Be Excellent To Each Other

Hello

I'm just wondering if someone could help clarify where vegans might stand on the wearing of animal fibres such as wool and silk. Also, what about pearls? Further on from that I wondered if vegans ate bread and other foodstuffs containing yeast? I assume that vegans do not eat honey, either?

Does anyone have any advice on this as I saw a vegan friend wearing a bracelet containing pearls once and asked her about it and she got a little distressed and said that it was something that she had never considered before and it made me feel really bad for asking

I thought vegans didn't wear any animal fibres, although there is probably "grades" of veganism. Isn't yeast a fungus, so it's OK to eat bread ( assuming there is no butter, milk or bacon in it ).

I'd never thought of pearls either. Seeing as the oyster has to die for you to get it out, I'd guess they'd avoid them.

They'd tend not to, to be honest. Although I don't think there are any particular rules, other than "if producing it was likely to cause animals suffering, avoid". Pearls, honey, silk would all fall under that category.

And, there's the "freegan" thing, where if you got it for free it's OK, as it was going to be thrown away anyway. However, in the latter case, if you go about wearing salvaged furs, people might well pass comment

About yeast and the like, that's stating to get into the realms of the silly IMO.

If you're vegan you've already crossed the line to silly.

I might be able to ask a mate, though it's been a while since I spoke to her.
Can't speak for all vegans but I know her mother makes everything from scratch so is very careful of what goes into their food..can't say I ever thought about clothes and jewellery tbh.
I would assume they steer clear of things like honey..more obvious..but only the..hm 'truest' of vegans would really consider what they wear.

I'm going to find her email and ask her now..I'm all curious.

Ooh. One of my best friends is a vegan, careful now - she'd rip your face off! With her hands. Anyway, she eats bread deffo, and knits so she has no beef with wool. ("But Pete, she's a vegan, how could she have a beef with anything?" - smug ed.) I do believe she eats honey as well, as she has no problem with insects, just animals and fish. So basically it comes down to milk and butter and stuff, other than the meats.

She bought a chilli bean bite yesterday, it was awful. Ingredients - '0.4% chilli bean'. Yeurch.

If you're ever in Cardiff, try the Vegetarian Food Studios, they're incredibly lush and even a meat-eater like me loves their vegan food. Aubegine curries ftw!

Or have dietary issues / allergies etc. of a considerable enough nature, like with several folks I know.

Dudley is right - I was a vegan for 3.5 years and it was most definitely silly.

Hey I really agree. Just don't say it out loud, okay? She has a way of finding these things out...

I assumed that it was accepted that I was excluding anyone doing it for those reasons.



Ever dared ask her why milk is contemptible cruelty but wool isn't?

This is mostly why I was asking - it seemed strange to me that on one hand what she ate was so carefully considered, but what she wore hadn't quite crossed her mind. I emailed a friend of mine who is a vegan and knits - she doesn't mind knitting with wool - would prefer it if she could afford it.

I have never heard of 'freegans' - that concept is, frankly, astounding.

No, but I'd hazard a guess that sheep by nature are free range and we just pop along now and again and sheer them at a time when they'd be uncomfortable with big thick coats. Whilst with cattle after their dairy-fun life they get knocked on the head, and it's a lot more industrial. Or something. I don't know, really.

It's pretty much the same wonderment I have at all the vegetarians that wear leather shoes.

Isn't it blindingly obvious that sheep aren't slain for their wool, but other animals are for their fur?

Sigh.

Wouldn't it be excellent, if, for once, such a discussion could be had without immediately defaulting into smug condescension against anyone who tries, for whatever reason, to minimise their consumption of farmed products?

Indeed.

I mean, I try to tell them that roadkill is delicious, but will anyone try my pan fried badger in white wine sauce?

Yes, that is blindingly obvious, but I don't think that anyone bought this up. Sheep may not be slain for their wool, but cattle aren't slain for their milk, either. What I was asking is whether vegans may wear wool or silk gathered from an animal if they will not consume milk gathered from a creature.

When I bought up the question over leather it was because I have known many vegetarians to be firmly against eating the meat of a cow (which, yes, it is slain for) but will wear shoes for which an animal was slain to give it's skin.

Kalmar, I wasn't trying to be smug asking the question, and I am sorry if it came out that way - I hand-make jewellery and use real pearls in my work, so it's something that I have been thinking about recently as to whether to start using faux pearls more often. I also design and knit items, which is why the question of wool and silk came into it, also.

