I'm not really vegan

[funkyvixen]

(Edit: This thread is based on posts from the thread 'Why are u vegan?' in another subforum.)


Well, I'm not really vegan (as I'll eat eggs when I know where they've come from and I'm happy with it, I'm really a dairy-free(whenever possible) vegetarian, so slight difference).

Anyway, my initial reason for not eating meat (when I was 9, bless) was that I bottle fed a lamb, then went home to lamb for dinner. 12 years later, I never ate meat again. BUT now, I have a much more mature and educated view on it. I'm a vet student, so have spent a lot of time working with food production animals. I know first hand how these animals are treated, and to be honest, some production methods are absolutely fine from a welfare point of view - lamb for instance. Others are not - indoor-reared pig and broiler chicked for example. But at the end of the day, I just can't bring myself to eat meat now, and just plain don't want to, whether I think its welfare-friendly or not.
I gave up dairy for health reasons (trying to lose weight, I ate waaaaaaay too much cheese) plus dairy cattle welfare is pretty poor to be honest.

I don't object to eating meat or dairy on a philosophical basis, and I don't in any way wish to convert others - each to their own. I would encourage others to buy meat with good welfare standards, and I do educate my family & friends accordingly, but I would never criticise them for eating meat.

A lot of people have said they are vegan "for the animals" - what exactly do you mean by that? You object to eating meat/dairy on a philosophical basis? You object to welfare standards? "For the animals" seems pretty vague to me, not really a well-explained reason!

fv x

[eve]

I think that being vegan 'for the animals' simply means that the person has a strong objection to eating a product, or wearing clothes, etc from the killing industry. It doesn't seem vague at all to me.

Encouraging friends/family to buy meat with good welfare standards, is not my scene, but as they are mostly meat-eaters, we don't discuss the subject (used to and they know my views), neither do I criticise them for their choices. In other words, I don't attempt to educate family & friends as you do, and from my experience, it's a waste of breath. I just do my own thing.

[foxytina_69]

Encouraging friends/family to buy meat with good welfare standards, is not my scene, but as they are mostly meat-eaters, we don't discuss the subject (used to and they know my views), neither do I criticise them for their choices. In other words, I don't attempt to educate family & friends as you do, and from my experience, it's a waste of breath. I just do my own thing.

i agree

[Roxy]

For me, being vegan "for the animals" means not supporting industries involved in the exploitation of animals for food, clothing or anything else. I hope that one day, if enough of us support this ideal, that animals will be liberated and freed from their slavery!

Roxy

[TheFirstBus]

Well, I'm not really vegan (as I'll eat eggs when I know where they've come from and I'm happy with it, I'm really a dairy-free(whenever possible) vegetarian, so slight difference).

Anyway, my initial reason for not eating meat (when I was 9, bless) was that I bottle fed a lamb, then went home to lamb for dinner. 12 years later, I never ate meat again. BUT now, I have a much more mature and educated view on it. I'm a vet student, so have spent a lot of time working with food production animals. I know first hand how these animals are treated, and to be honest, some production methods are absolutely fine from a welfare point of view - lamb for instance. Others are not - indoor-reared pig and broiler chicked for example. But at the end of the day, I just can't bring myself to eat meat now, and just plain don't want to, whether I think its welfare-friendly or not.
I gave up dairy for health reasons (trying to lose weight, I ate waaaaaaay too much cheese) plus dairy cattle welfare is pretty poor to be honest.

I don't object to eating meat or dairy on a philosophical basis, and I don't in any way wish to convert others - each to their own. I would encourage others to buy meat with good welfare standards, and I do educate my family & friends accordingly, but I would never criticise them for eating meat.

A lot of people have said they are vegan "for the animals" - what exactly do you mean by that? You object to eating meat/dairy on a philosophical basis? You object to welfare standards? "For the animals" seems pretty vague to me, not really a well-explained reason!

fv x

well I think it would apply to the mass industry standerds which are low and animals aren't having fun. Besides as far as I know humans are the only species that consumes the milk from another animal...

[funkyvixen]

Oh, very mature guys, to take a post of mine from another thread and in attempt to make me sound bad or something. This was posted in a very long "why are you vegan" thread yesteday.

*sigh*

Or at least it meant to be - and I still think it was, if I'd accidently posted it as a new post then the title would be a longer version of the first line of the post. Would also be weird that all the replies happen later last night after someone obviously disliked my point of view.

Theres a PM function you know, if you have a problem you'd like to discuss, feel free. But please don't stoop to cheap stunts!

fv x

[Korn]

Oh, very mature guys, to take a post of mine from another thread and in attempt to make me sound bad or something. This was posted in a very long "why are you vegan" thread yesteday.

Since you, in that thread state that you are not vegan and go on explaining why, I think your post belongs to a thread about why you're not being vegan. Consider The Vegan Forum a 'sanctuary' for vegans, where they finally can have a place where they don't need to defend their ideas or end up in eternal discussion with people who clain that it's OK to kill animals. Many of us have had enough of that already!

In the initial post is THIS topic, I explained that the post were moved, so nobody is trying to make someone sound bad here. Please feel free to suggest another title for this thread if you like. There are some boards out there, like veggieboards.com, where veggies in all flavours get together and fight about who is right and who is wrong regarding a lot of things. TVF is for people who are pro veganism, who are against killing or harming animals. This includes people who do not consider them 100% vegans, but who at least agree in the vegan way of looking of things.

People are also welcome here if they are not into veganism as such, ie. if they just need some advice, as long as they're not here to promote things like 'eating chicken is a natural part of being vegetarian' or try to reduce veganism into something which it has never been. I'm sorry if you don't like the ideas this forum is built upon, all we can say is that it is a forum for people who do agree in these terms and see a need for such a forum.

The reason I didn't only PM about this, is that this is a good way to make it even more clear for newcomers to our message board what this site is about.

When you write "I would encourage others to buy meat with good welfare standards" or "I do think [...] that veganism is primarily a diet choice" you seem to have come to the wrong place.

