So I wanted to join the Vegan Society...

[vorpal]

Clickety on the shop and then membership. Hmmm whats this we have here? a drop down menu mmmkay

Available Options:

I am a dietary vegan
I am not a dietary vegan


What the frak am I meant to choose? Do I choose 'I am not a dietary vegan'? because I am NOT a dietary vegan, I am a vegan. There is no option for this. I'm sure they do some lovely things and spread some nice vegan information and love about the place but how could they get something like that so wrong? Just WTF! Man I have nerdrage right now.

I end up not joining because I refuse to identify myself as a dietary vegan, how stupid am I.

[Korn]

I end up not joining because I refuse to identify myself as a dietary vegan, how stupid am I.

You are just as stupid as I am, because i don't want to join something on such premises either.

[petunia]

hmm, that is weird... maybe they literally mean, are you a vegan for just dietary (health for yourself) reasons, or are you are (real) vegan?
weirrrrd...

[Korn]

I think there's more to it than that, based on eg. the fact that there are people in the The Vegan Society that has written and printed pamphlet's defining 'vegan' as something that's about diet only - and stuff like eg. this:

http://www.veganforum.com/forums/sho...7&postcount=32

(We also have this thread: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4512)

[harpy]

I think they mean do you (as a minimum level of quasi-vegan-ness) eat only vegan food, but I agree it's rather a confusing way of asking the question.

Mind you it is quite a difficult thing to get right. I didn't join for years because they had a stronger question (asking IIRC for an assurance that you would never use any animal products or something like that - someone here is sure to remember). Anyway it made me worry that if I signed the Vegan Police would turn up to check we didn't have any leather car seats etc - no, it was more that I felt I couldn't honestly promise whatever it was, and yet it didn't feel right to tick the "no I am not a vegan" box.

[fiamma]

What's IIRC harpy?

Anyway, what a crock - you're either vegan or you're not. Period.

[harpy]

If I Remember Correctly - aging internet person speak like IMHO etc. Loads more here: http://board.alluc.org/viewtopic.php?id=13208

Yes, they could just ask "Are you vegan?" Not sure why they don't. Of course there is room for misinterpretation of "vegan", but that's true of "dietary vegan" as well.

[Korn]

Mind you it is quite a difficult thing to get right.

Not so sure about that one...
They could eg. offer these options:
I live on a vegan diet
I am a vegan
Other


If there's a requirement for either eating food vegan or being a vegan for becoming a member of The Vegan Society (I don't think there is), they would have all the info they needed.

To me this only looks like another 'push' from some fraction inside The Vegan Society who wants The Vegan Society (and maybe even the word vegan) to - in the future - only cover the dietary aspects of being vegan.

The fact that...

• they made a pamphlet describing vegan as something that was about food only, and put a link on their front page to that pamphlet
• they got negative feedback about that, but didn't change anything for months
• an "information consultant" in The Vegan Society starts Vegatopia, describing veganism as "the dietary practice of choosing a diet composed of plant foods"
• one of our members, who have been an active poster on The Vegan Society behalf, later posts a link promoting Vegatopia
• they still seem to promote the use of the word 'dietary vegan', in spite of knowing that they both have supporters and potential members that are against using the word vegan in that context, because it gives the false impression that both 'normal' vegans and what they call "dietary vegans" both are vegas
• I know that there are people out there who would like to convert The Vegan Society to a food-oriented (only) organization

...only seems to suggest that this doesn't happen because it's difficult to get this right, but because someone "has an agenda".

I have nothing against establishing an organization that is 100% focused on the dietary aspects of veganism, but it's just too bad if some people out there are trying to hijack the original Vegan Society and turning it into a "food club".

When they at the same time are promoting 'the other extreme', and promotes pro-ALF literature (Keith Mann is in many minds synonymous with Animal Liberation Front), The Vegan Society has a serious problem.

In my opinion The Vegan Society should focus strictly on what currently and historically falls within the definition of vegan - and nothing else. The definition is simple, and already to be found on their pages: "The Vegan Society was founded in 1944 and seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." This is in direct conflict with the attempts of making veganism (and the society) into something that's only "dietary".

The anti-racist movement, women's lib movement, concern for the planet/environmental... there has been a lot of progress in these areas over the last decades. There's of course progress regarding veganism and vegetarianism as well, but not in the same way. One reason for this is, the way I see it, Vegan Society's wobbly policy regarding a few things. Also, vegans haven't in general been good enough at killing old myths about the nutritional aspect of eating plant based food... not only that, but some important, vegan-friendly organizations (eg. The Vegan Society) aren't only failing at killing old myths, but actively participating in promoting these myths.

