Vegans and eggs

[Mr Flibble]

Nobody seems willing to discuss bananas on here and why, if this community is so concerned with the welfare of chickens (A cause very close to my heart I might add) Why aren't they concerned with the banana market...which is as cruel, exploitative, environmetally damaging and as un-vegan as eating eggs, even though not defined as such.

There's a 2 page thread under a month old here (http://veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5604&highlight=banana)

I really don't want to get into an argument here, but as an outsider whose just read through this thread I'd say that your wording/phrasing in posts does come across as being argumentative. Saying things like "which is quite amusing", "And just out of interest...how long have people on this forum been vegans for" and constantly telling us all how long you've been vegan makes you sound more like a 13 year old trying to compare shoe sizes as a way to win an argument than 33. It weakens not strengthens your arguments. If you really do want to debate things such as this personally I'd try and tone down my language/confrontationalness. We're all nice people here, why do we need to argue when we can debate peacefully, logically and thoughtfully like grown ups?

[abrennan]

Antony,

Thank you at least for taking my messages in the right spirit. Since your message, I've been accused again for putting people down, which is quite amusing considering it's only moi who is recieving the personal abuse.

Lets leave eggs aside at the moment because people clearly can't guage my point on that and lets move solely onto bananas...cos I like bananas. Nobody seems willing to discuss bananas on here and why, if this community is so concerned with the welfare of chickens (A cause very close to my heart I might add) Why aren't they concerned with the banana market...which is as cruel, exploitative, environmetally damaging and as un-vegan as eating eggs, even though not defined as such.

And just out of interest...how long have people on this forum been vegans for... are there a lot of self righteous 5 minute vegans in here or are there a few of you that've been vegan for a while.

This is just a question.... please nobody take it personally


Hello Mr Cog505:)

In my experience here there are no self righteous people here. Just people. Using a medium like this message board to communicate is fraught with a significant problem. It is very easy to reflect our own feelings upon the words that we read on the screen. Also it is very easy to misunderstand the inent of the writer. This is why the emoticon was invented in the early stages of mass internet communication.

You provide a good example in your reply to me. Firstly I don't think that anyone here would disagree that environmental concerns are serious issues.

The point I want to make is that when you type this "are there a lot of self righteous 5 minute vegans in here" you will find that people will take offense to that.:) Particulary those who have only been vegan for a short while. It's quite provocative really.:) so when you say this " This is just a question.... please nobody take it personally" it will come across as meaningless. It can easily be taken that you're being naughty.:eek:

Some other sentences such as "people clearly can't guage my point" and "if this community is so concerned, etc " are quite accusative. :) I have spent some time talking to our other friends here and I have concluded that the majority are quite intelligent and can easily grasp a point when it is clearly stated. But when provoked and accused most people will bite.:(

I think an issue at stake here is that this is a thread about vegans and eggs, not bannanas and the environment. There are other threads about the environment and there is one about bananas. That's why people, including myself, keep hearking back to eggs on this thread it was started to discuss eggs.

You seem like an interesting person to me. Please consider your use of language. We're not here to provoke each other and fight with each other. It is much more useful to have considered discussions. No one learns by having fingers poked at them. As you have made it clear to me, you do not like it at all either.

Have another go, please. :D


In the spirit of Antony

[abrennan]

You're right, there is a link to bananas... but it's not the most informative thread on here.

Fair point Antony, I will tone down my messages. And I'll start a new thread on the evilness of bananas...separate from eggs. Thing is, I assumed that everyone is vegan here and thereby I also assume certain fundamentals of veganism, knowledge, respect etc.. I'm never going to tell anyone to eat eggs and at the same time I don't need to be told that hens don't grow on trees. Hence the slightly petulant outburst. I save arguments like that for meat eaters. Aren't we all coming from the same view point.

my apologies old man :)

Cog :)

As for you Mr Fibble... don't you start on about shoe size. I mentioned how long I'd been vegan because people kept questioning my motives... read the entire thread :)
But go on, tell me how long anyway ;)


I found this link for you when I was looking through the online back issues of Satya magazine. It's by Andrea Vendittis who says she has had trouble bringing the idea of environmentalism to Vegan and has been finding resistance.

