Do we need another label?

g0rph

Forum Senior
Joined
Aug 18, 2022
Reaction score
289
Location
Sweden
Lifestyle
  1. Other
I read a lot of plant-based news and especially vegan news, articles and browse the forums, including this one.
There was a response to a post earlier today that got me thinking we maybe need another label.
There is far too much infighting between vegans basically on really silly grounds.
Eg.
Someone rides horses. They have a stable, and treat their horse like a family member. This closeness opens up the thought process to giving up all animal products…

They start to eat only plant-based, they check labels and stop buying any animal based products or animal tested products…but they still ride through the forest on the horse at weekends…
The abolitionists and more extreme vegans will say “You are not vegan”.
And by the definition, they are correct.

Then there is the "vegan" father or mother who takes their kids to a (well-run) zoo.
Or the "vegan" who has a hive and takes some honey.
Or the "vegan" who rescued some chickens and uses the occasional egg.
Or the "vegan" who buys wool from thrift stores.
Or the "vegan" who eats oysters.

But then “plant-based” is diet only.
And “vegetarian” suggests they still consume milk or shop-bought eggs which are essentially the meat industry.
And just to reiterate my own position… I am not against responsible breeding, pets, service animals etc…so by the definition I am not “vegan”.
People seem to need labels.

The closest one for me, is, vegan. But many vegans will deny me that for my refusal to accept the “no exploitation” aspect in its entirety.

I dunno.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: KLS52
You are not vegan”.
who made them judge and jury?
the first time I heard those words (which was in this forum), I was very hurt. I actually quit the forum for a while. When I came back I found many messages form VF members supporting me. (later the person who said that was banned. Not for that.

by the definition I am not “vegan”.
IMHO, YOU are the the only good judge.
People seem to need labels.
True. and I've seem some proposals that I like
Nearly vegan, vegan adjacent, almost vegan.....

The closest one for me, is, vegan.
and it probably is accuate.

using many of the definitions and especially the dictionary definitions its a pretty easy bar.

There are some other more "modern' definitions.... and if you like one better ...
However I grew up with the Vegan Society's, and I'm sticking with it

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

This phrase is crucial:
... seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable...

Basically, seeks to exclude, means you're trying.
And as far as is possible and practicable, does not mean perfect.

how hard you have to try and how "perfect" you can be is up to each individual

The way I see it, it's all about intent. If you want to be A Vegan, POOF. Your'e a vegan

------
Also a common problem is the confusion that exists about the process and the product.
Veganism is not a product. It's a process.
A vegan influencer put it this way.
Veganism is not the destination, it's the path. Compassion is the destination.

-----
Is "owning" a cat or a dog or a horse vegan?
Probably not, but....
I don't own any animals but ... I do think its all about compassion.
And taking an animal into your house and caring for it for the rest of its life is about the most compassionate thing a person can do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emma JC and g0rph
This is part of what I was commenting on on another thread--the whole infighting between vegans as well as those who just follow plant based diets. If we all have the same goal, to eliminate the farming of animals, how can we expect to achieve it if we can't support it from all aspects? Plant based for health folks may still see the use of animals as acceptable, but shouldn't the cow cuddlers who don't even care about the health aspects see them as allies?
I'm not all that sensitive or compassionate myself, but just as I don't bother feel entitled to other people, I don't feel entitled to animals. Unless I am provoked, I'm not going to provoke.

I would rather people view vegans as those opposed to the unnecessary use of animals, and leave the particulars to the individuals
I'm so sick of reading posts about hefty celebrity vegans demeaned by both WFPB peeps because they aren't 'healthy'
I'm also sick of posts that berate wfpb folks for not being more against the other aspects of animal use

I'm not to fuss about someone calling themselves vegan and slipping up, or willing choosing things that don't adhere to what veganism means. What does irk me is hearing them defend it as vegan. Eating eggs is not vegan regardless of where you find them. You want to refer to yourself as vegan and eat them, or other things for whatever reason, cool, but don't try and make it something it's not.

I don't often say I'm vegan if I feel I'd get the stupid comments.