It's all fine and dandy if some enthusiasts in eg. The Vegan Society would have been vegans whether living on a vegan diet as such would need supplementing with B12, but almost everybody else - including a lot of vegetarians - need more information in order to let go of the old 'living on vegan food can't be natural, because - unlike most other people - vegans need B12 pills'-myth.

There's extremely little research about the ratio between active, bio-available B12 and so called B12 analogues in the many plants (and water, soil etc) discussed in our B12 forums. In spite of practically no research on the real ratios between active/inactive B12 on the hundreds of thousands of plants out there, The Vegan Society still claims to know what this ratio is, and firmly claims that the only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12.

They don't say that "there may be reliable vegan sources of B12, we just don't know yet", or that "there are probably lots of useful B12 sources in nature, but due to our B12 unfriendly lifestyle and the condition our planet is in, vegans (and non-vegans) may need to supplement with B12".

Until all these things change, I'll stay away from The Vegan Society, and encourage everybody else to to the same. In essence, they want people who may or may not support with ALF to become members (many of them will most likely not agree promoting pro-ALF events and literature needs to be part of The Vegan Society's role).

Some central people who work for The Vegan Society also seem to want the Society to become a "food club" (so much for embracing the views of their members who are active animal rights activists). Since they have just gotten it wrong with their info about B12, homocysteine etc., they simple need some external pressure to see the need to improve.

Sorry for the long post - I just think it's too bad that The Vegan Society still is taking this route, a route which could (and should) result in continued lack of membership growth.

Does anyone know how many members they currently have?

[fiamma]

I don't see the problem, quite honestly.
The Vegan Society = Society of Vegans.
So only those who are vegan should become members.

I guess they want peoples' money while covering their own consciences.

[fiamma]

Of course there is room for misinterpretation of "vegan", but that's true of "dietary vegan" as well.

What misinterpretation can there be?

[Frank]

Clickety on the shop and then membership. Hmmm whats this we have here? a drop down menu mmmkay

Available Options:

I am a dietary vegan
I am not a dietary vegan


What the frak am I meant to choose? Do I choose 'I am not a dietary vegan'? because I am NOT a dietary vegan, I am a vegan. There is no option for this. I'm sure they do some lovely things and spread some nice vegan information and love about the place but how could they get something like that so wrong? Just WTF! Man I have nerdrage right now.

I end up not joining because I refuse to identify myself as a dietary vegan, how stupid am I.

Why not raise your concern with the organisation and post their responses? That should give a good base for further discussion.

[vegcurry]

I wander if it's 'cos you can join as an associate member (not vegan as yet) rather than a full one (vegan) and so that clause would cover it???

[Frank]

they simple need some external pressure to see the need to improve.

That is why it is important to lodge feedback with them.

Does anyone know how many members they currently have?

I believe it has stayed at a steady 4,500 members for a while.

I will be corrected on that by anyone from that organisation.

[Korn]

Why not raise your concern with the organisation and post their responses? That should give a good base for further discussion.

Well, I don't even live in UK; and secondly - I know that they know that I've had these issues with their policy for a while. As you may know, we hosted some internal, 'hidden' subforum for Vegan Society members only a couple of times (for pre-AGM meetings), and several people active in the society visits this site regularly.

[Khashoggi]

I wander if it's 'cos you can join as an associate member (not vegan as yet) rather than a full one (vegan) and so that clause would cover it???

Spot on!

I don't think it's fair to accuse the Vegan Society of being money-grabbers -- they're catering for folks who perhaps choose not to or are unable to become a full vegan, but still wish to support the work of the Vegan Society. Which, incidentally, is a charity primarily dedicated to vegan outreach -- unlike any of the other major "animal rights" organisations in the UK. It makes sense for them to allow non-vegans to join as members, as a large part of the society's work is about reaching non-vegans -- but, for obvious reasons, non-vegans aren't allowed to vote at the AGM, hence the question.

Anyone who is a vegan is also a dietary vegan, so I don't see why the wording should stop folks signing up -- as Harpy described, stronger wording can also be really offputting. I think a society trying to please the majority of 4500 members is never going to get it quite right in any individual vegan's eyes.

