What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

FBG Vegans.... (1 Viewer)

Just had a couple of questions for any vegans that might be out there: -- did you go cold turkey, or did you slowly ween yourself off the meats/animal products? -- what kind of supplements (if any) do you take? -- any decent magazines/books that you use for meals to cook?thanks in advance for any info...
This explains alot about you. A vegan, I should've guessed :lmao:
What exactly does this "explain" about me? It's funny to presume that you know anything about me based on what I choose to eat. GB you closed minded, judgemental Christians. ;)
When I read that you are a 'Vegan" (That word cracks me up for some reason) I stereotype you into a Liberal/Athiest box. Sometimes stereotypes are right on the money eh? :lmao:
 
When I read that you are a 'Vegan" (That word cracks me up for some reason) I stereotype you into a Liberal/Athiest box. Sometimes stereotypes are right on the money eh? :lmao:
This is pretty confusing to me. Can you explain how vegan=liberal=atheist?
 
Just had a couple of questions for any vegans that might be out there:

-- did you go cold turkey, or did you slowly ween yourself off the meats/animal products?

-- what kind of supplements (if any) do you take?

-- any decent magazines/books that you use for meals to cook?

thanks in advance for any info...
This explains alot about you. A vegan, I should've guessed :lmao:
What exactly does this "explain" about me? It's funny to presume that you know anything about me based on what I choose to eat. GB you closed minded, judgemental Christians. ;)
When I read that you are a 'Vegan" (That word cracks me up for some reason) I stereotype you into a Liberal/Athiest box. Sometimes stereotypes are right on the money eh? :lmao:
;) Also work on the reading. I am not a vegan, I was just asking for some info from people that are vegans.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just had a couple of questions for any vegans that might be out there:

-- did you go cold turkey, or did you slowly ween yourself off the meats/animal products?

-- what kind of supplements (if any) do you take?

-- any decent magazines/books that you use for meals to cook?

thanks in advance for any info...
This explains alot about you. A vegan, I should've guessed :lmao:
What exactly does this "explain" about me? It's funny to presume that you know anything about me based on what I choose to eat. GB you closed minded, judgemental Christians. ;)
When I read that you are a 'Vegan" (That word cracks me up for some reason) I stereotype you into a Liberal/Athiest box. Sometimes stereotypes are right on the money eh? :lmao:
;) Also work on the reading. I am not a vegan, I was just asking for some info from people that are vegans.
I don't think tag is very bright.
 
Is a vegan diet healthy at all? It doesn't seem natural for humans.
How is it not natural?I was a vegetarian for about 7 years before I became a vegan. Have been a vegan for 6 years or so.The only supplement I take is B-12. And I actually dont take it as much as I used to.I dont know of a specific book, but it is immensely helpful if you like to cook. It can be quite a pain to find things to eat at certain types of restaurants (although it is much easier now than it was a few years back). I probably cook 90% of my meals. Living in or around a large city is helpful. In Minneapolis there are probably a dozen vegetarian restaurants and countless other ethnic type places which are a thousand times more friendly to vegans than most American type places.Why are you thinking about becoming a vegan? There are numerous reasons. I mainly became one for environmental/health reasons. Not that I enjoy the slaughtering of animals, but that was sort of secondary for me.Good luck my friend.
:lmao: I have dabbled in it for about 3 years, but have not made the full time switch. It is hard.I'm doing purely for health reasons and nothing else.If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?Sorry if I am thick-headed or something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Can you explain how you eat things that are alive? Outside of a beetle or something like that? Does this mean you have to eat plants that have not been cut down? Like grazing or something?
 
Is a vegan diet healthy at all? It doesn't seem natural for humans.
How is it not natural?I was a vegetarian for about 7 years before I became a vegan. Have been a vegan for 6 years or so.The only supplement I take is B-12. And I actually dont take it as much as I used to.I dont know of a specific book, but it is immensely helpful if you like to cook. It can be quite a pain to find things to eat at certain types of restaurants (although it is much easier now than it was a few years back). I probably cook 90% of my meals. Living in or around a large city is helpful. In Minneapolis there are probably a dozen vegetarian restaurants and countless other ethnic type places which are a thousand times more friendly to vegans than most American type places.Why are you thinking about becoming a vegan? There are numerous reasons. I mainly became one for environmental/health reasons. Not that I enjoy the slaughtering of animals, but that was sort of secondary for me.Good luck my friend.
:lmao: I have dabbled in it for about 3 years, but have not made the full time switch. It is hard.I'm doing purely for health reasons and nothing else.If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?Sorry if I am thick-headed or something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Can you explain how you eat things that are alive? Outside of a beetle or something like that? Does this mean you have to eat plants that have not been cut down? Like grazing or something?
It means meat = dead flesh = deadVegetables (raw) are still living organisms that contain enzymes and are still "alive" to a certtain degree.
 
Is a vegan diet healthy at all? It doesn't seem natural for humans.
How is it not natural?I was a vegetarian for about 7 years before I became a vegan. Have been a vegan for 6 years or so.The only supplement I take is B-12. And I actually dont take it as much as I used to.I dont know of a specific book, but it is immensely helpful if you like to cook. It can be quite a pain to find things to eat at certain types of restaurants (although it is much easier now than it was a few years back). I probably cook 90% of my meals. Living in or around a large city is helpful. In Minneapolis there are probably a dozen vegetarian restaurants and countless other ethnic type places which are a thousand times more friendly to vegans than most American type places.Why are you thinking about becoming a vegan? There are numerous reasons. I mainly became one for environmental/health reasons. Not that I enjoy the slaughtering of animals, but that was sort of secondary for me.Good luck my friend.
:lmao: I have dabbled in it for about 3 years, but have not made the full time switch. It is hard.I'm doing purely for health reasons and nothing else.If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?Sorry if I am thick-headed or something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Can you explain how you eat things that are alive? Outside of a beetle or something like that? Does this mean you have to eat plants that have not been cut down? Like grazing or something?
It means meat = dead flesh = deadVegetables (raw) are still living organisms that contain enzymes and are still "alive" to a certtain degree.
So vegans don't cook their food? :lmao:
 
Is a vegan diet healthy at all? It doesn't seem natural for humans.
How is it not natural?I was a vegetarian for about 7 years before I became a vegan. Have been a vegan for 6 years or so.The only supplement I take is B-12. And I actually dont take it as much as I used to.I dont know of a specific book, but it is immensely helpful if you like to cook. It can be quite a pain to find things to eat at certain types of restaurants (although it is much easier now than it was a few years back). I probably cook 90% of my meals. Living in or around a large city is helpful. In Minneapolis there are probably a dozen vegetarian restaurants and countless other ethnic type places which are a thousand times more friendly to vegans than most American type places.Why are you thinking about becoming a vegan? There are numerous reasons. I mainly became one for environmental/health reasons. Not that I enjoy the slaughtering of animals, but that was sort of secondary for me.Good luck my friend.
:construction: I have dabbled in it for about 3 years, but have not made the full time switch. It is hard.I'm doing purely for health reasons and nothing else.If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?Sorry if I am thick-headed or something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Can you explain how you eat things that are alive? Outside of a beetle or something like that? Does this mean you have to eat plants that have not been cut down? Like grazing or something?
It means meat = dead flesh = deadVegetables (raw) are still living organisms that contain enzymes and are still "alive" to a certtain degree.
So vegans don't cook their food? :construction:
It depends. There are vegans and then there are raw vegans.There is a school of thought that no food should be cooked. I've actually eaten a fair amout of "raw vegan" food and it is quite good.
 
