ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Here is another vegan classic from the International Vegetarian Union website. This is an address given by Donald Watson at the 11th IVU World Vegetarian Congress 1947. Watson's lecture was preprinted so it could be circulated as a pamphlet on veganism.

VEGANISM
(Obtainable in pamphlet form from The Vegan Society, Rydal Lodge, Ambleside, Westmorland)
Chairman: Mr. DUGALD SEMPLE (Scotland)

Mr. DONALD WATSON (Leicester), said that the vegan believed that if they were to be true emancipators of animals they must renounce absolutely their traditional and conceited attitude that they had the right to use them to serve their needs. They must supply those needs by other means. Throughout history, whenever man had risen against cruelty and exploitation, he had benefited himself as well as those he had emancipated. That was the law of progress. Therefore further advantages would follow if we seriously tackle those cruelties upon which civilization was still so largely built. If the vegan ideal of non-exploitation were generally adopted it would be the greatest peaceful revolution ever known, abolishing vast industries and establishing new ones in the better interests of men and animals alike.

From careful deductions Mr. Watson said, they were able make four claims :-
(1) Veganism would establish for the first time a right relationship between man and animals.
(2) There would be a great improvement in health if man returned to his original frugivorous diet, therefore eliminating the risk of infection or poisoning arising from using animal food
(3) Veganism could abolish malnutrition and famine.
(4) Veganism could restore soil fertility throughout the world.

If these claims could be upheld, then it would be clear that some of their greatest problems today had their roots in the misuse of the animal.

The present relationship between man and animal was deplorable. Man has appointed himself lord and master over everything that breathed, and he had filled the world with millions of creatures for no other purpose than to exploit them for personal gain and kill them when it no longer served his purpose to keep them alive.

Referring to the physiological aspect of veganism Mr. Watson said it was not easy to understand why the orthodox dietician was taking so long to discard the superstition regarding the supposed need for animal food. The vegan certainly need not go short of starch, sugar, vitamins, fats, mineral salts or roughage, for plants were rich in all these factors. Thus the error was confined to protein. It was significant that human milk, which served to nourish man at the time when his growth was fastest, contained never more than 2 per cent. of protein. This suggested that our diet in later life should not exceed this percentage of protein, which could readily be supplied from plants. So easily could it be supplied that the vegan faced the same danger as the flesh-eater and the lacto-veget-arian in that he might take too much.

Few dieticians outside the vegan movement had tried living without animal food, or had made any serious attempt to solve the diet problem philosophically, as it must be solved. Without the guidance of philosophy scientific investigation soon floundered in a morass of error.

It was highly improbable that the earth could be made to produce enough food to give all its 2,000,000,000 inhabitants the mixed diet recommended by orthodox dieticians. On the other hand it was certain that Britain, more densely populated than India, and one of the most densely populated areas on earth, could become a food exporting country given a few years to develop vegan methods of agriculture.

Any system of diet or of agriculture which led to the progressive deterioration of the soil stood condemned, and veganism must be subjected to that test. But even under the present system all was not well with the soil. The position was so perilous that without an urgent scheme to provide more organic manure to replace chemical crop stimulants, the soil would soon be destroyed.

The difficulty arose because the law of return was not obeyed. There seemed no reason why the wastes of healthy vegan communities should not be used, and if all plant wastes were returned to the soil a healthy agriculture could be established without the use of the animal.

I bolded the fist paragraph because it's one of my favorite quotes. I think the claims made by Donald Watson were way ahead of his time. In many ways they are still ahead of the times. Surely we know more in 2007 than they did in 1947 about the health risks associated with consuming other animals. Yet dietitian still cling to the old ways.

When Watson wrote this speech there was two billion people on the planet, today there are more than three times that many people. Yet in 1947, the early members of the Vegan Society were talking about the other population crisis -- the billions of other animals bred to be exploited each year for human ends. Funny how you'll never hear the xenophobic nationalist leaders who condemn immigration and the rising population in the global south say anything about the rising population of commercially bred nonhuman animals.

The last claim shows how far the early vegan movement was ahead of the modern organic movement. I think serious advocates of organic produce need to be encouraged to promote vegan organic (veganic) farming. Likewise, I think there is a pressing need for health food chains, co-ops, farmers markets and local grocers who claim to take organic farming seriously to encourage the production veganic produce.

