I do my best not to do anything that exploits animals, and eating honey is exploiting, even if the bees weren't hurt I still wouldn't eat it.
Printable View
I do my best not to do anything that exploits animals, and eating honey is exploiting, even if the bees weren't hurt I still wouldn't eat it.
Honey itself is more or less a byproduct of a very large industry. Commercial beekeepers (I have worked for one in the past) recieve most of their revenue from pollination, not the sale of honey. Obviously, there are not enough bees to naturally pollinate a large orchard without humans getting their dirty fingers involved. Bees are "maintained" for the purpose of industry, and this does include the regular destruction of non-producing queens, genetically modified bees, and the spread of disease from hive to hive in some cases. As with any kept animal, bees are exploited for their use to the full extent. Along with that, they are part of an overproducing agricultural industry that poisons our landbase with chemicals and exploits poor migrant workers for their labor. As with any consumer product, if you choose to buy it, you choose to support this. However, let it be known that not all farmers are part of this problem. Mutual respect for all animals and the landbase can be achieved and many farmers practice this.
They are simply ill informed as to what the exact definition of the word vegan is. Society didn't invent the word, a specific man and his organization did.
The gentleman (Donald Watson) and his organization (The Vegan Society) that coined the term "vegan" gets to define exactly what it means, and no one else. If they say no honey, and they do, then no honey. The organization that invented the word has the right to define it, not the general public.
If you want to be a vegan but also eat honey, go fishing, buy wool, whatever, you can't call yourself a true vegan. If you want you could say, "I'm close to a vegan, but I ..."
Also true of milk and eggs. We avoid those for the same reason, we don't "use" animals regardless if we "harm" them or not. When we go to a vegan restaurant, eat a food product labeled vegan, or eat a vegan meal prepared by someone else, we don't have to ask, "Do you use milk here? eggs? honey?" An animal derived ingredient is an animal derived ingredient, plain and simple.Quote:
My personal belief is that honey is something bees naturally produce and will continue to do so till their deaths regardless of whether humans harvest it or not.
As Haniska put it earlier in the thread, bees are killed both accidentally, (for example smashed to death in the door hinge area of their house we've built for them when the beekeeper shuts it) and purposely (kill the queen to force a new one to be hatched, if I remember correctly). Obviously death is a form of suffering.Quote:
It does not, to my way of thinking cause the bees or anyone else (save maybe the beekeeper) suffering to collect honey and they do not need to be coerced into making it, so I really don't see the problem here.
Bees need honey, it is their food. After we steal their food supply, we substitute it with a container of sugar water and assume they'll be content with that. Now in the news comes reports that bees are dying and we don't know why. Maybe the lack of micro-nutrients in their real honey, over decades, has caught up to produce a problem finally, I don't know, just a thought.
Korn has assembled a good list of links here.
Korn, that would make for a good "sticky", so this question doesn't have to be answered repeatedly. Just a thought. A "honey sticky", so to speak. :D
we don't really need honey any ways, there are other options, i.e. agave necter.
Besides honey taste icky... ;)
Honey is not vegan.
But it would be helpful to the vegan movement if we stopped acting so "holier than thou", pretending to a purity that is almost impossible for anyone to attain.
I grew up in Tasmania, where the world's best honey is made by talented little bees in the leatherwood forest. Honey is the ONLY non-vegan food that I feel unable to sacrifice - emotionally I am very attached to honey, especially leatherwood. I do not pretend that honey is vegan. But I sometimes worry that hardline 'purists' frighten away those who think being vegan is an extremist philosophy.
I love bees, and I'm sorry that a few of them occasionally get killed in the collection of honey... but a lot of insects, and worms too, are killed through harvesting a crop of wheat too. Does that mean we stop eating bread?
When a mozzie lands on my leg, I have no qualms about squashing it. If that makes me a speciesist, fair cop. If it makes me a less perfect vegan, I accept that - I never said I'm perfect.
Becoming vegan is an ideal, a beautiful ideal, but few of us could say we're 'pure' vegans. In a world where condoms are made with dairy protein, and beer is clarified with eggs, let's not beat ourselves up with 'purist' mentality, but instead embrace people who have their heart in the right place.
