Vegan Society Criteria

September 26, 2008

Hi,

> What are every ones thoughts on the fact the Vegan Society are changing

> their criteria to " may contain milk/fish/eggs " (allergen advice).

>

> There is info on the Plamil site here:

> http://www.plamilfoods.co.uk/trademarkfaq.htm

This seems to be coming up on other lists (the above pasted from one), so I

thought I'd raise it here, together with my thoughts. What do other people

think?

My in no way official Vegan Society understanding is as follows...

This is not really a change in criteria, or rather, not a change in

definition of veganism. For legal reasons, companies now seem to have to

include on their packaging any possible elements that might get into a

product even if not a deliberate ingredient, and even in truly minute and

previously untraceable amounts. In the same way that everything and his dog

has 'may contains traces of nuts' on (to an extent that a friend who is

allergic of nuts finds it more annoying than useful, since the tiny amounts

referred to would not have harmed her and now she can't tell what will and

what won't), this extends to milk and other animal products as well. So if a

vegan product is made on a line where something with milk was made before,

or even if another line in the building makes products with milk on, this

has to be mentioned.

So rather than make products that were vegan, and have not changed

ingredients, non-vegan, the Vegan Society is altering their criteria to cope

with this change.

To me, this makes perfect sense for several reasons. First, the aim of

veganism is to reduce animal suffering. The trace of milk already used in

another product that might find its way into a vegan product does not

increase animal suffering. One could I suppose argue that forcing a company

to conform to stricter vegan standards would persuade them to ditch their

milk products, but in truth it would more likely be the other way round.

Second, making these products non-vegan would drastically reduce the number

of vegan options available, making it much harder to be vegan, and with no

benefit whatsoever. And third, anyone who avoids a product that may have an

accidental trace of milk, when said product probably contains ingredients

gathered by harvesting techniques which harm animals, and has been brought

to their doorstep by lorries running over animals driven by people who

probably eat meat, is surely deluding themselves that they are in any way

easing animal suffering by so doing.

It sems to me that Plamil's attitude is an example of vegan policing, and

hardly helpful.

Those are my thoughts on the matter, at least. What do others think?

John

September 26, 2008

> Those are my thoughts on the matter, at least. What do others think?

I agree with Plamil's point 5.A. Just not the rest of it, and fully

agree with you.

You could be cynical and say that Plamil's concern is motivated by the

fact that as a totally vegan company they would be one of the few

bearers of the VS trademark if such a strict interpretation was used.

The fact is the sort of things which trigger a " may contain " warning

are usually things like using the same production line for both vegan

and non-vegan products, despite being cleaned between products.

Plamil's claim that something being labelled vegan is incompatible

with an allergen warning would mean a factory that at different times

produces milk and dark chocolate would be an issue yet one which which

produces beef and tofu products may not be. What a bizarre idea.

If their definition was accepted then any company which also makes

products containing milk, eggs, or fish, would be required to invest

in separate facilities to produce vegan suitable products. That is

not going to happen just for the sake of being able to use a logo.

As far as I am aware the Vegan Society has always claimed that

allowing products to use their trademark was never an endorsement of

that company or product, but simply a way of informing vegans. It

seems Plamil, the all-vegan company, are complaining that it is not

the former.

If the " vast majority of vegans " , who somehow have a different opinion

on this issue to all the vegans I know, wish to avoid products with

allergen warnings they can The information is there for them to do so.

But that does not give them the right to deny other vegans, a minority

or otherwise, from being given the information that will allow them to

make their own decisions.

The other year the FSA issued an advisory on the over use of allergen

warnings because it was having a detrimental effect. Part of the

basis of this was a " boy crying wolf " style situation whereby their

value was undermined rendering them meaningless.

People were apparently beginning to ignore warnings where there was

only a minimal risk of contamination and their allergy was not so

strong that even if such trace amounts were present it would not be a

problem.

I think this is already the case with vegan labeling. Sainsbury's

used to be pretty good at labelling products as suitable for vegans,

and so this was a useful and reliable indicator. But then seemed to

start removing it from products despite the recipe not changing,

seemingly only the basis of shared production machinery.

So while the vegan labelling is still useful for those products which

carry it, you are still left to wonder about those other products

which do not. And this increases the chance of people inadvertently

buying products that otherwise seem vegan. It is a backwards step.

At a time when we seemed to be moving forward in terms of awareness,

information, and price, we now seems to be reverting. With Plamil

happily dragging us back. Presumably to a time when they were the

only choice for many products and the idea of supermarkets having

their own brands of dairy free chocolate sounded impossible.

I never refuse to eat at my parents house because of what they cook

and eat with the same utensils and crockery. It would be somewhat

hypocritical, then, to say the same of things made by other companies.

So long as the products themselves are vegan and equipment is cleaned

before they are manufactured then I am satisfied that they have gone

" as far as reasonably practicable " .

To expect anything more than that would seem unreasonable to me. Not

least of which that I, and I assume the " vast majority of vegans " ,

would not be able to afford the premium that would be added to

products by a requirement for new factories and production lines.

Maybe Plamil has a point that the Vegan Society's criteria is too

vague, not having read it I cannot say, and so maybe there is an

argument it needs to be more explicit. Otherwise their complaint

seems self-serving and pious.

Michael.

September 26, 2008

legal advice? afraid of being sued by allergy sufferers?

Â

Peter vv

John Davis <mcxg46

Cc: John Davis <mcxg46

Friday, 26 September, 2008 9:37:37 AM

Vegan Society Criteria

Hi,

> What are every ones thoughts on the fact the Vegan Society are changing

> their criteria to " may contain milk/fish/eggs " (allergen advice).

>

> There is info on the Plamil site here:

> http://www.plamilfo ods.co.uk/ trademarkfaq. htm