[julieruble]

Okay, I'm going to take this in another direction, because the poster seems pretty vegan to me in that she cares about animal welfare enough to stop supporting the industries that are cruel. Some not-100%-vegans here DO support the industries but have the right mindset, while this poster does NOT support the industries, and she gets thrown in the not a vegan folder? I don't know, seems weird. Also, I don't think she was saying she'd encourage anyone to eat meat, I think she was saying IF they were GOING to eat meat, she'd encourage them to get meat where the animals were treated well. Anyhow, onto my getting-the-post-off-topic question (one that really DOES belong in the not-a-vegan forum, and one where I'm just interested in hearing thoughts from the diverse group of vegans on the board):

We mentioned in other threads that according to Korn and some folks here, vegan is changing diet and lifestyle for a certain purpose--that purpose being to not harm animals and not support the industries that do.

So, this was my first question upon coming to this board... what's wrong with eggs? If they're produced by a negative industry, fine, they cause animals discomfort. But what's wrong with going to buy eggs from a person who just owns a few chickens? The chickens certainly don't need them if they aren't fertilized, and it's not as if they're forced to lay them -- they do regardless. Someone on the other board replied that "chickens aren't our egg-laying slaves" but that seems like pointless rhetoric -- small chicken-owners aren't keeping them as slaves, and would you rather them just free their chickens? I'm pretty sure the chickens would rather stay where they get fed and cared for, as opposed to wandering around in the woods somewhere.

Now, to clarify, I'm not saying you SHOULD or that any of you would WANT to eat eggs. But I'm asking, for a person like this who finds a way to eat eggs without supporting an industry that hurts chickens -- and so, is still protecting animal welfare -- is that okay? What's your opinion?

[veganmike]

"[V]eganism is the one truly abolitionist goal that we can all achieve – and we can achieve it immediately, starting with our next meal. It is simply inconsistent to maintain that you accept an animal rights position but that you are not a vegan." - prof. Gary Francione

The question is not why I refuse to eat eggs or why anyone who is serious about animal liberation should not eat eggs. The question that should be asked is WHY ANYONE EATS EGGS AT ALL? There are two possible answers at best that you'll probably get:

A. They taste good.
B. They are nutritious.

Wow, I'll be damned, what a fabulous philosophical and scientific justification for eating eggs! Why do vegans always have to give ten millions philosophical and scientific arguments as to why they don't eat eggs, while people who want eat them all they have to do is to say "I like the taste of scrambled eggs". I mean, who is being irrational here?

I consider myself to be an animal rights advocate. My goal is animal liberation. Not "more humane" agriculture. Not "animal welfare". Not "free-range" whatever. Animal liberation means that we stop interfere in any shape or form with animals' lives as much as it's possible. In practice it means abolition of animal agriculture. Not reform, but abolition. The only way to achieve this is to adopt a lifestyle which dispenses with all animal products. Virtually all domesticated and farm animals are ENGINEERED species created through human intervention. They are not able to survive, procreate and feed on their own and as such they should be allowed to die out (not of hunger or by killing them of course). By allowing anyone to "own" and "humanely raise" chickens, you allow animal agriculture to continue. To quote prof. Francione: "If we are serious about animal rights, we have a responsibility to stop bringing them into existence for our purposes. We would stop bringing all domestic animals into existence for human purposes".

Whenever you allow any kind of animal use, even if it is eating eggs from "free-range" chickens, you're on a slipper slope. By accepting that eating "free range" eggs is OK, you have to accept that drinking "free-range milk" is OK, too. Then you of course have, "free range" wool and, finally, "free range" meat. Accepting "free-range"/"more humane" you are setting a precedent for further animal use and whenever there is animal use, there is animal abuse. So in order to prevent any kind of abuse, you have to abjure the use.

Are the damn eggs really so hard to avoid and that tasty that so many people will do anything to get the "free-range" option? Prof. Stanley Sapon once said that "if veganism has a prime value, it is simply that life-respecting compassion overrides individual issues of custom, convenience, comfort or cuisine". I know it's hard to get rid of the deeply imbedded speciesism, but we have to try. It's not about whether we should eat eggs or not. This is not the problem. It goes deeper and touches our relations with animals as such. If we allow farming of any kind to continue (be it factory farming or "free-range"), there'll be no chance of changing the moral and legal status of animals. If anyone thinks we can or should use animals in a "humane" fashion, that's just speciesism in disguise. Either we acknowledge the fact that we should leave them alone so they can live their own lives or there is no hope for animals.

[globesetter]

Although my education and experience in the Animal Liberation movement isn´t much, and I haven´t had much experience debating the issue of veganism, I can say that on an instinctive level, using animals to serve our desires is the wrong way to live. i have trouble now understanding how anyone who has had a relationship with an animal could think otherwise.

If I imagine for a minute that I had never heard of eating eggs, and at some point I had chickens hanging out and nesting in my yard, I doubt it would ever cross my mind to eat their eggs. It seems to me the eggs belong to the chicken and I would be stealing them. I think even if I were starving, I would be more inclined to try eating grass or flowers.

I used to have canaries ( rescued from the street!) . The girl laid some eggs, but they weren´t fertile. When you are sure the eggs are not fertile, you have to take them out of the nest or the bird will sit in the nest indefinitely, and could starve to death. However, you should take the eggs away one at a time, or the bird could have a shock, get depressed and stop eating ( I learned all this from professional canary breeders). I felt very guilty and sad when I started taking the eggs away from her, and I kept them around a few days, because I couldn´t bear to just throw them away.

I wasn´t vegan, I had never even heard of veganism and I knew nothing about the animal rights movement or factory farming.

The only reason we think about eating eggs is because we have been taught to do so.

I also don´t have a problem with Korn moving the post - the thread was `why are you vegan` - someone who eats eggs isn´t vegan. I go to a thread like `why are you vegan`to read about other people like me, and find out if I have anything in common with them. I can talk to vegetarians all day long and hear their reasons for it - there are not many places I can go to talk only to vegans.


regards,
globesetter

[julieruble]

If anyone thinks we can or should use animals in a "humane" fashion, that's just speciesism in disguise. Either we acknowledge the fact that we should leave them alone so they can live their own lives or there is no hope for animals.

What are the effects on the ecosystem when domesticated animals (some of which seem to exist in few other situations) die out?

I gotcha on the slippery slope, although I do think you can draw a line between free-range eggs and free-range dairy/meat -- the line being that you have to inseminate ("harm") to get the dairy, or kill to get the meat. But your ideas are consistent with your goal, so.

