Animal products

October 7, 2000

PETA's website has a list of companies who test on animals & also who

use animal products. Doris Day's site does too. Vicki

Message: 1

Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:01:41 -0500

" Pam & Frank Mouton " <PAMMOUTON

Re: animal products

I am presuming you live in the USA. As the other lady suggested Payless

is

a good place for your shoes, also Wal-Mart, K-Mart. Belts and bags the

same

thing. Most places sell non-leather. It's like sports shoes. Some use

leather, others don't. Reebok, I think are mostly all leather. I like

to

jog, and I use Adidas shoes, which mostly are not. I just have to

specify

what I want when I go to buy them. As far as dress/casual shoes though,

the

places I mentioned have non-leather. If you have a Shoe Carnival in

your

town, some of the shoes they sell are fabric or non-leather.

Cosmetics are harder to find. Almay, Maybelline are part of the Revlon

group. These companies do not test on animals but not all of their

products

are animal-free. Cover Girl (owned by that awful Procter and Gamble

company) and Max Factor do test on animals. L'Oreal used to but claim

they

don't now. There is a brand you can find in Wal-Mart called " Jane " it

is

aimed at young people, but I use their products because they are animal

free. They are also cheap. If you are able to spend a bit more, you

can

buy Beauty Without Cruelty. They do, I think have a website, and their

products are vegan. However, they are quite pricey. Aveda make

wonderful

shampoos and conditioners and also makeup. They are not cheap but I

think

they are worth it. Some malls have an Aveda store, or you can check

your

local beauty parlors. (I get my hair colored at an Aveda salon).

Soaps/shower gels. My local Wal-Mart stock Nature's Family, which is

made

by Dep. This is a vegan product and all Dep's products are animal

friendly.

(Not to be confused with Del Laboratories). Some of Del's products are

animal friendly, but they do engage in animal testing on some of their

products. Redmond make Aussie products. They make a really good

hairspray

and mousse. Again, good ol' Wal-Mart has this. Paul Mitchell hair

products

are all vegan.Many regular products out there are animal free, but

because

we are a minority, the companies don't advertise the fact, you just have

to

go around the store and read the labels. I have been vegetarian for 6

years

and vegan for 5, I still have to read those labels!

-- The punishment for animal torturers/abusers should be exactly what

they did to the animal.

October 7, 2000

Just thought I'd add my two cents here

Yves Rocher is a company that does not test on animals and does not use animal bi products, you can find them at http://www.yvesrocherusa.com

Also, if any of you have a "Whole Fodds" you can get things there that arre not tested on animals, although, they are expensive.. for makeup I tend to buy stuff from "the Body Shop"

robinhood42 wrote:

PETA's website has a list of companies who test on animals & also whouse animal products. Doris Day's site does too. VickiMessage: 1Thu, 21 Sep 2000 06:01:41 -0500"Pam & Frank Mouton" Re: animal productsI am presuming you live in the USA. As the other lady suggested Paylessisa good place for your shoes, also Wal-Mart, K-Mart. Belts and bags thesamething. Most places sell non-leather. It's like sports shoes. Some useleather, others don't. Reebok, I think are mostly all leather. I liketojog, and I use Adidas shoes, which mostly are not. I just have tospecifywhat I want when I go to buy them. As far as dress/casual shoes though,theplaces I mentioned have non-leather. If you have a Shoe Carnival inyourtown, some of the shoes they sell are fabric or non-leather.Cosmetics are harder to find. Almay, Maybelline are part of the Revlongroup. These companies do not test on animals but not all of theirproductsare animal-free. Cover Girl (owned by that awful Procter and Gamblecompany) and Max Factor do test on animals. L'Oreal used to but claimtheydon't now. There is a brand you can find in Wal-Mart called "Jane" itisaimed at young people, but I use their products because they are animalfree. They are also cheap. If you are able to spend a bit more, youcanbuy Beauty Without Cruelty. They do, I think have a website, and theirproducts are vegan. However, they are quite pricey. Aveda makewonderfulshampoos and conditioners and also makeup. They are not cheap but Ithinkthey are worth it. Some malls have an Aveda store, or you can checkyourlocal beauty parlors. (I get my hair colored at an Aveda salon).Soaps/shower gels. My local Wal-Mart stock Nature's Family, which ismadeby Dep. This is a vegan product and all Dep's products are animalfriendly.(Not to be confused with Del Laboratories). Some of Del's products areanimal friendly, but they do engage in animal testing on some of theirproducts. Redmond make Aussie products. They make a really goodhairsprayand mousse. Again, good ol' Wal-Mart has this. Paul Mitchell hairproductsare all vegan.Many regular products out there are animal free, butbecausewe are a minority, the companies don't advertise the fact, you just havetogo around the store and read the labels. I have been vegetarian for 6yearsand vegan for 5, I still have to read those labels!-- The punishment for animal torturers/abusers should be exactly whatthey did to the animal.-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.99% Ongoing APR and no annual fee!Apply NOW!>contact'>http://click./1/9331/16/_/579581/_/970965417/-- -_- >contact owner: -owner Mail list: Delivered-mailing list List-Un: - no flaming arguing or denigration of others allowedcontact owner with complaints regarding posting/list or anything else. Thank you.please share/comment/inform and mostly enjoy this list"Study nothing except in the knowledge that you already knew it" ----- Clive Barker

