Doubble M (sic) is either about 12 or is a deliberately obtuse tw@t Risker. I couldn't be ar$ed to register to debunk his idiotic assertions (Pictures of cows are not vegan, wtf?!).
I felt pretty much the same, I kind of feel bad for not offering some support to fellow vegans but to be honest I just can't be arsed - the honey debate has just bled me dry.
"I don't want to live on this planet any more" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
Must admit I didn't know what it was, had to look it up!
I'm not saying that everyone should just automatically know what it is, but if it's your job to label a dish, I would say you should find out exactly what each ingredient is instead of just assuming. I didn't mean to sound like "duh, what an idiot, that person doesn't know what chorizo is!!"
The website has it listed as vegetarian. Was it vegan before? Good job! I'm complaining about the chorizo.
they dont label dishes as vegan on the website (there are a couple of dishes that appear vegan to me) however it was on the show, they kept repeating over and over again that it was vegan. i was literally shouting at the screen
Vegan Forum: keeping me sane in the world of the ignorant.
Our sincere apologies for the error in Frank's recipe. We have amended it on our website - www.cooksforcooks.com - so it now reads as a vegetarian recipe. To make it suitable for vegans, our chefs advise replacing the honey with Tate and Lyle Golden Syrup, or rock sugar, palm sugar or demera sugar.
wow
after reading the sort of reasoning and comments made by the people who've posted on that there itv food place, i'm awfully pleased to be part of a forum where intelligence rules
ahronli sed ah dunit so thid tek thuh cheyus graytuh offa mi nihbles
I think it's quite easy to avoid honey, so I don't even see the reasons to eat it even if it was ethical. I also avoid soda pop, but at least there's no ethical quagmire about that; that's purely taste preference (and budget).
I'm all for bee's working their asses off for their own damn benefit. I'm also all for humans helping them by building places to nest, but I'm not all for taking their labor, least of all harming them in the process. Instects aren't our slaves, just as mammals, fish, crusteceans, and reptiles aren't our slaves either.
It's easy to avoid them, and there's nothing to miss.
I don't see why there's a compelling reason to consume honey at all.
I've complained about a similar incident. In the paper they were discussing the Raw Food diet (which supposedly was vegan). However 50% of the recipes they used had honey. Which was funny, because on the preceding page there was a definition of Vegan which said vegans do not eat honey. So I wrote the newspaper telling them of their hypocrisy and error. I don't know if it sunk in or not though.
I myself choose not to eat honey because it hurts the bees and destroys their way of living. The honey is their own food not ours.
These are my beliefs anyways lol.
I've just read about how many commercial bee farmees treat their bees inhumanely, in ripping off heads of live males to make the ejaculate, etc.
What I want to know is if organic honey, although not technically veganic, is obtained in a humane way. Anybody know anything about organic honey?
Smaller farmers (who tend to be the ones to make organic honey) might not kill their bees but they do tear off or clip the queen's wings so that she can't move the hive - and moving the hive every year is a natural instinct in bees.
So, while it's not as bad, it's still not good.
I'm frankly always surprised by the honey debate. I've always understood veganism to apply to all sentient beings who can feel pain - so why do so many people make a distinction with honey? I'm not trying to start a fight here, just wondering.
I'm frankly always surprised by the honey debate. I've always understood veganism to apply to all sentient beings who can feel pain - so why do so many people make a distinction with honey? I'm not trying to start a fight here, just wondering.
I think that people who eat honey are like people who eat anything else that kills/harms/exploits animals; and their reasons for doing so are the same.
Mostly though, for people that you would presume are compassionate, I like to think that they just don't know.
it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble
Honey itself is more or less a byproduct of a very large industry. Commercial beekeepers (I have worked for one in the past) recieve most of their revenue from pollination, not the sale of honey. Obviously, there are not enough bees to naturally pollinate a large orchard without humans getting their dirty fingers involved. Bees are "maintained" for the purpose of industry, and this does include the regular destruction of non-producing queens, genetically modified bees, and the spread of disease from hive to hive in some cases. As with any kept animal, bees are exploited for their use to the full extent. Along with that, they are part of an overproducing agricultural industry that poisons our landbase with chemicals and exploits poor migrant workers for their labor. As with any consumer product, if you choose to buy it, you choose to support this. However, let it be known that not all farmers are part of this problem. Mutual respect for all animals and the landbase can be achieved and many farmers practice this.
