> There are even people that will argue that shellfish are suitable for vegans to eat: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2010/04/consider_the...

"Vegans should eat oysters" is not the same as "oysters are vegan".

There has to be a word for this kind of... comprehensive incompleteness. Being so particular about a vegan diet (for ethical reasons) strikes me as very odd when animal products are in use every day around us by vegans. Do people know we use every part of the proverbial buffalo? Or do vegans often ponder the "ingredients" in everyday objects?

Is vaccinating your kids vegan? Are all vegans anti-vax?

Are soaps, cosmetics, detergents, plastics, tires, and lubricants made with stearic acid and other beef products vegan?

Vegans for ethical reasons seem to only not want to consume a single part of the animal, but consume the rest, which is a pretty large portion, by weight.

And if you're eating organic food, isn't it more likely that your spinach was grown in a bath of bone meal, blood meal, fish meal? Do vegans know how we produce organic fertilizers?

> Or do vegans often ponder the "ingredients" in everyday objects?

Yes.

> Is vaccinating your kids vegan? Are all vegans anti-vax?

There is certainly a lunatic anti-vax fringe. But no, not all vegans are like that, even though many vaccines contain animal derived products. I find this interesting: http://rvgn.org/2015/05/09/anti-vax-and-veganism/

> Are soaps, cosmetics, detergents, plastics, tires, and lubricants made with stearic acid and other beef products vegan?

No.

> Vegans for ethical reasons seem to only not want to consume a single part of the animal, but consume the rest, which is a pretty large portion, by weight.

No vegan I ever interacted with fit this description.

> And if you're eating organic food, isn't it more likely that your spinach was grown in a bath of bone meal, blood meal, fish meal?

Possible, but if everyone stopped eating those animals, the prices of these products would presumably make their use uneconomical, so promoting veganism would change this.

Though I admit I haven't heard vegans I know ever discuss this particular point. They are probably not aware of how the plants they eat are fertilized.

This is so true. And for your last point there is veganic farming that excludes animal products in the process. It’s awesome and growing.

People love to think of vegans as naive children but most people don’t think anything about their food and the vegans I know do actual research on what happens and how to live better.

Do they exclude dung/urine too? It seems they must if honey is an excluded product? Growing under those restrictions must be very difficult.

I don't think it makes sense to discuss such details as if all vegans thought alike. There are many differences in thought among them, as in any group of humans.

But I would like to point out that this argument by analogy is flawed: Honey is food for the bees themselves. Taking it away harms the bees by making them work harder for their survival. (Unless you can prove that you only take a surplus that they would never touch.) In contrast, excrement from animals like cows or horses is not used by the animal itself.

As someone else pointed out in this thread, if necessary, many vegans could probably get behind a world were animals were raised for the use of their excrement but nothing else.

Cow shit fertilises the pasture and feeds other creatures/life in the ecosystem ultimately taking its part in creating an environment for the animal. Moreover the seeds the animal disperses will be lost if you abscond with their excretions.

There's a very real way in which a cow, say, feedsback in to the environment. It's less direct than stealing bee vomit, but still a part of the feeding cycle.

The reason I compared them though was primarily that collecting animal faeces of large mammals would probably be an overall negative (cf. bat guano) unless you artificially confined the beasts?

It seemed to me that the necessary interference in the animals natural cycles would be akin to good beekeeping (where an apiarist can prevent hive death, increase food availability, etc.).

Yep, that’s the point, avoid all byproducts.

I’ve seen more products labeled as veganic so it seems doable and they weren’t too much more expensive than organic bread or what have you.

>> tires... vegan?

> No.

Tires are rather hard to eat in general, so I guess that alone makes them unsuitable for a vegan diet. But I suspect that's not the real reason. What is the actual rationale then?

"Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose." - The Vegan Society

Veganism for most is more than just food, it's includes seeking to reduce animal exploitation and suffering in any aspect of your life.

People who eat a vegan diet but ignore animal product consumption in leather, wool, cosmetics are not considered vegan by most vegans, it's usually referred to as "plant-based diet".

> People who eat a vegan diet but ignore animal product consumption in leather, wool, cosmetics are not considered vegan by most vegans, it's usually referred to as "plant-based diet".

Variations of vegetarian? Vegetarianism seems to be solely about diet, whereas veganism is abstaining from animal products in general.

There are people who avoid meat/dairy for their own benefit. Because they have allergies to it, or have heard eating meat is unhealthy etc.

