Vegans and eggs

[ConsciousCuisine]

I think it's too easy to get purist and dogmatic about veganism. Is veganism not about animal welfare? If a person owns a chicken, the chicken lays an egg which is unfertilised and will eventually rot, what harm is there to eat it. What matters is the welfare of the chicken and the owner and the environment.

And another thing... how many people here have rescued battery chickens and given them back a life? Isn't that wonderful? She sounds a good women to me.

Yes, she's a good vegetarian woman and that's a great thing indeed!

I agree that if a person is not repulsed by it and the chicken has abandoned the egg and doesn't mind if it is taken (just as it doesn't mind if its excrement is cleaned up and taken away) then there would be little harm in that act. It would not be a "vegan" act, but there would be little harm, all the same.

However, some people (vegans, mostly) believe that animals are not here for our use and to use them or thier products is a foul practice under any circumstances... :/ Some of these same people would compost the eggs or feed them to the chickens (just as some animals and humans eat thier placentas) instead of eating them themselves, believing that they aren't ours for the taking.

[Pilaf]

Even if I raised the chickens myself, I won't eat animal protein again for the crippling health risks associated with such things.

[On the Coast]

It does'nt sound like anyone disagrees with the idea of folks making their own decisions to eat eggs, but I'm having a hard time understanding if some folks think this is okay as a Vegan?
IMHO - eggs, cheese. honey, sour cream, chicken broth, casein, etc. etc. etc. - are all animal products. Therefore, if you eat them you are not Vegan. And if you eat them and call yourself Vegan, you are doing harm to other Vegans by making it that much harder to reeducate all the folks who understand Veganism from an egg eating point of view. Eat eggs if you want, or hamburgers, or children, but do'nt say your Vegan while you're munching my arm........

NMP
(No More Posers) -

[Plunder Bunnie]

But I would say it's exactly this dogmatic ideology that causes problems. Once again, I note nobody on here saying that they *don't* eat imported fruit and veg. I think people should try to engender the spirit of veganism rather than get caught up with the semantics of the meaning. Veganism isn't about diet.



Anybody can follow a doctrine what vegans need to do is encourage compassion.

Thats very true. I totally agree with you. People get way to obsessed with labels. No matter WHAT we do, we are all making something or someone suffer, what we have to do is try to limit that suffering the best we can as conscience human beings.

[ConsciousCuisine]

Once again, I note nobody on here saying that they *don't* eat imported fruit and veg.

Okay, I'll bite. All the produce I buy comes from veganic, sustainable, locally-grown family-owned farms.

[ConsciousCuisine]

Good for you CC. however, I very much doubt that if you were to expose the contents of your house to scrutiny, that you would come out totally whiter than white. And this is my point. Whilst it's helpful to be a vegan, it's not helpful to be self righteous and pious.

And anyway, to grow yourself is even more sustainable...

See, this is exactly the bullshit I get really tired of. You ask a question and when I answer it, you pull out the self righteous and pious platform. I never claimed to be "whiter than white" and have never said I am better (or worse) than any person, vegan or not. Don't hate on me because I make every effort to be a conscious consumer and live as cruelty-free as I can.

I am really tired of people (here, on other forums) acting as though I feel I am better than others when all I am doing is *my* personal best, which is what I encourage *all* to do

[Plunder Bunnie]

See, this is exactly the bullshit I get really tired of. You ask a question and when I answer it, you pull out the self righteous and pious platform. I never claimed to be "whiter than white" and have never said I am better (or worse) than any person, vegan or not. Don't hate on me because I make every effort to be a conscious consumer and live as cruelty-free as I can.

I am really tired of people (here, on other forums) acting as though I feel I am better than others when all I am doing is *my* personal best, which is what I encourage *all* to do

Here here!!!! Veganism, to me, is all about causing as little suffering a possible. Everyone should try to do this, vegan or not. We shoudl just all try our best and congradulate each other on doing so. We are all only human beings here after all!! Do what you can, dont judge others on what they cant.

[John]

I think it's too easy to get purist and dogmatic about veganism. Is veganism not about animal welfare? If a person owns a chicken, the chicken lays an egg which is unfertilised and will eventually rot, what harm is there to eat it.