[Admin]

What are the effects on the ecosystem when domesticated animals (some of which seem to exist in few other situations) die out?.

If you know, why not share your knowledge with us? What kind of solution would you suggest a solution to this "problem"?

[veganmike]

What are the effects on the ecosystem when domesticated animals (some of which seem to exist in few other situations) die out?

I gotcha on the slippery slope, although I do think you can draw a line between free-range eggs and free-range dairy/meat -- the line being that you have to inseminate ("harm") to get the dairy, or kill to get the meat. But your ideas are consistent with your goal, so.

Julie, I can only guess what would be the effects on the ecosystem if domesticated animals died out. Of course I don't mean they would die out in one day. Ideally they should be provided shelter and food until the end of they days and be allowed to die of natural causes. This means that dying out of domesticated animals would take many years as some animals have longer life-span than others. Their bodies should be dealt with in a way that would pose as little environmental impact as possible.

Farm animals are engineered species and play no role in ecosystems. They were brought to existence solely for human use.

If we got rid of animal agriculture, I think it'd safe to say that the environment would only benefit.

About drawing the line... Yes, you are right, we can draw the line, but as you can see everyone wants to draw it in different place depending on their own situation. I think that my point of view is a non-speciest one and therefore objective.

Things you've mentioned (chickens not being artificially inseminated or killed for their meat) may have an impact on animal welfare, but as I stated earlier my position is that of abolitionism. Raising chickens will always be associated with some form of human interference with chickens' lives, maybe minor one, but nevertheless.

Julie, I have utmost respect for your person, you know that. But I feel like you are trying to get me to admit that "theoretically, from a vegan perspective, there's nothing wrong with eating an egg in some situations if certain criteria are met". Well, OK, I could say that. But at the same time I know that our speciesist nature is very dangerous and every precedent of accepted animal use may pave a way to animal abuse. It's just our selfish nature. Everyday I face situations where I could use other people for my benefit... They wouldn't even know about it or get hurt from it. But I resist the temptation, because I know that if today I'm going to make this happen with "little innocent" things, tomorrow I might find myself doing other more harmful ways. It's always better to prevent than to cure. Especially with animals, because it's their lives and well-being that are at stake here, not ours.

[harpy]

Although I avoid using animal products myself and have done so for 10 years, I think there is a big difference (from the animals' perspective) between the best and worst in farming methods. So when people are bent on consuming animal products I try (if they seem at all open to it) to let them know about this difference in the hope that they will begin to choose the better ones. Quite a lot of people do alter their buying habits (somewhat) after these discussions. I am also in favour of organisations like Compassion in World Farming (www.ciwf.org.uk) many of whose activists are also vegans or avoiders of animal products themselves incidentally.

If this makes me not a vegan, frankly I'm not that bothered. To me it's more important to do something that benefits animals, and I believe this does benefit them, though others will disagree.

[gertvegan]

julieruble wrote

But what's wrong with going to buy eggs from a person who just owns a few chickens?

I think as mentioned above, the emphasis should be on the own . Chicken is a pig is a cow is a...... Who are we to say we own an animal and can do what we wish with it. Chicken periods, I think I'll pass.

I to support Korn moving the post, nothing against funkyvixen.

[julieruble]

This...

Farm animals are engineered species and play no role in ecosystems. They were brought to existence solely for human use

...sounds like a good point. I'd have to look more into it. They do play a role in ecosystems, but with no real predator/prey relations going on (since we can obviously adapt our diet to do without), the food chain wouldn't be as catastrophically affected as if, say, all the tigers on the planet died out. Their relationship is contrived.

I have to say, I don't think a lot of people here have thought this through to an end like you have. I think most are focused in the "now" of not harming animals and think animals shouldn't be used for food/products of course, but it seems like you've put more thought into the eventual goal. Are there any options other than letting domesticated farm animals die out? I guess keeping them and treating them nicely but...that does seem impractical if you aren't eating them.

BTW, Admin, I asked what the effects would be if the domesticated animals died out because I wanted his opinions on the effects -- so "If you know, why not share your knowledge with us?" wasn't the case. I do know what sorts of things happen when a species dies out, but this is a different ballgame.

Julie, I have utmost respect for your person, you know that. But I feel like you are trying to get me to admit that "theoretically, from a vegan perspective, there's nothing wrong with eating an egg in some situations if certain criteria are met".

Well, maybe not "trying to get you to admit," but trying to get either a "yes, it's okay to eat an egg" or "no, because...." Your "no, because" answer is fine, and I understand. But... I'd like to hear more about what relationship between humans and animals wouldn't be speciesist. When the domesticated animals die out, what should the relationship look like? What rights should animals be given, in your opinion?

[ConsciousCuisine]

Why not eat eggs?

They are not vegetarian.

Eggs are unfit for human -health building-consumption, even if they come from a "happy" chicken.

One Large Egg has 70% of the advised USDA of Cholesterol (213 mg).

Animal protein is difficult for your body to digest, puts undue stress on your kidneys and other organs and leads to uric acid deposits in the body.

In Jewish traditions, eggs are considered to be fleishig (status of meat).

In Hindu and traditional Indian cultures it is considered flesh as well.

Eggs essentially are the discharged ovum of the chicken that did or did not get fertilized. So, laying an egg is like the chicken's menstrual period, discharged waste matter that incidentally contains building blocks needed to make flesh.

Fertilized eggs are baby chickens that would still be baby chickens had you not eaten them, if they had been left with their mother instead.


There are other things to eat, you know...

[julieruble]

You definitely should not eat fertilized eggs.

Also, I know eggs aren't vegetarian -- that's not really the question, though. This is more of a theory question about the idea BEHIND vegetarianism. I.e., if the idea is not harming animals, why does eating an egg produced in a natural way not sync with that idea.

It's just hypothetical. I know there are other things to eat.

[gertvegan]

This is from www.animal-rights.com

What's wrong with free-range eggs?