Old Man Antony:D


http://www.satyamag.com/sept05/vendittis.html

[cog505]

This is a good article and very much along the lines of what I was trying to convey when I was talking about the spirit of veganism and that it's not just about diet.

I couldn't resist the old man remark... cheap shot I know :)

[Plunder Bunnie]

This is a good article and very much along the lines of what I was trying to convey when I was talking about the spirit of veganism and that it's not just about diet.

I couldn't resist the old man remark... cheap shot I know :)

I think the problem was you assumed we didnt already know that. Im glad everyones cooled down a bit, it makes for less irratating dicussion. I just have a question for you cog, why do you assume we are different. Essentially im asking, what makes you different then the rest of us?

[Gliondrach]

I haven't read every page of this thread. I don't have the time to assign each quote to the person who made it but, eggs definitely are not meant, for anything's consumption. Nothing in Nature is meant for anything, in the sense of conscious volition. God has not said that anything is meant for anything. We, and other animals, have evolved by eating whatever nourished us. If anyone decides to eat eggs it is just that, a decision. Nothing to do with meant-ness. As for the question of harming others - we can't live without harming others. This has been mentioned many times in other threads. I think that we are all agreed on that. The only way to avoid causing harm is to commit suicide.

We can only do our best. Not everyone can buy locally-grown, veganic food. Not everyone has land to grow their own. The world is geared for meat eaters. We can only do our best. So, let's get on with it.

I think that we should support each other as long as we are striving to live as vegans. There is enough non-support from the unenlightened majority.

And, I am better than anyone, anywhere.

[Gliondrach]

I found this link for you when I was looking through the online back issues of Satya magazine. It's by Andrea Vendittis who says she has had trouble bringing the idea of environmentalism to Vegan and has been finding resistance.

Old Man Antony:D


http://www.satyamag.com/sept05/vendittis.html

A good article. The Movement for Compssionate Living - the vegan way - has similar aims:
http://www.mclveganway.org.uk/

[Korn]

Yes, I have just been reading over that thread in an attempt to understand the whole 'rescue hens eggs' thing. I believe the thread Korn was referring to, which sparked the question 'is it only about not causing pain?' was asking if it was okay to kill fish as according to the poster they did not feel pain (untrue of course).

Obviously the answer was no, after all killing someone is killing someone, whether they feel pain or not. Therefore veganism is about respecting life, not just minimising suffering. However I don't see how consuming a waste product can be equated with killing an animal that does not feel pain (supposing such an animal existed).

xxx

1) Vegans do not want animals to suffer.
2) We do not look at animals as someone who exist in order to provide us with foods or clothes.
3) Humans can live a perfectly healthy life without eating eggs
4) Some people (non-vegans) want to eat eggs because they like the taste or because they believe that they need them.
5) Some humans 'own' free-range hens that sometimes lay non-fertilized eggs.

What would be the the natural conclusion re. what to do with the un-fertilzed eggs from the above mentioned hens? That vegans should eat them, and that non-vegans should buy and eat commercially produced eggs from factory farms? Or that vegans should not eat them, and rather let people who really want to eat eggs that they can get eggs from a source that means less suffering?

If vegans, who do not want to cause harm to animals should eat them, more eggs would have to be produced and sold at chicken farms to provide enough eggs for people who really want to eat eggs.

It's also about respect for other beings, not only about respecting their right to live (and definitely not only about not causing pain.)

I don't lay eggs, but as an example, if someone would need my 'by-products' (like hair or nails) for some reason, and would enter my home a few times a year to cut my hair and use it for who-knows-what-purpose, it would not cause me any pain, and it would not end my life either. It's just that I may not want someone to enter my 'territory' and pick up my 'byproducts'. I know this example is a bit strange, but if someone would claim that they can do whatever they want with my 'byproducts', just because they can do so without killing me or causing any pain, I'd still would feel like their slave. Vegans don't look at animals as their slaves, and we don't look at eggs as our property, an don't even need them. Others want them. So why should people who don't look at birds as our slaves (we) take eggs from the hens, instead of suggesting to people that insist they they will eat eggs anyway to rather choose eggs from sources that involve less cruelty?