Visit my sites: Child Abuse, Spirituality, Domestic Abuse, Infertility, Celebrating Women,Death Penatly, Animal Welfare, Vegetarianism, Evironment

Http://www.angelfire.com/il2/BlessedBe/welcome.html

Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!

November 23, 2005

Hi Jenny, and welcome! A few years ago I bought the book " Animal

Ingredients A to Z "

(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1873176597/002-1044700-

2151267?v=glance & n=283155 & s=books & v=glance)

and it was very helpful when we first became vegan. The main hidden

things to look for are casein, whey, gelatin...and most products now

seem to disclose if they contain any dairy ingredients after the

ingredient listing. Sometimes I look at the cholesterol content first,

and if it has any I know right away it isn't vegan, and it saves me the

time of reading the label. Of course, just because something doesn't

have cholesterol doesn't automatically make it vegan, but it might save

you some time. I never read so many labels in my life until I became

vegan--which is one thing I really like about it actually; it has made

me so much more aware of what we are putting into our bodies!

Good luck and welcome,

Amy in Austin, TX

On Tuesday, November 22, 2005, at 05:43 PM,

wrote:

> We have recently gone vegan and I'm finding it a bit overwhelming! I'm

> not sure what products to avoid that contain animal products, so we've

> basically been eating vegetables and beans and rice...LOL. Any advice,

> suggestions, etc., would be EXTREMELY helpful

>

> TIA,

> Jenny

November 23, 2005

I am firmly in the camp that feels that one can go overboard in

looking for hidden animal-derived ingredients, to the detriment of

one's own well-being and even to the cause of veganism itself.

Matt Ball from Vegan Outreach says it much better than I do, so I will

just quote from his essay " How Vegan? "

(http://www.veganoutreach.org/howvegan.html) and recommend a visit to

the Advocacy section of the V.O. website

(http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/index.html):

" ...the issue for thoughtful, compassionate people isn't, " Is this

vegan? " Rather, the important question is: " Which choice leads to less

suffering? " Our guide shouldn't be an endless list of ingredients, but

rather doing our absolute best to stop cruelty to animals. Veganism is

important, not as an end in itself, but as a powerful tool for

opposing the horrors of factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses.

This moves the discussion away from finding a definition or avoiding a

certain product, and into the realm of effective advocacy. In other

words, the focus isn't so much our personal beliefs or specific

choices, but rather the animals and their suffering.

If we believe that being vegan is important, being the most effective

advocate for the animals must be seen as even more important! The

impact of our individual veganism--several hundred animals over the

course of a lifetime--pales in comparison to what we have the

potential to accomplish with our example. For every person inspired to

change their habits, the impact we have on the world multiplies!

Conversely, for every person we convince that veganism is

overly-demanding by obsessing with an ever-increasing list of

ingredients, we do worse than nothing: we turn someone away who could

have made a real difference for animals if they hadn't met us!

Currently the vast majority of people in our society have no problem

eating the actual leg of a chicken. It is not surprising that many

people dismiss vegans as unreasonable and irrational when our example

includes interrogating waiters, not eating veggie burgers cooked on

the same grill with meat, not taking photographs or using medicines, etc.

Instead of spending our limited time and resources worrying about the

margins (cane sugar, film, medicine, etc.), our focus should be on

increasing our impact every day. Helping just one person change leads

to hundreds fewer animals suffering in factory farms. By choosing to

promote compassionate eating, every person we meet is a potential

major victory. "

November 23, 2005

Here is something I had never heard before yesterday, and I can't verify it

quickly. A coffee shop guy said flavored coffee beans are roasted with lard

to give the flavorings something to stick to. He said Starbucks doesn't sell

flavored coffee for that reason. Has anyone ever heard that?

....

Be kind. Be of good cheer.