That said, I do agree that the wording is dodgy. As Frank said, I'm sure the Society would welcome constructive feedback on the matter. I'd be interested to hear their official response, too -- but we won't change anything just by bitching on the internet.

Korn: I don't see what not living in the UK has to do with it? The Society has plenty of overseas members.

[Korn]

Anyone who is a vegan is also a dietary vegan

THey are not - according to themselves - if they don't even agree that there's such a thing as a dietary vegan.

If non-vegans who eat vegan can vote on AGMs, it could be only a question of time before The Vegan Society no longer is a vegan society, but a Vegan Food Society, or a "Total Vegetarian Society".

Since I disagree both in the way the present the vegan/B12 topic, their flirting with converting 'vegan' into something that's about food only, and their policy re. promoting pro-ALF events and literature, I simply feel that their viewpoints and my own are too far apart for a useful communication about these issues to happen.

If there aren't enough people inside Vegan Society sharing these viewpoints, I have no interest in trying to change Vegan Society on behalf of my own viewpoints anyway. And: if there are a reasonable numbers of members of the Vegan Society that share my viewpoints, why would I spend time on raising my concern with the society... other, existing members can do it on heir own behalf!

I've probably spent thousands of hours on running this forum, and I simply don't have time to contact the Vegan Society as some sort of 'lobbyist' for a new policy.

[Prawnil]

"I am a vegan (as originally defined -link to definition).
I am a dietary vegan.
I am not a vegan, yet."

Would it really have been that much extra work?
Some number of people are going to be put off by wording that's quite reknowned for irritating some vegans. Adding a single extra option for clarity isn't going to put off the people-choosing-not-to-be-vegan-supporting-the-Vegan-Society (...the who?), is it?
Even "I am a vegan / I am not a vegan" would have made far more sense. Why 'dietary-', if they were trying to keep it simple? The more I think about it, the less sense it makes.

[cobweb]

I think they need to change those membership terms most definitely.
Why include 'dietary vegan' atall as there's no such thing?.

[vegcurry]

I think they need to change those membership terms most definitely.
Why include 'dietary vegan' atall as there's no such thing?.

As some people - such as caterers who supply vegan food - may not be vegan themselves but are happy to join the society for the information it provides etc ??

[cobweb]

As some people - such as caterers who supply vegan food - may not be vegan themselves but are happy to join the society for the information it provides etc ??

but wouldn't they choose the 'not a vegan' option of being an associate member

[vegcurry]

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But maybe a caterer would use vegan items in their business, and thus be non-dietary vegan ???

[cobweb]

That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

But maybe a caterer would use vegan items in their business, and thus be non-dietary vegan ???

erm now this is getting too confusing
are there non-dietary vegans who just wear ethical shoes and use ethical products but eat animal parts?

[fiamma]

Why include 'dietary vegan' atall as there's no such thing?.

Exactly - well put Cobweb!

[Korn]

As some people - such as caterers who supply vegan food - may not be vegan themselves but are happy to join the society for the information it provides etc ??

That's fine, but instead of using the term 'dietary vegan', they could select a different wording that doesn't somehow back up the idea that some vegans are full vegans, some or only 'dietary vegans', but both of these groups are some sort of vegans.

By using the very term 'dietary vegan' one somehow suggests that people who use animal products, but eat vegan food also are vegans, a little bit like "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat chicken'. Vegetarians don't eat chicken, and vegans don't use eg. fur or leather, so using the word 'vegan' in one way or the other to describe someone who deliberately use animal products such as leather or fur is and will always be wrong. These people aren't a side-branch of vegans, they are vegetarians.


This is very simple: they can just use the same three options as we use in our registering process:
I am a vegan
I am eating only vegan food, but I'm not a vegan
I am not a vegan (yet)

I think it would be fine that non-vegans can support The Vegan Society with a special membership that doesn't allow them to vote at the AGM, but unfortunately doesn't seem to be what they do. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to allow non-vegans (eg. people who for one reason or another only eat plant food, but who may use other animal products every day) to vote.

If this is correct, more and more non-vegans (who eat vegan food, maybe due to an allergy or for health reasons) will join the society - and most likely be able to change the society's policy regarding how the word 'vegan' is used.

As I've mentioned already, there have been several occasions in the society lately of the word 'vegan' being used as something that only is about food.

