Talk:Veganism

Archives
August 2003 – May 2005 May – September 2005 October 1 – November 18, 2005 November – December 2005 December 2005 – July 2006 July 2006 – December 2006

Please sign with time stamp (~~~~) for all comments. Every time. Cheers. Gtabary 18:29, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And please add new talk to the BOTTOM of the page. Every time. Thanks. Angr (t·c) 00:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Reorganization

Reorganization suggestions:

1. Eliminate "motivations" as a section and instead use its subsections as the main article sections
2. Eliminate "criticism and controversy" as a section and merge its subsecitons into the other sections
3. Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Ethics" from "Motivations" if appropriate (it appears this would not actually be appropriate)
4. Merge "Ethical criticism" and "Resources and environment" from "Motivations" (this seems more appropriate)
5. Merge "Health concerns" and "Health" from "Motivations"
6. Merge "Similar diets and lifestyles" with the "Definition" section

Kellen ^T 10:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If anyone were to do it, it's you Kellen. Maybe something this big should be tried first, then compared? Vert et Noir^talk 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

When I have a few spare hours perhaps =) Kellen ^T 18:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"properly sourced criticism being removed"

Skinwalker, what criticism was removed? It looks like you just reverted a response to criticism. (Note that I'm not involved/invested in whatever's been going on in that section.) --Joehaer 05:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Skinwalker probably misunderstood the edit history, but ultimately the edit he made was correct in that it removed a unnecessary, poorly written, and uncited response. Kellen ^T 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

crit

further on that subject there doesn't seem to be much criticism of veganism in this page at all. just the ethical crit. portion and a few bits about how to avoid health problems. there are many more arguments against veganism that just a few paltry health concerns and some abstract ethical arguments. where the comprehensive criticism section that appears in almost every other article on these sorts of subjects? furthermore much of the information quoted in this article specifically refers to vegetarian diets, and does not necessarily carry over to a vegan diet. for example: vegetarian diets are linked to higher IQ, vegan diets however are linked to lower IQ. this fact is listed in the vegetarian article, but curiously omitted here. in short the article is poorly constructed and badly biased. its set up to say as few bad things about veganism as possible, as opposed to offering a balanced/objective look at the subject. 24.185.239.254 20:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think the article is lacking in criticism (I disagree), provide some sources to back this up. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Kellen ^T 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything on the vegetarian page linking veganism to low IQ test scores. Can 24.185.239.254 please provide a source for this alleged fact? Speaking purely from personal experience as a second generation vegan, I can say that I have never seen evidence of such a link between the diet and low IQ but would be very interested to see any research on the matter. - Hyperflux 12:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the original poster, although maybe for slightly different reasons. As someone who has no real view on the vegan lifestyle either way and was just reading out of interest, I got the impression that the article is very supportive of the notion. Not that this is a bad thing at all, but I can understand how it can be perceived as unbalanced. There is a large section that lists many many reasons why veganism is beneficial and I initially felt this was clearly not NPOV, until I noticed that the section is the 'Motivations' section, so of course it will be this way. However, this is not clear and is not mirrored by a 'Criticisms' section that most wiki articles have. IMO this is the source of the confusion. Just my 2 cents. 85.210.209.35 10:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It's all very well to say that an article lacks criticism, but you have to take into account the possibility that certain subjects don't support the same amount of well cited, encyclopaedic criticism as others. I'm not saying that there's no more criticism to add to this article, but I am encouraging people to judge each case on it's on merits, rather than thinking along the lines of "This article has less criticism that some others, so it needs more!". Which I feel would be a mistake. Hyperflux 11:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not much crtisism of Veganism because there are very few things negative associated to being Vegan. It is good for the environment and one's health. What is there to critisize?

The point about vegan IQ has now been removed as it was based on a study of 9 people, which is obviously not enough to make a scientific evaluation. - Solar 11:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Cattlemen's study should be removed

Scientific studies about the vegan diet are welcome, but the section on the study funded by the American Cattlemen's Association is very misleading. If one had read the study or even the critical articles in the news about it (no, not the ones where the Beatle comments - he's not a scientist), one would find that the study is an almost comically biased ploy to promote beef consumption and make meat eaters feel better about themselves. The children in the study had diets consisting mainly of corn and some beans - hardly what someone who chooses a vegan diet would eat. Some groups received mince, others milk, and others oil - and some of these already malnourished children received nothing - to supplement the "diet", all with the same caloric value, but without the other nutrients in the meat. Supplemented soya mince could have been used and compared to the beef; instead, there was a gaping hole in the diets of the "meat-free" groups. This does not apply to veganism in any way. The only thing this study suggests is that when starving, malnourished children get ANY food with vitamins they aren't already getting, they are healthier. Well, duh.

Instead of trying to hold a candle to the vegan movement, we should be questioning the ethics of those who would use impoverished children as tools to promote food products. They withheld food from groups of children in this study - living people - knowing it would stunt their physical and mental growths and perhaps deny them much-needed opportunities in life. These people have no right to call vegans "unethical."

That said, I'm a new wikipedia user (and a very long-time reader), so I would rather the section be removed by a more experienced user, so as not to appear I am vandalizing. I would very much appreciate input on this. Noxic 22:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. The point has been brought up before. Vert et Noir^talk 20:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section after reading the talk page archives and seeing that the majority of users commenting feel it should be removed. I have, of course, left everything else in the section on B12, as they use neutral wording and make important points (b12 is not a vitamin to overlook). Noxic 21:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with mentioning the study, especially with the critique that was offered. I think anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 21:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If "anyone with a brain would realize that the study was clearly biased and extremely flawed", it doesn't belong in there. The b12 section already cites 2 studies that are specifically about B12. The Cattlemen's study was not even about B12, as non-control groups other than the mince group were not given B12 supplements. Noxic 22:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading the removed section, I would suggest replacing it. It is fairly well balanced, most of the questionable findings in the study are challenged and the section arguably promotes caution when planning to adopt a vegan diet, in order to avoid nutrient deficiencies. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, so I wont take any action myself, but I welcome any discussion here or on my talk page. - Hyperflux (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism for the sake of criticism looks childishly argumentative. The B12 factor is commonly cited by opponents of veganism as though it is an insurmountable challenge, when in actuality it can be dealt with using a simple, affordable vitamin which is available in just about any health or "natural foods store", and widely available online (even at amazon.com), where anyone with the ability to read wikipedia could order it. It is a small problem, easily fixed, and deserves an equally small and rationally constructed section. In fact, the importance of B12 is mentioned multiple times in the article aside from the section in question. I have even link-ified "vitamin b12" in this section again, so that anyone skipping down to the criticism may read the full article on the vitamin and learn of its importance himself.

