Animal products

[Guest guest]

Angel, I totally agree. I became vegetarian almost 10 years ago, and since

then my husband and sister have joined me, and my mother and brother, while

still omni, have made amazing changes in their consumption habits of food

and products. These changes did not happen because I preached to them, nor

because I am perfect in adhering to my principles...but my willingness to

have honest discussions and share information has strongly impacted them.

 

 

On

Behalf Of darranged

Monday, November 28, 2005 11:10 AM

 

Re: animal products

 

These were wonderful points, especially for those of us who have

omnivore families who respect our choices but don't necessarily

believe in the same things. Our influence can sometimes rub off a

little and comments like these are the way I feel about the results.

 

A poor analogy, but if there was an emergency and you were able to

save say 2 out of 5 people involved, would you not bother because 3

would still die?

 

Angel A.

 

>

>

>That's because I firmly believe that every bit counts. 10 people who

>eat vegan 50% of the time effect the same reduction in the demand for

>animal products as 5 people who eat vegan 100% of the time.

>

> if we can't have ELIMINATION of animal

>products, then I think REDUCTION is far, far better than nothing.)

>

>

>Utilitarianism and pragmatism might inspire others. They are the

>people who might be willing to be vegan most of the time, so long as

>they can " slip " occasionally without feeling that they are going to be

> tossed out of the fold.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alan " <soy_decaf_latte>

wrote:

> I think you were looking to find the reference for " Least harm: a

> defense of vegetarianism from Steven Davis's omnivorous

proposal " .

> Here it is: http://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/matheny.html

This

> is the paper that refutes the notion that more animals (like mice,

> rabbits, birds, etc.) are killed raising vegetables than grazing

> cattle. Multiple flaws are pointed out, but the one that I

remember

> most is that Davis failed to recognize that many more people can

be fed

> by an acre of grain than an acre of grazing cattle.

 

Yes, that's the article! Thanks for the link. It's useful to be able

to refute this study, as it seems to have made the rounds and comes

up with regularity in conversations I have. People often overlook

the fact that most of the grain on this planet is grown to feed

farmed animals, who are in turn eaten by humans.

 

 

> I think Ball too readily accepts this

> criticism of vegans.

 

That's an interesting point--you may be right that he (and VO) give

the stereotype too much credence, or at least prominence. Food for

thought... ;-)

 

K

[Guest guest]

---A note about a ¡§means to an ends.¡¨ The ends of the Vegan Society

is defined in their company acts. The philosophy or ends is veganism

and in ¡§dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with ALL

products derived wholly or PARTLY from animals. " Veganim is the ends,

not the means. If used as a means to another ends, it would have to

be used strictly as defined.

 

 

" 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.... "

 

Not unclear at all ¡V It is a vegans¡¦s (as defined by the legal term

belonging to the VS) responsibility to avoid ALL animal products in

EVERY situation (unless it would cause death of the human in which

that would violate the human aspect of the VS mandate. OF course,

some religions would say death of the human is acceptable so that is

certainly your choice.) This does not mean that YOU have to avoid all

animal products every time. If you don¡¦t that makes you a vegetarian

or an omni or an imperfect vegan who accidentally slipped ¡V it

happens. That is your choice but you should not continue to call

yourself something you are not if you do not truthfully try to follow

the philosophy as it is defined. You can still do a wonderful job at

forwarding the compassion towards animal movement without confusing

others and causing major problems for those who do live by the

vegan ¡§creed.¡¨ as it is. In fact, you may do more as an active omni

than a passive vegan.

 

" simply what they choose to focus on. "

 

Their focus on animal suffering and reducing the consumption of

animals as a means to an ends is admirable. I have read only some of

their publications ¡V the ones you have recently quoted from.

According to these publications they ARE NOT VEGANS. This saddens me

as they do have some nice educational pieces. But again, they have NO

LEGAL RIGHT to change the definition of this term. I don¡¦t know if it

was you or another poster who started this thread about labels being

a bad thing. Yes, stereotypes and negative implications can be bad,

but we all have to live by definitions. Words make up our language

and we must use them to communicate. Some words have changed greatly

in their use. Some words have done so only because a judge ruled it

possible. For example, Xerox. My understanding from working in a non-

profit environment is that the word vegan would have to go through

the same court battle to have its definition changed without the

approval of its creators. This isn¡¦t to say that a group of vegans

would do this. But it is a worthy point. Vegan is an unwavering

definition that many people live by and in order to reach the

same ¡§ends¡¨ you wish to change that word to represent EXACTLY who we

are not.

 

 

" vegan tendency " ¡V 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). "

 

I understood but I meant by my reply that there is no ¡§tendancy¡¨.

This is how it is to be according to the Company Acts of the VS.

