Finding Vegan Shoes

I recently have been able to find several pairs of vegan shoes (in the form of canvas plimsols) in standard clothes shops – some of which have been an absolute bargain (Burtons currently has a Sale on – so it is possible to pick up a pair for £7). 

If you already have enough plimsols and/or are looking for other types of vegan shoes, try the following sites (Note not all are 100% vegan sites)…

 

1. Zappos.com. It has a wide selection of sporty sandals and sneakers. The site also carries Stella McCartney’s hip line of vegan shoes for Adidas. Bonus: Zappos ships for free. (www.zappos.com/n/br/bq/866.html)

2. Bourgeois Boheme. The vendor is known for its casual and elegant footwear. But it’s also a reliable source for boots, bags, wallets, belts and cosmetics. (www.bboheme.com)

3. Moo Shoes. It has been known for years for having everything but the moo for women and men — from comfy slip-ons and cozy boots to chic heels and sexy sandals. (www.mooshoes.com)

4. Payless Shoe Source. Vegan shoes are seemingly stacked to the ceiling, including some shoes made from canvas. And you’ll probably find most shoes priced at less than $25, a price so low you can buy several pairs. (www.payless.com)

5. Target. The store has worked hard in recent years to increase its selection of stylish shoes at low prices. Look for a number of vegan styles with runway looks. (www.target.com)

6. Chinese Laundry. Its wide selection of stunningly stylish vegan shoes includes strappy sandals, kitten-heeled pumps and Mary Janes. (www.chineselaundry.com)

7. Life Stride. Its nearly 100 percent vegan line of business and casual shoes can be found at department stores such as Dillard’s. (www.lifestride.com)

8. Alternative Outfitters. It stresses style, comfort and durability with its collection of pumps, heels, flats, wedges, sandals and boots. (www.alternativeoutfitters.com/)

9. T.U.K. Add a touch of edge to your wardrobe with retro-inspired heels, sneakers or chunky “vegan leather” boots. (www.tukshoes.com)

10. Journeys. The popular mall store has leather-free platform heels, skateboarding shoes and colorful sneakers. (www.journeys.com/catalog)

Of course – it is also possible to find vegan shoes at the standard places – vegetarianshows.co.uk, veganstore etc

Back from a long break…

I apologise for putting this site down for the past few months. The blog is now up and running though posts will be less frequent than they were at the beginning of the year.

Open Day at Hugletts Wood Farm

——————————

—————
EVENT: Open Day for the Jain community at Hugletts Wood Farm
DATE & TIME: Sunday 8th June, 11am to 6pm.
LOCATION: Grovelye Lane, Dallington, Heathfield. TN21 9PA.  (East Sussex).

ABOUT THE DAY:
Hugletts Wood Farm is a panjrapor and working vegan farm run according
to the principles of ahimsa by two very dedicated and compassionate
people – Wenda and Matthew.

This open day will be a great opportunity to witness what Wenda and
Matthew have achieved by applying Jain principles, principally ahimsa,
when caring for animals who would otherwise be cruelly exploited by
humans.  Among the lucky souls living happily at Hugletts Wood Farm are
rescued cows (including Burfi the bull), sheep, lambs, hens, cockerels,
hens, ducks, cat and dogs.

On the day, Wenda and Matthew will be able to talk to us about their
various ahimsa-based activities in detail – not just jivadaya, but also
production of “ahimsa compost”, “ahimsa vegetable growing”, and much more.

The environment of Hugletts Wood Farm is very pleasant, you’d be welcome
to enjoy the tranquility of their beautiful ancient broadleaf woodland
which they have been working hard to restore to its former glory.

A Jain vegan lunch will be available at the farm during the day, and
refreshments will be available all day.

SAREE APPEAL:
Hugletts Wood Farm is appealing for unwanted sarees. This is because
they have a way to raise some money from such sarees which would go
towards the care of the animals.  So if you have any unwanted sarees,
please
bring them with you on the open day.