Although opponents of veganism seem to thoroughly enjoy reciting "vegans need to supplement and watch their diets", we ought to remember that every major dietary association recommends multivitamins for the general public (and especially A and C vitamins), as the "normal" American and western diets are also tend to be lacking in certain vital nutrients. Should a critique of meat-eating on wikipedia feature a disproportionately large section on the pitfalls of vitamins often missing in the American diet? How many average Americans keep track of their Vitamins A and C intake? Potassium? How many of them count grams of Fiber? How about Vitamin K, Magnesium, Zinc, and Selenium - how many people know which foods contain rich amounts of these? How many know Molybdenum even exists? Yes, the red-blooded barbeque chef may be missing out on a few - or many - of these nutrients, but we have the modern miracle of the vitamin pill. When the problem is so easily fixed in the vegan diet through reasonable eating and supplementation, there's no real reason for making a huge fuss and waving around irrelevant child-experimentation data. Simple education on the importance of the vitamin will do.Noxic 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I agree. - Hyperflux (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the section because it was published by an author employed by a reputable institution; the study's backers were identified in our article; a reply to the study was offered by the BDA. Kellen ^T 17:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now done this. Kellen ^T 11:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Ethical Man

Saw this on Newsnight last week ethical man kills turkey as he believes people should see the animals they eat being killed. then goes on a month long vegan diet to find out what difference cutting animal products from his diet would make to "carbon footprint".

carbon-guru Professor Tim Jackson calculates that 18% of the carbon emissions created by the average diet are from meat and a further 10% are from dairy products. only counting carbon dioxide would be a woeful underestimate no-one has calculated the contribution methane and nitrous oxide emissions make to the climate cost of the food meaties eat. he it is safe to double the figure for carbon dioxide which means 60% of the global warming potential of the average diet is from animal products.

Just something interesting to chew over for Veganism meet daisy the cow Whackorobin 07:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your link refers to the recent UN report "Livestock's long shadow" which is cited in this article. Kellen ^T 17:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency

I think it's very important for this page to examine the environmental implications of vegan farming. I have been writing a personal examination of "Veganism and Agricultural Efficiency" which looks at aspects such as energy transference in food chains and land area required to support vegan diets compared to animal based diets, but it is currently nowhere near encyclopaedia standard.

I am especially interested in the food chain angle. The transference of energy from one level of a food chain to the next involves a 90% loss of energy, according to the ecological pyramid.

It makes far greater sense (in terms of logic, efficiency and productivity) for humans to be the primary consumer in their food chain than to massively reduce efficiency by adding cattle or other animals into the food chain and consequently become secondary consumers.

If anyone has any ideas on how to bring this angle to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to discuss it in detail.

Hyperflux 11:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw a lot of mention of that when researching world hunger last summer. Info on that isn't too hard to find, even in mainstream examinations of hunger issues. Ungovernable Force^{Poll: Which religious text should I read?} 21:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted most of User:Nomenclator's edits to the definition section. Some information added by this user was blatantly wrong: "someone who does not care about the well-being of animals and the environment, but avoids eating animal products solely for health reasons, would not fall under the category of vegan." Many of the other edits I reverted were of the sort of in-wiki argumentative hairsplitting that happens on this page frequently (this is vegan, this isn't) or ones which amount to essays rather than information about veganism ("unless one completely divorces oneself from industrialized civilization, and lives as an entirely isolated subsistence farmer"). Kellen ^T 17:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why?

first of all, the first sentence is gramatically incorrect. The subject, a philosophy or lifestyle cannot take the predicate avoids using animals ; a person can avoid using animals, but a philosophy cannot. That is why I changed the sentence to

"Veganism is a philosophy or lifestyle that holds that the use of animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes is cruel and unnecessary, and that all or nearly all of the necessities of life, as well as the extra things that improve quality of life, can be obtained from the vegetable kingdom and from minerals." Notice that the philosphy holds rather than abstains."

Actually, a lifestyle cannot "abstain" either. So I am going to have to edit that sentence again.

"Veganism is lifestyle based on the idea that the use of animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes is harmful and unnecessary (is himsa, in Sanskrit), and that all or nearly all of the necessities of life, as well as the extra things that improve quality of life, can be obtained from the vegetable kingdom and from minerals."

Nor do you have to "commit" to abstention from animal products to be a vegan. No oath is required. You merely have to abstain - for the reason I mentioned.

Also, I am correct in saying that someone who does not care about the well-being of animals and the environment, but avoids eating animal products solely for health reasons, would not fall under the category of vegan. Such a person would be a vegan dietarily, but would not be a vegan. To be a vegan, you have to commit to the idea of not wanting to harm animals. If you merely want to preserve your health, and that leads you to a vegan diet, than you have a vegan diet, but you are not a vegan. But don't take my word for it; ask anyone at the Vegan Society of the American Vegan Society.

Further, most vegans do not avoid products that have been tested on animals. That is an extreme degree of veganism. One reason they do not avoid such products is that they know that companies that make the claim that they haven't tested their product on animals, only are able to do so because some other company already did the tests, as was required by law, and since the product is the same as an existing product, no new tests are necessary. In essence, the product was tested on animals - by another company - but it was still tested on animals. Also most vegans know that only a few samples of a product are tested on animals; not every jar of shampoo that you buy is actually tested on animals. Apparently, before 100's of thousands of bottles of a new shampoo formula are manufactured, and sold, a prototype of the shampoo legally had to be tested on 50 or 60 animals. Vegans who avoid products that are tested on animals therefore avoid all new products. This is an extreme that is too much to ask most people to do. If people think you have to go to this extreme to be considered a vegan, they are unlikely to become vegan. Most vegans are content to check the ingredient lists of products, and many will even use products that contain animal ingredients in minute amounts. Few people would be willing to go to this extent to be a "perfect" vegan. Small amounts of stearic acid, derived from animal fat, are added to tires to stregthen the rubber. Yet most vegans, knowing this, still ride the bus, fly on airplanes, or even buy and drive their own vehicle.

I should add that the verb adhere generally takes the preposition to and not the preposition of. So does the noun adherent and adjective adherent derived from the verb adhere. A vegan is an adherent to veganism, not an adherent of veganism. It is the same as if you were talking about paint and said that "the paint adheres to the wall." If follows then, that paint is an adherent to the wall and not an adherent of the wall. If you are going to insist on adhering to grammatical errors you are going to convince the public that people who write about veganism are uneducated.

Actually I think it is better not to use the word adherent at all, as the term tends to imply a formality of commitment, that veganism does not demand and vegans do not usually have. To become a vegan, you do not necessarily join any group, or take any oath, or do anything formal. You just start living differently.

--Nomenclator 00:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that avoiding products tested on animals is pretty standard in the vegan community; what do others think? Rosemary Amey 01:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with rosemary - avoidance of animal-tested products is a well-accepted tenet of veganism, and the topic needs to be discussed in the article. Skinwalker 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

confusing details that don't belong in encylopedia article

I removed the section about some vegans avoiding toothpaste with calcium from bone sources and whatever. This are minutia that may be interest to vegans having a discussion with each other about exactly how far to go, in being vegan, but is not of interest to the general public and does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Nomenclator 01:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Excess Soy

I removed the part about excess soy being harmful. It is totally irrelevant. Many vegans use very little soy. Some use absolutely none. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

I replaced the soy content - soy is a very common ingredient in vegan cuisine. Can you provide a reputable source that states otherwise? Cheers, Skinwalker 01:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The section about the dangers of soy would be far better placed on the wiki page about soy itself, rather than on a page about a philosophy who's adherents may or may not eat it in quantities worthy of a warning. I support it's deletion from this page. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 02:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"soy is a very common ingredient in vegan cuisine"

There is no single "vegan cuisine." Vegans in different parts of the world often tend to eat what is available in their part of the world, and may have extremely different diets in various parts of the world.

