ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Many animal protection groups distribute literature telling people how to go vegan without actually using the word "vegan" in the title. While they know that going vegan is an easy, tasty, and healthy way to make the world a better place they also believe that other people have the mistaken belief that going vegan is too hard. Rather than scare such people away they distribute "vegan" literature labeled as "vegetarian".

Last September I found a table staffed by In Defense Of Animals at the Charlottesville Virginia Vegetarian Festival. This group distributes a vegan starter kit titled Vegan Starter Kit

From the FAQ on the linked website.

What is a vegan?

A vegan is someone who chooses not to eat any food that comes from animals (i.e., meat, dairy and eggs).

If they are talking about what a person eats, then that is vegetarian and should be labeled as such. Also, the answer to the question, "What are the reasons to be vegan?" makes it clear that with the term "vegan diet" that they are in fact talking about a vegetarian diet.

Please see my blog posts on Labeling Product 'Vegan' and why Veganism is the Reason for the diet, and not the actual diet itself.

I guess you'd have to place me in the category of those doing a disservice to veganism by using the term to designate a strictly vegetarian diet. One reason I don't mind this is that I don't see how you can adhere to a strict vegetarian diet w/o bringing that same awareness to the rest of your life. I think those who do are anomalies, and we shouldn't restrict our use of the word "vegan" based on them.

What matters to me is that the concept of veganism is de-marginalized. Shrinking from using the word because it is off-putting, because people are more likely to listen if you just call it vegetarianism, is the real disservice, in my opinion. Literature that essentially encourages veganism (it's my impression that they usually include other forms of consumption and use, although they emphasize dietary consumption), yet always calls it "vegetarianism," is dangerous. Even when you explain what "vegetarianism" actually means, as opposed to "ovo-lacto-vegetarianism," what do people remember, after having read such pamphlets? Do they remember each detail, or do they remember the label, which is screaming at them from the cover of the publication?

They latch onto the label "vegetarianism," which they have traditionally understood to mean ovo-lacto-vegetarianism. And they think that in becoming this type of vegetarian, they are becoming animal rights advocates. Will they go further to cut out dairy & egg products if they think it's acceptable just to cut out eating meat? Again, you can try to disabuse them of the notion that "vegetarianism" is not meant to include dairy & egg products, but will they accept you as the authority on the matter, when most others are using the term in its modern incarnation?

We now have a bunch of ovo-lacto-vegetarians who are propagating the myth that you can believe in animal rights while blatantly exploiting them in the most visible manner possible. And this means that everyone still thinks that those who go further, those freakish vegans, are admirable but unnecessarily extreme. In fact, they may think that we are the ones doing the movement a disservice by turning people off, by making it seem more difficult than it has to be.

This publication, I admit, concentrates too much on the dietary aspect, and on the factory farm aspect. But there is no advocacy of either "humane consumption" or welfare reform. And it does explain:

What is the meaning of "animal rights"?

Animal rights is a philosophy and movement founded on compassion for animals and the right of all beings to live free from exploitation. Animals, like humans, experience pain and pleasure. Whatever happens to an animal – whether she is confined or free, neglected or nurtured – means a world of difference to her, even if it matters to no one else. Recognizing this, animal rights advocates maintain that animals exist not for our use but for themselves, and that we do not have the right to intentionally exploit, hurt and kill animals simply because we are able.

I'd like to see a better representation of veganism, of course. But mainly, I'm glad someone has the guts to stop trying to mislead people into becoming vegan. We need to stop marginalizing veganism, and making it sound like respecting animals can be accomplished by anything but veganism.

This is my favorite Vegan Starter Guide:

The Friends Of Animals vegan starter kit has spurious nutrition information in it. They advocate raw foodism, which is based on beliefs that contradict scientific fact that has been established for centuries. At the best, I have seen articles about studies that show that *some* raw foodists "do okay" while being slight under weight. The Friends Of Animals makes a bad situation worse in their vegan starter kit by advocating that young people in particular should try raw foodism. Malnutrition during even the late teen years or early 20s can give people lasting negative effects for life. There is precious little other nutrition information in their booklet to boot.

No offense to the FOA or anyone here. That is just my opinion of their starter guide, not my opinion about them or anything else.

I have had many pro-vegan leaflets given back to me by people who have told me they gave veganism a try but gave it up because they felt shitty ( because they ate like crap, unknowingly while on it ).

Because of that I am very hard on vegan starter guides. It isn't just the FOA. I don't like PETA's either because they omit useful information ( I believe to make veganism look easier ).

FWIW, I think Vegan Outreach has the most complete starter guide in regards to vegan nutrition info. It is written by Jack Norris, a vegan RD.