On Veganism as Vegetarianism
I'll write about "compassion" and the OED tomorrow because my level of confusion at something I saw in a press release by PCRM is something I cannot hold back.
It's a matter of language, and here it is (and thanks to a tweet from liberationbc for alerting me to it). See if you can guess what I find annoying about the verbiage.
Doctors endorse vegan and vegetarian diets for healthy pregnancies
Nutrition experts available for comment in response to Pediatrics study about B12
WASHINGTON–Well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are healthful choices for pregnant women and their children, and vitamin B12 needs can be easily met with fortified foods or any common multivitamin, say doctors and dietitians with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM). PCRM nutrition experts are available for comment in response to a new Pediatrics study showing that low levels of vitamin B12 may increase the risk for neural tube defects.
The Pediatrics study is based on analysis of stored blood samples originally collected during pregnancy from three groups of Irish women between 1983 and 1990. It's not clear if any of the women were vegan, but the study clearly states that this population was deliberately chosen because vitamin supplementation and food fortification were rare at that time. The women lived in a region of traditionally high neural tube defects prevalence, suggesting a moderately high genetic predisposition.
Experts agree that pregnant women can thrive on vegan diets. The American Dietetic Association, the nation's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, states that "well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat and cholesterol and higher levels of fiber, folate, and cancer-fighting antioxidants and phytochemicals.
"Women who follow vegan diets not only have healthy pregnancies, they are often healthier than moms who consume meat," says Susan Levin, M.S., R.D., staff dietitian with PCRM. "By eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, and other healthful vegetarian foods and including breakfast cereals or other foods fortified with vitamin B12, mothers and their children can obtain all the nutrients they need to thrive."
Choosing a vegetarian or vegan diet can also help women avoid the unhealthy hormones and environmental toxins found in dairy products, meat, and fish. Analyses of vegetarians' breast milk show that the levels of environmental contaminants in milk are much lower than in non-vegetarians.
Vitamin B12 needs can be met easily with fortified breakfast cereals and soymilk, which are low in fat and calories. The most convenient and reliable B12 source is a daily multivitamin.
Anything grating about that for you?
How about "well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets" and "Choosing a vegetarian or vegan diet"? Now, we're talking about nutrition here and evidently vegetarianism is better than including meat in your diet from a nutritional standpoint, so PCRM can't be faulted for telling it like it is.
But I don't get why "Choosing a vegetarian . . . diet" would "help women avoid the unhealthy hormones and environmental toxins found in dairy products". Aren't vegetarians eating dairy?
Finally, I don't think about veganism as a type of vegetarianism. Do you? And it's more than the lifestyle versus diet concept. The way vegans think about using nonhuman animals is vastly different from the way vegetarians think about using them. And lumping us all together doesn't help the rest of the world to differentiate between us.
Yes, the whole concept of a (lacto-ovo) "vegetarian" diet is nonsense. I also despise the politically correct and morally incorrect shorthand of "veg*n". Several months ago, I wrote a blog essay entitled "What Is Wrong with Vegetarianism?". It focused on facts, was not a rant, and turned out to be one of my most popular essays. Although I didn't provide references, the facts I brought up can be easily verified on the Net and other sources.
I wouldn't be surprised to see PCRM allow significant mission creep in the quest for money and power over the next several (or even few) years. Keep an eye out for it.
I don't understand either why the study is not differentiating between vegetarian and vegan breastmilk in regards to rbgh, dioxins, pcbs or the 82 drugs that may be administered to dairy cows (of which authorities only test for residues of 4).
I think because there's more negative conclusions than not, research concerning pesticide residue in lactating mother's milk is limited. And Dr Spock, possibly the best known pediatrician in history, urged studies that would compare contaminants from omnivorous, vegetarian and vegan mothers but said: " … it will probably never be done. There is simply no academic or economic profit involved."