To get laying hens you must have fertile eggs and half of the eggs will hatch into male chicks. These are killed at once (by gassing, crushing, suffocation, decompression, or drowning), or raised as "table birds" (usually in broiler houses) and slaughtered as soon as they reach an economic weight. So, for every free-range hen scratching around the garden or farm (who, if she were able to bargain, might pay rent with her daily infertile egg), a corresponding male from her batch is enduring life in a broiler house or has already been subjected to slaughter or thrown away to die. Every year in Britain alone, more than 35 million day-old male chicks are killed. They are mainly used for fertilizer or dumped in landfill sites.

The hens are slaughtered as soon as their production drops (usually after two years; their natural life span is 5-7 years). Also, be aware that many sites classified as free-range aren't really free-range; they are just massive barns with access to the outside. Since the food and light are inside, the hens rarely venture outside.

[julieruble]

I need to clarify. I'm not really talking about free range hens, either. In order to address the theory questions I'm getting at, I'm just talking about a farmer who raises chickens. There are plenty of folks who just have a few chickens here and there, and use their eggs for their family and give/sell to a few friends, perhaps. What I'm saying here is this: this takes out the cruelty aspect from what I can see, so now what are you left with to motivate you not to eat the eggs?

By the way, I was very satisfied with veganmike's answer...so I understand one viewpoint. I'm just curious to know if there are any more. Thanks to everyone for their replies so far.

[ConsciousCuisine]

"so now what are you left with to motivate you not to eat the eggs?"

Animal proteins are not intended for human consumption. Animal proteins are not health buuilding. Cholesterol containing foods are unhealthy, as your body manufactures its own cholesterol just fine on its own.

[julieruble]

Animal proteins are not intended for human consumption. Animal proteins are not health building.

How are they not health building? They're complete proteins that we need. You can get them from combining vegetables, but the ones from animals have the same effect. I was also under the impression that if you ate more cholesterol, your body adjusted to produce less. So, while cholesterol-containing foods may be unnecessary, they don't have to be unhealthy, in my opinion.

But, regardless, I understand that you're saying it's more of a health thing for you when it comes down to the point where it's not harming animals anyway, which is understandable.

[ConsciousCuisine]

How are they not health building? They're complete proteins that we need. You can get them from combining vegetables, but the ones from animals have the same effect. I was also under the impression that if you ate more cholesterol, your body adjusted to produce less. So, while cholesterol-containing foods may be unnecessary, they don't have to be unhealthy, in my opinion.

The protein requirement is not really for protein per se, but for
amino acids. We break down all protein we eat into its
constituent amino acids and absorb them that way. That's why
diabetics can't just take insulin orally -- the insulin is a
peptide hormone, and it would be broken down into its amino acid
constituents as it passes through the digestive tract. It doesn't
matter what the source of the amino acid is, beef, egg, or
soybean. We really need to get the 8 essential amino acids from
diet and it doesn't matter where they come from. The often quoted
protein quality has nothing to do with the amino acid quality,
lysine from beans has the same chemical structure as lysine from
eggs.

Many people have been taught that animal proteins are superior to plant proteins because animal proteins have more essential amino acids per gram of protein.

It is true that animal proteins tend to have more essential amino
acids per gram of protein, in general, than plant protein. But so
what? We get too much protein in our diets anyway. A 12 oz
T-bone steak supplies a whopping 70 grams of protein. Pity our
poor kidneys. It's worthwhile to note that excessive amounts of
the sulphur containing amino-acids (methionine and cysteine) have
having adverse health effects. Generally only animal proteins
contain large quantities of this amino acid. Many studies indict
excessive protein intake by linking chronic diseases to excess
protein in the diet. There is also a limit to the amount of
protein we asimilate at any one time. This limit is around 25
grams. Excess protein is broken down and stored as fat. So are
animal proteins at an advantage? Maybe not. What do we get from a
12 oz T-Bone? Fat and probably sick.

What about the protein quality?

The amount of amino acids per gram of protein is called the amino
acid profile. There is an ideal protein that we use as a
reference to determine the "quality" of a protein and a few foods
for comparison.

Essential amino acid patterns of protein (mg/g)

Food TRY THR ISO LEU LYS MET+CYS PHE+TYR VAL

Ideal 11 35 42 70 51 26 73 48

soy 13 49 44 74 61 27 83 46
azuki 10 34 49 84 75 20 83 51
potato 16 36 40 59 60 29 81 56
h-milk 16 48 57 97 70 40 101 53
c-milk 14 45 60 97 79 34 96 66
eggs 16 49 62 87 67 56 97 72
rice 11 44 39 72 39 44 94 61
wheat 12 29 53 78 25 30 101 49
oats 13 35 42 83 45 57 84 61

This table should dispense once and for all the claim that plant
proteins are inferior to animal proteins because they are missing
or lacking some essential amino acids. All plant proteins contain
all essential amino acids in varying amounts. Anyone who says
that we have to eat a amino acid in particular ratios at each meal
doesn't really understand how the body deals with protein. What
we need to do is to replenish our amino acid pool, and the amino
acids do not, repeat, do not have to come from the same protein.
Not even from the same meal. Soy protein can supply the lysine at
lunch, wheat protein can supply the methionine at dinner.
Although we do not have a store of amino acids per se, we do have
an amino acid pool (circulating amino acids in the blood). The
half-life of amino acids in this pool vary, but the life of the
essential amino acids is at least 4 to 6 hours after digestion.
Protein synthesis goes on all the time and the source of amino
acids is the amino acid pool, and not necessarily the proteins you
absorb immediately following a meal. Eating replenishes the amino
acid pool, and there is enough of a supply that you don't have
worry about eating enough of a particular amino acid at each meal.
It all works out over the day. In the Western world, it is quite
difficult to eat a diet that results in a protein deficiency. In
Third World countries, where there are food shortages, protein
deficiency coupled with insufficient calories does occur with some
frequency.


Protein sources

So what are good sources of protein if you decide to eliminate all
animal products from your diet?

While you get protein from just about all the foods you eat,
legumes and grains can supply significant quantities of protein in
the diet. Foods like TVP, tofu, seitan are concentrated sources
of protein. TVP is almost all soy protein, and seitan is
basically almost all wheat protein (gluten). Legumes, in general,
supply large quantities of protein (12 - 15 grams/cup). Nuts and
seeds also supply significant quantities of protein (like almonds
or pumpkin seeds). Grains like quinoa, amaranth, oats, wheat,
spelt are also very good sources of protein. Vegetables like
broccolli and potatoes supply significant amounts of protein. Even
a banana supplies a gram of protein.