I know that this is a long thread--but come on! We just discussed this.
You assume that no harm is done to a chicken by stealing her eggs--but you are wrong. I am not being puritanical or dogmatic. I am saying that even if someone is exploiting chickens humanely, that person is still exploiting chickens and not doing charity.

Sure, we live in a complicated word where a ships carrying food hit whales, and birds and insect get poisoned by agrochemicals, but we have to draw a line somewhere. Vegans try their best not to use animal products.

Now, you can talk about scavenging carrion and harmless ways of satisfying a taste for blood, but the truth is, vegans have the honor of saying that we thrive without eating any animal flesh. We are showing the world that it is possible to live without eating animal flesh; without using animal skin and hair, and by doing so, we are creating a new way of life and an example for the present and the future.

[Plunder Bunnie]

If you're a vegan for your own honour then I hope you feel a sense of achievement. However, everything gets exploited on this planet. Everything. There is a food chain, billions upon billions of organisms from the smallest to the biggest rely on the death and exploitation of other living organisms. I think you're lucky you live in a country where you have the choice to be vegan, some people don't. The same people that are exploited by trades such as cotton, bananas, coffee, sugar... staples of a vegan diet. Some people still eat to survive... as part of the food chain.

Veganism is not a diet and it belittles the spirit of the cause to suggest such.

And exactly how can you quantify the harm to the chicken who has lost her egg, especially in the context of being owned by a loving family. The world out there for wild animals is not the world according to humans... it's savage, unjust and definitely not based on vegan principals.

your getting pretty defensive. Your just like everyone else here, hurting things by your own act of living. I imagine the vast majority of people here relaize this too, i sure as hell do. You assume i dont think about it? It dosent bother me constantly? I do care. I sponser a child with world vision and donate to wwf every month, although i can barely afford it and it takes up most of my paycheck. We do what we can.

[DianeVegan]

I will admit that I haven't read all the posts on this thread so perhaps this hasn't been brought up before.

Egg layer hens don't grow on trees so they must come from somewhere (you can even order them by mail) that also produces MALE layer roosters. Guess what? The roosters aren't desirable to eat so they get killed almost as soon as they are born (or thrown in a dumpster to starve to death).

Eating eggs (even from your "happy", lovingly cared for chickens) supports an industry that KILLS unwanted animals for the sake of profit.

And the layers are killed after they stop laying eggs. How many people do you know who keep hens actually continue to care for them after they stop laying? Hmm. That's a lot of work for an animal who's only worth to most is her ability to lay an egg.

Just some thoughts.

[GloomCookie]

I am well aware of the by-products of the egg laying industry. I'm a vegan and have been for 12 years. "Egg layer hens don't go on trees" I got sold one of those trees the other day by ConsciousCuisine are you telling me i've been swindled?

In fact I take it back what I said about veganism not being a diet. I think it should rebranded as simply that... 'The vegan diet' entirely suitable for people who see themselves as paragons of virtue and compassion by restraining themselves to reading labels. If aint vegan it's evil, a bit like all them "Wrong doing folk" from the middle east.

It's so much easier this way... don't you think?

Congratulations on being the first vegan I've met who seems to revel in putting down the people who are there to support and agree with him.

Do you really, seriously believe that every vegan apart from you goes around polishing their halo and looking down on other people? You might get some, the way you get holier-than-thou Christians etc but the majority of us (and no one I've seen on here) feel the need to pretend to be something they're not so why force the issue and try to start an argument?

[foxytina_69]

eggs are not meant for us to consume so why would we consume them, regardless of if the chickens care or not. they arent meant for human consumption, so if they are to sit there and rot, that is what mother nature intended. mother nature didnt create all of her creatures with an idea of them eating eachothers menstural cycles, milk, etc. we are meant to eat what we are meant to eat, and i will not consume eggs because i am human, and i wasnt meant to consume them.

i dont consume produce from other countries. i get all my produce from my local farmers market.

veganism isnt about diet, its about a lifestyle that causes the least harm possible to all living creatures, and including in that is not consuming animal products. regardless of where the hell they came from.

cc, im sure this person is just a troll trying to start a debate, and frankly the only self righteous bitchy person here is whats their face and to be honest, none of us should play their little game any longer. this person gets off on being rude, calling people names, and by promoting the eating of animal products if they come from happy chickens. no thank you. sorry hunny, your game is over and noone cares anymore. ta ta darling. enjoy your bitchy high righteous little life.

