Honey superthread: discuss [non]vegan-ness of honey here - Page 62 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 12Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1831 Old 05-09-2014, 09:44 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree Trunks View Post
 


I don't understand what you're asking.


I was just pointing out that if a vegan were to keep bees they might have an ethical reason to take some honey. (It prevents swarming of weak colonies.)

unethicalvegan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#1832 Old 05-09-2014, 10:00 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post
 

Vegan, as a term, was invented specifically to delineate between animal use and non-animal use, because there was need of such term.

 

Meh.

 

Let me quote Watson's first Vegan newsletter:

 

Quote:
Investigation into the non-material (vibrational) properties of foods has yet barely begun, and it is not likely that the usual materialistic methods of research will be able to help much with it. But is it not possible that as a result of eliminating all animal vibrations from our diet we may discover the way not only to really healthy cell construction but also to a degree of intuition and psychic awareness unknown at present?

 

Are you sure you want to follow the original definition of "vegan", Capstan? If so, I suggest you read up on the "vibrational properties of food" post haste.

 

The debate that led to the 1977 revision of the definition of veganism was very much influenced by Peter Singer's recent publication of "Animal Liberation":

 

Quote:
 Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

 

Like it or not some vegans emphasize the exclusion of exploitation and cruelty over vegetarian food rules. For me the only important question is: how can I exclude exploitation or cruelty? And like Matt Ball, if someone convinces me that eating a cheeseburger will reduce exploitation, I'll eat the cheeseburger.

unethicalvegan is offline  
#1833 Old 05-09-2014, 10:14 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post


Why wouldn't you eat honey? You've argued that the use of bees for fruit, almonds, etc is just as, or more, exploitative of bees and you agreed that honey is a good choice, among sweeteners, from an environmental perspective.

 

1. I was never much of a honey eater.

2. I prefer sugar and maple syrup.

 

I consider honey to be something like bone char sugar. I won't use it at home but I really don't care much otherwise.

 

 

A wide body of neuroscience literature has convinced me that insects have the ability to learn complex behaviors and could have some minimal level of awareness. Even that level of doubt is enough for me.

unethicalvegan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#1834 Old 05-09-2014, 10:46 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by unethicalvegan View Post

I consider honey to be something like bone char sugar. I won't use it at home but I really don't care much otherwise.
Why? Honey seems to be a better choice than cane sugar. I don't eat that much honey but its rather tasty on biscuits, I like to joke about putting honey on our vegan biscuits. Why avoid cane sugar at home? It seems like a better choice than maple, agave, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unethicalvegan View Post

A wide body of neuroscience literature has convinced me that insects have the ability to learn complex behaviors and could have some minimal level of awareness. Even that level of doubt is enough for me.
I'm not aware of any insect that can learn "complex behaviors", it exceeds their computational capacity. What does it mean for an animal to have a "minimal level of awareness"?

Insects are a amazing thing, a demonstration of the complexity that can emerge from simple rule-based systems.
logic is offline  
#1835 Old 05-10-2014, 12:05 AM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by unethicalvegan View Post
 

 

Meh.

 

Let me quote Watson's first Vegan newsletter:

 

 

Are you sure you want to follow the original definition of "vegan", Capstan? If so, I suggest you read up on the "vibrational properties of food" post haste.

 

The debate that led to the 1977 revision of the definition of veganism was very much influenced by Peter Singer's recent publication of "Animal Liberation":

 

 

Like it or not some vegans emphasize the exclusion of exploitation and cruelty over vegetarian food rules. For me the only important question is: how can I exclude exploitation or cruelty? And like Matt Ball, if someone convinces me that eating a cheeseburger will reduce exploitation, I'll eat the cheeseburger.

 

It began as only adding non-dairy to "vegetarianism." In 1951, the original society expanded its meaning to, "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals," and pledged to seek an end to the use of animals "for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man." It's coinage was a process, but this has been its meaning since 1951.

 

Vegetarian, as a term, is clearly defined to exclude the eating of all meat; however, there are those who argue this is unfair, short-sighted and exclusive- that fish, bi-valves, grubs, and other meats should be "allowed" to vegetarians. It's the same with, vegan. It's a clearly drawn definition, expanding vegetarianism from just diet, to include all human activity, that excludes all animal usage. These are both excellent terms, because their lines of restriction are drawn in the most logical places. Providing "exceptions" to either definition only produces etymological confusion. They are merely points of reference.