Protein excess

What sorts of problems can long term excess consumption of protein
lead to? Doctors like McDougall point out that excess protein in
diet can contribute (not cause) to osteoporosis, for example.

Diets high in animal protein are also high in purines -- this can
lead to gouty arthritis.

Diets high in the sulpher containing amino acids might put people
at greater risk for cardiovascular disease.

Diets high in protein stress the kidneys, because the kidneys have
to get rid of the protein breakdown by-products, which can be very
toxic if left to accumulate.

How much is too much? Some experts feel that anything higher than
double the daily requirement is too high.

Summary?

The protein requirements of humans can be readily met by a vegetarian
diet with no particular effort required to combine proteins or to
carefully select foods for each particular meal.

Sources of info: Nutrition Recommendations: Health and Welfare Canada
Nutritional Biochemistry and Metabolism: M.C. Linder
The McDougall Plan: J.A. McDougall
Review of Medical Physiology: W.F. Ganong
Nutritional data: USDA Handbook #8.

[julieruble]

I wasn't saying "animal proteins are superior to plant proteins" but rather disputing that "animal proteins are not health building." While your reply makes it clear that plant sources are sufficient, which I already knew, it doesn't make it clear that "animal proteins are not health building." So isn't it true, like I said before, that proteins are proteins, as long as you get them "completely," or as you mentioned, with all necessary amino acids?

But I still get your point, CC -- you don't think animal products are healthy ever, so that's what would prevent you from eating an egg where no cruelty was involved.

[ConsciousCuisine]

I wasn't saying "animal proteins are superior to plant proteins" but rather disputing that "animal proteins are not health building." While your reply makes it clear that plant sources are sufficient, which I already knew, it doesn't make it clear that "animal proteins are not health building." So isn't it true, like I said before, that proteins are proteins, as long as you get them "completely," or as you mentioned, with all necessary amino acids?

Plant sources are not only sufficient- they are superior. Non-vegan proteins have no fibre, antioxidants and so on. Vegan soureces of protein do. It's pretty black and white. If there is something that is superior (a better choice) it is simply put a better choice! We are talking about nutrition here, not the ecological, environmental and moral issues. Pure nutrition. I feel I have to repeat what I put in an earlier post and this is the last of what I have to say on the subject:

One Large Egg has 70% of the advised USDA of Cholesterol (213 mg).
*dietary cholesterol is not health building*

Animal protein is difficult for your body to digest, puts undue stress on your kidneys and other organs and leads to uric acid deposits in the body.
*uric acid deposits and stressing your kidneys is not health building*

Eggs essentially are the discharged ovum of the chicken that did or did not get fertilized. So, laying an egg is like the chicken's menstrual period, discharged waste matter that incidentally contains building blocks needed to make flesh.
*waste products discharged from a living thing are not health building*

Excess protein in the diet can contribute (not cause) to osteoporosis.
*leaching calcium from your bones is not health building*

Diets high in animal protein are also high in purines -- this can
lead to gouty arthritis.
*purines are not health building*

Diets high in the sulpher containing amino acids might put people
at greater risk for cardiovascular disease.
*anything that increases your risks for cardiovascular disease is not health building*



How could anything with a profile like this be "health building" ? Anything that does not directly contribute to your health in a positive way is not going to BUILD your health.

[julieruble]

Non-vegan proteins have no fibre, antioxidants and so on. Vegan soureces of protein do. It's pretty black and white. If there is something that is superior (a better choice) it is simply put a better choice! We are talking about nutrition here, not the ecological, environmental and moral issues. Pure nutrition.

Well, that's an entirely different subject. The fiber and antioxidants in the SOURCES of vegetable proteins aren't the proteins themselves, which is what we were talking about. If you start talking about the sources, you're no longer comparing vegetable and animal proteins but rather vegetables and meat, which is a whole other can of worms, so to speak.

Pure nutrition-wise, plant proteins are no better than animal proteins. In fact, a lot of people I know say that animal proteins are superior because they are complete. However, it doesn't bother me to say they're not superior than plant proteins as long as you get all your amino acids. So, all I'm saying is, your original statement "Animal proteins are not health building" doesn't seem true to me.

Animal protein is difficult for your body to digest, puts undue stress on your kidneys and other organs and leads to uric acid deposits in the body.

Excess protein in the diet can contribute (not cause) to osteoporosis.

I thought that was excess protein, period? The only thing indicated that may be unique to animal proteins is the high-in-purine stuff. And also, there's only really evidence of the first point in kidneys that are already damaged.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about animal foods versus vegetables in general healthiness. Just saying that I do think animal proteins can be "health building" the same as any other protein. So, again, just disagreeing with the statement "Animal proteins are not health building."

[Artichoke47]

We don't need animal protein one bit. In fact, animal protein CAUSES health problems.

As for other reasons to not eat an egg that you're looking for, how about the fact that I find an egg stolen from a hen to be absoultely disgusting, with a horrid smell and taste, certainly not meant for human consumption.

We should be asking you, Why in the world would you feel it necessary to take/steal from animals? It's not like the vegan position is flawed; the omnivore position is baseless and idiotic.

[julieruble]

We don't need animal protein one bit.

Agreed, and I never said anything different.

As for other reasons to not eat an egg that you're looking for, how about the fact that I find an egg stolen from a hen to be absoultely disgusting, with a horrid smell and taste, certainly not meant for human consumption.

Okay, that's fine for a personal reason not to eat it...but do you think there's anything wrong with someone eating it if they don't feel like it's disgusting? That's sort of what I'm asking...reasons it'd still be wrong to eat the egg, if there are any.

We should be asking you, Why in the world would you feel it necessary to take/steal from animals?

Um, well, I don't think it's necessary. I'm not arguing any position here. I asked a question. And anyhow, that wouldn't be my position if I WERE arguing one.

It's not like the vegan position is flawed; the omnivore position is baseless and idiotic.

I didn't say it was flawed. I'm just trying to see reasons to discontinue eating/using animal products even when they don't cause harm. Veganmike pretty near said, and I think it's a pretty good answer, that it's a principle and giving a little leads to a "slippery slope." Also, he disagrees with the whole idea of domesticated animals, in which case I think it makes a ton of sense to disagree, in general, with the breeding of chickens in captivity even if they are on a small farm where they're treated great.