Personally, I have been a vegan for 40 years, and only occasionally use soy ingredients. Probably whole years have gone by where I ate none. Not even soy oil.

Avoiding products tested on animals is NOT typical of most vegans. It seems we have some non-vegans here, who are doing their best to try and lump all vegans together with those vegans who go to certain extremes, in order to try and characterize all vegans as extremists. I say we hang 'em. And then eat their livers with fava beans and chianti.

Your edits are really not helping the article. It seems like you are using this "most vegans don't do X" argument as a straw man to eliminate properly sourced material that conflicts with your personal experience as a vegan. If you provide reliable sources that support your claims, we can talk, but your isolated anecdotes do not meet encyclopedic standards for a source for or against the inclusion of material in the article. Cheers, Skinwalker 00:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Soy is a very common ingredient used in Western vegan dishes. However, the highly processed forms of soy's proteins and fats, as well as GM soy, are more likely to be found in omni foods - in fact, it's hard to find any fast food or prepackaged item without highly processed (and probably low-quality) soy ingredients. I think that the "some people say soy is maybe sorta dangerous so veganism is invalid" argument is just grasping at straws, but a short mention and a link to the article on soy dangers shouldn't be a problem, provided it is also mentioned that soy products are in most processed omni foods anyway.

As far as the comment "Avoiding products tested on animals is NOT typical of most vegans", uh, yes, it is typical of every vegan I know. The vegans/vegetarians who make convenient exceptions, on the other hand, tend to be the ones who need something interesting to say about themselves on Myspace, until they tire of their newfound trend in a year or so. Then again, this is just my 10 years of experience, which I guess is not an encyclopedia-worthy source. Noxic

I am not sure that the soy entry is worth including either. As pointed out already, soy is prevalent in the typical Western omni diet, but it is in no way descriptive of the way all vegans eat. It was requested for a source showing that Skinwalker vegans don't necessarily eat a lot of soy... but shouldn't it be the other way around as well? There is no reliable source indicating the significant amounts of soy are eaten by vegans. The anti-soy argument seems to me to be a red herring -- if it is popular in both omnivorous and vegan diets, it is not a "special" warning for vegans, nor is there any proof that vegans consume more (or less) soy than omnivores. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs)

One sided.

This is rather one sided. Just from reading the opening paragraph, it seems like everyone who is a vegan is automatically a card carrying PETA supporter. Vegan doesn't nessicerily mean someone who avoids animal products all together, although some might, just one who doesn't have any animal products *in their food*. Unless someone can support the original view, i'm going to change this -- feb^talk 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This topic has been well discussed, please view the achieve for the debate on whether Veganism is purely a diet or a wider philosophy, the Vegan Society for example don't agree with your definition, they define Veganism as "ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Thanks - Solar 12:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This article, however, is not about what the Vegan Society thinks, it is about the term in general. At the very least, the use of it solely as a diet should be mentioned -- feb^talk 12:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you, then, find a source as reputable in the vegan community as the Vegan Society which defines vegans as people who remove animal products from their diet alone? The Vegan Society, as a group of vegans, make the most commonly agreed upon definition public. Your view that vegans may abstain from animal products in the area of diet alone is an opinion, and not one that is common in the vegan community. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Further - Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, who created the word "vegan" would certainly not share the view that vegans may include animal products in areas other than diet. They created the word "vegan" after becoming frustrated that the definition of "vegetarian" had become too lax. And as a vegan myself, I am deeply opposed to the word "vegan" going the same way and becoming a looser term. By all means, dietary vegans may call themselves "dietary vegans" but they are not true adherents of veganism as a philosophy, as defined by it's adherents and it's founders. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it the Vegan Societies definition, but they invented the word. While the meaning of words change, when you invent a word your original meaning is going to carry a lot of weight. I have yet to see a reputable sight discuss the non-dietary use of animals as still being vegan. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 13:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree that the definition of vegan should not be modified to include "dietary vegans" or other non-vegans (though I do applaud anybody who reduces their use of animal products). The intentions of those who coined the word are well-documented and used throughout the movement. But I would also like to point out that many vegans (including myself) would never join or support PETA (see Gary Francione's blog for details) -- Trent 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree 100% that "dietary veganism" should not be mentioned. Veganism is a way of life more than a "diet". The word "vegetarian", however, once meant something close to "dietary vegan" (with terms like ovo-lacto-vegetarian covering what vegetarian has come to mean). If anything, it should only be mentioned that someone who eats a vegan diet but contributes economically to animal husbandry through purchases of items like fur, leather, down, etc is a "vegetarian" in the traditional sense.

The word was invented with a specific group of people in mind because the def. of "vegetarian" was getting too lax. Even now, I see many people my age on dating/networking sites saying "I'm vegan but I eat dairy/sushi/whatever I want" and these myths need to end. Noxic 02:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This has all been discussed previously in the archives. While you or I might disagree that someone who calls themselves a "dietary vegan" has any claim to the word, it is used and therefore is encylopedic. Here's an example on the International Vegetarian Union webpage. Kellen ^T 12:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I seems to me that "dietary vegan" is a different term, the original point I replied to referred simply to "Veganism", which is more than a diet without qualifying words attached to it. So the definition of Vegan should not include other forms, that should be in a sub-section showing deviations from the original meaning and purpose of the word. - Solar 12:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 14:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

There used to be a sentence about "dietary veganism" in the intro, but it appears to have been removed. This dealt with the issue right off the bat, and it did not need to be mentioned again. It doesn't need a whole section; just a short to the point definition of the term. Kellen ^T 16:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to make a seperate article for Dietary Veganism? Avoids debate over the meaning of the word, and still allows for info on just the food products and such. Would be easy to add a For the practice of exluding animals from food products only, see Dietary Veganism, although that line sounds slightly off -- feb^talk 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there's any need for a "Dietary Veganism" page. It would probably end up being little more than a dictionary entry with a link to the main veganism page. If anything, it should be mentioned here that people who abstain in the area of diet alone sometimes self-title themselves "dietary vegans" and leave it at that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperflux (talk • contribs) 02:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

Not necessary. I am going to re-add the sentence about "dietary veganism" to the intro or definition section as appropriate to do away with this matter once again. Kellen ^T 10:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Article should be written by vegans, not non-vegans