Hi Campell,
Harming/killing one living being isn't an ethical excuse to harm another one.
It looks to as if (following your logic) it's OK to use eggs, because some bear is clarified with eggs, to use dairy products, because some condoms are made with dairy protein, or to kill bees, because some mice are are killed in the agricultural process of making grains.
There's nothing purist about having a 'definition'. The purist argument be used against vegetarians who 'claim' that one cannot be a vegetarian and eat fish too. To say that vegetarian food doesn't include dead fish/animals/birds isn't IMO more 'purist' than saying that vegan food doesn't include animal products 'as much as practical and possible'.
Knowing that a lot of people don't eat honey whether they are vegans or not, and since honey doesn't contain anything we can't get from somewhere else, honey doesn't belong to something that isn't 'possible' or 'practical' to avoid, does it?
You may suggest a different definition of vegan, like 'one who avoids animal products except those he is emotionally attached to', but I don't think you would do that.
Honey isn't vegan just because it's an animal product; it's the other way round, sort of: Due to the reasons explained in this and these links about vegans and honey, vegans are against using honey. We're not slaves of our own ethics... it's not like, 'honey is ok, but I can't use it because I'm vegan'.
Veganism is indeed a beautiful ideal, and for that reason we need to continue to push towards that, as stated by Korn "as much as practical and possible".
Honey is an animal product and has no place in a vegan diet. Not trying to be an elitist or "holier than thou" (as it's put) but you can live without it and remove it from your life easily.
Bee's are dying on a bigger scale than you realize, not only can they be crushed but when we take their food away, but giving them sugar to eat instead of the honey they worked hard to gather is very bad for them and many die because their systems don't get the nutrients they need to survive.
Bee's are a very important part of our ecosystem and we need to respect that system.
I guess it's based on theories mostly right now, but I believe the inadequate food that is given to bee's in place of their natural food supply is killing them and causing problems in their colonies. Here are some links showing issues:
This url below states that "foulbrood" is caused by lack of nutrients and I am willing bet this issue doesn't exist without human input:
http://beebase.csl.gov.uk/public/Bee.../foulbrood.cfm
Some info on Colony Collapse:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...ticle_4262.cfm
Hope this helps.
Thing is colony collapse disorder, CCD, is brand new. 2006 or so. We've been feeding them sugar syrup instead and stealing all or at least most of their honey [anyone know what percent is stolen?] for I guess centuries. What's changed in just the past few years?:confused:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_Collapse_Disorder
http://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/animals...FQSOFQodz12Cdw
I think the bees finally figured it out and are now revolting against our enslavement of them.:) My new theory, anyways.;)
Although we as a society are using more sugar than ever before, I think the actual stuff is just as devoid of any nutrients now as ever. 2006 sugar is the same as 1920 sugar, in my mind.
Glyde condoms are vegan too.:D
If veganism is extreme (which I don't think it is), getting rid of honey is hardly the surest sign of that. But really, extremism is the argument lobbied by those who won't make what is an amazing and beautiful commitment to honouring sentient life in all its forms.
I just never understood the argument that if we accidentally kill animals while harvesting crops, it's ok to deliberately kill other animals like bees. If you accidentally killed a cat with your car, would you get a gun and start deliberately killing other cats? I hope not!
I didn't realise agave nectar was vegan, I saw it in the health food shop the other day and assumed it was some kind of honey. That's really great that there's a honey alternative. Thanks
Yogi wrote: "I just never understood the argument that if we accidentally kill animals while harvesting crops, it's ok to deliberately kill other animals like bees."
I'd like to take a polite attempt at answering this.
You don't accidentally kill animals when you harvest crops. Of course it's intentional. When the farmer mounts his tractor and yells down to us, "I'm going to start the combine and harvest the wheat for you guys now," every single one of us is aware that thousands upon thousands of insects and small animals are about to be killed.
Aren't we?
To say that we "accidentally" kill the animals isn't quite it. Is it?
