Definitions of Vegan

[Guest guest]

Jack Norris <jacknorris

Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:38:24 -0800

 

Let me start off by saying that I realize there is an opposite view,

with many valid points. But, for a number of years now, I have felt that

the insistence the vegan community has had on purity in ingredients has

really harmed it's spread. We may have sacrificed a tremendous number of

people who would go 99% of the way in order to make a big deal over 1%

of animal ingredients in various foods.

 

I think you make some excellent points but I disagree with you on changing

definitions. Changing focus, sure, there's value to that. But vegan

should continue to mean 100% free of animal products.

 

There are many reasons why someone becomes vegan and, for some of them,

eating traces of animal products would be unacceptable. There are also

large groups of people who eat meat but buy/make many vegan products. For

their needs, 100% vegan is often vital. I would like to see more outreach

to people in the latter category.

 

Some examples: A friend of mine is a meat-eater but she is terribly

allergic to many foods, including all traces of dairy or eggs. She seeks

out vegan products and I sometimes send her information on new ones from

this list. Another example would be Jews who keep kosher and allow

themselves to eat out from non-kosher resturants or homes if and only if

the food contains no meat, not even a trace. In other cases, a kosher Jew

might need to avoid dairy too. Every trace counts.

 

In my opinion, worrying about trace amounts of animal products makes

veganism look like a religion more than a social movement.

 

For some people it is part of their religion.

 

It is hard enough for people to see that they are causing animal

suffering by drinking a glass of milk; when people see us so caught up

in minutia, the connection to animal suffering gets lost. Rather,

veganism becomes, in their mind, something that someone else is " really

into " and that they, themselves, " could never do. "

 

I think this is an excellent point and it goes to encouragement of new

vegetarians/vegans.

 

While I have seen many examples of this in my life, something my mother

once said to me summed it up. I lived with her for a number of years

while vegan, and she had been very supportive. She also knew the

arguments for veganism quite well. One day, she had made some food using

some margarine that had whey as one of the last ingredients (she didn't

realize this) and so I told her I didn't want any. She said " You can't

possibly think you are helping an animal by not eating this, do you? "

And I realized that on some level, she was right.

 

It's interesting you should use this example because something very similar

once happened to me. I used to be allergic to dairy products, every last

trace. I stopped eating meat 2 weeks before leaving for college when I was

18 and allergic to dairy in my early 20's. While on a visit, my mother

went out of her way to cook me a wonderful vegetarian lazagna. And she

used soy cheese...a kind with casein in it. I told her I was allergic to

it and she was so disappointed and upset that I went ahead and had a

serving anyway. The next morning she came into the kitchen as I was

hacking up phlegm (my primary symptom to tiny exposures). I didn't have to

say a word...from then on she believed me when I said I was allergic to

something.

 

It's different in your case because the whey wouldn't have made you

physically ill. Most vegans/vegetarians are not made ill from traces of

what they are avoiding and, in those cases, a trace may not matter too

much. But for some people, they do. It's not just medical; if your reason

for avoiding a food is religious or spiritual, a trace can be a very big

deal indeed. You can have emotional reactions from eating the wrong thing

but there are also spiritual ones. Killing an animal for food leaves a

mark and it is possible to feel it when you eat it. Some cultures deal

with this ritually when they slaughter an animal and some cultures avoid

meat altogether. The issues with vegetarian non-vegan foods are different

though some of the feelings around them are similar.

 

A few yeas ago, I started suggesting that our community, to some extent,

change the definition of " vegan " to mean someone who avoids perceptible

animal products. In other words, if you can't see it, taste, or smell

it, then don't worry about it.

 

Another reason I disagree with this approach is that it can be applied to

so many other industries. For example, I'm chemically sensitive. Most

major manufacturers do things like put out " unscented " products that really

have synthetic fragrance in them (it's legal to do this if the scent is

used as a masking fragrance; only " fragrance-free " is without fragrance).

You can't always tell until you use the product and then it's too late.

Then there are the ingredients that have no scent at all but are still

harmful. Outside of the chemically sensitive community there are

corporations that think nothing of dumping toxins into waterways, ground

water, air, or into products. You can't see, taste, or smell them. And

almost no one has immediate reactions to most of them...they kill you

slowly.

 

I know you're not in the slightest suggesting that such sleezy tactics are

okay. My objection isn't to your intent; it's to diluting the meaning of

words. " Vegan " does and should mean " no animal products. " The change I

would make would be in who gets to be included in the larger vegan

community.

 

I'm not vegan myself though I do not eat meat. I also do a few things that

most of you on this list would object to. That disclaimer aside, I don't

object to terms like " mostly vegan " or " almost vegetarian. " Instead of

changing the meaning of the term " vegan " (or " vegetarian " ), I suggest you

could better meet your goals by enlarging the pool of people who you accept

as part of the community. Each member can decide for her/himself where

their personal line is and how strict they wish to be, but always using

100% as the standard.

 

I eat dairy and eggs (and *gasp* some fish) but if I were invited to a

vegan event I would bring only 100% vegan food (with a note saying it was

cooked in pans that had touched non-vegan food, if requested). I wouldn't

want my choices to change anyone else's. If the restrictions are x, y, and

z, I will either happily comply with them or choose not to attend. In the

case of people who might accidently include restricted ingredients, a good

way of dealing with this is to label everything carefully. That way people

who do care about traces can avoid them.

 

I believe it would help us all to get over our uncomfortableness with

someone who knowingly eats a trace of animal products (and I admit that

I sometimes feel this way towards other people; but less all the

time). I fear that it sends a message of " You don't care as much about

animals as we do; you are not one of us " that is unhealthy for making

veganism into a large movement.

 

I agree with you there.

 

Cyndi

 

--

_____________________________

" There's nothing wrong with me. Maybe there's Cyndi Norman

something wrong with the universe. " (ST:TNG) cyndi

http://www.tikvah.com/

_________________ Owner of the Immune Website & Lists http://www.immuneweb.org/