I don't think non-vegans know as much about veganism as vegans, yet we have a non-vegan who insists on promomting his or her skewed view of what veganism is all about, after meeting a few vegan individuals, and making associations that are not true, such as ASSUMing that vegans all eat lots of soy, and ASSUMING that articles on soy use pertain to all vegans. And assuming that vegans are going to substitute mock meats for meat. Then he/she has the nerve to erase the corrections made by a someone who has personal familiarity with the American Vegan Society and been a vegan for 40 years. I am going to restore my corrections, for the second time. We also have someone who writes that "all unshellaced fruits are vegan." While this is true, it implies that vegans commonly engage in minutia of veganism, such as avoiding all coated fruits. It implies that we would all rather starve than eat even the tiniest amount of animal matter. I probably accidentally eat more insect matter that is naturally clinging to my romaine lettuce or collards, even after I wash it, than the amount I take in "intentionally" by eating shellaced fruits. Not that the coatings used on fruit are actually made from lac. Generally they come from other animal, mineral, and vegetable sources. We also have someone that writes "all the vegans I know eat a lot of soy" and someone who insists that this is sufficient to assume that all vegans eat soy, yet if I allege that this isn't true, I hear someone saying I should provide support for my assertion with "reliable sources." All the vegans I know eat very little soy; almost no soy at all. Most of us also do not eat "mock meats." Personally, I find mock meats repellant. I consider killing and eating animals to be ugly. So I neither do it, nor pretend to do it. Thi is similar to how most people consider killing humans and eating their flesh to be immoral, and not only do they not do it, but they do not pretend to do it; most non-cannibals do not eat mock human-meat. Most vegans do not eat mock meats. Information about mock meats belongs in a separate article.

And again, veganism is not something that has "adherants" to any formal philosophy, or people that "commit" to anything. It is not a formal religion or formal group. Saying that vegans "commit" to not eating meat and that veganism has adherants, is like saying that skiers "commit" to skiing and the skiing lifestyle has "adherants."

nomenclator

I think you're referring to me. I am also a vegan, but I am committed to a balanced, NPOV article. Your approach to editing this article has shown a disregard for the edits of others, and the title for this section suggests you fundamentally misunderstand how a NPOV article must take into account many viewpoints. I suggest you take some time off and watch the editing process work without blanking, or constantly reverting. As for mock meats and soy; all of the vegans I personally know have eaten these substances and some vegans frequently eat them -- this suggests for inclusion in the article rather than your blanking. Kellen ^T 10:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

An example. The material about hypospadias is not neutral point of view material. First the writer assumes that all vegans eat lots of soy, then finds an article that links soy to hypospadias, then says that children of vegans are more likely to inherit hypsopadias. That is character assassination, not NPOV. Further, the article is s study done on a specific soy-eating population, not soy-eaters in general. The writer is clearly anti-vegan and trying to characterize all vegans based on studies done on a few soy-eating vegans.

And again, vegans do not "commit" to veganism. A frequent scenario is they become responsible for their own or their family's food perparation, and for their own food, clothing and shelter, in young adulthood, rather than rely on their parents so much as they did in the past, something that commonly happens to people in young adulthood, and simply make choices in the direction of veganism, without even wondering if they are becoming vegetarian or vegan. Then they hear a lecture or read about veganism somewhere, and decide, entirely on their own, that dropping eggs and dairy from their already vegetarian diet is more feasible than they might have thought. they have already simply not bought fur and not bought leather because they don't like what is involved in producing it. They are neither pressured to adhere to anything, nor think of what they do as adhering to something. It just works out that way. So from the very first sentence, the article is giving an incorrect description of veganism and vegans - and a one that associates veganism with cults and organized religion. While there are a few organizations with a tiny number of followers that require veganism of their members, overwhelmingly veganism an infomally adopted with no "commitment" and no "adherance" to anything. --Nomenclator 14:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. As a life-long vegan myself, I admit to having trouble remaining neutral while reading this page. I do agree that the page should be mainly written by vegans, because vegans naturally know what it is to be vegan and why they chose to be so, etc... However, this will only work if those vegans can remain neutral and provide a balanced, encyclopaedic piece of writing that details what veganism is and is not.

After having read this page and seen people edit it over the last week or so, I have to say that while I agree with much of what Nomenclator says, his(?) edits often seem not to be neutral and sometimes read like personal essays rather than encyclopaedia content.

It is my personal feeling that if this page remains neutral and continues to evolve through non-confrontational editing, then it will eventually provide a good source of information on veganism. Whereas, at the moment, it tends to read like a conflict between two opposing sides of an argument, one side supporting criticism and the other supporting praise. I believe that a neutral, thorough article on veganism would provide people with all the information they needed to make a decision for themselves about its merits and importance as a way to combat climate change and other problems in the world.

I would very much like to work on this page in the future, but for now I do not feel that I would be able to contribute with a high enough level of neutrality, so, with that in mind, I shall restrain myself to the discussion page and provide feedback on any conflict that interests me. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 16:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegan IQ

I am rather reluctant to bring this issue up, but the issue of vegan IQ is misrepresented in the article. Vegans actually scored the lowest in the paper IQ in childhood and vegetarianism in adulthood: 1970 British cohort study. There are of course numerous problems with this study, firstly vegans were actually only 0.1% of the study sample, which in my view is far too low to get an accurate average, and secondly there are numerous problems with the cultural biasing of IQ tests. In my opinion it is unfortunate that many vegetarian groups feel it is useful to draw on this kind of study as a piece of propaganda. I will change the entry to reflect the issues with the sample size and the actual vegan IQ levels reported. - Solar 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire section about IQ scores should be removed, as the study was specifically about vegetarians, not vegans. And also, comments such as "Vegans were shown to have low IQ scores but vegans only made up 0.1% of the test group so this probably needs more research" do not belong in an encyclopaedia. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 17:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There were 8170 people included in the study. 0.1% suggests that there were only 8 vegans in the study. This isn't anywhere near enough to produce meaningful statistics, so it should be removed from the article.--Michig 17:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed, I did consider removing it but thought it might be better to clarify as this study has been quoted quite a bit, but as others think it should go I think that is best. - Solar 17:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked with the authors of the study and only 9 vegans were in the study, hardly enough to be scientifically relevant or be included in this article. - Solar 12:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This study shouldn't be included here. Kellen ^T 19:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclator (talk · contribs)

Nomenclator, please stop adding your uncited, essay-like material to this page. If you want to change the introduction you will need to convince other editors of its superiority and you will need to provide reliable sources to back up your changes. Your personal viewpoints about what veganism is or is not are not important to wikipedia without sources. You are being disruptive to any progress on this article and, in fact, have been destructive on a number of occasions. Again: please stop. You are getting to the point of violating WP:3RR. Kellen ^T 17:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided reliable sources. The American Vegan Society. You have NOT provided reliable sources for your contention that veganism is a cult phenomena. You aslked me not to erase stuff, and said to add stuff instead So that's what I did. Now it seems you don't like to hear the truth, not matter how it is presented and want to keep pushing your misinformation about veganism.--Nomenclator 17:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Nomenclator, your recent edits are simply not neutral, nor are they written in a fitting style for an encyclopaedia. I have reverted them. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 18:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I filed a 3RR report on Nomenclator.[1] This needs to stop. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ahimsa and Veganism

Sorry English is not my native language but I am trying my best to correct myths about veganism that are not true. I hope you will please correct my english but leave the facts that are true the way I said they are to be true.