Dick

November 24, 2005

I actually stopped supporting Vegan Outreach years ago because of this

stance. That is fine if THEY are OK with items cooked on grills with

animal products and in not looking at small ingredients. I, however,

am NOT OK with that, and I find it rude that any individual or

organization thinks they have the right to dictate to me what I should

or shouldn't be OK with. Everyone draws their line differently, which

is the point they should be making. I won't send my money to support

a group that wastes its time and resources trying to convince people

that small, non-vegan items are OK for vegans.

On the flip side, I certainly wouldn't chastise someone for eating

something with those " hidden " ingredients in them instead of the

alternative, completely non-veg item. Just don't give it to me! Of

course, if people want to know about all the small ingredients to cut

them out, they should be given all the help they want and need.

--Allison

, " kaydeemama "

<lionstigersbearsohmy@e...> wrote:

>

> I am firmly in the camp that feels that one can go overboard in

> looking for hidden animal-derived ingredients, to the detriment of

> one's own well-being and even to the cause of veganism itself.

>

> Matt Ball from Vegan Outreach says it much better than I do, so I will

> just quote from his essay " How Vegan? "

> (http://www.veganoutreach.org/howvegan.html) and recommend a visit to

> the Advocacy section of the V.O. website

> (http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/index.html):

>

> " ...the issue for thoughtful, compassionate people isn't, " Is this

> vegan? " Rather, the important question is: " Which choice leads to less

> suffering? " Our guide shouldn't be an endless list of ingredients, but

> rather doing our absolute best to stop cruelty to animals. Veganism is

> important, not as an end in itself, but as a powerful tool for

> opposing the horrors of factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses.

>

> This moves the discussion away from finding a definition or avoiding a

> certain product, and into the realm of effective advocacy. In other

> words, the focus isn't so much our personal beliefs or specific

> choices, but rather the animals and their suffering.

>

> If we believe that being vegan is important, being the most effective

> advocate for the animals must be seen as even more important! The

> impact of our individual veganism--several hundred animals over the

> course of a lifetime--pales in comparison to what we have the

> potential to accomplish with our example. For every person inspired to

> change their habits, the impact we have on the world multiplies!

>

> Conversely, for every person we convince that veganism is

> overly-demanding by obsessing with an ever-increasing list of

> ingredients, we do worse than nothing: we turn someone away who could

> have made a real difference for animals if they hadn't met us!

> Currently the vast majority of people in our society have no problem

> eating the actual leg of a chicken. It is not surprising that many

> people dismiss vegans as unreasonable and irrational when our example

> includes interrogating waiters, not eating veggie burgers cooked on

> the same grill with meat, not taking photographs or using medicines,

etc.

>

> Instead of spending our limited time and resources worrying about the

> margins (cane sugar, film, medicine, etc.), our focus should be on

> increasing our impact every day. Helping just one person change leads

> to hundreds fewer animals suffering in factory farms. By choosing to

> promote compassionate eating, every person we meet is a potential

> major victory. "

>

November 25, 2005

Ewwwwwwwwwwww!

Carol

Dick Ford <dickford wrote:

Here is something I had never heard before yesterday, and I can't verify it

quickly. A coffee shop guy said flavored coffee beans are roasted with lard

to give the flavorings something to stick to. He said Starbucks doesn't sell

flavored coffee for that reason. Has anyone ever heard that?

....

Be kind. Be of good cheer.

Dick

For more information about vegetarianism, please visit the VRG website at

http://www.vrg.org and for materials especially useful for families go to

http://www.vrg.org/family.This is a discussion list and is not intended to

provide personal medical advice. Medical advice should be obtained from a

qualified health professional.

edical advice. Medical advice should be obtained from a qualified health

professional.

November 25, 2005

, " Allison " <vegucation> wrote:

> I, however,

> am NOT OK with that, and I find it rude that any individual or

> organization thinks they have the right to dictate to me what I should

> or shouldn't be OK with. Everyone draws their line differently, which

> is the point they should be making.

That's cool not to support VO--there are several advocacy groups who

work on issues I care about but whose tactics or views I don't agree

with and don't support, either--even some whose tactics I would call

" offensive. "

I am curious which vegan groups have an approach that you like, and

why do you like their tactics? Also, how do you cope with the fact

that so many items that are part of everyday use (tires, medicines,

many municipal water sources) are not vegan (i.e., where do you draw

your line?)

I happen to agree with and greatly admire VOs rational, measured, and

compassionate views on the question of " How Vegan? " I think their

approach is more likely to change people's eating habits (and

therefore reduce animal suffering) than a more hard-line approach

would. They are closely aligned with the Utilitarian viewpoint, and I

find that I respond to that--but not everyone does.

