Ship of Fools: Human rights of vegans - is this going too far?

Thread: Human rights of vegans - is this going too far? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030102

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

In Ontario, it is indicated that vegans (which I understand as a strict form of vegetarianism) may be a protected human right following a ruling by the Human Rights Commission. It is suggested that educational institutions, employers and others might have to provide accommodations for this, e.g., accommodate a biology student who doesn't want to dissect animals, ensure animal-product free food is available, provide accommodation for any animal based thing such as a uniform which could be manufactured with animal products (?wool).

Info link from a webite. The second link is from an advocacy organization.

“Creed may also include non-religious belief systems that, like religion, substantially influence a person’s identity, worldview and way of life.

I am wondering what isn't a creed or belief system. Are there any practical limits to the definition of a "non religious belief system"?

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Would this suggest that a medical student could refuse to take a gross anatomy class?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Sounds expensive.

My son turned veggie when he was 16. He wanted to turn vegan I said 'not in my house'. My reason being it's a very expensive option.

He's 30 now and still a veggie, but he never did turn vegan.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I saw a very peculiar thing in a vegan magazine today. (I looked because I met one the other week, and wanted my objections ready.)

The writer kept rescue hens, past battery laying. He said he always got asked what they did with the eggs. Apparently, his wife ate them, but he was not happy about this - strongly enough to publish it.

But he has found something appropriate in his eyes to do with them. Apparently, hens can eat hens' eggs, scrambled.

!!!!!!!!! This feels as though there should be something in Leviticus about it. (Though I gather that is too early for that to be a consideration.) It feels horribly, horribly wrong.

It puts the dependence on soya which displaces rainforests and the inability of high latitudes to grow anything but grass and hence dependence on grazing animals and fish, not to mention what one does about the rabbits into the shade.

[ 26. April 2016, 19:18: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
In Ontario, it is indicated that vegans (which I understand as a strict form of vegetarianism) may be a protected human right following a ruling by the Human Rights Commission. It is suggested that educational institutions, employers and others might have to provide accommodations for this, e.g., accommodate a biology student who doesn't want to dissect animals, ensure animal-product free food is available, provide accommodation for any animal based thing such as a uniform which could be manufactured with animal products (?wool).

Info link from a webite. The second link is from an advocacy organization.

“Creed may also include non-religious belief systems that, like religion, substantially influence a person’s identity, worldview and way of life.

I am wondering what isn't a creed or belief system. Are there any practical limits to the definition of a "non religious belief system"?

Provide a wardrobe for the uniform? Sounds fairly standard to me.

[ 26. April 2016, 19:55: Message edited by: jacobsen ]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

It goes without saying that vegans have the right to eat or refuse anything they want. But that can't push it as a normal lifestyle, because they would all die of pernicious anaemia without taking vitamin B12 supplements, as the human body is unable to absorb iron in the absence of a vitamin only found in animal products. Other than allowing them the right to eat what they want, in common with all other people, what human rights do they need?

Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :

Personally, I think if someone makes a conscious ethical decision not to use products derived from animals then it would be wrong to compel them to do so. Their decision should not force others to have to take on their particular strictures, but if someone chooses to be a vegan then they should be permitted to live their life this way. It isn't hard to accommodate, it really isn't.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
provide accommodation for any animal based thing such as a uniform which could be manufactured with animal products (?wool).

AFAIK, most vegans are happy enough to wear wool, but wouldn't wear leather.

quote:

I am wondering what isn't a creed or belief system. Are there any practical limits to the definition of a "non religious belief system"?

No, I don't think so.

If you have some sincerely-held belief (whatever it is), it is a good thing to respect that belief as much as possible. If you tell me you're a vegan and aren't comfortable being around cooking meat, I can respect that, but I wouldn't hire you to work in a (non-veggie) restaurant, because you can't fulfill the core functions of the job. If you're a vegan who's happy talking about cooked meat, serving it, and so on, but just doesn't want to eat it, you wouldn't have a problem working in a restaurant.

I don't think I care why you have a belief - I care that it's sincere, and I care that any accommodation I might have to make is reasonable.

You tell me you're a turbanned Sikh - fine. If you're working with power tools or something, we might need another discussion, and some kind of cover, but it's a solvable (and presumably solved) problem.

You tell me that your deep commitment to the FSM obliges you to wear a pasta strainer on your head at all times - OK (I'm probably going to have questions about how you ensure the pasta strainer remains securely attached and doesn't fall off). But if you're lying to me - if you say that you have an obligation to wear the pasta strainer, but you take it off to go clubbing, then you're immediately fired.

Or say you're one of these Orthodox Jews who from time to time makes a fuss about sitting next to a woman on a plane. I have no job that would be suitable for you, because I have no jobs that might not require you to interact with a woman. If you just want me to make sure the tactile woman down the hall doesn't hug you, we can accommodate that.

[ 26. April 2016, 21:55: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Other than allowing them the right to eat what they want, in common with all other people, what human rights do they need?

We're talking about something along these lines:

You hire a security guard. You have a uniform for security guards that includes a utility belt made of leather. Are you obliged to accommodate a vegan employee by procuring a man-made alternative for him to wear?

Which then raises another set of questions - can he reasonably ask not to drive / rise in a vehicle with leather seats? If you have some communal equipment that's stored in a leather case, can he claim the right not to touch it?

[ 26. April 2016, 22:00: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sounds expensive.

My son turned veggie when he was 16. He wanted to turn vegan I said 'not in my house'. My reason being it's a very expensive option.

He's 30 now and still a veggie, but he never did turn vegan.

This is a curious statement to make. Rice and lentils, the staples of most of the world's vegans, are extremely cheap. Dairy and meat substitutes are expensive but many vegans don't use them. When Jack Monroe published their first budget cookbook, most recipes were incidentally vegan as meat and fish are much more expensive than vegetables and pulses. In the UK at least, veganism can be an extremely cheap option (in places that have genuine food deserts, not so much). I say this as someone with medical reasons preventing me from becoming a vegan - it would be much cheaper if I could be a vegan and replace all my meat with chickpeas or whatever.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We're talking about something along these lines:

You hire a security guard. You have a uniform for security guards that includes a utility belt made of leather. Are you obliged to accommodate a vegan employee by procuring a man-made alternative for him to wear?

Which then raises another set of questions - can he reasonably ask not to drive / rise in a vehicle with leather seats? If you have some communal equipment that's stored in a leather case, can he claim the right not to touch it?

The "reasonable accommodation" standard would seem to be the way to go. It already works reasonably well for other belief systems. I'm not sure the fact that most vegans don't put ". . . because God said so" at the end of their beliefs is a reason to be less willing to accommodate those beliefs.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sounds expensive.

My son turned veggie when he was 16. He wanted to turn vegan I said 'not in my house'. My reason being it's a very expensive option.

He's 30 now and still a veggie, but he never did turn vegan.
This is a curious statement to make. Rice and lentils, the staples of most of the world's vegans, are extremely cheap. Dairy and meat substitutes are expensive but many vegans don't use them. When Jack Monroe published their first budget cookbook, most recipes were incidentally vegan as meat and fish are much more expensive than vegetables and pulses. In the UK at least, veganism can be an extremely cheap option (in places that have genuine food deserts, not so much). I say this as someone with medical reasons preventing me from becoming a vegan - it would be much cheaper if I could be a vegan and replace all my meat with chickpeas or whatever.

It does seem curious if you're just thinking -- steak costs more than beans -- but in my house it's the attempt to actually satisfy the appetite of my 220lb son that gets expensive. He is vegetarian and I easily accommodate that. Almost all our regular dinners are things like pasta with mozzarella and tomato sauce or bean burritos. But when he takes his predictable monthly vow to go vegan, I have to omit everything that has even a trace of egg, milk or cheese in it and it gets hard. A meal of beans and rice leaves him so hungry he can go through a small mountain of expensive fresh produce in an evening. A container of hummus and a bag of chips is gone in seconds. Bread without butter, oatmeal without milk. It gets boring just to watch him and the high carb load means he's never really satisfied and at higher risk for diabetes.