Is a vegan diet healthy at all? It doesn't seem natural for humans.
How is it not natural?I was a vegetarian for about 7 years before I became a vegan. Have been a vegan for 6 years or so.The only supplement I take is B-12. And I actually dont take it as much as I used to.I dont know of a specific book, but it is immensely helpful if you like to cook. It can be quite a pain to find things to eat at certain types of restaurants (although it is much easier now than it was a few years back). I probably cook 90% of my meals. Living in or around a large city is helpful. In Minneapolis there are probably a dozen vegetarian restaurants and countless other ethnic type places which are a thousand times more friendly to vegans than most American type places.Why are you thinking about becoming a vegan? There are numerous reasons. I mainly became one for environmental/health reasons. Not that I enjoy the slaughtering of animals, but that was sort of secondary for me.Good luck my friend.
:construction: I have dabbled in it for about 3 years, but have not made the full time switch. It is hard.I'm doing purely for health reasons and nothing else.If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?Sorry if I am thick-headed or something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Can you explain how you eat things that are alive? Outside of a beetle or something like that? Does this mean you have to eat plants that have not been cut down? Like grazing or something?
It means that it's a snappy catchphrase that falls apart if you think about it for a millisecond.
 
Is a vegan diet healthy at all? It doesn't seem natural for humans.
How is it not natural?I was a vegetarian for about 7 years before I became a vegan. Have been a vegan for 6 years or so.The only supplement I take is B-12. And I actually dont take it as much as I used to.I dont know of a specific book, but it is immensely helpful if you like to cook. It can be quite a pain to find things to eat at certain types of restaurants (although it is much easier now than it was a few years back). I probably cook 90% of my meals. Living in or around a large city is helpful. In Minneapolis there are probably a dozen vegetarian restaurants and countless other ethnic type places which are a thousand times more friendly to vegans than most American type places.Why are you thinking about becoming a vegan? There are numerous reasons. I mainly became one for environmental/health reasons. Not that I enjoy the slaughtering of animals, but that was sort of secondary for me.Good luck my friend.
:construction: I have dabbled in it for about 3 years, but have not made the full time switch. It is hard.I'm doing purely for health reasons and nothing else.If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?Sorry if I am thick-headed or something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Can you explain how you eat things that are alive? Outside of a beetle or something like that? Does this mean you have to eat plants that have not been cut down? Like grazing or something?
It means meat = dead flesh = deadVegetables (raw) are still living organisms that contain enzymes and are still "alive" to a certtain degree.
So vegans don't cook their food? :construction:
It depends. There are vegans and then there are raw vegans.There is a school of thought that no food should be cooked. I've actually eaten a fair amout of "raw vegan" food and it is quite good.
interesting.. I did not know this. But to be honest, I'm not really sure what the differences between a Vegan and a Vegetarian are. I'm sure I could look it up, but I'm just too damn lazy.
 
Is a vegan diet healthy at all? It doesn't seem natural for humans.
How is it not natural?I was a vegetarian for about 7 years before I became a vegan. Have been a vegan for 6 years or so.

The only supplement I take is B-12. And I actually dont take it as much as I used to.

I dont know of a specific book, but it is immensely helpful if you like to cook. It can be quite a pain to find things to eat at certain types of restaurants (although it is much easier now than it was a few years back). I probably cook 90% of my meals. Living in or around a large city is helpful. In Minneapolis there are probably a dozen vegetarian restaurants and countless other ethnic type places which are a thousand times more friendly to vegans than most American type places.

Why are you thinking about becoming a vegan? There are numerous reasons. I mainly became one for environmental/health reasons. Not that I enjoy the slaughtering of animals, but that was sort of secondary for me.

Good luck my friend.
:goodposting: I have dabbled in it for about 3 years, but have not made the full time switch. It is hard.

I'm doing purely for health reasons and nothing else.

If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.

If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?Sorry if I am thick-headed or something, but this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Can you explain how you eat things that are alive? Outside of a beetle or something like that? Does this mean you have to eat plants that have not been cut down? Like grazing or something?
It means meat = dead flesh = deadVegetables (raw) are still living organisms that contain enzymes and are still "alive" to a certtain degree.
So vegans don't cook their food? :confused:
It depends. There are vegans and then there are raw vegans.There is a school of thought that no food should be cooked. I've actually eaten a fair amout of "raw vegan" food and it is quite good.
interesting.. I did not know this. But to be honest, I'm not really sure what the differences between a Vegan and a Vegetarian are. I'm sure I could look it up, but I'm just too damn lazy.
Vegetarian = won't eat meat- steaks, burgers, chicken, etc...Vegan = vegetarian that also won't eat anything that is an animal product - cheese, milk, eggs, etc...

 
When I read that you are a 'Vegan" (That word cracks me up for some reason) I stereotype you into a Liberal/Athiest box. Sometimes stereotypes are right on the money eh? :popcorn:
This is pretty confusing to me. Can you explain how vegan=liberal=atheist?
While it's obviously an overgeneralization, I have to admit, I'd guess that a strong majority of vegans are liberals. It's the whole education thing that leads to both.
 
The important thing to remember is that you still need protein that means lot’s of beans. .
Damn, you must have been a hit with the ladies...
Keep trying. One of your lines is bound to be funny.Protein is not a difficult thing to get in one's diet. In fact, most people eat way too much protein. Too much protein hinders the absorption of certain vitamins. Substituting meat with tofu/seitan/tempeh/beans/etc is all you really need to do.

This site is great for recipes
The results of nitrogen balance studies on endurance athletes indicates that these athletes have protein requirements that exceed the USRDA of 0.8 g/kg/day. A study found that endurance athletes (defined as training for at least 12 hours per week for at least 5 years) require 1.37 g/kg/day of protein to maintain nitrogen balance compared to 0.73 g/kg/day for sedentary individuals.It appears that weight training can also lead to a daily protein requirement that exceeds the current USRDA. It has been found that 2.0 to 2.2 g/kg/day of protein was barely sufficient to maintain nitrogen balance during moderate intensity weight training. Furthermore, weightlifter's protein requirements increased proportionally to training intensity. Research has shown that 2.0 to 2.6 g/kg/day of protein are required for periods of very intense weight training, whereas protein intakes of 2.0 g/kg/day maintained a positive nitrogen balance during periods of less intense weight training.It is clear that athletes need to consume more protein than the current USRDA for 0.8 g/kg/day in order to maintain nitrogen balance. Conversely, since the requirements of carbohydrates, and overall calories also increase with physical activity, the recommended proportion of calories from protein does not change significantly. With a calorie sufficient diet, protein requirement values needed to maintain positive nitrogen balance of both weight trained and endurance trained athletes constitutes intakes of 12% to 20% of total daily calories.
Was that supposd to be some sort of rebuttal that means something to the average person?I know we all tend to exagerate, but most of us here barely qualify as athletes, nevermind body builders. Different lifestyles require more nutrients than others. That is no shocker. The average person eats more protein than is needed. Hence, the average vegetrian/vegan really doesn't need to worry about getting enough protein in his/her diet. B-12 on the other hand can be a challenge.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The important thing to remember is that you still need protein that means lot’s of beans. .
Damn, you must have been a hit with the ladies...
Keep trying. One of your lines is bound to be funny.Protein is not a difficult thing to get in one's diet. In fact, most people eat way too much protein. Too much protein hinders the absorption of certain vitamins. Substituting meat with tofu/seitan/tempeh/beans/etc is all you really need to do.

