I'm with you. You can't be a vegetarian and eat fish. I think you can be a vegetarian and eat cheese or eggs or milk because no animals were killed to manufacture that (unless the cheese is set with rennet, in which case you can't be a vegetarian and eat cheese).

You also can't be a vegetarian and drink beer unless you're certain it hasn't been fined with isinglass.

I would be very surprised to find someone who calls themselves a vegetarian if they ever eat meat. Like I said in the previous post, I eat meat every couple months, so I absolutely do not consider myself a vegetarian. I do, however, believe that I'm making a positive impact by vastly limiting the amount I consume.

I'm inclined to be mealy-mouthed and say something like "a person is a vegetarian when they define themselves as a vegetarian". I'd probably add the caveat that in order to be really credible, the definition that the person in question is using should be in current medium-wide use. Accordingly, I have no problem with someone calling themselves a vegetarian if they eat fish, eggs or milk because it there are enough other people who share that definition.

I tend to think that the difference in definitions is accounted for by the difference in reasons that one becomes a vegetarian. Health reasons (less absolute)? Moral reasons (more on the what I might think of as Vegan side of the spectrum)?

Disclaimer: I am not a vegetarian. If left to my own devices, I tend not to eat meat for a variety of reasons, but eat anything that is served to me.

Vegan are vegetarians, because they only eat vegetables...I am an ovo-lacto vegetarien ..You can fin on the web, lists of vegetarian beers ans vegetarians cheeses ( all cosher cheeses are vegetarian )

If you eat fish, you are NOT a vegetarian. Period. A fish is an animal. End of story.

Are mushrooms animals?

"Are people who eat eggs really vegetarians?"

A vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat, or things that require animals to be killed. A vegan is someone who doesn't eat any animal products.

Someone who eats eggs can most certainly be a vegetarian, but they can't be a vegan. But then, people who call themselves "vegan" seem to have a better grasp of this than people who call themselves "vegetarian".

People who eat fish and still call themselves vegetarians leads to court clerks thinking the selection of lunch sandwiches offered during jury duty is ok because tuna fish was an option when I specifically told them ahead of time I was a vegetarian. That is why being specific is important to me.

Oooh, that's a toughie. I have a hard time considering folks traditional vegetarians if they're eating animal products - milk, eggs, rennet-free cheese - but I suppose that's where vegan comes in. And I agree with previous posters - fish is most definitely an animal.

I absolutely agree with you that it's a clear line between veggie/non-veggie...

However... I introduce myself to hosts/potential hosts as a "half-arsed-fish-eating-veggie". It's easier, and more polite, than saying I'm a picky eater and i'm not sure about that meat you're dishing up.

Truth be told, I hadn't eaten any meat other than fish since I was 14 (pushing 30 now), but recently have started to introduce tiny amounts of other meat into my diet (led mainly by a friend of mine who is a chef and has been badgering me for ages!).

I will never be a regular meat eater, and will ALWAYS go for good quality/free range/organic/ethical meat if i'm going to eat it at all.

But... when I visit my wife's family in Poland, i'll still be a vegetarian, as it gets me out of eating some of the things i'm less keen to try, without being rude to my (usually very kind and accommodating) hosts.

I think the difficulty comes from the different reasons that people choose not to eat meat. To ethical vegetarians, even eating meat once a year means you're participating in murder or mistreatment of animals. To taste-based vegetarians, if they occasionally have a craving for meat and satisfy it, it doesn't change their fundamental identification that they almost always prefer non-animal meals.

It's probably silly to insist on any one uniform definition, precisely because so many people use the term so many different ways. Trying to stake out the correct and universal definition in the face of that variety smacks of dogmatism.

Vegan, however, does seem to have a more coherent definition.

-Brooks the vegetarian (cows are vegetables, the way I see it)

There are omnivores, and there are people with dietary restrictions. Those in the latter group need to be very specific about the nature of their dietary restrictions, because there are too many kinds to have names for all of them.

The world is full of dietary restrictions. Kosher-observant Jews don't eat crab, but will eat trout. They'll even eat trout with a cream sauce, but if you put a cream sauce on a chicken breast, they can't touch it. Except for the ones who will (and I've known several). Some Jains don't eat garlic or onions. Vegans won't eat honey. There's at least one Catholic monastic order (I'm told) for which rabbit is considered a fish, for historical reasons. Pork gets a bad rap in several cultures. And food allergies complicate the picture even further.

I once met a pesco-vegetarian on the Atkin's diet. She ate almost nothing but fish. On the other side of the spectrum, I knew a woman who was allergic to uncooked fruits and vegetables.

"Vegetarian" is pretty meaningless on its own. It's just a hint that someone has a dietary restriction related to animal products. One can pretty much assume that mammal flesh is out. I've known people who will eat poultry but not mammals though. It's a complicated topic.