Isn't it really more accurate to say, "we intentionally kill the animals, but the only reason we do it is because it's an unavoidable part of harvesting the wheat."
Wouldn't that be more accurate?
Isn't it true, in fact, that we could, if we wanted to, harvest the wheat by hand, thereby avoiding all of the deaths caused by the reaper?
And if that is true, and I think it's clear that it is, then what does that say about all of us who eat the wheat?
And if my neighbor keeps bees and the death toll per calorie is less than that for the wheat, then what does that say?
I have struggled with this for a very long time.
It's nice to have bright lines.
But this reminds me of the scene from that Brad Pitt movie where they are removing the worms from the earth, one by one, so that none are killed when they build on the land.
I'm not convinced that there is a bright line.
If you eat packaged wheat that is grown using any machine-based method, rather than a hand-based method, then I'm not convinced that any animal deaths that are specific to the machine based method can be considered "accidental".
They are collateral, perhaps, but not accidental.
Just my 2 cents.
Peace - Andrew.
Hi ASB!Quote:
To say that we "accidentally" kill the animals isn't quite it. Is it?
Isn't it really more accurate to say, "we intentionally kill the animals, but the only reason we do it is because it's an unavoidable part of harvesting the wheat."
First of all, I think the thing about killing mice in the fields normally is highly exaggerated. I disagree with your statement about 'we intentionally kill the animals', because the intention is not to kill animals, the intention is to grow and collect plants. In between 'accidentally' and 'intentionally' there are several descriptions that could be used about what happens and why it happens, like non-intentionally.
What exactly do you struggle with? I'm asking, because even if someone intentionally would kill an animal, this wouldn't serve as a valid reason to kill another one...Quote:
I have struggled with this for a very long time.
Some people may think 'Fishing is my hobby, so trying to avoiding to eat meat would would be hypocritical, because I kill anyway' - but the bottom line is that the lamb or calf or chicken that is harmed and killed for that persons dinner probably isn't as worried about if the slaughter killed another animal last week or was fishing in the weekend as she is for the fact that somebody wants to kill her for food. I don't watch many crime movies, but I have yet to se a victim say (before he is killed): "Oh, so you are a serial killer? That changes everything. Go ahead!".
Killing (intentionally, accidentally, or non-intentionally) is not a valid reason or excuse for more killing.
Hi ASB, I think Korn summed up what I was going to say in response to your post. Perhaps "accidentally" was not a completely accurate term, but neither is "intentionally". Stealing honey from bees is intentional, and bees' deaths are certainly not "unavoidable" or "collateral", since a beekeeper is harming and killing bees while stealing the food they made for themselves. There is a difference between driving your car knowing you will probably kill bugs with your windshield, and buying insect poison and deliberately killing bugs with it. One is unintentional, the other is not. One should never justify the other.
By the way, my name is Yoggy not Yogi :)
OK, this is my struggle.
I take the following as given:
1. Factory farming with large equipment will necessarily result in some amount of animal death.
2. Non-factory farming will result in less animal death than 1.
3. Option 2 could be done, albeit at a much higher price.
If I choose to eat wheat grown by process 1, am I not making the decision to
sacrifice animals in order to eat the less expensive wheat?
You are right ASB, we should just stop eating. It would solve all of the problems of the world.
Missbettie wrote: "You are right ASB, we should just stop eating. It would solve all of the problems of the world."
Missbettie, what was the point of that?
I really don't understand why you'd take the time to write that.
Are you mocking me?
No, not really but if we worry SO much about all the little details thats what will happen. I am already paranoid about eating. Is this food Vegan? Did someone use a meat knife? Did someone slip cheese into this? Is this cruelty free? ITS TERRIFYING!
Isn't being Vegan about preventing and avoiding animal cruelty as much as possible? People can only do what they can.
I didn't mean to offend, I apologize, I will put the dry humor away....Sorry.
Missbettie: " Isn't being Vegan about preventing and avoiding animal cruelty as much as possible?"
I think yes. I think that's where I'm at. I guess it just saddens me to no end that I was put on this planet with a biology that does not allow me to reduce my impact on animals to zero, or even close to it.