This site is great for recipes
The results of nitrogen balance studies on endurance athletes indicates that these athletes have protein requirements that exceed the USRDA of 0.8 g/kg/day. A study found that endurance athletes (defined as training for at least 12 hours per week for at least 5 years) require 1.37 g/kg/day of protein to maintain nitrogen balance compared to 0.73 g/kg/day for sedentary individuals.It appears that weight training can also lead to a daily protein requirement that exceeds the current USRDA. It has been found that 2.0 to 2.2 g/kg/day of protein was barely sufficient to maintain nitrogen balance during moderate intensity weight training. Furthermore, weightlifter's protein requirements increased proportionally to training intensity. Research has shown that 2.0 to 2.6 g/kg/day of protein are required for periods of very intense weight training, whereas protein intakes of 2.0 g/kg/day maintained a positive nitrogen balance during periods of less intense weight training.It is clear that athletes need to consume more protein than the current USRDA for 0.8 g/kg/day in order to maintain nitrogen balance. Conversely, since the requirements of carbohydrates, and overall calories also increase with physical activity, the recommended proportion of calories from protein does not change significantly. With a calorie sufficient diet, protein requirement values needed to maintain positive nitrogen balance of both weight trained and endurance trained athletes constitutes intakes of 12% to 20% of total daily calories.
Was that supposd to be some sort of rebuttal that means something to the average person?I know we all tend to exagerate, but most of us here barely qualify as athletes, nevermind body builders. Different lifestyles require more nutrients than others. That is no shocker. The average person eats more protein than is needed. Hence, the average vegetrian/vegan really doesn't need to worry about getting enough protein in his/her diet. B-12 on the other hand can be a challenge.
Was wondering the same thing. The protein intake for an athlete/body builder >>>> intake needed for average joe. However, that is the big thing that people ask even with the vegetarian diet - "how can you get enough protein??" :popcorn:
 
The important thing to remember is that you still need protein that means lot’s of beans. .
Damn, you must have been a hit with the ladies...
Keep trying. One of your lines is bound to be funny.Protein is not a difficult thing to get in one's diet. In fact, most people eat way too much protein. Too much protein hinders the absorption of certain vitamins. Substituting meat with tofu/seitan/tempeh/beans/etc is all you really need to do.

This site is great for recipes
The results of nitrogen balance studies on endurance athletes indicates that these athletes have protein requirements that exceed the USRDA of 0.8 g/kg/day. A study found that endurance athletes (defined as training for at least 12 hours per week for at least 5 years) require 1.37 g/kg/day of protein to maintain nitrogen balance compared to 0.73 g/kg/day for sedentary individuals.It appears that weight training can also lead to a daily protein requirement that exceeds the current USRDA. It has been found that 2.0 to 2.2 g/kg/day of protein was barely sufficient to maintain nitrogen balance during moderate intensity weight training. Furthermore, weightlifter's protein requirements increased proportionally to training intensity. Research has shown that 2.0 to 2.6 g/kg/day of protein are required for periods of very intense weight training, whereas protein intakes of 2.0 g/kg/day maintained a positive nitrogen balance during periods of less intense weight training.It is clear that athletes need to consume more protein than the current USRDA for 0.8 g/kg/day in order to maintain nitrogen balance. Conversely, since the requirements of carbohydrates, and overall calories also increase with physical activity, the recommended proportion of calories from protein does not change significantly. With a calorie sufficient diet, protein requirement values needed to maintain positive nitrogen balance of both weight trained and endurance trained athletes constitutes intakes of 12% to 20% of total daily calories.
Was that supposd to be some sort of rebuttal that means something to the average person?I know we all tend to exagerate, but most of us here barely qualify as athletes, nevermind body builders. Different lifestyles require more nutrients than others. That is no shocker. The average person eats more protein than is needed. Hence, the average vegetrian/vegan really doesn't need to worry about getting enough protein in his/her diet. B-12 on the other hand can be a challenge.
Was wondering the same thing. The protein intake for an athlete/body builder >>>> intake needed for average joe. However, that is the big thing that people ask even with the vegetarian diet - "how can you get enough protein??" :thumbup:
The thing people think about is...well, if you take meat/dairy out of your diet, there goes your protein....however, they fail to think that vegans/vegetarians replace the meat with foods that have as much, if not more protein than the meat.I understand the concern. Those folks just need to be educated on the various other sources of nutrients.

 
The important thing to remember is that you still need protein that means lot’s of beans. .
Damn, you must have been a hit with the ladies...
Keep trying. One of your lines is bound to be funny.Protein is not a difficult thing to get in one's diet. In fact, most people eat way too much protein. Too much protein hinders the absorption of certain vitamins. Substituting meat with tofu/seitan/tempeh/beans/etc is all you really need to do.

This site is great for recipes
The results of nitrogen balance studies on endurance athletes indicates that these athletes have protein requirements that exceed the USRDA of 0.8 g/kg/day. A study found that endurance athletes (defined as training for at least 12 hours per week for at least 5 years) require 1.37 g/kg/day of protein to maintain nitrogen balance compared to 0.73 g/kg/day for sedentary individuals.It appears that weight training can also lead to a daily protein requirement that exceeds the current USRDA. It has been found that 2.0 to 2.2 g/kg/day of protein was barely sufficient to maintain nitrogen balance during moderate intensity weight training. Furthermore, weightlifter's protein requirements increased proportionally to training intensity. Research has shown that 2.0 to 2.6 g/kg/day of protein are required for periods of very intense weight training, whereas protein intakes of 2.0 g/kg/day maintained a positive nitrogen balance during periods of less intense weight training.It is clear that athletes need to consume more protein than the current USRDA for 0.8 g/kg/day in order to maintain nitrogen balance. Conversely, since the requirements of carbohydrates, and overall calories also increase with physical activity, the recommended proportion of calories from protein does not change significantly. With a calorie sufficient diet, protein requirement values needed to maintain positive nitrogen balance of both weight trained and endurance trained athletes constitutes intakes of 12% to 20% of total daily calories.
Was that supposd to be some sort of rebuttal that means something to the average person?I know we all tend to exagerate, but most of us here barely qualify as athletes, nevermind body builders. Different lifestyles require more nutrients than others. That is no shocker. The average person eats more protein than is needed. Hence, the average vegetrian/vegan really doesn't need to worry about getting enough protein in his/her diet. B-12 on the other hand can be a challenge.
FBG >>>> average person. Looking at your member number I understand why you missed the reference.
 
I'm of the opinion that the animal needs to be terrified before it is butchered, makes the meat more tender. So I guess I can't be a vegan right?

 
Vegetarian = won't eat meat- steaks, burgers, chicken, etc...Vegan = vegetarian that also won't eat anything that is an animal product - cheese, milk, eggs, etc...
you know... there is a little bit more to being a vegan than just one's diet.p and s.. get a job hippies!
 
I found a vegan lifestyle to be to restrictive as I love beer, and most beers have animal products.
False.p and s.. Hippies!
If by "animal" you mean yeast, then this is definitely true. But most people would classify yeast as a fungus.Beer is water, starch (barley, corn, wheat, rice, etc), hops, and yeast. That's about it. It's pretty damn natural is you ask me.
some (not most) use animal derived products during filtration.ETA: or as a fining agent...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://beeradvocate.com/news/stories_read/279/

You are probably thinking, "Wait a second. Beer for vegetarians and vegans? What? But beer only has water, malt, hops and yeast in it?" Wrong. Beer (and cider & wine) has everything from:

# albumin: derived from eggs or dried blood

# casein/caseinate: derived from milk

# charcoal: sometimes derived from bone

# colourings: sometimes derived from insects

# glyceryl monostearate: an anti-foaming agent that sometimes is an animal derivative

# isinglass: swim bladders from fish

# lactose and lactobacillus (lactic acid)

# gelatin: made from bones, skins and tendons

# pepsin: a heading agent sometimes derived from pork

# sugar: white sugar is often whitened using bone charcoal

And that's just a handful of the potential ingredients that can be found in beer. Currently there are no US laws that protect the consumer, and breweries are not required to include the ingredients on labels, let alone divulge them in any other manner.
:unsure:
 
some (not most) use animal derived products during filtration.ETA: or as a fining agent...
I didn't know that. I guess I've been thinking too much about homebrew and not mass produced beers. BTW, has anyone gone to the UK to drink "real ale"?What sort of animal product derived systems are used in filtration?
 
some (not most) use animal derived products during filtration.

ETA: or as a fining agent...
I didn't know that. I guess I've been thinking too much about homebrew and not mass produced beers. BTW, has anyone gone to the UK to drink "real ale"?What sort of animal product derived systems are used in filtration?
Isinglass is something you may have come across as a home brewer, although it is more likely that you'd use irish moss so serve that purpose.No need to go to the UK; plenty of great cask ale in the US! real ale directory by state

The actual filter in some filtration systems is made from animal derived products... unfortunately I can not be more specific than that without doing some research.

Again, this the exception, not the rule.

 
some (not most) use animal derived products during filtration.

