Most people use the reason for why this is different as it much easier, which i agree. This is something which isn't too hard.
Sometime i find some peoples views a bit silly when they may complain about a big company like macdonalds, but our money means a lot more at a small restaurant.
Another food for though, what about buying say a pasta sauce from masterfoods - which is owned by Mars.
By the same token, should we only be buying products that actually say 'vegan' on it? If a product is accidentally vegan, how will a company know about a demand?
I don't think it matters if they know the increase in demand for the product is because it's vegan. I think it just matters that a vegan product, accidentally or otherwise, brings higher demand than an animal-derived alternative. For example, the health food aisle in Coles sells this range of vegan muesli bars, and the brand also includes one nougat bar. I notice that they always have more of the vegan ones in stock, probably because the demand for them is higher, since they'd be bought by vegans and non-vegans alike. The fact that they have a non-vegan bar probably means that they aren't aware that many people buy their bars because they're vegan, but they're still manufacturing more of the vegan bars, and less of the non-vegan bar; so it's still having a positive impact.
I can't really give an answer either way to the main topic of this thread, though. I'm still undecided on this front, which means that until I come to a moral decision, I'm avoiding these products anyway.
As for the comparison to buying produce from Coles/Woolies/IGAs that sell animal products, I do shop at these places from time to time, but I will generally seek out independently owned fruit and veggie stores anyway. Irrespective of any vegan issues, I like to support small business, and the produce in stores like these, I find, are usually cheaper and fresher.
in the supermarket I saw loreal shampoo stating it was completely vegan as well as peta approved.
if they in fact still test on animals then it is false advertising.
Loreal inoa was the name of the shampoo.
by they way I do try to buy locally.
in the supermarket I saw loreal shampoo stating it was completely vegan as well as peta approved.
if they in fact still test on animals then it is false advertising.
Loreal inoa was the name of the shampoo.
by they way I do try to buy locally.
I don't buy anything from Mars full stop. I have been "Mars free" longer than I have been a vegetarian, because I am not going to give my money to foul, evil animal testers when I don't have to.
I'm confused with this one. Part of me says no, don't support any company that's owned by one that tests but then it's like why punish those companies because of who owns them. Why not support the ones that don't tests then maybe it'll boost their sales and Loreal will wonder why. Like I've heard Tommy Hilfiger does not test but his company is own by Estee Lauder who do test, I love Tommy Girl perfume and hate not being able to support Tommy for not testing because he's owned by an idiot company.