There are others who avoid them for the animals' benefit, to avoid animal suffering. Because there is no rationale for treating humans' lives as of infinite value, and animals as mere meat machines, fish as just 'stock' for humans etc—except that we are humans and they're not. That naturally extends to avoiding use of other animal 'products' besides food.

Racism and slavery are other phenomena in which an 'out-group' is treated as not worthy of ethical consideration, as not really mattering, just because they're defined as 'not us'. In these situations, there's a similar difference of opinion in just who the life forms whose lives and suffering matter in the situation are. And if you're brought up in a racist or slave-owning tradition, you (at best) resent the hell out of anyone suggesting you that you are unethical, inconsiderate for being that way. How dare they! Who do they think they are, thinking they're better than me! etc.

It will one day seem very odd that nowadays if you abuse and kill a dog or cat you can go to jail; abuse and kill a million chickens or cows and you can be a millionaire.

To return to the point, I've come across both ethical vegetarians and dietary vegetarians (to perhaps coin phrases); some tried going vegan but it didn't work for them; some think avoiding meat is doing enough, it being quite hard to avoid all dairy when eating out. But there are many variations. A lot of people seem to avoid meat, but not fish, even calling themselves vegetarian. I'm kind of 'lazy vegan', I try to never eat/use/buy animal products, without going nuts about it—always trying to ascertain that what I eat from cafes or friends is totally vegan would be a huge pain, for myself and others.

Really depends per vegan.

If you already own a leather coat, and you become vegan, not one animal suffered more from you owning that coat.

A lot of vegans think very black and white, but there are also vegans and groups of vegans who are more nuanced such as the Facebook group "Friendly and Pragmatic Vegans".

In my experience from organizing conferences people who self-identify as vegetarians eat milk products and eggs, though sometimes reluctantly. Vegans don't.

> In my experience from organizing conferences people who self-identify as vegetarians eat milk products and eggs, though sometimes reluctantly.

That's why I used the word "variations". Vegetarians can be "baseline" (no meat), "lacto" (no dairy) and "ovo" (no eggs). A lacto-ovo-vegetarian would eat no meat, dairy or eggs, but it would still only be about diet.

Honest question: What are a vegan's views on pets and work animals, such as a horse who pulls a cart to the vegetable market.

From what I've seen, pets are not ideal, but also a low priority.

Work animals are usually limited to less industrialized situations, so they're not usually a concern for the same people. I've never known anybody who used a work animal, with the exception of riding horses if you count that.

Vegans tend to love animals, and that inspires them to follow a vegetarian and eventually vegan diet. (The non-diet part tends to follow afterwards. See it as an on-going process, like learning things in life is.)

Most vegans I know are totally OK with pets. Some own dogs, cats, or horses. Some aren't, and some hate cats for the damage they cause (apparently a big problem in Australia). It isn't common, but some vegans tried to make their cat vegetarian or vegan as well (cats are natural carnivores).

Reading my post back my post it is rather generalising, and vague ("most", "some", lacking sources, and anecdotal). Sorry for that, but hey at least I both state it and admit it.

I understand that.

But how does animal suffering correlate with the tire production?

> if everyone stopped eating those animals, the prices of these products would presumably make their use uneconomical

If everyone stopped eating animals, the prices of a lot of plant agriculture might become uneconomical. My mistake for bringing in the organic/not distinction, since almost all non-organic fertilizers use some amount of animal products too. It's just that organic ones almost certainly use animal products.

(Very) broadly speaking, you can grow grains and legumes at scale without soil amendments from animals, though IDK about cost. You cannot grow fruits and vegetables at scale without soil amendments from animal products.

Like Diogenes living on handouts in Athens and decrying the materialist way of life, you can enjoy an economical vegan diet only if the world around you is not.

> You cannot grow fruits and vegetables at scale without soil amendments from animal products.

I'm skeptical about the truth of this statement, but open minded. Could you provide a source?

There are plenty of plant-based fertilizers, as well. If humans primarily farmed animals for manure-based fertilizer, many vegans would be pretty thrilled, whether it meets the textbook definition of vegan, or not.

I'll speak for myself. It's not about purity. It's about reducing harm. I know I can't be a "pure" vegan without either living in a bubble, or some remote area with really good farming.

Do people know we use every part of the proverbial buffalo?

Yes.

Or do vegans often ponder the "ingredients" in everyday objects?

And yes. I'm aware the paint on the walls might not be vegan. I just have to live with that.

Is vaccinating your kids vegan?

I don't know, and I don't care. I'm okay with using animal products for medicine. Maybe that makes me not vegan.

Are all vegans anti-vax?

No.