If they promote 'vegan' as something that is a dietary thing only, they will of course get new members who assume that being vegan is about food only. In some years, they may have an AGM where the majority of their members will vote for The Vegan Society coming up with some official statement about what the definition of vegan is; a definition very similar to the attempts we already have seen in their pamphlet and in the site (vegatopia) set up by their information manager, Matthew Cole: "the dietary practice of choosing a diet composed of plant foods", promoted on this site by another person working for Vegan Society, who first promoted the pamphlet they made with a wrong definition of vegan, and later promoted Vegatopia.

This is the beginning of the first, real attempt of hijacking the definition of vegan.

And: It's happening from within the Vegan Society.

[Frank]

What is everyone’s personal opinion of what a vegan is?

[Korn]

What is everyone’s personal opinion of what a vegan is?

Please use an existing thread for that discussion...

http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=761
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16974
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11374
http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4513

Shamelessly quoting myself from one of these threads:

The next step from that would be to suggest to forgetting about the term vegan, because 'labels/definitions don't matter'. The thing is: they do. If we would have different interpretations of words like 'label', 'define', 'suffer' or 'vegan', this post would be interpreted in hundreds of different ways. We wouldn't understand each other.

If we shall communicate with words, they should be as accurate as possible (unless, of course, we're talking about art/poetry, where many artists encourage individual/different interpretations of their work).


The definition of vegan isn't vague. When the word was invented, and the first meetings in The Vegan Society were held, they had long discussions about what 'vegan' should cover and what it should not. Using honey, for example, was defined as not vegan.

They weren't leaving it up to each and everyone to make their own version of vegan, which does or does not include that honey, and they didn't declare that the term 'vegan' could be used about people who were eating meat from some (eg. wild, hunted) animals, but not about people who are meat from 'factory animals'.

So there IS an original definition/meaning of vegan - it's also the most commonly used definition, and that's the one we stick to.

[Frank]

By using the very term 'dietary vegan' one somehow suggests that people who use animal products, but eat vegan food also are vegans, a little bit like "I'm a vegetarian, but I eat chicken'. Vegetarians don't eat chicken, and vegans don't use eg. fur or leather, so using the word 'vegan' in one way or the other to describe someone who deliberately use animal products such as leather or fur is and will always be wrong. These people aren't a side-branch of vegans, they are vegetarians.

So those vegan women I know that wilfully take the pill which contains lactose - are now actually vegetarians? That will go down well.

Some vegans I know take medicine that contains animal ingredients. I guess they are not even vegetarians now?

What about a vegan that has leather furniture. Others that have belts, shoes, clothing. Are they no longer vegan?

All of the above cases would at least make the statement that they have a vegan diet. They might even say that they are a dietary vegan...

The fact is you can easily isolate certain groups of people by making them state they they are a certain category - that works for both arguments on this thread.

[Frank]

Please use an existing thread for that discussion...

Ah - okay - but felt it was worth raising in this thread as it would have been interesting to add that into the discussion.

People are stating what they think a vegan is etc - therefore why not qualify what they think a vegan is?

[Korn]

Again, please use one of the already existing threads if you want a discussion about the definition of vegan (which as we know, already contains the part about 'as far as practical and possible'). There are also several threads about using old, non-vegan stuff etc., about trying so hard to be 100% vegan that one gives up etc. If someone thinks it's OK to invest in new products (like a leather sofa) when there are other options, one definitely doesn't fall into the category described by The Vegan Society:

"The Vegan Society was founded in 1944 and seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

[Korn]

Using old leather and other non-vegan products
Does taking non-vegan medicine make me a hypocrite?
New vegan - what to do with non-vegan food?

People are stating what they think a vegan is etc - therefore why not qualify what they think a vegan is?

The word vegan already has a definition, and unless one has an agenda about changing that definition, discussing what people 'think' vegan is is just as valuable as discussing what a banana is. If enough people think that what we know as a cat actually is a dog, and what we know as a dog actually is a cat, we can always swap the two meanings, but that would make no sense at all.

[Khashoggi]

THey are not - according to themselves - if they don't even agree that there's such a thing as a dietary vegan.

I don't see how anyone can deny that there's a vegan diet; it follows that people adhering to such a diet would be "dietary vegans".

If non-vegans who eat vegan can vote on AGMs, it could be only a question of time before The Vegan Society no longer is a vegan society, but a Vegan Food Society, or a "Total Vegetarian Society".

Er... qualify this? How?

Since I disagree both in the way the present the vegan/B12 topic, their flirting with converting 'vegan' into something that's about food only, and their policy re. promoting pro-ALF events and literature, I simply feel that their viewpoints and my own are too far apart for a useful communication about these issues to happen.

