Vegan authorities that cause harm to the vegan movement?

[veganblue]

A friend pointed out last night that the article on bestiality (that makes me feel unpleasant) was Singer's response to a book review request - he did a review, not the research.

The quote Geoff has made is *exactly* how the supermarket works. Apart from sellers actively paying the supermarket to promote their products or making deals with the supermarket chain so that each store is given allocations of particular stock; it is consumer demand that determines the amount of a particular line that is ranged in each store. I listened to the vegie BK monologue yesterday and it adds to the argument of supporting vegan options even in some of the horror stores like Hungry Jack's and MacDonalds. I still baulk at the idea of eating anything from Macca's tho' and only the argument that I am changing the demand would convince me.

[eve]

Despite what anyone thinks about McDs, this is quoting Peter Singer:

"What has the animal movement achieved in the past 25 yrs that has done more for farm animals in america than the steps taken by M cDs, Burger King, and Wendy’s?"
That’s because for 25 yrs, despite all the efforts of the animal movement, nothing at all has changed. Yes, the number of vegetarians and vegans may have grown, but the number of animals raised and killed in America has grown even faster. In 2000 it was 8.8 billion, and in 2001 it is estimated 9.9 billion." He is right.

[phillip888]

Hmm, I can see why he's such a icon for the anti-vegan lobbying crowd after reading a bit. I've heard more of Singer's discussion used by outright (as in not covert) lobbyists than the shifty ones like veganoutreach. It's not surprising that so many vegans are disinterested in him.

[Korn]

Singer has definitely stated that it is ok to kill a chicken if there's another one to take its place.

I finally got a copy of Animal Liberation - where does he say that?

[snaffler]

I have no time for Vegan Preachers...this is a way of life not some redkneck bible belt communian...I prefer to keep my veganism as a something very personal to me and only disscuss it when I feel challenged or come up against something that challenges my way of life.

I do like to see articals from AR orgs such as PETA encouraging the benifits of dropping meat from the diet and showing the horrific side of the trade.

But I do enjoy people who write pro active positive articals on veganism....ones that have a purpose, use, instruction, reference or guide......

A good example is The Animal Free Shopper.

[veganblue]

I think the quote referred to is found in Singer's Practical Ethics. On must be careful to remember that his discussions on ethics explore every philosophical possibility and that some of the conclusions he makes are only part of the wider picture that in the long run may say something entirely different. This is the nature of philosophy.

The following is taken from an essay : "Under what circumstances are we justified in using animals for scientific experimentation and for food? " Peter Engholm, Monash University, October 1997.

"Singer agree on that sometimes it could be possible to use this replacement theory in, for example, raising chicken for their meat (Singer, 1994b, p.133), but in another paragraph argues that the replaceability argument holds little appeal if we think of living creatures as self-conscious individuals who wants to go on living (Singer, 1994b, p. 125)."

Singer, P., Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, 1994b, pp. 125, 132-134.

[Korn]

I think the quote referred to is found in Singer's Practical Ethics. On must be careful to remember that his discussions on ethics explore every philosophical possibility and that some of the conclusions he makes are only part of the wider picture that in the long run may say something entirely different. This is the nature of philosophy.

The following is taken from an essay : "Under what circumstances are we justified in using animals for scientific experimentation and for food? " Peter Engholm, Monash University, October 1997.

"Singer agree on that sometimes it could be possible to use this replacement theory in, for example, raising chicken for their meat (Singer, 1994b, p.133), but in another paragraph argues that the replaceability argument holds little appeal if we think of living creatures as self-conscious individuals who wants to go on living (Singer, 1994b, p. 125)."

Singer, P., Practical Ethics, Cambridge University Press, 1994b, pp. 125, 132-134.

IF we think of living creatures as self-conscious individuals? And does he think of living creatures? Does he think that living creatures seem to NOT 'want to go on living'?

[veganblue]

"..if we think of living creatures as self-conscious individuals..." is not Singer's words but possibly a paraphrase of an exerpt, which is referrenced from Practical Ethics. I have not seen anything in his work to suggest that he does not think that living creatures seem to not to want to go on living which iwould seem to the the point he is trying to make. If creatures have a desire to go on living, that reflects a desire that we ourselves feel and hence where the concept of animals having 'rights' comes from. Singer argues that animals do have desires and rights which is why we are ethically bound to not exploit them.

