Talk:Veganism

	This Food related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>

, (new)

sv3rige on vegans lacking nutrients

There is a well known flat-earther/carnivore diet troll called sv3rige who makes anti-vegan videos [1]. He claims that vegans cannot get vitamin a, vitamin b6, vitamin d, vitamin b12, vitamin f, vitamin k2, amino acids taurine, carnitine, creatine, carnosine, heme-iron, CLA, dietary cholesterol and COQ10 as none of these can be obtained from plants. I am suprised sv3rige does not have a RationalWiki article.

I don't have a chance to go through every one of these but taurine is found in some plants. For example this paper found "Pumpkin seeds contain 13.5 nmoles/g, black beans 9.2 nmoles/g, horse beans 12.9, and chick peas 18.7 nmoles/g. No taurine was detected in peanuts. Almonds, cashews, hazelnuts, and pine nuts contained taurine in concentrations ranging 15-46 nmoles/g." [2]. Taurine is also found in energy drinks like redbull which are vegan because they have no animal-ingredients.

Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) is mostly found in dairy and meat but is not exclusive to animal products because it's also found in mushrooms (such as cremini mushrooms) so a vegan can obtain it [3]. Sv3rige's claims appear to be entirely false.

In regard to b12, it's now been found that duckweed has b12. "Duckweed (Wolffia glabosa) was found to contain approximately 750% of the recommended daily value of B12 per 100 grams of the dry plant" [4]

Although it is true that vegetarians and vegans generally have lower plasma carnitine levels than meat eaters it's not true that carnitine is only found in animal products. A moderate to high carnitine level is found in tempeh (there is a chart on this page) [5] which is not far off bacon or pork. Pork has (28 mg/100 g) compared to tempeh, which still has significant amounts (20 mg/100 g) [6]. A soy-eating vegan can easily get carnitine. A non-soy vegan may have to supplement but most vegans eat soy. Wonder (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Taurine found in Redbull is synthetic and based on animal sources as it's the kind your body actually recognizes as taurine.

Cremini Mushrooms may have CLA but a Vegan will still be deficient in CLA. Sv3rige's point is also that cremini mushrooms don't exist naturally and required humans to cultivate them since they didn't exist until the 17th century.

Citation [from cleanmachineonline.com] is a link to the retailer's website, not a study. Currently there is no study on the actual content of b12 in duckweed, just claims made by a company attempting to sell a product. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2607:fea8:2e1c:3320:fb08:98d6:b9ef:a / talk 03:20, 9 December 2022}

Several bizarre claims here

You don’t appear to be denying that Red Bull is vegan? The taurine is indeed synthetic. Whatever it is “based on” is irrelevant. “No. The taurine in Red Bull is not derived from animals. It is produced synthetically . . .”[7]

Cremini mushrooms don’t exist naturally? I’m sorry, what? Sv3rige’s condition is more serious than I imagined… cremini is just the immature, but not overly young, stage of a white mushroom, the species Agaricus bisporus. This mushroom exists in the wild, and did not, believe it or not, just appear from thin air. Its recent cultivation is actually a point against you; it means it has not changed drastically from its wild state (mainly just in color). “It is found naturally in grasslands around the world . . .”[8]

It’s also hard to imagine that no other mushrooms also contain this compound. Why would only one isolated species? How many species have been tested for this?

At least a handful of plants have been shown to contain significant quantities of bioavailable B12,[9] even ignoring duckweed, which isn’t warranted since the research there is solid. This hasn’t been extensively studied and it’s likely that more plants contain B12.

But the most important thing is: who cares about 90% of these nutrients? Carnotine? Taurine? You know that, unlike any obligate carnivore on Earth, your body synthesizes these itself? It doesn’t synthesize vitamin C though, which cats do… lots of other examples like this. When’s the last time you heard of taurine deficiency? There is a reason there’s no established RDA on these, and never will be. 2607:FB90:B125:91E4:6059:B40A:2DF4:8332 (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Although they may have detected taurine in a few seeds, this was measured in nmoles/g which means on a physiologically scale the levels will be insignificant. I agree with the IP above there is no RDA established for carnitine for taurine. If you look up the most common deficiencies in the world they are iron, iodine and vitamin a. Red bull is vegan. If a vegan is really concerned about taurine they can just supplement or drink red bull. sv3rige does need a RationalWiki article. I am working on several others. I have no plans to create his this year. Here is a paper on b12 in plant foods which found dried purple laver (nori) is the most suitable vegan Vitamin B12 option [10]. Johns (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Animals Rights

Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude the use and consumption of animal products — be it the leather in your shoes, the cashmere goat wool in your sweater, or the cheese on your pizza.