TRANSPORT:
There is no organised coach transport to the farm on 8th June, so
visitors will need to make their own way by car.
However, car-sharing might be a possibility. If you can offer a lift or
need a lift, please contact Mahersh Shah at mail@shambhus.co.uk,
providing your contact telephone number, the area you’re based in and
how many extra passengers you’d be able to accommodate in your car.

FURTHER INFORMATION + DIRECTIONS:
For further information about the open day itself and if you’d like
directions, please contact Wenda of Hugletts Wood Farm directly:
telephone: 01435 831028
email: info@huglettswoodfarm.com
website: www.huglettswoodfarm.com

Why eating eggs is cruel….

Taken from the Vegan Society Website…written by PHILIP LYMBERY in 2002. Please see the this link for the article and the full set of accompanying references

For more information see:

Animal Aid

Viva

The Egg Industry

The world laying hen population is currently estimated at 4,700 million. The 15 countries of the European Union (EU) house 271 million laying hens, second only to the 800 million birds in China. Other major egg-producing regions include the USA (270 million birds), Japan (152 million), India (123 million) and Mexico (103 million) (IEC, 2001).

Worldwide, some 70-80% of laying hens are housed in battery cages. The proportion of caged hens in the EU is about 90%. This is likely to change rapidly following the coming into force of the 1999 Laying Hens Directive, which prohibits barren battery cages by 2012. So-called “enriched” cages will continue to be legal. There are 29.2 million hens in the UK egg-laying flock. About 78% are currently in cages, with the rest in alternative non-cage systems: 16% kept free range; and 6% in perchery/barn systems (Williams, 2000).

There are 26,500 flocks of egg-laying hens in the UK producing 8,800 million eggs per year, the majority for UK consumption. Over 75% of hens are kept in flocks of 20,000 birds or more (BEIS, 2001).
Consumers

In the UK, the average consumer eats 170 eggs per year. Of these, 140 are eaten as eggs bought in shell, whilst 30 will be consumed in processed form such as in cakes and ready-made meals. The UK laying flock produces 8,800 million eggs per year. The majority (60.5%) are sold through retailers, whilst catering outlets account for 21%, and food manufacturers using egg as an ingredient take 18.5% of the total (BEIS, 2001).

From 2004, European Union legislation will make it compulsory for eggs to be labelled according to method of production. The following terms will apply:

  • Battery eggs will be labelled “Eggs from caged hens”;
  • Barn eggs will be labelled “Barn” eggs;
  • Free-range eggs will be labelled “Free Range” eggs.

FARMING SYSTEMS FOR EGGS

Battery Cages

In the battery system, hens are crammed into a cage so small that they cannot stretch their wings, let alone walk or peck and scratch at the ground. Under these conditions hens are prevented from performing most of their natural behaviours, such as dust bathing, perching and laying their eggs in a nest. Up to 90,000 caged hens can be crammed into one windowless shed. The cages in Europe are stacked between 4 and 9 cages high. Japan is said to have the world’s highest battery cage unit, with cages stacked 18 tiers high.

There is clear scientific evidence that hens suffer in battery cages. Common sense also tells us that to keep a healthy hen in a barren wire cage, with less space than an ordinary sheet of typing paper, is bound to cause suffering. These conditions prevent the hens performing their natural behaviours and cause their bodies to degenerate through lack of exercise.

Brittle Bones & Injured Feet

Battery hens suffer Caged Layer Osteoporosis (CLO), or brittle bones. Research has shown that 35% of premature deaths in cages are due to CLO, a slow death from paralysis and starvation at the back of the cage.

Confined to the cage, the hen is unable to forage by scratching and pecking at the ground. Under natural conditions a large proportion of a hen’s day would be spent looking for food. Denied this simple activity, the hen’s claws can grow long or twisted and be torn off. They can even grow around the wire mesh of the sloping cage floor. The slope itself puts painful pressure on the hen’s toes, causing damage to the bird’s feet.

European Scientific Veterinary Committee Report

In 1996 the European Union’s committee of scientific and veterinary experts published a report acknowledging the behavioural needs of hens and the welfare problems caused by caging. After reviewing the evidence, the Scientific Veterinary Committee report found that:

  • “Hens have a strong preference for laying their eggs in a nest and are highly motivated to perform nesting behaviour”.
  • “Hens have a strong preference for a littered floor for pecking, scratching and dust-bathing”.
  • “Hens have a preference to perch, especially at night”.

All of these behaviours are denied to caged hens. The report concluded that:

“Battery cage systems provide a barren environment for the birds… It is clear that because of its small size and its barrenness, the battery cage as used at present has inherent severe disadvantages for the welfare of hens”.

In 1999 the European Union agreed to ban the use of conventional battery cages from 2012. The new Laying Hens Directive (Council Directive 1999/74/EC) forbids the introduction of newly-built battery cages from 2003, and from that date space allowance in existing conventional battery cages will be increased from 450 cm2 to 550 cm2 per bird. To put these space allowances into context, an A4 sheet of typing paper covers 620 cm2. So-called ‘enriched’ cages will not be banned under this new legislation.

“Enriched” Cages

The European Union has agreed to ban barren battery cages from 2012. However “enriched” cages will still be allowed. “Enriched” cages must provide at least 750 cm2 per hen, of which 600 cm2 is “useable area”, the rest being shared space for items such as a nest box. “Enriched” cages must be 45 cm high over most of the cage. This compares with 450 cm2 of cage space per hen in battery cages and a height of 40 cm. “Enriched” cages must also have a nest, “litter such that pecking and scratching are possible”, 15 cm of perch space per hen, and a claw-shortening device.

It is claimed that “enriched” cages will be better for the hens’ welfare than battery cages. However scientific and practical evidence shows that, in welfare terms, a cage is still a cage, “enriched” or not, and that birds will continue to suffer. The space and facilities provided in “enriched” cages are so inadequate that they deprive the birds of the ability to fulfil natural behaviours, leading to abnormal behaviours, frustration, suffering and body degeneration (Lymbery, in press).

Barn Systems

“Barn” eggs are produced from hens kept in loose flocks confined within a shed. Birds in this system are not caged and can roam throughout their house but are not let outside. They are provided with perches, platforms, and nestboxes and litter areas. Some barn units keep their hens in large flock sizes of up to 16,000 birds in conditions that can resemble a crowded football terrace.

Free Range Systems

“Free Range” often conjures up idyllic images of hens scratching in the farmyard. The reality is often very different. They are often kept in “Barn”-type houses in flocks of up to 16,000 in large sheds. They are often debeaked. The birds must have access to the outdoor range area, which can be stocked at a maximum of 2,500 birds per hectare of land available to the hens. However, in large-scale free range units, often less than 50% of the birds regularly go outside. As with all commercial laying hens, after usually a year of egg production they are slaughtered.

Debeaking

Many hens are debeaked. A red-hot blade sears off a chunk of the birds’ sensitive beak. This suffering is caused in order to stop birds pecking at each other or cannibalising, common problems on commercial egg farms – whether caged or free range.

Debeaking, often referred to as ‘beak trimming’, is a serious mutilation which is carried out on a large proportion of laying hens in all production systems. It has been suggested that debeaking is no more painful than for humans cutting their nails. This is a false analogy, since scientific evidence shows that hens not only feel pain at the time of the operation but can also suffer a lasting, chronic pain.

Debeaking is carried out to stop the hens pecking out one another’s feathers, an abnormal behaviour that can lead to cannibalism. It is widely acknowledged that these behaviours are borne out of frustration of natural behaviours, leading to stress in industrial-scale poultry farms. Debeaking adds insult to injury by punishing the birds themselves for the bad husbandry systems they are kept in.

Brittle Bones & Malignant Tumours

The average hen lays about 300 eggs a year. Some reach 330 eggs a year. That’s nearly one a day. This compares with the laying of 5-6 eggs per brood during the breeding season of the hens’ wild ancestors. The modern drive toward ever-greater egg production puts strain on the birds’ physiological system. Is it any wonder that hens all too often suffer osteoporosis and malignant tumours?