I would probably stop supporting VO if they started being less

measured and more absolutist--which just goes to show that we vegans

come in a variety of philosophical flavors, and that no one group or

approach would work well for all of us!

November 26, 2005

Allison,

I think you are right on target.

While I'm sure his intentions were admirable, I found Matt Ball's

comments to be insulting, condescending, and arrogant. Apparently,

anybody who has more stringent standards than himself

is " obessive " , " over-demanding " , " unreasonable " , and " irrational " .

Looking over a menu in a restaurant, I wonder if Ball asks his

waiters, " which choice leads to less suffering? " .

If Ball's complaint is with " how " veg*ans communicate their desires,

he should not dwell on " what " veg*ans communicate. Because, when

done politely, respectfully, and without judgement, inquiries about

how one's food is prepared, the ingredients it contains, etc. need

not undermine the animal rights movement.

Quite the opposite: we can be gentle educators, as we continually

strive to more fully align our behaviors with our beliefs.

Otherwise, our dedication to the cause can just as easily be called

into doubt when we appear indifferent to the gelatin in our desserts,

the bacon on top of our salad, the pork in our baked beans, etc.

Truth is that those who are looking for excuses to continue causing

animal suffering will find plenty of them.

When it comes to crticizing others for where they draw the line, I

for one won't go there. But I can say that I tend to admire, rather

than ridicule, those who exceed my personal efforts at present to

live cruelty-free.

- Alan

, " Allison " <vegucation> wrote:

>

> I actually stopped supporting Vegan Outreach years ago because of

this

> stance. That is fine if THEY are OK with items cooked on grills

with

> animal products and in not looking at small ingredients. I,

however,

> am NOT OK with that, and I find it rude that any individual or

> organization thinks they have the right to dictate to me what I

should

> or shouldn't be OK with. Everyone draws their line differently,

which

> is the point they should be making. I won't send my money to

support

> a group that wastes its time and resources trying to convince people

> that small, non-vegan items are OK for vegans.

>

> On the flip side, I certainly wouldn't chastise someone for eating

> something with those " hidden " ingredients in them instead of the

> alternative, completely non-veg item. Just don't give it to me! Of

> course, if people want to know about all the small ingredients to

cut

> them out, they should be given all the help they want and need.

>

> --Allison

>

> , " kaydeemama "

> <lionstigersbearsohmy@e...> wrote:

> >

> > I am firmly in the camp that feels that one can go overboard in

> > looking for hidden animal-derived ingredients, to the detriment of

> > one's own well-being and even to the cause of veganism itself.

> >

> > Matt Ball from Vegan Outreach says it much better than I do, so I

will

> > just quote from his essay " How Vegan? "

> > (http://www.veganoutreach.org/howvegan.html) and recommend a

visit to

> > the Advocacy section of the V.O. website

> > (http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/index.html):

> >

> > " ...the issue for thoughtful, compassionate people isn't, " Is this

> > vegan? " Rather, the important question is: " Which choice leads to

less

> > suffering? " Our guide shouldn't be an endless list of

ingredients, but

> > rather doing our absolute best to stop cruelty to animals.

Veganism is

> > important, not as an end in itself, but as a powerful tool for

> > opposing the horrors of factory farms and industrial

slaughterhouses.

> >

> > This moves the discussion away from finding a definition or

avoiding a

> > certain product, and into the realm of effective advocacy. In

other

> > words, the focus isn't so much our personal beliefs or specific

> > choices, but rather the animals and their suffering.

> >

> > If we believe that being vegan is important, being the most

effective

> > advocate for the animals must be seen as even more important! The

> > impact of our individual veganism--several hundred animals over

the

> > course of a lifetime--pales in comparison to what we have the

> > potential to accomplish with our example. For every person

inspired to

> > change their habits, the impact we have on the world multiplies!

> >

> > Conversely, for every person we convince that veganism is

> > overly-demanding by obsessing with an ever-increasing list of

> > ingredients, we do worse than nothing: we turn someone away who

could

> > have made a real difference for animals if they hadn't met us!

> > Currently the vast majority of people in our society have no

problem

> > eating the actual leg of a chicken. It is not surprising that many

> > people dismiss vegans as unreasonable and irrational when our

example

> > includes interrogating waiters, not eating veggie burgers cooked

on

> > the same grill with meat, not taking photographs or using

medicines,

> etc.