I also like to note that The American Vegan Society was founded in 1960 and has been in continuous power since then and is the most important vegan org in the united states and probably in the whole all the americas. It has publishes a quarterly magazine, Ahimsa, for about 44 of those years that it is now renamed the American Vegan since the last few years. The connection between ahimsa in the east and veganism has been mentioned by writers such Albert Sweitzer and Leo Tolstoy.

Whiel Vegan Outreach has been very influential, it owes much to those that have gone before. Jay and Freya Dinshah and the American Vegan Society are really the founding parents of the vegan movement in the US. there is absolutely no doubt about that. The people at Vegan Outreach will themselves tell you that. --Tonguebutcher 01:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, tonguebutcher, that the article contains popular myths about veganism, rather than the facts. There appears to be a conspiracy to erase attempts at any changes, no matter how small, toward the facts. With regard to the 3-revert rule, if one person goes up against a group of 2, they one person has no chance, as the group of 2 can each do one revert for every 2 reverts done by the group of one. This is rule by the majority, rather than rule by the truth. The truth is the truth; the truth is not whatever the majority thinks is the truth. The 3-revert system does not work well.

I made 2 small changes, to the second sentence. Changed commits abstention to abstains. If you want to change it back to commits to abstention, I suggest you please cite a reputable source that says vegans commit to going vegan, rather than just do it, go vegan. I am not aware of any. Everything suggests the opposite. Many vegans just gradually change from ordinary vegetarianism, to veganism, without even giving it much thought, much less "committing" to veganism. I also corrected a gramattical error. In most cases, adhere takes the preposition to, not of. So does its noun (and adjective) derivative, adherant of.

--Nomenclator 12:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You have completed a useful edit. Good job. Kellen ^T 13:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vegan majority or vegan leadership: which defines the truth about veganism?

While veganism has always been an informal development, it has also always had a strong leadership. People are not adherants to what the leadership says. They are simply educated by the leadership, and perhaps also gently guided by the leadership. Thus, comes the question is a vegan what the majority of people who say they are vegan, is; or is a vegan what the leadership says veganism is; or is it somewhere inbetween. It is certainly not the first choice. Because many people who claim to be vegan, are clearly not. There are 1000's of people who say they don't use dairy or eggs - but in actuality really use them.

This goes to my claim that vegans only occasionally avoid products that are "tested on animals." My claim keeps getting erased, but without any citation to back it up. The fact is, while a few vegans eschew products tested on animals, the vegan leadership does not require that one do so, in order to define the person as a vegan. I have already cited the american vegan society re this. Yet my claim keeps getting reverted. Also my claim that veganism sprouts from ahimsa and eastern thought or owes a debt to eastern thought, keeps getting erased, despite the fact that I have provided citation for my claim, and there has been no citation for the obverse claim other than that Vegan Outreach better represents veganims than the Am erican Vegan Society. But they did not cite source for this claim, and I cited the much longer existence and history of publications of the Am Vegan Society. Even so, Vegan outreach does not say my claim is untrue. And vegan outreach acknowledges the work done by the Am VEgan Society.

I think we have a conspiracy here to promote popular myths about veganism, rather than the truth, about veganism. --Nomenclator 13:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You will do much better in convincing other editors of the superiority of your changes if you don't accuse them of particpating in a "conspiracy." The giant rants are not particularly helpful, either. Cite some reliable sources, discuss the appropriate changes with the other editors, then everything will be okay. Don't engage in a revert war, and assume good faith on the part of other editors. Kellen ^T 13:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Known As, or Is?

yes, veganism is sometimes described as strict vegetarianism. But that is NOT precisely what veganism is. The claim that it is is a popular myth, not a fact. To be accurate, an encyclopedia should tell us what something is not what something is known as. The later sentences in the article even acknowledge that veganism is much more than strict veganism. And that fact should be emphasised, not obscured. I propose we drop the part about "known as." And change the first sentence to something more like "Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle that involves the avoidence of using animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes." In that sentence I've also fixed a grammatical problem of subject predicate agreement in number. Further down, we should add that "veganism is more than strict vegetarianism..." Do we want to tell the facts or do we simply want to propogate popular myths?

Also, adherent is too formal a word for someone who simply practices veganism. Yes, veganism has its adherents. But the word is still too formal. Beubg a vegan doesn't require any kind of announcement or proposal of adherence. So it has adherence to it, but saying it has adherents is too formal. The term should not be part of its definition.

I am going to persist on the subject of testing on animals, too. Find be a good citation for this being a fact, and I'll let it stay. Otherwise, I want it changed. --Nomenclator 13:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Veganism referred to as "strict vegetarianism": [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

In other places, strict vegetarianism is differentiated from veganism, but we can at least say that veganism is "sometimes" referred to as strict vegetarianism without any doubt. Kellen ^T 13:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The vegan society defines a criteria for something to be vegan [8]:

"NO ANIMAL TESTING

The development and/or manufacture of the product, and where applicable its ingredients, must not involve, or have involved, testing of any sort on animals conducted at the initiative of the manufacturer or on its behalf, or by parties over whom the manufacturer has effective control."

Kellen ^T 14:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

One could adhere to the philosophy of veganism without any contradiction (the philosophy itself need not have some dogmatic authority). However, the term "practices" is simpler and clearer, so I've changed it. Kellen ^T 14:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Item number 8 is not the definition of what is required about a product, for it to be used by vegan, but rather refers only to the stricter standard of what products may be licensed by them to be called vegan, by commerical enterprises. While you cannot get their approval to call your product vegan if it has been tested on animals, the definition of a vegan, and of what you are required to do to meet the definition, is on other pages, such as http://www.vegansociety.com/html/people/lifestyle/. In additon Vegan Outreach has spoken out against requirng such minutia of someone, ie, the avoidence of animal-tested products, in order to justifiably call themselves a vegan, and someone here has even pointed that out with a citation somewhere here.

Veganism referred to as "strict vegetarianism." Yes, it is not incorrect to describe veganism as strict vegetarianism, among other things, but it is not correct to put this in the first defining sentence. As to reference 2, that supports my position. It says "veganism can aslo be called strict vegetarianism." Emphasis mine. As an informal alternative description, lacking precision, that works fine. But it does not belong in the very first sentence, in the subject of that sentence. Rather it should be stressed that veganism is much more than strict vegetarianism, even tho popularly, informally, and without trying to be precise, people may truthfully describe it as strict vegetarianism. This is why I say vegans should be writing the article, not people who have an axe to grind against veganism. They report the popular mythology, instead of the facts. As does the general press.In any case, reference 2 does not say veganism is called strict vegetarianism, it says vegan diet is called strict vegetarianism.

Ref 3 doesn't support your contention either. It merely uses the phrase strict vegetarianism parenthetically. It does not purport to be defining veganism, merely reporting on the not-for-profit status of vegan outreach. We should not expect it to be exactly accurate as to such details. Go to the source, Vegan Outreach. Ref 3 I'm sorry but in order of primary meaning and secondary meaning, Merriam Webster has the definitions reversed. The American Heritage dictionary is more highly regarded than Webster's, and their definiion http://www.bartleby.com/61/32/V0043200.html is different. Even so, a better source is the Vegan Society, whose founder's coined the word, and the American Vegan Society.