Are soaps, cosmetics, detergents, plastics, tires, and lubricants made with stearic acid and other beef products vegan?

Strictly, no.

And if you're eating organic food, isn't it more likely that your spinach was grown in a bath of bone meal, blood meal, fish meal?

Maybe. But I'm sure this is better than actually eating the animals, in a calculated sense. I make no effort to eat organic, anyway.

Do vegans know how we produce organic fertilizers?

Some do, some don't.

Note: I am not vegan, nor I necessarily endorse the thinking behind this answer, but I'm trying to do a service to the discussion by reporting what I heard from a conversation with a vegan friend.

I think the argument here is that most of most animals' worth come from eating them or their products. If everybody were to stop eating animals then it would not be economically feasible any more to use the "waste" parts of the animal for all the other products. We would find other more economically feasible ways to produce the same products (via plant matter or synthetics). Thus, by refusing to eat meat and animal products, all the other uses of animal suffering would cease to exist.

>"If everybody were to stop eating animals"

So is part of being vegan trying to make everyone else stop eating animals? Or is it enough to just control what you eat yourself? Because if your point is to make all the other uses of animal suffering cease to exist, then it sounds like a hopeless cause unless you try to convert everyone else in the world into vegans.

There is certainly a sizable segment of vegans who are dead-set on converting everyone to veganism. It's a minority, but a sizable one.

These are the people who possibly annoy you online and at restaurants and who are featured in anti-vegan memes.

The majority are perfectly content with just being vegan themselves, and you probably wouldn't know until you asked.

If your goal is to climb Everest, each step gets you closer to your target; it is not a hopeless endeavour just because you cannot reach the summit in a single leap.

Many people have successfully climbed Everest in the past. Are you saying that people have already converted everyone else in the world into vegans in the past, or that you're hopeful that it's as possible to eventually do that, as it is possible for yet another person to climb Everest?

Neither, but the latter is closer. I’m saying that ending animal suffering takes many steps, and that not even trying because perfection doesn’t seem possible to you is akin to not even trying to go to the gym because you personally (I am making an assumption here) have not climbed Everest.

But maybe those people just want you to shut up?

I have plenty of vegan friends and a small set of them beat the drum constantly.

I’m not going to be vegan and if there was a meat prohibition, I’d be an outlaw.

The thing that particularly drives me nuts about this kind of vegan is that they will bring cookies to a party and after everyone’s has eaten them point out that they were vegan and that everyone enjoyed them.

A. Carrots are vegan. I can eat stuff without meat, too.

B. No shit, Carl. You made them we assumed that.

C. the cookies sucked and people weren’t going to be rude at a dinner party where someone already went out of their way to make you a vegan dish.

D. They dipped them in milk because they were dry AF

E. If I went to a vegan party and made vegan cookies and fed them to everyone and told them in the end there were pig eyeballs in them everyone would get pissed.

I don’t do that because I’m not a self righteous asshole.

</rant>

Also, Carl sucks.

You seem really upset about a time someone made you cookies.

They were terrible, man.

Vegan activism is not trying to make everyone else in the world go vegan, it is trying to make a bigger difference than just by your own abstinence. It can be by introducing someone to veganism, or anything "bigger" than that.

> Or do vegans often ponder the "ingredients" in everyday objects?

I have met many vegans that adhere to various levels of "strictness", (2nd-hand leather goods, isinglass filtered beers, etc. etc.), but even for the very most relaxed, non-adherent vegans, at a very minimum being acutely aware of the non-vegan nature of many/most non-edible products is definitely a consistent theme. This seems like basic 101 of pondering becoming a vegan. Of course they consider the ingredients of soaps, plastics, etc.

> Vegans for ethical reasons seem to only not want to consume a single part of the animal, but consume the rest, which is a pretty large portion, by weight.

Everything is anecdotal, so perhaps vegans you've met do think like this, but in my experience the opposite has been true. Some have been lovely people, some have been a little closer to the negative stereotype of vegans that's propagated on the internet, but they have been at least universally well-versed in the ingredients of their own consumption.

> Do vegans know how we produce organic fertilizers?

Yes.

The definition reads: "Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

And all the "gotcha" folk stumble on the "as far as is possible and practicable" part.

Oh yes

Veganism is a commitment beyond diet. Every vegan I know does not intentionally make use of anything that contains animal products in any form. There is a huge industry for cruelty free cosmetics, for example. You’re mischaracterising veganism. A person who follows a diet of no animal products but uses animal products elsewhere in their life would usually say they follow a “plant based diet” and not claim to be vegan.

