A question for the abolitionists...

I only avoid those that significant economic contribution to animal abuse. I have no interest in avoiding fining agents, the odd small trace ingredient of animal products makes no difference to me. The fish weren't killed for their fish scales used to fine beer, and as soon as people stop eating fish, the breweries will swap to a different fining agent.

Our goal should be to make veganism mainstream. By making it seem hard, or being 'vegan purists' we do the opposite.

I recommend: this essay by Mattt Ball: "ingredients vs activism"

http://www.veganoutreach.org/howvegan.html

I'm also of the opinion that I do not believe we should be so obsessed with removing the last few trace animal products from our lives.

In my opinion
A 'better' vegan isn't the one who is 'purest' in their lifestyle, but the one who makes the most number of new vegans.

I doubt that Gary Francione has ever converetd anyone in his life.

Veganism is not about personal 'purity'. It's about reducing animal suffering/exploitation.

We would all like to see a world where less animals suffer and die at the hands of humans. But one of the biggest challenges we face in inspiring others to adopt a cruelty free lifestyle is the misconception that being vegan is difficult. We all know it's easy, but not everyone else does. If we are continually reading labels and fussing over micro-ingredients then this only perpetuates the myth that being vegan is difficult.

If people abstain from eating meat, dairy and eggs then they are eliminating the vast majority of their contribution to food based animal industries. Most micro-ingredients are only viable ingredients because animals are raised and killed for meat/dairy. Breaking that killing cycle will make those micro-ingredients impractical to use and the industries will find vegan alternatives.

Besides if we strive for 'purity' then where would we draw the line...? Traditionally movie film used gelatin, even most veggies are likely grown with the use manure as fertiliser and animal products can be used to filter water, to refine sugar and even to refine oil (which would rule out nearly everything in our society if you try to avoid products reliant on petroleum for production).

Making a big deal over micro-ingredients also makes vegans seem fussy and less relatable. If we want people to be receptive to our message then obviously we want people to like us and relate to us.

Being relatable and showing others that being vegan is easy and fulfilling is essential to inspiring others to make the same compassionate choices we all have.

We also have some info here on this issue: http://www.unleashed.org.au/change_the_world/go_veg/how_to_tips.php

This is sad but true... I heard too that there are animal products in computers (that we are all using to see this thread) and bitumen -- the very thing I drive on to visit the organic store to buy my tofutti cream cheese!!

You really can do your head in if you think there is a way -- in this day and age -- to avoid coming in contact with all animal products completely. But there IS a way to fight it, as Jesse says, by breaking the killing cycle.

I mean, if there weren't 60 billion carcasses lying around every year in the wake of a global meat industry, then, the film-makers will find a new source for their gelatin-film; the sugar industry will find some other way to fine their sugar that doesn't involve bone-char.

Boycotting the root of the problem is the most effective way to solve the problem. Fussing over traces of byproducts may well send you insane and may make others who don't yet understand the ethics of what we're trying to achieve put veganism in the 'too hard, too radical' basket.

IMHO in our current predicament, when you weigh up the pro's and con's, abstaining from micro ingredients is a matter of personal purity. And when that purity compromises how effective we can be as advocates, then it has to go...

That's why I won't EVER engage in a discussion with a waiter over the ingredients of the bread roll that is served with my mushroom risotto. But at the same time I always make a point of LOUDLY COMPLIMENTING the restaurant staff on their DELICIOUS VEGETARIAN MEALS on my way out....

Boycotting the root of the problem is the most effective way to solve the problem. Fussing over traces of byproducts may well send you insane and may make others who don't yet understand the ethics of what we're trying to achieve put veganism in the 'too hard, too radical' basket.

[/quote]

I wouldn't call cheese a byproduct, neither is meat. I think we need to do our best to make restaurants aware of certain customers needs so they become more aware about what veganism is. I understand the 'too hard' thing, but if I go out with friends to dinner I almost always go to a vegetarian restaurant to show them how delicious vegan food is, I also want them to know of how many vegan friendly restaurants there are in Melbourne. We don't need to be rude to waiters or make a huge fuss, but we do need to inform them of our needs, we shouldn't allow ourselves to be ignored simply for convenience. I also stand by saying that eating cheese and saying your vegan infront of someone would be extremely confusing, even if they were to go "vegan" they would probably still eat cheese.


