Vegetarian Chicks - The term "Pescatarian", is there such a thing??

Hi, First i would like to say that I enjoy 3fc so much and find it very helpful and encouraging, I only wish i would have found it sooner! I have a question, did anyone ever hear of the term pescatarian? A vegetarian who eats some fish and dairy. It somehow does not make sense to me, since vegetarians don't eat fish or dairy, right? Well, this term best describes my way of eating for 14mo. now, I did it on my own without any research. I eat lots of fruit + veggies, a little fat free milk a day, 1 yogurt a day, nuts ,seeds, tofu, and fish 3 times a week. I eat no eggs or cheese, no red meat and no poultry, or anything that is processed (very against processed foods, I see it as a poison to your body). This works well for me, i never get sick of these foods and never even crave anything else. I lost 65 lbs and never felt better, even at 41! For me it was a lifestyle change that i can stick to for life since i never liked eggs or meat too much. If anyone knows what a pescatarian is or even if there is such a term, please inform me. I'm curious. thanks a bunch chickies!

This is what wiki says

Pescetarianism, also called pesco-vegetarianism, is the practice of a diet that includes seafood and excludes mammals and birds. In addition to fish or shellfish, a pescetarian diet typically includes some or all of vegetables, fruit, nuts, grains, beans, eggs, and dairy. The Merriam-Webster dictionary dates the origin of the term "pescetarian" to 1993 and defines it to mean: "one whose diet includes fish but no meat."[1]

The Vegetarian Society, which initiated popular use of the term vegetarian as early as 1847, does not consider pescetarianism a valid vegetarian diet.[2] The definitions of "vegetarian" in mainstream dictionaries vary.[3]

I myself have not tried this but I do have a friend who uses this as a way of life. I would say if it works for you and makes you happy then stick with it.

Good Luck.
~Sharry

Even though pescatarians aren't vegetarian, it is a true term and I'd say use it if it helps describe how you eat.

I'd actually prefer if people used the term pescatarian to describe their way of eating. There is too much confusion about vegetarianism and veganism.

Many people call themselves vegetarians but do eat fish, and it confuses people. As a vegan, I've often been asked if I eat fish. I've even been told in a restaurant, when asked about vegan options, that they had a fish dish.

So, absolutely call yourself pescatarian. I'm glad you found a way of eating that works for you.

Hi Chicks, Thank you so much, this way of eating is a large part of who I am, and i really feel better knowing that at least there is a name for it. Thank you!

There's a newer term - flexitarian - that might be a better fit? A flexitarian eats mainly a plant based diet, but occasionally will eat some other type of meat or seafood.

Hi, First i would like to say that I enjoy 3fc so much and find it very helpful and encouraging, I only wish i would have found it sooner! I have a question, did anyone ever hear of the term pescatarian? A vegetarian who eats some fish and dairy. It somehow does not make sense to me, since vegetarians don't eat fish or dairy, right? Well, this term best describes my way of eating for 14mo. now, I did it on my own without any research. I eat lots of fruit + veggies, a little fat free milk a day, 1 yogurt a day, nuts ,seeds, tofu, and fish 3 times a week. I eat no eggs or cheese, no red meat and no poultry, or anything that is processed (very against processed foods, I see it as a poison to your body). This works well for me, i never get sick of these foods and never even crave anything else. I lost 65 lbs and never felt better, even at 41! For me it was a lifestyle change that i can stick to for life since i never liked eggs or meat too much. If anyone knows what a pescatarian is or even if there is such a term, please inform me. I'm curious. thanks a bunch chickies!

Vegetarians consume dairy/eggs/honey but not fish. Fish are animals, no different than animals with wings/legs etc.

However, vegans do not consume dairy/eggs/honey or fish.

Vegetarians consume dairy/eggs/honey but not fish. Fish are animals, no different than animals with wings/legs etc.

However, vegans do not consume dairy/eggs/honey or fish.

I'd only say that vegetarians may consume dairy/eggs/honey but others may not. It really depends and varies. My mom for instance, doesn't consume dairy but eats a couple eggs per week but likes to limit her consumption of eggs.

I'm a pescatarian, but don't eat fish all that often, once a week usually, or twice if I have bought a big fish. Eggs are something that I just don't like, the texture is just so off-putting, but still force down about 1-2 eggs a week. In the past I've tried telling some people that I'm pescatarian, but I've always had to explain that it's like being a vegetarian but you also eat fish.