Another wonderful historical document. Keep them coming Daniel.

When you bolded the part: "Mr. DONALD WATSON (Leicester), said that the vegan believed that if they were to be true emancipators of animals they must renounce absolutely their traditional and conceited attitude that they had the right to use them to serve their needs.", this brought me back to a big discussion I am (not for the first time) having with some freegans. (Freegans are people who try and reduce their consumption by taking food from the dumpster or other places where they do not have to buy it). These freegans I'm talking with say there is no harm in wearing leather shoes, as long as they have not been BOUGHT, because as they are not buying them, they are not CONTRIBUTING to animal exploitation. (The word freegan actually COMES from "vegan" - but some of these people seem to have forgotten.)

Strangely enough, most of these freegans will not eat "meat" from the dumpster, but don't mind it if there is dairy, or eggs in the food they recuperate. So many people - vegetarians for example, or some of these freegans (not all thankfully - some freegans are REALLY REALLY vegans) have this FIXATION on "meat" - it drives me crazy - it's as if they make some kind of hierarchy between different animal exploitation. "Meat" is BAD - the rest of animal products is sort of okay in some special circumstances, they seem to think. I suppose a lot of them are utilitarians. (Utilitarian theory gives me the creeps. It really makes my blood run cold.)

Anyway, these so-called freegans sometimes even CALL themselves vegans, because they do not ACTIVELY contribute to animal exploitation. They say "yup, I'm vegan"... and then you see them wearing a woolen hat, or eating some stuff that has some animal product in it. It's kind of mind-boggling. Why don't they call themselves vegetarians???

I can't get my head around it. I really really can't.

Anyway, what reminded me of this on-going and never-ending "debate" we are having, is when Watson says: "true emancipators of animals must renounce absolutely their ..... attitude that they had the right to use them to serve their needs". That sums up PRECISELY what I'm trying to get across to these people (who are also active in the animal rights movement). Will have to send them an email right now. (*Diana goes off to write her email*).

Diana, I feel the same way about freegans who continue to consume and use animal by-products. The way I see it, other animals are not food or fabric. Using the products and by-products of other animals still objectifies them whether one has paid for the exploitation of those animals or not. Basically, freegans who continue to use nonhuman animals are perpetuating an ideology: speciesism. As long as you're using other animals you're contributing to the system of exploitation. It doesn't matter whether commerce has taken place, they're still perpetuating what Carol Adams calls a "means-ends hierarchy."

In Neither Man nor Beast, Carol J. Adams discusses "the social construction of edible bodies." Adams writes: "Ideology makes an artifact appear natural, predestined. In fact, the ideology itself disappears behind the facade that this is a 'food' issue." When freegans continue to eat the by-products of other animals they are actively "ontologizing" other animals as beings who exist to be used, and this ontology recapitulates ideology (speciesism). According to Adams "the ontologizing of animals as edible bodies creates them as instruments of human beings; animals' lives are thus subordinated to the human's desire to eat them even though there is, in general, no need."

Like Watson said, "if they were to be true emancipators of animals they must renounce absolutely their traditional and conceited attitude that they had the right to use them to serve their needs." Just exchange "traditional and conceited attitude" with the more academic terms "ontology and ideology" and you get roughly the same translation.

The other thing about freeganism is that it is only focused on a negative. I see freeganism as a mix of dropout, freerider culture rather than a social movement. Freegans seem more focused on an individual withdrawal from the exploitive system of capitalism, as opposed to changing that system. But, by living on the waste of that exploitive system freegans are also dependent on it.

Note that Donald Watson said the vegan ideal of non-exploitation entails "abolishing vast industries and establishing new ones in the better interests of men and animals alike." I believe that it is equally important to work to create the institutions and infrastructure for a society based on the vegan ideals as it is to work to abolish the current exploitive institutions and infrastructure in our society. That's what it means to be revolutionary.

For these reasons – because it reinforces the ideology of use by ontologizing other animals as usable, and because it can neither abolish nor create – I think freeganism is a dead-end that is doomed to be a individualistic, lifestyle-based counterculture.

Hi, may I throw my 2 cents in.

