Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 Hi Vanessa, > PS Some Vegan Society contacts have recently received a " free gift " from > a company called Seagreens claiming that their product contains usable > vitamin B12 and citing experiments on animals to support this. If you > got one of these, please be assured that the company did not obtain your > details from the Vegan Society. Got one of these free gifts myself...How is it that they are using the Vegan Society vegan symbol, when they experiment on animals? John - <interveg Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:13 AM Fwd: The write-up > Hi Lesley - > > The recipe leaflet with the chickpea and mushroom dish on the front > would be fine for your purposes. Best of all for restaurants, of > course, is the 34-page booklet " Vegan Catering for All " but this is > obviously a lot more costly to produce so more suitable for people who > appear to be interested rather than just dished out willy-nilly and > binned the moment your back is turned. > > The 150,000 figure is really the maximum we could try to claim - " at > least " suggests it's a minimum and there may be more. The true figure > is probably about 120,000. There's probably no harm in saying " up to " > or even " about 150,000 " though the latter is pushing it a bit. > > More importantly, perhaps, you can stress that people generally eat > together so a group of four or six with one vegan member will go to an > eatery where their vegan friend can get a meal - which means SIX rather > than one customer lost or gained (and the modest total number of vegans > six times more ominous!) If we simply suggest that vegans will > otherwise stay at home by ourselves the average restaurateur may well > not care too much if we do, given the hassle they imagine is involved. > > Four, six, ten or more people going elsewhere because one of them is > vegan should worry proprietors a bit more in these days of recession - > particularly with office parties and other seasonal celebrations on the > horizon. Whatever our personal views, a lot of money is made between > mid-December and the first week in January and many of these > celebrations are planned in November, so the point is worth making now. > > Just a thought. Hope it helps. Congratulations to Sonal on a great > initiative and to you on taking it up with such enthusiasm along with > all your other causes and commitments. > > See you soon, I hope. > > Vanessa > > PS Some Vegan Society contacts have recently received a " free gift " from > a company called Seagreens claiming that their product contains usable > vitamin B12 and citing experiments on animals to support this. If you > got one of these, please be assured that the company did not obtain your > details from the Vegan Society. > > Next issue of The Vegan should be with you soon. Any comments on the > advocacy article would be very welcome. Thanxxxx. v > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148459 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 I'm sure Vanessa can answer better but my guess would be that they only cite experiments but do not commission them themselves. Still it does indicate their approval of the method and I will still be complaining. Lesley _____ On Behalf Of John Davis 13 November 2008 11:08 SeaGreens Hi Vanessa, > PS Some Vegan Society contacts have recently received a " free gift " from > a company called Seagreens claiming that their product contains usable > vitamin B12 and citing experiments on animals to support this. If you > got one of these, please be assured that the company did not obtain your > details from the Vegan Society. Got one of these free gifts myself...How is it that they are using the Vegan Society vegan symbol, when they experiment on animals? John - <interveg (AT) parlyweb (DOT) <interveg%40parlyweb.demon.co.uk> demon.co.uk> <@ <%40> .com> Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:13 AM Fwd: The write-up > Hi Lesley - > > The recipe leaflet with the chickpea and mushroom dish on the front > would be fine for your purposes. Best of all for restaurants, of > course, is the 34-page booklet " Vegan Catering for All " but this is > obviously a lot more costly to produce so more suitable for people who > appear to be interested rather than just dished out willy-nilly and > binned the moment your back is turned. > > The 150,000 figure is really the maximum we could try to claim - " at > least " suggests it's a minimum and there may be more. The true figure > is probably about 120,000. There's probably no harm in saying " up to " > or even " about 150,000 " though the latter is pushing it a bit. > > More importantly, perhaps, you can stress that people generally eat > together so a group of four or six with one vegan member will go to an > eatery where their vegan friend can get a meal - which means SIX rather > than one customer lost or gained (and the modest total number of vegans > six times more ominous!) If we simply suggest that vegans will > otherwise stay at home by ourselves the average restaurateur may well > not care too much if we do, given the hassle they imagine is involved. > > Four, six, ten or more people going elsewhere because one of them is > vegan should worry proprietors a bit more in these days of recession - > particularly with office parties and other seasonal celebrations on the > horizon. Whatever our personal views, a lot of money is made between > mid-December and the first week in January and many of these > celebrations