He is currently researching a new book and is here in Australia if the reports are to be believed.

http://utilitarian.net/singer/about/20050128.htm

I have only read parts of 'Animal Liberation" but it's preaching to the converted. I should read fully. I have 'Writings on an ethical life' which is very good and also 'President of Good and Evil: the ethics of GW Bush" which is sadly, still very relevant though flabberghasting that Dubya is back in power.

I do support his ethics for the greater part because I know that it is very carefully weighted and thought out. It is also flamable when taken out of context which is why so many people get upset. If you read his material; it is hard to refute. How many people do you know that can write a book and turn people vegan? I only have heard of one and for that he also has my respect.

For further reading this link is useful.

I have no desire to argue about it with anyone. It's just mho.

[Korn]

How many people do you know that can write a book and turn people vegan?

Yeah, it's impressive, especially since he doesn't seem to be a vegan himself.

[veganblue]

I have read that Singer would eat animal products for survival, but it is one of those hypothetical situations and I believe (but may be wrong) that he primarily eats a vegan diet - at least an ethically sourced one.

As a utilitarian, there is a fine line that can be found through the most complex question, and it seems that Singer would consider his own survival above that of another creature.
Lets think of the oft repeated desert island scenario that meat eaters always bring up (purely because it is in isolation and takes away confounding influences) and you have a starving utilitarian philosopher with a knife, a fertilised egg, a welk, a fish in a pool, and octopus, a reptile, a chicken, a dog, a cow, an ape and a one month old child. What would he do?
The initial options would include feeding the child; but that requires killing something, the child is unlikely to survive long in those conditions and possibly will die in a few days without food. Do you eat the 'lower' animals, do you eat the child once it has passed away?

Myself? Apart from the delight of being surrounded by so many animals and the distress at having so young a child in that situation I would resolve myself to the fact that even if I did kill everything there I would not survive long and even if I did survive long enough to be rescued it would be hard to live with the rememberance of the ordeal. But I would live in hope that we all would be rescued in time. That would make me a fatalistic optimist maybe? I certainly wouldn't be killing anything unless it was in terminal pain and there were no other way to relieve it.

A utilitarian *would* eat at least one of the things there; but if faced with the actual situation *deity forbid*, I doubt that Singer would be killing anything either but it is not my place to say.

[Korn]

I'm not sure who has written The Vegan Society's .pdf-pamphlet "Vegan Catering For All", but the pamphlet's existence is dominating their home page right now, and in spite of the fact that The Vegan Society clearly defines vegan/veganism as more than a dietary thing (eg. here and here), that pamphlet - under the header "Definition of Vegan", writes that "A vegan will not eat any animal products, for example (followed by a list of animal products)......".

While it's correct that a vegan won't eat eggs, honey, fish or meat, the combination of using the header 'definition of a vegan' and a follow-up describing food only is IMO a very bad idea, since it easily can cause the false impression that veganism only is about food.

The title of this thread is 'Vegan authorities that cause harm to the vegan movement'. I don't know if that pamphlet is written by an 'authority' - but, even if it is - a pdf-file only takes a few minutes to edit...

I just learned that our own forum is the main provider of internet links to The Vegan Society, so maybe we are in the position of being able to influence them a little, or at least will be heard if we suggest that they shouldn't distribute a text containing something which looks like lobbying for the conversion of 'vegan' into a dietary concept only?

Maybe they will listen... or maybe not. I don't know. Anyway, I suggest that if you are a vegan, please don't participate in distributing that pamphlet (or links to it) until they have removed what only looks like a lobbyist attempt of redefining the word vegan and give it a food related meaning only.

It will take them only 5 minutes from changing the title in that pamphlet from 'Definition of a vegan' to 'What is vegan food?'

[cobweb]

.......but this is why, in another thread, i asked if you had contacted TVS abut your gripes, Korn!. All vegans are potential caretakers of the definition of 'veganism', all vegans are in a position to influence/question TVS, please contact them!.