[abrennan]

eggs are definitely not for human consumption, they are for the reproduction of the creatures that lay them. Eggs are part of the reproductive process of other beings.

Humans are herbivores. Herbivores don't eat eggs.

Stop calling Cog505 names NOW or I'll sort you out.

Cog505 if you stop being so provocative you'll find you draw less flack from people.

Antony

[foxytina_69]

http://veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1329

[Plunder Bunnie]

"Eggs are not meant for our consumption" Under whose authority do you write this? Has god told you this? If you want to help end the suffering of animals, telling people we aren't meant to eat eggs just aint going to cut it as an argument.

True enough, but we can all agree here that eggs are meant for reproductive purposes, and that animals do eat them. However, the problem arises when people begin to use animals soley as products, and care little or none about their health and well being. I see nothing wrong with having a chicken companion, and , if she allows it, taking her egg. I may not do this myself, but it wouldnt bother me if someone else did.

Can you show me *one* instance where i've called someone a name... just one. Or even a personal attack? I've been debating veganism and been getting called names for doing so.

You call this debating? What you are ACTUALLY doing is attacking people and then ignoring their responses to your attacks. i am very much open to debates, that is why i am, and probably wasteing my time doing so, writing this. Debating means that you lsiten to both sides, and respond to what the other person is telling you, and do not simply continue to repeat yourself when we have responded to what you have said. So far all you have done is make broad assumptions without even really talking to anyone on this forum to get their veiws. You are personally attacking us all by making outrageous comments you havent even researched. I do realize that my very existance as a north american causes suffering to others, and i try to must to limit that suffering, as we all do and should continue doing.
You have personally offended CC, a intelligent vegan woman. you would realise this is you decided to talk to her rather then dish out judgements.

We're all adults on here... I didn't know this was a back patting club for vegans to big each other up. If you really want to do something positive for veganism, in my opinion, challenge exactly why so few people are vegan, engage them, adapt and be less dogmatic and cynical.

Once again, assumption. YOU are infact the one being cynical. The very fact that you mean this vague assumptions and attack everyone for doing something or believing something YOU percive them to believe makes you look like a fool.
I am in no way dogmatic and am constantly evaluating my personal beleifs, and that is not limited to veganism. I go insane trying to figure out exactly what i beleive and can never be 100% either way, and dont want to be. You are the other hand seem to assume you are right. Assumption is an ignorant tool. Dont use it here and expect me to respect you.

I could sit here all day telling you all what a great job you're doing (which I sincerely believe you are) but why? If you've got courage in your convictions as vegans and you truly believe in the rights of animals and the protection of our natural environment, what I say shouldn't matter.

[/QUOTE]

What you are doing is not encouraging anyone. you are simply making vegans look miltant and incredibly judgemental to nonvegans. This makes it harder for people to make the tranistion, when people like you are saying its never enough. I may be alot of things, but i am not a moron. I know what i beleive and will not let someone like you make uneducated statements like this about me or others i communicate with. You really need to grow up and accept others before passing your self rightous judgements.

[abrennan]

chickens are distressed by the removal of their eggs, contrary to popular belief they are not stupid

[Plunder Bunnie]

chickens are distressed by the removal of their eggs, contrary to popular belief they are not stupid

I know that. Ive had chickens almost all my life. Often it does not distress them, because when they are unfertilized they leave them to rot. I am one of those people that is first on the scene to argue that chickens are very intelligent, because they are. I would never take an egg from a chicken that showed to remote chance of nesting, or becoming distressed. have you ever tried to take an egg from a chicken that was nesting? Youd better be wearing a suit of armor, because in my experience, if they want the egg, youll know.

[Plunder Bunnie]

Even by quoting the biological you can't absolutely state that "eggs aren't for consumption" You could say "Biologically it's not healthy for us to eat eggs" Which I would happily agree with. But to state it absolutely, is wrong. It's like George Bush telling people he's on a mission from god to rid the world of terrorists.

Thanks for the advice, but im not here to argue the biological problems of egg consumption. Its unethical, if people dont understand that, then we simply have different perspectives.

Listen, I actually love you guys. CC, please accept my apologies if you're upset. And plunder Bunnie, even though you called me a fool (I can add that to the various others i've been called ) my messages were in no means aimed at anyone personally.