are planned in November, so the point is worth making now. > > Just a thought. Hope it helps. Congratulations to Sonal on a great > initiative and to you on taking it up with such enthusiasm along with > all your other causes and commitments. > > See you soon, I hope. > > Vanessa > > PS Some Vegan Society contacts have recently received a " free gift " from > a company called Seagreens claiming that their product contains usable > vitamin B12 and citing experiments on animals to support this. If you > got one of these, please be assured that the company did not obtain your > details from the Vegan Society. > > Next issue of The Vegan should be with you soon. Any comments on the > advocacy article would be very welcome. Thanxxxx. v > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148459 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfigh <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> ter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 On 13 Nov 2008, at 11:18, Lesley Dove wrote: > I'm sure Vanessa can answer better but my guess would be that they > only cite > experiments but do not commission them themselves. Still it does > indicate > their approval of the method and I will still be complaining. > Citing an experimental result does not imply approval of the methods. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 But surely to do so without condemnation suggests implicit approval, or at the very least acceptance, of the methods? Whilst to make use of results whilst ostensibly disapproving of the methods would be somewhat hypocritical. John - " Paul Russell " <prussell Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:20 PM Re: SeaGreens > On 13 Nov 2008, at 11:18, Lesley Dove wrote: > >> I'm sure Vanessa can answer better but my guess would be that they >> only cite >> experiments but do not commission them themselves. Still it does >> indicate >> their approval of the method and I will still be complaining. >> > > Citing an experimental result does not imply approval of the methods. > > Paul > > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148459 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 What it definitely does imply is that they believe the experiment is useful and relevant to humans, whether or not it implies that they agree with it ethically, which we could argue until the cows come home. I would never cite the results of animal experiments to support anything, because I am against them ethically and also because they are not relevant to how things work in humans. I agree with John about the hypocrisy. Ask yourself this, would it be equally OK to cite the results of Nazi hypothermia experiments without condemning them since they would be relevant to humans? If your answer is no then you are more than likely thinking with a speciesist mentality (which I am sure we all do sometimes). Lesley _____ On Behalf Of Paul Russell 13 November 2008 12:21 Re: SeaGreens On 13 Nov 2008, at 11:18, Lesley Dove wrote: > I'm sure Vanessa can answer better but my guess would be that they > only cite > experiments but do not commission them themselves. Still it does > indicate > their approval of the method and I will still be complaining. > Citing an experimental result does not imply approval of the methods. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 On 13 Nov 2008, at 12:26, John Davis wrote: > But surely to do so without condemnation suggests implicit approval, > or at > the very least acceptance, of the methods? Whilst to make use of > results > whilst ostensibly disapproving of the methods would be somewhat > hypocritical. > We all make use of knowledge (and other benefits) which were gained unethically. I'm sure you can think of plenty of exmaples. If you take your argument to its ultimate conclusion you would spend your entire life condemning all the minutiae of daily life and get very little else done. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 Hi Paul, So you think it better to accept - and therefore at least implicitly condone - unethically-obtained information and unethical products derived from that information? For myself, whilst I accept that there are, no doubt, unethical elements to many of the products I use (and the knowledge they rely upon), that is no reason not to do what I can to reduce that number, and to condemn the ones I know about. After all, isn't that what veganism is about - the attempt to be as vegan as possible, whilst knowing it to be impossible? I'd also argue that the minutaie of life you mention is all there is - the big picture arises from it, so there is nothing wasteful about trying to deal with it. John - " Paul Russell " <prussell Thursday, November 13, 2008 2:14 PM Re: SeaGreens > On 13 Nov 2008, at 12:26, John Davis wrote: > >> But surely to do so without condemnation suggests implicit approval, >> or at >> the very least acceptance, of the methods? Whilst to make use of >> results >> whilst ostensibly disapproving of the methods would be somewhat >> hypocritical. >> > > We all make use of knowledge (and other benefits) which were gained > unethically. I'm sure you can think of plenty of exmaples. If you take > your argument to its ultimate conclusion you would spend your entire > life condemning all the minutiae of daily life and get very little > else done. > > Paul > > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148471 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 On 13 Nov 2008, at 14:34, John Davis wrote: > Hi Paul, > > So