Bone weakness in laying hens is a major cause of concern. Although it can mainly be attributed to the battery hen’s almost total lack of exercise (Broom, 1992), the great demand for calcium for the formation of egg shells depletes natural stores of calcium in the hen’s body, often leading to severe osteopenia (RSPCA, 1989).

Another welfare problem associated with pushing hens to lay more eggs is the development of malignant tumours of the oviduct. In one investigation, a significant proportion of malignant tumours of the oviduct were identified in 20,000 ’spent’ layers selected from ten different farms. The researchers concluded, “… the increase in the prevalence of the (magnum) tumour coincides with continued selection of fowl for high egg production” (Anjum, 1989).

Slaughter of Spent Hens

Most egg-laying hens in the UK are sent for slaughter after a year of egg production. This can be a traumatic experience for hens as they are caught and bundled into crates before being transported by lorry to the slaughterhouse. One study found that at the time of catching and crating, levels of the stress hormone corticosterone in battery hens were 10 times higher than normal. Once caught, the hens are held by their legs and carried upside down out of the shed and packed into crates for transport, often breaking their bones in the process (Turner & Lymbery, 1999).

On average 29% of battery hens arriving at the slaughterhouse are reported to have at least one freshly-broken bone. Removing the birds from the crates and hanging them upside down on the shackle to await slaughter increases the proportion of hens with broken bones to 45% (Gregory and Wilkins, 1989; Gregory, 1994).

“Spent” hens can be worth as little as two pence per bird. After slaughter their carcasses will be used in chicken soups, pastes, pies, pet food, etc.

Slaughter of Cock Chicks

For every hen hatched for egg laying there is a cock chick that is killed almost immediately after struggling from the egg. Modern selective breeding techniques have resulted in distinct strains of chicken for egg laying and meat production. This breed specialisation has gone so far that birds of the laying strain do not make good meat birds. As male birds of the laying strain do not lay eggs and will not produce meat efficiently, they are killed when a day old.

Official advice is to kill the chicks before they are 72 hours old using carbon dioxide (CO2) gas. Where small numbers of chicks are involved, neck dislocation or decapitation is also advised. (MAFF, 1987). Another often-used method is a mechanical ‘homogeniser’, which minces the chicks alive. About 30 million cock chicks a year are killed a year in Britain alone.

Eggs, Food & The Environment

Food vs. Feed

Hens laying eggs don’t produce food, they waste it! It takes 3 kilos of grain as chicken feed to produce one kilo of eggs. This is because the conversion of crops by farm animals into food for humans is grossly inefficient. And it is not only food, such as grain, which could be fed directly to humans, that is wasted. Each battery egg takes about 180 litres of water to produce. Compare this with the human use of water in developing countries. In India, for example, the poorest people use an average of only 10 litres of water each per day (O’Brien, 1998).

Environmental Impact

Ammonia gas escaping into the atmosphere is a serious pollutant linked to acid rain. Studies of farm animal housing have shown that egg farms have one of the highest farm emission rates of ammonia gas. Laying-hen houses in the UK and other European countries have also been found to have levels of ammonia and inhalable dust close to or over the regulated limits for continuous exposure for animals or for 8-hour occupational exposure for stockpersons (Turner, 1999).

The intensive farming of eggs depends on a plentiful supply of affordable feed, which is usually grown intensively using chemical fertilisers and pesticides. Intensive farming practices have been linked to severe declines in farmland wildlife such as birds.

Human Health

Salmonella

Eggs are an important source of salmonella food poisoning. Eggs were responsible for 10% of Infectious Intestinal Disease (IID), or food poisoning, outbreaks in England and Wales in the period 1992-1999 (FSA, 2000). Nearly 17,000 cases of salmonella infection in humans were confirmed in 1999. This represents a 53% fall in cases since the peak of 36,400 in 1997 (ACMSF, 2001). In 1988 the then Health Minister, Edwina Currie, caused controversy by claiming that most egg production in the UK was infected with salmonella. Reports of salmonella infection have only just fallen back below pre-Edwina Currie levels.

Advice from the Government’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) is that “eating raw eggs may pose a health risk. Vulnerable groups such as the elderly, the sick, babies and pregnant women should only consume eggs that have been cooked until the white and yolks are solid” (FSA, 2001).

Cholesterol

Eggs are a rich source of cholesterol, which is linked to heart disease. A single egg contains most of a person’s recommended maximum daily cholesterol intake.

PHILIP LYMBERY

A list of non vegetarian food additives…

E Numbers with Animal Origins

E numbers come from a variety of sources, but there are many that have – or may have – animal origins. Here we look at which E numbers this applies to and offer a useful guide for those seeking to avoid consuming products with E numbers derived from animal sources.

In the case of some E numbers, it’s easy to know if they are derived from animal origins, as there’s only one main source where they can come from. Sadly this isn’t always the case though and there are a host of additives which can be sourced from both animal and vegetable origins. This makes it trickier for consumers, as it’s not always easy to know exactly which source has been used in certain products.

If you’re really passionate about avoiding E numbers with animal origins, perhaps for health or dietary purposes, then one way is to avoid all additives that may or may not contain the suspect numbers. Alternatively, you could always write to the manufacturers of the products concerned and ask for confirmation of where the additives are derived from.

E Numbers Purely Derived from Animal Origins

These are the numbers that are derived purely from animal origins:

E120 Cochineal – This crimson red colour comes from the crushed shell of the cactus insect, Dactylopious coccus.

E542 Edible bone phosphate – This originates from animal bones.

E631 Sodium 5’-inosinate – This comes from meat extracts and sardines.

E901 Beeswax – This comes from the honeycomb produced by bees. Many people may think of it as being naturally produced, but people who are strictly avoiding all animal-derived E numbers may prefer to avoid it completely.

E904 Shellac – This substance is obtained from the resin produced by the Lac insect. It’s a native of India and is related to mealy bugs and scale insects.

E 441 Gelatin acts as Emulsifier. (You may not find this E number 441 on food ingredients listings anymore because instead of an additive, Gelatine has now been classed as food (made of animal skin and hoofs) in it’s own right. Remember, all types of gelatine are animal based and can be found in dairy products like yoghurts, plus many kinds of confectionery, jellies and other sweets.)

E Numbers That May Have Animal Origins

The following E numbers can be derived from other animal or vegetable origins:

E161g Canthaxanthin – A pigment found in mushrooms and flamingo feathers.

E236 Formic acid – An acid that’s found naturally in the bodies of ants; it’s also produced synthetically.

E237 Sodium formate – The sodium salt which is manufactured from formic acid, so may come from ants or a synthetic source.

E238 Calcium formate – The calcium salt of formic acid, so may come from ants or a synthetic source.

E252 – Potassium nitrate – This occurs naturally, or is manufactured from animal or vegetable waste.

E422 – Glycerol / Glycerin – This may be produced from animal fats.

E474 Sucroglycerides – This can come from several sources, including lard, tallow and palm oil.

E570 Stearic acid – This comes from animal fats and vegetable oils.

E572 Magnesium salts of fatty acids – This is produced from stearic acid, which can be from both an animal and vegetable source.

E627 Guanosine 5-disodium phosphate – This can come from both sardines and yeast extract.

E631 Sodium 5′-inositate – This can come from dried sardines and extracts of meat.

E635 Sodium 5′-ribonucleotides – This may have animal origins.

E640 Glycine and its sodium salt – This can originate from gelatine.

E910 – L-Cysteine – This can be extracted from the feathers from ducks and chickens.

E920 L-cysteine and L-cysteine hydrochloride – The L-cysteine part of this can be extracted from the feathers from ducks and chickens.

E921 L-cysteine Hydrochloride Monohydrate – The L-cysteine part of this can be extracted from the feathers from ducks and chickens.

