Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
I just finished reading a book called The China Study. My consumption of meat has dropped to a small amount of fish a few times a week. Does anyone know what the correct term is for someone who only eats fish? I do not eat any eggs or dairy.
P.S. Feeling great and losing weight.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hi, Scotty!


I believe the correct term is "pescatarian" -- though times might've changed since I learned that. ;)

Great news that you're feeling so well. It's amazing what a change in diet can do!

Lucky :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Scotty,

Does anyone know what the correct term is for someone who only eats fish?

Carnivore. Fish and chickens don't grow on trees.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
hi scotty, as lucky said, it is pescatarian...

this is what i found in askoxford.com:
"The word demi-vegetarian appears in our file with the sense 'a person who eats fish but not meat', though people so described may include those who eat poultry. The word pesco-vegetarian is sometimes seen, and pescatarian."

but there were no entries found in dictionary.com.

~ttfn, webby :)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Does anyone know what the correct term is for someone who only eats fish?

"Eskimo"
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The word demi-vegetarian appears in our file with the sense 'a person who eats fish but not meat',

I'm not trying to be a wise guy here, but I work with words for a living, and it never fails to baffle me when I see a description like that. Why is the flesh of a fish not considered meat? I think this is why so many meat-eaters get confused about what a vegetarian is -- they're presented with so many different ideas about what actually constitutes "meat." Seems to me that "meat" should be considered the flesh of any animal, plain and simple. "Meat and fish" is therefore redundant.

Is it just me? :-)

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think this is why so many meat-eaters get confused about what a vegetarian is -- they're presented with so many different ideas about what actually constitutes "meat."

I usually clarify by saying "nothing in the animal kingdom". Once in a while I'll get some clown who gets confused on the whole "fish are animals" thing, but at that point it's usually just best to cut your losses and exit the conversation.

LCK
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Is it just me? :-)
____
Nope. I recently wrote a letter to the editors of Real Simple magazine informing them that vegetarian recipes that included fish were NOT vegetarian. This thing about, "But you eat chicken and fish, right?" has caused a lot of awkward moments for many vegetarians and their friends.

JW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
My fav is when people say, "I don't eat meat, only chicken."

I respond with "I'm sure the chicken is happy about that."

Sometimes they get it, sometimes they don't.

b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Why is the flesh of a fish not considered meat? I think this is why so many meat-eaters get confused about what a vegetarian is -- they're presented with so many different ideas about what actually constitutes "meat." Seems to me that "meat" should be considered the flesh of any animal, plain and simple. "Meat and fish" is therefore redundant.

Is it just me? :-)


I loved your comment absolutely. And, forgive me for this tangential reply, but I've been thinking about this almost since this board started. In all these years, I still consider myself an omnivore (versus a "carnivore") as I've never been disciplined enough to make a sharp and lasting dietary shift myself. I've long called myself an aspiring vegetarian, at times a part-time vegetarian, but never a vegetarian proper.

In the last 40 years or so as the concept of vegetarianism has become more accepted and mainstreamed in the U.S., the definition of who (what) is a vegetarian has also been debased to the lowest common denominator. At times I grimace and remark dryly inward that the mainstream concept of what a vegetarian is has become "a person who eat plant-based foods plus and anything else they want." There was an old joke in the mid-1980s about what power lunches, power martinis, power dinners/restaurants, etc. One of the many jokes was about a standard power dinner for a high-powered business executive: the standard entree would be an over-priced New York-style steak served rare. What did such a high-powered business executive eat for dinner, if they were a vegetarian? An over-priced New York-style steak served rare, with onions.

Other times, I think that sometimes people who call themselves "vegetarians" use it to offset their dietary changes from the people they know, whether family, social circle, school, or other. For example, if they grew up in an environment in which everything was red meat, they consider themselves radically different (even rebellious) because they will only eat poultry or seafood.

Also, the sad thing I see sometimes are tons of people (regardless of age) who say they are vegetarians, but also are very unhealthy. I've noticed tons of people who are vegetarians who have what seems to me to be very unhealthy lifestyles and eating habits. For example, I know a young early 20s woman I met through work contacts considers herself an ovo-lacto vegetarian who sometimes eat fish. She does this for a combination of ethical and health reasons. Over many different meals, occasions, and discussions, I've noticed that she eats a lot of fried foods, foods with a lot of oil, mostly wheat, potato or rice-based with almost no fresh vegetables, no fresh fruit, almost no beans, legumes, nuts, peas (very little protein), etc. Also, beer. She tells me she's been a vegetarian like this for almost ten years, has had various health problems, doesn't like to exercise, and is indoors most of the time (doesn't like the outdoors). She is not technically overweight for her height nor does she seem to have a high-fat ratio, but she is physically very weak, no muscle tone, and constantly cold. Though she tells me she can cook at home, she rarely eats at home and makes constant excuses why she can't prepare meals there, even though she says she wants to save money and spend less eating out. With all her chronic health concerns, she also is the most surprisingly ignorant about health issues despite being an academically very capable young person on frequently some abstract and esoteric issues. For example, despite having high blood pressure problems, she doesn't seem to know that some believe sodium and fat may be nutritional factors for it.

