Definitions of Vegan

[Guest guest]

Cyndi,

 

Thanks for your response. I agree with you in that I do not think that a

company should be allowed to market a product as " vegan " if it contains

animal ingredients.

 

However, my thoughts relate less to what companies label their products as

what the animal advocacy community labels them. No company labels their

food " non-vegan. " It's vegans that do that in talking about cookies that

contain white cane sugar, beer that has animal products as clarifying

agents, buns that contain butter flavor, etc.

 

Cyndi wrote:

 

> 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.

 

And Mr. Pete (who I also thought wrote an excellent response) wrote:

 

> Folks can choose to be totally non-vegan veggies, partly vegan veggies,

> substantially vegan veggies or total vegans, just as they can choose what

> color shirt to put on in the morning. It's a matter of individual choice that

> should be left to individuals, without changing the definition of vegan. The

> current definition of vegan is extremely important when one considers that, to

> eventually get to an era when animal exploitation and it's related

> environmental degradation come to an end, we must ultimately strive for pure

> veganism.

 

I have a number of points in a response:

 

1. Even if we feel okay with people who are, say, 95% vegan, but we still

define vegan as 100% vegan, the people who are contemplating being " vegan "

will feel like it is, to some extent, and all or nothing proposition unless

we make a point of telling them that it is not. To a large extent, our

actions are louder than words. If we quiz someone about the ingredients in

their bread, they get the message " to be vegan, you must quiz people about

the ingredients of everything. " So, while I agree with both of you -- i.e.,

people should go as far as they want/can -- I don't know that such an

attitude, by itself, will solve the problem that I have perceived.

 

2. No one is really 100% vegan. I assume we all know this, but just in case

-- there are animal products in a great number of things (rubber, concrete,

cardboard boxes, the list goes on) that we use and much of our vegan food is

made in ways that harm animals. If we define vegan as excluding insect

products, much " vegan " food contains insect remnants. So, the line that we

draw of vegan and non-vegan based on whether something happens to be written

on a food label is somewhat, though I admit not completely, arbitrary. Why

make potential vegans' lives harder by saying Burger King's bun isn't vegan,

when, depending on how the grains in the patty were harvested compared to

the grains in the bun, the patty may be less " vegan " than the bun.

 

3. Animal byproducts will most likely fade as the animal industries fade. I

don't think we need to worry that if we don't make all our food pure now,

that we will be left with a society that raises cows for the 1% butter

flavor, a trace of whey, some monoglycerides, etc. Or, if I'm wrong, and

companies do start raising animals for their byproducts, we can then make a

move to boycott the products that contain such products.

 

Jack

[Guest guest]

Jack,

 

Thanks for your thoughtful response. What you wrote seems perfectly reasonable

in theory, but it does suggest an inherent practical problem: Where do we draw

the line? How do we decide how much non-vegan food is too much for those who

call themselves vegans? How much is an acceptable " trace " of non-vegan food in

a vegan diet?

 

If a " trace " of dairy in burger buns is OK, how about a trace of blood in wine?

(Some old fashioned European winemakers still use blood instead of isinglass to

clarify their products.) Is a trace of butter in a pastry one gram, one patty,

or something in between?

 

And what about the definition of " vegetarian? " If one picks out the meat from a

stew, is the meal vegetarian? How about if someone has one beef hamburger per

month? Is that OK for the definition of " vegetarian " because it's so minimal in

comparison to the rest of one's diet?

 

I realize that the answers to these questions depend on the views of

individuals. But, if we loosen the meaning of " vegetarian " or " vegan " we run

the risk that the words will start to have no meaning at all. Thus, a vegan who

eats traces of whey in bread might have a problem having dinner at the home of a

vegan friend who puts cream in sauce and calls it vegan. On a practical basis,

there is no way for the words " vegan " or " vegetarian " to have any common meaning

at all unless we maintain the current definitions. However, no matter what we

call ourselves, we should always be mindful of the need for tolerance in the

real world.

 

Thanks for bringing these important issues to the list. Whatever folks decide,

it's heartwarming to know that, in essence, we're debating the details while we

impliedly agree on the heart of the matter: Vegetarianism and veganism are the

ways to go!

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Peter brings up good points. Just talking about these issues does a lot of

good, even if we don't reach any clear consensus or conclusions. (That's my

excuse to write some more. : ) I don't mean to be presenting arguments or

telling people what to do. I'm just putting out some thoughts, and I hope

with this post I will have exhausted those thoughts once and for all.

 

There was a time, 1995 I think it was, when someone wrote a letter in

Animal's Agenda disparaging the " vegan police " and he got a tremendous

amount of flack for it. I talked to him about it and the impression I got

was that he felt he had made a big mistake and wouldn't have written it if

he had it to do over. It seems like we can talk about these things more

easily now, which is good.

 

I know of one other well-known person in animal advocacy who publicly

admitted to eating food that wasn't 100% vegan when on the road.

Occasionally I hear people complain that this person " isn't even vegan. "

 

I have encountered people who tell me, " Wow it must be so hard to be vegan.

I think it's just amazing that you can do it, but I can't go that far. " When

I ask them what prevented them from being vegan, two have said candy bars

that have some dairy, and one person did not consider herself vegan because

her office products were made by a company that tested on animals. I

encouraged them to think of themselves as vegan and not to worry that they

still have 1% to go before reaching a perfection that no one can really ever

achieve anyway. (I'm not saying I encouraged her to use products that were

tested on animals. I mean that she should feel free to consider herself

vegan even if she was using such products.) What concerned me the most was

the image of veganism that would make someone think you had to be an ascetic

or a martyr -- not good for being embraced by the masses.

 

> Thanks for your thoughtful response. What you wrote seems perfectly

> reasonable in theory, but it does suggest an inherent practical problem: Where

> do we draw the line?

 

This is true. I don't know that we really need a line, but it does seem

impractical to drop, completely, the discussion of what is and is not vegan.

 

I suggested drawing the line at whether animal products can be perceived,

and there are going to be some exceptions where, understandably, a lot of

vegans are not going to be okay. For example, I wouldn't want to eat a

vegetable dip that looked like tofu " sour cream " but was actually real sour

cream. So, I'm mostly talking about not worrying about " miniscule " amounts

of animal products.

 

In terms of miniscule amounts of animal products, the question of where to

draw the line is mostly coming from our perspective of having not consumed

animal products. In other words, if we're trying to convince someone who

eats hamburgers (and hence ample amounts of blood -- I assume; I'm not

completely sure about the blood content of a hamburger, but I would think

there must be some component of blood left) to go vegetarian or vegan, a

little blood in their wine might not be any big deal. We wouldn't want to

make them feel like wine and a hamburger are equal in any way.

 

I have often gotten the feeling that non-vegans who are very sympathetic

look at us (and at me too) and see how we are in terms of what we " can't "

eat, and think " I don't even want to go there, " like they are afraid that

they will get sucked in, so they don't do anything at all.

 

What I like to suggest to potential vegetarians/vegans is that they should

do what seems reasonable to themselves in terms of inconvenience versus what

it accomplishes for reducing animal suffering. The nice part of this is that

they cannot feel like we are expecting too much. No one says, " How dare you

ask me to do what I think is reasonable?! "

 

Jack

[Guest guest]

I just learnt tonight that sponges are animals (not plants), so I guess you

can't be vegan and use a sponge.

 

Now, to continue the discussion, can you be vegan and feed your dog 'mighty

dog'?

 

What about if you prepare a meat dish for a person you have to look after?

Or pay for a meat dinner for a friend at a restaurant?

 

I think you can be a vegan and do all the above, except using a sponge.

 

 

tony