Of course I don't go insane over traces, it's impossible to be completely vegan.

I think that by excepting (in this case) the dinner roll, and saying "what the hell" gives the COMPLETE wrong view on veganism to begin with. If they see you as a role model vegan who sometimes breaks the rules, what will their veganism ethics be based on? Being vegan (to me) is an all or nothing principle. If you aren't willing to say no to emulsifiers etc. which have contributed to animal suffering then you need to watch some more nasty documentaries before going vegan.

If they are considering becoming veg, you shouldn't mislead them into thinking they can make compromises and cut corners when it doesn't suit them, or let them think that being veg is easy - because sometimes its not. It's much better to prepare and support them for what its really like, because we all know its for a good cause and the animals don't need our excuses.

Sometimes I really struggle with this point - There is an awesome soy cheese which has casein (a milk product) in it. It is a minuscule amount, but I can't bring myself to make the compromise - not just for the animals, but because I'm scared that if I excuse myself once, I will slip up again. I also know I'd be hugely disappointed in myself, and everything I stand for would mean mud. Although the emulsifier itself is a tiny product, I try to think of it in terms of the people who make/supply it, and how much suffering that would cause as a whole. It may only be a little roll, but the big picture is very cruel.

You don't have to be a nazi about it, the simple fact is that all cruelty is wrong, regardless of the scale, and I think if you stand up for this principle the people more likely to be converted will only respect you all the more for it in the long run. The only reason why we are seen as radicals is because it's not mainstream. I don't think there is anything we can do about that at this stage, it is something I believe will change with time. In the meantime I'm happy to be named a radical because I know what I'm doing is right and should be mainstream, and that really its the majority that's sick.

BTW I have used the term 'you' for the sake of argument, so dont take it personally

This argument though is based on the assumption of breaking 'rules' - rules which really aren't needed. Let's take a look at the reason that most of us acknowledge for becoming vegan; animal cruelty - not being 'pure' of animal products. For this reason, we have to look at what is the best way to liberate animals of this cruelty. It is here where it does not become so black and white. I think once we acknowledge that being 100% vegan is impossible, we take a step in the right direction in the crusade for veganism becoming mainstream, by focussing on the root causes of animal suffering. Once we 'convert' others to veganism (by showing just how easy it is), which then eliminates the root causes, industry will change to suit vegans as farming a cow for an emulsifier is not profitable - the reason for agribusiness in the first place.

If we're sure that eliminating the root causes of animal suffering will result in animal liberation, what is the point of risking the slightest opportunity of converting someone to veganism by staying as 'pure' as possible?


none taken I always get worried that I may sound as though I'm attacking someone on this... when really I'm not.

I agree with the first part of this but also with 'faeries are after me'... accepting something you know consists of animal products is simply to portray veganism as too difficult to properly adhere to.

The 'rules' of being vegan are simply to abstain from contributing to the animal abuse industries. As 'faeries..'says, by going óh what the hell'we take the same line as Singer with the 'we can indulge in a little bit of cruelty once in a while'.

And, whether you like the guy personally or not, I'd really have to disagree.. he's a lecturer and the strength of the argument for veganism poured straight into the mind of thoughtful college students surely has some influence.

But if we do support the use of the scale, or gelatine or whatever, we are still directly contributing to the industry we are trying to abstain from - and where do we draw the line? Is it ok to buy new leather because that's 'generally just a 'by product'of the meat industry and wouldn't really exist if people didn't eat meat?
Is it ok to eat hamburgers cos they're generally just offal?

Leather adds significantly to the abbatoir profits.
As for hamburgers, I didn't know about hamburgers being offal, perhaps they are OK for 'economic vegans'.  But I'm happy to stick to Lord of the Fries. Eating meat is just gross!

We all make compromises. There is animal bones, I have been told, in the road tarmac.

I make my compromises on what I percieve as significant economic contribution to cruelty industries. I also see it as healthy not to get hung up about minutiae of ingredients. To me the thing that is important is the efficacy of my personal activism, not the purity of my veganism.