Fish is not meat. Consider those who "fast" by not eating meat -- fish is an option for them.

So if Vegetarian(1) means anyone who removes meat from their diet, then the Vegetarian(1) can certainly eat fish.

Vegetarian(2) may choose to eliminate all animals from the diet. This person may eat eggs and cheese, but not fish (or snails, or...).

Vegetarian(3) aka Vegan eliminates all animal products. Thus the Vegan will not eat eggs, cheese, etc.

Note that each of these groups is a subset of the previous -- is all Vegans are Vegetarian(2)'s, and all Vegetarian(2)'s are also Vegetarian(1)'s.

Of course there are other variations.

Why try to enforce a definition and then attach labels to people?

I don't take an ideological stand on food. My diet is almost entirely plant based because I think that's healthier for me. But if I want to use a bit of pancetta in the base for a soup, I do it without collapsing into self-guilt. If I'm visiting someone, I eat what they serve, rather than burden them with the need to cook something special for me.

That works for me. Others do take an ideological stance. That's fine with me. No one is keeping score.

Fish is not meat?

flesh is flesh, be it from a delicius cow, a fatty duck or a yummy tuna

for me a vegetarian must not eat animal flesh or innars, that rules out bacon but leaves in unfertilized eggs, milk, chesse and whatnot

"it came to me that what is really needed is a clear delineation between who is a vegetarian and who is not."

I think this discussion is fascinating, but could you give us insight as to why you'd need a clear delineation? I don't quite understand the need and would be interested in finding out why...for context and all that fun stuff.

I have heard that James Oseland from Saveur calls himself vegetarian. Except at work when he as to taste test. Is it possible for someone to be an omnivore in his professional life but strictly vegetarian the rest of the time? Who knows...

I never thought about the egg thing before - if you define vegetarian as not requiring an animal to be killed, what if the egg was fertilized? Is the embryo an animal? (My aunt calls an egg the "unborn child of a hen.")

As for fish, yes of course it is meat. And from a moral perspective, hens raised for eggs are some of the most mistreated animals on the factory farm. So there is no moral basis for eating eggs (or maybe even cheese) to save animals from mistreatment. Eating from sources you know about and that 'do the right thing' when raising food is important.

There may not be a need for a definition of vegetarianism to ascribe health value or environmental value of a diet. Quantity and quality of each food you eat is most important to the health of the body and the planet.

I started keeping vegetarian in 1998, though eggs and dairy were ok. A few years ago I added fish, and came across exactly this problem. As a purely practical consideration, I was still closer to being a vegetarian than otherwise and it was easier to describe myself that way, but when I'd been a true lacto-ovo vegetarian I certainly scorned people who took the label and still ate fish.

As a solution I've started using the word pescetarian. Simple one-word explanation which means vegetarian-except-I-eat-fish.

Eating animals, ever = not vegetarian. Simple!

I'm going to repeat that I think the problem is one of language, not of lifestyle. I only eat meat once every 3 months or so; my intake is limited for health, environmental, and other reasons. I am NOT a vegetarian.

However, I do not like exceeding that amount of meat consumption. (Why? I just don't!) If I tell someone I eat meat occaisonally, then every time I visit them I will get a big ol' chunk of flesh dumped on my plate.

People take the desire to avoid meat more seriously if one is a full-time meat avoider. Vegetarians' restrictions are often respected while meat avoiders are just called picky, even though both groups' reasons basically boil down to the same thing: "I don't eat meat because I just don't want to," either at this particular moment, or ever.

I don't think we necessarily need a new label or category for those people who conciously reduce the meat in thier diet, but I do think it is important to acknowledge that those people exist, and that their reasons are valid; they're not being any more "picky" than vegetarians are, and they're not the same as the average omnivore.

So, let me get this straight--if you eat vegetable-based foods, with the addition of eggs and milk (from non-battery hens and pastured cows), and then -one- day, you either unknowingly eat meat that was hidden in a soup, or you knowingly eat a bit of sausage that was served to you to be polite, that makes you -not- a vegetarian?

I think that is bogus. If the majority of your food intake comes from vegetables, milk and eggs, then you are a vegetarian, even if you eat meat once a year.

Now, if you -regularly- eat chicken and fish and try to call yourself a vegetarian, you will get me het up, mostly because chickens and fish do not grow on trees, out of the ground or on vines. They are living beings with nervous systems that can feel pain. So, if you are saying you are an ethical vegetarian because you only eat fish--I am not going to agree with you.

If you just admit to being a fish-eating omnivore, then I am okay with it. I just don't like people to say they are doing one thing when they are doing another.

Besides, it makes my job as a chef and home cook hosting a dinner party trickier. Nothing will rile me faster than to make a special vegetarian dish for a guest at my home, and then see them dig into the chicken or fish. When I ask about it, I have seen folks nod avidly, "Oh, yes, I am a vegetarian, but I also eat fish."