At times in the varied environments where I have worked, one of the more socially-progressive environments, more than half the people there call themselves "vegetarian" in some form. More than half of them admit to eating seafood, or poultry; of these, some are embarrassed about not yet cutting out seafood or poultry, while others have no qualms about eating seafood or poultry and still calling themselves vegetarian. The others are ovo-lacto, a few are full on strict vegans (which may include raw foodists, macrobiotic something or other, and other more restrictive diets).

In consideration of the changed interpretations of the many different types of vegetarians out there, I often know ask them "what type" of vegetarian they are and following it with ovo-lacto, or do they eat fish, poultry, etc. In actual discussions, I think many people are very happy to explain why or how they've started to "become" vegetarian as it often tells me that it is part of a life process of their own. I try to focus on where they came from and what they hope to achieve versus where they are currently. I sometimes term the ones with sincere intentions "transitioning vegetarians" if they see themselves as works in process.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One thing to clarify, I think many people have different reasons for being vegetarian. Some basics are often about ethics and conscience, health, or religious reasons. Often if is a combination of these, and possible other, reasons. I think these reasons determine how some people define vegetarianism for themselves.

Seems to me that "meat" should be considered the flesh of any animal, plain and simple. "Meat and fish" is therefore redundant.

Also, I think the term "animal" may be confusing to many people. Most people seem to think that only mammalian creatures are "animals" which means birds, fish, reptiles (and others) do not count.

Personally, I'm working on a different definition of using perceived sentience as the factor. Admittedly it is difficult at times to agree on determining if some"thing" is sentient and relevant scientifically or culturally. In general, I think most people would agree that mammals seem to be sentient, as birds, fish, reptiles and other "things" show some indications of sentience. Insects and bugs also have some degree of sentience. Plants (vegetables, fruits, grains, etc.) as far as most of us know, have no clear indication of sentience.

Some people will also refuse any type of direct byproduct of animals, such as food items like eggs, dairy, or honey, or anything like leather-based goods and related.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Personally, I'm working on a different definition of using perceived sentience as the factor. Admittedly it is difficult at times to agree on determining if some"thing" is sentient and relevant scientifically or culturally. In general, I think most people would agree that mammals seem to be sentient, as birds, fish, reptiles and other "things" show some indications of sentience. Insects and bugs also have some degree of sentience. Plants (vegetables, fruits, grains, etc.) as far as most of us know, have no clear indication of sentience.

I have a friend/colleague who won't eat anything that runs away from being caught. As she is a philosphy teacher, I found it an interesting short cut to the definition of sentient. So she ate cheese, eggs, etc. (which, for the record, so do I).

I thought it was interesting that she *won't* eat something that would run from being caught, but didn't seem to have the same issues with eating food that came from animals held in (potentially) horrific conditions. Of course, I have the same issues myself.

Does anyone know where/how you can get cruelty-free animal products? I've read that cage-free, vegetarian eggs aren't produced in great conditions either. I'm also pretty broke thanks to the aggressive debt paydown mode, but I wouldn't mind paying when I can. (Because really, I object to the conditions animals are raised and slaughtered in, not the eating of meat itself.)

I mean--how do you even know? I bought organic goat yogurt this weekend and while I am hopeful that that is produced under better conditions, I can't be certain of it!

b
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Does anyone know where/how you can get cruelty-free animal products? I've read that cage-free, vegetarian eggs aren't produced in great conditions either. I'm also pretty broke thanks to the aggressive debt paydown mode, but I wouldn't mind paying when I can. (Because really, I object to the conditions animals are raised and slaughtered in, not the eating of meat itself.)

I think the best way to find out is to make a connection with a farmer directly, at a farmer's market or other agricultural setting. Maybe drop by the farm and see how everything operates if possible, or just look the farmer in the eye and see if you trust him/her.

Short of that, try and find objective ratings that give you some idea of a third party verification (like the "Certified Humane" label: http://www.certifiedhumane.com/ ) or shop at a store that does the research for you (my local co-op posts information in the store about the farms where it purchases dairy and eggs).

Here's a site that seems to have a pretty good listing: http://www.eatwellguide.org/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Seems to me that "meat" should be considered the flesh of any animal, plain and simple. "Meat and fish" is therefore redundant.

Didn't it used to be the case that meat, fish, and fowl each referred to a different kind of dead flesh? If you were having "meat" for dinner it meant a mammal.

(Just like garbage, rubbish, and trash meant different things and there were different collectors for each...)

- Megan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
As soon as I posted this I remembered my source -- the old Joy of Cooking has "Meat" "Fish" and "Poultry" as three different sections.

- Megan
Print the post Back To Top