Anyhow, just wanted to reiterate that this question has nothing to do with arguing for eating animal products. Just interested in why you'd think it were wrong (and IF you would) in cases where animal cruelty is taken out of the equation.

[julieruble]

Also, as I'm really interested in veganmike's response, I wonder how many of you agree with his thoughts and his "goal" or the eventual end of veganism as he sees it. Any thoughts on that? Anyone think doing away with the practice of keeping domesticated animals for any reason (I assume this would include pets?) is not really the answer?

It's hard to imagine, though, a reason where it's okay to keep domesticated animals but somehow wrong (I mean, not disgusting or undesirable, but wrong) to use their by-products without harming them. So I guess most of you seek the eventual destruction of the system where you keep domesticated animals -- or am I missing another possibility? And if so, where do feelings on pets fit into that?

[gertvegan]

From the manual of animal rights.

In the wild a hen will build herself a nest and lay about 6 eggs in as many days. If any of these are lost she is usually able to replace them, provided she has access to enough food. It is this ability to keep laying that the modern egg farmer exploits but in doing so frustrates one of the hen's most fundamental instincts: to reproduce.

You can replace the "modern egg farmer" with anyone who uses animals.

Alice Walker, author of The Temple of My Familiar, and The Color Purple said

The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men

[mattd]

It's not like the vegan position is flawed; the omnivore position is baseless and idiotic.

i think it's a mistake to think that anything is perfect. veganism isn't flawless. a raw foodist could say the same thing to you. if you eat all raw, you cut down on the amount of waste you create dramatically. but there's flaws in that as well. if you buy your raw foods grom a grocery store the food has to come from somewhere. that means that alot of oil was used to produce your food. and that oil that was used destroys the environment, drains money, and has been the cause of wars for the past two decades. so then maybe the best thing would be to form a vegan commune and grow and cook your own food. but there's a problem with that too. you're completely detaching yourself from the outside world when you could be trying to have a positive impact ont it.

my point is that no path you take is going to be perfect. and when a vegan comes off with that "holier than thou" attitude it makes veganism look bad. but just to let you know, i'm trying to call you out on that. it's a huge problem i see with a lot of vegans. actually, it's probably a problem with 99% of the vegans out there (i know i still battle with it).

[julieruble]

n the wild a hen will build herself a nest and lay about 6 eggs in as many days. If any of these are lost she is usually able to replace them, provided she has access to enough food. It is this ability to keep laying that the modern egg farmer exploits but in doing so frustrates one of the hen's most fundamental instincts: to reproduce.

Well, I don't mean egg farmers... just someone who owns chickens. You say you can replace "egg farmer" with anyone who USES animals... but can you replace it with anyone who OWNS animals? Like some guy who just has a few chickens, maybe some ducks.

Or, like veganmike, do you think people shouldn't own chickens at all? And if it's okay to own chickens, are you doing something wrong if you DO want to eat eggs and so you use their unfertilized eggs? What I mean to say is, where in the process, in your opinion, does the "doing something wrong" happens -- owning the chicken at all, or using its egg? Or maybe you think the wrong occurs in the mindset...the motivation behind owning them. Like, if you own chickens to get a couple of their eggs for breakfast, that's bad, but if you just own chickens for no particular reason, that's okay. But I doubt that's what you mean, because I don't think that's a useful distinction. If it's owning the chicken in general, what do you think about owning other animals... dogs, for instance? I don't know, but I think veganmike would feel like pets are also a problem?

[ConsciousCuisine]

i think it's a mistake to think that anything is perfect. veganism isn't flawless.my point is that no path you take is going to be perfect. and when a vegan comes off with that "holier than thou" attitude it makes veganism look bad. but just to let you know, i'm trying to call you out on that. it's a huge problem i see with a lot of vegans. actually, it's probably a problem with 99% of the vegans out there (i know i still battle with it).

How do you think one can state facts without coming off this way? I think there is more to it than that. It seems that anyone who is defensive can claim that the one providing the information is acting "holier than thou" when in reality they may be simply stating what they have found to be true. ( I don't mean opinions...I mean facts that have been proven through research and not just personal experience).

For example, I can tell my clients that drinking plenty of water and fiber, exercising daily and getting enough sleep is clearly an important part of a healthy lifestyle. That doesn't mean that I do it perfectly myself! It just means that I have done the research, consulted with the experts, tried many different things personally and with clients and have found this to be true!
Does presenting such information qualify as a "holier than thou" attiitude? I don't think so, but the defensiveness that I have come up against at times says to me what I have known for quite some time now...People are by nature ethnocentirc. They believe the way they do things is the best way, period. To suggest anything else creates cognitive dissonace and makes the person so uncomfortable that if they are unwilling to be honest and change they must react defensively (and attack you) in order to make themselves feel better. It's really sad that people can't just be honest and grateful for the gift of truth given to them from another human. Too bad being "human" often gets in the way.

[mattd]

what i was referring to with the "holier than thou" attitude was calling veganism flawless and an omniverous diet "baseless and idiotic". those aren't facts, those are opinions. i never said that explaining to people why you choose to be vegan is a problem. it's great to discuss it with people. but when someone comes out firing insults at omnivores then it's not going to win anyone over.

the issues are a little too deep to say that veganism is the pinnacle of environmental/ecological/economical/healthful responsibility. i think it's important to realize that veganism isn't perfect, nothing is. so i'm just saying that insulting others for their lifestyle won't convert them. just do what you're doing and don't get stressed out about how others live, you can't change the world. you can only change yourself. (when i say "you" i'm not directing it at anyone specific on here, it's just kind of a general "you")

[artbeat]

my point is that no path you take is going to be perfect. and when a vegan comes off with that "holier than thou" attitude it makes veganism look bad.

It would be wrong not to point out all the obvious benefits of eating plant food, and if you do, many non-vegans will become defensive, just like smokers do vs. non-smokers. I also disagree in that eating plant based food isn't perfect. It is! If you disagree, I really wonder what you think is wrong with eating vegan, in whatever combination of raw and cooked that you find most 'perfect'.