I admire the desire to live without harming animals, but I wonder if we are really meant to do this if it isn't ideal for our health.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
You tell me you're a turbanned Sikh - fine. If you're working with power tools or something, we might need another discussion, and some kind of cover, but it's a solvable (and presumably solved) problem.

Yes. Sikh's don't have to wear protective headgear (policeman's helmet, motorcycle helmet, hard hat on construction sites) on their own cognisance.

But in other cases (since only a patka - a head covering similar to a bandanna - is strictly necessary, they can wear something over the top of that: NBC suit, breathing gear etc.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
...accommodate a biology student who doesn't want to dissect animals, ensure animal-product free food is available, provide accommodation for any animal based thing such as a uniform which could be manufactured with animal products (?wool)...

I am wondering what isn't a creed or belief system. Are there any practical limits to the definition of a "non religious belief system"?

They are acknowledging people can have strongly held beliefs that affect lifestyle basics but are based on values other than God. As to the limits, interesting question.

What kinds of accommodation is the question. A prisoner (or elderly confined to a nursing home) has no way to avoid the food that they can't emotionally tolerate, so makes sense to say the institution must accommodate.

But the biology example bothers me - if you don't want to do the exercises that the educators believe important to learning the field, you belong in a different field. But if it's just a beginners general biology course and one half-hour lesson involving a frog, I don't see harm in letting a few observe instead of do, except how do you sort out the believers from the merely squeamish?

Leather - does anyone actually wear leather anymore? Synthetics usually cost less and are easier to care for.

The issue is sorting out what things others must cater to the one who says no, and what things the one who says no must figure out their own way.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

So does this mean that McDonalds has to pay a committed communist a living wage?

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Leather - does anyone actually wear leather anymore? Synthetics usually cost less and are easier to care for.

Scuff a leather shoe and you just polish it. Scuff any other shoe and there's a good chance it's ruined.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:

But he has found something appropriate in his eyes to do with them. Apparently, hens can eat hens' eggs, scrambled.

Chicken will eat nearly anything, including their own eggs, chicken, pizza, etc.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Leather - does anyone actually wear leather anymore? Synthetics usually cost less and are easier to care for.
Scuff a leather shoe and you just polish it. Scuff any other shoe and there's a good chance it's ruined.

it requires more skill, but it can be done.
If one's ethics are compromised by minor inconvenience, one cannot honestly claim to have them.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

So it's OK to go through all the chemical process which produce pvc (or whatever it is that the shoes are made from) with the consequential pollution of the atmosphere and so forth, rather than use the product nature gave us and which has a history of millennia? Or do they all wear wooden clogs with cloth straps?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It goes without saying that vegans have the right to eat or refuse anything they want. But that can't push it as a normal lifestyle, because they would all die of pernicious anaemia without taking vitamin B12 supplements, as the human body is unable to absorb iron in the absence of a vitamin only found in animal products. Other than allowing them the right to eat what they want, in common with all other people, what human rights do they need?

My sister is a vegan. She doesn't take vitamin supplements. She's still alive after 25 years of this. It might be 30

I conclude, therefore, that you're wrong.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
So it's OK to go through all the chemical process which produce pvc (or whatever it is that the shoes are made from) with the consequential pollution of the atmosphere and so forth, rather than use the product nature gave us and which has a history of millennia? Or do they all wear wooden clogs with cloth straps?

You pays your money and takes your choices. To a vegan, not harming animals is the prime directive; Killing one to wear its skin is completely out of bounds; it cannot be justified, any more than killing a person to wear their skin would be.

A vegan therefore will want to find ways to minimise the impact of creating alternatives to leather, but actually using leather is simply not an option on the table. And yes, some of them will resolve that by wearing shoes of other natural materials that you wouldn't care for.

You have to understand that to vegans, harming animals may ethically differ in degree from harming people (or may not, it depends), but it does not differ in kind.

[ 27. April 2016, 08:10: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

Lacto-vegetarianism (i.e. what we all can veggie – eating milk and eggs but not meat and chicken) is an indefensible diet. It relies on the death of all the male chicks and calves; or on others to raise and eat them. Can’t be justified logically or ethically. Veganism (not relying on any animals for our food), or a carnivorous diet are the only logical routes. That’s why I gave up the vegetarianism my mother raised me with and now enjoy meat more than most who take it for granted.
As far as leather is concerned, it's no different from natural fur. If you wouldn't wear a fur coat (I would) then you shouldn't wear leather shoes or belts (I do). And don't talk to me about honey.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We're talking about something along these lines:

You hire a security guard. You have a uniform for security guards that includes a utility belt made of leather. Are you obliged to accommodate a vegan employee by procuring a man-made alternative for him to wear?

Which then raises another set of questions - can he reasonably ask not to drive / rise in a vehicle with leather seats? If you have some communal equipment that's stored in a leather case, can he claim the right not to touch it?
The "reasonable accommodation" standard would seem to be the way to go. It already works reasonably well for other belief systems. I'm not sure the fact that most vegans don't put ". . . because God said so" at the end of their beliefs is a reason to be less willing to accommodate those beliefs.

Especially since IIRC courts are fairly reluctant to rule on whether something is a genuine religious principle or not. That is, if I say I am obliged to dress only in the correct liturgical colours for the season, a court may determine whether or not this can be reasonably accommodated, but would hesitate to try to prove whether or not it's a genuine tenet of the Church of England.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Lacto-vegetarianism (i.e. what we all can veggie – eating milk and eggs but not meat and chicken) is an indefensible diet. It relies on the death of all the male chicks and calves; or on others to raise and eat them. Can’t be justified logically or ethically. Veganism (not relying on any animals for our food), or a carnivorous diet are the only logical routes. That’s why I gave up the vegetarianism my mother raised me with and now enjoy meat more than most who take it for granted.
As far as leather is concerned, it's no different from natural fur. If you wouldn't wear a fur coat (I would) then you shouldn't wear leather shoes or belts (I do). And don't talk to me about honey.

I don't think this latter point necessarily stands. It is perfectly reasonable to consider that it is ethically unacceptable to slaughter an animal solely for its fur, whereas making use of as much as possible of an animal slaughtered for meat is acceptable. It's the view I hold, for example.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
Personally, I think if someone makes a conscious ethical decision not to use products derived from animals then it would be wrong to compel them to do so. Their decision should not force others to have to take on their particular strictures, but if someone chooses to be a vegan then they should be permitted to live their life this way. It isn't hard to accommodate, it really isn't.

I agree but I don't want to subsidise their lifestyle decisions. So I pay fees at a college that provides meals, if vegan meals are more expensive then the vegans should have to cover the difference should pay the difference.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
Personally, I think if someone makes a conscious ethical decision not to use products derived from animals then it would be wrong to compel them to do so. Their decision should not force others to have to take on their particular strictures, but if someone chooses to be a vegan then they should be permitted to live their life this way. It isn't hard to accommodate, it really isn't.
I agree but I don't want to subsidise their lifestyle decisions. So I pay fees at a college that provides meals, if vegan meals are more expensive then the vegans should have to cover the difference should pay the difference.

And if the vegan meals should work out cheaper (hint: they would!)? Should the vegans get a discount?

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

[Eek!]

Does anybody actually wear leather anymore [Eek!]

Wow, leather is a natural product, it breathes, it feels so much better, it's much less costly to the environment (as GeeD says), apart from some canvas loafers all my shoes are leather-although I concede some of them have synthetic soles and I try to avoid synthetic fabrics at all costs, wool, silk, linen and cotton all the way.

Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
Personally, I think if someone makes a conscious ethical decision not to use products derived from animals then it would be wrong to compel them to do so. Their decision should not force others to have to take on their particular strictures, but if someone chooses to be a vegan then they should be permitted to live their life this way. It isn't hard to accommodate, it really isn't.
I agree but I don't want to subsidise their lifestyle decisions. So I pay fees at a college that provides meals, if vegan meals are more expensive then the vegans should have to cover the difference should pay the difference.
And if the vegan meals should work out cheaper (hint: they would!)? Should the vegans get a discount?