But, one of the last studies conducted on 14,000 women showed a subgroup of vegetarian mothers had only half the contaminants as non-vegetarian mothers… It only stands to reason, that since these pesticides are stored and passed through fat cells that a vegan's diet would be even less than that. http://www.notmilk.com/kradjian.html
I do though see veganism as a type of vegetarianism… "ethical" vegetarianism. Many, myself included, were under the (wrongful) assumption that being vegetarian was/is consistent with non-exploitation of animals. And I admit it is because of faulty information and lack of critical thinking. Yet several vegetarians I have met were like me, never imagining the cruelty in eggs and dairy. In my deepest belief I feel that even when I was consuming these products I was still psychologically, spiritually and emotionally a "vegan". Never wishing to harm any animals, believing I was living my ethics but duped under some very well contrived notions that the industry fabricates. This is why it's so very easy to persuade "ethical" vegetarians to become vegan… They think they already are! Honestly, there's hardly a day that goes by that I don't condemn animal agriculture for this deceit that caused inconsistency to my (vegan) values.
And if veganism is defined only as dietary, what of the consumption of an egg via a rescued or wild hen? And the very remote (but plausible) incidence of milk obtained from a lactating (rescued) cow who has lost a calf? If veganism is defined only by a nutritional standard – then even the accidental consumption of nonvegan products would disqualify one from being "vegan". In this sense, yes, it's a form of vegetarianism… However, if it's defined by intent and ethics, then it's much more than just a type of vegetarianism. And what do you name people who consume/use no animal products, but who have no concern of Animal Rights? Are they "non-ethical" vegans?
For me being vegan is a philosphy manifested in (but not limited to) a diet.
The most transparent thing to say is "PCRM promotes dairy products.and eggs". How else is one to interpret "vegan and vegetarian"? "Veg*n" is shorthand for "exploiting and killing animals is okay for dairy products and eggs."
I agree with Dan. The confusion about veganism is profound and occasionally maddening. Phrases like "go veg", terms like "veg*n", and other ways of lumping together these two radically disparate phenomena (like simply: "vegetarian and vegan") are good barometers of this confusion. My most recent blog entry attempts to address this underlying misunderstanding of veganism, and rectify some of the contingent lingual manifestations.
http://vegan-abolitionist.blogspot.com/2009/01/veganism-sui-generis-language.html
(please comment on the blog entry if you think anything about it is BS/wrong/problematic)
I believe PCRM establishes fertile grounds for distorting veganism by being health focused in the first place. Their donation based funding and interest in mainstream appeal help water these grounds. "Veganism" as dietary behavior (rather than an ethical perspective with myriad non-food implications) cannot occur unless the role of morality has been severely diminished (to allow room for preeminence of the health argument). This is because any serious moral consideration for, or thoughts surrounding, nonhumans will necessarily entail their exploitation outside of food purposes. By eroding its ethical foundation and thinking of "veganism" as a diet, the distinction between it and vegetarianism can easily start appearing less distinct and crucial.
I have a problem with the study itself. The way I read the second paragraph, the defects could have been caused by other factors (it even states a possibility of genetic factors). Then it states that "It's not clear if any of the women were vegan…" How does it make the leap from ten year old blood samples from a particular region with little more information about the diet of the donor other than the lack of vitamin suppplementation to making conclusion about preganancy and veganism. What?
MOST vegans were vegetarians first. It's important to recognize that vegetarianism is often the first step to veganism.
Mary said: "The way vegans think about using nonhuman animals is vastly different from the way vegetarians think about using them."
I don't think that's entirely fair. For example, "ethical vegetarians." They are 95% vegan and think animals deserve rights and should not be used for food in anyway, they just haven't taken the extra little step to remove all animal products from their diets. Often it's just the convenience factor: there are plenty of vegetarian options on every menu, but there aren't always vegan options.
I was an ethical vegetarian for decades before going vegan. I didn't eat animals and I didn't wear animals and I boycotted circuses and zoos. And I thought veganism was great and planned on going vegan, I just had obstacles. I've known plenty of vegetarians like that – they don't eat or wear cows, but they drink cow's milk, mostly because it's more socially acceptable to consume dairy but avoid meat than to avoid both dairy and meat.
Moreover, I consumed eggs and dairy far less frequently than the average nonvegetarian. (Which is also partially why I didn't notice any significant change when I went vegan.) Lots of vegetarians limit dairy and egg intake, if only for health reasons. So… they're closer to vegan than some vegans realize.