For most, it's less about the hard and fast rule set as much as a constant minimization of our consumption of animal products.

Ethical vegans are interested in doing the least harm, and so they'll investigate ingredients to ensure they're at least minimizing the suffering of animals.

Nearly all vegetarians I know wear leather shoes.....

A vegan would not wear leather shoes. If we're going to go off anecdotes, most vegetarians I know wouldn't either.

However many people I know transitioning to vegan/vegetarian lifestyles will continue to use leather products from before the switch, at least until they wear out, to avoid being wasteful.

Exactly, I'm vegan but I have a leather jacket I bought before transitioning. I will use it until it wears out. Some vegans would sell/throw out all their non-vegans clothes afraid of what others might think, but a lot of vegans do not care much.

I’m a vegetarian and I have all kinds of leather items. Shoes, motorcycle jacket, probably a belt or two. Because leather, when taken care of, lasts a long time, and I haven’t always been a vegetarian. But it would be incredibly stupid to get rid of them just for the sake of appearance.

And not every vegetarian is such based on morality. I wouldn’t be surprised if the “...but i eat fish/chicken” vegetarians wear leather.

I've had someone who insisted they wanted to get out of my car because I have leather seats(and I was giving him a lift as a favour). To me, that's 1000% insane, but hey, his choice.

It's not "1000% insane", and I am sure you could easily see their point of view if you wanted to, even if you disagree.

Imagine something you don't want to be part of. Imagine yourself making a kind of a stand in that situation.

Today I ate at that nasty sausage place - they had a collection box, asking for donations for animals in need, right next to the grill. Insanity's all over the place...

"To me it's X" "It's not X" - do you not see that here, you seem (ironically) the one deficient in seeing the other guy's point of view? At least, I read him as saying "It seems X to me", which is not something you can disagree/argue with—I think he began "To me.." to avoid that kind of criticism, by stating an indisputable fact.

That said, I mostly agree with both of you. But my casting vote says - yup, 1000% insane hehe. That would seem pretty crazy to me if I witnessed that. (Disclosure: vegan for decades, would never buy anything leather)

They should just give up and discard their emotions.

Veganism to is "making a serious effort to not harm animals by not consuming product for which animals were harmed to produce them".

There are always edge-cases. I've not met vegans actively addressing that, for instance (1) any vehicle seems to kill some bug at some point and (2) most plant farming needs some kind of animal-pest control.

Edge-cases aside, it is a fact that a vegan lifestyle vastly reduces animal suffering and death, and is is in most cases less taxing on our environment.

> Do vegans know how we produce organic fertilizers?

Yes there are plenty discussions on that topic and related topic in the vegan movement.

I think people like to argue the details, like honey and shellfish, but most vegans I know are pretty aware of what vegan is, anything with an animal product or byproduct.

There are definitely clueless people who eat chicken and call themselves vegan and such, but anyone whose done the research, or at least knows what an animal actually is, agrees on the base set and may have personal exclusions like honey.

This takes the no-honey approach: https://github.com/hmontazeri/is-vegan/blob/9d0b35a41c21bdcc...

Considering honey to be vegan sounds a bit fringe, to be honest.

Is veganism "eliminating the consumption of any animal products" or "reducing consumption of products that are produced due to animal exploitation and suffering". In the former case, honey is clearly not allowed, but in the latter it could be. Beekeepers and their bees can definitely be more of a symbiotic relationship than an exploitative one.

I see both sides of the debate; at the very least it's not as black-and-white as most other animal products.

> Beekeepers and their bees can definitely be more of a symbiotic relationship than an exploitative one.

Seriously? Beekeeping can be quite stressful for the bees, in some cases colonies are pruned. And the keeper gets to make money selling the honey that the bees did happily give up (the try to sting anyone taking their honey).

This is exploitation by definition. Calling it a symbiosis is euphemistic.

There are links elsewhere in this thread that defend honey as vegan. I'm neither a vegan nor an expert in beekeeping, so it's not an argument I'm interested in having.

No worries. Not having it than. It's just to classify that relationship as symbiotic which makes my question your understanding of the word symbiotic.

> Considering honey to be vegan sounds a bit fringe, to be honest.

Maybe on a "percentage of vegans" level, but on a logical level, why? Humans provide housing, (supplemental) food, protection, medical attention to bees in exchange for some of their honey production.

The bees don't really get to consciously choose, sure, but you could make an argument that the Whole Foods employees selling you tofu don't get much choice in whether or not to work, either.

You could make the same arguments about milk though, right? We provide housing, food, protection, etc. to cows in exchange for their milk production.