Most of the cost of prepared meals is in the labour, so no, vegan meals wouldn't be cheaper in situations in which the majority eat meat. In Australia meat is relatively cheap, it may be different elsewhere but vegan meals are more expensive in Australia.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It is perfectly reasonable to consider that it is ethically unacceptable to slaughter an animal solely for its fur, whereas making use of as much as possible of an animal slaughtered for meat is acceptable. It's the view I hold, for example.

What about killing an animal solely for it's meat?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It goes without saying that vegans have the right to eat or refuse anything they want. But that can't push it as a normal lifestyle, because they would all die of pernicious anaemia without taking vitamin B12 supplements, as the human body is unable to absorb iron in the absence of a vitamin only found in animal products. Other than allowing them the right to eat what they want, in common with all other people, what human rights do they need?
My sister is a vegan. She doesn't take vitamin supplements. She's still alive after 25 years of this. It might be 30

I conclude, therefore, that you're wrong.

A number of standard foods are commonly enriched, or fortified with B12, these include flour, breakfast cereals, Marmite™, and non-dairy milks. More information

[ 27. April 2016, 11:01: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

But what actually is Marmite? I tasted it once and it seemed like it might be a mixture of soy sauce and a thick gelatin brewed from the marrow of Platypus bones.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Marmite is the food of the gods, brewed in yeasty darkness and bottled for mere mortals to enjoy.

Or, as the internet has it:

quote:
My girlfriend told me she could take or leave Marmite. Now I can't trust anything she says.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Does anybody actually wear leather anymore

Wow, leather is a natural product, it breathes, it feels so much better, it's much less costly to the environment (as GeeD says), apart from some canvas loafers all my shoes are leather-although I concede some of them have synthetic soles and I try to avoid synthetic fabrics at all costs, wool, silk, linen and cotton all the way.

Leather car seats are far better than any other.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sounds expensive.

My son turned veggie when he was 16. He wanted to turn vegan I said 'not in my house'. My reason being it's a very expensive option.

He's 30 now and still a veggie, but he never did turn vegan.
This is a curious statement to make. Rice and lentils, the staples of most of the world's vegans, are extremely cheap. Dairy and meat substitutes are expensive but many vegans don't use them. When Jack Monroe published their first budget cookbook, most recipes were incidentally vegan as meat and fish are much more expensive than vegetables and pulses. In the UK at least, veganism can be an extremely cheap option (in places that have genuine food deserts, not so much). I say this as someone with medical reasons preventing me from becoming a vegan - it would be much cheaper if I could be a vegan and replace all my meat with chickpeas or whatever.

Buying separately for one person in the household would certainly cost more. As it was he had cheese, eggs, beans etc for his protein with no particularly separate meals.

My brother is veggie and lives with us three days a week, on those days we eat purely veggie. When my son comes home we eat veggie for as long as he's with us. My husband is the cook and he makes many fabulous veggie meals. Vegan is a step too far, if either turned vegan they'd have to sort themselves out.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My sister is a vegan. She doesn't take vitamin supplements. She's still alive after 25 years of this. It might be 30

I conclude, therefore, that you're wrong.

I would not conclude anything more than that your sister is still alive. You quote an example, while PaulTH is relying upon broad studies of many examples.

As to your post in answer to me, I do understand that to be the vegan position. I find that difficult to reconcile with a wider concern about the environment. In effect, it's a smoker saying that there should be freedom to smoke because that is the only way to satisfy their addiction and bugger those around them who have to put up with both the unpleasantness of the smoke and the increased exposure to carcinogens.

[ 27. April 2016, 12:15: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It is perfectly reasonable to consider that it is ethically unacceptable to slaughter an animal solely for its fur, whereas making use of as much as possible of an animal slaughtered for meat is acceptable. It's the view I hold, for example.
What about killing an animal solely for it's meat?

Food seems a better excuse than fashion, to me at any rate.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My sister is a vegan. She doesn't take vitamin supplements. She's still alive after 25 years of this. It might be 30

I conclude, therefore, that you're wrong.
I would not conclude anything more than that your sister is still alive. You quote an example, while PaulTH is relying upon broad studies of many examples.

PaulTH said vegans had to take supplements. They don't, as BroJames pointed out, as many vegan foods come fortified with B12. The idea that vegans are running around popping pills to supplement an inadequate diet is what I was aiming at.

quote:
As to your post in answer to me, I do understand that to be the vegan position. I find that difficult to reconcile with a wider concern about the environment. In effect, it's a smoker saying that there should be freedom to smoke because that is the only way to satisfy their addiction and bugger those around them who have to put up with both the unpleasantness of the smoke and the increased exposure to carcinogens.

Not really the same thing at all; no-one has a deep-seated moral and ethical objection to not smoking, whereas Vegans do have such objections to using animals. A smoker can hardly argue it's a lesser evil, whereas the vegan might.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Rice and lentils, the staples of most of the world's vegans, are extremely cheap.
It does seem curious if you're just thinking -- steak costs more than beans -- but in my house it's the attempt to actually satisfy the appetite of my 220lb son that gets expensive. He is vegetarian and I easily accommodate that. Almost all our regular dinners are things like pasta with mozzarella and tomato sauce or bean burritos. But when he takes his predictable monthly vow to go vegan, I have to omit everything that has even a trace of egg, milk or cheese in it and it gets hard. A meal of beans and rice leaves him so hungry he can go through a small mountain of expensive fresh produce in an evening.

If you remove milk, cheese and eggs you are removing the fat. It takes fats to feel full (and, as you say, reduce the carb overload that too easily leads to diabetes).

The body needs fats! (The "low fat" recommendation was not based on science; the most recent USA revised guidelines back off from demonizing fats and admit sugar is the real problem, although the scientific recommendation of "no added sugar" was rejected to please the sugar industry).

Add to beans and rice a big serving of avocado, saute veggies in coconut oil, pour some room temp olive or other seed oil over the meal (NOT generic "vegetable oil"), add a handful of nuts and seeds - if oil foods are an abundant part of the meal he'll fill up much faster and without so much over-reliance on blood sugar threatening foods.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
PaulTH said vegans had to take supplements. They don't, as BroJames pointed out, as many vegan foods come fortified with B12.

They kind of are taking supplements then. Just ground up supplements sprinkled on food.

I don't know why this is a question of normal/abnormal though. If I didn't take additional supplemental water on top of my usual diet I'd be in a bad way. Does that mean my diet is less normal than if it contained enough liquid to do away with the supplemental water?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Just in passing - what you as an individual may need in the way of supplements or even dietary change will also vary from person to person, depending on your metabolism. Some people can be seriously challenged by selective diets, others not at all. Comments about what the average person needs should not be confused with what any individual needs.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Sounds expensive.

My son turned veggie when he was 16. He wanted to turn vegan I said 'not in my house'. My reason being it's a very expensive option.

He's 30 now and still a veggie, but he never did turn vegan.
This is a curious statement to make. Rice and lentils, the staples of most of the world's vegans, are extremely cheap. Dairy and meat substitutes are expensive but many vegans don't use them. When Jack Monroe published their first budget cookbook, most recipes were incidentally vegan as meat and fish are much more expensive than vegetables and pulses. In the UK at least, veganism can be an extremely cheap option (in places that have genuine food deserts, not so much). I say this as someone with medical reasons preventing me from becoming a vegan - it would be much cheaper if I could be a vegan and replace all my meat with chickpeas or whatever.
Buying separately for one person in the household would certainly cost more. As it was he had cheese, eggs, beans etc for his protein with no particularly separate meals.

My brother is veggie and lives with us three days a week, on those days we eat purely veggie. When my son comes home we eat veggie for as long as he's with us. My husband is the cook and he makes many fabulous veggie meals. Vegan is a step too far, if either turned vegan they'd have to sort themselves out.