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#1836 Old 05-10-2014, 02:54 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325

What a shame. I wanted to ask Tree Trunks more about his interpretation of ahimsa but he seems (self-evidently)  to have got himself banned for being abusive.:(

leedsveg is offline  
#1837 Old 05-10-2014, 03:50 AM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by unethicalvegan View Post
 


I was just pointing out that if a vegan were to keep bees they might have an ethical reason to take some honey. (It prevents swarming of weak colonies.)

 

It also prevents the swarming of strong colonies. New hives form from the creation of new queen bees, who leave the old colony, and are followed by some of the bees, to start new ones. I've seen beekeepers prevent this, even to the point of capturing the new hive and returning it to the old, which requires the death of the new queen, so their own for-profit hives do not shrink or have to compete with wild hives, thereby reducing their profit. It's better for the bees to swarm and spread out. It provides better overall pollination for crops and wild flora. When bees are kept en masse in a central location, they have to fly farther to find the pollen, and carry it back much farther too, which puts extra stress on them. I don't see how stopping the normal expansion of bees can be considered ethical.


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#1838 Old 05-10-2014, 08:25 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post

What a shame. I wanted to ask Tree Trunks more about his interpretation of ahimsa but he seems (self-evidently)  to have got himself banned for being abusive.:(

Lol. I wanted to keep giving honey-free recipes for sweet chili sauce until one was acceptable (no sriracha omg?!?)

Here's another one in case The Banned One is still reading the thread. No sriracha in this recipe, but I'd add fresh lime juice and use apple cider vinegar instead of white vinegar. (And Florida Crystals sugar, amongst others, is bone-char free.)

"Ingredients

3 large garlic cloves, peeled
2 red Jalapeño or Serrano peppers, deseeded (See note #1 below.)
¼ cup white distilled vinegar
½ cup sugar
¾ cup water
½ tablespoon salt
1 tablespoon cornstarch or potato starch (See note #2 below.)
2 tablespoons water"
For recipe instructions, http://shesimmers.com/2009/02/how-to-make-thai-sweet-chili-dipping.html.

Save the bees by cooking! smiley.gif
LedBoots is offline  
#1839 Old 05-10-2014, 09:31 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post


Why? Honey seems to be a better choice than cane sugar. I don't eat that much honey but its rather tasty on biscuits, I like to joke about putting honey on our vegan biscuits. Why avoid cane sugar at home? It seems like a better choice than maple, agave, etc.
I'm not aware of any insect that can learn "complex behaviors", it exceeds their computational capacity. What does it mean for an animal to have a "minimal level of awareness"?

 

Refined cane sugar. It's kind of irrational but it bothers me that bone char is used. I'm not opposed to honey and I've eaten honey outside of the home.  Then again I actually use splenda in small amounts which is something I expect we also disagree about.

 

I think the spider links above suggest the possibility for the possibility of experiencing pain as something more than just a reflex. Insect nerve and neuronal structures are very different from mammalian ones -- the cells are far smaller, neurotransmission is faster, and evolutionarily their brains may be more optimized. Moreover, insect cognition in even the lowly fruit fly has increasingly been revised upwards over the past few decades. As a utilitarian I attach a little more value to some insects than plants so I eat plants and avoid harming insects (at least to some small extent).

unethicalvegan is offline  
#1840 Old 05-10-2014, 09:57 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post
 

 

It's the same with, vegan. It's a clearly drawn definition, expanding vegetarianism from just diet, to include all human activity, that excludes all animal usage. These are both excellent terms, because their lines of restriction are drawn in the most logical places.

Veganism is not a definition about what we should or should not eat. It's always been rooted in ethical principles.

 

 

Quote:
 Providing "exceptions" to either definition only produces etymological confusion. They are merely points of reference.

possible and practical is an exception wide enough to drive a bus through. and to be blunt many of those who argue for a strict definition of veganism often completely ignore the "using animals for other purposes" part of the vegan society definition. for example, low occupancy vehicles have been estimated to kill ~400 million animals in the usa each year. as a vegan that gives "using animals for other purposes" (e.g. indirect harm) equal weight i feel angry that many vegans seem to care little about the ways they indirectly exploit animals.