I mostly say I try and stay vegan
 
  • Like
Reactions: PTree15 and Emma JC
Back when I was a child, I remember being disturbed by the way people sometimes argued that someone can "harvest" (hunt) wildlife and still respect or love the animals they "harvest". Perhaps vegans who come down hard on those who aren't perfect vegans by their standards, but still refer to themselves as "vegan", have similar concerns. They might see such people as mis-using the term "vegan" to paint some uses of animals in a positive light.

I don't deny that the "vegan police" turn some people off, but if someone refuses to even embrace at least some aspects of veganism because of its more extreme, abrasive advocates... I doubt they were ever interested in vegan ethics anyway.
 
Back when I was a child, I remember being disturbed by the way people sometimes argued that someone can "harvest" (hunt) wildlife and still respect or love the animals they "harvest". Perhaps vegans who come down hard on those who aren't perfect vegans by their standards, but still refer to themselves as "vegan", have similar concerns. They might see such people as mis-using the term "vegan" to paint some uses of animals in a positive light.

I don't deny that the "vegan police" turn some people off, but if someone refuses to even embrace at least some aspects of veganism because of its more extreme, abrasive advocates... I doubt they were ever interested in vegan ethics anyway.
I remember watching the movie Soylent Green and thinking what a wonderful concept. That was when I thought about how stupid raising animals to kill them for food when animals die anyway. We all die anyway. I always thought it was stupid to put people in boxes in the ground too.

We had relatives with a dairy farm. I didn't like the cows very much, and I liked when they weren't around so I could climb trees in the pasture. When I saw them being led into the barn and milked I felt bad because I didn't them to go through that, so I learned to like them a little more and was never scared of them again, because I wouldn't that done to me
It's just a matter of not needing to use them. I'm fine knowing humans evolved eating and using animals. I also know no one ever talks about all the other things humans evolved doing/not doing, because they would never ever live like that themselves
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Tom L. and Emma JC
I don't deny that the "vegan police" turn some people off, but if someone refuses to even embrace at least some aspects of veganism because of its more extreme, abrasive advocates... I doubt they were ever interested in vegan ethics anyway.
I don't disagree.
But my point was more because people seem to need labels.
What does someone who embraces 95% of veganism call themselves...in restaurants, in cafes, at get-togethers etc.
I still say "vegan" as "I don't use animal products" is describing me, not labeling me and feels rather "too-much".
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Tom L.
I don't disagree.
But my point was more because people seem to need labels.
, not labeling me and feels rather "too-much".
Flexatatian or Plant Based Diet or Vegetarian or Almost Vegan.
Vegan adjacent, nearly vegan, semi vegan.
Rastafrainan?
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Emma JC
This is pretty much what I was getting at in my other post about reforming vegan advocacy. It seems pointless getting hung up on how vegan anyone is, when at the end of the day veganism is purely a personal journey. Advocacy/encouragement should be more around promoting the idea and why it's a good idea and leaving it to people to make their decisions. The more the idea becomes mainstream the more people may be engaged. We have an activist here in Australia whose activism is very confrontational. She has a saying, if you aren't a vegan, you are an animal abuser. She yells that at people all the time and posts videos of her confrontations. She says that gets more airtime so it's worthwhile, I'm not so sure.

Whatever your definition, veganism boils down to one thing: that we recognise the inherent value and dignity of other species and aim to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can. So long as people really take that on board, we must be making progress, surely?

So yes, I agree that too many folk take the whole thing too seriously in their zeal to convert everyone to veganism. And the infighting between so-called vegans is often the worst of it all. I've seen it firsthand many times, been on the receiving end of it, and seen someone broken by it. It would be nice to see a more positive and inclusive attitude overall.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: silva
...
So yes, I agree that too many folk take the whole thing too seriously in their zeal to convert everyone to veganism. And the infighting between so-called vegans is often the worst of it all. I've seen it firsthand many times, been on the receiving end of it, and seen someone broken by it. It would be nice to see a more positive and inclusive attitude overall.
I agree on the infighting. When I went vegan (in 2007), I was searching for all sorts of online places that welcomed vegans, but many were full of abolitionists, and they chastised people (including me) about having companion animals or having transitioned slowly (which I did, over several years, actually). I found most of these places really hostile, so I quickly realized I wouldn't be a good fit despite my efforts. Everyone is at a different level of what is "possible and practicable," and I believe that any effort to reduce animal consumption is a worthy effort.