That's not actually what you said, though - you said that being vegan is a very expensive option. It's not. You would not necessarily even have to buy very much more for one vegan member of an omnivorous household - vegans still eat rice, dried pasta, vegetables etc and I assume the omnivores eat pulses in things like chilli and baked beans. Again, faux meat and faux dairy are not necessary for a vegan diet - lots of vegans enjoy them, but they are optional extras. Lots of meals an omnivore would eat are incidentally vegan - ratatouille, pasta with vegetable and tomato based sauces, Thai and south Indian vegetable curries, vegetable tagines, falafel and other mezze, stuffed vegetables. The only really necessary extras a vegan might need are more pulses, more vegetables, more cooking oil, vegan margarine (Vitalite is vegan and cheaper than butter) and B12 sources like Marmite. None of those things are expensive, especially if bought in bulk from health food shops (even Holland & Barrett) rather than tiny supermarket packets. Big sacks of rice and dal and cheap tins of coconut milk and coconut oil from Asian shops are brilliant! I'm not vegan and medically can't go vegan, but even I know it can be a very cheap diet in the UK - our multicultural towns and cities are a real blessing here!

Could you explain more fully why your family couldn't enjoy vegan meals together? There's no reason why you couldn't enjoy vegan food - my best friend is vegan, myself and her husband are not. Somehow me and her husband manage to eat well and enjoy our food when we eat vegan food together - it's just vegetables, not poison!

[ 27. April 2016, 14:07: Message edited by: Pomona ]

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Rice and lentils, the staples of most of the world's vegans, are extremely cheap.
It does seem curious if you're just thinking -- steak costs more than beans -- but in my house it's the attempt to actually satisfy the appetite of my 220lb son that gets expensive. He is vegetarian and I easily accommodate that. Almost all our regular dinners are things like pasta with mozzarella and tomato sauce or bean burritos. But when he takes his predictable monthly vow to go vegan, I have to omit everything that has even a trace of egg, milk or cheese in it and it gets hard. A meal of beans and rice leaves him so hungry he can go through a small mountain of expensive fresh produce in an evening.
If you remove milk, cheese and eggs you are removing the fat. It takes fats to feel full (and, as you say, reduce the carb overload that too easily leads to diabetes).

The body needs fats! (The "low fat" recommendation was not based on science; the most recent USA revised guidelines back off from demonizing fats and admit sugar is the real problem, although the scientific recommendation of "no added sugar" was rejected to please the sugar industry).

Add to beans and rice a big serving of avocado, saute veggies in coconut oil, pour some room temp olive or other seed oil over the meal (NOT generic "vegetable oil"), add a handful of nuts and seeds - if oil foods are an abundant part of the meal he'll fill up much faster and without so much over-reliance on blood sugar threatening foods.

Firstly, carbohydrates do not cause Type 2 diabetes (assuming you're referring to Type 2 since Type 1 usually appears in childhood). It is a complex disease with complex causes, and it does not help diabetes sufferers to have them labelled as lazy gluttons who could have prevented their (very serious) illness - NOT saying you and Twilight are doing this, but it is a slippery slope IMO.

Secondly yes, this is key and also why I've said veganism is cheap in the UK - it isn't cheap everywhere. Meat is much cheaper in the US than in the UK (grain fed v grass fed, much much more space for rearing animals etc) and food deserts are much more common. Ethnic food sources (usually the cheapest places selling things like lentils and rice and spices in bulk) are not necessarily available in such quantities from what expat friends (albeit Southerners all) say. Veganism in that context is much more expensive than in the UK.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
So it's OK to go through all the chemical process which produce pvc (or whatever it is that the shoes are made from) with the consequential pollution of the atmosphere and so forth, rather than use the product nature gave us and which has a history of millennia? Or do they all wear wooden clogs with cloth straps?

Rubbish argument. None of those problems exist because of vegans, they are polluting for reasons of profit not necessarily because they must be, modern leather and textile production are hardly environmentally friendly and the main culprit for the choking of our planet is consumerism. We replace serviceable items simply because they are arbitrarily out of fashion. Or that they have a spot on them, or are repairable, but that would require effort.(Oh No!) And because we cannot be arsed to demand cleaner production.
all more an indictment on our ethics.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Marmite is the food of the gods,

Cthulu? Apep? Which being of rotting, festering filth shat out Marmite?
There are indicators of a soul well and permanently given to the darkness and the willing ingestion of that foul substance is one of them.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

One of my friends is a vegan and I enjoy staying at his place sometimes and i eat far better and feel much healthier as a result.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

Could you explain more fully why your family couldn't enjoy vegan meals together? There's no reason why you couldn't enjoy vegan food - my best friend is vegan, myself and her husband are not. Somehow me and her husband manage to eat well and enjoy our food when we eat vegan food together - it's just vegetables, not poison!

My son was 16 when he turned veggie. We said 'no' to vegan. He didn't argue. Since he left home twelve years ago he's not turned vegan, so it wasn't a big deal, more of a convert's enthusiasm.

We didn't want the expense or the faff of cooking vegan meals plus buying him new shoes, belts etc etc. We didn't look deeply into it tbh, there was no need. If he'd kicked up a big fuss maybe we'd have made more effort.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

[tangent]
Re costs to the environment, both eggplant (aubergine) and asparagus have been shown to be be more environmentally costly than chicken produced locally. The transportation costs are more than the vegetables. Cost to the consumer varies a lot. When the vegetables are a few days from throw-out, i.e., going soft, limp and nasty, they can be cheaper than chicken.

There are some natural animal products that no synthetic beats for cold weather use. Wolf fur trim on a parka hood doesn't frost and become wet when thawed. Leather mittens layered with wool inside are cheaper and better than anything else.
[/tangent]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

If someone in your household turns vegan, you either have to cook separate meals, or everyone else has to give up eggs, dairy, fish and meats for every meal. Sharing vegan food is fine, but not all the time if you want a different diet.

No prophet is writing from the sort of latitude where it would be very difficult to get local food with a full range of grains, pulses and nuts. Having travelled around the Faroes (holds up cross against whale law), Iceland and Norway, I've not seen much arable land. Even Shetland says that the only thing they grow well is grass, and all those places have great stacks of silage bales in the fields. Humans can't eat grass. It makes dietary sense to use animals to convert it (and other plants like reindeer lichen) into food - and not to keep more than the flora will sustain. And, if you do that, you get the byproducts of skins and wools. If you don't, you have to evacuate those areas of humans. (The gardens grow potatoes, rhubarb and angelica, from what I saw.)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
If someone in your household turns vegan, you either have to cook separate meals, or everyone else has to give up eggs, dairy, fish and meats for every meal. Sharing vegan food is fine, but not all the time if you want a different diet.

There are very few recipes which don't include at least some milk, cream, butter, yogurt, cheese, eggs. Cutting out fish and meat are easy in comparison.

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

Back to the original question--I agree with Leorning Cniht and his point about "reasonable accommodation".

I am vegetarian myself and was a dietary vegan for quite awhile. When I travel, I do my best to find vegetarian food. Most of the time I can. If not (if I went to Shetland, for example), I eat what is available with gratitude. I do not expect to be catered to when traveling or when visiting people's homes, and I was never one of those vegans who brought my own food to other people's houses.

However, I greatly dislike it when non-vegetarians deliberately bait vegetarians/vegans, or give them food and then say "this has animals products in it. Gotcha!!" That seems really mean-spirited to me.

My husband and I often eat different things at meals--he makes his, I make mine. He likes a lot of the things I make so I make enough for him too, but I don't cook meat for him. The important thing is that we eat together.

Anyone who has teenagers who want to go vegetarian should require their kids to make their own food, if it is different than what the rest of the family is eating. Food preparation is a major life skill and the sooner kids learn to do it themselves, the better. It also makes them see that their parents are not short-order cooks.

Posted by Candide (# 15755) on :

Speaking as a vegetarian :

Despite being a (usually) very undercover vegetarian, who in real life very much prefers not to draw attention to my own eating habits, then I've personally been exposed to a considerable amount of verbal aggression on account of this, sometimes for little more than ordering the vegan option on the menu. ("Real men eat meat!", etc.)
Other friends, both vegans and vegetarians, have had similar experiences. While I'm sure some of these have come as a result of a little crusading, then I'm having trouble believing that is the case in general.

I can't point to any statistical data showing whether or not this is an issue on a larger scale, but it certainly has got me thinking about what it might mean, if it is.

Vegetarianism, by it's sheer existence, turns something personal -certain eating habits- that is perceived as natural, into something that is a subject for debate. This in itself, the step from behavior that's automatic, to behavior that might potentially have to be defended, can be threatening to some people.

