by Ethan Johnson
January 9, 2006
[Updated below]
I just bought a Vegan cookbook. I didn't do this as part of a larger plan to "go Vegan", however I was impressed by the recipes in this particular cookbook over other "vegetarian" cookbooks. Considering that Veganism is often thought of as the "no fun league" of consumption, and that Vegetarians have more leeway in what foods to choose from, for whatever reason Vegetarian cookbooks manage to make the majority of their recipes look downright unpalatable, whereas the Vegan cookbook is rooted more in practicality. For example, if you enjoy a nice tomato and basil bruschetta, you're probably eating Vegan (or at worst, Vegetarian), depending on how the bread was made. The rest? Vegan city. How about potato slices dusted with say, cumin? Vegan again. See? Not so awful. As for giving up meat in its entirety, I am aware of the various arguments against meat consumption, but then there's my personal preference, which wins.
As I have browsed around reading more about Veganism, first off I want to reinforce that such materials serve to turn me off to "isms" of all sorts. I agree with balance and moderation, but the second those things become, say, "moderationism" I think that's where problems seep in. So too with Veganism, where the punchline came in the form of a paragraph that explained that there is no such thing as 100% Vegan purity, because animals of all kinds are harmed sooner or later, even unintentionally.
Another sticking point comes down to animal products, such as silk, honey, or milk. Eggs, yes, I can see the semantic argument for "animal harm" as you're killing off a would-be chicken. Same with roe/caviar, which I don't eat anyway. But milk? I see it as something of a renewable resource. However, I see something like honey as being more benevolent (bees don't die as a result of harvesting/processing honey, unless I am wrong), as bees are free to fly off and do "bee things" and still produce honey anyway. Contrast this to commercial dairy cows, who may not be free to roam around and do "cow things" when not producing milk, but rather confined to a tight space and leeched for milk all day. Yeah, not fun. Ants milk aphids, but the aphids are generally free to go do "aphid things" when not in the service of ants. Not to say we are exactly like ants.
By the way, I wholly disagree with the idea of meat/poultry/fish flavored foods, like tofurkey. If eating meat is wrong, then it is wrong, period. If cannibalism is wrong, then we ideally do not eat human-flavored foods on principle. I wonder if these conventions exist more as a pacifier for people who are switching from being omnivores to herbivores. Then again, that's like quitting smoking cold turkey and fogging the air with "eau de pack of Winstons." I also wonder where this flavoring comes from.
The fact is, everything we eat, regardless of what it is or how it was processed, requires some amount of rationalization. Plants are alive, but Vegans/Vegetarians can rationalize this by claiming that plants don't actually feel pain. But, they are undeniably alive. For incredibly unblemished ethics, one would need to thrive on a diet of carrion, dead trees, and autumn leaves. Or not - after all, every bite we take deprives something else of a meal.
This does not excuse wanton cruelty in our various production processes. It's amazing to see all of the ways animal products are used, which coins the term "process Vegan". Being a process-minded kind of guy, I can get on board with that kind of thinking to a point, however it's maddening to shoot for a goal of 100% "purity" when literally everything is connected. Another drawback of the semantic battle is the definition of this purity. What if something is made without animals whatsoever, but the people who did the work ate meat that day? Looking at the various battle lines and so-called Vegan Police, I can empathize with those who eat meat out of spite rather than some biological necessity.
And there's the rub (Source, emphasis added):
Vegans are at a higher risk of vitamin A deficiency because in its true form (also called retinol) it is found only in animal foods such as fish oils and liver. This form is readily absorbed by the body. Plants do not contain vitamin A, but rather provitamin A and despite consumption of such provitamin A rich foods there might be vitamin deficiencies because of the consumption of insufficient amount of fat together with carotene-rich vegetables, and dietary deficiencies in iron and zinc.
[UPDATE:] Vitamin deficiencies are an issue in any diet, however the Vitamin A verbiage quoted above may be misleading. Per Vegan Outreach (see source page for more information):
Pre-formed vitamin A exists only in animal products. However, there are about 50 carotenoids that the body can convert into vitamin A; the most common is beta-carotene. The vitamin A content of foods is now stated as retinol activity equivalents (RAE).
(end update)
No, 100% Vegan purity is impossible. I do respect the intent of Veganism, as I respect the intent of many other "isms". The semantic battles inherent to many "isms" often can blind us to the greater good that was meant to be achieved. I'll try some Vegan recipes out in the meantime, but as for going 100% animal free? I'll meet you at 100% cruelty free and go from there. That is, if we can agree on what that means. <EM>