I've noticed that it seems a lot of people take a hard line attitude on this site that honey is not vegan compatible, but I've also met a lot of people in my travels who seem to disagree.
They are simply ill informed as to what the exact definition of the word vegan is. Society didn't invent the word, a specific man and his organization did.
The gentleman (Donald Watson) and his organization (The Vegan Society) that coined the term "vegan" gets to define exactly what it means, and no one else. If they say no honey, and they do, then no honey. The organization that invented the word has the right to define it, not the general public.
If you want to be a vegan but also eat honey, go fishing, buy wool, whatever, you can't call yourself a true vegan. If you want you could say, "I'm close to a vegan, but I ..."
My personal belief is that honey is something bees naturally produce and will continue to do so till their deaths regardless of whether humans harvest it or not.
Also true of milk and eggs. We avoid those for the same reason, we don't "use" animals regardless if we "harm" them or not. When we go to a vegan restaurant, eat a food product labeled vegan, or eat a vegan meal prepared by someone else, we don't have to ask, "Do you use milk here? eggs? honey?" An animal derived ingredient is an animal derived ingredient, plain and simple.
It does not, to my way of thinking cause the bees or anyone else (save maybe the beekeeper) suffering to collect honey and they do not need to be coerced into making it, so I really don't see the problem here.
As Haniska put it earlier in the thread, bees are killed both accidentally, (for example smashed to death in the door hinge area of their house we've built for them when the beekeeper shuts it) and purposely (kill the queen to force a new one to be hatched, if I remember correctly). Obviously death is a form of suffering.
Bees need honey, it is their food. After we steal their food supply, we substitute it with a container of sugar water and assume they'll be content with that. Now in the news comes reports that bees are dying and we don't know why. Maybe the lack of micro-nutrients in their real honey, over decades, has caught up to produce a problem finally, I don't know, just a thought.
But it would be helpful to the vegan movement if we stopped acting so "holier than thou", pretending to a purity that is almost impossible for anyone to attain.
I grew up in Tasmania, where the world's best honey is made by talented little bees in the leatherwood forest. Honey is the ONLY non-vegan food that I feel unable to sacrifice - emotionally I am very attached to honey, especially leatherwood. I do not pretend that honey is vegan. But I sometimes worry that hardline 'purists' frighten away those who think being vegan is an extremist philosophy.
I love bees, and I'm sorry that a few of them occasionally get killed in the collection of honey... but a lot of insects, and worms too, are killed through harvesting a crop of wheat too. Does that mean we stop eating bread?
When a mozzie lands on my leg, I have no qualms about squashing it. If that makes me a speciesist, fair cop. If it makes me a less perfect vegan, I accept that - I never said I'm perfect.
Becoming vegan is an ideal, a beautiful ideal, but few of us could say we're 'pure' vegans. In a world where condoms are made with dairy protein, and beer is clarified with eggs, let's not beat ourselves up with 'purist' mentality, but instead embrace people who have their heart in the right place.
Harming/killing one living being isn't an ethical excuse to harm another one.
It looks to as if (following your logic) it's OK to use eggs, because some bear is clarified with eggs, to use dairy products, because some condoms are made with dairy protein, or to kill bees, because some mice are are killed in the agricultural process of making grains.
There's nothing purist about having a 'definition'. The purist argument be used against vegetarians who 'claim' that one cannot be a vegetarian and eat fish too. To say that vegetarian food doesn't include dead fish/animals/birds isn't IMO more 'purist' than saying that vegan food doesn't include animal products 'as much as practical and possible'.
Knowing that a lot of people don't eat honey whether they are vegans or not, and since honey doesn't contain anything we can't get from somewhere else, honey doesn't belong to something that isn't 'possible' or 'practical' to avoid, does it?
You may suggest a different definition of vegan, like 'one who avoids animal products except those he is emotionally attached to', but I don't think you would do that.
Honey isn't vegan just because it's an animal product; it's the other way round, sort of: Due to the reasons explained in this and these links about vegans and honey, vegans are against using honey. We're not slaves of our own ethics... it's not like, 'honey is ok, but I can't use it because I'm vegan'.
Veganism is indeed a beautiful ideal, and for that reason we need to continue to push towards that, as stated by Korn "as much as practical and possible".