While I won't argue other similarities, then a parallel might be seen in the reactions towards homosexuality when heterosexuality as the "obviously correct" behavior suddenly wasn't so obvious after all. (Obviously the question of sexual preferences has spawned a whole lot more vitriol and aggression than eating habits did - the similarity is one function, not of degree).

While vegetarians and vegans are hardly new, then the growth of veganism and vegetarianism the last decade has made this "challenge" a lot more visible, and therefore potentially more threatening. (There might also be other causes, such as a little too preachy approach from some.) I certainly hope it'll go the way of at least some new issues - that we reach that spot where the "new" becomes old and mainstream, and all sides respect one another.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Am I wrong in understanding a good portion of this discussion as not really accepting veganism as other than a lifestyle choice, a preference? It would seem quite different than someone's race, culture, sexual orientation or medical reasons to not eat some particular foodstuffs etc.

I'm considering the face covering debate we had in Canada in the last election. This was suggested as both a requirement, thus a protected human right in Canada, and as a choice, not really required by a religion but part of a peculiar culture and oppressive treatment of women. Is veganism a self-contained preference or like face coverings, considered as part of some larger integrative system of thought or belief?

I agree that both veganism and vegetarianism break down in some specific environmental contexts. Tangentially and interestingly, the Hudson's Bay Company recruited many Orkney men and Shetlanders to trading posts in the Canadian north because they were used to similar lovely climates.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It goes without saying that vegans have the right to eat or refuse anything they want. But that can't push it as a normal lifestyle, because they would all die of pernicious anaemia without taking vitamin B12 supplements, as the human body is unable to absorb iron in the absence of a vitamin only found in animal products. Other than allowing them the right to eat what they want, in common with all other people, what human rights do they need?
My sister is a vegan. She doesn't take vitamin supplements. She's still alive after 25 years of this. It might be 30

I conclude, therefore, that you're wrong.

He's probably counting yeast as an animal.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

Going back to the OP it seems to me reasonable to grant vegans exactly the same level of accommodation as would be granted someone who had religious dietary restrictions.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It goes without saying that vegans have the right to eat or refuse anything they want. But that can't push it as a normal lifestyle, because they would all die of pernicious anaemia without taking vitamin B12 supplements, as the human body is unable to absorb iron in the absence of a vitamin only found in animal products. Other than allowing them the right to eat what they want, in common with all other people, what human rights do they need?
My sister is a vegan. She doesn't take vitamin supplements. She's still alive after 25 years of this. It might be 30

I conclude, therefore, that you're wrong.

You conclusion that the response is wrong must be considered as only an opinion in this context, and not at all a factual statement. Because a sample of one person is not data, it is an anecdote.

In parallel, there are people who subsist on beer and not much else for at least this long. It doesn't mean that all nutritional needs are met, and it also doesn't speak to health status nor how long the person will live having had that habit of diet.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[Reply to Karl: Liberal backslider] You conclusion that the response is wrong must be considered as only an opinion in this context, and not at all a factual statement. Because a sample of one person is not data, it is an anecdote.

In parallel, there are people who subsist on beer and not much else for at least this long. It doesn't mean that all nutritional needs are met, and it also doesn't speak to health status nor how long the person will live having had that habit of diet.

Did you not see my aside about yeast above?

Your beer drinkers will get their B12 from yeast, a non animal source of the Vitamin.

Karl was right. He just didn't know why he was right.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Am I wrong in understanding a good portion of this discussion as not really accepting veganism as other than a lifestyle choice, a preference?

My brother is a vegetarian but always says "it's a choice I make, but it's not my religion". If he visits people and they don't know he's veggie he doesn't tell them, he eats whatever is put in front of him, no comment.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Am I wrong in understanding a good portion of this discussion as not really accepting veganism as other than a lifestyle choice, a preference?
My brother is a vegetarian but always says "it's a choice I make, but it's not my religion". If he visits people and they don't know he's veggie he doesn't tell them, he eats whatever is put in front of him, no comment.

Are you saying that vegetarians should eat meat if offered by genuine mistake?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Am I wrong in understanding a good portion of this discussion as not really accepting veganism as other than a lifestyle choice, a preference?
My brother is a vegetarian but always says "it's a choice I make, but it's not my religion". If he visits people and they don't know he's veggie he doesn't tell them, he eats whatever is put in front of him, no comment.
Are you saying that vegetarians should eat meat if offered by genuine mistake?

Not at all.

I'm saying not all veggies treat their food choices like a religion.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

My friend does - he has a coherent and arrticulate stance on meat and captalism and about Genesis and 'dominion'.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[Reply to Karl: Liberal backslider] You conclusion that the response is wrong must be considered as only an opinion in this context, and not at all a factual statement. Because a sample of one person is not data, it is an anecdote.

In parallel, there are people who subsist on beer and not much else for at least this long. It doesn't mean that all nutritional needs are met, and it also doesn't speak to health status nor how long the person will live having had that habit of diet.
Did you not see my aside about yeast above?

Your beer drinkers will get their B12 from yeast, a non animal source of the Vitamin.

Karl was right. He just didn't know why he was right.

er, no. B12 is the one that is low in brewer's yeast (saccharomyces cerevisiae) which is why yeast extract has to be fortified with B12 from bacterial ferments.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A meal of beans and rice leaves him so hungry he can go through a small mountain of expensive fresh produce in an evening.
If you remove milk, cheese and eggs you are removing the fat. It takes fats to feel full (and, as you say, reduce the carb overload that too easily leads to diabetes)... if oil foods are an abundant part of the meal he'll fill up much faster and without so much over-reliance on blood sugar threatening foods.

carbohydrates do not cause Type 2 diabetes... It is a complex disease with complex causes, and it does not help diabetes sufferers to have them labelled as lazy gluttons
[/QB][/QUOTE]
Some countries have lots of obesity but little diabetes (Mongolia for example), some countries have lots of diabetes and little obesity (China), and in USA diabetes is increasing far faster than obesity. So no, Type 2 is not at all a "lazy glutton" disease.

But too much sugar (including starches) in the diet leads to insulin resistance which leads to metabolic disease which shows up as stroke, heart attack, diabetes 2, and/or what many now refer to as diabetes 3 - Alzheimers; so it makes sense that a parent would be concerned about a child eating a high starch diet.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

[tangent]
The link between sugar, insulin resistance and diabetes is one we seeing a particular epidemic of in Canadian First Nations peoples (Indian, Inuit, Metis). But there's another factor - stress. When people experience chronic stress they also experience hormonal changes such that there is excess 'cortisol' (a stress hormone) released. Cortisol affects the main regulatory parts of the brain, including pituitary, hypothalmus, hippocampus, and ultimately causes the liver to become insulin resistant, and blood sugar to rise. Thus our current rise in general stress, confrontation approaches to human problems, and constant media access seem to relate to a primary health problem. (I do quite a bit of consultation about such things and related community level interventions.)
[/tangent]

[ 27. April 2016, 21:55: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My sister is a vegan. She doesn't take vitamin supplements. She's still alive after 25 years of this. It might be 30

I conclude, therefore, that you're wrong.

My grandfather smokes. He has been smoking for 70 years. Maybe 75. I conclude, therefore, that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
My sister is a vegan. She doesn't take vitamin supplements. She's still alive after 25 years of this. It might be 30

I conclude, therefore, that you're wrong.
My grandfather smokes. He has been smoking for 70 years. Maybe 75. I conclude, therefore, that cigarette smoking isn't dangerous.

Smoking is known to be a risk factor. The claim made about B12 supplements was that you absolutely need them and will die if you don't get them. Not comparable.

The claim that some, or even most, swans are white is not disproved by a single black swan. The claim that all swans are white is.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Does the vegan sister have foods with yeast in? Or fortified tofu, cereals or bran? Or Marmite?

Not sure the source of the fortification, though, but they were on a vegan page.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Yeast apparently doesn't have B12 in it unless it is added. Plenty is added to marmite.