I won't get into the whole label thing. I think today's incessant need for labels for just about everything is odd, and I'm not sure I fully understand it. I just try to live my life by doing the least harm possible.
 
.......When I went vegan (in 2007), I was searching for all sorts of online places that welcomed vegans, but many were full of abolitionists, and they chastised people (including me) about having companion animals.......
I've only quoted part of your post (although all of it is good IMHO). I have mixed feelings about companion animals: I wouldn't "buy" an animal who was specifically bred to be sold as a pet. (I put quotes around "buy" because I haven't seen the animals I adopted since I became an adult as my "possessions", although I think I saw my aquarium fishes back in the 1960s that way, at least at first).

But mostly, I have come to see them as a... burden?... responsibility?... I have worried about them when they were in my care, and mentioned how a companion animal's death affected me on these forums now and then. I just don't want to go there unless I'm taking in an animal who needs a home.

My neighbors adopted 2 dogs from the local shelter- a Dalmatian and a Black Lab- both as adults, not puppies. Both dogs had behavioral issues, although my neighbors loved them and kept them for their full lives. After these two dogs had passed, they purchased another Lab from a breeder as a puppy, and trained her right from the start; she has been much less trouble, even considering that all puppies are a handful. I don't see anything wrong with that- but it's not for me.

I don't see adoption as non-vegan. Adopting a cat or dog could be insofar as they apparently need some food of animal origin in their diet. My cats' food had some vegan ingredients, and whenever any edible meat foods were going to be discarded at meals I had with others (e.g., scraps of flesh on a turkey's bones) I took them home and gave them to the cats. I've heard different opinions about pet food since then.
 
I've only quoted part of your post (although all of it is good IMHO). I have mixed feelings about companion animals: I wouldn't "buy" an animal who was specifically bred to be sold as a pet. (I put quotes around "buy" because I haven't seen the animals I adopted since I became an adult as my "possessions", although I think I saw my aquarium fishes back in the 1960s that way, at least at first).

But mostly, I have come to see them as a... burden?... responsibility?... I have worried about them when they were in my care, and mentioned how a companion animal's death affected me on these forums now and then. I just don't want to go there unless I'm taking in an animal who needs a home.

My neighbors adopted 2 dogs from the local shelter- a Dalmatian and a Black Lab- both as adults, not puppies. Both dogs had behavioral issues, although my neighbors loved them and kept them for their full lives. After these two dogs had passed, they purchased another Lab from a breeder as a puppy, and trained her right from the start; she has been much less trouble, even considering that all puppies are a handful. I don't see anything wrong with that- but it's not for me.

I don't see adoption as non-vegan. Adopting a cat or dog could be insofar as they apparently need some food of animal origin in their diet. My cats' food had some vegan ingredients, and whenever any edible meat foods were going to be discarded at meals I had with others (e.g., scraps of flesh on a turkey's bones) I took them home and gave them to the cats. I've heard different opinions about pet food since then.
They also could have adopted a puppy from a rescue, or spent the money they spent on a breeder on behavioral training for an adult
They have a program in jails here where inmates work with trainers on shelter dogs of all breeds. A friend got his dog from there and he's the most amazing animal!

I'm of the opinion that breeders need to pay fees or taxed on their annual license, to pay for shelters
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Tom L. and Lou
First off if you accept that PETA is a bit of an authority on animals rights, they have loosened their stance on companion animals.

Please be assured that PETA does not oppose kind people who share their lives and homes with animal companions whom they love, treat well, and care for properly.​

 
We May need a label for some of the new lab created products. There are labs producing artificial whey and artificial casein. No animals were harmed in their creation but I have a hard time associating them with vegan food. they are bad for us but not bad for the animals.
 
However I grew up with the Vegan Society's, and I'm sticking with it

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
This definition is really interesting because includes extending exclusion of animals to promoting environmental benefits.

However, the "as far as is possible and practicable" clause acknowledges the two are neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive. For example, if one were to substitute cruelty-free animal-derived clothing and horse transportation for automobiles and petrochemical-based clothing fabrics, this could be defined as more vegan. It would very likely be worse for the environment.