I believe your reasoning is somewhat limited when reflecting about the question of freeganism. May I explain why.
Though I'm not a freegan myself, I see it as a strongly defendable ethic.
Now, Diana, I would agree with you though, if I saw freegans use the word "vegan" to their convenience. Freegans who consume animal products are obviously not vegans! It's a shame that the word "vegan" can be mistakenly used. Its meaning's extremely clear though - to abstain from consuming animal products! It doesn't matter whether, those products implied suffering or not! Once I had a fight with someone that made "his own" cheese from "his own" goat and had honey from "his own" bees and claimed that was vegan too - because "no harm" was involved in the obtaining of that! Obviously, what he meant by "harm" is highly questionable, but no matter what that would never be vegan, as it's simply contradictory with the very definition of "vegan".

Anyway, back to freeganism.

Many freegans I have met or lived with would not eat meat. I can understand that. The sight of dead flesh, the idea of feeling it between your teeth is a lot more striking than drinking milk, which is "indirect meat". By saying that i know their reasons, it doesn't mean I'm condoning it. I'm just saying that it doesn't shock me that they don't eat meat.

Something is freegan only if that food/clothing/whatever is being wasted and you do not contribute AT ALL towards it being disposed of - which litterally means you're finding it on a skip, on the garbage, etc. That is the only thing that can qualify something to be "freegan". It won't be freegan if you're stealing it, or you're being given. Now, you can question if corpses, or animal fluids are "food", but I reckon one would have a bit of a hard time pretending that those things do not have any nutritional value at all, etc.
By eating the disposed products of capitalism and consumption society, you're obviously not contributing at all towards the produce-consume-waste cycle. You are not contributing AT ALL towards that food being produced, transported, towards the pollution involved in making it, storing it and moving it around, towards the exploitation of non-human animals and human labour, towards the waste of people's life, making money and spending it to live, etc, etc.

The same could not be said about vegan food you buy.

The same could not be said about anything you buy, actually, whether it is highly "ethical" or made in some sweat shop somewhere.
How many vegans here ONLY consume locally produced, organic, co-op based products? It is impossible. Even if it was, all human activity, however "sustainable" or "ethical" it might be, is ALWAYS contributing to some form of impact on animal life somewhere.

I, personnally, do not consume "freegan" animal food, but i do wear some leather shoes that I've bought in a charity / tat shop for a couple of euros, years ago, for instances. You could try to persuade me that the carbon footprint of doing that is bigger that the carbon footprint of me having a pair of "vegetarian shoes" be made from some synthetic materials from the petro-chemical industry, and have it sent over from some vegan store. You could try to persuade me that the carbon footprint of the former action is doing more harm to more individuals, generally, than the latter, but I suppose you'd have a bit of a hard time.
I'm obviously not dismissing buying vegan shoes, or supporting vegan industries, or business, which I do, but please bear in mind what I've just stated.

This is the same issue as eating an animal that you stumble upon that had some accident happen to terminate its life. If you did not do anything to make that happen, in which way would it be wrong to eat it? I have witnessed people do it. Obviously, there's a lot to be said about the fact that maybe something could have been done to prevent that accident from happenning - this is obviously highly hypothetical, and there's no beforehand rule to these scenarios. You could try to persuade me that animals have souls, that their bodies should be buried and respected, etc, but I suppose you'd have a very hard time

Capitalism and consumption society, whether it be vegan or highly "ethical" is not something one should be particularly proud of.

There's only two things I can see as a potential problems with freeganism.
The first one, and I grant you that one, Daniel, is that it *can* perpetuate the idea that animal produce, animal skins can be used as objects. But then again, one would have to measure the psychological impact on peoples' heads of the image of animal skin on someone's feet (as an example) and determine if that contributes more towards animal exploitation as a whole and animal suffering than the footprint of the production of alternatives to that - as you can see, not an easy task.
The second one is: if that freegan product was human, would you consume it? If you wouldn't, then there's a very high chance that the reasons for you not doing it are speciesist reasons, and that in itself is a problem.