I'd only say that vegetarians may consume dairy/eggs/honey but others may not. It really depends and varies. My mom for instance, doesn't consume dairy but eats a couple eggs per week but likes to limit her consumption of eggs.

Ah, well, some vegetarians eat apples and some do not. But the term vegetarian still indicates that dairy and eggs may be eaten.

Ah, well, some vegetarians eat apples and some do not. But the term vegetarian still indicates that dairy and eggs may be eaten.

That is what I meant, vegetarians MAY eat dairy/eggs but that doesn't mean they do. I'd say someone who is a lacto-ovo vegetarian eats eggs and dairy but otherwise no guarantee (and really the only time someone might care is if they are serving someone who is vegetarian and it is the vegetarians obligation to let someone know of their preferences).

And there is a slight difference between 'a little apple' getting into someone's food (unless they are allergic) versus 'a little dairy' getting into a vegetarian's food who doesn't eat dairy purposefully.

To me, pescaterian is a made up word. It is however helpful to describe what I eat, because most people now know what a pescaterian is. I would however not describe it as a form of vegetarianism - evegarians do not eat any formally living thing, although most of them do eat dairy and eggs.

The term flexitarean feels downright ridiculous. It translates to me as :"I`m a vegetarian when it suits me and I`m not when it doesn`t". So basically, this person is an omnivore.

If a vegetarian has a problem with dairy in their food, then they shouldn't use only the term vegetarian and expect anyone to know. That's my point. It's a general term.

Well I use vegetarian for myself most of the time versus vegan. I know someone may not know but I was just trying to say that I wouldn't assume someone eats eggs and/or dairy if they are vegetarian. They may, they may not. Others may assume, I was just pointing out that it isn't a guarantee that someone eats eggs and/or dairy if they say they are vegetarian.

I'd only say that vegetarians may consume dairy/eggs/honey but others may not. It really depends and varies. My mom for instance, doesn't consume dairy but eats a couple eggs per week but likes to limit her consumption of eggs.

I s'pose, I mean I used to not eat honey, didn't like it, now I do. :carrot: There's always some variation on the theme.

The fish thing is a pet peeve of mine, I swear the next time some...person...asks me if I eat fish I'm going to blow my stack!11111111 :dizzy::mad:

BTW, I've been a vegetarian for 20 years.

Labels :p

I prefer to eat a plant based diet. That should cover all the bases and allow any variations I see fit :)

pescetarians are also sometimes called vegaquarians! in all honesty, i have zero problem if someone wants to eat fish and/or seafood but no other forms of meat, and i completely understand someone reading vegetarian cookbooks and going to vego restaurants, etc. but if you eat fish you are not a vegetarian, and people who lable themselves as vegetarians when they eat fish are contributing to all the confusion and misinformation amongst the public that irritates the true vegetarians so often. the same goes for people calling themselves vegan and still wearing leather or eating honey or buying products testing on animals. i dont believe anyone has the right to say 'you must eat this' but there are some basic principles of being a vegetarian or vegan and if you dont follow them, then just say you 'dont eat red meat' or 'i dont eat a lot of animal products'.

I'd consider myself a Pescetarian working towards full fledged Vegan. :D The only fish I eat is organic wild caught Alaskan salmon, and I have it maybe once every 2 months. It's a treat for me, and I'm about ready to give it up and commit to being Vegan. I feel it's an extremely personal choice though. Only YOU know what's right for your body. ;)

pescetarians are also sometimes called vegaquarians! in all honesty, i have zero problem if someone wants to eat fish and/or seafood but no other forms of meat, and i completely understand someone reading vegetarian cookbooks and going to vego restaurants, etc. but if you eat fish you are not a vegetarian, and people who lable themselves as vegetarians when they eat fish are contributing to all the confusion and misinformation amongst the public that irritates the true vegetarians so often. the same goes for people calling themselves vegan and still wearing leather or eating honey or buying products testing on animals. i dont believe anyone has the right to say 'you must eat this' but there are some basic principles of being a vegetarian or vegan and if you dont follow them, then just say you 'dont eat red meat' or 'i dont eat a lot of animal products'.