[/QUOTE]

I said you were acting like a fool. There is a difference.

[Korn]

In fact I take it back what I said about veganism not being a diet.

Do you want to change the definition of veganism, and give 'vegan' a new and different definition than it has had for 60 years? Or do you think that there are dietary reasons that vegans don't want to use fur?

And btw, eating eggs doesn't become more OK because some people eat bananas that has travelled half way around the world, does it?

[Korn]

My point was, Korn... that a banana is more environmentally damaging, causes far more misery and suffering and more deaths due to pesticides, land clearing and other intensive farming methods.

Wearing cotton from India, buying TVs from Japan and iPods from USA all causes pollution, but that doesn't change my views on eggs, honey, meat or milk. If you want to compare two situations in a discussion about eggs, it's a lot more relevant to compare eating eggs with not eating eggs, than eating eggs vs. eating bananas.

Why is anybody a vegan... is it the spirit or mere definition?

Hmm... I'd say if it's interesting for someone to find out if they can be defined as 'vegan' or not, knowing the definition of vegan is is a good start. If you don't know the definition of vegan, how can you possibly find out if or why you are a vegan? 'The spirit' is of course essential, but if we talk about 'vegan spirit', and have two different definitions of 'vegan', we may not talk about the same spirit, right?

please don't patronise me with answers about fur

I'm not interested in patronizing anyone, but as you know, vegans are and have always been against using fur, leather etc. In other words, they have always been know to consider veganism to be about a lot more than diet. If you want to or try to change this, you actually work against the vegan movement.

You contradict yourself when you write 'I think it should rebranded as simply that', because 'rebranding' suggest that you want to change the definition - and at the same time you write 'I take it back what I said about veganism not being a diet'. If veganism would be a diet, rebranding wouldn't be necessary, would it?

You know veganism is about more than what people eat (it's also about avoiding fur, leather etc) - but you seem to want to change that.

If veganism would be only about diet, what would you then call people who are both against eating animal products AND are against using fur, leather etc (for the same reasons that they don't want to eat meat)?

It's so much easier this way... don't you think?

Circa 60 years after Watson and friends invented the word vegan, lots of people know that vegan is about more than food.

Rebranding/redfining vegan would need both the establishishment of a new, different definition of 'vegan', and also the invention of a new word that describes what Watson and his buddies defined as vegan, and make this new word known - worldwide.

That's not my definition of 'so much easier'.

[Korn]

'Why is it a lot more relevant to compare eggs with not eating eggs.' It's more relevant when the topic is 'eat eggs or not eat eggs'. If you mention to a meat eater the health risks involved in eating meat, they sometimes say 'Well, I think talking in mobile phones is unhealthy'. It probably is, but they use it as an explanation or excuse for doing something else (eating meat) which is bad for their health. In your example, you write that you 'see nothing wrong with having a chicken companion, and , if she allows it, taking her egg. I may not do this myself, but it wouldnt bother me if someone else did.' Hens have been 'trained' during many generations to 'allow' people to 'take their eggs. Wild birds usually never 'allow' humans to take their eggs. Eating eggs is not part of being vegan, an has never been, so when you write that it wouldn't bother you if someone took eggs from a hen (if she 'allows' it), and also that you take it back what you said about veganism not being a diet, it looks to me like you just want to stir up a discussion by arguing against established vegan viewpoints - you even declare that it's 'wrong' to state that eggs are not meant for consumption in a forum basically consisting of people who don't think eggs are 'meant for' consumption...

[abrennan]

Even by quoting the biological you can't absolutely state that "eggs aren't for consumption" You could say "Biologically it's not healthy for us to eat eggs" Which I would happily agree with. But to state it absolutely, is wrong. It's like George Bush telling people he's on a mission from god to rid the world of terrorists.

Listen, I actually love you guys. CC, please accept my apologies if you're upset. And plunder Bunnie, even though you called me a fool (I can add that to the various others i've been called ) my messages were in no means aimed at anyone personally.

Ah you're a funny fellow Cog505.

You don't want me to speak in absolutes but you do this yourself you need a better debating style merely being provocative isn't rounded enough.

It seems that people here must reject "I'm just making a point. Something for people to think about" and " Ironic message[s]" I believe that they would much prefer that you get to the point and then they would discuss that with you.