Daniel wrote:The other thing about freeganism is that it is only focused on a negative. I see freeganism as a mix of dropout, freerider culture rather than a social movement. Freegans seem more focused on an individual withdrawal from the exploitive system of capitalism, as opposed to changing that system. But, by living on the waste of that exploitive system freegans are also dependent on it.
(...)I think freeganism is a dead-end that is doomed to be a individualistic, lifestyle-based counterculture.

Well, the exact same thing could be said about veganism.

kamaleon wrote:

Daniel wrote:The other thing about freeganism is that it is only focused on a negative. I see freeganism as a mix of dropout, freerider culture rather than a social movement. Freegans seem more focused on an individual withdrawal from the exploitive system of capitalism, as opposed to changing that system. But, by living on the waste of that exploitive system freegans are also dependent on it.
(...)I think freeganism is a dead-end that is doomed to be a individualistic, lifestyle-based counterculture.

Well, the exact same thing could be said about veganism.

I don't think so. I would be all for "freeganism" is it was promoting a new society; if instead of living off of the waste of capitalism it was creating an alternative to that system. If, say, instead of just being individual people who rummage through waste bins freegans where reclaiming urban lots and collectively growing gardens for the free distribution of produce, then that would really be something worth supporting. But I think we both know that's not what freeganism is about.

On the other hand, vegans are bringing about and supporting change and innovation everyday. A widely distributed alternative to cheese made from cows, a leading contributer to the global warming crisis, is going to have a major systemic impact. What change and innovations is scavenging cheese from the trash promoting? A feegan may get excited about finding a vegan product in the trash, but by getting vegan goods from the trash that person isn't doing anything to encourage or support such innovations.

On an individual level a freegan might offer a small individual reduction in the carbon foot-print, but such individual action isn't going to change the system. I don't think you can just reactively dropout. That's a form of escapism. It's sort of like people who try to claim they are "color-blind." They know racism is bad so they just decide as an individual that they're not going to recognize race and then racism will just magically go away. What they really ends up doing is perpetuating racism because they don't really do anything to address racism as a system. And all the while these "color-blind" people continue to benefit from white privilege as they refuse to acknowledge the role that race plays in society. Freegans aren't much different, in my opinion -- especially when it comes to still benefiting form the system of oppression.

If you want change, then you need to have a proactive response. You can't just bury your head in the sand and say, "Well, my personal carbon foot-print is very small." In terms of the future of polar bears, our personal reduction in greenhouse gasses doesn't mean much if it also has a comparably small effect on stopping the overall system.

Obviously, in purely utilitarian terms, it is better that a person be a freegan than a meat-eating consumer. But that's also in terms of an individualistic lifestyle. My point it that that is all freeganism is: a cul-de-sac. I don't see freeganism as having much potential on a systemwide scale. But like I said, if freegans decide to actually work to create a better world, rather than live off the trash of a society they despise, then I would feel differently.

Also, I have never met a freegan who completely abstains form ever buying anything. And there are some freegans who use this "low carbon foot-print" as an excuse to go to excesses in other areas where carbon is used, like extensive traveling by airplane. In this way, freeganism is not much different than a person who recycles. Sure it's better than nothing, but if that's all they do its not going to change the world. There are people who are not "freegans" who work to encourage the reducing, reuse and recycling and other ways to minimize waste or atmospheric carbon on a systemic level. There are also nonfreegans supporting alternative systems to capitalism in the form of worker owned businesses and alternative economies structures. I think these people are the ones bringing about change and innovation, not the freegans.

Daniel, I really don't entirely understand where you're coming from?

First, you do not seem to contradict the pro-freeganism arguments I have brought forward, secondly you seem to bash on freeganism and promote veganism but I don't see where you got your definition of veganism from? I mean, your vision of veganism seems to be a highly idealistic, 100% ecological, 100% sustainable, 100% non-capitalist, 100% ethical, altruist thing, but I'm afraid this does not comply with reality. Don't get me wrong, I'm obviously for the all of those things, but what I'm trying to say is that it goes beyond the scope of the word veganism. Otherwise we would never be able to use the word vegan! It would be highly unpractical and way too complicated to have to assess all the production cycle and all the implications of the production of some good before being able to consider it vegan.
What would it mean? If you take a bread that's vegan (as in "no animal ingredients") and an organic bread next to it, is the latter more vegan than the former (because it's probably more sound to sustain organic agriculture rather than conventional)? What about a bread that comes from an organic, actually veganic workers cooperative which only uses ancient, non patented varieties of grain, locally produced, is this one more vegan than the first 2 ones? If we are to use the word vegan as a synonim of "ethical" (which is what i suppose you're trying to say) this would be too complicated for daily use. That's why I say it goes beyond the scope of veganism, in a practical context.
Freegans I know don't pretend to have a behaviour which is the ultimate goal in life, they just try to use what they can obtain, which is causing the least impact on the environment as a whole. How can you have a lesser impact if you're consuming resources to produce your new "vegan" food than you are if you're eating something that has been disposed of? I really don't understand your point on this.