Ref 5 fully supports MY contention. They say "Veganism is a way of life for some people, you can call it strict vegetarianism. The definition of vegan is simple. They will not eat or wear any animal product or use any product that is derived from or tested on animals."

You can call it strict vegetarianism. If you want. But that is not precisely what it is. Then they give the definition, which says "they will not use any product that is derived from or tested on animals." Emphasis mine. Despite the fact that they support my view on the issue of whether strict vegetarianism is a precise definition, they refute my view about testing. They clearly have made an error here. And they appear to be an individual, and not a citable group. Please site definitive sources, not sources comparing veganism to strict vegetarianism in passing. Again, it is not wrong or mistaken to say this. It just is not encyclopedic to put it in the first sentence and imply it is definitive. --Nomenclator 14:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one reason people equate veganism with diet is because for all practical purposes, changing your diet has more of an effect than anything else. The page http://shakahara.com/donreq2.html gives some statistics. If you just give up animal foods, you prevent much more suffering than if you give up fur, animals killed in animal shelters, and animals killed in research or testing laboratories - combined. By an order of 980 to 4. Fur is EASY to give up. Avoiding prescription medicines tested on animals -- that could easily harm humans. So almost all vegans, even if they themselves avoid tested products, are willing to accept people who buy products tested on animals, as being vegans, as long as they eat vegan and avoid fur. Almost all vegans are also willing to accept someone as being vegan, if they say, well, I'm a firefighter, and I need leather shoes to comply with company policy for fire retardence, or because I have an allergy to the synthetic leather used in water resistant shoes I need for winter wear. If someone wore a leather belt and said "I like the way it looks better" it would be hard for most any vegan to agree that they are vegan. Vegans have a bit of commonsense and tolerance even tho some non-vegans would like to characterize us as (added later) petty and obcessed with minutia. --Nomenclator 15:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This section is rather confusing to read. I wish people would use the indent feature properly, in order to create a properly flowing dialogue. Anyway, I have no problem with veganism being referred to as strict or pure vegetarianism. I have frequently encountered people who use those terms in order to explain veganism to non-vegetarians more easily. And after all, the word "vegetarian" originally meant what the word "vegan" means today, so, in a way, it's taking it back to it's roots. Nomenclator, I agree with you that not all vegans are 100% strict or anal about removing ALL animal products from their lives... But I'm sure you agree that pursuit of veganism would ideally lead one to a totally animal-free life, and I believe that "pure" vegans have to exist, in order to prove the viability of the animal-free lifestyle model. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 16:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was using the indent properly. Hyperflux wrote "I have frequently encountered people who use those terms in order to explain veganism to non-vegetarians more easily." That suggests that the terms are oversimplifications. Vegans are strict vegetarians, but they are much more than that. All vegans are strict vegetarians, but not all strict vegetarians are vegan. Period. That is why the terms should not be interchanged without further explanation. A vegan is a kind of strict vegetarian who 1. is a vegetarian for reasons of avoiding harm to animals (as opposed to primarily for his/her own better health or primarily for any other reason), and 2. Carries their avoidance of harm to animals to all aspects of their life, as far as they themselves evaluate as reasonably possible. Which brings us to the subject of "pure" vegans. Equating pure vegans with all vegans gives people the impression that we are obcessed with minutia. Indeed, this is a frequent characteristic of vegans, including myself. However it is not part of the definition of vegan. It also makes us seem petty. Frankly, I am trying to avoid being "penny wise and pound foolish" even though my natural tendency is to be penny wise and pound foolish - searching for every drop of gelatin, or inquiring of one manufacturer after another whether the stearic acid at the end of an ingredient list, is animal or vegetable in origin. It we spend so much time on details like this - which I admit I personally love to do, even tho I am improving in this regard and doing it less - we miss the big picture, and we have less time for presenting the big picture to others. For example if in the past I had worried about the fraction of a millimeter of gelatin covering my photographic film, I could not have shown dozens of people photos of my wonderful vegan garden, and impress them with how impressive it was. I tended to obsess about it, but I eventually made a decision for just myself, personally, that it wasn't worth obsessing about the few milligrams of gelatin, and that showing the pictures would do more good. That is not the same as saying I buy Jell-o - which I estimate contains 100 if not thousands of times as much gelatin as a roll of 35 mm film.--Nomenclator 18:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

All, most, many, or some

All, most, many, or some. At first it was claimed all. Now the article says most. In my opinion, unless you can cite specif reliable source that indicates that more than 50% avoid products that have been tested, it is best to say that "some" vegans avoid products that have been tested on animals. Indeed, some take veganism to this extreme. I might myself, if I had more time and money to spend on tedious research. But I don't think most do. I have heard many vegans say they simply can't afford the higher prices that are usually charged for products labeled as being not being tested on animals. And again, if you are going to eschew products that have been tested on animals, you are going to be eschewing most prescription drugs, and many non-prescription drugs, and all of the new drugs developed in the last 25 to 50 years, since which time governments have required testing, by law. This includes ibuprofen, humulin, Nexium, Lyrica, gabapentin, diphenhydramine, oxycodone (but not morhpine), hydrocodone (but not codeine), birth control pills, synthetic steroids (to relieve asthma, allergies), drugs used to relieve too much urine, too little urine, drugs used to relieve sore eyes, to control herpes, all antibiotics, drugs used to anesthesize people for surgery. Or are you going to avoid just cosmetics that have been tested on animals, but be willing to take prescription drugs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Every single vegan I know (and that's dozens) tries to eliminate using products that were tested on animals. Obviously this isn't always possible, especially in terms of medical drugs etc. However, many cosmetic/household products are marked as not having been tested on animals. (at least, this is the case in the UK) and every vegan I know chooses those over products that do not make such claims. As a vegan, I admit I have probably used products that were been tested on animals. However, it is my opinion that animal testing should be abolished, and I think that everyone calling themselves vegan should feel the same way. So I think the page should say "although vegans are against animal testing, most/many realise/feel that boycotting all animal tested products is currently impractical or impossible.". - Hyperflux ^(talk) 20:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest possibly replacing;

Most vegans refrain from supporting industries that use animals directly or indirectly, such as circuses and zoos, and will not use products that are tested on animals.

With something like;

Although vegans are against animal testing, some feel that boycotting all animal tested products is currently impractical or impossible, especially in medical areas, where many life-saving drugs are tested on animals. Vegans refrain from supporting industries that use animals directly, such as circuses and zoos.