Another thing is that it's important not to be arrogant when pointing out all the useless sides of using meat for food.

[DontJustDoSomething, SitThere]

Okay, that's fine for a personal reason not to eat it...but do you think there's anything wrong with someone eating it if they don't feel like it's disgusting?

Would you accept that a thief took something from you if he didn't think it was disgusting to steal?

[julieruble]

Would you accept that a thief took something from you if he didn't think it was disgusting to steal?

Okay, so in your opinion, the chickens feel as if they've had something stolen from them, and that is what makes it wrong?

[DontJustDoSomething, SitThere]

As I have no reason to eat animals, birds, or their eggs, it's not even a topic for me. I'm just pointing at where you put your focus: on the situation of the human, not the bird.

[julieruble]

Oh, I thought your question was a rhetoric response to my question. No, I wouldn't think it'd be all right for someone to steal from me. And I'm not saying it's all right to eat the egg. I'm asking what you all think, and why you think the way you do.

Something I must make clear (that I tried to already make clear): I'm not actually suggesting anyone eat eggs or even arguing that it'd be all right to eat the eggs. I'm trying not to take a position. I'm just asking your opinions on why it'd be wrong in this situation because it's just a way to work through theories. And if I disagree with certain points you make or play "devil's advocate," so to speak, it's just to flesh out possible inconsistencies and work through them -- not to argue that it's all right to eat the egg.

As I have no reason to eat animals, birds, or their eggs, it's not even a topic for me

I think that's the case for most people here. It's not like it's an issue that's currently facing anyone, or that would be difficult for a vegan to decide if it DID come up. It's just that the reasoning behind the issue helps explain vegan theory.


Anyway... since you put your focus on the bird, what do you think should happen to the bird? Should it be kept and fed but the eggs disposed of, or just left alone to rot, or should the chicken be released to eventually die, or should the chicken just not be allowed to reproduce in captivity so the stores of domesticated chickens would die out, which is what veganmike might advocate (Michael I keep putting words in your mouth...feel free to correct me if I have the wrong idea). Anyhow, what SHOULD happen in your estimation?

[DontJustDoSomething, SitThere]

I'm trying not to take a position.

Why not?

Anyway... since you put your focus on the bird, what do you think should happen to the bird?

Is this question about what should happen with the birds if use of eggs and poultry would die out and disappear? Or is it a question of what should happen to each and one of the hens that are used in the egg industry, after they have produced their eggs? And, do you really wonder if a vegan would mean that animals should be left alone and rot?

[mattd]

It would be wrong not to point out all the obvious benefits of eating plant food, and if you do, many non-vegans will become defensive, just like smokers do vs. non-smokers. I also disagree in that eating plant based food isn't perfect. It is! If you disagree, I really wonder what you think is wrong with eating vegan, in whatever combination of raw and cooked that you find most 'perfect'.

Another thing is that it's important not to be arrogant when pointing out all the useless sides of using meat for food.

How is veganism not perfect? Did you not read my post? It's still dependant on agriculture, and agriculture is the most environmentally destructive human activity after animal husbandry (if you consider the two to be seperate). The dependece on oil, the leaching and erosion of soil, the millions of animals that are killed during harvest season, and the pesticides/herbicides put into the the environment (and thats just if you make all your food from scratch and don't buy prepackage, super processed food). Unless you grow your own food you're still going to be adding to the problem immensely.

Just to clarrify, I'm not a raw foodist. I was playing devils advocate there. My point was that a raw foodist will say that what the average vegan does isn't enough, and that it isn't perfect. He or she will claim, correctly, that the average vegan still adds alot to the wasted energy and environmental destruction, while eating raw cuts down even more. But raw foods still need to be grown and transported. So raw foodists who buy from grocery stores are still supporting the oil industry.

No diet is perfect, not veganism, not raw foods, not living on a hippy commune singing songs about about mother earth's ample bossoms. And aside from all that, your diet doesn't automatically make you a better person. Only one of my close friends is vegan (quite a few are veggie, though), and I'd much rather hang out with them than with some asshole vegans that get pissed every time they see some type of tiny inconsistency. It pisses me off almost as much as omnivores who question/mock veganism. Just because you're vegan doesn't mean you have all the answers. And as vegans we need to awknowledge that. My personal goal as a vegan isn't to save the world, it's just to do my part in limiting animal suffering and not contribute extra uneeded waste to the environment.

[julieruble]

Why not?

Because I'm interested in theories behind veganism, and I am not a vegan. It would be fruitless for me to take a position in this.

Is this question about what should happen with the birds if use of eggs and poultry would die out and disappear? Or is it a question of what should happen to each and one of the hens that are used in the egg industry, after they have produced their eggs?

Well, the question has nothing to do with the egg industry at all. I assume you know the original question -- is it wrong to use the unfertilized eggs of a chicken owned by a person uninvolved with the egg industry who just keeps a few chickens around. You answered that question by considering the bird's point of view (by saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that you shouldn't steal from the bird), so I wondered what you thought SHOULD happen to the bird. Should the person be allowed to own the chicken, but let the chicken's unfertilized eggs go to waste? Or should the person not be allowed to own the chicken at all? The question is evolving because I want to know more about your answer.

And, do you really wonder if a vegan would mean that animals should be left alone and rot?

I didn't make myself clear -- I meant leaving the unfertilized eggs to rot, not the chicken...the antecedent wasn't clear.

[Korn]

It's still dependant on agriculture, and agriculture is the most environmentally destructive human activity after animal husbandry (if you consider the two to be seperate).

Veganism as such is not dependent on agriculture. Veganism as such doesn't tell you to buy your food in a store. Neither does veganism tell you what combination of cooked/raw meals you should eat. Living the way most people live today makes us dependent on cars/oil etc. to get food, but please don't blame veganism for that.

the pesticides/herbicides put into the the environment

If you choose to eat plant based food grown with pesticides/herbicides, again - you can't blame veganism for this.

Unless you grow your own food you're still going to be adding to the problem immensely.

There's no part of being vegan that suggest that you should not grow your own food. That's another discussion.

the average vegan still adds alot to the wasted energy and environmental destruction

.