Anyway back to my point: What I say about eggs not being for human consumption is too absolute but you say that it is "wrong" to state it that way, thats a fairly absolute statement to make.

Anyway, my opininion is that I think both our statements are correct, only that yours is limiting and secondary . Here's why: Eggs existed as a method of REPRODUCTION (which is their purpose) for millions of years before humans came on the scene.

The purpose of an egg is to reproduce and to feed the being they are reproducing until it can get out and feed itself. The purpose of the egg is NOT to be eaten by another being, even though this can occur.

The reason why, as you say: "Biologically it's not healthy for us to eat eggs" is because the creature that became humans spent millenia of developement NOT eating animal products. Hence for humans to eat animal products including eggs interferes with the bodies natural ability to maintain homostasis. This is why the consumption of eggs by humans is unhealthy. Humans eat eggs becasue they can, not because they should.

Anyway it seems that, as you say yourself, you "would happily agree" with me that "it's not healthy for us to eat eggs", for me this pre-supposes that we should not eat them.

Now, in your response you misquote me. I did not say as you quote that "eggs aren't for consumption". Have a look I said that eggs aren't for HUMAN consumption. They are however for consumption by the creature who they grow and develop. They can be consumed by carnivorous creature who would steal them.

None of this has anything to do with George Bush. This is another are in which you need to hone your debating skills. As an aside the Palestinian leader has stated that George said nothing of the sort. It's a poltical and media ploy to make george look bad. I don't think he needs help. For me to say that eggs are not for human consumption is nothing at all like George saying God told him what to do.

Now we come to the crux of our interaction. We have, in your own words, "misunderstood [your ]intention." I agree. I think you mean to say that environmental concerns are vegan concerns. You seem to say that you think that some environmental concerns far outweigh the issue of someone eating an egg from a chicken they have rescued. I want to agree with that, with reservations. My reservation is this. It is no waste to let the egg rot. That is the argument of people who WANT to eat eggs. There is no waste, the egg returns to its component part in the earth. It's not wasted. I hear people using a similar argument. They prepare lots of food and gorge themselves on it and make themeslves feel sick because it would be a waste to leave it.

I think you will find many people here who agree that environmental concerns loom large. But it is a dangerous political game to try and weigh one against the other. They are both important. I think that to be a vegan means that you live in such a way that comprises both these.

To end I think its great that you seek to stimulate a discussion. I applaud you for that. But please do it more directly, you will find that there are many intelligent people posting here who would engage with you in that, it will be to the benefit of us all to observe it and to participate in it.

thanks for joining in, You were in the chatroom last night but left just as I came in. Did you come back to chat

Antonydebater

[John]

You aren't going to get much more out of me on this trifle, but anyhow. . .

Coo505, your goal here seems to be to to put people down--but why?

Suppose I am not even a vegan but in fact a meat eater.

I would still know that a label on eggs calling them vegan does not make them vegan.

I would know that producing eggs takes a toll on a hen's body.

I would know that people exploit chickens in various ways with various levels of cruelty.

I would know that good people exploit chickens.

I would know that vegans certainly don't consider themselves perfect people since the whole premise of their way of life is one of reflection and self-improvement.

I would know these things because vegans made it clear to me that they don't eat eggs.

[foxytina_69]

ill repeat myself. eggs arent meant for human consumption. biologically, we ARENT meant to consume eggs, as you can see plain and simply by the structure of our anatomy. my body, being a human, was not meant to consume eggs. why in the hell would i eat something my body wasnt designed to eat. you wont see a rabbit in the wild take a chickens egg and say oh the chicken doesnt mind. why? because rabbits dont eat eggs. humans dont either. we just chose to. i would rather stick with my biological aspects and that seems to be very clearly herbivore. if you dont like me showing you that you were meant to be a herbivore, then maybe you shouldnt be vegan in the first place.

again, like i said already, if a chicken leaves an egg to rot, it shall rot. that is the way mother nature intended it.

[GloomCookie]

'again, like i said already, if a chicken leaves an egg to rot, it shall rot. that is the way mother nature intended it.'

How blessed the man with plenty.

I really doubt you'd ever find yourself in a situation where eggs were the most viable food source.

[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

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.

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.


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


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


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/b...s/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...&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/char...riation16.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?

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....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.