Quote:
 These are both excellent terms, because their lines of restriction are drawn in the most logical places.

vegans use animal products trivially and routinely. moreover, the "lines" that are drawn vary depending on the flavor of veganism and are frequently inconsistent.  i believe veganism should be based on reason, not arbitrary food rules. and I'm clearly not the only vegan who feels this way since beegans are increasingly accepted in the vegan community as vegans.

 

a famous example that i hoped marked the end of vegan honey-shaming:

 

http://satyamag.com/sept05/greger.html

 

Quote:
Honey hurts more than just bees. It hurts egg-laying hens, crammed in battery cages so small they can’t spread their wings. It hurts mother pigs, languishing for months in steel crates so narrow they can’t turn around. And the billions of aquatic animals who, pulled from filthy aquaculture farms, suffocate to death. All because honey hurts our movement.

 

 

unethicalvegan is offline  
#1841 Old 05-10-2014, 10:28 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
 
Quote:
 
jstlikehoney.jpg

What looks like honey, feels like honey, and tastes like honey? Suzanne’s Specialities’ Just Like Honey Rice Nectar is just like honey except for one thing—it is bee-free. That’s right. This vegan “honey” simply astounded the Satya staff. Putting bees out of business, this sweetener made from brown rice, chicory, and maple syrups, reigns as the new taste of vegan.

Gluten-free and GMO-free, this nectar is the perfect topping for pancakes, waffles and oatmeal, and a delightful addition to tea. In fact, long- time vegan, Roshni Koshy exclaimed that while she’s typically a coffee drinker, she’s going to switch to drinking tea just to flavor it with Just Like Honey. It lacks refined sugars and is still better than any other sweetener. Winnie the Pooh wouldn’t be able to tell the difference and neither will you. Order online at www.suzannes-specialties.com. —S.I.

 

Thanks for the advert for "Just Like Honey" in your link, uv.

 

As you point out, "vegans use animal products trivially and routinely". Anyone using "Just Like Honey", will not be using the animal product honey. Of course it's not a complete solution to the use of animals in food but it's better than nothing.

 

lv

leedsveg is offline  
#1842 Old 05-10-2014, 10:29 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by unethicalvegan View Post

Refined cane sugar. It's kind of irrational but it bothers me that bone char is used. I'm not opposed to honey and I've eaten honey outside of the home.  Then again I actually use splenda in small amounts which is something I expect we also disagree about.
But why just eat it outside the home? This is what I don't understand about the "vegans" that argue that this and that should be accepted but then they don't fully embrace their reasoning by changing their actions. I'm not sure how splenda is produced but I'm assuming its some lengthy industrial process.....but I don't use artificial sweeteners at home. Here and there I'll drink a diet soda but I think they usually have aspartame.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unethicalvegan View Post

I think the spider links above suggest the possibility for the possibility of experiencing pain as something more than just a reflex. Insect nerve and neuronal structures are very different from mammalian ones -- the cells are far smaller, neurotransmission is faster, and evolutionarily their brains may be more optimized. 
I would never suggest that insects just have reflexes, but there is a lot in between reflexes and behavior that requires some sort of awareness. I'm pretty fond of occam's razor, if you can come up with a model for insect behavior that doesn't involve awareness of any sort, and you can do just that, then I see no reason to posit awareness on their behalf.
logic is offline  
#1843 Old 05-10-2014, 10:53 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post

As you point out, "vegans use animal products trivially and routinely". Anyone using "Just Like Honey", will not be using the animal product honey. Of course it's not a complete solution to the use of animals in food but it's better than nothing.
I'd suggest that is is just nothing or may even be worse. Vegans like to focus on their direst use of animal products and ignore their indirect use but the animals don't care whether they are being killed directly or indirectly. All the "vegan" replacements for honey are environmentally intensive. Maple orchids take up a lot of land and it takes a lot, around 10~30 gallons, of maple sap to produce one gallon of maple syrup and the sap has to be boiled down which commercially would use fossil fuels (a small traditional sugar house would use wood). Agave is probably worse, it takes years to grow the agave plants and the process to produce agave nectar is not much different than corn syrup (you have to use chemicals to break down complex carbs into sugars).