Agreed 100%. I went on a rant with my friends at lunch today about how fish are ANIMALS and no different than a chicken...cow...pig etc. :dizzy:

I'm a roller coaster vegan. :dizzy:

My intention is always to be vegan, and sometimes I do a great job at it. Other times I find myself eating fish because I crave it. When that happens, I eat it, and then sit back and take a good look at what I'm eating and try to figure out why I'm craving fish.

And to complicate matters even more, I like to fly fish and happily eat what I catch. Yeah, it's crazy, I know.

My plan is to go back to being vegan as of right now and ditch all meat, eggs, dairy- even the fish! But when my dear ol' dad takes me fly fishing next summer, all bets are off. :^:

I'd just like to chime in that Pescatarian is not a made up word. :) It's a valid definition of one who eats the flesh of seafood, but of no other animal. The term is a form of carnivorism and not a form of vegetarianism, although it does tend to get defined more as 'a vegetarian that eats seafood' versus 'a carnivore that only eats seafood'.

I agree, Flexitarian (and even pescatarian to a degree) is a pretty silly label for "I don't eat much meat' but on the bright side, it is bringing attention to the importance of not eating meat for various reasons (health, environment, ethics) and that is still a good thing.

Edited to say: Omnivore, Omnivore! Scratch all of the above carniverous scratchings and insert omnivore. Was thinking too hard!

If accuracy of the terminology is important, pescatarinism is not a form of carnivorism, but a form of omnivorism.

If accuracy of the terminology is important, pescatarinism is not a form of carnivorism, but a form of omnivorism.

Quite so!

I don't really think flexitarian is ridiculous - I do think it communicates something important.

But I don't wanna know what the scores would be if they quizzed people a street corner about all these terms!

If accuracy of the terminology is important, pescatarinism is not a form of carnivorism, but a form of omnivorism.


Heh Heh :o - Right! :lol:

Actually, I had to tease, because my husband likes the term carnviore (sounds more manly, I think). When I talk about making a no-meat dinner or low-meat dinner, he'll tease me and remind me that he's a carnivore and needs his meat.

I tease him back, that as much he may like to think he's a carnivore, he eats far too many carbs to warrant the description. I remind him that he's an omnivore like a rodent or a pig. And he teases back that he is NOT a rodent or a pig - if he's an omnvore, he's an omnivore like a bear - and then I tease back "I don't think teddybears count."

Thanks everyone for all your input! It's a very interesting subject to me and I hope you all enjoyed my question about the term pescatarian. Please feel free to continue the discuss the subject, I love reading what everyone has to say! Thanks

Kaplods, there was a restaurant in town that used to be primarily vegetarian, but they had a small menu of burgers and steaks. That page was called Carniverous Offerings and ever since then, that's always been a joke phrase for us. :)

Kaplods, there was a restaurant in town that used to be primarily vegetarian, but they had a small menu of burgers and steaks. That page was called Carniverous Offerings and ever since then, that's always been a joke phrase for us. :)

Hmm..Sounds like a primitive religious ritual... dancing, chanting... a hand-carved obsidian knife, maybe some indigenous nudity...

(Indigenous nudity, is another joke phrase for us, in reference to a tribal documentary show we often watched - and in the first few minutes would always warn that "indigenous nudity," would be shown).

:lol:

I'd actually prefer if people used the term pescatarian to describe their way of eating. There is too much confusion about vegetarianism and veganism.

Many people call themselves vegetarians but do eat fish, and it confuses people. As a vegan, I've often been asked if I eat fish. I've even been told in a restaurant, when asked about vegan options, that they had a fish dish.

So, absolutely call yourself pescatarian. I'm glad you found a way of eating that works for you.

yes I agree. And I thank you for being willing to call yourself pescatarian because maybe I'm too sensitive but it bothers me when people call themselves vegetarian even though they eat fish lol

Pescatarians don't always create the confusion themselves. Although I tell people that I'm semi-vegetarian because I eat seafood, they invariably forget and simply call me a vegetarian. Then someone else hears it and assumes that I've erroneously given myself the title. I think that this is how a lot of the miscommunication gets started.