As a vegan, I think this is mostly a good definition, but this definition fails to explain why vegans exclude animal products (it's explained in the article, but it's easy enough to incorporate into this definition). In short, veganism is a philosophy based in animal rights, so the exclusions stem from this. Other philosophies such as various forms of vegetarianism or Kosher food aren't necessarily based in animal-rights and are distinct from veganism for this reason. (Vegetarianism can be based on beliefs concerning heath and Kosher is generally a religious diet.)

I would propose changing the introductory sentence as follows --

Veganism is a philosophy whos adherents seek to exclude the use and consumption of animal products on the basis of animal rights.

I think the goat wool and cheese stuff is snarky and is explained sufficiently by 'animal products'. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I would also add, that veganism doesn't have anything to do with food being 'natural', environmentally friendly, healthy, pro-feminist, or part of any other -ism. While all that may be noble, none of that is directly related to veganism which is about animal rights. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Veganism doesn't have to be about animal rights. There are also dietary vegans and vegan welfarists, I would know about this because I am in the latter camp. We do not need to change the lead, "Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude the use and consumption of animal products" is accurate. Johns (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Veganism is always about animal rights. That's what differentiates it from what you call a dietary vegan, by which I assume you mean a person who eats as a vegan does, but isn't otherwise invested in animal-rights philosophy. That's a strict vegetarian. Vegans also by definition aren't welfarists, because welfarists don't seek to strictly exclude the use or consumption of animal products (rather, they believe that animals can be kept as property and used in ethical ways which vegans reject) It's the old joke though. You can get 10 vegans around a table and get 11 different definitions of veganism, I guess? 57.135.233.22 (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No that is not correct. You do not need to be an "animal rights" (you wouldn't even be able to define this) advocate to be a vegan. If you look at the first definition of veganism defined by Donald Watson it was "the practice of living on fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, and other wholesome non-animal products". It had nothing to do with rights. Originally the term vegan referred to a "non-dairy vegetarian". There was no talk of animal rights philosophy. Leslie Cross of the Vegan Society was the first to define veganism in terms of animal rights. If you just strip it down and ignore the later philosophy that was associated with veganism, a vegan is basically someone who does not eat animal products, that is it, nice and simple. A dietary vegan and a vegan welfarist fit the definition of vegan because they exclude animal products. There are also religious vegan advocates who do not believe in rights such as those that belong to the Guanyin Famen cult. 167.71.140.60 (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Radical vegan and animal rights jack-assery

I know this exists, but there are extremists in almost any type of sub-culture. As a vegan, I probably know more vegans than most non-vegans do, and I've never personally observed this type of behavior. It's painting a group of people with a very broad brush. It would be like equating atheists to Soviet dictators or some such. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

It's wrong to cause animal suffering (unless you're a First Nation)

If your veganism is non-intersectional, and it advocates cultural imperialism — it’s racist.

-OnlySortaDumb, really.

Ahoy, matey! Beware, for there be a great sea of Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

Why should we draw the line at First Nations when they could just as well adopt veganism? It doesn't make any sense unless you value someone's nonsensical culture over the lessening of suffering. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a00:1598:6406:c100:915:7eaa:317e:130c / talk / contribs}

Please sign your posts. You have to keep these cultural objections in mind of a context where “moral objections” have always been the basis to justify colonial domination, and imperialistic slaughter for centuries. From the catholic church deeming the toleration of same-sex sexuality in certain indigenous cultures as being a sign of their inherent immorality, irrationality, and need to be “shown how to live correctly”, to the propaganda of displaying other cultures as barbarous savages engaged in cannibalism — there is obviously a “meta” ethical issue of when it is ever appropriate for one culture to “civilize” another on the basis of some perceived moral justification, and if that appealed to justification is truly ultimately being used to promote greater well being for all actors considered, or if it will be used as a pretext for greater suffering overall. There is something profoundly arrogant to assume that you of all people have come from the “view from nowhere” or some other equivalent to appealing to absolute authority like God to justify some preconceived notion of objective morality. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