There are plenty of vegan supporters: people who'd be vegan if [fill in the blank]. They'll go vegan in twenty years when they see "vegan" on menu and when veganism is as accepted as vegetarianism is now. It's not really fair to say they think so "vastly differently." Beliefs and habits don't always match up – that's part of the human condition.
Anyway, here's my point: when I was an ethical vegetarian and vegans grilled me about consuming eggs and dairy, they sounded EXACTLY like anti-animal people. "Isn't that a bit hypocritical? blah blah blah" Meat eaters and vegans often use the same "consistency" argument, the one that doesn't really hold water: veganism is only labeled as such because it's a viewpoint opposed to the majority view of animal exploitation. When/if we live in a more perfect world, we won't need the word "vegan" anymore because that's just how average people will behave, they won't exploit animals de rigeur.
Less harm is better than more harm. And perfection is not only the enemy of the good, it's also just plain impossible. When we strive towards consistency or perfection, we lose sight of helping animals. And when we vegans treat vegetarians as if they're entirely different from us, we're not helping animals.
Vegetarians are future vegans. They should be treated that way.
Elaine,
“Helping animals” is just another way of saying “it’s a step in the right direction.” I reject both notions. Both “helping animals” and “it’s a step in the right direction” are inspired by utilitarian and new welfarist philosophy. I reject utilitarianism on philosophical grounds beyond the scope of a blog comment to explain. I reject new welfarism because it is primarily inspired by utilitarian thinking, and because it is certainly doomed to failure in a strong property rights environment inspired by classical liberalism (on which elaborating is also beyond the scope of a blog comment).
I reject the exploitation of animals. Period. I don’t care what is “more socially accepted” or “more convenient” or more “politically correct” or “a step in the right direction”. Yes, eating five ounces of cheese monthly is better than eating twenty ounces of cheese monthly, but eating cheese, drinking milk, or eating eggs, and thereby contributing to animal exploitation, is wrong. What is important is not which is “better”, but that they’re both wrong. If consuming animal products is wrong, then it is wrong and nothing more needs to be said.
The bottom line is this: If a given vegetarian believes it is wrong to exploit animals, then that person should figure out a way to go vegan. It really is NOT that difficult (contrary to what omnivores and the new welfarist movement would have us believe). If a given vegetarian/flexetarian merely wants to “reduce suffering” or “help animals”, but does not believe it is wrong to exploit them (e.g. Peter Singer), then there is indeed a *vast difference* in the way we see the issue. It’s not that this difference cannot be resolved by way of a moral agent coming to see exploitation as wrong, but as long as that individual doesn’t see it as wrong, there is a vast difference. For many ethical vegetarians, however, this difference is why they’ll never go vegan.
Incidentally, ten years ago, I would have laughed if you told me I’d be vegan in a few years. I went l-o vegetarian for about 6 months before I knew anything about animal agriculture. My reasons were vague notions about the idea of animals being slaughtered for their flesh when it was unnecessary, but I really hadn’t thought much about it. Six months after I went l-o vegetarian, I read in detail from a well-referenced source about what happened to “layers” and “dairy” cows, and I went vegan literally overnight out of disgust and outrage. I went vegan because I knew it was “possible”; but at the time, I thought it would be extremely difficult (I didn’t know about replacements for dairy and egg products or what I could say at restaurants to get vegan food). Still, how difficult I thought it was didn’t matter to me anywhere near as much as that I was not going to contribute to that fucking hell anymore. After being vegan for a few months in a vegan-UN-friendly area in Colorado, I was amazed at how easy it was and wondered what the big deal for everyone else was. I still wonder that to this day.
Oops, I forgot to add one more thing about Elaine’s comment on “perfection” and consistency and the idea that veganism is some kind of striving for perfection. Actually, veganism is a *minimum standard* of decency, not a maximum standard of purity, and you can read much more about that in the following link:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2009/02/veganism-as-minimum-standard-of-decency.html
All human beings are involved in many ways in the exploitation of human and non-human beings. Such is the tangled web of our lives, the multiple overlapping layers of causation. If a vegan is someone who is not involved in the exploitation of others, then no vegans exist, and I doubt that vegans could exist even in the best of all possible real worlds. If a meat-eater, motivated by a desire to reduce the exploitation and suffering of animals, stops eating meat, that's good. To me, veganism as an ethical ideal is a more consistent form of ethical vegetarianism, but there is no achievable perfect way of living. What we should ask of ourselves and others is to strive to move in the direction of the ideal of non-exploitation. That reaching the goal may be impossible is no excuse for not pressing on in its direction, but neither should we condemn those who are awakening to the task but who haven't yet got as far as we think we have.