I guess with cows, it's a little beyond what they'd normally do (constantly lactating is not the natural state of the cow), so there's that distinction.

I'm not a vegan, so I haven't spent any serious time considering this, but I bet there's an argument to be made that bees would "rather" not have their food store pilfered :)

> You could make the same arguments about milk though, right?

Sort of, but with an important distinction - we have to keep the dairy cows having babies so they're making milk. The female calves have to be separated and fed formula (so we can get the milk; likely traumatic for the babies). The male calves are either killed or raised for veal, which is going to present... issues for vegans.

It's fairly common to kill off bee colonies for the winter in apiculture, though, isn't it? Seems like a similar general idea.

I can't find anything in a quick Google search indicating that's any sort of common practice. Most appear to recommend feeding supplemental sugar to prep for overwintering.

Not mentioned in this guide to prepping for winter at all: https://pollinator.cals.cornell.edu/sites/pollinator.cals.co...

Presumably apiculture occasionally involves accidentally squashing and killing some bees as you slide comb frames in and out? And I think bee keepers amputate wings from queen bees.

I'm not vegan or vegetarian, but if you prioritise not harming animals in order to get food or other products from them then this doesn't seem compatible.

I'd imagine harvesting a field of soybeans involves a lot more animal deaths than the occasional squished honeybee.

> Humans provide housing, (supplemental) food, protection, medical attention to bees in exchange for some of their honey production.

That's also true of animals raised for meat: most of them are raised on farms and would not have lived, at least in those numbers, in the wild. Many species / breeds exist specifically because of farming, and benefit from the shelter, resources, and medical attention that humans give.

See also https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=3105

(I would be curious to see if there are people who only eat farm-raised animals and refuse to eat wild animals; there is some logical consistency there, but I've seen a lot of people with the opposite preference.)

We don't kill the bees to harvest honey, though, which is a pretty massive distinction.

Given the challenge of its definition, subjective or collective interpretation is a major component of veganism. Similar approaches can be taken to various degrees of rabbinic kosher law, as well as Islamic halal lawfulness.

generally most vegans (including myself) are adopting the diet for health as well as compassion, although many use it just as well as a cudgel to denigrate people over social media.

If I am cooking the food, it is vegan. If I am eating out with friends, I will make every effort to find a vegan option, however I will acquiesce to a vegetarian option if none are available as I understand the nature of the diet ive chosen. Most vegans refer to this as 'the paris exception' coined by peter singer.

The bigger picture here is that plant-rich diets are one the top most effective solutions to climate change (#4 on the Drawdown.org list): http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank Rather than worrying about what is or is not vegan, just focus on eating more plants.

I believe the saying goes "eat food, not too much, mostly plants".

Having been in a relationship with a wonderful German woman for a while now, I've found out that Germany has a very solid history of vegetarian cooking. Not necessarily for ethical reasons, but because of the periods in history where meat was too expensive or simply unavailable for most people. So they had to come up with a bunch of great (primarily) vegetarian dishes.

You'll probably never get me to give up my lemon chicken or shawarma completely, but you would have just as much trouble getting me to give up my portobellos or brussel sprouts.

Honey is clearly an animal product as it is made by bees. Simple.

https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-honey-not-vegan

> There are even people that will argue that shellfish are suitable for vegans to eat

You can find people that will argue all kinds of absurd things, like you can create peace by starting a war.

Perhaps "plant-based" is the term they were looking for.

Plant-based is another word for "not vegan enough", and when one suggests someone should use the word plant-based they're telling that person they're "too far from the ideal vegan definition to call themselves vegan". It is very defeatist approach, and IMO harmful.

We should embrace the fact that in our societies, perfect veganism is a very extreme idealistic endpoint. Its the travel towards it which is already good. Heck, everyone who's not even vegetarian but reducetarian is doing a lot of good for both our environment as well as animal welfare.

Cows are in car tires, asphalt, and drywall.

I suggest people moooooove on out of town if they want to be militant about their veganism.

This points to a larger societal problem of lackluster labeling requirements - people should at least have the knowledge so they can make informed decisions.

No one is going to label the streets.

Why not? As a citizen paying taxes I'd like the ability to quickly know who the paving company was (or if city workers, then definitely who specifically was involved), and who the supplier of the asphalt (etc) is, etc; a platform like the stock market but for cities, requiring to release an annual report (maybe some already do have this requirement?), and the ecosystem that could develop around it would be very useful. Is a city run well - why and who seems to be leading the success?

And Waze will add an “Avoid Non-Vegan Routes” option.