Honey is an animal product and has no place in a vegan diet. Not trying to be an elitist or "holier than thou" (as it's put) but you can live without it and remove it from your life easily.
Bee's are dying on a bigger scale than you realize, not only can they be crushed but when we take their food away, but giving them sugar to eat instead of the honey they worked hard to gather is very bad for them and many die because their systems don't get the nutrients they need to survive.
Bee's are a very important part of our ecosystem and we need to respect that system.
I mentioned a few posts back that the reasons for "colony collapse" are unknown. Purely as a guess I put forth the possible theory that you here state as being more of a fact than just a theory. Do you have some evidence to support this? [I'm not trying to be confrontational here, just I've never seen anyone other than myself suggest this theory in print.]
I don't want to be responsible for starting a rumor that I have no evidence is true. I was just theorizing, not stating as fact at all.
I guess it's based on theories mostly right now, but I believe the inadequate food that is given to bee's in place of their natural food supply is killing them and causing problems in their colonies. Here are some links showing issues:
Thing is colony collapse disorder, CCD, is brand new. 2006 or so. We've been feeding them sugar syrup instead and stealing all or at least most of their honey [anyone know what percent is stolen?] for I guess centuries. What's changed in just the past few years?
Thing is colony collapse disorder, CCD, is brand new. 2006 or so. We've been feeding them sugar syrup instead and stealing all or at least most of their honey [anyone know what percent is stolen?] for I guess centuries. What's changed in just the past few years?
How do we know it's completely new? Also sugar is more refined now than it's ever been so maybe it's having a negative effect much more quickly.
I think the bees finally figured it out and are now revolting against our enslavement of them. My new theory, anyways.
Although we as a society are using more sugar than ever before, I think the actual stuff is just as devoid of any nutrients now as ever. 2006 sugar is the same as 1920 sugar, in my mind.
I use Condomi condoms and only drink vegan beer.
Because I am a vegan.
If I did not I would not be.
I am happy to encourage those who want to become vegan by removing all animal produce knowingly used, but do not understand why they need to call themselves vegans.
They are not.
It's an easy concept, as has been stated above many times.
Glyde condoms are vegan too.
If veganism is extreme (which I don't think it is), getting rid of honey is hardly the surest sign of that. But really, extremism is the argument lobbied by those who won't make what is an amazing and beautiful commitment to honouring sentient life in all its forms.
Check out the Toronto Vegetarian Podcast at veg.ca/tvp !
I just never understood the argument that if we accidentally kill animals while harvesting crops, it's ok to deliberately kill other animals like bees. If you accidentally killed a cat with your car, would you get a gun and start deliberately killing other cats? I hope not!
"Man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills" - Arthur Schopenhauer
I just never understood the argument that if we accidentally kill animals while harvesting crops, it's ok to deliberately kill other animals like bees. If you accidentally killed a cat with your car, would you get a gun and start deliberately killing other cats? I hope not!
This is why analogies rule. That is wonderfully, wonderfully illustrative. Thank you so much - I'm totally going to use that the next time someone gives me lip about not eating honey!
"Happiness, not in another place, but this place, not for another hour, but this hour." ~Walt Whitman
I didn't realise agave nectar was vegan, I saw it in the health food shop the other day and assumed it was some kind of honey. That's really great that there's a honey alternative. Thanks
Yogi wrote: "I just never understood the argument that if we accidentally kill animals while harvesting crops, it's ok to deliberately kill other animals like bees."
I'd like to take a polite attempt at answering this.
You don't accidentally kill animals when you harvest crops. Of course it's intentional. When the farmer mounts his tractor and yells down to us, "I'm going to start the combine and harvest the wheat for you guys now," every single one of us is aware that thousands upon thousands of insects and small animals are about to be killed.
Aren't we?
To say that we "accidentally" kill the animals isn't quite it. Is it?
Isn't it really more accurate to say, "we intentionally kill the animals, but the only reason we do it is because it's an unavoidable part of harvesting the wheat."
Wouldn't that be more accurate?
Isn't it true, in fact, that we could, if we wanted to, harvest the wheat by hand, thereby avoiding all of the deaths caused by the reaper?
And if that is true, and I think it's clear that it is, then what does that say about all of us who eat the wheat?
And if my neighbor keeps bees and the death toll per calorie is less than that for the wheat, then what does that say?