- Hyperflux ^(talk) 20:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

You will need some citation to back this up. Something from Vegan Outreach might fit the bill as they tend to be pragmatic. Kellen ^T 21:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

American Vegan Society was the first in the US

Since the early 1960's. Founder Jay Dinshah travlled the globe, giving scores if not 100's of lectures at various vegetarian societies. The AVS also published Ahimsa. Probably we would not have veganism without the prodigious efforts of the AVS. The AVS headquarters was visited by Albert Schweitzer who spoke of how his western concept of "reverence for life" was identical to the eastern concept of Ahimsa. To minimize the contribution of the Am V Soc is really really wrong. The vegan orgs of today, esp those in the US, are all standing on its shoulders.

http://www.americanvegan.org/resources/out_of_the_jungle.htm http://www.ivu.org/news/oct2000/dinshah.html http://www.vegsource.com/jo/vegan.htm "In 1960, the American Vegan Society was born in the United States, founded by Jay Dinshah. It wholly embraced, and continues to embrace, the principles of its British predecessor, advocating a strictly plant-based diet and lifestyle free of animal products. In addition, the American Vegan Society promotes the philosophy of Ahimsa, a Sanskrit word interpreted as "dynamic harmlessness," along with advocating service to humanity, nature and creation. In other words, in order to practice veganism, it is not sufficient to simply avoid specific foods and products; it is necessary to actively participate in beneficial selfless action as well." JoAn Stepaniak, VegSource. --Nomenclator 13:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

While the vegan society (UK) had always linked veganism with about being not harming animals, the AVS made the link crystal clear, repeatedly. Nor was there any disgreement from the VS about this. If you were merely eschewing animal food and esp if you were eschewing animal food for health reasons, then you are dietarily a vegan, but you are not a vegan. To be defined as a vegan you needed to have some sort of idea that it was better, for us, for the animals, not to eat animals. That not killing or causing animals to suffer was a better way to live, because violence was not a good thing, unless it was absolutely necessary to protect your own well-being or that of your family and friends. To be a vegan, it wasn't enough to want to have better health. You could fram the difference in terms of spirituality: it is against my religion to kill animals. But you had to have some other motivation other than mere improvement of personal health, to be defined as being vegan. While there may be a few professed vegans who think differntly, I believe we have to consider this a movement with a leadership rather than something that is defined merely by what the majority does. If not for the leadership, there would hardly be more vegans today, than there were in 1960. While orgs such as PETA may have thrown out the word vegan, without making it clear, and led some people who are strict vegetarian only for health reasons, to believe they are vegan the fact that PETA is an animal rights org supports my position that veganism is primarily about bringing all sentient beings, as the Buddhists call them, into our area of care and concern. The Jains and Buddhists and Hindus do this because by shutting off the sentience of others, you shut off your own, and detach yourself from the oneness of all things. The vegans, while generally agreeing with this, don't require you to have such a spiritual idea to be defined as a vegan. It merely requires that you don't want to cause any more harm and suffering, for whatever reason; you don't have to have a self-improvement reason such as that promulagated by the Jains, Hindus, and Buddhist vegetarians.

To fully understand veganism in the US and really the rest of the world too, you have to see a few of the many issues of Ahimsa that were published by the Am Vegan Society. Also note that, as an example, the Earthly Origin of Commercial Materials Educational Organization has kept this connection open. Vegetarianism and veganism in the west has a historical connection with shakahara in the East that needs to be emphasised, not ignored. We owe recognition and respect to those that went before us, with the same idea, no matter where they were located. We can't pretend that wow, we just thought of this all by ourselves, or that we were the first to think of something that really 1000's of people have thought of, before us. --Nomenclator 13:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete other people's comments, even if they corrective. Also, it's bad form to go back and edit old comments. Add a new comment, don't revise old ones. Kellen ^T 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete anyone else's comments. Not that I am aware of. Who made you Emily Post, anyway? --Nomenclator 14:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You deleted mine. Click the link. Our community is maintained by everybody including me demanding others behave in accordance with community standards. Kellen ^T 15:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No Harm (ahimsa)

This is so obvious, that it doesn't need citation, but I included one anyway. To be defined as a vegan, you have to have as at least one of your reasons for avoiding animal products be that you don't wish to harm animals. If you are thinking that you merely don't wish to harm yourself with unhealthy food, than you may be dietarily a vegan, but you are not a vegan. I don't need justification from any other editor to make this claim. I have been a vegan for 40 years and know what I am talking about. Plus I spent time associating with Freya and Jay Dinshah in the late 60's and early 70's and later in the mid 80's. They are the founders of the vegan movement in the US. The parents.--Nomenclator 14:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Veganism (also known as strict vegetarianism or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that avoids using animals and animal products for food, clothing and other purposes because they don't want to harm them"

That sentence currently makes little sense, first of all veganism is called a philosophy, in the singular, and then "because they..." moves into the plural. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 15:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, what's the point in that sentence saying "because they don't want to harm them", when the fact that vegans care about animal well-being is covered shortly after by this? -- "People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns for animal rights or the environment, as well as more personal reasons such as perceived health benefits and spiritual or religious concerns." - Hyperflux ^(talk) 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is covered a bit later, but by definition, unless included among your motivations is a motivation to avoid causing harm to animals, you are not a vegan. The way it was, avoidance of harm to animals was described as an optional reason to be vegan. But unless you have this as a reason, you are not, by definiation, vegan, whether you have other reasons for being vegan in addition, or not. It belongs in the first defining sentence, that you must have avoidance of harm as a motivation, in order to be defined as vegan. I agree the grammar is wrong. I tried to correct the grammar before, but it was changed back by someone to the erroneous grammar.--Nomenclator 16:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete any of yoru comments Kellen. I don't know what link you are talking about.--Nomenclator 16:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You did. The red parts are the changed/deleted parts. Kellen ^T 17:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any "red" parts.--Nomenclator 18:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Carotene and retinol

Please present a citation that shows that vegans are more susceptible to vitamin A deficiency, or remove the sentence or sentences that makes this claim. There is no support of this idea anywhere, as far as I know. It is mere speculation.

I am trying to bring this article out of the swamp of repetition of absurd rumors, and popular mythology. --Nomenclator 16:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unshellaced fruits

I'm sorry, but the statement that "all unshellaced fruits are vegan" is untrue, and ridiculous. A fruit that had been covered with whale oil is no more vegan than a fruit covered in insect lac. Further, materials not made from insect lac, are often referred to as shellac, anyway, despite not fitting the exact definition of shellac. Can't we just have a picture of fruit and say "fruit is vegan?" Huh? this is ridiculous the way it is, and sound like something a non-vegan would say to try and convince people that vegans are obsessed with minutia and are petty.--Nomenclator 17:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll change it then.--Nomenclator 05:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted Nomenclator (talk · contribs) changes again

I reverted Nomenclator's edits to the article once more.

If a person adopts a vegan diet motivated only by perceived health benefits, then they do not fit the definition of a vegan.

Wrong. As cited in the article. People become vegan for many reasons.

Yes they become vegan for a variety of reasons, but unless one of them is to avoid harm to animals, they have not become vegan. It is a defining attribute of a vegan. I provided numerous citations for that assertion. You are wrong. You also returned the gramattical error that Hyperflux complained about.--Nomenclator 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

However products not obtained by hunting, trapping, or animal husbandry, from animals that have been long dead and were not killed by humans, for example sea shells, fossil fuels, and limestone deposits, are generally acceptable for use by vegans. While most vegans try to avoid killing earthworms when gardening, by not turning the soil more than is necessary, they gen.................