How do I sign my posts? Anyhow, there's a big difference in being against there being homosexuality among people and lessening animal suffering or wanting to outlaw honor killings and FGM. For one thing: having homosexual relationships doesn't hurt anyone. Also, unlike the colonialists you're talking about, I'm very much against what most of Europeans consider to be completely moral. Finally, there's something profoundly arrogant of you to assume that First Nations cannot also be brainwashed out of compassion by their cultures (like with everyone else). ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a00:1598:6406:c100:915:7eaa:317e:130c / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 23:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

(EC) All those linked to examples are like the paradigm examples of poorly handled issues by white feminists lacking a post-colonial perspective according to figures like bell hooks. Like we live in a global context where nation states like the US have used the pretext of moral authority to engage in military intervention that left hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, and the nations engaged with worse off to this day. You only need to look at the war on terror, the Korean and Vietnamese wars as prime examples. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk)

Also talking of First Nations people being “brainwashed” out of compassion, when historically they have only been able to sustain themselves on the basis of using and consuming animal products is deeply condescending and infantilizing. It is, in a real sense, genuinely racist to deny people legitimacy in their cultural autonomy. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 23:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

First, I'm against the "moral authority" of the US since, among other things, their politicians hold the belief that slaughtering countless animals (and people) is acceptable. Second, I don't care what "white feminists" believe, since you'd have to be a detriment to society to not want to outlaw FGM and honor killings. Third, I'm not talking about First Nations living a thousand years ago when they had to kill animals to survive. I can't blame them for that just like I can't blame a lion or a prehistoric white person slaughtering animals to survive. Instead, I'm talking about the current day: the First Nations don't actually need to slaughter animals. They could live as agriculturalists. The problem then becomes that they use these old, now-useless traditions to justify further slaughter - like the Europeans. So no, I'm not being "genuinely racist". ^{— Unsigned, by: 2a00:1598:6406:c100:915:7eaa:317e:130c / talk / contribs}

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm sure any First Nations person told that they've been brainwashed out of compassion by their culture would definitely take your heartfelt, not-at-all-colonialist and patronizing advice to heart. Have you considered that these peoples are trying to retain some vestige of cultural survival that they've been brutally denied the right to? What about people who live in food deserts? I know people from extremely poor rural areas who have to hunt for food. There's no stores in their areas. You, by definition, are committing the same logical sequence as colonizers in the past did. Your special pleading does not exempt you from this. Carthage (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read what I said since I stated that you can't blame a lion or prehistoric white person/First Nation for slaughtering animals, since they have to. The difference is that today, they don't have to. Anyways, I don't care what any First Nation would feel like about my brainwashing comment since I quite clearly implied that I hold that Europeans have also been brainwashed by their cultures into the same nonsense. So no, I'm also not being "colonialist". -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So your answer to food deserts, problems of class, and cultural survival is a big non-answer. Ok. You have forfeited the right to be taken seriously. Carthage (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-answer? I clearly told it to you and Only multiple times during this discussion: people living in the stone-age a thousands of years ago had to do these things to survive. You, me, Only, and First Nations living in the 21st century don't have to. -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You brush past cultural survival and food deserts. People living in extremely rural areas where there are no stores by definition have to hunt for food. Carthage (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

So it ought to be transported to them. Also, I removed your labeling of me as a concern troll. -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 00:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how would you do that? Who would fund it? You also clearly aren't interested in addressing issues of cultural survival in the face of brutal colonial marginalization. Carthage (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Why should I care about "cultural survival" if it's about slaughtering animals? I don't care about whatever else they do as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. Now, we're not talking about a 3rd world country here: Canada is absolutely capable of organizing the transportation of stuff to the First Nations, and they do - less than what is desirable but that doesn't justify slaughtering animals. In fact, Canada would have more food if all inhabitants didn't slaughter animals, since more land is used to grow the food for animals than for people. I'm not singling out only First Nations here. Also, stop branding me a concern troll. -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 00:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