[Korn]

It seems that it's not natural for a chicken to eat its own egg from this:

"Anyone who has raised chickens for several decades will notice that some hens tend to eat their own eggs. Usually resulting from malnutrition, hens that eat their own eggs not only lower the flock's overall lay per hen average, but these hens might also eat other hens' eggs leaving the farmer with nothing but a few broken shells.
How to cure this form of cannibalism (which is what it is, up there with toe picking, tail pulling, and head pecking)? Hens who eat their own eggs generally mean that they aren't getting the nutrients that they need. They might be eating eggs simply because they are trying to make up for whatever nutrients they aren't getting in their feed. Make sure you're giving them the right amount and type of food, and make sure its not musty, moldy, or stale. Go to our archives to read about what most feeds should have here."
http://poultryone.com/articles/eatingeggs.html

Although it seems to be from a source involved in chicken breeding...might be a little biased

In the discussion about whether it's natural or not to eat eggs for humans, or for hens, let's not forget that there are animals and insects who eats both other animals and their own or others kids - even alive. It definitely makes sense that it's not natural for a chicken to eat its own egg, but I'm only saying that this IMO is not a part of the 'should humans eat eggs'-discussion. We shouldn't do something because some else does it.

'Ethics' has two 'zones', in a way. One of them is only logical: 'My dog got a puppy, but it was dead when it was born, so I'll have it for dinner.' The other zone has more to do with how we 'look at things', and this level of ethics involves more than just logic. For example, I wouldn't eat a dead human or animal, even if it was killed in a car accident. The reason I wouldn't eat it is because I don't look at meat as food. I don't look at humans/animals as food, so I won't eat, independent on how they died. I don't look at animals, humans or birds as food, so I won't eat their children or eggs either, independent on their status when they were 'produced.

It wouldn't harm anyone (except myself) if I ate it, but I won't do it. It has to do with what I consider food, and I don't consider dead animals or dead humans food. Why? It has to do with how I look at humans and animals - and not only in a logical way. They/we're just not food for humans. If something comes out from a human or animal or a bird; be it an egg or a dead puppy, I don't consider this egg or this puppy food either - logical or not.

If my fridge is empty, I'm hungry, and I have dog who gives birth to a puppy that contains nutrients I could benefit from, it would be 'logical' to eat it IF I looked at meat as food. I don't, so I don't even consider eating it. People who look at meat as food normally don't eat dogs either, for other non-logical reasons.


An egg is 'a potential bird', but for various reasons - for example because it was produced by a bird that was domesticated by humans, and not by a 'unmodified', free bird, it wasn't fertilized.

An unfertilized egg will never become a grown up hen, and a puppy that didn't survive it's own birth will never become a grown up dog. They are different from a logical point of view, but have more similarities than differences. I won't eat either, and it has not (only) to do with the logical aspect of ethics.

[Korn]

This is just making me angry that they are breed to be so unnatural. Non-domesticated birds never lay unfertilized eggs. It just makes me angry.


Also, it seems like the ethics of eating a particular birds eggs can never be known unless you observe the bird without taking the eggs. Even then, we will never know what goes on in the birds head. How can anyone be sure it does no harm?

I still hold the opinion, by the way, that despite the harm, they are not your to take. If someone I knew had something I didn't think they used, and I didn't think taking it would harm them, I still would never take it without asking. If you can't ask, leave it be.

Brilliant post, sniv. I don't want consume byproducts of some poor creatures whose bodies and 'lifestyle' has been modified by humans in order to satisfy what they falsely believe they need. The whole situation is both sad and absurd.

[Seaside]

Obviously I mentioned battery chickens, which my friend accepted is cruel, but what about free-range chickens? I made the point that it's probably not natural for a chicken to lay an egg every day (nor very comfortable I imagine) but he said it was a natural process. Is this true?
No. It is not natural for chickens to lay eggs all year. They quit when the days start to get short and the weather gets cold, and conserve their energy to stay warm during winter. A chicken who lays an egg every day of its life regardless of the season is being forced to do something very unnatural.

[Korn]

From http://www.centralpets.com/animals/birds/wild_birds/wbd4315.html :


The most abundant bird today is the domestic chicken. Domestic chickens originate with the Red Jungle Fowl.