So, why didn't you just say so, so I didn't have to make a special dish for you, and not enough fish to go around, dipstick?

When I was in graduate school a new professor had been lecturing others in her first week or so about their not being vegetarians, but when we were at the department gathering I watched her dig into the salmon as if it were her last meal. So I asked her about it. Her answer, this from someone with a PhD: fish are not animals. I was so shocked, I pressed her further and her claim was that to be an animal something must feel pain and furthermore claimed that fish do not feel pain, therefore are not animals.
I guess a basic biology class was not a requirement for her undergrad or post grad degrees...

I like the idea of thinking of all the different eating choices in terms of dietary restrictions because its less attached to judgment or values. But I have a suspicion that that wouldn't please either group--people who have no choice about their dietary restrictions (allergies etc.) and people who choose to have certain dietary restrictions.

I am a pescetarian...meaning, I eat no other meat than fish (and other seafood). I sometimes say vegetarian to make it easier to others when say...planning a dinner party. But never as a way to seem morally superior. It is merely a dietary preference. Those who eat meat in small quantities from organic and free range suppliers might actually be morally superior to vegetarians who shop at Wal-Mart. I have my own reasons for eating what I eat, the only reason I categorize myself is to make sure I am not fed something that I do not wish to eat. Otherwise, who really cares.

I don't understand any definition of vegetarianism that includes eating fish. Meat is flesh and fish certainly have that. They have nervous systems, faces, blood, bones, and a variety of other animal traits. They're certainly not plants, anyway.

Vicki: egg farmers generally try to keep their hens away from roosters, so fertilized eggs are definitely not the norm.

Barbara: If a vegetarian unknowingly eats meat in a dish, they're not really compromising their ideological position, so that's a little different. As for eating meat out of politeness... I don't really buy that. As a host, I generally strive to make sure there are always vegetarian options available for guests. I've known numerous vegans and my brother has been vegetarian for over a decade now, so I wouldn't take it as an offense if a guest decided to avoid the meat dishes. It's a personal choice and I respect that. All you have to say is, "No thanks, I'm vegetarian," and go for the cheese/veggie plate instead.

Vegetarians don't eat anything with a face! Or anything that had a mother. That's my motto, anyway

I've been vegetarian (which I defined as no dead animals but did include eggs as I - rightly or wrongly - assumed were unfertilized) and vegan (no animal products at all) and am now what is I guess called pescetarian as I don't eat meat or poultry but do eat seafood. I would not consider myself a vegetarian for that reason. I do usually call myself vegaquarian mainly because it generally makes people smile which diffuses a bit of the tension that can arise when you have to announce that you don't eat something everyone else eats. (I work in a cooking school so it comes up all the time.) I

I've been a vegetarian for 20 years. Specifically a lacto-ovo-vegetarian. I get eggs from the farmer, they're fertilized. I eat cheese made with rennet as nearly all vegetarian rennet is made with GM technology. We had a team night out at a Brazilian restaurant the other night, and no surprise, I got "meated" (there was a piece of meat in a place I was not expecting it). But a meat based meal? No way

"So, let me get this straight--if you eat vegetable-based foods, with the addition of eggs and milk (from non-battery hens and pastured cows), and then -one- day, you either unknowingly eat meat that was hidden in a soup, or you knowingly eat a bit of sausage that was served to you to be polite, that makes you -not- a vegetarian?"

I think every vegetarian has had an experience where they were unknowingly served an animal product, which leads to the question of intent. If your intent is to lead a life that does not include or condone the eating of animals or their by-products, and you ingest an animal product without intending to, that does not negate your choice nor reset some mythic "vegetarian meter" back to zero. I think people often assume that vegetarians as a whole are caught up in some notion of purity (which, to be fair, some are), rather than making a choice based on ethical, political, economic, ecological or other considerations. After all, if you're an activist for human rights and someone gives you a gift that was manufactured in a Chinese sweatshop, does that negate your activism or minimize the contributions you make with your choices?

To say you are a vegetarian means that you abstain from the flesh of livestock, fowl or aquatic life, because those creatures are classified in a broad scientific sense as animals. If you intentionally eat fish, or poultry, or the occasional piece of bacon, I hate to break it to you but you're an omnivore. Speaking as a vegetarian, I can tell you that we don't hold that against you—we just want you to be honest about it so people stop thinking it's okay to serve us fish or chicken.

This whole discussion proves labeling your diet is retarded and vegetarians should just brown bag it wherever they go.

And in my opinion you're not a true vegetarian unless you'd turn down a hamburger when you're starving to death. Otherwise your answer should be "I'm not hungry enough to eat meat yet."

I tell people I'm a vegetarian even though I eat fish. If I start by telling them I eat fish then its starts the questioning of "...what about chicken? what about pork? what about...?" So I lie and say I'm a vegetarian. I feel no shame.