I mostly agree, Angus, but I’ve encountered too many people who view veganism as a line as arbitrary as any other line, and I don’t think that’s the case at all. Veganism is the strongest and most well-reasoned line for the vast majority of society. The essay I linked to in my previous comment provides a brief explanation of how veganism compares to, for example, a law against chattel slavery and murder, but says nothing about other forms of indirect or “web-like” exploitation.
Again, veganism is a baseline, a minimum standard, not a claim to perfection. Informed vegans realize how far vegans are from Platonic perfection. But the kind of direct and known exploitation that comes from the intentional consumption of animal products is significantly different (and worse) in a moral sense from the indirect and unknown (or uncertain) exploitation that comes from other sources.
I’m not at all suggesting that we become hostile to non-vegans. I’m suggesting that we shoot them straight about what we think and why. We should tell people that it’s wrong to exploit and kill animals and that veganism is the minimum standard to avoid such exploitation and killing. We shouldn’t suggest or imply, as PCRM does by setting (lacto-ovo) vegetarianism as the minimum standard, that exploiting animals for dairy products or eggs is fine, as long as we don’t touch the flesh.
The biggest similarity between veganism and vegetarianism is the first three letters.
Vegans think it is wrong to exploit nonhuman animals.
Vegetarians think it is acceptable to exploit nonhuman animals.
Vegetarianism is a strange dietary preference akin to raw food, macrobiotic, and fruititarian.
If it has any ethical substance at all, it is conceptually jumbled to the point of incoherency.
"If a vegan is someone who is not involved in the exploitation of others, […]"
Fortunately, that is not accurate. Vegans are those who *reject* all nonhuman exploitation as a matter of moral principle. When someone takes this commitment seriously, vegan behaviors will follow naturally. Will they be "perfect" and "pure"? No, but they will have satisfied their basic moral obligation to nonhuman beings.
Perhaps we should all take a second to read the Vegan Society definition: "philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose"
http://www.vegansociety.com/images/ArticlesofAssociation.pdf
The illusion of perfection and everything aside, I think an important note is that PCRM could have just used the word "vegan" and it wouldn't have been insulting or alienating to those on a vegetarian diet.
There's no reason to pretend that vegans and vegetarians are almost the same thing because regardless of intent, they aren't. There are certain important similarities between them, obviously, but they aren't close enough to be used interchangeably–particularly in a press release like this one, which discusses b12 intake and the avoidance of hormones and environmental steroids. These are issues that are unique to vegans.
Dan, I can only assume you've never had any kind of addiction. If you had, you might better understand how beliefs do not necessarily translate into behaviors. And you might better empathize with people who are addicted to unhealthy, unsustainable, cruel habits like meat-eating and cow's milk consumption.
Mary, Dan, Nathan: Behaviors are one way to express belief, but statements like "Vegetarians think it is acceptable to exploit nonhuman animals" are inaccurate statements. Vegetarians are not a monolith (neither are vegans) and they don't all think one way. PLENTY of vegetarians want to be vegans. They are on the path, they don't think animal exploitation is OK, and they WILL go vegan. Besides, you can't claim to know with certainty what other people think. You are NOT them.
MOREOVER,
Ethical vegetarianism (abstaining from animal products that _necessarily_ result in animal pain and/or death) is self evident/ intuitive.
However, veganism (abstaining from all animal products because either a) they _unecessarily_ result in animal pain or death or b) they _tend_ to result in animal exploitation) isn't as intuitive. (A counter-example is unfertilized chicken eggs from wild hens: eating those eggs won't result in nor condone animal exploitation.)