ETA: or as a fining agent...
I didn't know that. I guess I've been thinking too much about homebrew and not mass produced beers. BTW, has anyone gone to the UK to drink "real ale"?What sort of animal product derived systems are used in filtration?
Isinglass is something you may have come across as a home brewer, although it is more likely that you'd use irish moss so serve that purpose.No need to go to the UK; plenty of great cask ale in the US! real ale directory by state

The actual filter in some filtration systems is made from animal derived products... unfortunately I can not be more specific than that without doing some research.

Again, this the exception, not the rule.
Many beers used to use isinglass to clear up their beer. 99% of them no longer use it. It is too cost prohibitive.
 
http://beeradvocate.com/news/stories_read/279/

You are probably thinking, "Wait a second. Beer for vegetarians and vegans? What? But beer only has water, malt, hops and yeast in it?" Wrong. Beer (and cider & wine) has everything from:

# albumin: derived from eggs or dried blood

# casein/caseinate: derived from milk

# charcoal: sometimes derived from bone

# colourings: sometimes derived from insects

# glyceryl monostearate: an anti-foaming agent that sometimes is an animal derivative

# isinglass: swim bladders from fish

# lactose and lactobacillus (lactic acid)

# gelatin: made from bones, skins and tendons

# pepsin: a heading agent sometimes derived from pork

# sugar: white sugar is often whitened using bone charcoal

And that's just a handful of the potential ingredients that can be found in beer. Currently there are no US laws that protect the consumer, and breweries are not required to include the ingredients on labels, let alone divulge them in any other manner.
:angry:
I'd believe that most of that stuff has to be used on a macro scale, but likely on such a small amount it's just fearmongering. If craft brewers use any of that stuff I'd be shocked. Now lactobacillus is used for some styles, but sheesh. Whereever that came from 100 years ago would have been long since dead. The whole "bone charcoal" thing is also lol funny.
 
http://beeradvocate.com/news/stories_read/279/

You are probably thinking, "Wait a second. Beer for vegetarians and vegans? What? But beer only has water, malt, hops and yeast in it?" Wrong. Beer (and cider & wine) has everything from:

# albumin: derived from eggs or dried blood

# casein/caseinate: derived from milk

# charcoal: sometimes derived from bone

# colourings: sometimes derived from insects

# glyceryl monostearate: an anti-foaming agent that sometimes is an animal derivative

# isinglass: swim bladders from fish

# lactose and lactobacillus (lactic acid)

# gelatin: made from bones, skins and tendons

# pepsin: a heading agent sometimes derived from pork

# sugar: white sugar is often whitened using bone charcoal

And that's just a handful of the potential ingredients that can be found in beer. Currently there are no US laws that protect the consumer, and breweries are not required to include the ingredients on labels, let alone divulge them in any other manner.
:goodposting:
I'd believe that most of that stuff has to be used on a macro scale, but likely on such a small amount it's just fearmongering. If craft brewers use any of that stuff I'd be shocked. Now lactobacillus is used for some styles, but sheesh. Whereever that came from 100 years ago would have been long since dead. The whole "bone charcoal" thing is also lol funny.
For most of the vegans I know, that's not the point. Mostly its about what the animals have to go through get all the meat and products from them, not about the amounts that's in the food.
 
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?
It doesn't really mean anything. It sounds cool though.It shouldn't be a huge problem swiching. The only realy issue, that I have seen with Vegan friends, is eating out at a restaurant. It's almost impossible to guess what is in certian dishes. There should be some vegan friendly restuarants around and you can use ideas from their dishes as jumping off points in making something else, if that makes sense. Get a good cookbook.Good luck.
 
My kid told me he was going to be a vegetarian after watching some crap at school about slaughterhouses or something.. I told him no problem! I proceeded to cook up a giant batch of BBQ spare ribs. His favorite. I spooned out some corn and threw a potato on his plate and then the rest of us started eating the ribs. He was a vegetarian for about 15 minutes. He couldn't resist. Not sure how that story is relevant, just thought I'd share. :whistle:
way to destroy your sons conscience just as it was beginning to develop. This is akin to Homer and marge getting lisa the "pony" when she was a buddhist.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
culdeus said:
drpill said:
http://beeradvocate.com/news/stories_read/279/

You are probably thinking, "Wait a second. Beer for vegetarians and vegans? What? But beer only has water, malt, hops and yeast in it?" Wrong. Beer (and cider & wine) has everything from:

# albumin: derived from eggs or dried blood

# casein/caseinate: derived from milk

# charcoal: sometimes derived from bone

# colourings: sometimes derived from insects

# glyceryl monostearate: an anti-foaming agent that sometimes is an animal derivative

# isinglass: swim bladders from fish

# lactose and lactobacillus (lactic acid)

# gelatin: made from bones, skins and tendons

# pepsin: a heading agent sometimes derived from pork

# sugar: white sugar is often whitened using bone charcoal

And that's just a handful of the potential ingredients that can be found in beer. Currently there are no US laws that protect the consumer, and breweries are not required to include the ingredients on labels, let alone divulge them in any other manner.
:whistle:
I'd believe that most of that stuff has to be used on a macro scale, but likely on such a small amount it's just fearmongering. If craft brewers use any of that stuff I'd be shocked. Now lactobacillus is used for some styles, but sheesh. Whereever that came from 100 years ago would have been long since dead. The whole "bone charcoal" thing is also lol funny.
For most of the vegans I know, that's not the point. Mostly its about what the animals have to go through get all the meat and products from them, not about the amounts that's in the food.
If you end up giving up beer because of this I can teach you how to make it yourself. Without any of that ####.
 
Also suprised that in all the beer stuff they didn't list malto-dextrine which I think is 99.9999999% starch product, but they have to use some gelatin in the process to make it stable and that's on a ppb level and dilute in beer would be on the ppt level. That's a very common ingredient in even craft brews.

 
Hipple said:
My kid told me he was going to be a vegetarian after watching some crap at school about slaughterhouses or something.. I told him no problem! I proceeded to cook up a giant batch of BBQ spare ribs. His favorite. I spooned out some corn and threw a potato on his plate and then the rest of us started eating the ribs. He was a vegetarian for about 15 minutes. He couldn't resist. Not sure how that story is relevant, just thought I'd share. :thumbup:
way to destroy your sons conscience just as it was beginning to develop. This is akin to Homer and marge getting lisa the "pony" when she was a buddhist.
Was thinking the same thing. Nice support system.
 
SeveredHorseHeads said:
top dog said:
urbanhack said:
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive.If you eat things that are dead, you feel dead.
If you eat things that are alive, you feel alive? What means this?
It doesn't really mean anything. It sounds cool though.It shouldn't be a huge problem swiching. The only realy issue, that I have seen with Vegan friends, is eating out at a restaurant. It's almost impossible to guess what is in certian dishes. There should be some vegan friendly restuarants around and you can use ideas from their dishes as jumping off points in making something else, if that makes sense. Get a good cookbook.Good luck.
Eating out is not really an issue at any decent restaurant. Most chefs are more than willing to either substitute out non-vegan foods, or cook up a dish to your liking.Chain-type restaurants can be more difficult. Mainly beacuse most of their food is already prepackaged or precooked to some extent.
 
I like the general idea underlying veganism: @silvergold described it earlier in the thread as being "about doing the least harm." @KarmaPolice elaborated that it's about minimizing harm to yourself, to the environment, and to animals.

I'm on board with all of that.

What I don't like about veganism is that its rules don't seem carefully designed to meet those objectives, but it has nonetheless claimed for itself a morally superior status that it hasn't earned. (Not in all cases, of course, but there are plenty of examples of smugly moralistic but factually mistaken vegans on YouTube.)

Here are some examples of vegan principles that I don't think make sense.

1. Oysters. Some vegans think that eating oysters and other bivalves is fine, but the majority position among vegans seems to be that, since oysters are animals, people who eat them are not true vegans and are therefore morally inferior.

This is really stupid because eating oysters does less harm than eating fruits and vegetabls. If vegans really wanted to minimize harm to animals and the environment, they would eat a diet rich in bivalves.