Veganism depends very much on modern agriculture, which depends very much on fossil fuels.
Without oil, being a Vegan would become much more difficult.
And the impact of oil on this world has been horrific.
:(
Ya but you can only do so much, and with what we as Vegans are doing to help prevent animal cruelty among MANY other things is a BIG deal. If you only dwell on the bad in the world then is life really worth living?
Give yourself a break! Go pet a puppy!
One way to reduce this: If you have space to do it you could grow as much of your own food as possible and eat seasonally.
Plant some fruit trees :)
If people would eat less plants and more animal products, they would depend even more on modern agriculture: Animals had to be fed, their food has to be produced, the food has to be transported to the factory farms and animals had to be transported to and from slaughterhouses. Since it takes more land to produce enough food to feed one person for one day on a combined diet than it takes to feed him on a plant based diet, the problem is not that he eat plants.Quote:
Veganism depends very much on modern agriculture, which depends very much on fossil fuels.
Without oil, being a Vegan would become much more difficult.
Veganism does not depend on modern agriculture. Modern living does. To claim 'we intentionally kill the animals' is turning everything upside down IMO.
Non-vegans kill animal intentionally, because they like the taste of meat.
We need food, and any diet that requires more resources than eating plants 'directly' (eg. food having been eaten by an animal already, which someone then eats) is wasting resources unnecessarily.
A lot of land is used to produce food for factory animals.
Indeed, we live in a very volatile world, some form of life is always destroying another kind in order to live, whether they eat flesh or not.
Minimizing the death to other species is really the best you can do, but at least we can say we are doing that as far as it is possible for us rather than just saying "Screw it! Lets just kill anything and everything then".
MissBettie wrote: "as far as it is possible "
Well, I suppose that's the final unresolved point for me. I'm not doing it as far as possible. As far as possible would require me to opt out of modern society and give up most of what I have, including car, use of electricity, and so on.
So I guess that's the ethical dilemma I will never resolve.
I actively choose to maintain my lifestyle, and that choice no doubt costs animal pain and life relative to what would be the case if I went, "as far as possible".
well then go live in the boondocks. Of course you will have to run around naked cause some how your clothing caused some pain....
I'm sorry you are so stressed out by this...But you have to lighten up a little...obviously you didn't pet the puppy like I said too...
MissBettie - I apologize for intruding into your forum here. I sense a barely disguised aggression in your posts.
I certainly did not come here to either foment aggression or receive it.
That's the second time you have made a flip comment.
I think I see what your issue is.
I think the deal is that you don't like what I'm writing about my own personal struggle because it forces you to consider your own situation.
It seems that you desperately want to believe that you have done all that you can to reduce animal suffering and/or death.
I flatly suggest that you have not done all that you can, and that it's bothering you that I'm pointing out that, if all we do is eat and live like a vegan as that word is generally defined, but otherwise live a modern lifestyle, then we have chosen not to further reduce animal suffering and/or death.
It's not a question of "lightening up" as you put it. I view that flip response as being no more applicable to my thoughts as it would be for a guy eating a hamburger telling you to "lighten up".
I guess what it comes down to for me, and what you seem to be reacting aggressively to, is that our impact on animals is a spectrum.
Veganism falls on the spectrum closer to the "no impact" side of the spectrum, but it by no means either at the no impact point, or even close to it.
Further, and this is the key point Miss Bettie, and I specifically direct it at you -
If what you have done is become a vegan but you have otherwise maintained a modern lifestyle, with cars, travel, high energy use, and so on, then you have made the active choice to not move yourself further toward the "no impact" side of the spectrum.
Like it or not, when you drive a car or use a computer, which you most certainly do not have to do, you bear some responsibility for the animal pain and deaths that occur as collateral damage to the oil industry.
I am not stressed out.
I do have an unresolvable issue. But I'm not lying to myself by thinking that "I have done all that I can do."
If you engage in modern society, you have made the conscious choice to exchange animal suffering/death for your standard of living.
And that's my last post.
Peace.
