Accomodating special needs guests (like vegetarians!)

[Jenise]

Shel posed this question in Howie's veggie stock post, and rather than risk nuking something in the series of splits and merges it would now take for me to extricate his post into a thread starter of it's own, I'm simply going to post Shel's question separately so that it gets more attention--I think it deserves a general discussion. It goes:

Shel said:

Howie...your post has given me the opportunity to ask a related question. In the situation you describe, when one person out of a group would not be able to eat what you cook for whatever religious/political/"other" convictions, how far should one go to accommodate the individual and not the group?...I think it's an important question and one most of us have run up against at one time, so very interested in what was done and how was it handled.

From my reply to Shel in the veggie stock thread:

...For instance, if I decided to do spaghetti and meatballs, I could do part of the sauce meatless with mushrooms and peppers and cook the meatballs in some of the sauce and serve them in a separate dish. Philosophically, I think if you can accommodate that one person without compromising the quality of the meal (and without having to bend over backwards) and still satisfy everyone else, then why not?

Actually, I do this sort of thing to accomodate some people. While my boys will eat whatever is placed in front of them, their girl friends/wives are picky about certain things - one will not eat anything with mushroom - one will not eat meat that has a bone in it - one will not eat any fish or seafood. For a long time my wife would not eat red meat (chicken, turkey and fish were OK). And just recently, my son Tim, who just came home from the Army in May, has been eating no meat or dairy and mostly organic foods. This is from the recommendation of a doctor at the VA when he was experiencing some abdominal pain (he seems to be doing better).

Thanks for making this a separate thread Jenise.

[Jenise]

Happy to, Shel.

And I'll answer: if a dinner guest has a special need, then we all dine according to that. I don't make two versions of things--I mean, I could, but why?--and that's not about saving myself trouble. It's about making the best meal possible that we can enjoy together as a group. And Bob and I eat a lot of vegetarian food ourselves so leaving the meat out is to me no more of a hardship than leaving out other things that people might advise me they would prefer I don't serve, since I usually ask in advance. (I actually have a vegetarian friend who can't digest onions, cabbage family items and a number of other usual vegetable standbys. I swear, I've rarely seen her eat much other than bread and cheese.)

Hi Shel,

When giving a dinner party, I try and do what Jenise does and make one meal that everyone can eat and enjoy. That can be really difficult sometimes...my son is allergic to everything, my neighbors are lactose intolerant and don't eat red meat, or pork or shellfish, my Father-in-law can't eat beef, doesn't like anything green or with cheese, I don't like bell peppers, my brother and his wife won't eat mushrooms, my husband won't eat anything orange or most shellfish, etc. I really like to give BBQ's, this way there is a buffet of food, and people can choose what they would like.

I always take into consideration food restrictions, allergies, or dislikes when giving a dinner party (or cocktail party). If one person doesn't like something, but everyone else does (ie Veal marsala, but someone doesn't like mushrooms), I will make a separate meal without mushrooms for that person. Part of the fun for me when entertaining, is everyone really enjoying the meal...so if that means going out of my way for each individual, I will definitely do that. If someone is a real PITA when it comes to food...I just won't have them over...LOL or we get takeout!

Jenise and Maria, you are both really good! We also want to make our dinner parties as terrif an experience as possible, but tend toward the opposite of what you do, try to find a common denomiter of what the group will eat and make arrangements for guests with 'special needs', and if we have one so picky picky, LOL they don't get invited back.
It would be nice to please all the peeps all the time, obviously impossible and so all we can do is our best, and if that isn't good enough, well...TS!

Wow, that's an interesting topic and I've seen it handled successfully so many ways. We have our own take on this. So flame on...

We entertain a lot, several times each week for parties large and small. Special diet restrictions pop up all the time. Our general rule is to treat people in our homes in a reasonable manner, especially if that is how we would anticipate being treated in their home. To this end, we use two rules, the "health-benefit rule" and the "can we handle it" rule of thumb. The nightmare is of course, when you first learn of the guest's special need during the event; that could get more complicated but really it doesn't; it just feels different.

Case 1 - Culturally-related special diet law or cultural preference
The rule of "Can we handle it ?" is applied. We are not a restaurant but we let guests know what the menu plan is ahead of time. If it happens to work out that they will or can eat what is offered, then great; but if there's nothing for them to eat and they choose to attend, then it simply an awkward mismatch of guest and party, one with which I am willing to live. Life is short. Those guests who limit their diet due to cultural preference are treated like everyone else; you get what we serve you unless we "can handle it". And we try to accomodate. Some.

Case 2 - Health-related special diet requirements
We do prepare our food to at least partially accomodate guests whose special food needs we perceive to be truly health-related. We make a very bigger effort to adapt our menu plan for these people. So this includes folks following no-salt, low-salt, low-fat, low-choleserol, or one of various vegetarian or vegan diets. We handle similarly the cases of shellfish-allergy, peanut-allergy and citrus-allergy, at least when we know of the example ahead of time.

But for guests who are followers of one of the current fad "raw diets" or "Atkins diet", or "red meat aversion plans" or "pixie stix diet", since we have no belief that it presents humans with a definitive health benefit, we do not take extraordinary steps ahead of time to accomodate them. You communicate early, guest and host. You eat what we serve you, unless we can reasonably handle it another way. If we can handle it, sure, we try. Some.

Case 3 - On the spot revelation of special diet needs
There is no special case 3 really. It's a result of poor communication, both guest and host. It always becomes a Case 1 or 2. It shouldn't happen to you as host, but when it does, do be of open mind, a big refridge, big pantry and a sous-chef. And try to help.

This serves us well. It's the communicate early and often part that helps most.

Send with the invitation: " Here's what's on the menu - plan accordingly."

Seriously, we entertain so infrequently, and then it's usually relatives or friends who eat about the same as us, that it's a non-issue at our house. That being said, my Mom was a vegetarian, and generally always fared ok when away from home, without making a fuss about it.

Good heavens, I agree with Jenise 100% again. Must be getten real old!

I'm in the camp of trying to plan a menu that everyone can enjoy. We have enough variety in our culinary toolbox to be able to accommodate most everyone.
I actually enjoy the challenge.

But it's a two way street. I think the diner with special needs has an obligation to communicate that information so that the host has enough time to plan for it.
I would hope to have at least two days notice, and a week would be better still.

I'm in the camp of trying to plan a menu that everyone can enjoy. We have enough variety in our culinary toolbox to be able to accommodate most everyone.
I actually enjoy the challenge.

But it's a two way street. I think the diner with special needs has an obligation to communicate that information so that the host has enough time to plan for it.
I would hope to have at least two days notice, and a week would be better still.

Agreed. As long as there's reasonable notice ahead of time, I will try to accommodate whatever dietary needs there are.

I'm a vegetarian so I assume that if I can eat it, my guests will be able to eat whatever I serve.

For some reason, I am less tolerant of idiosyncratic aversions to things like olives or mushrooms than I am to 'legitimate' aversions to red meat and pork

I always accomodate special needs for my guests. I have no set rule how to do so.

Sometimes, I make one menu that meets everyone's needs. Othertimes, I make an alternate dish when there is a conflict.

For my 30th birthday party some years ago, I had one guest who ate fish but no meat. I spent the better part of 4 days shopping and cooking, and I prepared special dishes for him that took just as much thought, care and time as the meat dishes for the others. For example, while the meat eaters had veal loin with duxelles in puff pastry with wild mushroom sauce, I made the same basic dish but with salmon and duxelles. When the meat eaters got roast pheasant, I made a very satisfying pasta primavera with different wild mushrooms from the other dish. And quite frankly, when very fine wines like 30 year old Ch. Latour are being poured, I want everyone to enjoy the food-wine matches as much as I.

I suppose I'm a greedy s.o.b. in that I enjoy cooking so very much that we rarely invite guests for dinner. When we do want to invite guests it is usually a restaurant that I will choose for in that way it is far easier to accomodate mixed groups - i.e. those who keep kosher or hallal; vegetarians; carnivores; those on special diets. The trick is only in selecting the right restaurant depending on the needs of individuals within the group.

One of the few exceptions I make to this rule is with one dear orthodox friend who keeps kashrut. Because we could dine at his home and he not at ours, several years ago I made the jump and purchased a separate set of pots, pans, dishes, silver etc and when they come I carefully select and keep separate those kosher ingredients and combijnations that will do nicely.

Of possible interest - when dining out in Israel with either a business, academic, governmental or military group, the understanding is quite clear - if even one person in the group keeps kosher or halal the group will dine only at kosher/halal restaurants or cafes. When on a private level, much depends on the level of kashrut maintained by that person/s. Some, for example, will gladlly dine on fish or dairy dishes at non-kosher restaurants. Others will not. All a matter of common courtesy and common sense in giving respect to others.

Best
Rogov

Rogov writes: "If even one person in the group keeps kosher or halal the group will dine only at kosher/halal restaurants or cafes.
Well Daniel, guess this was the basis of my original post, how far do you go...
What you just wrote does not seem "fair" to the majority and is the 'tail wagging the dog', and with respect for the individual taken into account, why should the individual prevail over the group.
Yes I do understand that Israel goes out of its way to accommodate religious groups/rituals/laws more than most, but we're not living in the dark ages (at least not entirely!) anymore and in the interest and spirit of fairness, this is not in the ballpark...(sorry about the American idiom, seems applicable)

[Jenise]

But it's a two way street. I think the diner with special needs has an obligation to communicate that information so that the host has enough time to plan for it.