Bivalves, like strawberries, lack central nervous systems and are therefore incapable of suffering. If we're concerned about animal welfare, we do not need to be concerned about the senseless slaughter of oysters, because oysters -- like strawberries -- have no welfare. They have no subjective experience. Moreover, while farming strawberries involves the killing of many insects, farming oysters does not. If you care about the welfare of insects (as vegans claim to -- see point #2), oysters are ethically superior to strawberries.

And they are environmentally superior as well. The farming of oysters and other bivalves in aquacultures is a net good for the environment. The commercial farming of strawberries appears to be a net bad.

2. Honey. Like oysters, honey is forbidden by mainstream veganism. The theory is that we're exploiting bees by stealing their honey. But this is kind of stupid when you consider that veganism allows the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Every single plant food that is grown on a farm involves the mass killing of insects. Surely it's worse to kill insects than to steal their honey, isn't it?

3. Cruelty-free milk and eggs. This one is not as clear cut as oysters and honey. Every dairy farm I know of invovles the slaughter of male cattle; and every egg producer I know of involves the slaughter of male chicklings. Let's put those issues aside for the moment, however, and deal with them down in the meat category. For present purposes, let's consider only the milk- and egg-producing animals themselves.

Factory farms are horrible. Moreover, cows and chickens raised for their milk and eggs are generally raised in even worse conditions than those raised for their meat. If you eat conventional animals products and you think you're doing animals a favor by being a vegetarian, think again. In terms of animal welfare, you'd probably be better off eating beef and chicken while skipping dairy and eggs.

But not all farms are of the concentration-camp variety. There are dairy farms where the cows appear to be happy and healthy. Organic Pastures Dairy in California is a good example. The cows reproduce by sex with bulls rather than by artificial insemination. They are raised outdoors on pasture, eating grasses, clovers, legumes, etc. When they give birth, the calves are not separated from their moms and do not become veal (though the males do become grass-fed beef later on). They produce much less milk per day than the cows on factory farms do (because they are not ridiculously overmilked). They tend to live to be 12-15 years old instead of 3-4 years old because they live healthy lives. And when they can no longer produce milk, they live out the rest of their natural lives on pasture.

It all seems like a pretty good deal for the cows. While cows on factory farms would probably be better off if they were slaughtered at birth, the cows on farms like Organic Pastures seem to live good lives, and are probably glad they were born. What would happen to them, though, if everyone gave up dairy? Those cows would no longer exist. Modern cows can't live in the wild. They depend on humans. And most humans wouldn't keep a cow as a pet if they weren't interested in consuming its milk. If demand for dairy dried up, those friendly cows will stop being born. If slaughtering happy, adult cattle for meat is bad, isn't snuffing out their lives at the outset -- never affording them happiness at all -- even worse?

Same goes for eggs. There are farms where the chickens wander around freely on pasture, eating sprouts, insects, worms, etc., and just generally bgeing happy chickens. Would it not be a shame if demand for their eggs dried up and those chickens stopped coming into existence?

4. Humanely raised meat. Piggybacking on that last point, I note that cows, pigs, and chickens raised for their meat depend, for their existence, on omnivores. If the world went vegan, those animals would no longer exist, or at least would see their numbers plummet drastically. In the case of factory-farmed animals, this is likely a good thing. They'd probably be better off if they'd never lived. If I could end the practice of conventional animal agriculture tomorrow, I would. (WHY IS THIS NOT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE?) But there are pasture-based farms where it seems like the existence of their animals is a net good.

This point is not as strong as numbers 1-3, IMO, and there are some respectable philosophical arguments that slaughtering animals for food is morally worse than not raising them in the first place, even if their lives are, on net, happy. I'll put those aside for now and come back to them if there is any interest. For now, I'll say that such arguments are unpersuasive to me because I tend to prefer something closer to utilitarianism than to virtue ethics.

(ETA: I'll also add that while factory farming is an environmental catastrophe, pasture-based farming is beneficial to the environment in some important ways -- improving the quality of topsoil, for example. Still, cattle do fart a lot, which contributes to global warming.)

5. Plant agriculture. Okay, so we're not going to eat meat, eggs, or dairy. What are we going to eat? I suppose the answer is fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, and fungi.

That sounds good. I'm in favor of eating all of those things. But then, that's only because I'm not against killing animals in order to produce food. If I were against killing animals, I would not be able to eat fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. The production of all of those foods involves killing lots of animals. The commercial farming of all of those foods uses plenty of pesticides -- the whole point of which is to kill insects. And it's not just insects that are killed, either. On giant farms that produce wheat, soy, corn, rice, etc., lots of cute vertebrates are killed. Lots and lots of field mice, for example. And their deaths (often by poison) seem to involve more suffering than those of slaughtered farm animals.

In fact, the only analysis I've seen seeking to estimate the number of animals killed in plant agriculture versus (pastured) animal agriculture concluded that producing a hamburger bun kills more animals than producing the (grass-fed) beef patty. (I can't find the analysis I'm thinking of, but in Googling for it, I came across this article, which makes a similar point.)

Conclusion. I respect anyone who makes conscious food choices with the thought of minimizing harm to animals or the environment. Vegans accomplish this goal way better than your average person eating the standard American diet. But while I will not criticize vegans for killing animals to produce their food, I will criticize the ones who are oblivious to that killing and act like they have no blood on their hands. I will especially criticize those who adopt an air of moral superiority because they eat strawberries instead of oysters, and bread instead of honey. They're doing it wrong, IMO.

Nonetheless, I am posting this not because I oppose the spirit of veganism, but because I share the vegan spirit of wanting to eat ethically, and I am trying to think my way through how to do that. This is part of my thinking out loud.

I didn't touch on nutritional considerations. Suffice it to say that I think eating a few oysters here and there would be a good addition to vegan diets for nutritional as well as ethical and environmental reasons.

Thoughts?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I like the general idea underlying veganism: @silvergold described it earlier in the thread as being "about doing the least harm." @KarmaPolice elaborated that it's about minimizing harm to yourself, to the environment, and to animals.

I'm on board with all of that.

What I don't like about veganism is that its rules don't seem carefully designed to meet those objectives, but has nonetheless claimed for itself a morally superior status that it hasn't earned. (Not in all cases, of course, but there are plenty of examples of smugly moralistic but factually mistaken vegans on YouTube.)

Here are some examples of vegan principles that I don't think make sense at all.

1. Oysters. Some vegans think that eating oysters and other bivalves is fine, but the majority position among vegans seems to be that, since oysters are animals, people who eat them are not true vegans and are therefore morally inferior.

This is really stupid because eating oysters does less harm than eating fruits and vegetabls. If vegans really wanted to minimize harm to animals and the environment, they would eat a diet of mostly bivalves.

Bivalves, like strawberries, lack central nervous systems and are therefore incapable of suffering. If we're concerned about animal welfare, we do not need to be concerned about the senseless slaughter of oysters, because oysters -- like strawberries -- have no welfare. They have no subjective experience. Moreover, while farming strawberries involves the killing of many insects, farming oysters does not. If you care about the welfare of insects (as vegans claim to -- see point #2), oysters are ethically superior to strawberries.

And they are environmentally superior as well. The farming of oysters and other bivalves in aquacultures is a net good for the environment. The commercial farming of strawberries appears to be a net bad.

2. Honey. Like oysters, honey is forbidden by mainstream veganism. The theory is that we're exploiting bees by stealing their honey. But this is kind of stupid when you consider that veganism allows the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Every single plant food that is grown on a farm involves the mass killing of insects. Surely it's worse to kill insects than to steal their honey, isn't it?

3. Cruelty-free milk and eggs. This one is not as clear cut as oysters and honey. Every dairy farm I know of invovles the slaughter of male cattle; and every egg producer I know of involves the slaughter of male chicklings. Let's put those issues aside for the moment, however, and deal with them down in the meat category. For present purposes, let's consider only the milk- and egg-producing animals themselves.

Factory farms are horrible. Moreover, cows and chickens raised for their milk and eggs are generally raised in even worse conditions than those raised for their meat. If you eat conventional animals products and you think you're doing animals a favor by being a vegetarian, think again. In terms of animal welfare, you'd probably be better off eating beef and chicken while skipping dairy and eggs.

But not all farms are of the concentration-camp variety. There are dairy farms where the cows appear to be happy and healthy. Organic Pastures Dairy in California is a good example. The cows reproduce by sex with bulls rather than by artificial insemination. They are raised outdoors on pasture, eating grass, clover, legumes, etc. When they give birth, the calves are not separated from their moms and do not become veal (though the males do become grass-fed beef later on). They produce much less milk per day than the cows on factory farms do (because they are not ridiculously overmilked). They tend to live to be 12-15 years old instead of 3-4 years old because they live healthy lives. And when they can no longer produce milk, they live out the rest of their natural lives on pasture.

It all seems like a pretty good deal for the cows. While cows on factory farms would probably be better off if they were slaughtered at birth, the cows on farms like Organic Pastures seem to live good lives, and are probably glad they were born. What would happen to them, though, if everyone gave up dairy? Those cows would no longer exist. Modern cows can't live in the wild. They depend on humans. And most humans wouldn't keep a cow as a pet if they weren't interested in consuming its milk. If demand for dairy dried up, those friendly cows will stop being born. If slaughtering happy, adult cattle for meat is bad, isn't snuffing out their lives at the outset -- never affording them happiness at all -- even worse?

Same goes for egges. There are farms where the chickens wander around freely on pasture, eating sprouts, insects, worms, etc., and just generally bgeing happy chickens. Would it not be a shame if demand for their eggs dried up and those chickens stopped coming into existence?

4. Humanely raised meat. Piggybacking on that last point, I note that cows, pigs, and chickens raised for their meat depend, for their existence, on omnivores. If the world went vegan, those animals would no longer exist, or at least would see their numbers plummet drastically. In the case of factory-farmed animals, this is likely a good thing. They'd probably be better off if they'd never lived. If I could end the practice of conventional animal agriculture tomorrow, I would. (WHY IS THIS NOT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE?) But there are pasture-based farms where it seems like the existence of their animals is a net good.

This point is not as strong as numbers 1-3, IMO, and there are some respectable philosophical arguments that slaughtering animals for food is morally worse than not raising them in the first place, even if their lives are, on net, happy. I'll put those aside for now and come back to them if there is any interest. For now, I'll say that such arguments are unpersuasive to me because I tend to prefer something closer to utilitarianism than to virtue ethics.

5. Plant agriculture. Okay, so we're not going to eat meat, eggs, or dairy. What are we going to eat? I suppose the answer is fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, and fungi.

That sounds good. I'm in favor of eating all of those things. But then, that's only because I'm not against killing animals in order to produce food. If I were against killing animals, I would not be able to eat fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. The production of all of those foods involves killing lots of animals. The commercial farming of all of those foods uses plenty of pesticides -- the whole point of which is to kill insects. And it's not just insects that are killed, either. On giant farms that produce wheat, soy, corn, rice, etc., lots of cute vertebrates are killed. Lots and lots of field mice, for example. And their deaths (often by poison) seem to involve more suffering than those of slaughtered farm animals.

In fact, the only analysis I've seen seeking to estimate the number of animals killed in plant agriculture versus (pastured) animal agriculture concluded that producing a hamburger gun kills more animals than producing the (grass-fed) beef patty. (I can't find the analysis I'm thinking of, but in Googling for it, I came across this article, which makes a similar point.)

Conclusion. I respect anyone who makes conscious food choices with the thought of minimizing harm to animals or the environment. Vegans accomplish this goal way better than your average person eating the standard American diet. But while I will not criticize vegans for killing animals to produce their food, I will criticize the ones who are oblivious to that killing and act like they have no blood on their hands. I will especially criticize those who adopt an air of moral superiority because they eat strawberries instead of oysters, and bread instead of honey. They're doing it wrong, IMO.

Nonetheless, I am posting this not because I oppose the spirit of veganism, but because I share the vegan spirit of wanting to eat ethically, and I am trying to think my way through how to do that. This is part of my thinking out loud.

I didn't touch on nutritional considerations. Suffice it to say that I think eating a few oysters here and there would be a good addition to vegan diets for nutritional as well as ethical and environmental reasons.

Thoughts?
I'll take a stab at this.  First off I would say, that most of my veggie or vegan friends are these weird militants that people talk about (there are militants in every crowd).  I think most people very much recognize that every step is a good one and that's the way I look at it too.  Now to address your points

1. Oysters is an interesting one.  I have heard people both go ways on it.  Sure why not...

2. Honey - I think it's more the industrial nature of producing honey that is the issue.  But mostly I agree...i eat honey and don't think about it at all.  Good for them though if they want to go that far.  Agave is quite good as well as is coconut sugar

3.  Cruelty free milk or eggs.  Cruelty free eggs exist...if you have backyard chickens and eat the eggs at the rate they naturally produce than so be it.  As far as I know though cruelty free dairy does not exist.  In order to milk a cow they have to keep her pregnant.  When she gives birth the baby is immediately removed (because the baby would take the milk otherwise).  Right there its no longer 'cruelty free'.  Throw in that babies are then considered excess and shuffled off to some veal crate somewhere and it amps it up completely.

4.  Again, no such thing really.  If you aren't into killing you aren't into killing another animal.  These animals would no longer exist argument is weird because they are raised, en masse, for eating.  There is no natural balance there.  Mostly you cover the points well though.  

5.  I think that is a pretty terrible argument.  There is no comparison to slaughtering millions of animals against the natural balance that would need to occur if everyone went veggie.  Pigs are as smart and playful as dogs.  

Everyone should be forced to visit farm sanctuary or something along those lines to really take in what they are allowing to happen in the world imho.  

Nutritional i think you are pretty covered veggie wise but some will argue that.  I edited to add that honestly the country went vegan tomorrow there would be a significant drop in health issues compared to health issues that arise from current eating habits.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Everyone should be forced to visit farm sanctuary or something along those lines to really take in what they are allowing to happen in the world imho.
I think anyone who eats conventional animal products ought to visit a factory farm to see the horrors firsthand. Unfortunately, such farms are never open to the public, so we have to rely on hidden-camera footage (as shown in Earthlings).

I also think it'd be a good idea for vegetarians and vegans to spend a week on a family farm. Barbara Kingslover wrote a book about her family's experience operating such a farm, and according to her: "I would venture to say that 75% of the vegans and vegetarians who stayed at least a week here began to eat our meat or animal products, simply because they see what I am doing as right--for the animals, for the environment, for humans."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think anyone who eats conventional animals ought to visit a factory farm to see the horrors first-hand. Unfortunately, such farms are never open to the public, so we have to rely on hidden-camera footage (as shown in Earthlings).

I also think it'd be a good idea for vegetarians and vegans to spend a week on a family farm. Barbara Kingslover wrote a book about her family's experience operating such a farm, and according to her: "I would venture to say that 75% of the vegans and vegetarians who stayed at least a week here began to eat our meat or animal products, simply because they see what I am doing as right--for the animals, for the environment, for humans."


I don't disagree with that but there is still the issue of killing.  If people don't want to kill then good for them but at a min I would think that people that eat meat should be following that path.  

 
I don't disagree with that but there is still the issue of killing.  If people don't want to kill then good for them but at a min I would think that people that eat meat should be following that path.  
Part of MT's point is that going vegan <> not killing animals.  And he's right (as he usually is).

3.  Cruelty free milk or eggs.  Cruelty free eggs exist...if you have backyard chickens and eat the eggs at the rate they naturally produce than so be it.  As far as I know though cruelty free dairy does not exist.  In order to milk a cow they have to keep her pregnant.  When she gives birth the baby is immediately removed (because the baby would take the milk otherwise).  Right there its no longer 'cruelty free'.  Throw in that babies are then considered excess and shuffled off to some veal crate somewhere and it amps it up completely.