My husband is a vegetarian, and I can't tell you how often I am asked "Does he eat fish?" I tell the questioner either "He doesn't eat anything that had a mother" or "He doesn't eat anything with a face."

soem peopel say they are vegetarian but eat chicken.

this is ridiculous to me.

I have seen this here on 3fc. it's just....weird. that someone would, what? COnside chicken a vegetable? :P

MIL told us she was going to become a vegetarian. In talking to her, it became obvious that she wasn't really talking about giving up meat as much drastically decreasing her meat, especially red-meat consumption.

I bought her the book "The Gradual Vegetarian," because it was one I missed from my own cookbook collection (I had given it to a friend). I am not and have never been a vegetarian - but I own several vegetarian cookbooks.

I think that the term vegetarian is probably going to be overused and misused until there are more accurate and precise words for any food lifestyle choice other than "I'll eat whatever you put in front of me."

Even "flexitarian" implies a flexibility that maybe isn't (and shouldn't be expected to be) there. It ends with family members saying, "Well, if you're so darned flexible, tell me why I shouldn't make a ham for Easter Dinner?"

Even "flexitarian" implies a flexibility that maybe isn't (and shouldn't be expected to be) there. It ends with family members saying, "Well, if you're so darned flexible, tell me why I shouldn't make a ham for Easter Dinner?"

LOL, I never thought of it that way, but so true.

Maybe oligocarnivore? ;)

I think pescetarian is the perfect title. That's what I used to be and am now again. However, many people don't know what that is, so it is sometimes easier to just say, "vegetarian" unless they are at a vegetarian event. I think people get too hung up on titles, especially those that like to argue about the nitty gritty. If someone asks a vegetarian if they eat fish, what does it really cost the vegetarian to just say, "no I don't" and leave it at that.

Now, eating chicken and calling yourself vegetarian is completely erroneous, I believe.

Just my .04 (current economy)

I don't really see a difference in the level of "erroneousness" (I'm sure that's a made up word), between the person who calls themselves a vegetarian where they more accurately would need to say "I would be a vegetarian (or a vegan) if I didn't eat fish," as the person who would have to say "I would be a vegetarian if I didn't eat ______" whether that blank is insects, fish, chicken, beef or any other critter or critter by-product.

An exception really is an exception. From the outside, it seems that there's a vegetarian "hierarchy" of morality that is dependent upon the perceived intelligence or value of the animal eaten/not eaten - so it's "better" to be an insect-eater than a fish-eater, which is better than a bird-eater, which is better than an eater of low-intelligence mammals, which is better than an eater of high-intelligence mammals (or worse in my opinion - the person who feels it's is better to be aneater of not-so-cute mammals as an eater of cuter and cuddlier mammals).

I don't understand why a person who eats no meat but fish would be considered any more a vegetarian than a person who eats no meat but chicken.

Shouldn't frequency and quantity also be a factor? Wouldn't a person who eats chicken once a year, be more of a vegetarian than a person who eats fish once a week? If not, why not?

And really wouldn't the same type of explanation as I described earlier, be easier and more accurate:


Instead of saying "I'm a vegetarian" - saying "I would be a vegetarian (or vegan, or pescatarian) if I didn't eat ____ (insert animal or animal by-product) _______ (inspert spcified quantity) at least once a _______ (insert time period here).



What about the person who says "I don't intentionally eat meat or meat products, but I wouldn't get too upset if I found out that a restaurant or friend served me vegetable soup that might have been made with chicken broth as long as I don't see any meat floating in it"?


For most people, there are countless shades of gray.

Excellent points Kaplods!

Thinking about it, I agree that frequency is truly the factor. I've changed my way of thinking so scratch my chicken remark. (pun intended) Thanks!

I don't care what people call themselves. If I question, I ask. When I ask, I don't expect to get lambasted for wanting to be more informed. That's basically the point I was making.

I agree! I put no moral value on one life over another.
I am definitely an omnivore and I do eat meat, though not too much (not for ethical reasons; I just like the taste of veggies and fruits more, I think!) and I remember in my Korean class we were discussing how some Koreans still eat dog soup, and when asked, I honestly answered that I wouldn't mind trying it, and the rest of the class was really surprised that I wouldn't feel guilty about it, and I didn't understand why. I don't see how eating dog would be any different than eating chicken. I don't see how we have the right to judge that the existence of one animal to be more important than the existence of another. I just don't. If you eat meat, I don't think you have the right to say it's wrong to eat dog (or any other kind of meat) but okay to eat other kinds of meat.
One thing I WON'T do is kill bugs, because it makes me feel like a murderer. I will catch them and take them outside, or let them be if I can't. And people often ask me why I won't kill them, because they are just bugs. I don't see how killing a bug would be any more justifiable than killing a puppy. They are both living creatures and one doesn't have the right to life any more than the other. I have NEVER understood this viewpoint of viewing one type of life as being more important than any other.

