missydarlin

Are you reading the same thread as I am?

The OP says the dressing packet said "Milk Fish Soy". Fish is not vegetarian so I'm not sure where you can say "by all accounts" he/she was served a vegetarian meal.

ANOTHER posted suggested that "Milk Fish Soy" meant "fish made from soy", but no one has been able to confirm this... and you'd think theyd call it Soy Fish if that were true. And then someone else entirely went on a rant about fake meat in general.

The OP's concern is that he/she ordered a vegetarian meal, and it came with a product containing fish. The bottom line is, if the OP correctly read the label, the meal was not vegetarian.

However, I can't fathom why there would be fish in ranch dressing, and I can see how it could easily be added to a vegetarian option by a caterer without even considering that there might be fish in the ranch dressing. Caesar dressing yes, Ranch dressing, no. I

I know they have to disclose if something was produced on the same equipment as "milk, fish, soy"... so perhaps that what was on the label. It would be reasonable to assume that a company might make ranch dressing and caesar dressing with the same equipment.

Since we don't have a copy of the label, we only have the OP's statement.

snod08

Well said.
I pay a lot of attention to what I am getting on a flight for a veggie meal. If there are no labels on something, i ask the FA's. Sometimes, they have a description of the ingredients (esp on CO domestic F meals).

If I dont know what I am getting, then i simply wont eat it. Of course, I will be prepared with some alternate things to eat.
Or simply starve (i have done that too on TATL flights).


^

nas6034

People, people.

As I have said again, and maybe people should read, the package stated the following: "CONTAINS MILK FISH SOY".

As a veg, I long by now know the difference between "may contain..." which is the usual on packages for products that may be manufactured in the same facilities and what I read on that specific packaging. I showed it to my companion and even told the FA about it who told me to go complain on delta.com. Oh and when I asked the FA what the other items in the meal were she barely knew.

While I would like to reply back to every single person's comment that is so so far-fetched, so wrong, so ridiculous that it belongs on (insert here news channel that does not do their research), I cannot. The comments do make me very, very sad.

I do wish I saved the top of that package, but if I received the ranch dressing then it means many other people have long been receiving it in their veg meals. If someone gets the ranch dressing, ex-nyc, please save the packaging and let us know what it "contains".

Alas, I still await Delta's reply on this situation.

tgtg

FWIW, I 99.99% of the time get some sort of vinaigrette with my veggie meal. Although I've longed for the Ranch, it is now obviously something to be avoided...who would have thought?

-=tg=-

jimrpa

I chedked out his website (pretty cool by the way), and it says:

Opositive

Alright, I'm going to out myself here for the good of the thread (if that's even possible).

I just happen to be a practicing Buddhist. As such, please allow me to provide a little insight into the the rules concerning diet.

First of all, there are no rules. The traditions concerning diet vary from one branch of Buddhism to the next. People in the west think of Buddhism as one big homogeneous religion. It's far from that. Just as Christianity spans the field from Orthodox Russian Catholics to West Virginia snake handlers, Buddhism is widely diverse on many, many practices including diet.

Some branches of Buddhism follow a very strict dietary tradition that is very close to vegan in the west. They will not take any form of animal flesh even if it's offered as a gift. Others have a much more relaxed attitude and will eat fish and shellfish. Others will also include a portion of meat from time to time for complex reasons I won't go into here.

Regardless of the tradition it's well recognized within Buddhism that there is absolutely no hard and set rule on this. It's considered to be better if you are a strict vegetarian. At the same time it's also recognized that every person follows their own path on such decisions. While practitioners are encouraged to be vegetarians it's certainly not forced upon them. It's not like all the other Buddhist kids won't play with you if they catch you with a Chicken McNugget in your hand.

As for the bit about gifts of meat:

Taking meat is seen as an acceptable practice in this circumstance because the person accepting the gift did not participate in the killing of the animal. BUT - and it's a very big "but" - such gifts are generally not accepted if the animal is specifically killed for the purpose of making the gift or if the animal is killed in the presence of the person meant to receive it.

It's OK to hand a passing monk a roast beef sandwich at the airport. He may or may not take it, but he won't be offended by either the gift or the generosity you show. It's not OK to bring a cow over to his monastery and slaughter it for a Saturday BBQ. That offer, no matter how well intended, will almost certainly be politely refused.

As I said, it's a complicated issue and, truthfully, it's not even germane to the topic at hand.

However, it's not often I get to spout off about Buddhism in public so I'm going to go against the teachings of humility and quiet demeanor in this one particular instance and feed my ego by posting this. I hope it helps to clear up a couple of things earlier in the thread.

Cheers,
OPos.

PS - I am, BTW, one of the pescetarian (fish eating) Buddhists. I'll take that packet of Ranch if you're not going to use it.

houserulz77

It seems as long as this thread has been going on, and considering the number of very frequent flyers in the forum, someone has, is, or soon will travel on a flight that has a meal. Can someone please make an effort to see if there is ranch dressing available, and then look at the packaging.