I think the definition should end at "animal-free alternatives" because different vegans have different principles guiding them. "As far as is possible and practicable" is subjective and can also be based upon circumstances.
 
First off if you accept that PETA is a bit of an authority on animals rights, they have loosened their stance on companion animals.

Please be assured that PETA does not oppose kind people who share their lives and homes with animal companions whom they love, treat well, and care for properly.​

They oppose breeding, which I don't.
The idea that labradors or beagles or etc etc breed simply vanishes is awful in my opinion.

However, "ownership" and "breeding" should come with MUCH stiffer regulations.
 
I don't disagree.
But my point was more because people seem to need labels.
What does someone who embraces 95% of veganism call themselves...in restaurants, in cafes, at get-togethers etc.
I still say "vegan" as "I don't use animal products" is describing me, not labeling me and feels rather "too-much".


There is a "label". It is called a " Reducetarian". It is actually a growing movement. I've talked to my friends and family about reducing their intake of animal products. My daughter has reduced her consumption of meat and eliminated dairy from her diet.

Some of my friends feel that reducing their consumption of animal products by 25-50% is doable. I applaud anyone who reduces their consumption of animal products.

Reducetarianism: Everything You Need To Know About Eating Less Meat, Dairy & Eggs



What actually is a reducetarian?

The term 'reducetarian,' was first coined by the Reducetarian Foundation, and references an individual who eats less meat, dairy and eggs.

The rise of reducetarianism

According to ShelfNow, over one-third of British consumers are actively choosing to reduce their meat consumption.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: PTree15 and Lou
There is a "label". It is called a " Reducetarian". It is actually a growing movement. I've talked to my friends and family about reducing their intake of animal products. My daughter has reduced her consumption of meat and eliminated dairy from her diet.

Some of my friends feel that reducing their consumption of animal products by 25-50% is doable. I applaud anyone who reduces their consumption of animal products.

Reducetarianism: Everything You Need To Know About Eating Less Meat, Dairy & Eggs​



What actually is a reducetarian?​

The term 'reducetarian,' was first coined by the Reducetarian Foundation, and references an individual who eats less meat, dairy and eggs.

The rise of reducetarianism​

According to ShelfNow, over one-third of British consumers are actively choosing to reduce their meat consumption.

No good.
A reducetarian is obviously not doing it for ethical reasons, but for health or environmental ones. I don't buy animal products full-stop. I just disagree with the complete removal of all "exploitation" where the exploitation is mutually beneficial.


Coming at it from the ethics side, reducing something you believe to be morally wrong would be odd.
(eg. "I only beat my wife once a week nowadays")

*edit By the way, I am not having a go at your family. Mine are still eating meat, drinking milk, buying leather. And I did too up until 19 months ago.
 

No good.
A reducetarian is obviously not doing it for ethical reasons, but for health or environmental ones. I don't buy animal products full-stop. I just disagree with the complete removal of all "exploitation" where the exploitation is mutually beneficial.


Coming at it from the ethics side, reducing something you believe to be morally wrong would be odd.
(eg. "I only beat my wife once a week nowadays")

*edit By the way, I am not having a go at your family. Mine are still eating meat, drinking milk, buying leather. And I did too up until 19 months ago.


A little harsh.

I think anyone who reduces their consumption of animal products, for any reason, is to be applauded. My children were raised on a vegan diet, and I was disappointed that they didn't stick with it. I am happy, that as they are in their 40's, that they are returning to some of lessons that I taught them in their childhood.

I don't care why people are reducing their animal product intake. I can only judge myself. I have been a vegan for 40+ years. It started because of a variety of food allergies in my children. By the time I had removed everything that could cause a problem, all of the animal products disappeared.

I started for health reasons, and then moved into the ethical and environmental aspects.

Any reason for reducing or eliminating animal products is a win for me. It is an ongoing process. Today's Reducetarian becomes tomorrow's WFPB, and then the future vegan.

And even if they only reduce their consumption of animal products by 50%, it still has a massive impact.

I live in "dairy country", and drive past abandoned dairy farms that were closed because of the reduced consumption of dairy products. It wasn't all vegans that did that. It was the vegans, the Reducetarians, and everybody who mixed up their week with a few animal free meals.
 
Last edited: