu was soggy and bland. Every single thing on my plate was drowning in oil.

The avocado was black and brown all the way through.  The picture above doesn't do it credit. I cannot believe anyone had the cheek to plate it, let alone charge money for it. 

If I want baked beans from a tin I'll go home and open one of the little tins I keep which cost $5 for 8 at Coles. If I want a McDonald's hash brown I'll go there (I won't. But if I want a hash brown like the one here I'll go to the supermarket and buy a plastic bag full of frozen ones). 

Not a single thing tasted of anything but oil. If I had ordered this at Fat Eddy's Route 66 Side-of-the-Highway Cafe on Wheels at 3 in the morning, I would have been pleased. In a cafe situated in the heart of Melbourne's coffee'n'cafe streets, which has obviously taken great care to create a menu to suit all dietary preferences, this was incredibly disappointing. 

This disappointing: this is what I ate. 

I have rarely not finished a meal, and I've never chosen not to continue one after a couple of bites.  Especially when I'm paying for it. I just couldn't bear to eat this one at all. 

And when our harried waiter collected my virtually-intact plate, there was no checking if the meal was ok. Clearly it wasn't. 

We didn't get charged for our coffees because of the wait. It was the small positive (along with all the same-sex marriage rally pictures on the wall. I liked them).

I left deeply disappointed and feeling ripped off. There was nothing special, nothing even passable, about this breakfast. Much as I want to support any cafe that offers vegan options, I won't be back. I went home and ate toast.

An abuser is an abuser, or: the US starts seeing animal abuse for what it is (and isn't)

From today's NY Times Online. 

I'm pleased that more and more US States are passing legislation that bar convicted animal abusers from owning or coming into contact with pets. I think it's great that further attention is being paid by authorities to animal hoarders, even though I think that the level of abuse usually perpetrated by hoarders - chronic neglect, lack of health care, inadequate care and shelter, leaving dead animals' bodies where they fall - would seem to stem from a place of more benign intentions than animal torture does. Nonetheless, animal hoarders do need to be identified and helped (or prosecuted) and the animals they hoard need to be removed. An abuser is an abuser.

I am especially pleased that eight states now require child or spousal abuse officers and animal control officers to share information and report to each other when they find something wrong. This acknowledges the chilling statistic (reported in the article) that in 88% of homes where children were abused, animals were abused too, and that women who have been abused by their intimate partner were 10 times more likely to report that their partner had also hurt or killed a pet. It helps place animal abuse in the same sphere as child or intimate partner violence and it reflects the seriousness of any abuse of the defenceless. An abuser is an abuser.

Although I see that these changes place animal abuse firmly in the real of abuse-response services, which is appropriate, and that it is widely acknowledged that the abuse of animals is a leading indicator of the abuse of humans, I still feel a little sad that the article implies that some of these laws are only here to identify and prosecute animal abusers as a means to identify and prosecute human abusers. It's an important link and one which has been instrumental in raising the profile of animal abuse as something to be acted upon, but we must also recognise that abusing animals is wrong because it is ... abusing animals. An abuser is an abuser.

This bit doesn't please me either: "Some states are bucking the trend. In Idaho, which is one of the states without a felony cruelty penalty, farmers and ranchers are pushing a bill that would more clearly distinguish livestock from pets and would exempt livestock from the protections afforded pets". Because the standard treatment of livestock amounts to abuse? Or because no one cares about a nameless faceless cow as long as Fluffy the Cat and Rex the Dog are safe at home? An abuser is an abuser. 

Many people will see animal abuse as sitting much much lower on the scale of wrongness than the abuse of humans. I'm not going to address that; it's a huge issue. But to me it is clear - people who like to hurt defenceless beings will do it to anyone they can. Abusers are abusers.

Vancouver in the West, or: we roadtrip and discover a diamond in the rough

Honestly, I freakin' hate the blogger photo uploader. Just let me put thing where I want to put them!

Buzz and I recently took a road trip to Albany, WA for our friends Mr and Mrs P's wedding. After many many hours on the road from Perth, the discovery that most of WA shops - including the big supermarkety ones - close on Sundays was a bit of a bugger, compounded by our lack of cooking facilities. I morosely accepted a few days of supermaket hummus and plain chips for me. 

Thoughtfully Mr and Mrs P had already arranged vegan catering for me at their afternoon garden party - and it was inhaled swiftly. The lovely caterer was from a local cafe, Vancouver Cafe, and so post-wedding (mid-seediness), Buzz and I trouped down along with our friend Mr Stoff for breakfast. 

Not often do you get to discuss veganism with the staff, nor have the chef stick his head out of the kitchen hatch to tell you he can make your rosti without egg. Along with an arts'n'crafts, shabby boho interior, this ensured a return visit the day after, before our road trip back, which is photographed here. 

What a breakfast! That's local sourdough bread (guaranteed vegan and beautifully chewy), Nuttelex, avocado, homemade baked beans, rosti,, onion, mushroom, baby spinach, and tomatoes stuffed with homemade ... stuffing.

Each and every element was home made and home flavoured. Each thing on my plate had its own taste, texture and flavour rather than being just a heated up thing. This breakfast rated up there and firmly challenged the best of Smith St, not only for its mouthwateringness but also for the honest and earnest commitment to real food.

Vancouver Cafe was a little oasis in a town of roundabouts and Sunday closing. If you ever find yourself driving five hours south of Perth, rest assured that supermarket hummus is not the best you have to look forward to.

Catch me, catch me! or: I trawl the archives

More catch ups, while I'm da mood. 

As Buzz and I are still Champions of the Crystal Quest to End Same-Same Cookering, I'll be trying to upload pictures of some of our weekly cookering more regularly - but be warned! I cannot commit to giving a full run-down on each! You shall get quick snappy pithy descriptions and cutting insightful opinions! That is all, comrades!

Rice Queen, June 2009. Oh jeez...

Oh jeez just because of the delay. Rice Queen's staff were able to point out a couple of straight-up vegan dishes on their menu without pausing, and a quick consultation with the kitchen yielded still more. Yes, ladles and jellyspoons, there is more than one main and entree we can eat. Below is a Masala Dosa and a Plantain Curry with lovely little crispy papadums. I'm sure you'll understand that I don't recall specifics. It was good though, and good value. Thanks. 

 

Red Emperor, October 2009

Dislike. We thought Red Emperor was going to be upscale Chinese cuisine, but the interior is very grey-vinyl chairs, tubular metal fixtures and early 1990s furnishings. The service focusses on bringing you steaming towels, but not your beer. And when that beer is poured that it's half head, that beer is not replaced. 

So yes, I remember that the beer was poured badly. So sue me. 

I also remember that the food was expensive and sub-standard. Below is a cream of corn soup - adequate, and a plate which purported to be a mix of vegetables. They were mixed, but in oval shaped fried balls of ickiness. And that plate cost $32. Don't go. Just don't. Especially on your anniversary.

Prospect Park Potato Salad from Veganomicon, a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away

I'm pretty meh on potato salad. I'm very blergh on mayo. But I thought that this would be a great one to take along to a gathering of omnis because it's familiar and would probably lead to '" Oh, however did you make it without dairy you marvel you?!" comments. 

Actually I can't even remember if I took it anywhere and where that anywhere may have been. But I did enjoy the seeded mustard and the explicit instruction in the recipe to grate - and grate only! - the carrot into the salad.