> >

> > Instead of spending our limited time and resources worrying about

the

> > margins (cane sugar, film, medicine, etc.), our focus should be on

> > increasing our impact every day. Helping just one person change

leads

> > to hundreds fewer animals suffering in factory farms. By choosing

to

> > promote compassionate eating, every person we meet is a potential

> > major victory. "

> >

>

November 26, 2005

This is an interesting topic. It may be one of the most significant lines of

thought vegetarians and vegans follow. We all have to decide where we draw

the line of what we eat and what we avoid. We want to be consistent, but as

Isaac Beshevis Singer said, a vegetarian is an inconsistent person, but it's

better to be a vegetarian and inconsistent than not to be one. It isn't

possible to live without somewhere along the way causing the death of

something else, but we should try to minimize the path of destruction we

leave behind us.

....

Be kind. Be of good cheer.

Dick

November 26, 2005

, " Dick Ford " <dickford@d...> wrote:

> We want to be consistent, but as

> Isaac Beshevis Singer said, a vegetarian is an inconsistent person,

but it's

> better to be a vegetarian and inconsistent than not to be one.

I would love to know the source of that quote, if you happen to have

it available. I am always looking for more veg quotes, but when I

google Isaac Bashevis Singer & inconsistent I come up with this quote

-- " I can never accept inconsistency or injustice " -- as well as

self-criticism of his own inconsistency.

K

November 26, 2005

, " Alan " <soy_decaf_latte> wrote:

> While I'm sure his intentions were admirable, I found Matt Ball's

> comments to be insulting, condescending, and arrogant. Apparently,

> anybody who has more stringent standards than himself

> is " obessive " , " over-demanding " , " unreasonable " , and " irrational " .

I can see where some of VO's materials can come across that way

(although they don't to me). Many of their materials have a pedantic

style that isn't to everyone's liking. I am curious--did you feel that

way about the entire essay, or just the part I quoted here? And do you

feel that way about other VO materials, or just the ones that address

the " How Vegan? " question?

> Looking over a menu in a restaurant, I wonder if Ball asks his

> waiters, " which choice leads to less suffering? " .

But IMO it's not the waiters' job to answer that question--it's our

job as individuals and vegans. What VO advocates, as I understand it,

is assessing each of our choices using criteria that includes--but is

not limited to--does this product contain animal ingredients.

It's interesting to me that several people see VO as belittling those

who are very particular about ingredients. I don't see their

mateerials as belittling, but rather challenging, cautioning, and

analyzing a common vegan tendency. I don't experience their materials

as belittling--but I wonder if they get lots of feedback along those

lines.

For those of you who were upset/offended by VO's approach, did you

ever let them know? If so, did you get a response?

I don't think anyone could honestly accuse VO of not caring about

animals or taking animal suffering lightly--but I do think their way

of defining veganism (as a means to an end, the end being reduction of

suffering) and the philosophy they use to define what is important

about veganism are not the only paths, by any stretch of the

imagination. (That's why I am especially curious to hear from VO

detractors about which groups they think represent veganism in a way

that they agree with more.)

November 26, 2005

, Marla Rose <marla@v...> wrote:

> Now, I understand that none of us are perfect and

> veganism shouldn¹t be a ³purity contest², but is it any wonder why her

> classmates were confused by an outspoken vegan eating buttered

popcorn? I¹m

> not saying that I condemn her for eating the popcorn, but that she

shouldn¹t

> have been surprised by the confusion that created among her classmates.

This is interesting--I hear a lot about how easy it is to confuse

people about veganism. Many people I know say it is important to be

consistent because that way people won't be confused about what vegans

eat. And I agree that seeing someone who calls themselves vegan eating

butter could generate confusion about the meaning of the word " vegan. "

But to apply the VO litmus test for a moment: how does this confusion

affect animals? Does this confusion among the classmates mean that

fewer of them will be interested in veganism (therefore increasing

animal suffering)? Does it mean that they will be less likely to

reduce consumption of animal products (therefore increasing animal

suffering)?

One potential problem I *do* see is that confusion about veganis

caused by inconsistent vegan behavior could lead to decreased

availability of vegan products (therefore increasing animal

suffering). I guess for me, this risk needs to be weighed against the

risk of turning people away from veganism by displaying a too rigid

vegan code (a " foolish consistency " as Emerson put it).

I am genuinely interested in people's thoughts here--since tone is

hard to read online I just want to make clear that I am asking in a

spirit of curiosity, not belligerence! :-)

K

November 27, 2005

Isaac Bashevis Singer said that on the Dick Cavett show; I saw it in the mid

70's. " A vegetarian is an inconsistent person " is a direct quote; the rest

of the line I don't know word for word. I haven't seen the quote anywhere

else. He went on to say that if a mosquito is biting him, he will swat it;

that is inconsistent, he said. The part about it being better to be a

vegetarian and inconsistent came after the mosquito part of the story.

