Is Veganism the Best Way to Reduce Suffering?

[DaRock]

In general, I consider myself a vegan. I don't eat meat, cheese, eggs, or animal products if I have an alternative. I do, however, sometimes eat certain candy bars, baked goods at events, etc... which have a small amount of butter, milk, or eggs in them. My reasoning is that if everyone on the planet reduced their consumption to the same extent as I did the animal agriculture industry would collapse and so the use of such products would cease to occur. Am I wrong to think so? Is reinforcing the idea of a "purity in veganism" counterproductive in convincing others to simply reduce consumption? Should I simply assume every baked good at an event (potluck, wedding, grad party, etc...) is not vegan, or should I inquire about every item, or should I simply accept that a small part of said baked goods is composed of a comparitively small amount of animal products? Should veganism be treated as a boycott (in which market demand is the focus) or as something else.

[cornivore]

In the big picture I'd prefer to look at it along the lines of the rationale of nonviolence (where I'd take it personally to be less than a strict vegetarian, for example), but a smaller picture can be about playing it where it lies, as they say (eating isn't harmless either way). Maybe it's between "all or nothing" and "all is nothing". Well anyway, I think it's a spiritual question, or if you think you're doing the best you can, why is it questionable? I don't think I'm doing my best (as in personifying a monk vs a monkey), and maybe the best is yet to come. The answer though is that the best way to reduce suffering is in as many ways as we can, and veganism is one of the ways (as is vegetarianism to whatever extent).

[Lay Vegan]

In general, I consider myself a vegan. I don't eat meat, cheese, eggs, or animal products if I have an alternative. I do, however, sometimes eat certain candy bars, baked goods at events, etc... which have a small amount of butter, milk, or eggs in them.

This sounds like “I eat vegan food when convenient” which is completely fine, but calling yourself a vegan while simultaneously making a conscious decision to purchase/consume animal byproducts will probably confuse most people.

There are fringe cases where vegans can and do willingly eat animals (see freeganism here). wiki/index.php/Freeganism But I don’t think it would otherwise be useful to call yourself a vegan and willingly eat animals.

My reasoning is that if everyone on the planet reduced their consumption to the same extent as I did the animal agriculture industry would collapse and so the use of such products would cease to occur.

I don’t understand this. Could you elaborate? Are you insinuating that a gradual reduction in the consumption of animal products could eventually lead to them being phased out? If so, I think that’s pretty compelling, given that many people can’t be completely vegan for practical reasons. Reducitarianism is a noble goal, and if everyone decided to eat meat 4 times out of week rather than 7 or 8, this could certainly result in a net positive affect on the environment. So I’m in support of that as well. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... thy-eating

Is reinforcing the idea of a "purity in veganism" counterproductive in convincing others to simply reduce consumption?

Yes, since as I stated above, strict vegetarianism isn’t practical for some people.

However, pushing a “purist” vegan diet can also be harmful for our own outreach. PETA goes into this here; https://www.peta.org/living/food/making ... ucts-food/

People who have made the compassionate decision to stop eating animal flesh, eggs, and dairy products may wonder if they need to read every ingredient to check for tiny amounts of obscure animal products. Our general advice is not to worry too much about doing this. The goal of sticking to a vegetarian or vegan diet is to help animals and reduce suffering; this is done by choosing a bean burrito or a veggie burger over chicken flesh, or choosing tofu scramble over eggs, not by refusing to eat an otherwise vegan food because it has 0.001 grams of monoglycerides that may possibly be animal-derived.

Obsessing over obscure amounts of *possibly* animal-derived foods makes us look crazy, and makes having a vegetarian diet look difficult to stick to (which is bad for veganism and the animals).

Should I simply assume every baked good at an event (potluck, wedding, grad party, etc...) is not vegan, or should I inquire about every item, or should I simply accept that a small part of said baked goods is composed of a comparitively small amount of animal products?

Some vegans (like freegans) are concerned mainly with their economic and environmental impact. Freegans would probably have no problem plucking up the leftover animal products at a wedding to avoid waste, and since the products have already been purchased from the vendor, the damage has already been done. I don’t think your concern should be “what percentage of my food is comprised of animals?!” But rather “Will eating this product cause harm to animals, or otherwise *increase* demand for more of this product?”

Should veganism be treated as a boycott (in which market demand is the focus) or as something else.

I think that’s a useful way to look at it.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don’t think your concern should be “what percentage of my food is comprised of animals?!” But rather “Will eating this product cause harm to animals, or otherwise *increase* demand for more of this product?”

I agree.

@DaRock

You could ask yourself "if I eat this will they run out and have to buy more, or order more next time? Or am I just preventing it from being thrown out?"

And the answer is sometimes a spectrum.

The question of how we represent veganism, and it can be useful to be a little laid back about it and not worry about small things, is also important in social contexts.

The only thing I'd caution against is eating something because you want to eat it, and then rationalizing it. If you feel like you really want to eat something, maybe it's best to err on the side of not doing it because of the way biases may lean. Whereas if something isn't really that good, then your judgement is probably more sound and unbiased. Non-vegan fruitcake? You're probably able to be unbiased about deciding if it's freegan or socially prudent. Some kind of non-vegan doughnut, maybe not. (assuming you dislike fruitcake and like doughnuts)

[cornivore]

Obsessing over obscure amounts of *possibly* animal-derived foods makes us look crazy, and makes having a vegetarian diet look difficult to stick to (which is bad for veganism and the animals).

I don't think so, compare this to the movie Fast Food Nation, where they're talking about how much poop is in a hamburger... well by the same token I'd prefer zero ham in a veggie burger, just saying.