you think it better to accept - and therefore at least implicitly > condone - unethically-obtained information and unethical products > derived > from that information? For myself, whilst I accept that there are, > no doubt, > unethical elements to many of the products I use (and the knowledge > they > rely upon), that is no reason not to do what I can to reduce that > number, > and to condemn the ones I know about. After all, isn't that what > veganism is > about - the attempt to be as vegan as possible, whilst knowing it to > be > impossible? > My point was that if you feel the need to condemn everything that has some unethical aspect to it then you will need to condemn virtually everything in life. Your entire day would be taken up expressing moral outrage at every single aspect of life, and you still wouldn't be anywhere near done by bed-time. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 On 13 Nov 2008, at 13:46, Lesley Dove wrote: > What it definitely does imply is that they believe the experiment is > useful > and relevant to humans, whether or not it implies that they agree > with it > ethically, which we could argue until the cows come home. > On your first point, yes, but it would be silly to pretend that no data from animal experiments is ever useful or relevant to humans, no matter how much we dislike the fact. > I would never cite the results of animal experiments to support > anything, > because I am against them ethically and also because they are not > relevant > to how things work in humans. > Your ethical position is valid, of course, but you can't argue that all data from animals is invalid just because you disapprove of it from an ethical standpoint. > I agree with John about the hypocrisy. Ask yourself this, would it be > equally OK to cite the results of Nazi hypothermia experiments without > condemning them since they would be relevant to humans? > > If your answer is no then you are more than likely thinking with a > speciesist mentality (which I am sure we all do sometimes). > > We are all " speciesist " , even those of us who claim not to be, which makes it a relatively useless term (in much the same way that hypocrisy is a fairly useless term, since we are all hypocrites to some degree). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 We can certainly strive towards not being speciesist, as we gain more knowledge about other species, and there is a very strong scientific movement against vivisection, here at the Safer Medicines Campaign (formerly known as Europeans for Medical Progress) http://www.curedisease.net/ Different species have different nutritional needs, it's hardly rocket science, animal tests of seaweed as a nutritional supplement are hardly likely to be very helpful in telling us anything about humans. .. Lesley _____ On Behalf Of Paul Russell 13 November 2008 16:46 Re: SeaGreens On 13 Nov 2008, at 13:46, Lesley Dove wrote: > What it definitely does imply is that they believe the experiment is > useful > and relevant to humans, whether or not it implies that they agree > with it > ethically, which we could argue until the cows come home. > On your first point, yes, but it would be silly to pretend that no data from animal experiments is ever useful or relevant to humans, no matter how much we dislike the fact. > I would never cite the results of animal experiments to support > anything, > because I am against them ethically and also because they are not > relevant > to how things work in humans. > Your ethical position is valid, of course, but you can't argue that all data from animals is invalid just because you disapprove of it from an ethical standpoint. > I agree with John about the hypocrisy. Ask yourself this, would it be > equally OK to cite the results of Nazi hypothermia experiments without > condemning them since they would be relevant to humans? > > If your answer is no then you are more than likely thinking with a > speciesist mentality (which I am sure we all do sometimes). > > We are all " speciesist " , even those of us who claim not to be, which makes it a relatively useless term (in much the same way that hypocrisy is a fairly useless term, since we are all hypocrites to some degree). Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, and all that. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 On 13 Nov 2008, at 16:52, Lesley Dove wrote: > We can certainly strive towards not being speciesist, as we gain more > knowledge about other species, and there is a very strong scientific > movement against vivisection, here at the Safer Medicines Campaign > (formerly > known as Europeans for Medical Progress) > > > > http://www.curedisease.net/ > > I think probably most people in the scientific and medical communities as well as in the general population would like to see an end to animal testing and experimentation. I don't know that it will ever be eradicated entirely but as the use of computer models and other non- animal methods increases we should see a decrease in the use of animals. Just in case there are people who haven't heard of them, the Dr Hadwen Trust and the Humane Research Trust are two organisations which actively promote the development of non-animal research and richly deserve our support: http://www.drhadwentrust.org.uk/ http://www.humaneresearch.org.uk/ > > Different species have different nutritional needs, it's hardly rocket > science, animal tests of seaweed as a nutritional supplement are > hardly > likely to be very helpful in telling us anything about humans. > You may well be right - I haven't seen the cited article. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 I emailed them as follows, so we shall see what they have to say for themselves about animal experiments. Dear Rachel Davies, I recently received an unsolicited free sample of Seagreens products from you, more than likely because my name and address is in The Vegan as a local contact. I was most concerned to see that even though you carry the Vegan Society symbol, you use the results of an experiment on rats to back up your view that your product is good for providing B12 for vegans and vegetarians. While rats are mammals, it is clear that different species of mammals have different dietary needs and therefore not only is experimenting on rats considered unethical by most vegans, but also unscientific unless one wants the correct results for rats. You cannot reliably extrapolate those results to humans, and I am also most concerned that you cited this study with no comment of condemnation, which to me suggests that your company approves of such methods of testing. This has certainly put me and more than likely several other vegans off buying your products. Yours sincerely, Lesley Dove _____ On Behalf Of John Davis 13 November 2008 12:26 Re: SeaGreens But surely to do so without condemnation suggests implicit approval, or at the very least acceptance, of the methods? Whilst to make use of results whilst ostensibly disapproving of the methods would be somewhat hypocritical. John - " Paul Russell " <prussell (AT) sonic (DOT) <prussell%40sonic.net> net> <@ <%40> .com> Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:20 PM Re: SeaGreens > On 13 Nov 2008, at 11:18, Lesley Dove wrote: > >> I'm sure Vanessa can answer better but my guess would be that they >> only cite >> experiments but do not commission them themselves. Still it does >> indicate >> their approval of the method and I will still be complaining. >> > > Citing an experimental result does not imply approval of the methods. > > Paul > > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148459 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfigh <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> ter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Dear Lesley! Thanx on behalf of many vegans(atleast like me who don't always respond to every outrage!) for mailing those guys at seaweeds! Plz. do come over to 30th Nov.A.Aid thing.I'd love to meet you. With regards, Sonal Lesley Dove <Lesley wrote: I emailed them as follows, so we shall see what they have to say for themselves about animal experiments. Dear Rachel Davies, I recently received an unsolicited free sample of Seagreens products from you, more than likely because my name and address is in The Vegan as a local contact. I was most concerned to see that even though you carry the Vegan Society symbol, you use the results of an experiment on rats to back up your view that your product is good for providing B12 for vegans and vegetarians. While rats are mammals, it is clear that different species of mammals have different dietary needs and therefore not only is experimenting on rats considered unethical by most vegans, but also unscientific unless one wants the correct results for rats. You cannot reliably extrapolate those results to humans, and I am also most concerned that you cited this study with no comment of condemnation, which to me suggests that your company approves of such methods of testing. This has certainly put me and more than likely several other vegans off buying your products. Yours sincerely, Lesley Dove _____ On Behalf Of John Davis 13 November 2008 12:26 Re: SeaGreens But surely to do so without condemnation suggests implicit approval, or at the very least acceptance, of the methods? Whilst to make use of results whilst ostensibly disapproving of the methods would be somewhat hypocritical. John - " Paul Russell " <prussell (AT) sonic (DOT) <prussell%40sonic.net> net> <@ <%40> .com> Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:20 PM Re: SeaGreens > On 13 Nov 2008, at 11:18, Lesley Dove wrote: > >> I'm sure Vanessa can answer better but my guess would be that they >> only cite >> experiments but do not commission them themselves. Still it does >> indicate >> their approval of the method and I will still be complaining. >> > > Citing an experimental result does not imply approval of the methods. > > Paul > > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148459 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfigh <http://www.spamfighter.com/len> ter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Hi Paul, > My point was that if you feel the need to condemn everything that has > some unethical aspect to it then you will need to condemn virtually > everything in life. Your entire day would be taken up expressing moral > outrage at every single aspect of life, and you still wouldn't be > anywhere near done by bed-time. True. Which means of course that you have to pick your battles. But I'd have thought that persuading a company purporting to be vegan not to condone animal expermintation is quite a good one to pick, with it having at least an outside chance of success! John - " Paul Russell " <prussell Thursday, November 13, 2008 4:41 PM Re: SeaGreens > On 13 Nov 2008, at 14:34, John Davis wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> So you think it better to accept - and therefore at least implicitly >> condone - unethically-obtained information