99.9% vegan

[ahimsa517]

so i was looking up animal rights cartoons and one link brought me to a peta website. well as easily distracted as i am i ended up clicking around on peta and it brought me to this page with their long list of vegan foods

Comments

[pseudosoliloquy]

well...i consider veganism as a continuum...so i dont consider it that bad. i do think that the disclaimer should be moved up though..

[stephxjackson]

99.9% is better then 0%
=)

[turnyourback]

i agree.

[xchristinax]

cheerios is one of them

[ushitomo]

what's in Cheerios that isn't vegan?

google is your friend. really.

[turnyourback]

VegNews magazine has a column called "I Can't Believe It's Vegan!" and it has Berry Blast Cheerios and Fruity Pebbles named as vegan. But as you may know, Ross posted way earlier about how both General Mills and Post use Vitamin D3, which is either from fish or wool. I think it is most likely wool (D3 is found in fish, but derived from lanolin, which is in wool), but either way it is definitely not vegan...

http://www.veganaustin.org/topic.php?id=387

[communistcow]

I think they are talking about things where trace amounts of a given animal-derived ingredient could theoretically be in a product because of things being processed on shared equipment. this is given for allergen purposes (ie if someone has a potentially deadly allergy to dairy/peanuts/whatever, their loved ones could not sue in the case of their death). in reality, equipment is cleaned well between batches of different products, and its really just to cover their asses.

but with what i think you viewed this as, them saying that an "almost-vegan" product is close enough is ludicrous... this happens a lot with raw foodists, who are often spouting percentages ("oh yeah today i'm 62% raw" or whatever)... although there is some validity to statements vegans often make about how you cant avoid every single animal ingredient ever; tires contain animal products, film, etc.

[turnyourback]

i agree that you can't avoid every non-vegan item, but i think it's silly for peta to liken the animal products in, like, construction materials, to those in food, where the ingredients are staring right at you
what i'm saying i guess is that it's more understandable that someone wouldn't know the animal ingredients that make up the frame of their house or their car or something, but when something in food is blatantly non-vegan, there's no excuse (if you are, in fact, vegan) to eat it.

it's late, and i hope this makes sense

[turnyourback]

I think they are talking about things where trace amounts of a given animal-derived ingredient could theoretically be in a product because of things being processed on shared equipment.
also, i don't think that's what they're saying, because if it were, nobody would really have a problem with it. upon further inspection, the website linked above talks about how, like, you shouldn't worry about small non-vegan ingredients in food when around non-vegan people because you don't want to come off pretentious or something... and that seems weird to me. i mean, it just worries me because, like, how far could something like that be taken? like... "oh, well, there's cheese in this food, but i'm not going to point it out for fear of seeming overly militant." i don't know. i just feel like if one is going to be vegan, one shouldn't dismiss animal products for the sake of simplicity or making others feel bad. we knew veganism wasn't going to be easy from the moment we got into it, but that's something that comes with living an ethical life.

Re: it's late, and i hope this makes sense

[turnyourback]

one shouldn't dismiss animal products

what i meant by that was that one shouldn't dismiss eschewing animal products. gah.
goodnight!