You still don’t understand that you are advocating for cultural imperialism, that would only further cross that border into cultural genocide that so-called Canada has already dipped its toes in. You also don’t seem to know anything at all about the broader indigenous struggle to decolonization, preserving a sense of cultural identity, and fighting for indigenous self-determination. “Not a 3rd world country” is true for the vast majority of white settlers, but with over 80% of first nation reserves being without clean drinking water (often due to pollution committed by settler industry or negligence to the environment), and the realities of living in the northern territories where yes, hunting is still a necessity for sustaining Inuit communities that struggle to make ends meet, the situation is barely distinguishable from the poverty and marginalization experienced in developing nations. You have no authority to tell a colonized and marginalized people what their “true” options are having no fucking idea what they have access to or what their personal interests are. It’s how a middle-schooler thinks about socioeconomic issues. I shared screencaps of your comments to other vegans, they find your behaviour frankly disgusting. First Nations people are not the ones herding millions of animals into factory farms, and raising them under conditions of extreme distress. That is something white settlers brought to the land, that’s not on traditional indigenous cultural practices, and we are not entitled to force them to live under our preferred capitalist ways because of our naive understanding about how the world works. All that does is further colonize them and erase their culutre. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well here's the issue again: I could care less about their culture if it's about animal slaughter, and you're a nutjob if you believe that lessening suffering is in any way similar to genocide. As I stated earlier: you get to do whatever you want as long as it isn't hurting anyone, and hurting people/animals outside of necessity doesn't need to be a part of anyone's culture. Inuits aren't First Nations by the way, so I'm not talking about them.

"First Nations people are not the ones herding millions of animals into factory farms, and raising them under conditions of extreme distress. That is something white settlers brought to the land, that’s not on traditional indigenous cultural practices, and we are not entitled to force them to live under our preferred capitalist ways because of our naive understanding about how the world works."

Well if you read what I said earlier you'd know that I'm against factory farming as well - read the title of this discussion. Also, I'm not merely talking about "our preferred capitalist ways", I'm referring to the lessening of suffering. If anything, "our preferred capitalist ways" would be killing even more animals.

You have no authority to tell a colonized and marginalized people what their “true” options are having no fucking idea what they have access to or what their personal interests are.

Do you honestly believe that the vast majority First Nations are vegans when things go well? Because no, they aren't, just like most of Canada that isn't poor. Finally, I could care less about what other vegans think. -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"I could care less about their culture if it's about animal slaughter" is not an argument. Try again.

"Inuits aren't First Nations by the way" - they're indigenous. "First Nations" has become genericized to mean "indigenous." You're not the authority on this subject you think you are.

"You have no authority to tell a colonized and marginalized people what their “true” options are having no fucking idea what they have access to or what their personal interests are." The fact that you didn't know that many indigenous peoples live a marginalized existence, or the fact you arbitrarily ignored relevant data to support your asinine "argument," doesn't lend charitability to any interpretation of your argument. Carthage (talk) 13:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

First, it's a summary of the argument that I've laid out time and time again here, that as long as you aren't hurting anyone, there's no issues. Second, I already explained why I don't have an issue with people who can either hunt or die, and I clearly made the example in the post that you're responding to about First Nations who aren't vegan even when things are at smooth sailing. If anything, your responses don't lend charitability to any interpretation of your arguments since you've shown that time and time again you don't even read I what post, while I do. Side note: I've been taught that "First Nations" refers to any of the native groups in Canada which aren't the Inuits or Metis. I apologize if I was mistaken on that subject matter, but as it has nothing to do with veganism, we can discard that. -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 13:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If you weren’t going to make an exception for First Nations people, why assume you’d make exceptions for the Inuit? The point is you don’t know what is or is not necessary, as you are not an arbitrator of that. To know what “isn’t necessary” requires you understand their circumstances which you evidently do not. I mean you seriously laughably suggested that all First Nations people can simply become agriculturalists. Which means you don’t know anything about the relevant geography in this context. “You don’t care about their culture” yes, because you deem it to be morally inferior, you see them as morally inferior to white vegans, and you have no empathy for what it means to be a victim of cultural imperialism. That isn’t even covertly racist, it’s overt racism. But what we can expect from a BoN whose IP address suggests they’re from Sweden. Not exactly a country known for it’s humane treatment of the Sami people. With it’s fair share of a history with white supremacy, and rampant xenophobia. You can’t consistently hold to an idea of “not hurting anyone” when you suggest the white settler state does more to oppress indigenous people. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 17:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