Or maybe you don't want to hear their reasons and prefer to exert your authority as an elite vegan somewhere you know you won't be reprimanded?

If there aren't enough people inside Vegan Society sharing these viewpoints, I have no interest in trying to change Vegan Society on behalf of my own viewpoints anyway. And: if there are a reasonable numbers of members of the Vegan Society that share my viewpoints, why would I spend time on raising my concern with the society... other, existing members can do it on heir own behalf!

I've probably spent thousands of hours on running this forum,

Great. Give yourself a round of applause.

and I simply don't have time to contact the Vegan Society as some sort of 'lobbyist' for a new policy.

So... you have the time to participate in extensive internet bitchery, but not to actually write a 1 or 2-line message to the Vegan Society? Uh-huh. If it's important enough for you to be badmouthing them about it on the internet, it's important enough for you to email them. Or perhaps you just like feeling you're morally superior to other vegans.

This is the beginning of the first, real attempt of hijacking the definition of vegan.

And: It's happening from within the Vegan Society.

On the other hand, this kind of hyperbolic twaddle would suggest that you just like the idea of a good vegan conspiracy theory.

Either way, I guess if the Vegan Society actually did take action off the back of complaints made by yourself, I suppose you'd no longer have reason to slander them -- and having seen the pleasure it brings you doing so, I can understand why you wouldn't want that to happen!

[Korn]

I don't see how anyone can deny that there's a vegan diet; it follows that people adhering to such a diet would be "dietary vegans".

And people who eat Italian food are dietary Italians?

Or maybe you don't want to hear their reasons and prefer to exert your authority as an elite vegan somewhere you know you won't be reprimanded?

"Reprimanded"... where did that come from?

We have lots of people from the Vegan Society on this forum, and since this is a forum, and not just a static site where people post their viewpoints, these people working for The Vegan Society can of course post their reasons. One of the last times I spoke with someone from The Vegan Society about these matters, and asked why they didn't have a forum where such things could be discussed, I was told that they weren't interested in spending energy on that. The explanation I heard was that they rather wanted to 'spread the word' than discussing things (not using these words), and my response to that figuring out what words to spread, and using which methods, seemed to be an important thing to do.

Great. Give yourself a round of applause.

Uh-huh. If it's important enough for you to be badmouthing them about it on the internet, it's important enough for you to email them. Or perhaps you just like feeling you're morally superior to other vegans.

I guess if the Vegan Society actually did take action off the back of complaints made by yourself, I suppose you'd no longer have reason to slander them -- and having seen the pleasure it brings you doing so, I can understand why you wouldn't want that to happen!

I'm not interested in following a 'discussion' of that kind, sorry. We have a rule at this board saying "If you disagree with someone, focus on viewpoints, not on persons"...

FYI, I've already discussed several of these things with people who work for the society, talked with them on the phone several times, exchanged PMs with the Vegan Society person who have been promoting vegatopia.org etc. I'm way beyond "a 1 or 2-line message", and I truly think that in order to change anything, one must communicate with 'most people', not only with leaders/with whosoever it is that receives emails eg. at The Vegan Society.


You seem to think that what I write is bitching or badmouthing (as opposed to simple have different viewpoints) - please post some examples, and I'll have a look at it.

[fiamma]

I don't see how anyone can deny that there's a vegan diet; it follows that people adhering to such a diet would be "dietary vegans".

No, it suggests that people folllow a vegan diet, but choose to wear leather, wool, etc.

Great. Give yourself a round of applause.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to write such an angry response; Korn has literally put thousands of hours into running this site and making it into the brilliant site it is. What's more, as forum member, he is free to express his views, as you are. A little respect wouldn't go astray.

[leedsveg]

I'm not sure why you feel the need to write such an angry response; Korn has literally put thousands of hours into running this site and making it into the brilliant site it is. What's more, as forum member, he is free to express his views, as you are. A little respect wouldn't go astray.

Hi fiamma

I don't always agree with what Korn says but I have to applaud the time and thought he puts into this forum. Looking at some of the harsh comments he gets, he must sometimes wonder if it's worth it.

leedsveg

[Lisey_duck]

As I remember it (my ex worked there so I got a few insights), the 'dietary vegan' thing was the baseline for either getting a job there, volunteering or being a full member. The idea was that people whose veganism was currently limited to diet would be able to become involved and learn more about other aspects of veganism. And of course vegetarians could be associate members and learn about veganism full stop!