I agree! I put no moral value on one life over another... I have NEVER understood this viewpoint of viewing one type of life as being more important than any other.


That's not the point I was trying to make. I think we all do and should make moral judgements about the value of life and towards what we eat, but we have to know why we are making those judgements, and make sure they're the judgement we want to be making.

Even among human life we do, and must place gradations of moral judgements. If you had to choose between saving the life of your own child an another child, you'd probably choose your own child (and probably wouldn't be judged harshly for it). If you had to take a life in order to save your own (whether that was a human or an animal) or to save the life of a loved one - it would (and should) involve you making value judgements as to the value of the lives in question.


I am also an omnivore, and I do make differential value judgements on lives that I take or are willing to take and lives that I allow to be taken, in order for me to benefit from that taking of life. I try to be conscious of the circumstances I'm willing to accept and benefit from those sacrifices.

I might taste dog or horse, but wouldn't willingly eat an endangered species - or human (even one who died of natural causes).

I don't know that I would include dog or horse in my regular diet, because I do think that the animals humans have domesticated for companionship are somewhat exempt from the table. Even though I eat pork, I wouldn't eat someone's pet potbelly pig (and especially not my own) unless there weren't any other edible options (and I'd have to get pretty hungry to see those animals as edible options).

I'm not saying my values should be anyone but my own's, and I do recognize the hypocracy of some of my beliefs. Some of them are results of societal taboos. I have no moral compunction against eating insects, in fact I think that it would benefit our health tremendously if we stopped using pesticides and instead worked on better harvesting methods of those pests, and ate them instead - or at least used them for animal fodder. Yet, I would find it difficult to eat most insect species (at least unless they could be served in a way that disguised their identity - hypocritical of course).

I'm not opposed to killing a misquito (especially one that is biting me), or most other insects - though I don't kill insects just because they are insects.

I probably would take a life (even a human lie) to save my own in some circumstances, but not in others. I can't imagine I would take a child's life to save my own. I can imagine taking the life of someone trying to take my own.

I would have no problem raising small animals for food (rabbits, guinea pigs), but I wouldn't eat a rabbit or guinea pig I was keeping as a pet (unless I was literally starving).


It isn't the value judgement that's the problem - it's being aware of the reasons and being aware of (and ok with) the inherent hypocracy.

Yes, it is somewhat hypocritical to say I will eat a barn pig, but not a pet pig - but I understand and am ok with the reasons why I would make that choice (not for the pig's sake, but for the the sake of the relationship with the human petowner).

From the outside, it seems that there's a vegetarian "hierarchy" of morality that is dependent upon the perceived intelligence or value of the animal eaten/not eaten - so it's "better" to be an insect-eater than a fish-eater, which is better than a bird-eater, which is better than an eater of low-intelligence mammals, which is better than an eater of high-intelligence mammals (or worse in my opinion - the person who feels it's is better to be aneater of not-so-cute mammals as an eater of cuter and cuddlier mammals).

Huh. I have rarely heard this. Mostly, I hear the opposite, lots of insistence than an animal is an animal is an animal.

I don't understand why a person who eats no meat but fish would be considered any more a vegetarian than a person who eats no meat but chicken.

I think you hear this from people making health choices. I've never heard a veg*n make that distinction from an ethical standpoint.

Shouldn't frequency and quantity also be a factor? Wouldn't a person who eats chicken once a year, be more of a vegetarian than a person who eats fish once a week? If not, why not?

That actually *is* the usual stance I've seen from veg*ns - the more you do the better / every bit helps. I've never ever seen veg*ns prioritize fish over chicken or vice versa. As I said, that's only something I've seen claimed for health reasons.