[Lay Vegan]

Obsessing over obscure amounts of *possibly* animal-derived foods makes us look crazy, and makes having a vegetarian diet look difficult to stick to (which is bad for veganism and the animals).

I don't think so, compare this to the movie Fast Food Nation, where they're talking about how much poop is in a hamburger... well by the same token I'd prefer zero ham in a veggie burger, just saying.

That’s not a fair comparison. Yes, even tinniest bit of shit in your food can expose you to lethal strains of e-coli (and salmonella), but all strains can be killed if the meat is cooked at a high enough internal temperature. No, you don’t want ANY shit in your food. This is a given, but tiny bits of (thoroughly cooked) ham that end up in an otherwise vegan sandwich isn’t necessarily harmful.

There’s probably a case to be made for pregnant women, young children, and the elderly etc. to avoid “cold cuts” since they can harbor the growth of listeria.


I take it that you didn’t read the PETA article (that I linked) in its entirety? There’s a subtle difference between obsessively scanning the ingredients label for obscure amounts of *possibly* animal derived micro-ingredients, and choosing not eat a product that CLEARLY contains animal byproducts. If vegans want others to see this lifestyle as reasonable and attainable, then we should discourage ourselves from engaging in fanatical behavior. Whether it be grilling waiters at restaurants about tiny amounts of dairy in the bun of a veggie burger, demanding that our foods be cooked on separate equipment, or even requesting that servers change their gloves, all of these can make veganism seem dogmatic and difficult to maintain to non vegans. This might discourage other customers from giving veganism a try, or make restaurant owners less inclined to offer vegan foods. All of this hurts animals.


I’ve criticized vegan facebook groups for scaring away new vegans for this same reason. Not all of us have the time, interest, or ability to scour the internet for the sources of disodium succinate or disodium guanylate. Nor do all vegans have the time or resources to contact manufacturers about whether or not they used chicken lysozyme to purify their 0.0001 grams of xanthum gum, or whether or not it was derived from whey. Let’s also remember that manufacturing processes can change on a weekly basis.

All of this is just fanatical and quite frankly bad for veganism. And it should be called out.

That being said, if the ingredients clearly lists milk, eggs, diary etc., or meat, then by all means avoid the product. Likewise, if you have a legitimate allergy then it makes sense to be "obsessive" (in this race you're actually being safe).

[DaRock]

Thx for all the feedback. Its awesome to have a community.

[cornivore]

All of this is just fanatical and quite frankly bad for veganism. And it should be called out.

It has been called veganissimo:

veganissimo \ve-gan-iss-i-mo\
1. n : one who is vegan to the highest possible standard

I could just as well call someone fanatically chaotic for criticizing anyone who seeks some kind of order in the foods they order, but I won't, because it's a matter of opinion (and that's comparable to something everyone's got).

[Lay Vegan]

Cornivore, I don't think you're grasping what I'm saying. Please take some time to read my posts in their entirety.

Veganism followed to the “highest possible standard” is not possible through only consumer veganism. If your goal is to completely eradicate any contribution toward animal suffering/exploitation, then you wouldn’t fund gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, corporations etc. The dollars you put into these companies may become dollars that support animal testing, climate & habitat destruction, and the further production of animal products. Even vegan brands/companies aren’t exempt, as many of them are simply owned by larger non-vegan parent companies. And much of the revenue they earn from you will be reinvested back into their company directly. Daiya cheese is owned by Otsuka, Gardein by Pinnacle Foods, the Beyond Burger by Tyson, the Silk brand owned by Dean Foods and etc.

Of course, a rational vegan would still consider this a good thing, since mass-producing vegan products will widen its distribution and allow more people access to them (and also potentially decrease production of non-vegan products). But buying from these companies is not “veganissimo.”

And you certainly wouldn’t be visiting non vegan restaurants, where it’s standard practice for servers cook otherwise vegan burgers on pre-buttered pans, or to cook french fries in the same oil that was also used to fry pork rinds. If someone is trying to become “veganissimo” then they wouldn’t be stupid enough to put themselves in a predicament to request that servers cook their foods on separate equipment.

I could just as well call someone fanatically chaotic for criticizing anyone who seeks some kind of order in the foods they order, but I won't, because it's a matter of opinion (and that's comparable to something everyone's got).

You could call me “fanatically chaotic” for criticizing dogmatic behavior that hurts the vegan cause, but it would be a groundless retort. Obviously, I’m not just calling it “fanatical behavior” and leaving it at that. Did you read the entirety of my reply?

Whether it be grilling waiters at restaurants about tiny amounts of dairy in the bun of a veggie burger, demanding that our foods be cooked on separate equipment, or even requesting that servers change their gloves, all of these can make veganism seem dogmatic and difficult to maintain to non vegans. This might discourage other customers from giving veganism a try, or make restaurant owners less inclined to offer vegan foods. All of this hurts animals.

I’m explaining the potential impact this overly obsessive behavior can have on individuals, and why it’s a bad idea if we want more people to adopt this lifestyle. If the best you can do is reply with “ditto” then you should re-evelaute your position.

[cornivore]

Please take some time to read my posts in their entirety.

I think you're writing more fanatically about this than I am, so maybe if you're trying to convince me that I'm the fanatic, then try not doing that. Should I also ask if you read what I wrote because you still don't have the same opinion as me? Thanks. Personally, I don't refer to that book much, because I prepare most of my food with simple ingredients, but I think that would save time for someone who eats more packaged stuff and wants to be informed about what's in it, as a fanatic or not, who's to say... this topic is about reducing suffering, so I don't think it hurts that cause to be more particular about doing so (and it isn't all or nothing, just the best you can I think—well, If you don't like looking things up, fine, but telling me all about how it should be condemned is probably as much work to repeat as being fanatical in the first place).