I have struggled with this for a very long time.
It's nice to have bright lines.
But this reminds me of the scene from that Brad Pitt movie where they are removing the worms from the earth, one by one, so that none are killed when they build on the land.
I'm not convinced that there is a bright line.
If you eat packaged wheat that is grown using any machine-based method, rather than a hand-based method, then I'm not convinced that any animal deaths that are specific to the machine based method can be considered "accidental".
To say that we "accidentally" kill the animals isn't quite it. Is it?
Isn't it really more accurate to say, "we intentionally kill the animals, but the only reason we do it is because it's an unavoidable part of harvesting the wheat."
Hi ASB!
First of all, I think the thing about killing mice in the fields normally is highly exaggerated. I disagree with your statement about 'we intentionally kill the animals', because the intention is not to kill animals, the intention is to grow and collect plants. In between 'accidentally' and 'intentionally' there are several descriptions that could be used about what happens and why it happens, like non-intentionally.
I have struggled with this for a very long time.
What exactly do you struggle with? I'm asking, because even if someone intentionally would kill an animal, this wouldn't serve as a valid reason to kill another one...
Some people may think 'Fishing is my hobby, so trying to avoiding to eat meat would would be hypocritical, because I kill anyway' - but the bottom line is that the lamb or calf or chicken that is harmed and killed for that persons dinner probably isn't as worried about if the slaughter killed another animal last week or was fishing in the weekend as she is for the fact that somebody wants to kill her for food. I don't watch many crime movies, but I have yet to se a victim say (before he is killed): "Oh, so you are a serial killer? That changes everything. Go ahead!".
Killing (intentionally, accidentally, or non-intentionally) is not a valid reason or excuse for more killing.
Hi ASB, I think Korn summed up what I was going to say in response to your post. Perhaps "accidentally" was not a completely accurate term, but neither is "intentionally". Stealing honey from bees is intentional, and bees' deaths are certainly not "unavoidable" or "collateral", since a beekeeper is harming and killing bees while stealing the food they made for themselves. There is a difference between driving your car knowing you will probably kill bugs with your windshield, and buying insect poison and deliberately killing bugs with it. One is unintentional, the other is not. One should never justify the other.
By the way, my name is Yoggy not Yogi
"Man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills" - Arthur Schopenhauer
No, not really but if we worry SO much about all the little details thats what will happen. I am already paranoid about eating. Is this food Vegan? Did someone use a meat knife? Did someone slip cheese into this? Is this cruelty free? ITS TERRIFYING!
Isn't being Vegan about preventing and avoiding animal cruelty as much as possible? People can only do what they can.
"i'm rejecting my reflection, cause i hate the way it judges me."
Missbettie: " Isn't being Vegan about preventing and avoiding animal cruelty as much as possible?"
I think yes. I think that's where I'm at. I guess it just saddens me to no end that I was put on this planet with a biology that does not allow me to reduce my impact on animals to zero, or even close to it.
Veganism depends very much on modern agriculture, which depends very much on fossil fuels.
Without oil, being a Vegan would become much more difficult.
And the impact of oil on this world has been horrific.
Ya but you can only do so much, and with what we as Vegans are doing to help prevent animal cruelty among MANY other things is a BIG deal. If you only dwell on the bad in the world then is life really worth living?
Give yourself a break! Go pet a puppy!
"i'm rejecting my reflection, cause i hate the way it judges me."
Veganism depends very much on modern agriculture, which depends very much on fossil fuels.
Without oil, being a Vegan would become much more difficult.
If people would eat less plants and more animal products, they would depend even more on modern agriculture: Animals had to be fed, their food has to be produced, the food has to be transported to the factory farms and animals had to be transported to and from slaughterhouses. Since it takes more land to produce enough food to feed one person for one day on a combined diet than it takes to feed him on a plant based diet, the problem is not that he eat plants.
Veganism does not depend on modern agriculture. Modern living does. To claim 'we intentionally kill the animals' is turning everything upside down IMO.
Non-vegans kill animal intentionally, because they like the taste of meat.
We need food, and any diet that requires more resources than eating plants 'directly' (eg. food having been eaten by an animal already, which someone then eats) is wasting resources unnecessarily.
A lot of land is used to produce food for factory animals.
Re: Honey
Risker
Bookmarks