Recently, there was glass all over the school car park where my son goes to school - i kept thinking that somebody must come along and clear it up. In the end i got fed up and contacted the council - turns out no-one had alerted them, but they came that day and cleaned it all up. People need to speak up when things bother them - and let the 'right' people know.

[Korn]

.......but this is why, in another thread, i asked if you had contacted TVS abut your gripes, Korn!

Many people who work for TVS or are members there visit our forum. If none of them are interested in this topic, or in bringing it up, there's not much I can do anyway, is it?

I would have brought it up if I was a member there. I don't want to be a member there for reasons I have explained elsewhere, and don't see myself becoming a member of an organization in a country I don't even live in only and then immediately try to change their policy.

[cobweb]

well ok, but that seems a wee bit defeatist to me.

Actually i don't have a problem with the catering booklet as it's aimed at food providers.

[Frank]

The following statement was circulated to Vegan Society Local Contacts in response to a query about comments on the Vegan Forum.


''In reply to accusations of trying to redefine veganism by our new booklet for caterers, The Vegan Society would like to point out the following:

Dietary veganism has always been the MINIMUM standard for full membership of The Vegan Society, although of course we encourage members and non-members to avoid the use of ALL animal products as far as is possible and practicable.

We have over many years produced printed materials relating to animal products such as leather and fur, wool and silk, and the latest versions of these are still in stock and in regular use. We also support the principle of veganic agriculture and horticulture, i.e. without the use of materials such as bone meal, dried blood and animal manure.

The catering booklet is intended as a practical aid to caterers, helping them to offer meals suitable for vegans (and pointing out that vegan meals will also appeal to non-vegan customers if they are good enough!), so naturally it describes the dietary requirements of vegans, other aspects of veganism not being relevant. It is perverse to interpret this as an abandonment of our basic principles.

The thread is headed 'Vegan authorities that cause harm to the vegan movement'. It is the likes of those who advocate boycotting the use of the catering booklet who cause harm to the vegan movement!

George D Rodger
Chair of Vegan Society Council''

[Korn]

I don't advocate boycotting the use of the catering booklet as such, I advocate that they should change the wording of the section called 'Definition of Vegan' slightly, to avoid misunderstandings. It would take only a minute or so to do it...

It doesn't really matter who the catering booklet is intended - it's on their front page and probably read by a lot of people. The booklet would be just as useful for caterers if the title would be changed from 'Definition of a vegan' to 'Definition of vegan food', and as several people have stated in various posts - it's better to use a title and text that leaves as little room for misunderstanding as possible.

If there's a good, valid, logical reason to keep that text the ambiguous way it is, I, for one, am not aware of that reason.

[Frank]

I inquired about this ^.

The Head of Information at the VS, is considering changing the heading possibly to ‘the vegan diet’. The VS are mainly distributing this information as a booklet and so changes would have to wait until a re-print. They get 10,000 printed at a time.

[horselesspaul]

I inquired about this ^.

The Head of Information at the VS, is considering changing the heading possibly to ‘the vegan diet’. The VS are mainly distributing this information as a booklet and so changes would have to wait until a re-print. They get 10,000 printed at a time.

Good job, Frank.

[cobweb]

i think someone at TVS is doing a great job of harming the Vegan movement right now with her spiteful (and pointless) e-mail witch hunt campaign against a mostly veggie/vegan friendly B&B in Wales...........

[Frank]

i think someone at TVS is doing a great job of harming the Vegan movement right now with her spiteful (and pointless) e-mail witch hunt campaign against a mostly veggie/vegan friendly B&B in Wales...........

Staff or trustees of the VS must make it clear whether they are quoting Society policy or their personal viewpoint. If anyone is not happy with the behaviour of a member of staff or trustee they should submit a complaint with full details to the Chair of Council or to the CEO at:

The Vegan Society, Donald Watson House, 21 Hylton Street, Hockley, Birmingham. B18 6HJ. Telephone: 0121 523 1730. Fax: 0121 523 1749.

[songlife]

I inquired about this ^.

The Head of Information at the VS, is considering changing the heading possibly to ‘the vegan diet’. The VS are mainly distributing this information as a booklet and so changes would have to wait until a re-print. They get 10,000 printed at a time.

