Guest guest Posted October 28, 2008 Report Share Posted October 28, 2008 2008/10/28 : > Vegan issues and support for the UK > >> 2008/9/29 John Davis <mcxg46 >> >> > 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. This is true, of course - and the allergy labelling applies only to certain known allergens, not to the almost infinite range of contaminants which are liable to occur in equally tiny or not-so-tiny quantities in the products we buy. Plamil themselves state: " The allergy information given on our retail packs is in line with up- to-date nut allergy labelling recommendations of not stating 'free from'. This is because, despite all our efforts, nothing can ever, always, absolutely be guaranteed 100% free from nuts. " Or any other contaminant, including roaches and rat droppings, to name just a couple. So altering the criteria would not spare what we think of as " wholly vegan " companies either. Even if a " 100 per cent " criterion were possible with modern measuring equipment, which it isn't, every consignment of raw materials would have to be stringently tested for every known animal product - not just the few that have provoked allergy warnings. Totally unfeasible. To take just one example, some of us vividly recall a lecture which included details of permitted levels of roaches and rat droppings in US chocolate products, and how such contaminants could not be entirely avoided due to the production process in the country of origin. The more squeamish members of the audience stopped eating chocolate for a while, but most soon went back to normal. The same would happen if chocolate bars carried a warning to this effect, let alone if milk products had to carry a warning " may contain blood and pus " . Nothing we eat or touch or breathe is 100 per cent pure, so the only true vegan is a dead vegan. Since roaches and rat droppings are not known allergens, the possibility of contamination does not have to be mentioned. As for blood and pus, the catch-all " may contain milk " covers this without putting the consumer off his pinta. The squeamish can stop there. For those who are interested, the details are apparently as follows. Cocoa beans are harvested in tropical countries and dried in large vats outside (using only the sun's energy - highly ecological). The beans attract insects, particularly roaches. These in turn attract rats, which crunch up the bodies of the roaches, leaving the less juicy parts such as legs and heads. While thus feasting, the rats continue to perform their natural functions. Get the idea? If the chocolate beans were hermetically sealed they would rot rather than dry and no amount of netting will keep every insect out, so they will be there anyway, presumably in greater numbers if not chased by the rats since they too will be performing all their natural functions and their breeding cycle is even faster than rats. The rats are an optional extra, though huge amounts of ever stronger rat poison would bring its own health problems. And so on and so forth. The only solution is a " permitted level " - as with blood and pus in milk (if pressed, DEFRA will provide the exact figure to the nearest 10 million blood cells - I haven't tried asking about the UK limit on roaches and rat droppings in chocolate but it's likely to be the same). Anyone for a Booja? Vanessa PS Interestingly, the main source of vitamin B12 in free living vegetarian primates is contamination with bacteria and insects - but please don't rely on chocolate bars as a reliable source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 , Michael's lists <ndisc wrote: Michael I think you are missing the point. Plamil, Green & Blacks, Organica, Cadbury's, Lindt, whoever, can label their products as vegan if they are. Literally they can write " This product is suitable for vegans " AND put a a " may contain " statement on - THEY DO NOT NEED THE VEGAN SOCIETY TRADEMARK. That's fine. Many vegans don't have a problem with this. However the Vegan Society has a trademark which only trademark holders can use, that meets their criteria (VIVA! have a vegan symbol too). The VS trademark should be the standard against all standards (see how the Vegetarian Society has changed it's criteria over the years to encompass rennet in cheese and free range eggs - all of which many will see as vegetarian, let alone those who think veggies each fish!). The manufacturers now the score, but the VS and many vegans seem blinded that some VS trademarks may be on contaminated products. > > On Oct 24, 2008, at 5:30 PM, andrew6766 wrote: > > It seems to me that Plamil's stance is being slightly > > misunderstood/misrepresented, especially having read Adian Ling's > > stance here http://www.plamilfoods.co.uk/petition.htm . > > Nope, I read that and my understanding is still the same. But now I > also know that Ling is a bad poet too. > > > it seems to me that if this was traces of meat contamination rather > > than dairy, the Vegan Society would have no option but to admit that > > it has spent years giving out the trademark to companies and products > > which don't meet more stringent criteria. > > I dare say there are many vegan products that do contain infinitesimal > traces of meat. And indeed shellfish does trigger such warning. The > only way you can ever be certain they do not is to only buy from > companies which only make vegan products, or make everything you eat > from scratch. > > You take the risk of contamination whenever the same equipment is used > for making vegan and non-vegan products. Including visiting > vegetarian cafés. The only difference is some products trigger a > warning and others do not. > > If the Vegan Society were as stringent as you are seemingly suggesting > then Plamil and Redwoods would be about the only companies that could > ever use their logo. > > But what they are saying is not