See:

Pearl cloud earrings:


Bracelets with both pearls and coral:


Llama wool hat:


Incidentally - anyone who ever wondered if that should try to hot wash Llama wool to felt it - don't. Imagine the biggest smelliest dog you have ever seen. Now, imagine taking it for a run - a long, long run in hot weather, for about a week. Now imagine that dog jumping in a stagnant pool.

This would not come close to hot, wet llama wool.

Not true for all pearl harvesting - Linky

Besides - pearls are big crusty bogies, right? Even vegans eat bogies, I bet.

Ulp.

I guess eating less meat is a laudable aim, particularly as the grain that goes to feed livestock could be feeding people.

(BTW, doesn't a Paleolithic diet sound like fun?)

Most vegans I've known would point-blank refuse to wear leather. I imagine those that thought about it would refuse wool, silk, and so forth, on the same grounds as refusing dairy - it's an animal product taken without consent.

I should also add I agree with Dudley, it's silly.

Do you mean animal products? There's nothing anti-farming about veganism.

Not entirely true. Male calves that dairy cows give birth to are shot upon birth, so the milk industry does indirectly cause cattle slayage.

That's not quite what I am saying, though. You are not slaying that male calf for it's milk, though I understand that it is dying for the industry, but these are the technicalities that I am wondering about. Is there a standard of veganism that holds some general 'rules' as to what is not to be eaten or worn/used. Also, then, would it make a difference if it were cow or goat/sheep milk?

Also, what about free-range farmed eggs - not fertilised so there is no loss of life for the product to be made (I think). i didn't think that it was a question of whether an animal died for it's produce for vegans, though - just that they rejected all animal produce.

See, this is why I asked - I am full of questions but no-one, not even the couple of vegans I actually know, seem to have considered these things properly, and now I am more confused that when I first asked

Ah. I have no idea, then. I'd imagine it depends on the vegan; my flatmate won't eat animal products but thinks animal testing is perfectly ace. As far as I'm aware there's no universal vegan standard.

From Wikipedia -

"Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. Vegans do not use or consume animal products of any kind."

The first 2 sentences of the entry.

From Dictionary.com, citing the American Heritage Dictionary -

"n. A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather. "

Fairly unambiguous, I'd have thought.

Yes, well I started out thinking that and then found out that my wool-loving pearl wearing vegan friends were simply put on earth to confuse me.

Maybe they are just lax vegans

I'd imagine that anyone who would complain at a vegan for 'not doing it properly' is someone whom it is fairly safe to ignore.

EDIT - That's not aimed at people questioning, like in Mimi's post, but at people saying "you're not a real vegan, you eat/wear/copulate with XYZ".

Does anywhere supply vegan-friendly "organic" wool I wonder? There really is no good reason you can't obtain wool from sheep that are well cared after and live full happy lives. I grew up spending weekends on a friend's family sheep farm (I am Welsh after all) and have a fair bit of experience as to what is involved in shearing. It's not unpleasant for the animal.

I guess you can do the same thing for milk too with enough effort. Modern dairy farming contains icky elements, certainly (culling slow-milking cows; using the calves for veal; growth hormones) but it's none of these things are necessary, just more profitable. If your veganism is rooted in moral complaints at animal cruelty then I'm sure it is possible to cater to your needs. Wonder if there are enough (rich) vegans to make it economically feasible...

Going back to the idea of just outright rejecting all animal produce, as per the wikipedia definition, that seems rather blinkered to me. Perhaps fifteen years ago it was very hard to determine for sure if a given brand of, say, wool was produced with no harm to the animals but today with the modern growth of organic branding it seems like it would be entirely possible to allow yourself some animal derived products in confidence that the animals didn't undergo any hardship for it. Wool is a prime example of this.

I think a lot of the time it is because people simply haven't considered things like pearl and coral to be animal in origin. I can imagine people might just pick up a piece of jewellery and thing 'oooh, shiny!' and never consider the animal processes that go towards making it - I certainly haven't up until now. Wool, too. Wool seems like such an everyday material, so common in clothing, that I hadn't ever considered that it might be compromising to any vegan customers and whether I should make my stuff more vegan friendly, even though I do not like the qualities of glass or plastic pearls, or acrylic yarn.

i'm really not trying to make light of this - it is quite an important issue to me at the moment and something I am giving careful consideration to.