Jeff brought up the same issue: it really IS a two-way street, isn't it? I've had guests not admit to certain aversions (I usually ask, "Is there anything you're allergic to, or would like to claim to be for the course of an evening? I'm a good cook and can work around any foods that would be problems") until the food's put in front of them and THEN they don't eat it. They usually say, "Well I didn't want you to go to any trouble." And I'm sure that's an honest statement, but I'm not sure how they imagine that I would rather watch them stare at (and waste) food they won't touch (since I typically serve plated) than go to the extra trouble, if indeed it's that, to make sure they have food they can eat.

What you just wrote does not seem "fair" to the majority and is the 'tail wagging the dog', and with respect for the individual taken into account, why should the individual prevail over the group.

Yes I do understand that Israel goes out of its way to accommodate religious groups/rituals/laws more than most, but we're not living in the dark ages (at least not entirely!) anymore and in the interest and spirit of fairness, this is not in the ballpark...(sorry about the American idiom, seems applicable)

I can live with that American idiom.

In the Israeli case we are talking about dining out and not at people's homes. I don't think it is so much a question of sacrifice - after all, if one can find a good kosher restaurant or cafe, what is the sacrifice involved? To take what might be a parallel example, let's assume that we two were dining out with a group within which one person was confined to a wheelchair. Would we not look for a restaurant equipped to handle that person's needs? Another possible parallel (and this from a smoker who enjoys his cigarettes), when dining with a group of primarily non-smokers would we smokers not seek a restaurant or cafe that was smoke free, taking an occasional break for a cigarette either at the bar or even out-of-doors?

I cannot help but think that part of true freedom is the ability to occasionally give up part of that freedom for the comfort or well-being of others. Very left wing, I know, but c'est moi.

Best
Rogov

Daniel, I accept your wheel chair and smoker examples up to a point. Don't know about Israel, but the law here I'm pretty sure you know is that restos have to be wheel chair accessible unless 'grandfathered' and there are less and less of those. In all the cities etc. where smoking is verboten, clusters of puffers are just outside the door doing their thing, so finding a smoker 'welcome' place doesn't apply.
So back to the 'tail wagging the dog', re one of your posts, it is the "rule" that if even one member of a group is kosher or halal, all go to a kosher resto.
I don't know about israel and the quality of kosher restos, but if it's anything like what can be found here in L.A. then several of them are going to be bad with inedible food. So let's do some supposing...what if the group plus the solitary kosher eater can't find an acceptable dining experience in the area they're in, does that mean that they all must go to some shlock joint to satisfy the one individual and ignore any expectation the "group" have of a good dining experience. And we mustn't forget all that wonderful vintage kosher wine, be still my heart!
Extreme example, maybe, but a possible scenario after a little modification and I hope makes the point that the individual's desires regardless of the reason, over the group, is patently unfair and shouldn't be accepted as a "given".
So is that left-wing, right-wing or just rational/logical thinking, LOL will leave that to the polemicists!

Shel,
Why are you politicizing a matter of common courtesy that Daniel applies to his situation? Why don't you just come right out and say he is wrong instead of turning it into a theoretical problem?

Shel,
Why are you politicizing a matter of common courtesy that Daniel applies to his situation? Why don't you just come right out and say he is wrong instead of turning it into a theoretical problem?

Common courtesy?
LOL, to hell with it, okay Daniel, you're wrong!

With regard to whether I'm "right" or "wrong", I leave that in the capable hands of those who read and participate in the forum.

As to kosher restaurants - true that one cannot get an even halfway decent hot pastrami sandwich in Israel but kosher restaurants have undergone and continue to undergo a revolution in recent years, and from the high-end to the folksy and most casual, from the French and Italian to the shtetls of Poland to the steppes of Russia and to the outback of Ethiopia, one can find an increasing number of truly fine kosher restaurants in the country. Chefs have finally learned not to use "substitutions" (e.g. cream and/or butter substitutes) but to search for and find creative substitutions (e.g. instead of sauteeing beef in margarine which kills the texture and flavor, to use a mixture of 1/3 walnut oil, 1/3 olive oil and 1/3 clarified margarine). And, with those who maintain kashrut no longer willing to pay outrageous prices for mediocre meals, the scene is looking up indeed.

As to wines that are kosher - as I have said about six zillion times, with fine proof to back it up, there is no contradcition between the laws of kashrut and the ability to make fine wine and excellent kosher wines (competing on a world-quality level) can be found from Israel, France, Spain and California among other regions. Should we want to go further into detail on this issue, let's start a separate thread over on my little side of the forum.

Best,
Rogov

[Robin Garr]

With regard to whether I'm "right" or "wrong", I leave that in the capable hands of those who read and participate in the forum.

I'm not sure that "right" or "wrong" really applies here, Rogov, much less "right" or "left." But I'd say good manners do. Seems to me you've got 'em.

Robin, Hi....

Probably difficult to hide my socio-moral leanings but it does amuse me that I was once described (in a French newspaper) of being "somewhat to the left of Mao Zedong". Probably a bit of an exaggeration. Probably....

Best
Rogov

There you go, Shel. No mincing words. Can't argue with brevity.