Again, vegan is an unwavering legal definition that many people live

by and in order to reach the same ¡§ends¡¨ you wish to change that word

to represent EXACTLY who we are not.

As far as the ¡§vegan police¡¨ and ¡§high horses¡¨, every group has it

radicals and those who are just rude. This includes political and

religious groups, homeschoolers, supporters of breastfeeding,

supporters of high rises on pristine beaches, those who wish to

legalize drugs, those who live on the ¡§right side of the tracks¡¨ and

so forth. The presence of those lacking in manners does not represent

the whole. This is a stereotypical label, a negative use of a label

or definition instead of looking at the whole picture. Ferreting out

the tiniest animal ingredient is the responsibility of anyone

labeling themselves as a vegan. No one is forced to do this. It is a

journey one chooses. If you don¡¦t want to be this diligent, then

don¡¦t. Just remember that if you continue to call yourself a vegan

when you are not, you are the one being rude and causing harm to

another animal (by the ensuing confusion they find in your wake).

 

 

" 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. "

 

VO can talk about what is important to them and they can misuse a

word as a means to their own ends. Why misuse this word? Because it

is fashionable now. It is all over the media. Primetime TV characters

are vegan or are protesting vegans. It is on World News Tonight. It

is the books we are reading. Many celebrities are vegan. Man, this

country loves its celebrities. So, VO, even though their ends are

respectful, has chosen to jump onto the coattails of the latest

buzzword and change it to suit their own needs. Their ends is to

reduce animal suffering (admirable) but they don¡¦t care who they hurt

in the process (not so admirable). They are sending a very mixed

message which may backfire for them and is already causing harm to

people now. That is not to say there are not other paths out there.

Or that these paths can¡¦t hold hands with veganism.

 

> 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 ¡V "

 

Fine- as long as they don¡¦t try to turn the definition of veganism

into what it is opposing. This is what they are doing with the essays

you are quoting. I also agree in compromise and working together. I

believe VS and VO can work well together just as all of us on this

list can. However, I don¡¦t see VS changing its company acts in order

to satisfy VO ends. Until VS changes their act, the legal definition

stands. This is an important distinction as there are people who

abstain from eating animals regardless of the suffering issue.

Whether you or I have a religious basis (or other reason) for this is

not a cause for disregarding this aspect.

 

 

" 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! "

 

Yes, but you and VO are trying to change the destination. In the

dietary aspect of veganism as defined by its creator, the road is the

reduction of animal suffering/exploitation. The destination is the

avoidance of all animal foodstuffs. (See first statement above.)

 

Carrol

 

(Posting these long responses has been difficult on my vision. I

likely won¡¦t reply in kind again. Please do not take an absence of

any future reply on my part as being angered by what you may have to

say. Likewise, do not misinterpret a brief reply as belligerent. ļ)

[Guest guest]

" occasional inconsistency or

flexibility in vegans does not " definitely " drive people away from

exploring veganism -- and in fact may spur some of them to try their

hand at reducing their consumption of animal products. "

 

Vegans are humans and make mistakes or get tired. Occasional

inconsistency probably does little harm when the observer is an

intelligent and sympathetic person. However, " flexibility " , and

common incidents of inconsistency tells the observer you do not know

what you are speaking of or you are not truthful, either to them or

to yourself. This is dangerous in any scenario in which conversions

are intended. If you don¡¦t care about converting, fine. Still

consider the unintended victim ¡V the person trying to uphold the

legal definition. Yes I keep referring to a legal definition. I have

spent a lot of time working with a non-profit on redefining ends

statements. These definintions are indeed a major deal. Especially to

the people relying upon them.

 

" And my response to them is always, " Then don't go completely vegan!

How about eating vegan one day a week, or just at home? Or what about

cutting out all animal ingredients except for milk in your coffee (or

whatever item it is they feel they just can't live without. "

encourage them to do what they can, even if they can't be a " true "

vegan all of the time. "

 

Why can¡¦t you just say " why not go vegetarian and keep your dairy? "

Or what about " just try not consuming large bits of animals one day a

week. " There is an active campaign for this already.

 

" Another example I have encountered more than once: many people can

find non-vegan soy based cheeses in their supermarkets, but are not

able to find the vegan cheese without a lot of hassle that they simply

aren't willing to go through. In that case, I would rather see them

buy the non-vegan soy cheese than to simply throw up their hands and

say, " Forget it! " and buy regular cheese. That's because at least the

soy cheese has a much smaller amount of animal-derived ingredients

than does regular cheese. if we can't have ELIMINATION of animal

products, then I think REDUCTION is far, far better than nothing.) "

 

Again, why can¡¦t you just say go vegetarian and keep your dairy or

don't consume large bits of animals one day a week? BTW, this cow is

going to die regardless of how much soy cheese is consumed. When she

reaches a certain age and her milk production falls, she will be

slaughtered. If she produces well and extra dairy products can be

made and consumed, such as soy cheese, she will be kept in inhumane

conditions until she is no longer profitable. Which is worse? Longer

life of suffering or shorter life of suffering but a life

nonetheless? Just a question for thought ¡V not meant to be answered ¡V

(does a falling tree make a sound if no one is present?)