Which is why I used the example of milk, not wool.

Incidentally I believe if you don't milk a dairy cow very nasty things happen, so it's exactly analogous with the wool.



Except if they don't drink milk but wear wool that's exactly not what they're doing. They're making the choice based on ignorance to make themselves feel smug.



Isn't that completely stupid though? That means it'd be perfectly sensible for me to claim to be vegan. Oh sure I eat animals and drink milk but if you tell me I'm not doing it properly apparently you're the idiot.

It's perfectly legitimate to call people out on hypocrisy, especially when it's abundantly clear they haven't thought about it at all.



Accepted but if you do use this magic organic friendly animal product, you're still by definition not a vegan.



Indeed, it's a shame that most people making a major life choice on that basis couldn't be bothered to do the same thing.

I'm a strict vegetarian, and I've been considering veganism for a while. I don't know if I'd be able to do it though, it would be really difficult.

I've always considered a vegan to be someone who completely avoids animal products - that would include pearls and wool and so on. If someone does wear pearls or knit with wool, then I'd say they're not vegan - and that's fine, I think it's admirable that they're going to so much of an effort; it's just not the right label to apply to them.

Who should get to stop you? The Holy Council Of Vegan Elders? I can claim to be a mushroom if I want.

My understanding of veganism is that it's a moral rejection of the exploitation of animals, first and foremost, and some of them, ones I've encountered, would consider the argument that the animal was well treated on a par with the argument that slavery is fine as long as the slaves are well treated. This would obviouly be the more radical animal rights side, rather than the fluffy hippy side of veganism...

You can claim it all you like but that's not what you said. You said anyone who dared point out you weren't a mushroom is the kind of person everyone should ignore.

Given a good number of vegans, especially this kind, love their "moral superiority" stance, calling them out for being stupid, hypocritical fuckwits seems entirely justified.



I should perhaps add that while *I* still think it's a silly position, I can absolutely respect it as a choice if the appropriate thought has been put in.

Certainly, Richard, there are far more ethical wool farms and farming methods.

The absolute nicest wool I can think of is merino wool.


The problem is, merino sheep suffer from black fly, which is countered by a procedure called 'mulesing' which is a painful procedure involving cutting off the folds of skin near the back legs and around the sheep's rear. Animal welfare agree that this is far kinder to the animal than a bout of black fly, which is rife in any warm country, but animal rights protesters cause havock at the farms where this takes place. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't in some cases, I guess.

On the other hand there are some absolutely lovely sheep farms out there making great wool with very much cared-for animals.

Then again, the Wiki page quoted simply says someone who uses and eats no animal produce at all so I guess it is one of those ideals that has no definitive set of rules.

EDIT: OH - there appear to have been about ten posts in the time it took me to type that out - it was in response to RichardGaywood talking about 'vegan-friendly' farming of sheep.

Yeah, I just read about mulesing which (as it only occurs in hotter countries) is definitely not something I've come across in Wales! The page I read discusses why vegans shouldn't use wool; most of them, it seems to me, are related to husbandry and are addressable in the right farming conditions. The thing about sheep getting exposure is harder to address. Heated barns, perhaps.

And as long as we have people running around the world in leather shoes eating fish I think we have to accept that "vegetarian" and "vegan" are labels that people self-apply under different definitions, and that dictionary definitions are perhaps not that useful. What percentage of people who call themselves vegan meet the (very strict) definitions of the wikipedia page? That's why I'm not all that interested in the defintion of the word; I'd rather talk about whether you can make money selling ethical wool.

Yes, I agree - it's not a definition of 'the word' that I was really looking for - I was hoping to gather opinion and see if there was some kind of general consensus as to what vegans might think of these issues so that I can set myself some kind of standard in my items for my shop.

I'd have to disagree with that. I wish everyone had the same definition of vegetarianism and veganism, it would make it a lot easier to shop and to eat out! I'm sick of food containing fish being labeled vegetarian on menus, or being served fish if I'm eating at a friend's house. Labels can be useful.

Most vegans I've met would meet those criteria. I've known some who've applied even stricter criteria, only eating vegetables that have been grown locally (they were doing thsi over 20 years ago, well before the current trend for such things). I think it's rather hard to stay healthy that way though...
Non-leather boots and the like are fairly easily available, as is non-wool clothing. I have to say it surprises me that someone commited enough to become vegan wouldn't have found out that pearls and coral are animal products though.
Whilst these terms are self-applied, they are still terms with specific meanings, and if someone misuses them I think one is entitled to call the out on it.