If it's a disclaimer (i.e. may have touched something) then we can agree its legalese and move on. If it's some product called "fish milk soy" then we can consult a nutritionist or something. If there is fish in the dressing then someone can make sure that the matter is forwarded to Delta, and I'm sure they will address it with catering.

I for one love steak, but I respect someones right to order a vegetarian meal if available, and be able to get it. But there is so much conjecture on this topic, and I would think we have the collective resources to clarify the contents of the dressing.

Anybody got a trip coming up in F where a meal is being served? Care to check for us?

Thanks!

l etoile

Yeah, it is cool ...totally off-topic, but my son got to meet him (and even mic him!) when he was staying at his dorm in Cambridge, which I thought was very cool.

Back to the veg part, this is pretty much all I know about it from 2004 Reader's Digest interview:

Reader’s Digest: Your assistant says you are half vegetarian. How can one be “half vegetarian?”

Dalai Lama: [Laughs.] In the early 1960s, I became a vegetarian, and for almost two years I remained a strict vegetarian. But then I developed hepatitis, and I returned to my previous diet; for a while it would be vegetarian one day, nonvegetarian the next. My kitchen is now totally vegetarian. But that doesn’t mean I am completely vegetarian, for when I visit places, occasionally I take nonvegetarian…that seems to help reduce the size of my stomach. [DL]

And here's the link to the page in his autobiography where he supports the above and mentions it was under doctor's instructions:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nQ7...tarian&f=false

danielonn

Ok lets just say someone who ordered a Kosher Meal and could not eat meat and milk together in the same meal and lo and behold got this Ranch Dressing with their chicken how would they feel? I can honestly see where you are coming from. I would write Delta and tell them that the reason you order the Vegetarian meal is so that way you are guaranteed a meal that you can eat without any animal products. You have every right to let Delta know about this. On the other hand its like having a peanut allergy its your responsibility to read the ingredients but Delta catering should have done this beforehand.

Moebius01

^This.

Plus the fact that there are quite a number of definitions of vegetarian (some of which include dairy products, some of which even include fish products). It sounds to me like the OP considers him(her)self a vegan, meaning no animal product period (a lifestyle which I would assert is effectively impossible when you consider how many animal products are in everything, but that's a different debate). Perhaps Delta uses one of the looser definitions.

Does Delta have a Vegan selection as well as Vegetarian? If they do offer both and a vegetarian meal was requested, then there's little room for complaint. If they do not offer both, then I would say there is room for complaint, but not the threat of legal action as has been bantered about in this thread. At least not until an industry standard definition is adopted.

l etoile

I didn't get that the OP is vegan. Vegan would mean no milk, no eggs, no honey, no wearing leather, only vegan wines/beers, etc. The OP seems to be objecting only to the possible presence of fish in his container of salad dressing, which technically would not be vegetarian, but yes, there are people who eat fish and call themselves vegetarians thus confusing the matter for many.

Most likely DL does offer a vegan meal as most US airlines do.

tgtg

DL does offer a presumably Vegan meal: Vegetarian/Non-Dairy.

Unfortunately, it often comes with milk, cheese and eggs.

-=tg=-

Bear96

^This again.

I am vegetarian and am consistently surprised about how many people think that "vegetarians" eat chicken and fish. To me, "vegetarian" = no meat, and chicken and fish = meat, so vegetarian =/= chicken and fish. But for reasons I do not understand, a lot of the general public does not seem to think so. Delta and/or its caterers apparently are caught up in this confusion. Since it is so widespread, I am not sure it is fair to be angry at them for not meeting your particular definition (or mine) of vegetarianism with a given meal, especially since it was "only" over a byproduct. (Had you been served a big slab of pigeon or tilapia, or some other form of poultry / aquatic roast beast as a main course, that might be different.)

Perhaps the real blame is on people who call themselves "vegetarian" yet still eat chicken and/or fish. That just adds to the confusion. If you really want to eliminate fish from special meals, it is probably safest to order the vegan option, if available.

As to the mention of lawsuits over this: (Not only am I vegetarian, but I am also a lawyer.)

amanuensis

This site says that one subtype of vegetarian includes fish in their diet. So I do not think that Delta acted incorrectly in this case since they never claimed that ALL vegetarians would find their vegetarian meal appropriate. (If Delta had been making this claim, they would have not also offered a vegan meal.)

nas6034

People that eat chicken are not considered vegetarians.
People that eat fish are not considered vegetarians. As Opositive pointed out they would be considered pescetarians.

A list of meals from Delta's website:
* Asian
* Baby
* Child
* Bland
* Diabetic
* Gluten-free
* Hindu
* Kosher
* Low-calorie
* Low-cholesterol
* Low-fat
* Low-sodium
* Muslim
* Passover
* Vegetarian (lacto-ovo)
* Vegetarian (pure)

I just called Delta, and spoke to a Ryan, and asked him about the veg meal and asked him is there fish or chicken? He said its bread, salad, spinach, and vegetable medley(the example given in their system). No animal products. It's pure vegetarian. That is what he said. I am sure they did not write "pure" for no reason.