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/research/fa/singer.add.html This library mentions

having an audio copy of the show.

Planet Of The Heartless, Arrogant Humans

By Rondi Adamson

From The Ottawa Citizen, 07.27.2001

The great writer Isaac Bashevis Singer once told talk-show host Dick Cavett

that he would not kill even a mosquito. " Are you saying, " asked the

incredulous Cavett, " that you think the life of a mosquito has the same

worth as the life of a man? " Singer replied, " I have seen no evidence to the

contrary. "

http://www.timburtoncollective.com/articles/pota1.html

http://www.rondiadamson.com/Ar_CC.htm

---As I recall, Singer actually said it was wrong to kill the mosquito, even

though he would do it automatically if he were being bitten.

....

Be kind. Be of good cheer.

Dick

November 27, 2005

>>I just want to make clear that I am asking in a

spirit of curiosity, not belligerence! –

Response brief, not belligerent...

>>But IMO it's not the waiters' job to answer that question--it's our

job as individuals and vegans. What VO advocates, as I understand it,

is assessing each of our choices using criteria that includes--but is

not limited to--does this product contain animal ingredients.

Sure, there are other factors associated with animal suffering other

than their use for food and we need to be aware of these and act.

However, food is the primary reason. And, it **IS** the waiter's job

to answer questions. You are paying his employer for a product and a

service, and likely tipping him, and have the right to know what you

are purchasing.

>>It's interesting to me that several people see VO as belittling

those who are very particular about ingredients. I don't see their

mateerials as belittling, but rather challenging, cautioning, and

analyzing a common vegan tendency. I don't experience their materials

as belittling--but I wonder if they get lots of feedback along those

lines.

" vegan tendency " – I really don't understand this phrase. There is no

tendency as it is the prescribed behavior drawn up by the founders of

the Vegan Society and Donald Watson, who coined the term.

http://www.vegansociety.com/html/about_us/memorandum.php

" In this Memorandum 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.

In DIETARY terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with ALL

products derived wholly or PARTLY from animals. " (caps are mine)

You may not like labels so think of this as a definition. As it was

explained to me, when a group incorporates or owns a business, they

can coin words that then belong to them. Just like a trademark. These

words are legally theirs until the company/society folds. They pay

for this right in the form of not for profit fees or corporate fees.

We may, over time, stretch the meaning of these terms in everyday

language, but the definitions are legal and remain until changed in

the articles and bylaws. (I had the supporting info for this but

can't find it now – of course. This info holds true for the term

vegetarian as well.)

>>I do think their way of defining veganism...

According to what I stated above, VO can analyze this philosophy but

not define the term.

>>But to apply the VO litmus test for a moment: how does this

confusion affect animals? Does this confusion among the classmates

mean that fewer of them will be interested in veganism (therefore

increasing animal suffering)? Does it mean that they will be less

likely to reduce consumption of animal products (therefore increasing

animalsuffering)?

Absolutely!!!! 100%! No doubt! I've seen it many times! Most omnis

are initially threatened when they hear they should give up a

familiar lifestyle. Why would they do so if the preacher can't do so

or doesn't care to put forth the effort? And why would someone want

to pursue a lifestyle that is so difficult that a mere snack can't be

avoided – will the person in question literally starve to death by

giving up the snack? It is common human behavior to discount someone

preaching what you don't want to believe. Why give ammunition such as

this? Why would anyone believe what this person had to say about

veganism after this? She clearly does not believe in her own words.

This scenario definitely leads to less interest in veganism and a

missed opportunity to decrease animal suffering.

>>I guess for me, this risk needs to be weighed against the

risk of turning people away from veganism by displaying a too rigid

vegan code

I agree that gentle education works best for many people. But

that does not mean a vegan must compromise or stray from the " code. "

In fact, without proselytizing, my husband has converted several of

his co-workers' dietary behaviors. They see how easy it can be to

follow a vegan diet and he is a die-hard when it comes to reading

labels. He even calls me to verify things or abstains completely

until he finds an answer. I truly believe it is much more damaging to

eat buttered popcorn while professing veganism than by reading a

label or asking questions.

Another note, you concentrate on the animal suffering aspect of

veganism, which is very important indeed. You have, I believe,

mentioned the environment leading back to reducing future animal

suffering. These factors draw a lot of people to the movement of

veganism and with good cause. But there are other reasons for

veganism… spirituality and religious reasons. There are many people

in the world whose spirituality dictates a vegan lifestyle. It is the

act of the person that is the goal. Reduced animal suffering is the

wonderful result but not the focus. I haven't seen this addressed in

your posts or your VO quotes. Does VO feel that their journey is not

worthy? Is it okay to be compassionate for our animal friends but not

tolerant of our fellow species, even though they have the legal right

to the religion of their choice?