4.  Again, no such thing really.  If you aren't into killing you aren't into killing another animal.  These animals would no longer exist argument is weird because they are raised, en masse, for eating.  There is no natural balance there.  Mostly you cover the points well though.  
MT provided a specific example of a cruelty free dairy (Organic Pastures) and pointed out that there are plenty of pasture raised farms that provide very humane environments for the livestock.

If we went the direction of cruelty free farms the costs would skyrocket, which would also benefit the vegan cause by reducing demand.

 
I like the general idea underlying veganism: @silvergold described it earlier in the thread as being "about doing the least harm." @KarmaPolice elaborated that it's about minimizing harm to yourself, to the environment, and to animals.

I'm on board with all of that.

What I don't like about veganism is that its rules don't seem carefully designed to meet those objectives, but it has nonetheless claimed for itself a morally superior status that it hasn't earned. (Not in all cases, of course, but there are plenty of examples of smugly moralistic but factually mistaken vegans on YouTube.)

Here are some examples of vegan principles that I don't think make sense.

1. Oysters. Some vegans think that eating oysters and other bivalves is fine, but the majority position among vegans seems to be that, since oysters are animals, people who eat them are not true vegans and are therefore morally inferior.

This is really stupid because eating oysters does less harm than eating fruits and vegetabls. If vegans really wanted to minimize harm to animals and the environment, they would eat a diet rich in bivalves.

Bivalves, like strawberries, lack central nervous systems and are therefore incapable of suffering. If we're concerned about animal welfare, we do not need to be concerned about the senseless slaughter of oysters, because oysters -- like strawberries -- have no welfare. They have no subjective experience. Moreover, while farming strawberries involves the killing of many insects, farming oysters does not. If you care about the welfare of insects (as vegans claim to -- see point #2), oysters are ethically superior to strawberries.

And they are environmentally superior as well. The farming of oysters and other bivalves in aquacultures is a net good for the environment. The commercial farming of strawberries appears to be a net bad.

2. Honey. Like oysters, honey is forbidden by mainstream veganism. The theory is that we're exploiting bees by stealing their honey. But this is kind of stupid when you consider that veganism allows the consumption of fruits and vegetables. Every single plant food that is grown on a farm involves the mass killing of insects. Surely it's worse to kill insects than to steal their honey, isn't it?

3. Cruelty-free milk and eggs. This one is not as clear cut as oysters and honey. Every dairy farm I know of invovles the slaughter of male cattle; and every egg producer I know of involves the slaughter of male chicklings. Let's put those issues aside for the moment, however, and deal with them down in the meat category. For present purposes, let's consider only the milk- and egg-producing animals themselves.

Factory farms are horrible. Moreover, cows and chickens raised for their milk and eggs are generally raised in even worse conditions than those raised for their meat. If you eat conventional animals products and you think you're doing animals a favor by being a vegetarian, think again. In terms of animal welfare, you'd probably be better off eating beef and chicken while skipping dairy and eggs.

But not all farms are of the concentration-camp variety. There are dairy farms where the cows appear to be happy and healthy. Organic Pastures Dairy in California is a good example. The cows reproduce by sex with bulls rather than by artificial insemination. They are raised outdoors on pasture, eating grasses, clovers, legumes, etc. When they give birth, the calves are not separated from their moms and do not become veal (though the males do become grass-fed beef later on). They produce much less milk per day than the cows on factory farms do (because they are not ridiculously overmilked). They tend to live to be 12-15 years old instead of 3-4 years old because they live healthy lives. And when they can no longer produce milk, they live out the rest of their natural lives on pasture.

It all seems like a pretty good deal for the cows. While cows on factory farms would probably be better off if they were slaughtered at birth, the cows on farms like Organic Pastures seem to live good lives, and are probably glad they were born. What would happen to them, though, if everyone gave up dairy? Those cows would no longer exist. Modern cows can't live in the wild. They depend on humans. And most humans wouldn't keep a cow as a pet if they weren't interested in consuming its milk. If demand for dairy dried up, those friendly cows will stop being born. If slaughtering happy, adult cattle for meat is bad, isn't snuffing out their lives at the outset -- never affording them happiness at all -- even worse?

Same goes for eggs. There are farms where the chickens wander around freely on pasture, eating sprouts, insects, worms, etc., and just generally bgeing happy chickens. Would it not be a shame if demand for their eggs dried up and those chickens stopped coming into existence?

4. Humanely raised meat. Piggybacking on that last point, I note that cows, pigs, and chickens raised for their meat depend, for their existence, on omnivores. If the world went vegan, those animals would no longer exist, or at least would see their numbers plummet drastically. In the case of factory-farmed animals, this is likely a good thing. They'd probably be better off if they'd never lived. If I could end the practice of conventional animal agriculture tomorrow, I would. (WHY IS THIS NOT A CAMPAIGN ISSUE?) But there are pasture-based farms where it seems like the existence of their animals is a net good.

This point is not as strong as numbers 1-3, IMO, and there are some respectable philosophical arguments that slaughtering animals for food is morally worse than not raising them in the first place, even if their lives are, on net, happy. I'll put those aside for now and come back to them if there is any interest. For now, I'll say that such arguments are unpersuasive to me because I tend to prefer something closer to utilitarianism than to virtue ethics.

(ETA: I'll also add that while factory farming is an environmental catastrophe, pasture-based farming is beneficial to the environment in some important ways -- improving the quality of topsoil, for example. Still, cattle do fart a lot, which contributes to global warming.)

5. Plant agriculture. Okay, so we're not going to eat meat, eggs, or dairy. What are we going to eat? I suppose the answer is fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, grains, legumes, and fungi.

That sounds good. I'm in favor of eating all of those things. But then, that's only because I'm not against killing animals in order to produce food. If I were against killing animals, I would not be able to eat fruits, vegetables, grains, etc. The production of all of those foods involves killing lots of animals. The commercial farming of all of those foods uses plenty of pesticides -- the whole point of which is to kill insects. And it's not just insects that are killed, either. On giant farms that produce wheat, soy, corn, rice, etc., lots of cute vertebrates are killed. Lots and lots of field mice, for example. And their deaths (often by poison) seem to involve more suffering than those of slaughtered farm animals.

In fact, the only analysis I've seen seeking to estimate the number of animals killed in plant agriculture versus (pastured) animal agriculture concluded that producing a hamburger bun kills more animals than producing the (grass-fed) beef patty. (I can't find the analysis I'm thinking of, but in Googling for it, I came across this article, which makes a similar point.)

Conclusion. I respect anyone who makes conscious food choices with the thought of minimizing harm to animals or the environment. Vegans accomplish this goal way better than your average person eating the standard American diet. But while I will not criticize vegans for killing animals to produce their food, I will criticize the ones who are oblivious to that killing and act like they have no blood on their hands. I will especially criticize those who adopt an air of moral superiority because they eat strawberries instead of oysters, and bread instead of honey. They're doing it wrong, IMO.

Nonetheless, I am posting this not because I oppose the spirit of veganism, but because I share the vegan spirit of wanting to eat ethically, and I am trying to think my way through how to do that. This is part of my thinking out loud.

I didn't touch on nutritional considerations. Suffice it to say that I think eating a few oysters here and there would be a good addition to vegan diets for nutritional as well as ethical and environmental reasons.

Thoughts?
This is super interesting - I'll post a response/thoughts later (I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons).  

 
Part of MT's point is that going vegan <> not killing animals.  And he's right (as he usually is).

MT provided a specific example of a cruelty free dairy (Organic Pastures) and pointed out that there are plenty of pasture raised farms that provide very humane environments for the livestock.

If we went the direction of cruelty free farms the costs would skyrocket, which would also benefit the vegan cause by reducing demand.
I know he did but that is almost an impossibility on a large scale.  I don't know much about organic pastures but technically speaking it seems difficult to even understand how it is feasible to produce more than just a neighborhoods worth of milk every year under these conditions.  As  I said earlier the calfs need milk so I don't know how you would be able to mix the two while making it profitable.

Good for them if it's true and working for them.  

 
killface said:
I don't disagree with that but there is still the issue of killing. 
There is killing either way. You have to kill to make beef, and you have to kill to make wheat. Are you drawing a distinction between actively killing animals to eat them and passively killing animals to keep them away from our crops? That's a philosophically legitimate distinction, I think. It reminds me of a variant of the trolley problem.

Suppose there is a trolley that, if no action is taken, will strike and kill the four people standing on the tracks ahead of it. Would it be morally correct to throw one person in front of the trolley to stop it and save the four people on the tracks? Would it be morally correct to flip a lever and steer the trolley onto an adjacent set of tracks where only one person stands in its path? Is the first option morally different from the second? From a utilitarian standpoint, it seems that either option is similarly good. (Either way, you one person dies and the four on the tracks live.) Intuitively, though, a lot of people are less okay with throwing someone in front of the trolley than with switching its tracks (or even leaving it on its original course).

Suppose there is a rabbit that is about to eat some lettuce. Four bystanders are starving. They could be saved either by eating the lettuce or by eating the rabbit; otherwise, if the rabbit eats the lettuce and runs away, they will die. Would it be morally correct for them to eat the rabbit? Would it be morally correct to poison the rabbit and then eat the lettuce? (If they don't poison the rabbit, the lettuce will be gone.) Is the first option morally different from the second?

Trolley problems are famous for a reason. They're hard, and intuitions about them conflict. I think all we can say with any confidence is that neither answer (that the options are morally equivalent, or that the second is preferable) is unequivocally correct such that we can fairly cast those who disagree with us about them as obviously morally inferior.

I do not fault people who, for moral reasons, personally prefer poisoning to bolt-gunning. (I sympathize with that preference, to be honest, though I can't justify it on utilitarian grounds.) I do think people err when they denigrate others for having a different preference, though. And I especially think they err when they don't even count rodent deaths in wheat production, but get really super agitated about counting cattle deaths in beef production.

One of the reasons that I think more people should be exposed to the horrors of factory farming is to avoid what might be called the out-of-sight-out-of-mind fallacy. Many people eat conventional pork without being at all mindfully aware of how hogs on feedlots are mistreated. If they were aware of it, they might make different dietary choices. But I think many vegans are committing pretty much the exact same fallacy. They're aware when the rabbit is killed and eaten, but they are not at all aware when the rabbit is poisoned so that the lettuce can be eaten. When it comes to all the animal deaths caused by the production of wheat, soy, and corn -- out of sight, out of mind. If they were aware of it, they might not scream about how morally superior they are to rabbit-killers while they cheerfully munch on lettuce.

 
There is killing either way. You have to kill to make beef, and you have to kill to make wheat. Are you drawing a distinction between actively killing animals to eat them and passively killing animals to keep them away from our crops? That's a philosophically legitimate distinction, I think. It reminds me of a variant of the trolley problem.

Suppose there is a trolley that, if no action is taken, will strike and kill the four people standing on the tracks ahead of it. Would it be morally correct to throw one person in front of the trolley to stop it and save the four people on the tracks? Would it be morally correct to flip a lever and steer the trolley onto an adjacent set of tracks where only one person stands in its path? Is the first option morally different from the second? From a utilitarian standpoint, it seems that either option is similarly good. (Either way, you one person dies and the four on the tracks live.) Intuitively, though, a lot of people are less okay with throwing someone in front of the trolley than with switching its tracks (or even leaving it on its original course).

Suppose there is a rabbit that is about to eat some lettuce. Four bystanders are starving. They could be saved either by eating the lettuce or by eating the rabbit; otherwise, if the rabbit eats the lettuce and runs away, they will die. Would it be morally correct for them to eat the rabbit? Would it be morally correct to poison the rabbit and then eat the lettuce? (If they don't poison the rabbit, the lettuce will be gone.) Is the first option morally different from the second?

Trolley problems are famous for a reason. They're hard, and intuitions about them conflict. I think all we can say with any confidence is that neither answer (that the options are morally equivalent, or that the second is preferable) is unequivocally correct such that we can fairly cast those who disagree with us about them as obviously morally inferior.

I do not fault people who, for moral reasons, personally prefer poisoning to bolt-gunning. (I sympathize with that preference, to be honest, though I can't justify it on utilitarian grounds.) I do think people err when they denigrate others for having a different preference, though. And I especially think they err when they don't even count rodent deaths in wheat production, but get really super agitated about counting cattle deaths in beef production.

One of the reasons that I think more people should be exposed to the horrors of factory farming is to avoid what might be called the out-of-sight-out-of-mind fallacy. Many people eat conventional pork without being at all mindfully aware of how hogs on feedlots are mistreated. If they were aware of it, they might make different dietary choices. But I think many vegans are committing pretty much the exact same fallacy. They're aware when the rabbit is killed and eaten, but they are not at all aware when the rabbit is poisoned so that the lettuce can be eaten. When it comes to all the animal deaths caused by the production of wheat, soy, and corn -- out of sight, out of mind. If they were aware of it, they might not scream about how morally superior they are to rabbit-killers while they cheerfully munch on lettuce.
I don't think any of that applies.  A quick google search would show that the amount of resources to both feed and water that goes into animal agriculture is extremely significant.  I believe there would a bet gain for humans agriculturally if that space was dedicated to human consumption instead of animal consumption

I also think it is a very perilous comparison to compare the number of animals killed to grow crops and the conditions of factory farmed animals.  You do know that millions of animals (look at the wolf hunt that happens across the continent) are killed as collateral damage to animal agriculture correct?  You know that when an intensive pig farm operation 'accidentally' spills it's waste into the adjoining creek it reeks havoc on benthic organisms for years?  If you are going to use a comparison like the one you try above I honestly think it would be fairer to compare for example feeding 100 people to kill one rabbit (the vegetarian) against feeding 1 person to kill one rabbit (animal agriculture).   The moral argument is overwhelming still in favour of veggies.

 
I don't think any of that applies.  A quick google search would show that the amount of resources to both feed and water that goes into animal agriculture is extremely significant.  I believe there would a bet gain for humans agriculturally if that space was dedicated to human consumption instead of animal consumption

I also think it is a very perilous comparison to compare the number of animals killed to grow crops and the conditions of factory farmed animals.  You do know that millions of animals (look at the wolf hunt that happens across the continent) are killed as collateral damage to animal agriculture correct?  You know that when an intensive pig farm operation 'accidentally' spills it's waste into the adjoining creek it reeks havoc on benthic organisms for years?
Everything you've written here is about conventional agriculture (factory farms), which means that it doesn't address any of what I've written. I agree that factory farms are horrible, ethically and environmentally, and I'd support a complete ban on them.

 
Everything you've written here is about conventional agriculture (factory farms), which means that it doesn't address any of what I've written. I agree that factory farms are horrible, ethically and environmentally, and I'd support a complete ban on them.
But if we were to keep up our current rate of meat consumption and get rid of the factory farming model we would literally have to use the entire continent to have enough animals to support the current demand...how do you reconcile that?  And of course more space for animal grazing means more forests torn down, means more wolves shot, means more cow manure in streams etc...

Just so you know...great conversation.  I appreciate having the discussion.  I don't think there is an easy answer given where the country is at and we agree on a lot of points.

 
But if we were to keep up our current rate of meat consumption and get rid of the factory farming model we would literally have to use the entire continent to have enough animals to support the current demand.
I'm not sure that's accurate, but either way, I'm not arguing that we should keep up the current rate of meat consumption. If we switch to pasture-based farming, prices of animal products will go up and consumption will go down. That seems appropriate to me. Prices should reflect a true accounting of resources that are consumed, and people's consumption habits should be constrained by prices.

 
I'm not sure that's accurate, but either way, I'm not arguing that we should keep up the current rate of meat consumption. If we switch to pasture-based farming, prices of animal products will go up and consumption will go down. That seems appropriate to me. Prices should reflect a true accounting of resources that are consumed, and people's consumption habits should be constrained by prices.
If we removed the subsidies for animal agriculture the price would skyrocket

I agree that would be a good model

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top