Again, please don't mix how an average vegan lives in a modern society anno 2004 with veganism. You can't blame Christianity if a Christian person kills your neighbor. And since veganism as such is environmental aware and oriented towards non-harming and respect for nature, talking about veganism and discussing pesticides and oil used for plant transport can only lead this thread in the wrong direction.

raw foodists who buy from grocery stores are still supporting the oil industry.

That's not because of their 'raw-foodism', but because of where, how and when they live.

[mattd]

This is going to be my last post on this topic. So again, I wasn't attacking veganism (if I was I sure as hell wouldn't be vegan). I was just pointing out that veganism isn't perfect. It was brought up that veganism is flawless while and omiverous lifestyle is "baseless and idiotic". To me, thats simplifying the issue. Nothing in this world is perfect, everything has it flaws.

Veganism as such is not dependent on agriculture. Veganism as such doesn't tell you to buy your food in a store. Neither does veganism tell you what combination of cooked/raw meals you should eat. Living the way most people live today makes us dependent on cars/oil etc. to get food, but please don't blame veganism for that.

I wasn't blaming veganism directly for those problems I stated. Obviously those issues were there before veganism started becoming more popular. But if you say that, then you have to admit that it technically isn't an omniverous diet that is responisble for it. Technically, people wouldn't have to be vegan to detach themselves from it.

Maybe I shouldn't have said veganism is depedent on agriculture, maybe I should have said the average vegan is (probably 99% of vegans are). So again, I'm not blaming veganism for the problems, thats not the point. Its just that vegans should be aware that they can be elitists all they want, but it doesn't help to blame non-vegans for problems in the world (veganism won't save the world, i hope no one here has delusions that it will).

There's no part of being vegan that suggest that you should not grow your own food. That's another discussion.

Well yeah, obviously there's not a part that says that. But does the average vegan grow his or her own food? No, I'd say less than 1% grow all their food. So when they buy food that is grown through intensive agriculture and transported with oil, they are still adding to the problem. I'm not saying this is something to get all worked up about. They just need to realize that nothing you do is perfect, not diet you follow will completely detach you from animal's suffereing and environmental destruction. I just wish more vegans would accept that before firing insults at non-vegan with the belief that what they are doing is saving the world.

Again, please don't mix how an average vegan lives in a modern society anno 2004 with veganism. You can't blame Christianity if a Christian person kills your neighbor. And since veganism as such is environmental aware and oriented towards non-harming and respect for nature, talking about veganism and discussing pesticides and oil used for plant transport can only lead this thread in the wrong direction.

Again, I'm not blaming veganism. You're still missing my point. And how is bringing up pesticides and oil used for foods that vegans eat leading it in the wrong direction? It may be an issue that some people on this board would like to discuss. I'm saying that before a vegan jumps on his or her own high horse, they need to be aware that there are much bigger issues than whether or not someone else is vegan. Simplying the problems to "omivores are idiots" is counterproductive.

[Korn]

. And how is bringing up pesticides and oil used for foods that vegans eat leading it in the wrong direction? It may be an issue that some people on this board would like to discuss.

That's brilliant, but if the topic is how perfect veganism is, it's not relevant. If you break a leg or had an unhappy childhood or if Bush and bin Laden causes a lot of trouble, we won't solve these problems by eating a lot of plants. But have you seen any vegans claim that not harming animals or eating plants will solve all problems?

When saying that veganism ain't perfect, you refer to examples not relevant to what veganism is about. You simply seem to mix up 'veganism' with 'the way a lot of people in a modern society who claims to be vegans' live. No big deal.

[DontJustDoSomething, SitThere]

Because I'm interested in theories behind veganism, and I am not a vegan.

May I ask what it is that keeps you away from going vegan vegan?

I assume you know the original question -- is it wrong to use the unfertilized eggs of a chicken owned by a person uninvolved with the egg industry who just keeps a few chickens around.

Is it wrong or right to eat feathers? Eggs? Chicken shit? The question is wrong. The topic is wrong. I don't need eggs, I'm not attracted to eggs, I'm not laying eggs. Maybe the eggs layed by a hen does not belong to the hen, but they're definitely not mine!

[Artichoke47]

Perhaps we should flip the coin and ask why someone would want to eat eggs. The only answer was taste, I believe. If someone thinks eggs taste good, I challenge them to come to my house for dinner and I'll satisfy their taste buds...unless mentally, they have a problem accepting vegan food, which sometimes happens. Anyway...I'm sorry if I was disrespectful before.

[uww27225]

Wow! That took a long time to read through! Now I don't want to take sides, but I became pretty interested in the question as it was presented, and no, I don't think there were many answers given. I am a vegan and I don't/won't/have no desire to eat eggs. That being said, if someone is not against domesticated animals, are there negative effects of "stealing" eggs on hens?

Someone mentioned that they naturally produce 6 or so eggs and that by taking them you are forcing them to reproduce. I can't remember who said that (please don't make me go back through the 6 pages! ) but can you please elaborate on this? If a hen naturally maintains a certain amount of eggs, what happens to them? I guess I'm curious as to the whole process of chickens laying eggs. I think understanding the entire process will answer mine and julie's question. It may seem extremely ignorant to others, but I was raised in a suburb, completely sheltered/misinformed about animals, farming, etc. I know personally, I was one of those uberignorant omnis that thought cows always produce milk whether or not they were pregnant/recently gave birth. I think better understanding the processes helps me appreciate my veganism more. Any info is greatly appreciated!

[Artichoke47]

I think part of it has to do with non-interference. Some vegans believe that animals should be left alone, not interfered with, unless they need our protection.

[wuggy]

Hens lay eggs - eggs are just 'Chicken Periods' if you like!
I have had the pleasure of caring for many hens, they don't seem to look for their eggs unless there is a Cockerel around - in which case the eggs may be fertilised and the hen may choose to sit on them and hatch them, which takes about 24 days, if I remember rightly.
I used to work at a sanctuary where there were many ex-battery farm hens. Despite their ordeal, they still layed eggs (hens can go 'off-lay' when stressed). We collected the eggs, boiled them, and fed them to the rescue dogs, otherwise they would have just laid around going rotten. The hens didn't mind!
I agree with the non-interference factor in general, but if we applied that to everything, there would be no animal rescue centres for one thing, would there?!