You are right, but IMO the problem isn't ethical, because you already have answered the question about which solution would be the best from an ethical point of view. Part of the dilemma is that you know the best solution, and go actively go for another solution (like many of us do).
It's also more 'complicated' than that: if every environment/animal/nature friendly person would leave the 'civilized' world and live in and bamboo huts and not communicate with the modern world in any way (in order not to use cars, electricity and so on), would the planet as a whole really benefit from this?
We make choices all the time, and instead of getting stuck with the perfect/non-perfect dilemma, most of us can make choices that represent a major change just by being vegans... because making some harm (eg. to the environment) isn't valid reason to make more harm. I may harm the environment by having created a forum that makes people spend time in front of the computer than they otherwise have done, use more electricity than they otherwise have done, and I'm not all all doing everything can do avoid the modern world. I'm actually not planning to either, because I don't think the solution to the problem is to permanently isolate people with a vision about a better, less cruel, more animal friendly and natural world small groups on the countryside. The consequence of such a philosophy would be that there would be no 'green' parties, no eco-movement, no literature about how to improve the world, because printing requires electricity.
I think it's good that that there's a slightly 'vague' part of the definition of 'vegan'. 'As much as practical and possible' is vague, and rarely means what it says, but if we make that into a dilemma instead of an invitation to let people adjust their lifestyles according to what they're capable of, we create a problem out of something which isn't.
In spite of this slightly 'vague' part, it's clear that vegans don't eat meat, eggs, dairy products, honey etc., and that we avoid other animal products as much as possible, but realistically, this has never implied that we shouldn't continue to live in the society we do, or that we should everything we possible can which possibly has been in touch with something that has harmed an animal.
A vegan who is taking a taxi and sitting on a leather seat is still a vegan, and IMO, the best way to kill veganism is to convert it into some kind of obsessive perfectionism.
I thought vegan didn't just mean "as far as possible", but also "as far as practical". It is possible, but not practical, for you to go live in the bush and eat only fruit from trees and bushes, and not walk on the dirt (since ants and other insects live in the dirt and you won't want to step on them), and not wear any clothes (because animals were killed in the harvesting of cotton for clothes), etc. etc. You can only avoid animal exploitation as far as is practical for you, and that line is different for everyone. A vegan is someone who does as much as they honestly can to be vegan. People who eat honey are not doing as much as they can; anyone can live without honey. But there are other things that it is not practical to avoid eating, like fruit, vegetables and grains. Someone who eats only fruit, vegetables and grains is doing all they can practically do to avoid animal products; someone who eats fruit, vegetables, grains and honey is not.
As an example: I try to recycle as much as I can, whenever I can. But I work in an office that deals with classified documents, and we can't recycle these papers for security reasons. We have to shred them and burn them. I try as much as possible not to print classified documents, but sometimes that's not practical, and I have to print them. I don't feel too bad about this, because other than this one case where I have to throw away paper, I do all I can to recycle everything else the rest of the time. It's the same with animals incidentally killed by crop harvesting. Yes, some insects/mice will die, but other than that, you are avoiding animal products as much as practically possible the rest of the time, so you are doing as much as you can.
Edit: I just noticed your last post. You think that if a person "chooses a modern lifestyle", they are still having an impact on animals. That's true. There is no way to have ZERO impact on the animals and the environment, period.
But if you choose to greatly reduce your impact, you are doing far more than people who choose to do nothing to reduce their impact. Would you rather recycle NONE of your paper than only recycle half of it??? Half is better than none.
Again I didn't mean anything bad by anything I said.
I respect what you are saying and I am sorry that you are not satisfied with what you have done toward the cause. I just wanted to let you know that it is okay and that you are doing a great job...Thats all I was saying...I was just trying to make you feel better... :(
Don't beat yourself up about it missbettie, I think ASB is just having a difficult time in the ethical dilemas we face as vegans, I am sure (and I hope) talking about it here will help him with it.
I did offer a solution but he didn't even make mention of it, perhaps he needs to go away and figure out a solution that he feels is right .
Anyway ASB if you are still reading these posts on here, good luck with everything.