I don't completely understand the information I can get about B12 levels in beer. Apparently there is no B12 in brewer's yeast unless it has been added, and none in barley or hops. But some beer has levels of B12 on it - I guess it must have been added. However alcohol reduces the absorption and the effect of B vitamins and some alcoholics can become terrifically deficient in B vitamins despite drinking a lot of beer.

If I was a vegan I wouldn't want to rely on beer for B12. I would take some B12 supplements once every month or so to top my levels up. (Probably in the form of marmite for me). There's no need to take it very regularly though as the body stores B12 very effectively.

The fortification for many foodstuff marked suitable for vegans is from bacterial culture, so can be taken with a clean conscience.

[ 28. April 2016, 16:58: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Why do vegans want to kill poor yeasts and bacteria? What did these creatures ever do to them?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Because those creatures do not have nervous systems, therefore no pain or consciousness, they are generally considered OK to consume. As long as the source is not animal.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because those creatures do not have nervous systems, therefore no pain or consciousness, they are generally considered OK to consume. As long as the source is not animal.

Not nervous systems the way we understand them. Trees talk to each other through their roots and a system of underground fungi. Is that a nervous system? Why not?

I think at some point, the line between what I will eat and what I refuse to eat has to be drawn, and it's ultimately arbitrary. Saying I'll eat plants or fungi or algae or prokaryotes but not animals is an arbitrary cut-off. One could even argue it's kingdomist, the way some vegans say that treating humans better than other animals is speciesist. Why do their prejudices trump mine?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why do vegans want to kill poor yeasts and bacteria? What did these creatures ever do to them?

Or why would they be happy to rip beans from their mothering stems, apples from spreading branches and so forth, with no regard to the agony caused to the plant or its produce?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Well would you guys stop at eating humans? If you would, why distinguish one animal from another?

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Candide:
Speaking as a vegetarian :

Despite being a (usually) very undercover vegetarian, who in real life very much prefers not to draw attention to my own eating habits, then I've personally been exposed to a considerable amount of verbal aggression on account of this, sometimes for little more than ordering the vegan option on the menu. ("Real men eat meat!", etc.)
Other friends, both vegans and vegetarians, have had similar experiences. While I'm sure some of these have come as a result of a little crusading, then I'm having trouble believing that is the case in general.

I can't point to any statistical data showing whether or not this is an issue on a larger scale, but it certainly has got me thinking about what it might mean, if it is.

Vegetarianism, by it's sheer existence, turns something personal -certain eating habits- that is perceived as natural, into something that is a subject for debate. This in itself, the step from behavior that's automatic, to behavior that might potentially have to be defended, can be threatening to some people.

While I won't argue other similarities, then a parallel might be seen in the reactions towards homosexuality when heterosexuality as the "obviously correct" behavior suddenly wasn't so obvious after all. (Obviously the question of sexual preferences has spawned a whole lot more vitriol and aggression than eating habits did - the similarity is one function, not of degree).

While vegetarians and vegans are hardly new, then the growth of veganism and vegetarianism the last decade has made this "challenge" a lot more visible, and therefore potentially more threatening. (There might also be other causes, such as a little too preachy approach from some.) I certainly hope it'll go the way of at least some new issues - that we reach that spot where the "new" becomes old and mainstream, and all sides respect one another.

I'll second that. I'm an undercover vegetarian too (partner says a very poor meat-eater). I'll eat what I'm served when invited by people who do not know me just because I find the aggressive verbal self-justification of meat-munchers really hard to take. Plus it's what Jesus advised, and the Lord Buddha as well. Sometimes, though, it's really hard. I was invited to a Korean barbecue last week. Marinated tofu's very much a western veggie invention.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Well would you guys stop at eating humans? If you would, why distinguish one animal from another?

It's more a question for vegans to answer - why do they favour animals and pick on fruit and vegetables?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That's a different question. My answer would be that many vegans feel there is an ethical difference that comes with sentience. You might dismiss that as an arbitrary distinction, but it's an answer.

Now how about the humans vs animals question?

(By the way I'm fine eating meat, but wouldn't eat a chimpanzee, an elephant or another similarly intelligent animal. A vegan might regard that as an arbitrary distinction but I think I can sustain it.)

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Do we know that fruit and vegetables are non-sentient?

I agree with your general exclusion of elephants, chimps etc as well as humans, but for not proper reason. I await accusations of pandering to some species at the expense of others.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Do we know that cows aren't sacred animals that we are forbidden from eating?

Personally I think its pretty unlikely and knowing what we do about the basis for neural activity and the evidence of consciousness I think we can be even more confident that pears don't have feelings.

If you don't have a proper reason for not eating humans or chimps do we have any basis for trying to persuade people that its a bad idea?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I think we have come across a major problem with the B12 issue - which I had thought was solved with yeasts. The dependence on fortification means that, unlike vegetarianism, which has long been part of the human range of eating patterns, veganism is dependent on a hi-tech intervention in the supply of food. That severely limits the populations for whom it is possible, far more than the latitude dependent limit on the ability to grow protein rich plants, because the poorest populations are those in the areas where it is possible to grow those foods, and which currently export the soya upon which vegan diets seem to be founded.

I suppose this argument puts me in the ranks of the aggressive meat munchers - though I haven't come across these - aggressive non-meat eaters, yes.

On the other hand, if people are vegans, I don't see why, in jobs where interaction with animal products isn't essential, their beliefs shouldn't be accommodated. Canteens could easily offer a range of meals, with more prepared than just for the few demanding vegetarian or vegan dishes, so that others also have the possibility of trying them.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I'm not sure the B12 issue is a major problem. B12 production by bacteria is as cheap as chips and since such a tiny amount is required shouldn't be a problem.

I expect that turning the world over to a diet of soy, B12 and staple crops would be cheaper than our current approach to feeding the world. Albeit it would require shipping to some parts of the world.

After all domesticated wheat and bread-making is a technological fix for a nutritional need consequent on life-style choices of human development just as as brewing beer is or brewing B12.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've never seen chimp meat on offer in any of the local butchers. So that is a bit of an imaginary issue.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Not if you stray past the local butchers.

There's another issue as to whether it is acceptable to do medical research on captive chimpanzees. Personally I would prefer any experiments to be non-lethal ones and to be limited to blood samples or observation and minimally invasive work. I'd want a very strong justification for anything beyond that to be clear it was really very important for human health.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I'm not sure I believe most stuff written about B12. I think it is technically junk. Most B12 quantification relies on bacteriological assays which are known to respond equally to other analogues which are unavailable to humans in the same way. There are other problems as well but that one will do for starters. I'm sure some of the literature may well be correct, but I have no way of knowing which without some sort of guidance by those with more detailed knowledge.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That's a different question. My answer would be that many vegans feel there is an ethical difference that comes with sentience. You might dismiss that as an arbitrary distinction, but it's an answer.

Now how about the humans vs animals question?

(By the way I'm fine eating meat, but wouldn't eat a chimpanzee, an elephant or another similarly intelligent animal. A vegan might regard that as an arbitrary distinction but I think I can sustain it.)

Pigs are easily as intelligent as elephants - do you eat pork/bacon?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
I'm not sure I believe most stuff written about B12. I think it is technically junk. Most B12 quantification relies on bacteriological assays which are known to respond equally to other analogues which are unavailable to humans in the same way.

I know the wikipedia article gives that impression but actually there are now immunological assays and chromatography methods to back up B12 measurements.

It's also crystal clear from work done in the old days that serious B12 deficiency leads to anaemia and neurological problems, especially spinal chord damage. It's also crystal clear that an injection of B12 reverses these problems (although some spinal damage may be irreversible if it's gone too far).

Hence I would not advise dismissing all talk of B12 as untrustworthy although clearly there are different degrees of confidence in different elements of it.

[ 29. April 2016, 10:25: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

In nature predators are essential to the health of all creatures. So killing and eating meat isn't an issue for me. Humans skew things by farming, of course. Although we are not the only creatures to farm others.

Personally I will eat anything which has had a happy life and humane death.

I wouldn't eat humans/dogs/cats because of emotional/ethical reasons. I wouldn't eat endangered species for obvious ethical reasons.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

That's reasonable, mdijon, but in the absence of being able to backtrack to the original source of the information, the layman such as myself is just left having to put a question mark over issues such as claims of B12 in beer, which seem to lack coherence.