The Red Jungle Fowl is similar in many ways to today's domestic chicken. They have long, strong legs that end in two four clawed feet that are used for scratching. The stout bill is also readily used for this activity. The Red Jungle Fowl has areas of bare skin around his eyes, combs and wattles. They also have spurs on the backs of their legs which are used to fighting, usually caused by bids for dominance. Junglefowls are not known for their flying ability. They have curved rounded wings that enable swift flight. Unfortunately they can only fly for very short periods of time. The female Red Jungle Fowl is substantially smaller (one and a half feet long with a weight of about one to one and a half pounds) than the male (about two and a half feet long weighting about one a half pounds to two). It should also be noted that the male Red Jungle Fowl is louder than the female and will announce his presence in the morning to assert his dominance. The male Red Jungle Fowl is quite striking with an upper plumage of russet-gold and a lower plumage of red and deep green. His tail feathers are long and green. The female's upper plumage is buff while her lower plumage is russet in color.

Early origins of the Red Jungle Fowl include domestication in India in 3200 BC and in china in 1400BC. The Red Jungle Fowl is clearly one of the oldest domesticated birds. The popularity of the domestic Red Jungle Fowl quickly spread to Europe. Oddly enough the original popularity was not for eating but for cockfighting and use in religious rituals. The farming for meat and eggs came later. In the wild the Red Jungle Fowl is seen primarily in forests in Southeast Asia, Pakistan and India. The domesticated varieties are seen worldwide. Today's wild Red Jungle Fowl may have genetic contamination from today's domestic chickens. This theory is supported by a lack of Eclipse plumage Red Jungle Fowls seen in the wild.


Specific Care Information: Relative Care Ease: Uncertain
There is currently no special care information in our databases for this animal. To submit care information that is specific to this animal please click here.


Breeding and Propagation: Relative Breeding Ease: Uncertain
Breeding season usually occurs in the late winter or spring. The Red Jungle Fowl will typically lay 10 - 12 eggs. The eggs are incubated for 18 - 20 days. Hatchlings are born relatively independent and will be up and walking within hours. They fledge fully in 12 days

[Korn]

what about free-range chickens?

'Free-range' chickens are a result of a domestication process forced upon these birds by humans. Take a trip to the countryside, and you'll notice that no flocks birds are hanging out around the homes of humans, laying eggs in their gardens, unless they have been placed there. Hens as we know them are a result of a unnatural process, and wouldn't even be living outside these climates if they hadn't been forced to do so:

http://perso.dixinet.com/animaux-infos/ehen.html

the common ancestor of domestic hens is gallus bankiva that always lives in the asiatic jungle; domestic fowl has been introduced in Europe during Middle Ages.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:q2awxwiWDJEJ:elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v011n01/p0012-p0017.pdf+the+origin+of+domesticated+hens&hl=en&client=safari

Even our domesticated hens, turkeys, ducks, and
pea-fowl, if given freedom, often travel a greater or less distance in
search of a place where they may'conceal their nests.

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/variation/variation16.html

the hen of the wild Gallus bankiva lays from six to ten eggs, a number which would be thought nothing of with the domestic hen.

http://www.bartleby.com/11/8002.html

Natural instincts are lost under domestication: a remarkable instance of this is seen in those breeds of fowls which very rarely or never become “broody,” that is, never wish to sit on their eggs.

[moochbabe]

u all have wonderful points, and to add to the fact that laying eggs doesn't kill or harm the chiken...it often does.
they r kept in inhumane conditions (don't be fooled by the term "free-range") and their bones and muscles deteriorate...no they r not dead, but they might as well be rather than live such an aweful, disgusting, comletely unnatural life...besides, it's not natural to eat eggs...they r supposed to grow into something, and therefore they r flesh too

[treehugga]

I have a rooster and hen who were rescued who free range and have what I consider a good life as close to their natural state as possible. My 3 yo and 19 yo eat her eggs when she lays them as neither of my children will eat soy products etc. At least this way we are not contributing to the horrid conditions by the poultry industry. I am vegan and if my kids didn't consume the eggs they would get thrown out.

[Korn]

My 3 yo and 19 yo eat her eggs when she lays them as neither of my children will eat soy products etc.
I guess your 3 yo eats them because you give them to her? But you don't need to feed kids with eggs even if they they don't eat soy products...

What are your favourite protein sources? (http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3696)



At least this way we are not contributing to the horrid conditions by the poultry industry.

You could even sell them to some health food store who sell 'free-range' eggs, and buy vegan food for the money, an thereby support the 'vegan industry' if you think this is a better solution. If you give your kids ie. 100 eggs pr. year instead of giving them away to someone who otherwise would have bought eggs from the poultry industry you actually contribute just as much to the conditions in the poultry industry as someone who buys 100 eggs from a chicken farm. Because, indirectly, the reason they buy 100 eggs are that you are giving them to your kids, who don't need them.

Having said, that, you would maybe have a problem with the health food store, because they would wonder why someone who are against using animal products are selling animal products....


I am vegan and if my kids didn't consume the eggs they would get thrown out. If I should compare the two; either give eggs to children (who may even be too young to make up their mind about all the pro/conn eating eggs arguments), and throw them out, I would definitely throw them out. I wouldn't even prepare/give eggs to adults that insisted that they were 100% pro eating eggs.

Some people use the 'they are too young to decide what's right and wrong for them'-situation as an argument PRO giving kids meat, fish, milk, eggs etc.

Imagine a group of 100 adults. 50 people are against eating eggs, and 50 people who are not against it. We never know which of these groups our kids will end up in when they grow up. If we give them 'food' that by some people (vegans!) are against our ethical values, and not even considered food, your kids may ask you a very intelligent question when they grow up: 'Why did you make that decision on behalf of me? Why did you feed me something that a lot of people are against giving to kids'? 'Food' that you didn't even want to eat yourself? Couldn't you just give me something that people on both sides of the ethical food discussions are OK with?'

Nobody are against eating vegetables. Even if I would have been a meat eater, I'd feel that it would be more respectful to kids to give them food without meat, milk, eggs etc, because I don't want to make decisions on behalf of them, and feed them with a diet they possibly don't agree with. Whatever we give our kids will be of extreme importance for them, because we are creating habits they later in life need to deal with (or not deal with - meaning that they will continue eating what we gave them).

Personally, I won't put food that I find unhealthy/unethical into the bellies of innocent kids. If someone would put a gun to my head and say 'either eat animal products yourself, or give it to your kids' (and I'm glad this won't happen!) I'd rather eat this 'food' myself.

Now, what would be a good reason not to throw these eggs away? Or to give the hens and/or eggs away to someone who would eat eggs anyway, if you think this is a better solution?

[treehugga]

I feel depressed now - only kidding.
I guess I feed my kids the eggs because I worry about their protein, B12 etc intake and yes if we didn't already have the chooks I wouldn't but we do.
Little kids can be extremely finicky and although as a baby he ate almost everything including tofu as his tastes changed he started refusing it and spitting it out.
He now will only eat potato, pasta with tomatoe sauce, vegan pizza, avocado sometimes but does eat lots of fruit. So you see my maternal instinct has panicked and decided to use the eggs. I will explain to him however why we should not consume them and try and weane him of over time.
It is really difficult to feed small children.
I only get a couple of eggs a week of Ms chook as I think she may be quite old so it wouldn't be worth selling them and we have tight regulations around that now although I'm sure I would meet them.

[Plunder Bunnie]

Treehugga, i dont think there is anything wrong with what you're doing. I grew up with chickens and just recently have not had any. (about a year). I would prefer not to eat them myself, but id give themto people like my father who hate eating eggs from chickens kept in tiny cages. (hes actually thinking about being vegetarain!! thats pretty good for a 52 year old raised on a farm where they kill what they eat!!!) You know your chickens. I know my chickens didnt care about unfertlised eggs. We'd often mix it up in their food that we made. ITs a personal choice for you.

[Seaside]

Treehugga, have you tried beans with your children for protein?

You are correct to remove soy from your toddler's diet if he refuses it. Soy has been known as an allergenic food for some, right up there with wheat, corn, etc., and this knowledge existed long before the meat lobby had a reason to develop anti-soy research. Babies have instincts about what is not good for them (look at how many children hate cow's milk after they have been weaned, and are forced to consume it anyway!), so you would be wise to look for other sources of vegetable protein, like beans. Hopefully he likes beans! :)

[treehugga]

Thanks Plunder Bunnie and Seaside.