Uncited soapboxing and rather unnecessary to the article.

It is not soapboxing. It further elucidates what it means to be vegan, with more details and examples.--Nomenclator 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

being completely and totally vegan is difficult, or can only be attained, in this day and age, by divorce from the industrialized world and complete subsistence living.

Essay material.

There was already "essay" material there. All I did was fix grammatical and ::syntax errors in the existing essay material.

plants, and are acceptable for use as food by vegans. Some vegans will avoid fruit that has been coated with an animal-origin oil, however, because it is often very difficult to determine exactly what produce distributors have done to produce in order to prolong its salability, other vegans have decided that focusing on minutia such as thin coatings of whale oil, is "penny wise and pound foolish." The (enormous) amount of time needed to determine what each shipment of numerous different kinds of fruits may be coated with, from one day to the next, may be better spent educating people about factory farming, or speaking out against whaling

Uncited soapboxing. (though I agree the part about shellac should be removed)

William Harris MD argues, in The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism, that to be consistant with nomenclature used for the other vitamins, carotene should be called vitamin A, and that retinol is a metabolite of vitamin A (carotene) that is produced by animals. He argues that carotene is more than sufficient. http://www.vegsource.com/harris/sci_basis.htm. You'll have to buy the book.He also says that "A properly designed vegan diet meets the RDAs for all essential nutrients, save vitamin B-12." http://www.vegsource.com/harris/supplements.htm

Provide an actual citation of the book. "You'll have to buy the book" doesn't cut it. Linking to a page praising the book isn't the same as citing the book itself. Kellen ^T 07:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin A, Carotene

I removed the part about vegans being in danger of a vitamin A deficiency. The source cited for this, http://www.purifymind.com/NutritionalVege.htm, is not a reliable source. This is someone at a company, Nutrition International Company, perhaps selling vitamin supplements, not someone you would rely on to have a neutral point of view. Please find a peer-reviewed study if you want to return this claim. All the info I have seen shows that beta-carotene, the chemical most frequently found, and found in abundance, in plant material, is easily converted into retinol, except by a few people with rare metabolic disorders. Further, beta-carotene is in such huge abundance in yellow and green vegetables that anyone who eats even a fraction of the recommended number of servings is sure to get much more carotene than they need. Vegans tend to eat more vegetables than many non vegans. Also, once converted to retinol, retinol is stored for long periods of time, so you do not need to eat vegetables every day to get sufficient retinol into storage. That source was just ridiculous. In any case the article cited does not say that vegans are at risk of vit a deficiency. It says that "Some individuals with adequate intake of beta-carotene [emphasis mine] experienced vitamin A deficiency because consumption of insufficient amount of fat together with carotene-rich vegetables, and dietary deficiencies in iron and zinc. Thus, vegetarians are urged to consume dark colored leafy vegetables with some fat, also inactivated yeasts, spices, peas..." Vegetarians and vegans are likely to be consuming leafy greens, and fat. In re to leafy greens, more so than average.--Nomenclator 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Harm to animals

The memorandum cited at the beginning of the first sentence supports my contention that to be a vegan your motivation must include a wish to avoid harming animals. It states "In this Memorandum the word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension..." Note the phrase doesn't say exclusion of the use of animals, it says exclusion of exploitation and cruelty to animals.

--Nomenclator 13:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

vegan fruit

No fruit is not vegan. People are vegan. Plants that bear fruit subsist on a diet of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, which they get from the air, certain nitrogen compounds they get from the soil, phosphorous, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and sulfur, from the soil, and a bunch of micronutrients they get from the soil. Certain plants also "consume" or at least trap insects, in order to extract nitrogen compounds from the insects. These plants would be carnivores, and therefore non-vegan, if the term vegan could be applied to plants. This included plants that have flowers that trap insects, and plants whose seeds (such a peas) produce sticky substances that trap soil-living insects, thus providing a little nitrogen boost for the plant, during germination, as the insects soon die, and soil-living bacteria cause the insects to decay, making nitrogen compounds avail to the pea plant. --Nomenclator 14:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the caption means that all fruits are SAFE for vegans to consume. Just like a "Vegetarian Pizza" is safe for vegetarians, not made with vegetarians. Would you argue that eating, for example, a Venus Flytrap is a non-vegan act? --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Get off your butt

Could someone please change the "all fruit is vegan" caption? See my "vegan fruit" note above. Get off your ass and do something. I don't want to be the only one around here doing all the factual writing, and all the removal of absurd popular mythology and deliberate "dis-information." And I certainly don't want to be looking for citations all by myself, and going to public libraries all by myself to hunt for reference sources.

If anyone has old Ahimsa periodicals, it would be nice if you could scann their tables of contents and put them on an ftp site somewhere (i'll volunteer the disk space and give you a user name and password for uploads) so I can find ones with material for citing. Due to space restrictions, I had to discard all my 100's of old newsprint issues when I downsized from a farmhouse to a tiny condo.

Again, not all fruit is vegan. Some plants eat meat in addition to aerial substances and soil substances.

--Nomenclator 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If people aren't making changes (or, more specifically, aren't making your changes), calling them lazy isn't going to help. You may want to have a look at the etiquette page. As to the issue of citation, if you feel that a section requires more or better citation, you can tag it as explained in tagging unsourced material. That is a better (or at least, closer to the standard etiquette) way of asking people to help with citations and reference sources. Lastly, repeating over and over the same comments in different sections of the talk page makes it difficult to follow the discussion as it risks being spread across the entire page instead of being isolated to one thread. --Cpoupart (talk•contribs) 19:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin A, carotene, citation

Acc to Dr. William Harris, from The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism, on the web here, http://www.vegsource.com/harris/sci_basis/CHAP1.pdf avail from page here http://www.vegsource.com/harris/book_contents.htm

"Beta-carotene is usually called pro-vitamin A and retinol is called "Vitamin A". I believe this is an error on the part of the nutritional establishment. Two molecules of retinol, an essential hormone-like metabolite required for skin, vision, and reproduction, are formed in the body by enzymatically splitting one molecule of beta-Carotene, a photosynthetic plant pigment interacting with chlorophyll and found in green leafy vegetables. This being so retinol fails the definition of vitamin. Beta-carotene should be called the true Vitamin A. It is synthesized only by plants. Retinol is synthesized only by animals, but there can be no retinol in the animal kingdom unless somewhere in the food chain there is an animal eating plant beta-Carotene.

--Nomenclator 17:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nomenclator, the article currently implies that vitamin A is only found in animal products. That is simply untrue. Palm oil, for example, is an excellent vegan source of vitamin A... There are plenty of vegan sources of vitamin A, as shown here -- [9] - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is misleading and incorrect to say that retinol is the "true" form of vitamin a. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is also incorrect to say that plants do not contain vitamin A, as the link I provided earlier explains. Retinol may be easier to absorb, but it's not "the true form" of vitamin A. The whole section about vitamin A is erroneous. I am going to remove it. - Hyperflux ^(talk) 13:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)