I'm not saying that freeganism is a 100% coherent attitude, but I do not dismiss it as a whole, I'm not saying that freeganism is only about never buying / stealing / being offered anything, but I'm saying that sometimes eating something freegan from the bin, even if it's not vegan, will have a lesser impact on the environment than buying the same thing vegan off a shelf somewhere. That's all.

How can you say "if freegans decide to actually work to create a better world, rather than live off the trash of a society they despise, then I would feel differently."? How do you know what kind of political activities freegans engage in? Are you trying to say that you know all of them?

"There are people who are not "freegans" who work to encourage the reducing, reuse and recycling and other ways to minimize waste or atmospheric carbon on a systemic level. There are also nonfreegans supporting alternative systems to capitalism in the form of worker owned businesses and alternative economies structures."

Well, did you know that there are also freegans doing all of those things too?

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. — George Bernard Shaw

It seems we are talking across paradigms. I'm not out to contradict your pro-freeganism arguments, but you're talking about the world as it now exists. As Watson points out above, veganism is a social movement for revolutionary change. As such, veganism is not about "complying with reality," it's about creating a better world. The vegan ideal is non-exploitation. To me, an ideology of non-exploitation has broader meaning in terms of ecology, sustainability, and non-capitalism, than a narrowly focused form of anti-consumerist practice. I think the practice of waste recovery can be positive if it's done as part of a broader movement. But "limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources" by itself is not a solution to the world's problems. And to the extent that this becomes an ideology to justify using the products of exploitation I think it is counterproductive.

"But "limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources" by itself is not a solution to the world's problems."

Now, you got me even more confused. So what's the way forward, advocating conventional economy (aka capitalism) and maximal (or at least anything other than minimal) consumption of resources to produce vegan goods?

kamaleon wrote:"But "limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources" by itself is not a solution to the world's problems."

Now, you got me even more confused. So what's the way forward, advocating conventional economy (aka capitalism) and maximal (or at least anything other than minimal) consumption of resources to produce vegan goods?

I said nothing of the sort. Why are you being so presumptuous? Are you trying to be cheeky, or what? This is classic quoting out of context, since it requires completely ignoring the proceeding sentence entirely. I think reading the whole post, and all the previous posts in their entirety, could help reduce your confusion.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be presumptuous, you did say "non-capitalism", I assume my error. But, nevertheless, I still don't understand - when you say ""limited participation in the conventional economy and minimal consumption of resources" by itself is not a solution to the world's problems." (sorry to quote it again) isn't that contradictory to "an ideology of non-exploitation has broader meaning in terms of ecology, sustainability, and non-capitalism, than a narrowly focused form of anti-consumerist practice. I think the practice of waste recovery can be positive if it's done as part of a broader movement."

What do you mean by "conventional economy", if it's non-capitalist?
Why do you think that freeganism is "narrowly focused"?
How can you claim freegans are not part of a broader movement?
I don't know, but I reckon I dislike your disdainful approach to the ethics of freeganism. Don't take it personnally, and please, please, by all means, don't get me wrong - I'm here to discuss things, not to make personal attacks.

Anyway, still, my main argument was that, by consuming waste, your footprint is "lower" than the one that any industries', however efficient or sustainable that would ever be. Do you disagree? I think what made me really react to this was that both yours, and Diana's comments where a bit patronising towards freeganism.

As I said before, freegans don't say their choice is the ultimate goal, it is only one way of trying to deal with one existing problem - that of waste, and that of the impact of consumerism on all levels - social, environmental, etc