Ditto Alan and Alison comments.

Carrol

(I don't get a chance to respond often as I have a visual

disturbance. I will respond if able. Please don't take any absence of

a response from me as anything but not being present.)

November 27, 2005

It is funny how people are very defensive about " how " vegetarian/vegan they

are. When I first was vegetarian I was dating a guy who would not touch

anything with eggs but he would eat cheese with rennet. One day I

innocently asked him his reasoning in eating something with rennet when he

did not eat eggs because " eating eggs interrupted the life cycle " . He got

really angry and said that non-vegetarians were always criticizing

vegetarians, etc. etc. I responded with something along the lines of " hey,

buddy I'm on your side (vegetarian) I was just wondering. " I think the

truth was that he was uncomfortable about his choice and that was why he was

defensive.

Jacqueline

http://adhdnme.blogspot.com

On

Behalf Of Dick Ford

November 26, 2005 1:00 AM

Re: Re: animal products

This is an interesting topic. It may be one of the most significant lines of

thought vegetarians and vegans follow. We all have to decide where we draw

the line of what we eat and what we avoid. We want to be consistent, but as

Isaac Beshevis Singer said, a vegetarian is an inconsistent person, but it's

better to be a vegetarian and inconsistent than not to be one. It isn't

possible to live without somewhere along the way causing the death of

something else, but we should try to minimize the path of destruction we

leave behind us.

....

Be kind. Be of good cheer.

Dick

For more information about vegetarianism, please visit the VRG website at

http://www.vrg.org and for materials especially useful for families go to

http://www.vrg.org/family.This is a discussion list and is not intended to

provide personal medical advice. Medical advice should be obtained from a

qualified health professional.

edical advice. Medical advice should be obtained from a qualified health

professional.

November 27, 2005

There's one assumption in this ongoing debate that doesn't make sense to me....

If anything, I've found that non-veg*ns don't understand the basic tenets, let

alone the nuances, of veg*nism. We've all been offered " vegetarian " dishes made

with animal broth or other products by professionals at restaurants and even

sometimes by our own family & friends. We've all been told " well, just pick it

off if you don't want it " . I just don't see the omni/carnivore majority

noticing things like " ah-hah, that lemon meringue pie probably had gelatin in it

and she ate it anyway " .

On almost a daily basis, I find I have to work extra to compensate for the

generally perceived notion that all veg*ans are extremists. People are

astonished to learn that it is possible to be kind, compassionate, and loving

towards other people while also making the decision to live and eat according to

a different set of beliefs. *That* is what I've found to be the number one

difficulty to spreading the word about veg*nism. Respectful difference about

the theories behind our beliefs -- which, let's face it, aren't usually

discussed in public forums, but instead on special-interest lists or websites

such as this one -- don't seem to be in the forefront of most people's minds

when they serve us dinner. I think we're assuming more awareness, more

interest, than most people actually have.

They're not studying our navels quite as intently as we think. <g>

Liz

November 27, 2005

Liz, I totally agree with you. When we moved to rural OK, the people I

worked with just literally had no frame of reference for my lifestyle. When

I became pregnant, they were convinced that there was no way I could have a

healthy pregnancy without meat, and they are still doubtful of how my

children remain healthy and strong on a veg diet. Of course, we live in an

area where everyone hunts and lots of folks raise their own livestock. When

people ask why, I focus on the problems with factory farming and the waste

of resources because that seems to make some sense to them. But it would

never in a million years occur to them to wonder about me eating something

like pie - or even jello for that matter. In fact, it was only recently

that some folks realized I don't eat poultry - their definition of

vegetarian was no red meat!

Chessie

-

" E.R. Bakwin " <bakwin

Sunday, November 27, 2005 1:25 PM

Re: Re: animal products

> There's one assumption in this ongoing debate that doesn't make sense to

me....

>

> If anything, I've found that non-veg*ns don't understand the basic tenets,

let alone the nuances, of veg*nism. We've all been offered " vegetarian "

dishes made with animal broth or other products by professionals at

restaurants and even sometimes by our own family & friends. We've all been

told " well, just pick it off if you don't want it " . I just don't see the

omni/carnivore majority noticing things like " ah-hah, that lemon meringue

pie probably had gelatin in it and she ate it anyway " .