(Do you happen to know how the assays for B12 in beer were done? It might be instructive...)

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I'm afraid I'm in a similarly uncertain position with beer. What I think I can say is that;

a) There is no B12 in yeast or in hops or barley
b) It is unlikely to be produced de novo in the process
c) Some manufacturers claim detectable levels of B12
d) As you say some methods are problematic
e) Many manufacturers add vitamin B complex to beer to protect some heavy drinkers against deficiency
f) Alcohol inhibits the absorption and effectiveness of some B vitamins.

On the basis of the above I would say that if you are a vegan you shouldn't rely on beer as your source of B12. But some brands might well have a reasonable amount added to them.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That's a different question. My answer would be that many vegans feel there is an ethical difference that comes with sentience. You might dismiss that as an arbitrary distinction, but it's an answer.

Now how about the humans vs animals question?

(By the way I'm fine eating meat, but wouldn't eat a chimpanzee, an elephant or another similarly intelligent animal. A vegan might regard that as an arbitrary distinction but I think I can sustain it.)

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Pigs are easily as intelligent as elephants - do you eat pork/bacon?

I do. I had always thought of pigs as being similar to dogs in intelligence. Now that I look around I can see there are some data on pigs being quite clever but I'm not sure one can confidently state they are easily as intelligent as elephants.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It also depends how you measure animal intelligence.

I don't really think it's a good criterion on which to decide which animals to eat.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It also depends how you measure animal intelligence.

I don't really think it's a good criterion on which to decide which animals to eat.

Why?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But that's just it. What justifies any criterion of where to draw the line between what we eat and what we don't eat?

Myself, I don't eat things with paws. It's an arbitrary boundary based on my squeamish line. But I can't really argue that it's wrong to eat bunnies based on my squeamish factor.

lilBuddha, one of the problems in using intelligence as a factor is that it's a vague and undefinable term, arguably not the same for every species, so ranking species by intelligence and drawing the line at some particular cut-off point (which will, of course, be arbitrary) isn't really possible.

You can say, "I think these animals are too intelligent to eat and those ones aren't," and that's okay for you, but there is no moral argument there that applies to anything more than one person.

No matter how we dress it up, deciding which other living things to eat and which not to eat requires drawing an arbitrary line that can be defended among people who think very similarly to oneself, but not argued for in universal terms, such that it is clear to all that one's cut-off point is morally binding on all humankind.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No matter how we dress it up, deciding which other living things to eat and which not to eat requires drawing an arbitrary line that can be defended among people who think very similarly to oneself, but not argued for in universal terms, such that it is clear to all that one's cut-off point is morally binding on all humankind.

I think that's true. Personally I believe that sentience very objectively divides animals from plants, but it is subjective to prefer that cut-off in the first place.

Intelligence is a defendable metric to use, but the cut-off will be arbitrary.

One thing that many would argue is universal though is not eating people. I appreciate groups have done it, just as some groups have been into murder and rape, but many of us would feel that crosses a line that ought to be universal.

For the same sorts of reasons that any ethical line might be argued to be universal. Like, you know, reasons.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

RE plant v. animal, this is not a truly arbitrary line, there is solid reasoning and a clear line. At least at present, plant communication does not lead to intelligent or sentient. And eating only plants is certainly doing less harm. One can eat of plants without killing them, though modern harvest methods fail to do so in many cases.
Of course, one can go to the extreme of being a Fruitarian.
Choosing which animals to eat is almost certainly going to be arbitrary.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

Personally I will eat anything which has had a happy life and humane death.

Monkeys? Apes? Dolphins?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
RE plant v. animal, this is not a truly arbitrary line, there is solid reasoning and a clear line.

Solid reasoning that you accept, perhaps. There are no sound moral arguments, since there is broad disagreement as regards premises.

As for sentience, what is that? How sentient is a barnacle? Or a limpet? How could one possibly measure sentience? If you say all animals are sentient by virtue of being animals, you're just arguing in a circle. But even if sentience is your cutoff point, you would have to argue for why that is a convincing cutoff point.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan. I don't think either of these groups need to defend their choices, nor the consistency of them.

I do think there is a strong argument for eating less meat though, if you believe that we should try to feed the world more efficiently.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan. I don't think either of these groups need to defend their choices, nor the consistency of them.

I do think there is a strong argument for eating less meat though, if you believe that we should try to feed the world more efficiently.

No, the issue is not veggies having to defend their choices. The issue comes when they try to normalize their choices. If a veg eater wants to convince me there is a clear moral boundary which I ought to respect, then they need a convincing argument. I'm perfectly willing to live and let live. Very few omnivores try to convert vegans or vegetarians. Going the other way, however.....

As for feeding the masses, I think we need to take into account the wasteful way or food is produced, and separate that from the carnivore question. We are using prime veg growing land for animal fodder, and that's a problem. On the other hand we could be raising animals on scrub land with little other use. I'm thinking primarily small ungulates like goats and sheep here. This is almost food for free, minus health upkeep and other incidentals. So I don't accept the argument, "our current system of meat production is wasteful therefore vegetarianism." (Not saying that was your argument.)

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
mousethief: I'm perfectly willing to live and let live. Very few omnivores try to convert vegans or vegetarians. Going the other way, however.....

Like I said, I'm a vegetarian. I can't begin to count how many times people have tried to argue that my life choice is ridiculous, or to convince me to eat meat. I have a thick skin; I can normally laugh it off well. But it does happen.

I'm not trying to convince you to be vegetarian, and I accept very well that you're not trying to convince me to become a meat-eater. But I do think that I can judge "few omnivores try to convert vegans or vegetarians" better than you, and my experience is that this statement is false.

quote:
mousethief: As for feeding the masses, I think we need to take into account the wasteful way or food is produced, and separate that from the carnivore question.

I agree with the first part, but I don't think we can fully separate that from the carnivore question.

quote:
mousethief: On the other hand we could be raising animals on scrub land with little other use. I'm thinking primarily small ungulates like goats and sheep here. This is almost food for free, minus health upkeep and other incidentals.

You're simplifying things too much here. There are other issues than land. For example, water is an important one of them.

I agree with you that an African farmer keeping a goat on scrub land isn't the big problem (I'm in Africa right now). It's certainly less of a problem than most of the mass-produced meat that is consumed. But I don't think we can sustain the world's current meat consumption with goats on scrub land.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

It strikes me that food choices for ideological reasons may be warm climate issues. We can't sustain the people in the north without meat. A community I am familiar with, more or less typical in northern Canada, gets together and decides how many elk (wapiti) the community needs. They shot 26 last fall.

I do think that flexibility is required, and I'd certainly encourage people to deal with their food choices quietly. And if you go to some communities where food isn't your preference, either don't accept invitations for supper or be accommodating.

This is where my query about human rights re food choices remains unresolved.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Jesus must have eaten meat at least once a year at Passover, and served fish to his friends both before and after death and resurrection.

That fact does not answer the question whether you (generic) personally should eat or avoid some or all animal products. It does not address the issue of cruelty to animals of modern crowded commercial animal farming. It does not demonstrate anything about planetary health concerns; no anything about personal allergies physical or emotional.

I have discovered I am healthier with meat, and a friend discovered to her surprise she is healthier without it. People really do have different biological needs.

I think for Christians the Jesus examples suggest we can't say eating sentient critters is a universal wrong, but all other questions remain open.

We as a culture need to accept that food good for one person can genuinely be bad for another. That being true, it shouldn't matter that some are in that category for non-physical reasons.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'm not trying to convince you to be vegetarian, and I accept very well that you're not trying to convince me to become a meat-eater. But I do think that I can judge "few omnivores try to convert vegans or vegetarians" better than you, and my experience is that this statement is false.

Fair enough. Clearly you have experience in this that I do not share, and I must bow to your knowledge of your own experience. I'm not sure how one would go about measuring the disparity in either direction. Perhaps comments online, where you can find the ugliest examples of both camps. Okay perhaps not.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

In my neck of the woods vegetarians are a minority and vegans even more of a minority. I would wager that in general it is the minority that gets it more in the neck, and I've certainly overheard quite a lot of vege-teasing around here.