First, I already explained that I'm referring to people who don't have to slaughter animals out of necessity. As you pointed out, I'm from Sweden, and I can assure you that agriculture is possible in places like Umeå (Kiruna would be more analogous Inuit territories, and yeah you can't farm effectively there so they get lots of their stuff via transport). Now, just because I'm from Sweden, you cannot imply that I'm supportive of what the government did to the Samis. They weren't motivated by lessening animal suffering, for one. Second, I do deem any culture - regardless of the skin colors of its members - of being "morally inferior" if they slaughter animals when they could not be as the vast majority of humanity, let alone First Nations, do. Third, how is it oppressive to try to end animal slaughter and lessen animal sufferring? If anything, you want to continue absolute torment for animals that need not endure it. Fouth, stop name-calling me whenever you disagree with me, because I've laid it out clearly that I'm not racist. -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I agree with OnlySortaDumb. You can't just treat everyone equally in the same way that you can't be "color-blind" when deciding who gets to go to college or a job, since there are systemic inequalities at play. @OnlySortaDumb You do a good job at debating. What are your thoughts on animal culture, and the idea that animals have a cultural value of not being killed? MayGodSaveUsAll (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I was clear about that if it's hunting or dying, hunting is preferable. But that is not the situation the vast majority of the First Nations who are hunters face, so I do get to be "color-blind" in their case. -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

And how do you know that? Have you ever been to a First Nations Reserve before? What do the “vast majority” have that make you so confident in this claim? - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I was mistaken when it comes to the statement that the "vast majority" have it possible for them to be vegans. This paper is about indigenous people in general, but there are sections about First Nations and they aren't very promising at all. -2A00:1598:6406:C100:915:7EAA:317E:130C (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

"Big Meat" Conspiratorial Thinking.

Scouring the Internet reveals a handful of vegans use this as one of their arguments, which is basically the vegan parody of the Big Pharma conspiracy theory. They claim the meat industry is evil and back it up with conspiratorial thinking and shill gambits aplenty. TheEternalOutsider (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm no vegan but the Meat Industry is comically evil, like vegans are completely right on this one. A somebody. (talk) 01:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Unfairness

Does anyone else here think this article is kind of unfair to vegans? Like there's only scant coverage of the ethical philosophy behind veganism, which the article does point out is based on animal rights, but that's about it, really. Like, take this statement: "the poultry industry contains an ungodly amount of animal cruelty, so it would be unethical to consume products from that industry." I would argue that's a sound moral argument, but I don't see anything of that sort here. Now, before anyone accuses me of pushing "vegan propaganda," I am myself not a vegan, I just think this article is unbalanced on the whole, and where it does comment on the ethical impulses behind veganism it kind of reads like an anti-vegan tract itself. There are entire paragraphs whining about how "preachy" vegans are, when that in and of itself is a kind of preaching. You can tell the writer of those paragraphs has an ideological axe to grind against veganism. Perhaps to put it more succinctly, we are more fair to conservatives in our article on conservatives than we are to vegans in our article on veganism. Carthage (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

there’s also an overwhelming amount of vegans who support PETA, a literal cult that pushes altmed/pseudoscience beliefs. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2607:fb90:39ad:50f0:cc93:3dc:2975:8a3a / talk / contribs}

Is that a vibes-based analysis? Could you provide actual statistics on that? Even if this is true, that doesn't mean we should like be unbalanced with our coverage. You can fully admit that the theory may be sound, but a lot of the followers are batshit or extremists. What this article (of note is the section "Radical vegan and animal rights jack-assery") does, right now, is nutpicking. Carthage (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Carthage that the article would benefit from a little rebalancing.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)