>

> On almost a daily basis, I find I have to work extra to compensate for the

generally perceived notion that all veg*ans are extremists. People are

astonished to learn that it is possible to be kind, compassionate, and

loving towards other people while also making the decision to live and eat

according to a different set of beliefs. *That* is what I've found to be

the number one difficulty to spreading the word about veg*nism. Respectful

difference about the theories behind our beliefs -- which, let's face it,

aren't usually discussed in public forums, but instead on special-interest

lists or websites such as this one -- don't seem to be in the forefront of

most people's minds when they serve us dinner. I think we're assuming more

awareness, more interest, than most people actually have.

>

> They're not studying our navels quite as intently as we think. <g>

>

> Liz

>

November 27, 2005

Hi, Carrol!

, " Carrol " <rtillmansmail> wrote:

> Sure, there are other factors associated with animal suffering other

> than their use for food and we need to be aware of these and act.

> However, food is the primary reason. And, it **IS** the waiter's job

> to answer questions. You are paying his employer for a product and a

> service, and likely tipping him, and have the right to know what you

> are purchasing.

Oh, I agree--we must ask questions about what is in foods (without

that information we can't make informed choices). The responsibility

part, as I see it, is in determining how important it is to avoid

certain ingredients in each individual situation in which we are faced

with such a choice. Sorry if I was unclear....

> " vegan tendency " – I really don't understand this phrase.

What I meant: The tendency of some (but definitely not all!) vegans to

act as " vegan police " --attempting to ferret out even the tiniest

animal ingredient, and reading people the riot act if they discover

one. Also: the tendency of some vegans to ride on a rather high horse

about their purity (a tendency also seen in fundamentalists of all

stripes, in all issues).

> According to what I stated above, VO can analyze this philosophy but

> not define the term.

They can talk about what aspects of veganism are most important to

them, and analyze veganism through that lens, which is what they (and

all of us, really) do. FOR THEM, veganism is a means to an end. It may

not be so for others--and they, therefore, do not have to support VO's

work.

> Absolutely!!!! 100%! No doubt! I've seen it many times! Most omnis

> are initially threatened when they hear they should give up a

> familiar lifestyle. Why would they do so if the preacher can't do so

> or doesn't care to put forth the effort? And why would someone want

> to pursue a lifestyle that is so difficult that a mere snack can't be

> avoided – will the person in question literally starve to death by

> giving up the snack? It is common human behavior to discount someone

> preaching what you don't want to believe. Why give ammunition such as

> this? Why would anyone believe what this person had to say about

> veganism after this? She clearly does not believe in her own words.

> This scenario definitely leads to less interest in veganism and a

> missed opportunity to decrease animal suffering.

I'm going to respond to this in a separate post, as I may go on at too

great a length here! :-) I agree with this, but also disagree....

> I agree that gentle education works best for many people. But

> that does not mean a vegan must compromise or stray from the " code. "

I personally think that compromise is part of all political movements,

and all human relations. It need not always be a negative. Again, more

in another post.

> Another note, you concentrate on the animal suffering aspect of

> veganism, which is very important indeed. You have, I believe,

> mentioned the environment leading back to reducing future animal

> suffering. These factors draw a lot of people to the movement of

> veganism and with good cause. But there are other reasons for

> veganism… spirituality and religious reasons. There are many people

> in the world whose spirituality dictates a vegan lifestyle. It is the

> act of the person that is the goal. Reduced animal suffering is the

> wonderful result but not the focus. I haven't seen this addressed in

> your posts or your VO quotes. Does VO feel that their journey is not

> worthy? Is it okay to be compassionate for our animal friends but not

> tolerant of our fellow species, even though they have the legal right

> to the religion of their choice?

I focus on the question of animal suffering simply because that is

what is most important to me, and is what spurred me to change my

eating habits. I am in no way trying to imply that concern about

animal suffering is the only reason to be vegan. Many roads lead to

the same place!

As for VO's emphasis, again, that is simply what they choose to focus

on. I believe that they do have some statements about how while it is

possible to have a lot of technical debate about whether a vegan diet

is, indeed, inherently better for the planet (monocultured crops can

be as devastating as CAFOs) and health (after all, vegans need to

supplement their diet at least with B-12 in order to stay healthy), it

is harder to argue that animals don't suffer. (Note: I'm not trying to

start debates about the environment or health--just trying to

reiterate what I recall reading on VO's site, and elsewhere).

VO also works on projects with the Christian Vegetarian Association.

But I haven't read up much on those, as I am not Christian and know

little about Christianity. Religion is not a strong area of interest

for me. If it motivates people to do good, then that is a wonderful

thing. It's just not my thing. :-)

K

November 27, 2005

OK, here is the " other post " I mentioned I would write. Sorry it's so

long--this is (pardon the pun) such a meaty topic!