@anthropoid@101010.pl
Do you? I think it depends on the country, state, type of institution, whether menus are prepared internally or outsourced, policy at the particular institution, etc.
In any case, my point is: even if they always gave you two options, you are still “forced”, because you’re denied all the other myriad possible foods one could want.
@anthropoid@101010.pl
There are more than two or three major types of diet, not to mention the weird ones. I don’t see a qualitative difference between saying “pick between beef and vegetable stew”, “pick between salmon sandwich, kosher lasagna or creamed leeks”, or any other tuple of options. In all cases someone high above made a political decision about what exactly to offer.
If all two or three options available happen not to have any fish or meat as ingredients, so what? We vegetarians are very used to being offered non-#vegetarian options only.
@anthropoid@101010.pl
As long as someone has to decide what to offer, it makes sense to have more or less objective criteria to design menus.
Today, economic criteria forbid caviar, truffle, wild salmon, oysters, etc. at public institutions — and we understand that. Medical criteria often forbid nuts and seafood because of allergies, and that’s OK. Doctors also may veto sugary drinks, fried chicken, donuts, sugar-coated cereal, etc. and nobody is outraged. In the west, canteens and catering don’t serve dog or snake for cultural and PR reasons (although those may be perfectly reasonable dishes elsewhere) and we don’t give that a second thought.
…and so, if there were good economic, environmental and ethical criteria to avoid meat, fish, eggs and/or dairy at schools, prisons or hospitals, why not do it? Why are those criteria any less important?
(I do think there are good economic, environmental and ethical criteria.)