that the criteria is wrong, only that > something cannot be both label vegan and have a warning. But that > would mean that a company that makes something containing minute > traces of dairy would be considered non-vegan because they note this > risk. Yet something that contains larger traces of meat, but still > only minute traces, would be vegan because they do not have to add any > warning. > > That is absurd. > > And just why should something that has always been considered vegan > suddenly not be simply because of a change in labelling regulations? > We all decide what it means for us to be vegan. Not Plamil, and not a > piece of EU legislation. > > Speaking for myself and many vegans I have spoken to about this, we > have all agreed we understand and accept this risk. > > If people do not want to use products that contain a " may contains " > warning they are free to do so. That does not justify Plamil wanting > to deny the rest of us the information, a vegan label, with which to > make our own decisions because we do not share their self- righteous > opinions. > > Michael. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2008 Report Share Posted October 30, 2008 , interveg wrote: A very long and pointless post given that we are talking about flushing lines with chocolate that contained milk (that then resides in a " vegan product " ). If factories flushed lines with rat poo or cockroaches I'd see your point, but the fact here is the addition of the milk into this " vegan choc " is effectively deliberate and a know part of manufacturing to the extent where some manufacturers can but do not want to put the VS symbol on their products in case they sued for misrepresentation (and I think they probably will have a point). > > 2008/10/28 : > > Vegan issues and support for the UK > > > >> 2008/9/29 John Davis <mcxg46@> > >> > >> > 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. > > This is true, of course - and the allergy labelling applies only to > certain known allergens, not to the almost infinite range of > contaminants which are liable to occur in equally tiny or not-so- tiny > quantities in the products we buy. > > Plamil themselves state: > > " The allergy information given on our retail packs is in line with up- > to-date nut allergy labelling recommendations of not stating 'free > from'. This is because, despite all our efforts, nothing can ever, > always, absolutely be guaranteed 100% free from nuts. " > > Or any other contaminant, including roaches and rat droppings, to name > just a couple. So altering the criteria would not spare what we think > of as " wholly vegan " companies either. Even if a " 100 per cent " > criterion were possible with modern measuring equipment, which it isn't, > every consignment of raw materials would have to be stringently tested > for every known animal product - not just the few that have provoked > allergy warnings. Totally unfeasible. > > To take just one example, some of us vividly recall a lecture which > included details of permitted levels of roaches and rat droppings in US > chocolate products, and how such contaminants could not be entirely > avoided due to the production process in the country of origin. The > more squeamish members of the audience stopped eating chocolate for a > while, but most soon went back to normal. The same would happen if > chocolate bars carried a warning to this effect, let alone if milk > products had to carry a warning " may contain blood and pus " . Nothing we > eat or touch or breathe is 100 per cent pure, so the only true vegan is > a dead vegan. Since roaches and rat droppings are not known allergens, > the possibility of contamination does not have to be mentioned. As for > blood and pus, the catch-all " may contain milk " covers this without > putting the consumer off his pinta. > > The squeamish can stop there. For those who are interested, the details > are apparently as follows. Cocoa beans are harvested in tropical > countries and dried in large vats outside (using only the sun's energy - > highly ecological). The beans attract insects, particularly roaches. > These in turn attract rats, which crunch up the bodies of the roaches, > leaving the less juicy parts such as legs and heads. While thus > feasting, the rats continue to perform their natural functions. Get the > idea? If the chocolate beans were hermetically sealed they would rot > rather than dry and no amount of netting will keep every insect out, so > they will be there anyway, presumably in greater numbers if not chased > by the rats since they too will be performing all their natural > functions and their breeding cycle is even faster than rats. The rats > are an optional extra, though huge amounts of ever stronger rat poison > would bring its own health problems. And so on and so forth. The only > solution is a " permitted level " - as with blood and pus in milk (if > pressed, DEFRA will provide the exact figure to the nearest 10 million > blood cells - I haven't tried asking about the UK limit on roaches and > rat droppings in chocolate but it's likely to be the same). > > Anyone for a Booja? > > Vanessa > > PS Interestingly, the main source of vitamin B12 in free living > vegetarian primates is contamination with bacteria and insects - but > please don't rely on chocolate bars as a reliable source. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 On Oct 30, 2008, at 8:22 PM, andrew6766 wrote: > I think you are missing the point. Plamil, Green & Blacks, Organica, > Cadbury's, Lindt, whoever, can label their products as vegan if they > are. Literally they can write " This product is suitable for vegans " > AND put a a " may contain " statement on Actually Plamil are claiming they cannot. That under the FSA's labelling guidelines a company cannot label something vegan if it has an allergen warning for something non-vegan, and to do so would make them liable to prosecution by trading standards authorities. And they are correct on this point, which is the reason why vegan labelling has recently been removed from a lot of products where nothing in their recipe or production has changed. Specifically, it reads: " Manufacturers, retailers and caterers should be able to demonstrate that foods presented as 'vegetarian' or 'vegan' have not been contaminated with non-vegetarian or non-vegan foods during storage, preparation, cooking or display. " That is a very absolutist position, and one which, as Vanessa has stated, is actually impossible to meet! But it is very clearly saying that labelling something as vegan where there is any risk of contamination, no matter how small, is considered contradictory by them. > The manufacturers now the score, but the VS and many > vegans seem blinded that some VS trademarks may be on contaminated > products. I would say that some vegans and companies seem blinded to think products without an allergen warning are free from contamination. The old Vegan Society rules, which Plamil are defending, and FSA guidelines allow something contaminated by cow's meat but not cow's milk to be labelled vegan and carry a VS trademark. Such a situation is indefensible. Either you accept reality, as the new Vegan Society rules do, that these risks can still exist after taking all best efforts to ensure something is vegan, or you go the other way and require something to be absolutely guaranteed to be free from any contamination. Plamil seem to be arguing to preserve a definition where a risk of contamination by anything on the EU's list makes something non-vegan, but a risk of contamination by anything else can be ignored. At best absurd, and at worst cynical as this is the definition that best suits their own interests. If you want the Vegan Society to be a a sign of purity that guarantees products would have absolutely no possible chance of contamination, then no one would be able to use it because it is a a concept of perfection that is impossible to attain. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 , Michael's lists <ndisc wrote: > > " Manufacturers, retailers and caterers should be able to demonstrate > that foods presented as 'vegetarian' or 'vegan' have not been > contaminated with non-vegetarian or non-vegan foods during storage, > preparation, cooking or display. " > > That is a very absolutist position, and one which, as Vanessa has > stated, is actually impossible to meet! This seems fair enough to me and Trading Standards. Vegan manufacturers can do it and will continue to do it. How is this impossible to meet? > > I would say that some vegans and companies seem blinded to think > products without an allergen warning are free from contamination. In terms of the EC allergy laws they are free of contamination from the ingrefdients covered by that legislation. Plamil's point entirely! > > The old Vegan Society rules, which Plamil are defending, and FSA > guidelines allow something contaminated by cow's meat but not cow's > milk to be labelled vegan and carry a VS trademark. Such a situation > is indefensible. I think you're mixing something up here. Allowing a 'may contain' statment for allergy ingredients means it's not vegan under the argument you proposed re Trading Standards, but of course this doesn't mean it may contain something else that isn't covered. eg. cow's meat. This hasn't changed between the 'new' and 'old' rules anyway. > > Either you accept reality, as the new Vegan Society rules do, that > these risks can still exist after taking all best efforts to ensure > something is vegan, or you go the other way and require something to > be absolutely guaranteed to be free from any contamination. > > Plamil seem to be arguing to preserve a definition where a risk of > contamination by anything on the EU's list makes something non- vegan, > but a risk of contamination by anything else can be ignored. At > best absurd, and at worst cynical as this is the definition that best > suits their own interests. It's not absurd, it's a step in the right direction and what you seem to be suggesting, quite rightly, is that other risks of contamination should be highlighted as equally. > > If you want the Vegan Society to be a a sign of purity that guarantees > products would have absolutely no possible chance of contamination, > then no one would be able to use it because it is a a concept of > perfection that is impossible to attain. It's not impossible Plamil and Redwood can already deliver this. So could other manufacturers, but they need the gold standard (e.g. the VS trademark) to tell them how high to set their standards. If chocolate manufacturers who, apparently have not changed any of their production methods are no longer happy to call their products vegan, why on earth should the VS be happy to slap on their trademark?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 31, 2008 Report Share Posted October 31, 2008 On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:56 PM, andrew6766 wrote: > This seems fair enough to me and Trading Standards. Vegan > manufacturers can do it and will continue to do it. How is this > impossible to meet? As Vanessa has already explained: >> Plamil themselves state: >> >> " The allergy information given on our retail packs is in line with >> up- >> to-date nut allergy labelling recommendations of not stating 'free >> from'. This is because, despite all our efforts, nothing can ever, >> always, absolutely be guaranteed 100% free from nuts. " >> >> Or any other contaminant, including roaches and rat droppings, to >> name >> just a couple. So altering the criteria would not spare what we >> think >> of as " wholly vegan " companies either. Even if a " 100 per cent " >> criterion were possible with modern measuring