Disturbing Pictures / Facebook

I just uploaded a new facebook album called ‘vegetarian’. It contains a load of thought-provoking pictures that I found on vegan facebook groups. They are broadly to do with veganism, vegetarianism, capitalism and animal testing. I have put some of the pictures below so you can have a look.

I tagged quite a few of my friends in the album. I have a feeling that this group is going stir up some tensions – especially amongst people who feel uncomfortable about the pictures I have put up. Hopefully no one will react too badly. I just hope they will make a difference to the actions of at least one person. Even if my friends get annoyed with me, it will all be worthwhile if only one person thinks more about where food comes from and cuts down their meat / dairy consumption by a small percentage.

The average non-vegetarian consumes about 70 animals per year. Over the course of a lifetime, they may consume almost 5,000 animals. If my album makes one person cut down their animal consumption by just 1%, that will mean that potentially 50 animals whose lives won’t be ruined by the meat industry.

In-vitro Meat?

I was sent an interesting e-mail this morning from Indian Vegans about Peta… http://www.peta.org/feat_in_vitro_contest.asp

It appears that Peta is offering a million dollar prize for a company or person that can produce a commercially viable invitro-meat substitute.

I am a bit confused about what I think about this….

Personally, I find the idea of eating animal flesh quite disgusting, and I would prefer to follow a animal free diet. I also think that there is no ‘need’ to create a meat substitute – promoting ‘pure’ veganism would be the best thing for environment and for reducing suffering.

However, one of the key reasons why I am vegan is to reduce animal suffering and to minimise the environmental damage caused by animal farming. Unfortunately, the impact that a small group of vegans can have on the world is fairly limited.

An in-vitro meat could reduce the need to rear animals and to induce suffering. It could reduce the environmental impact of rearing animals, and it would allow people who enjoy the taste of meat to
reduce the harm that they cause, and potentially allow food to be generated at a lower cost.

Obvisouly there are ethical concerns with the idea of genetically playing around with animals in order to allow in-vitro meat production . (there is a good discussion about this in a book called ‘The Pig
that wants to be eaten’ – which refers to the pigs in ‘The restaurant at the end of the universe’ which actually want to be eaten – the book also has 99 other interesting thought experiments and is
definitely worth a read)

Again I think it is something that isn’t really necessary, but I think the ends justify the means.

Is this the right step for Peta to be taking? Should they be focussing hteir efforts on promoting vegetarianism and veganism? Or is this a way of them spreading out their concern about animals to the masses?

I have recently been doing a bit of research into Fair Trade, and it seems that Fair Trade’s initial impact was dwarfed by the fact that it was only bought by ‘alternative’ customers from shops such as Oxfam.
Going mainstream and allowing companies such as, Sainsburys, Tescos and Nescafe to sell ‘Fair Trade’ brands was seen as a controversial decision as it may have diluted the Fair Trade image. But this step
has allowed Fair Trade to mainstream and increase its impact on the world. I would think that most people would agree that mainstreaming Fair Trade has been a broadly good thing?

But then again, perhaps the uptake of an invitro meat wouldn’t be so good? People don’t tend to buy quorn products too often, even though that apparently tastes very similar to meat, and is a lot healthier. Perhaps people will just want to eat the real thing?

Why I think fur is wrong…

London’s First Vegan Footwear and Accessory Shop Opens

I just got a press release e-mail this morning – Exciting News. A Vegan footwear store is opening in London very soon!

Bourgeois Boheme, Bourgeois Boheme, one of the UK¹s most well-known online and animal-friendly fashion companies is opening London¹s very first animal-friendly footwear and accessories retail outlet.

On May 17th 2008, just a couple of days ahead of UK National Vegetarian Week, Bourgeois Boheme will celebrate the official opening with an open day at the shop in Richmond, London.

Known for its quality and stylish vegan footwear and accessories, Bourgeois Boheme is responding to customer requests for a physical retail location.  Bourgeois Boheme founder and Director, Alicia Lai and has found that 90% of returns from online sales relate to shoe-fitting issues.