and unethical products >> derived >> from that information? For myself, whilst I accept that there are, >> no doubt, >> unethical elements to many of the products I use (and the knowledge >> they >> rely upon), that is no reason not to do what I can to reduce that >> number, >> and to condemn the ones I know about. After all, isn't that what >> veganism is >> about - the attempt to be as vegan as possible, whilst knowing it to >> be >> impossible? >> > > My point was that if you feel the need to condemn everything that has > some unethical aspect to it then you will need to condemn virtually > everything in life. Your entire day would be taken up expressing moral > outrage at every single aspect of life, and you still wouldn't be > anywhere near done by bed-time. > > Paul > > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148513 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 On 14 Nov 2008, at 09:06, John Davis wrote: > Hi Paul, > >> My point was that if you feel the need to condemn everything that has >> some unethical aspect to it then you will need to condemn virtually >> everything in life. Your entire day would be taken up expressing >> moral >> outrage at every single aspect of life, and you still wouldn't be >> anywhere near done by bed-time. > > True. Which means of course that you have to pick your battles. But > I'd have > thought that persuading a company purporting to be vegan not to > condone > animal expermintation is quite a good one to pick, with it having at > least > an outside chance of success! I don't think the company _is_ purporting to be vegan though - they are just a supplement company which happens to sell a vegan B12 supplement. (If you look on their recipes page you'll see a recipe for kedgeree which includes egg and fish). They are no different from any non-vegan company which sells products which happen to be vegan. Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Hi Paul, They wrote to me offering samples of their products to hand out to members of the vegan group I run, and their products sport the Vegan Society symbol. Whether that makes them a vegan company is perhaps a matter of semantics. But they are certainly trying to promote themselves as vegan-friendly, so should be made aware that this is incompatible with their condoning animal experiments, if for no other reason that for as long as they do so their products should not carry the vegan society mark. Besides, whilst you correctly state that we cannot fight all the battles that should be fought, and do not have time to do so, this is not to say that they are not worth fighting. So I'm unsure why you would want to defend this company, or criticise those who want to educate them? John - " Paul Russell " <prussell Friday, November 14, 2008 11:27 AM Re: SeaGreens > On 14 Nov 2008, at 09:06, John Davis wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >>> My point was that if you feel the need to condemn everything that has >>> some unethical aspect to it then you will need to condemn virtually >>> everything in life. Your entire day would be taken up expressing >>> moral >>> outrage at every single aspect of life, and you still wouldn't be >>> anywhere near done by bed-time. >> >> True. Which means of course that you have to pick your battles. But >> I'd have >> thought that persuading a company purporting to be vegan not to >> condone >> animal expermintation is quite a good one to pick, with it having at >> least >> an outside chance of success! > > > I don't think the company _is_ purporting to be vegan though - they > are just a supplement company which happens to sell a vegan B12 > supplement. (If you look on their recipes page you'll see a recipe for > kedgeree which includes egg and fish). They are no different from any > non-vegan company which sells products which happen to be vegan. > > Paul > > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148513 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 On 14 Nov 2008, at 11:41, John Davis wrote: > Hi Paul, > > They wrote to me offering samples of their products to hand out to > members > of the vegan group I run, and their products sport the Vegan Society > symbol. > Whether that makes them a vegan company is perhaps a matter of > semantics. > But they are certainly trying to promote themselves as vegan- > friendly, so > should be made aware that this is incompatible with their condoning > animal > experiments, if for no other reason that for as long as they do so > their > products should not carry the vegan society mark. > Again, citing data from animal experiments does not imply that you condone it. While it might be considered insensitive for a company trying to market a supplement to vegans to cite animal data, it's really no different than, say, a supermarket which sells products with the Vegan Society logo alongside meat and other non-vegan products. Or are you saying that you only ever buy products and services from exclusively vegan owned and operated companies ? > Besides, whilst you correctly state that we cannot fight all the > battles > that should be fought, and do not have time to do so, this is not to > say > that they are not worth fighting. So I'm unsure why you would want > to defend > this company, or criticise those who want to educate them? > From my perspective I think a line was crossed when you and Lesley were insisting that a non-vegan company should either not be citing animal data and/or should be denouncing animal experiments. You might as well insist that Sainsburys should only sell vegan products. I suppose what concerns me most is that vegans get a bad enough press as it is, without adding further fuel to the fire. All this company did was to cite data from one animal experiment (with which they were in no way involved), and as a result you write off the fact that they produce a vegan product and instead choose to take a hostile stance against them. It doesn't seem like a very good way to encourage companies to be more vegan-friendly. Anyway, it's a minor quibble ins the scheme of things - let's focus on more constructive issues that might actually be of some benefit to vegans, animals and the environment. Regards, Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 Hi Paul, > Or > are you saying that you only ever buy products and services from > exclusively vegan owned and operated companies ? Where possible, I do this. And one day, perhaps, it will be possible to buy all my products and services from such companies. But until that time, I see it as incumbent upon us to do what we can to encourage more companies to be vegan, such as, for example, contacint SeaGreens no less than petitioning the larger companies. > From my perspective I think a line was crossed when you and Lesley > were insisting that a non-vegan company should either not be citing > animal data and/or should be denouncing animal experiments. But this was a company that contacted us directly, uninvited, and presented themselves as vegan-friendly, asking us to promote their products to people in vegan groups. And since their mention of animal experimentation suggested that they were not in fact vegan, we had a duty to raise the matter with them before we could think of doing so. Otherwise we were risking promoting non-vegan products as vegan. > Anyway, it's a minor quibble ins the scheme of things - let's focus on > more constructive issues that might actually be of some benefit to > vegans, animals and the environment Like contacting SeaGreens (grin!)?! But yes, you are right, this discussion isn't really helping anyone, and I doubt we really disagree as strongly as words in emails always suggest. All the best, John - " Paul Russell " <prussell Friday, November 14, 2008 2:35 PM Re: SeaGreens > On 14 Nov 2008, at 11:41, John Davis wrote: > >> Hi Paul, >> >> They wrote to me offering samples of their products to hand out to >> members >> of the vegan group I run, and their products sport the Vegan Society >> symbol. >> Whether that makes them a vegan company is perhaps a matter of >> semantics. >> But they are certainly trying to promote themselves as vegan- >> friendly, so >> should be made aware that this is incompatible with their condoning >> animal >> experiments, if for no other reason that for as long as they do so >> their >> products should not carry the vegan society mark. >> > > Again, citing data from animal experiments does not imply that you > condone it. While it might be considered insensitive for a company > trying to market a supplement to vegans to cite animal data, it's > really no different than, say, a supermarket which sells products with > the Vegan Society logo alongside meat and other non-vegan products. Or > are you saying that you only ever buy products and services from > exclusively vegan owned and operated companies ? > >> Besides, whilst you correctly state that we cannot fight all the >> battles >> that should be fought, and do not have time to do so, this is not to >> say >> that they are not worth fighting. So I'm unsure why you would want >> to defend >> this company, or criticise those who want to educate them? >> > > > From my perspective I think a line was crossed when you and Lesley > were insisting that a non-vegan company should either not be citing > animal data and/or should be denouncing animal experiments. You might > as well insist that Sainsburys should only sell vegan products. I > suppose what concerns me most is that vegans get a bad enough press as > it is, without adding further fuel to the fire. All this company did > was to cite data from one animal experiment (with which they were in > no way involved), and as a result you write off the fact that they > produce a vegan product and instead choose to take a hostile stance > against them. It doesn't seem like a very good way to encourage > companies to be more vegan-friendly. > > Anyway, it's a minor quibble ins the scheme of things - let's focus on > more constructive issues that might actually be of some benefit to > vegans, animals and the environment. > > Regards, > > Paul > > -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of 5.6 million users fighting spam. SPAMfighter has removed 148513 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 14, 2008 Report Share Posted November 14, 2008 On 14 Nov 2008, at 14:53, John Davis wrote: > >> Anyway, it's a minor quibble ins the scheme of things - let's focus >> on >> more constructive issues that might actually be of some benefit to >> vegans, animals and the environment > > Like contacting SeaGreens (grin!)?! But yes, you are right, this > discussion > isn't really helping anyone, and I doubt we really disagree as > strongly as > words in emails always suggest. > Indeed - one of the big problems of email communications is that it's easy for the tone (and therefore intent) to be misintrepreted. I doubt that as fellow vegans we disagree about much of importance (but you never know ;-)). Cheers, Paul 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.