equipment, which it >> isn't, >> every consignment of raw materials would have to be stringently >> tested >> for every known animal product - not just the few that have provoked >> allergy warnings. Totally unfeasible. > I think you're mixing something up here. Allowing a 'may contain' > statment for allergy ingredients means it's not vegan under the > argument you proposed re Trading Standards, but of course this > doesn't mean it may contain something else that isn't covered. eg. > cow's meat. This hasn't changed between the 'new' and 'old' rules > anyway. Nor does the lack of a warning mean it does not contain traces of non- vegan materials not on the EU's allergen list. If anything it is more likely that the risk of contamination by other substances will be greater, though, because manufactures are not required to test for their explicit presence, unlike for listed allergens. So why should we assume that because a label says it " may contain " one thing that it does, yet ignore all the other things it " may contain " but which do not have to be tested or disclosed. If the disclosed possibilities matters to you then so should the potential for the undisclosed ones. To chose to ignore those other risks simply because they are not tested or written down is hypocritical and self-serving. Before this issue arose the situation was that anything containing the risk of minute traces of anything below a certain level was considered vegan. Now, due to more stringent levels being applied to require an allergen warning, products at risk of contamination from one group of non-vegan items cannot be labelled vegan, while those that may contain exactly the same trace amounts from a different group of non-vegan substances can still be considered vegan. There are three possibly situations: 1. Something can be called vegan so long as something was made to a vegan recipe and every attempt was made to ensure it was made in a vegan manner, despite the risk of unavoidable contamination from trace amounts of any non-vegan substances. 2. Something can be called vegan so long as something was made to a vegan recipe and every attempt was made to ensure it was made in a vegan manner, despite the risk of unavoidable contamination from trace amounts of non-vegan substances which are not considered a serious allergen by the EU. 3. Something can be called vegan so long as something was made to a vegan recipe and every attempt was made to ensure it was made in a vegan manner, and there is no risk of any contamination from trace amounts of any non-vegan substances. Until recently we were all happy with the first definition. That is what governed the use of the Vegan Society trademark as well as by manufacturer for certifying their own products. The wording of the Vegan Scoeity's criteria became incompatible with recent changes to product labelling requirements. And so they made an amendment which puts them back in line with each other. Nothing will be allowed to carry their trademark now that never would have been previously. It only prevents products from losing their claim to being vegan simply because of required labelling changes. Plamil are saying that the second rule should apply though. That the Vegan Society should not change their rules to keep things as they always have been, but instead should allow entirely arbitrary distinction between potential contaminants determine what is and is not vegan. Nobody is arguing for the third position, that things must be guaranteed free from any risk of contamination to be stated as vegan, because it is impossible. > It's not absurd, it's a step in the right direction and what you seem > to be suggesting, quite rightly, is that other risks of contamination > should be highlighted as equally. I am not suggesting that at all. I have said enough times already that I, and many other vegans I have discussed this with, accept that such minute risks are unavoidable and not worth worrying about. To be concerned about such things is like saying you should never eat apples in case there is a worm inside. A much bigger contaminant that the microscopic amounts that are being debated. It is also worth bearing in mind what the Vegan Society stands for: " the word " veganism " denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. " The key part being between the em-dashes. The changes they have made to their trademark criteria is simply an acceptance that a company acting " as far as is possible and practical " can still fall foul of allergen labelling regulations, and so should not be disregarded because of a tangental piece of EU legislation. > It's not impossible Plamil and Redwood can already deliver this. No they do not. You cannot harvest products and ensure insects and the like do not get caught up in the process. I refer you back to Vanessa's email. It is impossible to guarantee that something is absolutely free from any contamination. If the EU considered insect matter an allergen it would have to be included on the labels of practically every single manufactured item you can buy. Including those made by companies like Plamil and Redwood who only make vegan products. When I visit my omnivorous parents I use their crockery and cutlery and eat products made with their utensils. I expect them to wash things and not use the same items for cooking their food and mine (which they never do anyway), but I do not take my own items whenever I go to see them. Maybe you are different? Many vegans also seem happy to eat in vegetarian and omnivorous cafés and restaurants, and when visiting pubs drink from glasses that at one time contained non-vegan drinks. Did you check the glues used in making the computer you are using to access this group were vegan? The majority of us have no right to demand such piety when we very few of us live our lives by those standards. And those who are so strict as to avoid anything that may possible be contaminated or unsuitable are not going to care about trusting items made by non-vegan companies anyway, vegan label or no. > So > could other manufacturers, but they need the gold standard (e.g. the > VS trademark) to tell them how high to set their standards. The Vegan Society trademark is meant to certify products that have been made in a vegan manner, not that they have been made in a factory that only produces vegan items, as in the two examples you state. Nor is it meant to be a " gold standard " or infer approval or recommendation. Just simply a means for a manufacturer to inform customers that something is vegan. If you think it should only cover the latter you need to ask them to introduce a separate certification for companies rather than products. Although you are deluded if you think vegetarian and omnivorous companies will see it as something to aspire to. The requirement of having separate vegan only production plants would be impractical cost far too much to be possible. Instead it is more likely they will simply give up on caring about making their products suitable for vegans at all. Again, the Vegan Society is founded on the concept of acting " as far as is possible and practical " . It is not about trying to see who is the best at being holier-than-thou. > If > chocolate manufacturers who, apparently have not changed any of their > production methods are no longer happy to call their products vegan, > why on earth should the VS be happy to slap on their trademark?! This has nothing to do with happiness. What an odd thing to say. Why would they want to reduce their potential customers when they are not making any savings from cheaper production costs, anyway? Companies, not just chocolate manufacturers, are removing vegan labelling because they are required to add allergen warnings. And so under FSA guidelines they also have to remove their vegan labelling. They have no choice in the matter. And so given the failings of the FSA to ensure vegans are given all the information they need to be able to make an informed decision for themselves, the Vegan Society thankfully seem to be ensuring that they continue to allow that to happen. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 4, 2008 Report Share Posted November 4, 2008 , Michael's lists <ndisc wrote: Michael To respond to your points. 1. Vanessa is talking about 100% guaranteed from. No-one is asking for that, so why complicate the matter by bringing it up? (see your own comments regarding self serving hypocrisy!) What most vegans are asking for is the same criteria that would be needed to be used to carry a 'suitable for vegans' label under UK/EU legislation to be applied to the VS trademark also. It really is that simple. 2. Regarding your 3 scenarios. 1 and 2 are the same under current legislation whether the VS likes it or not. If you don't do 2 you can't call it vegan under 1. That's the whole argument. Scenario 3 is unrealistic, but once again you and the VS think that stating this case somehow adds to your case. Simply put, it doesn't. Also it's not just Plamil who are saying case 2 is the only product 'suitable for vegans' it's the FSA and therefore every manufacturer in the land (hence all their own labelling changes). The VS amendments are a cynical attempt to allow more manufacturers access to a trademark that attempts to pass off a product as vegan despite knowledge of current legislation. 3. All manufacturers who label food as 'suitable for vegans' or produce 'free from' ranges are managin to produce their products to the standard expected in scenario 2. No-one is comparing the vegan manufacturers to scenario 3 as we all know this is unrealistic. So why bring this up other than trying to discredit these companies? 4. In terms of your piety rant/crockery etc I couldn't agree more with all these sentiments, as every vegan would, but unfortunately it doesn't help your case as to why something that is legislatively not vegan should be passed off as vegan via the use of a trademark. 5. I'm not too sure who is deluded but the VS must think that manufacturers are to sign up to a symbol that passes off products as being suitable but not being able to state that on the label. 6. Happiness for the VS would be it's trademark being used on big brand, big volume products, because this would earn income. They don't have any trademark users who match this at the moment and quite frankly it's not going to happen anytime soon because the manufacturers know their production techniques and don't feel comfortable with what the VS is proposing (however hard they push it). 7. Re the FSA not giving the consumer all the info that they need to make an informed decision, that's just not true. A consumer can read the ingrendients, they can see any allergy warnings, and if it says 'suitable for vegans', then it is. In fact your argument works against the VS trademark, because it brings nothing to the table at the moment, just confusion as to what it actually stands for amongst, not just the public at large, but amongst vegans too!!! Crazy. 8. Given 7. If the VS do not amend their trademark, not only will it not be adopted but some people will start looking for another trademark that is 'fit for purpose' (Viva do one that states 'no contamination') or maybe manufacturers will just stick with their own 'suitable for vegans' labels. Either way I can't see how any manufacturer will adopt the VS trademark in it's current guise or how those who have it can remain 'happy' (sorry about the use of the term happy again). In the grand scheme of things all these words on this one little subject seems a bit much, but my gut feeling is, that in the end, it will be worth it (typing away on my non vegan glued keyboard!) Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.