Alicia says, ³Unless you shop online, vegetarian footwear is difficult to find: it¹s a dismal choice of either low-quality, cheap and environmentally-challenging shoes or Stella McCartney ­ gorgeous fashion no doubt, but very much beyond the pocket of many a style-conscious vegetarian/vegan.²

Its an environment that has served online sales well and, having already built up a dedicated and growing following of online and mail order customers, Bourgeois Boheme is giving shoppers what New York and other fashion capitals around the world gave their consumers years ago ­ a stylish home for animal-friendly fashion.

Bruce Friedrich, Vice President at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) says, ³All of us at PETA welcome the news of a Bourgeois Boheme storefront. We enjoy ordering from BoBo online, but we¹ll be even more delighted to have a place where we can try on the shoes, examine the bags, and have a compassionate shopping experience.
Visitors will be able to buy Bourgeois-Boheme¹s exclusive labelled styles as well as ethically sourced products from other companies; not only footwear, but also bags, wallets and belts for women and men, and cosmetics.

Alicia says, ³Our shop is an extension within our office premises, it¹s a humble start but it¹s a first step towards our greater dream of having lush and exclusive Bourgeois Boheme boutiques in the world¹s fashion capitals²

Now customers can find a perfect fit in every sense- true to their size, philosophy, style and ethics.

Shop open day: Saturday 17th May, 1pm – 4pm.

Refreshments and appetisers will be served.

Please RSVP by Friday May 2nd May, info@bboheme.com /0208 8788 388

Press discounts are available upon request at the shop open day.
Address: Hydrex House, Garden Road, Richmond TW9 4NR
Shop hours: Mon-Fri 9am – 5pm; Sat 10am – 2pm; by appointment.

An interesting post from the vegan forum

—Quote (Originally by stickydate)—
I was craving freedom (and dairy) so badly, that I did it. I think it was an important thing for me to do. It was this experience that made me re-think giving myself a label. The label means following rules – and rules are made to be broken. I realised that I just wanted to be me – being me gives me the *choice *of how I want to live my life, whereas being a vegan commits me to never eating animal products. This makes the food more mysterious and tempting. Now that I am “allowed” to have them in my mind, I find it less appealing. And if you really want to have them, it isn’t a crime. Nobody is perfect and as long as you do, to the best of your ability (and that is different for everybody) to reduce the suffering of animals :)
—End Quote—

(I know this was posted two and a half years ago but I’m sure this comes up in people’s minds so I’m voicing my opinion.)

The label of “vegan” is something that comes with the way you choose to live your life. It is not something you apply to yourself and follow strictly. It is not a group with a strict set of rules or an exclusive society that accepts applications. It is a title given to people who follow a certain lifestyle by their own accord. If you feel that you cannot go on without having an egg produced from a chicken (or another animal product) then, frankly, you are not vegan. You are very close but your are not 100% vegan. You may still call yourself vegetarian, but vegetarianism and veganism are two different things.

My roommate is vegetarian and I am vegan. I see her eat eggs and I cannot understand why she sees that as OK. I am against the use of animals for human consumption. As such, I refuse to consume anything that was derived from animals. This bestows upon me (whether I choose/like it or not) the title of ‘eating vegan.’ It is not my choice to have this title, nor is it anyone else’s. However the word is in our vocabulary and it definitively describes the way other people on this forum and I live our lives.

If you can find it within yourself to not eat/use animal products ever again then you happen to fall into the category of a “vegan” lifestyle. You can call yourself whatever you want. But this forum is solely for people who are vegan. We see the unnatural human consumption and use of animals as something that is wrong, and we refuse to participate in it. Therefore we fall into the category that humans have created called “vegan,” and you do (or ‘did’ if you have changed since then) not.

It does sound harsh, and I thought so when I read the first comments after I switched. But after finding in myself that every time I see a product that is derived from animals and being deterred from purchasing such item for that exact reason, I now see from where this argument spawns.—Enderbean

« Older entries