What is the recent news on this, Frank? If the heading has not been changed already, I would like to send a friendly e-mail requesting for it to be passed.

[Frank]

What is the recent news on this, Frank? If the heading has not been changed already, I would like to send a friendly e-mail requesting for it to be passed.

Songlife - the Vegan Society will change the wording for the next print run of the booklet.

They are also working through the website page by page and updating the site.

This is a major job and the VS have to prioritise their work. They take note of comments but they have to wait their turn until they can action them.

Also, any changes to the website or literature have to be agreed by Council.

More enquiries on the same thing therefore will only slow down the work they need to do.

[Korn]

They are also working through the website page by page and updating the site.

With all due respect.... We discussed this is September, and the same .pdf-pamphlet is still the main thing that's presented on their front page, and the text ("Definition of a vegan", followed up by a definition of vegan food) is still there, in the same document...

More enquiries on the same thing therefore will only slow down the work they need to do.

To change the text in that document takes less than 5 minutes, so their other work will be postponed by 5 minutes. That is, unless they have someone who can do it for them...

If someone should work 'through the website page by page' and update the site - wouldn't it be a good idea to start with.... the front page?

[Frank]

Everything is prioritised and we have to accept that. We have no idea what other more important issues are on their backlog.

It is unfair to think that just because the item you want changing is only going to take ‘five minutes’ - therefore it should be done first.

What about everything else?

The VS could do with more volunteers to help with their backlog of work.

If anyone has any experience they feel could help move them forward, please contact the Chief Executive at this address: info@vegansociety.com

[Korn]

It is unfair to think that just because the item you want changing is only going to take ‘five minutes’ - therefore it should be done first.

I'm not saying they should do it 'first', Frank... I think they should - but that's not what I wrote - I'm commenting that the text in that document remains unchanged after 3-4 months. With all that time, they could have done hundred of other things first, and then changed the document - but they haven't.

They use their home page to present something as controversial as a document with definition of vegan in a way that most vegans disagree in. This is seen by many as if someone inside The Vegan Society have succeeded in an attempt of moving the organization's focus away from veganism as a concept to vegan food.

Not having changed this document after 3-4 months can't have anything to do with lack of resources or capacity, let alone with problems with slowing down but lack of will to so something with it.

We have no idea what other more important issues are on their backlog.

We actually do - they must have been dealing with stuff that's more important that cleaning up a text that clearly creates a false impression about veganism is all about - a document that has been presented to thousands of vegans and potential vegans since we discussed it last time.

Even if only a few people work in their office, and even if they only do a handful of things every day, these must be hundreds of things they find more important than a simple action that has the potential to avoid a lot of future confusion about what the definition of vegan actually is.

From our FAQ:

12) We are concerned with keeping the original (and by far, the most common) meaning of the word 'vegan' intact. Veganism isn't only about diet. Please don't use our forum to try to change veganism to something else than it is.

Unfortunately, The Vegan Society itself is actively spreading misunderstandings about what the definition of vegan is. Please don't post any links to - or promote The Vegan Society - in any ways on this site anymore (until TVS stops contributing to spreading these misudnerstandings).

[Manzana]

Korn,

I disagree that they are spreading a misunderstanding.

I have to say that having looked at both arguments I think that their argument is fair. I also think that (even if they were not entirely right in this particular issue), they still do an AWESOME job helping vegans and promoting veganism.

I don't think it is fair to tell people what to post or not to post in this forum just because of a difference in opinion about such a small matter as the misprint in a leaflet (whether on their front page or not).

[Korn]

The Vegan Society itself agrees that they should change that text, and I for one, fail to see that their argument is 'fair', because they haven't presented an argument defending the promotion of promoting the misnuderstanding the actively have been spreading for months now.

I don't think it is fair to tell people what to post or not to post in this forum just because of a difference in opinion about such a small matter as the misprint in a leaflet (whether on their front page or not).

Fair enough - then you don't agree with our board rules, which always have had reservations against people who "use our forum to try to change veganism to something else than it is". Trying to claim that veganism is about food is definitely within what I consider trying "to change veganism to something else than it is".

I disagree that they are spreading a misunderstanding.

They are defining 'a vegan' by defining what she/he eats. That gives the false impression that being vegan is about what you eat only. If you disagree that this is spreading a misunderstanding, so be it. It's not about 'telling people what to post' - we already do that since it's a vegan forum (you can't promote using leather or fur here, for example', it's about wanting to use this site or not. If people want to use it (we aren't telling anyone to use it), they need to accept that promoting use of animal products or trying to make veganism into a food-only thing doesn't fall within our board rules. Maybe we'll start another forum where such discussions may happen - but this isn't such a forum.

If we should allow people to promote the theory that you could be a vegan and still eg. go fishing/hunting (but not eat the fish/animals) - which would be the logical consequence of claiming that the definition of a vegan only has to do with what you eat - I would be out of here.

I'm simply not interested in running a site that's meant as a 'sanctuary' for vegans (in the true meaning of the word) and as a means to spread veganism, and let it be used to dissolve the very core of what veganism stands for: respect for animals, for life and the idea that we shall avoid harming other living beings as much as possible.

I also know for sure that a lot of members would leave with a new forum profile. I say this based on feedback I've received over the years from people who appreciate our policy about filtering away non-vegan/anti-vegan 'propaganda' here.

If this would be a forum both for vegans and for people who aren't vegan (but who happen to eat vegan food - due to eg. allergies, taste, health problems and so forth) the whole atmosphere would have been very different.

Nothing is wrong with having such a forum as well - I actually have suggested creating one (here), but I'm not going to spend thousands of hours running a forum like that. It takes a lot of time and resources to build up a message board, and I won't 'give' all that work away just because someone suggests that non-vegans also may participate here and join the discussions about ethics, animals etc. This would happen if 'vegan' should be redfined based on what people eat.

[Frank]

(Post 75 ^) Again – we can’t presume what the VS priorities are and therefore cannot make presumptions over what we feel they should or should not do, no matter how strongly we feel about something. Those guys will get everything done eventually.

I do ensure feedback, for what it’s worth to forumers – even though some of you guys are not members or are external to the UK - and the VS does listen and does take an interest.

[Manzana]

The Vegan Society itself agrees that they should change that text, and I for one, fail to see that their argument is 'fair', because they haven't presented an argument defending the promotion of promoting the misnuderstanding the actively have been spreading for months now.

I fail to see how misprinting a leaflet that is about vegan food is such a big deal. Caterers are concerned about vegan food. They are not gonna care if a vegan uses leather or plastic shoes... or whether i choose organic manure or vegetable mulch to grow my garden veg or whether vegans use lactose free condoms for that matter.

Fair enough - then you don't agree with our board rules, which always have had reservations against people who "use our forum to try to change veganism to something else than it is". Trying to claim that veganism is about food is definitely within what I consider trying "to change veganism to something else than it is".

Korn, no-one is trying to do that. It seems to me like an honest mistake that is being pursued to create discrepancies amongs vegans.
The statement did not spread a lie: vegans do not eat animal products, fair enough, there is more to it than that but there is no need to make such a fuss once they have said that they would reprint their leaflet.

I don't see why it is necessary for you to say whether i agree or not with the rules of this board.

They are defining 'a vegan' by defining what she/he eats. That gives the false impression that being vegan is about what you eat only.

No, they are not. They are explaining to caterers what vegans eat. If it was a guide to shop retailers, i would find it a bit strange if they said "vegans dont eat meat, dairy, eggs, honey"... I think they would just concentrate on the fur/leather/wool part of veganism.

If you disagree that this is spreading a misunderstanding, so be it. It's not about 'telling people what to post' - we already do that since it's a vegan forum (you can't promote using leather or fur here, for example', it's about wanting to use this site or not. If people want to use it (we aren't telling anyone to use it), they need to accept that promoting use of animal products or trying to make veganism into a food-only thing doesn't fall within our board rules. Maybe we'll start another forum where such discussions may happen - but this isn't such a forum.

I think posting this kind of comments has a negative impact on the atmosphere of the forum in general. We have a difference of opinion and we should be tolerant about it not try to impose our views...

[Korn]

Again – we can’t presume...

And again: I don't think we can blame anything that's so controversial - and so easy to change - has to do with capacity. It's even a lie to say that it takes 5 minutes - it takes less than two.

the VS does listen and does take an interest.

That's not enough. ;-)

[songlife]

(Post 75 ^) Again – we can’t presume what the VS priorities are and therefore cannot make presumptions over what we feel they should or should not do, no matter how strongly we feel about something. Those guys will get everything done eventually.

Of course, the definition of veganism itself being completely botched on a site that is about veganism is of some importance!

It's like me having a site about guitar and claiming that the definition of guitar playing is about strengthening one's fingers. Obviously it's not only about strengthening one's fingers.

[songlife]

(Post 75 ^) Again – we can’t presume what the VS priorities are and therefore cannot make presumptions over what we feel they should or should not do, no matter how strongly we feel about something. Those guys will get everything done eventually.

Of course, the definition of veganism itself being completely botched on a site that is about veganism is of some importance!

It's like me having a site about guitar and claiming that the definition of guitar playing is only bout strengthening one's fingers. Obviously it's not only about strengthening one's fingers. Imagine this was the most influential guitar site in the world. Do you know how upset all the other musicians would be?

[Korn]

There's a new site called theveganrd.com. It's dominated by the B12 view that has been presented by Jack Norris for a while, which generally gives the impression, more or less between the lines, that it's harder to end up with a nutritious/healthy diet as a vegan than as a non-vegan. One example of this is that theveganrd.com does exactly what Jack Norris does: he defines his own 'recommended value' for B12, and compares what most vegans get with this new, extremely high and highly private 'standard'.

theveganrd.com dosn't only suggest 25 mcg/day but writes "The recommended dose is 25 to 100 micrograms per day or 1,000 micrograms 2-3 times per week."

Like Jack Norris, theveganrd.com doesn't mention that non-vegan diets usually are short in lots of nutrients, and also that - in terms of B12 - the amount they recommend is way higher than anyone gets.

Non-vegans usually gets max 5-15 mcg/day of B12 from their diet. Some people's apparently blind faith in the importance of reducing homocysteine as a way to reduce heart disease risk ignores all the studies and opinions researchers have been sharing during the last decade. THese 'experts' don't even mention important, large studies and other articles discussing if homocysteine mainly is a result, a symptom, and which therefore indicates that treating the symptom as such may not help. Please have a look at the thread I just linked to if you haven't already, or at least have a look at the emphasized text.

A while ago the B12 'expert' Victor Herbert wrote that we need to absorb max 0.25 mcg B12 pr. day. I think its' higher, and Herbert increased his numbers.
All B12 that is consumed isn't absorbed, some of the B12 found in supplements, fortified food, vegan and non-vegan food isn't active, but inactive B12 analogues, and finally, we need to look at all the elements that reduce B12 levels/absorption.


The current Dietary Reference Intake for an adult ranges from 2 to 3 µg per day. According to Jack Norris, the recommended intake is 25-100 mcg, or circa 1000%-4000% of the current RDAs.

If theveganrd.com and Jack Norris manage to convince vegans that they need 25-100 mcg B12 daily, much more than eg. any health dept. recommends, we can conclude that 100% of the world population gets too little B12.

'Beforewisdom', who has spent years on posting the same links to the "Norris-sites" is of course also active on theveganrd.com and on Norris' own site. If you have ben visiting any vegan message board the last 5 years, you must have seen his messages, and the same references to some B12 deficient guy ("For the last few months, I was feeling sluggish, had to lie down a couple.... etc").

It seems that we could get a rush of links to this new, Norris-related site... not in the form of interesting posts which actually are discussing Norris' very special view on B12, but by people who "accidentally" happen to promote these sites by posting repeated links to them. So, here's a little, but important reminder: Spam (repeated links) are never welcome, discussions are welcome.

[leedsveg]

Never mind about the effects of B12 deficiency, just reading all of this thread has made me feel more sluggish than before...!

lv



[this posting is an attempt at humour and in no way contains any nutritional advice or information*]

*allegedly

[Kimberlily1983]

This looks like a very interesting thread, which I will have to read more closely in the future when I have more time.

For now will comment on a couple of things that caught my eye:

After The Rain, you know what's sad? Cohen said many of the things you did (and I find them to be true). There are definitely lobbyists posing as vegans, much more than people realize. You know, corporations are not above astroturfing and posing to create, destroy, and subvert grass roots movements and counter cultures. It's been a common practice in the US since day one, but oddly people pretend it can't be so. I think it's worth looking in to.

I just learned of this term - astroturfing - this week, how funny. While there are obviously corporations funding antiscience, etc. organizations that disseminate false information about soy, etc., and while there are definitely individuals, working with the law, infiltrating animal rights groups, I never really thought about the possibility of people posing as vegan advocacy, etc. organizations... That's a scary thought. Definitely something to be careful about, watch out for...

'...the chicken lying in the supermarket freezer today would have died even if I had never existed; but the fact that I take the chicken from the freezer, and ignore the tofu on a nearby shelf, has something to do with the number of chickens, or blocks of tofu, the supermarket will order next week and thus contributes, in a small way, to the future growth or decline of the chicken and tofu industries.' Peter Singer A Vegetarian Philosophy, Consuming Passions. Manchester, 1998, pp. 66-72

While I agree that Singer's philosophy is very problematic, this is a good quote!

BTW, utilitarianism can fully support rights, despite what most people think on this subject. Just because most utilitarians are anthropocentric (despite what Singer says, he falls in this category), doesn't mean all of us are. My own view is that rights are integral to utilitarianism, and that any utilitarian calculus that can justify the violation of rights is flawed. I can't get into it now - it would take too long - but perhaps it's fodder (ugh) for future discussion.

[Korn]

There are definitely lobbyists posing as vegans, much more than people realize.

There are even people who 'pose' as (or are!) vegans, but which realistically function as lobbyists for animal products, or which try to get people to choose a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet instead of a vegan diet and lifestyle.

They may claim that only 'strict' vegans avoid other than food related animal products, and sometimes claim that only 'some vegans' don't use honey etc. Or: they promote the myth that vegans are likely to get iron and protein deficiency without supplements... and so on.

They almost always fail to mention that people on SAD (Standard American Diet) suffer from a lot of deficnecies.

The relatively new (?) site veganvsvegetarian dot info seems to belong to that category. For instace, they have a video about the difference between vegan and vegetarian, which ends up with saying that they'll now demonstrate vegetarian recipes. And (unfortunately - just like one or two major vegan sites) - they focus on the nutrients vegans need to pay extra attention to without focus properly on the fact that people on a standard diet have a lot of nutrients they need to pay attention to. The end result is that occasional vistors with little knowledge about vegan nutrition (read: most people) will have their fear about vegan food not being as healthy as SAD confirmed. For the records, the site I mentioned seems to be particularly misinformed, in that they eg. claim that the original meaning of vegan was "a person who was simply opposed to eating eggs for food." (!)

Some of these 'pro-veg' sites, for some reason, also happen to have advertisements for iron and protein supplements, and talk about vegans as 'they', not us (ever if they consider themselves vegans). ;-) Also - like meat eaters - they talk about what 'they' (the vegans) 'can' eat - and forget that we can eat what we want but that there's some stuff we don't want to do and eat.

Such writers/sites/blogs/YouTube clips - when comparing vegan vs the somewhat vague term 'vegetarian' - also usually fail to mention the many unwanted health side effects associated with dairy products - and never focus on the cruelty involved in the production of eggs and milk. It's all very food oritented.

And for some reason, they also tend to promote veggie recipes of the kind that meat teaers assume vegans and vegetarians eat (cooked broccoli with salad and rice or potatoes etc). Gourmet vegan food doesn't seem to be something they consider eating.

[harpy]

'Both of these lifestyles require an extraordinary commitment...Furthermore, if you are not careful with these diets, you could have deficiencies in protein, vitamins and minerals. Even if you are getting all your necessary nutrients, it is easy to have “diet fatigue” and get tired of eating the same meals, day after day.' Way to put people off the whole idea. On the plus side, I like their accents. ETA and the "recipe" video gave me some moments of innocent pleasure as well