Source: www.nytimes.com
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, August 6, 2010: Weddings are all about compromise. City or country? June or November? My religion or yours? For Chelsea Clinton, a vegetarian, it was the decision to serve meat to the guests at her July 31 wedding. By choosing to have meat, she re-ignited a sensitive wedding-season debate among ethical eaters and the people who love them: To serve, or not to serve?
“If your family loves you and wants you to have that special day, I think they can go one meal and not eat meat,” said Cecilia Kinzie, a vegan and food consultant in Petaluma, Calif., who served no meat at her 2009 wedding. “If you go to an Indian wedding, you don’t expect Italian food,” added Ms. Kinzie, “So why should this be any different?”
Traditionally, many vegetarians have served meat at their weddings, out of deference to their guests, an aversion to endless cracks about “rabbit food,” or simply because there weren’t a lot of caterers specializing in vegetarian food who could handle a 200-person affair, particularly outside New York or California. (Today many mainstream caterers can handle vegetarian weddings, but you can expect to pay extra for the special treatment.)
“This generation is much more health conscious,” said Bryan Rafanelli, the Boston wedding planner who worked with Ms. Clinton, “and there are just so many more brides who are vegetarian or vegans or have allergies or just eat healthier.” At Ms. Clinton’s wedding, he said, a color-coded map indicated each guest’s dietary restrictions, ensuring that no one was served something that he or she couldn’t (or wouldn’t) eat.