Regarding veganism as a moral baseline, I agree. In fact, I made a vlog about the idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9au6sgJcK4
Regarding purity and veganism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ilZ9KhhA0
Elaine,
Thanks for clarifying your view on this topic.
This sounds like the ancient battle, still going on today, between desires and conscience. Is it because people’s desires are strong that they do wrong, or is it that their consciences are weak? In the case of alcoholism and addiction to hard drugs (e.g. cocaine and heroin), at some point a weak conscience (or a lack of prudence) turned into hopelessly strong desires, even physical (non-psychological) needs. In the case of cheese ‘addictions’ and such, however, I’m compelled to insist that it is weak consciences and victim mentality all the way.
Unfortunately, I think our postmodern, morally relative age has led to a celebration of victimization and a related rejection of gentle and well-reasoned self-mastery. It’s a “brave new world” where pills replace self-discipline over what one consumes in the battle to fight extremely poor health (see caveat below). Fast food restaurants and corporate chain restaurants are blamed for obesity instead of blaming our self-indulgent culture. Granted, corporate America and marketing firms are also to blame for manufacturing demand, and I’m not defending them at all. But if our culture encouraged and valued a better balance between self-indulgence and asceticism, an Aristotelian golden mean or Buddhist middle-way of self-mastery, then maybe we wouldn’t have so many problems like food ‘addictions’.
Sound harsh? It’s not. Gentle self-mastery breeds self-esteem, which breeds long-term fulfillment and happiness in life. Self-indulgence breeds a lack of self-esteem, which breeds misery and depression and possibly the need for pills to cope with everyday life. Gentle self-mastery is ultimately kindness to oneself and others. We should strongly encourage it in ourselves and others, and discourage excuses and faux ‘addictions’ that play into a victim mentality that can, and often does, turn into a downward spiral of dependency.
*A caveat:* I fully realize that there are natural chemical imbalances in the brain that are often hereditary, etc. I certainly don’t mean to downplay the seriousness of many of these conditions and the genuine need for pharmaceutical treatment of such conditions. Also, I realize some downward spirals create more chemical imbalance for which drugs are necessary, even if there was no imbalance originally. I’m not criticizing this or any genuine medical problem at all. What I’m criticizing are certain beliefs and attitudes in our culture that have led to much more unhappiness and less fulfillment than if those beliefs and attitudes were much different, regardless of brain-chemistry issues. Indeed, I believe many brain-chemistry problems could be prevented by a culture of gentle self-mastery. (I qualify self-mastery with “gentle” because I want to avoid the notion of harshness or self-tyranny or tyranny over others, which can be just as destructive as self-indulgence or more. Self-mastery can be gentle and enjoyable; it need not be militaristic.)
As to vegetarians, I wouldn’t deny that many vegetarians want to be vegans. I especially empathize with those who have family hostility toward veganism (usually spouses or parents). But I’ve also been in maddening debates with other ‘ethical’ vegetarians who insist that there’s nothing wrong with exploiting animals, as long as it’s done ‘humanely’ (i.e. the Peter Singer argument).
Anyway, I agree with you that vegetarians are not a monolith, but my (and probably Nathan’s and Mary’s) main gripe in this blog entry was PCRM’s reference to “vegetarian and vegan” as if they’re synonyms. There’s no excuse for PCRM to add “vegetarian” when all they need to do is say “vegan” (stop right there). It smacks of mission creep toward Singerian welfarism in a Faustian exchange for mainstream limelight and corporate bloating.
That said, PCRM emphasizes (if not solely relies on) the health argument for veganism, which is an understandable niche for them given that they are primarily physicians and dieticians. But perhaps PCRM should be more forthcoming with moral veganism. After all, they oppose all vivisection on both scientific and ethical grounds. Why not add ethics to their vegan health message and dump the word “vegetarian” from their vocabulary?
