I've been vegetarian for about 4 years and am now slowly making the transition to vegan. So far I have cut out direct milk & dairy products, as well as direct eggs.
The question is: do you consume products that "may contain" traces of milk/dairy/eggs/etc? I guess its not really the 'risking it' factor but more supporting companies that don't follow strict guidlines.
I eat the "may contain stuff." It's my opinion that it's for people with allergies. I'm not too worried about consuming eggs and milk health wise; for me it's to do with the cruelty behind it.
For instance take biscuits as an example. if everyone only at vegan biscuits (like oreos) then there would be no machines that processed both vegan and non-vegan biscuits, let alone produce non-vegan period. So to me, as long as i'm buying vegan, i'm supporting vegan food and contributing to companies producing more of it. It's also hard enough finding vegan food in general
but of course that's just me! people eat and don't eat different things for a variety of reasons.
I still eat the may contain traces of... but I try to steer clear where possible. Example if there are crackers that may contain traces of and crackers that say 'vegan suitable' I will always go for the vegan suitable, just because I like supporting those companies alot
So I am still okay with eating may contain traces of egg or dairy...
However if something says may contain traces of meat or seafood I avoid it completely... Such double standards I know... but I am just completely grossed out by the flesh thing...
When I first became vegan, I avoided it. But I now realise, as Matt said, it's just the companies protecting themselves against people with severe allergies. Most companies use the same conveyor belts for vegan and non-vegan products so they need to protect themselves.
I know what you mean Fox, if something says "may contain seafood", there would be no way I'd purchase that product! I guess, meat/fish grosses me out more than dairy.
This is something I was actually talking to my vegan friend of 3yrs the other day... and asked her opinion... she is much the same as you guys - traces of are more mentioned for allergies and to cover the ass of the company producing the product... but meat or fish traces is something different all together.
This was something I was worried about, but now feel a little more relaxed about. But as Rainbow Fox said if there is a vegan substitute I will buy that first of course! Also some vege companies produce vegan options also, so may contain traces of egg/milk due to the manufacturing of their vege producs. Ie: Sanitarium.
I guess ıts alrıght as long as you dont go too far.
Most of the vegetarıans I know lıke to lımıt the may contaın traces of food to once a week.
but then are they are admitting there is something wrong with consuming a "may contain" product?
I don't think there is anything wrong with it -i'm not buying the milk; i'm buying the product. If I did find something wrong with consuming them, I probably wouldn't eat it at all then.
I'm not vegan, but know people with alergies, and yes, the 'may contain traces of nut/egg/milk/soy/crustae' is to cover the companies ass if it gets in trouble.
If someone had an alergic reaction to the food being produced, because some stupid worker decided they were going to eat sushi over the gigantic mixer thingy that mixes food, they would have a law-suit on their hands. If the company warns against it, then they don't have to worry about it.
I knew a boy who was so severley alergic to peanuts that he couldn't touch them, but he'd still eat food that 'may contain traces of peanuts' because the fact is, there aren't any peanuts there, they just put it there so that alergic people can't sue them. If he was to have an alergic reaction to peanuts in the <insert non-peanut-containing food here> then he wouldn't be able to sue if the company had warned against it.
It's also the (sad) reason why compaines still test on animals, so that if someone uses their product and burns their face off, the companies can say 'yes, but we tested it, and it DOESN'T burn faces off.'
I knew a boy who was so severley alergic to peanuts that he couldn't touch them, but he'd still eat food that 'may contain traces of peanuts' because the fact is, there aren't any peanuts there, they just put it there so that alergic people can't sue them. If he was to have an alergic reaction to peanuts in the <insert non-peanut-containing food here> then he wouldn't be able to sue if the company had warned against it.
That's reassuring coz I'm always worried if I'm gunna get sick (from dairy) after eating it!
I knew a boy who was so severley alergic to peanuts that he couldn't touch them, but he'd still eat food that 'may contain traces of peanuts' because the fact is, there aren't any peanuts there, they just put it there so that alergic people can't sue them. If he was to have an alergic reaction to peanuts in the <insert non-peanut-containing food here> then he wouldn't be able to sue if the company had warned against it.
That's reassuring coz I'm always worried if I'm gunna get sick (from dairy) after eating it!
Yeah. I actually had to sit next to him on a plane for several hours, and he asked me not to eat peanuts because he could get sick. (we were going to japan)