Yes I have tried beans etc with no luck. He won't even eat them pureed or made into patties. But I'm not too worried as little kids tastes change so quickly, Next year he might eat them and I won't give him the demon eggs :)

[moochbabe]

treehugga, i have some excellent kid friendly recipes (good for adults too!) i can post as soon as i locate them if u'd like...

[treehugga]

treehugga, i have some excellent kid friendly recipes (good for adults too!) i can post as soon as i locate them if u'd like...

Thanks Moochbabe I would really appreciate that :)

[moochbabe]

not a problem at all, i'll let u know when i've located them and posted them (i'm glad to help!) also, in Nava Atlas' book "Vegetarian Family Cooking" there are a ton of ideas for picky eaters, and although the book isn't 100% vegan, it's close to, and has adaptions for almost everything, all very tasty from everything i've tried of them!

[Korn]

Seeds of any kind are often full of nutrients, which is no surprise: they are meant to contain building material for a new plant, or, in the case of hens, new chicken. Eggs have also been mentioned in positive terms re. their effect on breast cancer. But maybe other ways to prevent breast cancer are better (also for non-vegans) if the link found between egg consumption and colorectal cancer can be confirmed by further studies... I just came across this:

http://www.all-creatures.org/health/eggsandcol.html


In the largest study of it's kind ever, researchers compared egg consumption across 34 countries over a three decade time span to colon and rectal cancer death rates. They found egg consumption on a population level was significantly associated with mortality in men and women in countries across the world. Yes, but perhaps that's because egg eaters were also more likely to eat meat, or to smoke, or less likely to eat vegetables. Even after controlling for almost all established and potential risk factors for these two cancers, the relationship remained. On a population level, the more eggs that were eaten, the more deaths there was from rectal and colon cancer.

Just because something is related on a population level, however, does not necessarily mean cause and effect. For example, just because the total egg sales in one country is higher than in another country, that doesn't necessarily mean that people are actually eating more eggs in the first country. Maybe one country feeds more of their eggs to farmed or companion animals. Maybe one country cooks or stores eggs differently such that more is wasted or thrown away or spoils in one country than another. What population comparison studies can do, however, is to stimulate more research. As the researchers concluded, if more studies do continue to show this relationship between egg consumption and cancer mortality, urging people to eat less eggs "may provide an easy and practical intervention measure to reduce the tremendous public health burden of colon and rectal cancers."[1]

References:

1 Nutrition and Cancer 46(2):158.

[Korn]

Here's a related link:

http://www.leaonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/S15327914NC4602_08?cookieSet=1


Abstract
Nutrition and Cancer
2003, Vol. 46, No. 2, Pages 158-165
(doi:10.1207/S15327914NC4602_08)

Egg Consumption and Mortality From Colon and Rectal Cancers: An Ecological Study
Jianjun Zhang, Zijin Zhao, Hans J. Berkel


The relation between egg consumption and mortality from colon and rectal cancers remains unclear and was investigated in this study. Colon and rectal cancer mortality data, mostly around 1993-94 and egg consumption data in nine time periods (1964-94) in 34 countries were derived from World Health Organization and Food and Agriculture Organization, respectively. Egg consumption was significantly and positively correlated with mortality from colon and rectal cancers in both sexes in most of the nine time periods. The correlations were generally stronger for colon cancer (r = 0.39 to 0.63 in men and r = 0.33 to 0.65 in women) than for rectal cancer (r = 0.18 to 0.49 in men and r = 0.08 to 0.45 in women). After adjustment for confounding factors, egg consumption was still significantly and positively associated with mortality from colon cancer in the earliest five time periods (1964-84) (P = 0.046 to 0.017 in men and P = 0.034 to 0.014 in women) and rectal cancer in the latest five time periods except for the last time period (1982-91) (P = 0.046 to 0.024 in men and P = 0.045 to 0.026 in women). This study suggested that egg consumption was associated with an increased risk of colon and rectal cancers at the population level.