I wouldn't be surprised if the opposite dynamic exists in Gujarat.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I've never had a vegetarian or vegan try to convert me. But when I was a vegetarian for a couple of years scarcely a day went by without someone saying "surely you'd just love a nice juicy steak?"

I'm omnivorous again these days, but actually, talk of "juiciness" with regard to meat puts me off it, possibly because I've done Biology at university and know exactly what those "juices" are.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm omnivorous again these days, but actually, talk of "juiciness" with regard to meat puts me off it, possibly because I've done Biology at university and know exactly what those "juices" are.

... he said, seemingly hinting that we, too, would be disgusted had we also done Biology at university and knew what he did.

But what's so offputting about water and myoglobin?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Nope. Just stating the effect knowing what it is has on me. Try to stick to what people say rather than what they "seemingly hint", eh?

[ 30. April 2016, 22:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Just stating the effect knowing what it is has on me. Try to stick to what people say rather than what they "seemingly hint", eh?

Just stating the effect your statement had on me, eh? (Thus the "seemingly", not simply hinting!)

But I'd still like to know why you found learning "exactly what those juices are" made them offputting. I mean, you knew they were made of something - perhaps mostly water, but obviously not just that - so is there some particularly unpleasant connotation to myoglobin rather than, say hemoglobin?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

There's definitely an ick factor in black pudding - which doesn't stop me tucking in once in a while though.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
There's definitely an ick factor in black pudding - which doesn't stop me tucking in once in a while though.

Depends on your ick radar - I was brought up to eat trotters and tripe!

No ick for black pudding at all [Smile]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Actually I find trotters offally nice to tell the truth.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
There's definitely an ick factor in black pudding - which doesn't stop me tucking in once in a while though.

I have it almost every day.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

That diet would be associated with a fair increase in the risk of colon cancer by the way.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
That diet would be associated with a fair increase in the risk of colon cancer by the way.

This risk is actually rather low for red meats. But statistically significant. Which is always interesting. With a large enough N (sample size), small effects become statistically significant. Practical significance depends on a host of other factors. Like what else is eaten with it. Processed meats have a stronger effect. I don't see specific data on blood eating.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Yes, processed meat is the main problem rather than red meat per se and black pudding is usually considered a processed meat.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So is the bacon i have with it!

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Ah. OK.

Followed by a post-breakfast cigarette and a cream doughnut followed and a drive to work I guess?

[ 01. May 2016, 18:11: Message edited by: mdijon ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Ah. OK.

Followed by a post-breakfast cigarette and a cream doughnut followed and a drive to work I guess?

And road rage. Hostility, anger and bitterness are awfully nice for physical health effects.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Don't drive and don't work!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Just stating the effect knowing what it is has on me. Try to stick to what people say rather than what they "seemingly hint", eh?
Just stating the effect your statement had on me, eh? (Thus the "seemingly", not simply hinting!)

But I'd still like to know why you found learning "exactly what those juices are" made them offputting. I mean, you knew they were made of something - perhaps mostly water, but obviously not just that - so is there some particularly unpleasant connotation to myoglobin rather than, say hemoglobin?

You expect a logical thought process to underly the "ick" factor?

Would you drink other people's spit happily? Why not? Is it really that surprising that I have a similar reaction to an animal's internal fluids? The biology thing is just that made it harder to not think about it when eating it.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Nope. Just stating the effect knowing what it is has on me. Try to stick to what people say rather than what they "seemingly hint", eh?
Just stating the effect your statement had on me, eh? (Thus the "seemingly", not simply hinting!)

But I'd still like to know why you found learning "exactly what those juices are" made them offputting. I mean, you knew they were made of something - perhaps mostly water, but obviously not just that - so is there some particularly unpleasant connotation to myoglobin rather than, say hemoglobin?
You expect a logical thought process to underly the "ick" factor?

Would you drink other people's spit happily? Why not? Is it really that surprising that I have a similar reaction to an animal's internal fluids? The biology thing is just that made it harder to not think about it when eating it.

Sorry, Karl - I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. I think I misinterpreted the way you phrased your statement. It sounded like you were preparing for an interesting or shocking reveal, something along the lines of

"I used to love drinking Kopi Luwak coffee, until I found out exactly what it was made of."

or

"I used to really enjoy digging into a heaping bowl of Soylent Green, until I found out exactly what it was made of."

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

There are lots of vegan themed tattoos to be had.

I wonder if they know that almost all tattoo ink is made from animal products?

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

There are lifestyle vegans and dietary vegans, they are not the same. So it is perfectly possible to be a vegan and have tattoos.

Boogie, are you aware of Jack Monroe? Vegan, anti-austerity activist, makes exceedingly cheap vegan recipes. No fancy faux meat or dairy involved. (also Jack is non-binary transgender and uses 'they' pronouns fyi)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There are lots of vegan themed tattoos to be had.

I wonder if they know that almost all tattoo ink is made from animal products?

One of the pictures on that page leads to a blog entry about just that. Turns out it's not just ink; many of the substances used in tattooing are animal based, but the writer of the blog post gives alternatives for all of them (that she knows of, which seems to cover the whole process, including shaving and bathing the skin beforehand!).

It's good for all of us to be aware of and responsible about the products we use. It's vital for someone with a commitment to some lifestyle like veganism.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
There are lifestyle vegans and dietary vegans, they are not the same. So it is perfectly possible to be a vegan and have tattoos.

Maybe.

If someone eats a vegan diet and wears leather, I wouldn't take issue with them. If they wear leather whilst being a vegan activist, I'm going to think them hypocritical.

Seems like advertising your veganism on your body is a little bit of activism.

ETA: There is no coherent moral stance that says it is wrong to eat animals, but fine to wear them.

[ 14. May 2016, 19:09: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Skins from animals that have died naturally can be used for leather, but natural death is incompatible with meat.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Road kill?

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

No thanks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
No thanks.

Misses the point.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

If the point is that one could eat road kill then I suppose one could if one wanted, although I personally wouldn't. But I don't see that the existence of road kill makes the line of argument I started on untenable. Road kill would only ever account for a very slight supply of meat, and one could still feel uncomfortable eating road kill as it introduces a perverse incentive. This isn't my line of reasoning by the way, I was just having a stab at an argument that might suit a leather-wearing vegan. The unpacking of all of this seems disproportionate in response to two words, hence I summarized.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
There are lifestyle vegans and dietary vegans, they are not the same. So it is perfectly possible to be a vegan and have tattoos.
Maybe.

If someone eats a vegan diet and wears leather, I wouldn't take issue with them. If they wear leather whilst being a vegan activist, I'm going to think them hypocritical.

Seems like advertising your veganism on your body is a little bit of activism.

ETA: There is no coherent moral stance that says it is wrong to eat animals, but fine to wear them.

Generally diet-only vegans are not activists since often the more militant lifestyle vegans are not fond of them. Also, most people were not brought up vegan - if someone has say, hardy leather shoes/boots/motorbike leathers from before veganism, it seems reasonable for them to keep those items but not buy more. It would be more wasteful to just get rid of them.

Not everyone is vegan for animal rights reasons or because they think it's wrong to eat animals. Bill Clinton went vegan because it's a cholesterol-free diet, for instance. Some are vegan for environmental reasons, or religious reasons (eg veganism makes keeping a kosher kitchen much easier), or allergy/food intolerance reasons. Some just don't like the idea of eating animal products themselves without thinking that it's morally wrong. Not veganism, but my mum has been vegetarian for around 20 years now simply because she doesn't like the taste or texture of meat and fish, no animal rights reasons involved.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Not veganism, but my mum has been vegetarian for around 20 years now simply because she doesn't like the taste or texture of meat and fish, no animal rights reasons involved.

And there's nothing at all wrong with that. I have a friend in a similar position - he doesn't mind eating animals; he just doesn't like their taste. So he doesn't avoid animal ingredients in things - just doesn't eat meat.

I don't imagine your mum would get a "vegetarian" tattoo, though, would she? I would imagine that someone who gets that kind of tattoo is doing it for ethical animal-rights reasons.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0