Finally, I’m glad to hear you agree with veganism as a moral baseline. Now let’s whip those slacto-ovos into shape. (Sorry, I couldn’t resist the politically incorrect name-calling – self-indulgence, I suppose.) 😉
Elaine et al.,
Part of the problem is that vegetarian can mean almost anything depending upon the source. I am defining vegetarianism as the position that says eating "meat" (from at least one species) is problematic for some reason, but does not challenge (ignores) the use of nonhumans for non-food purposes, and usually embraces some food purposes (ovo-lacto). This seems to me the most historically and currently precise definition possible. At the very very least, all the vegetarians who openly defend their consumption of chicken eggs or cow milk (not to mention "leather" et cetera) definitely "think it is acceptable to exploit nonhuman animals". Further, to the extent that vegetarianism rarely draws non-food issues into question, I also consider vegetarians to accept the exploitation of nonhuman animals in the same way that the average (non-vegetarian) speciesist accepts it.
For the vast majority of cases, where humans have physiological and practical moral agency, if someone truly and seriously believes it is wrong to exploit nonhumans for any reason, in my view they are no longer vegetarians (or any other type of nonvegan) — they are vegans now, or actively transitioning to veganism (as quickly as they can, which might be contingent upon impediments to their practical agency like their family situation). If they are *not* vegan or transitioning to vegan, then they do not meet the criterion of 'truly and seriously believe'. Ethics could be said to address the question: 'what to do?' So, by default, my comments typically deal with those who have physiological and practical moral agency with respect to a given quandary, for those without it are unable to tackle the question 'what to do?'.
On one (fairly abstract) level, it is true that I cannot really "know" what anyone thinks about anything (or even that anyone thinks). We can only infer from a person's words and actions by attempting to align them with recognized concepts and definitions. So, for instance, when someone with physiological and practical moral agency goes to the grocery and buys herself cheese and yogurt made from mammalian milk, I find it difficult to consider that action anything other than an endorsement of exploitation reflective of a particular mental state, regardless of what she calls herself.
My mother rejects exploitation to some extent — her diet is typically 100% plant based at home — but she is not yet serious enough about that notion to even investigate shoes not made from cow skin (she has difficulty finding shoes that fit comfortably), and she will eat foods containing dairy and eggs to "not be rude". Perhaps the case could be made that she doesn't think it is *acceptable* to exploit nonhumans (particularly with reference to her idealized world view), but I don't think it's at all reasonable to say she (or any other nonvegan) *rejects* exploitation in earnest (cognitively or behaviorally).
Only vegans (or vegans by another name) satisfy the minimum demanded by the basic rights of sentient nonhumans.
What do vegans purpose that we do with domesticated "farm" animals in a vegan world?
It seems that the most common response to this question is animal "liberation", which essentially means death by predator (especially considering the fact that these animals have evolved [by human breeding] to be nothing like their ancestors that were suited to inhabit their natural environments), starvation, and disease. Perhaps, such animals would be better off if they lived on smaller sanctuary-esque farms that don't slaughter their animals, attend to the needs of the animals, provide better stewardship of the environment, and give more humans employment. These animals can feed on grains not suitable for human consumption, live on land that isn't fit for farming, and provide decent organic fertilizer for better crop cultivation. And let us not forget that many vegans, perhaps most, buy their veggies from large agribusinesses. By pushing for better standards with their money (by supporting products that provide for increasingly better treatment of animals) and their voices (by demanding increasingly better treatment of animals), vegetarians of this specific type may actually lead to the best possible lives for these animals, better than anything I've ever heard proposed by vegans other than some sort of utopian nonsense based on a romanticized version of nature that doesn't exist. Also, I do think many self-righteous vegans, such as some of the posters above, deter would-be sympathizers with their extreme puritanical attitudes. Peace
It is not the responsibility of vegans to persuade non-vegans to do the right thing and go vegan; it is the non-vegans' responsibility to persuade themselves to do the right thing and go vegan.
Unashamedly Vegetarian [at least you did not call yourself, Comfortable Vegetarian, also it sounds like you may well have done.]
I can put your mind at rest with regards to your question: in a vegan world, "farm" animals will not die by predation, starvation, disease, or on a human being's plate because we will not have bred them for exploitation. Neither is it likely that any population will go vegan overnight, so there will not be large populations of nonhuman animals wandering around wondering who will eat them. The "cattle" population will reduce as demand reduces, it is as simple as that. You may be right that humans have manipulated all domesticates to the stage that they cannot survive as free-living individuals – but that is not their fate: they will not be born.