I would say that anything labelled "vegan-friendly" should contain no animal products whatsoever. If you were to label something with wool in it, even if it were proven to be ethically sourced, you may well upset some vegans.

How do they feel about pets?

Maybe, but then I guess it is still a matter of personal choice. If someone wants to wears pearls but still sees themselves a vegan, I wouldn't want to 'call them out' on it to in any way accuse them of being a hypocrite. When I asked my friend about the pearls in her bracelet I wasn't doing it in the fashion of 'if you call yourself a vegan, why do you wear those' but rather why veganism appeared to allow some forms of animal produce but not others.

I've never known fish to be labelled 'vegan/vegetarian' - that seems, frankly, ignorant. I know that some people follow a diet of not land animals but will still eat fish (a 'piscean' diet, perhaps?), sometimes citing that fish have no central nervous system and so can't feel pain and so see a distinction (is this correct or am I mis-informed here?) but to include fish in a vegetarian menu seems almost ridculous.

Exactly, there aren't "varied" definitions of veggie and vegan. There's a real definition and a lot of people who want the smugness of claiming to be one of those two without actually doing it.

People who eat fish but otherwise follow a vegetarian diet are pescetarians. And the fish thing happens quite a lot - I worked in a supermarket briefly where, at the salad bar, tuna and sweetcorn was labelled vegetarian.

If 50% of the population defines a term one way, and the dictionary another, are the people wrong or the dictionary? What if it's 80%, or 99%? Words only get their meanings through consensus, and consensus can change those definitions over time.

Edit -- additionally, someone who as given up meat, fish, diary, and leather but is wearing a woollen jumper has done a hell of a lot more than I have as a typical slobby consumer; shouldn't they be able to call themselves something? If they feel smug, well, perhaps they have a right to do so even if they don't meet the strictest defintion of "vegan".

You know, that's a very good question, and one I've never asked. I'm not in close contact with anyone vegan at the moment, but if I do talk to one I shall ask.



I guess it depends on the person involved. Most vegans I've known have come from the anarchist punk scene, and could be fairly agressive in promoting their views. They would be the ones calling out someone who claimed to be vegan, but wore an animal product. With the people I've known it's seemed to be a very intense and extreme philosophy, not something one could do casually. Maybe it's different for others.

edited to reply to this -


Yes, they have. I would find it strange that someone would give up dairy or honey, for example, but not wool, and be interested to know what distinction they made between them. I wouldn't be criticising them for it.

Not so loud, you don't know the powers they have!

And if they are OK with pets, what about these? I'm not being fatuous here -- I'm fascinated by people who can see the world in such stark shades of black and white. I can't, to me everything has at least some grey. I suspect this may be my failing, not theirs, but I'm not sure; it seems to me that the self-confidence that comes from such unbending idealism leads to both Rosa Parks and Hitler, depending on the person in question.

Or to put it another way: "the reasonable man bends to conform to the world, whereas the unreasonable man expects the world to bend to him. Hence all change depends on unreasonable men."

Kudos to my vegan friend in that she is resolutely non-pushy about veganism. In fact she hasn't raised the issue once aside from reminding me that she can't eat certain things when we're ordering in restaurants, or I'm cooking food. I think she's okay with pets too.

Me: What? Not even Minstrels?
Her: No, not even Minstrels.
Me: But they're Minstrels! C'mon!
Her: No. Wow! Look at her, she's got twonk legs!*

Definitely not an activist. My sister's vegetarian with the exception of her eating fish. She went vege aged 10 and it was a deal she made with mum and dad, whereby she would agree to eat fish for nutrition's sake, as she had a bit of a bad diet back then. Marmite saw her through, though.

*Not as bad as it sounds. It's an in-joke we have.

There are people who would consider that on a par with wearing human skin. I think they would fit quite nicely into your black-or-white category! Certainly, the strong animal rights supporters consider themselves to be in the same category as Rosa Parks, although speaking for those that cannot speak for themselves, and consider that in years to come livestock farming will be seen as abhorrent. I imagine keeping pets probably would be against that philosophy, but I've nothing to back that up with at the moment.