 

" But I also think that some people, upon seeing someone " break the

rules, " might think, " Well, if I could just have [name an animal

ingredient or food] every now and then, maybe I can avoid animal

ingredients the rest of the time. " Utilitarianism and pragmatism

might inspire others. They are the people who might be willing to be

vegan most of the time, so long as they can " slip " occasionally

without feeling that they are going to be tossed out of the fold. "

 

Again, why does the term vegan need to be applied? Why not use an

appropriate definition and feel good about it, such as a

compassionate omni or a vegetarian. What is wrong about those terms

if they apply?

 

" I actually think that our diversity of opinions and

approaches, though, can be a strength for our movement

We should, IMO, try to speak to ALL of these people, if we can. And I

think, with our diverse voices, we can -- so long as we don't just

drown each other out! :-) "

 

I certainly agree! That is why proper communication is so important.

All groups want to be heard and do not wish to feel invalidated by

the others. Proper use of terms will show this diversity and allow us

to work together without feeling as though others ¡§on our side¡¨ don¡¦t

respect us or are trying to step on our back to reach a common goal.

 

I have been following this discussion since it began (this time). I

have refrained from participating due to the flaming that can

results. However, I felt that the legal definition of veganism as

well as the erroneous use of the phrase ¡§means to an ends¡¨ as it

applies to veganism was not being discussed. I think that if one can

understand this, s/he may be better able to understand why vegans

(and vegetarians) become upset when they are served rice cooked in

chicken broth. In order to be effective communicators, we need to

understand the terms. If one really doesn¡¦t care about the suffering

of the human animal on this journey, then I guess communication isn¡¦t

the point after all.

 

 

Carrol

 

 

(Posting these long responses has been difficult on my vision. I

likely won¡¦t reply in kind again. Please do not take an absence of

any future reply on my part as being angered by what you may have to

say. Likewise, do not misinterpret a brief reply as belligerent. ļ)

[Guest guest]

>

> That's because I firmly believe that every bit counts. 10 people who

> eat vegan 50% of the time effect the same reduction in the demand for

> animal products as 5 people who eat vegan 100% of the time.

 

The article I have that cites this info does so regarding vegetarianism

and not vegansim. Not that it matters. What matters is it is a good

point and an effective way to reduce animal consumption. Still, I ask,

why does the term vegan or even vegetarianism need to be applied to a

person who eats this way 50% of the time? Omnis eat vegetables by

definition. Let the definition stand. Why can't someone feel good about

reducing animal consumption/suffering without adopting these 2 terms?

>

>

Carrol

[Guest guest]

> I also have this perspective because I believe that being vegan in

> this non-vegan world *can* be very difficult. Haven't we all

> experienced that? We often can't find satisfactory food to eat at

> restaurants, events, venues. (Vegan footwear has actually posed a

> greater challenge to me than vegan foods: I have had a terrible time

> finding non-leather shoes that fit my crazy feet and are not made from

> envrionmentally-destructive plastics made by people in sweatshops.)

 

Oh, I agree that this can be a difficult life to lead. But it, like any

life, is what you make of it.

 

Family and friends have accepted my path. Now I find the most

difficulty I have is with the misunderstanding of the term in the

community. Just as when I was lacto-ovo and people tried to feed me

fish or soup with the chicken picked out. I do have to spend time

reading labels. That is fine with me as this is what I have chosen. I

have a AA foot with a AAAA heel. I have always had a hard time finding

athletic shoes that fit. Now it is difficult finding any shoe that fits

and is vegan. So, I wear ugly cloth running shoes with my dresses and

feel good about my choices. The options are out there even though they

may be hard to find or acquire (especially in certain parts of the

country). But by far, the hardest part of being vegan is fighting off

all the misconceptions of what I eat or use. I may complain but I bet I

have it easier than Dick Ford over in MS. (I grew up in MS). But, if I

chose to add eggs or dairy back to my diet for convenience or other

reasons, I wouldn't call myself a vegan. I would call myself a

vegetarian. And if needed, an omni. I don't want my actions to cause

distress to somenone else on their chosen path.

 

Carrol

[Guest guest]

I just wanted to say that I think you put that very nicely.

 

, " kaydeemama "

<lionstigersbearsohmy@e...> wrote:

>

> 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!

 

(actual statement clipped off for those who recieve the daily e-mail)