From the outside, it seems that there's a vegetarian "hierarchy" of morality that is dependent upon the perceived intelligence or value of the animal eaten/not eaten - so it's "better" to be an insect-eater than a fish-eater, which is better than a bird-eater, which is better than an eater of low-intelligence mammals, which is better than an eater of high-intelligence mammals (or worse in my opinion - the person who feels it's is better to be aneater of not-so-cute mammals as an eater of cuter and cuddlier mammals).



Huh. I have rarely heard this. Mostly, I hear the opposite, lots of insistence than an animal is an animal is an animal.



I suppose I wasn't clear - I was not not arguing that the stereotype of the moral hiarchy regarding degrees of veg*nism is an exculsively or even primarily veg*n construct (I wasn't even meaning that I thought any vegan had ever argued the point, because I wasn't talking about vegans - I was talking about the stereotypes of meat-eating by the larger/more generic culture). I was speaking from the point of view of someone trying to be objective - seeing a tendency in the larger culture to see gradations of morality in different kinds degrees of meat eating (which is why someone - probably not a vegan someone - might consider the distinction between veg*n, vegetarian, and pescatarian unimportant).

I would expect the vegan to be more likely to see no difference between fish and poultry eating - however in the larger culture, I would argue there most certainly is a tendency to see gradations of morality to veg*nism (which is why some omnivores might see little difference between the two - or might consider eating fish "good enough to call vegetarian" but might not think so regarding poultry, and might not understand why a vegetarian would think the distinction is all that important).

I thought that was relatively clear from my post, because otherwise my argument makes no sense at all - I can't imagine anyone thinking (or thinking that I was thinking) that eating only non-cute animals would make any person a vegetarian. Or that a morality-inspired vegan would consider a person "less immoral" if they only ate noncute animals. My post wasn't meant to be about the vegetarian moral perspective, but rather the perception (from the outside - that is from the viewpoint of primarily nonvegetarians) of the morality of vegetarianism.


I see that I worded my post poorly. I can only hope I clarified rather obfuscated.

Wow, so much great discussion here!

I say I eat mostly vegan, but will eat lacto-vegetarian on occasion. What that means for me is that I will occasionally eat cheese, yogurt or cottage cheese. The fact that I am willing to do this at all on occasion makes me NOT vegan, so I won't call myself that.

As far as a hierarchy is concerned, an animal is an animal is an animal, be it fish, fowl or fly IMO.

My post wasn't meant to be about the vegetarian moral perspective, but rather the perception (from the outside - that is from the viewpoint of primarily nonvegetarians) of the morality of vegetarianism.

Ahh. Then I guess this isn't the crowd that will have that answer :dizzy:

Ahh. Then I guess this isn't the crowd that will have that answer :dizzy:

It wasn't a question, it was a statement and a response to archychicks original statement (which she ammended in a later post) that



If someone asks a vegetarian if they eat fish, what does it really cost the vegetarian to just say, "no I don't" and leave it at that.

Now, eating chicken and calling yourself vegetarian is completely erroneous, I believe.





As to this not being the crowd to have the answer (or to understand the opinion, or to have and share an opionion), I disagree. Veg*ns are generally not raised in isolation from the larger culture/community - so they are as aware of the common viewpoints in that culture, even those they do not share.


Maybe because in my neck of the midwest, veg*nism is so rare, that compromise positions are more common, but I've certainly met both veg*ns and non-veg*ns with what I consider a hiarchical concept of veg*nism - and those that held a more rigid view as well. I've also met veg*ns who cared very little and those who cared very much about the use of precise terminology. I suspect there's as much variation of opinions within the veg*n community as there is outside of it.


I realize that as a non-vegetarian, I am a guest in this forum, and not a member. If my opinions aren't welcomed or are offending anyone, I'd appreciate being told directly so. This particular thread seems to be of interest to, and open to the opinions of both veg*ns and non-veg*ns. I would expect a veg*n to know and understand the term pescatarian, so there'd be no reason for a veg*n to ask the OP question at all, so I assumed by it's very nature that responses from both veg*ns and nonveg*ns were welcome, if that's not the case, I apologize.

Goodness, kaplods, I'm not trying to argue with you. It was just my thoughts. No offense taken nor, I think, implied. I suppose the question marks led me astray ;).

You're clearly way more invested in this concept than I am inclined to dissect it. Carry on :)