So in order to say that honey is "better than nothing", you'd have to show that honey results in more animal suffering, etc as a whole than the alternatives. As far as I know vegan groups have not made this argument.
logic is offline  
#1844 Old 05-10-2014, 11:37 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
LedBoots is offline  
#1845 Old 05-10-2014, 11:47 AM
Super Moderator
 
silva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 8,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl View Post

Fleagan. Vegan except for eating fleas. yes.gif

Then I guess my favorite would be shegans! :trick:


Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
silva is online now  
#1846 Old 05-10-2014, 11:53 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post


I'd suggest that is is just nothing or may even be worse. Vegans like to focus on their direst use of animal products and ignore their indirect use but the animals don't care whether they are being killed directly or indirectly. All the "vegan" replacements for honey are environmentally intensive. Maple orchids take up a lot of land and it takes a lot, around 10~30 gallons, of maple sap to produce one gallon of maple syrup and the sap has to be boiled down which commercially would use fossil fuels (a small traditional sugar house would use wood). Agave is probably worse, it takes years to grow the agave plants and the process to produce agave nectar is not much different than corn syrup (you have to use chemicals to break down complex carbs into sugars).

So in order to say that honey is "better than nothing", you'd have to show that honey results in more animal suffering, etc as a whole than the alternatives. As far as I know vegan groups have not made this argument.

Thanks for your interesting post logic. Any reason why you've focused on maple syrup, which comes third in the list of ingredients of "Just Like Honey", rather than brown rice syrup and chicory syrup. Agave, of course, is not amongst the ingredients at all. Wouldn't want any of your followers to think that you've drifted towards straw-manism in your comments. ;) 

leedsveg is offline  
#1847 Old 05-10-2014, 12:43 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post

Thanks for your interesting post logic. Any reason why you've focused on maple syrup, which comes third in the list of ingredients of "Just Like Honey", rather than brown rice syrup and chicory syrup. Agave, of course, is not amongst the ingredients at all. Wouldn't want any of your followers to think that you've drifted towards straw-manism in your comments. wink3.gif  
I actually wasn't posting about that product but common "vegan" sweeteners in general. Brown rice syrup is just like corn syrup, you cook brown rice flour with some chemicals that breakdown the starches into sugar and then purify the result to get a pure sugar product. Chicory syrup is like cane sugar.

The general point here is that the production of many "vegan" sugars makes intensive use of agricultural resources and energy and all these have indirect harm on animal life while honey production has fairly minimal indirect impact. So by favoring maple syrup, brown rice syrup, etc over honey vegans are just favoring indirect harm over direct harm. So,in terms of ethics and the environment, the delineation made by vegans appears to be arbitrary. Vegans would need to make an argument that honey is worse, as a whole, than the alternatives and as I said before I'm not aware of any vegan group that has done that.
logic is offline  
#1848 Old 05-10-2014, 12:51 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post


But why just eat it outside the home? This is what I don't understand about the "vegans" that argue that this and that should be accepted but then they don't fully embrace their reasoning by changing their actions.

i don't particularly enjoy the taste of honey so i will eat it as a contaminant or when it's socially convenient but not otherwise.

unethicalvegan is offline  
#1849 Old 05-10-2014, 01:11 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

Vegans would need to make an argument that honey is worse, as a whole, than the alternatives and as I said before I'm not aware of any vegan group that has done that.

 

well done. this is the crux of the issue.

 

in my experience, many members of the vegan moral majority don't try to make this argument because they don't care much about indirect harm.

 

My link to Michael Greger's Satya essay makes the same points:

 

Quote:
 A certain number of bees are undeniably killed by honey production, but far more insects are killed, for example, in sugar production. And if we really cared about bugs we would never again eat anything either at home or in a restaurant that wasn’t strictly organically grown—after all, killing bugs is what pesticides do best. And organic production uses pesticides too (albeit “natural”). Researchers measure up to approximately 10,000 bugs per square foot of soil—that’s over 400 million per acre, 250 trillion per square mile. Even “veganically” grown produce involves the deaths of countless bugs in lost habitat, tilling, harvesting and transportation. We probably kill more bugs driving to the grocery store to get some honey-sweetened product than are killed in the product’s production.

Our position on honey therefore just doesn’t make any sense, and I think the general population knows this on an intuitive level. Veganism for them, then, becomes more about some quasi-religious personal purity, rather than about stopping animal abuse...We may be hurting animals by making veganism seem more like petty dogmatic self-flagellation.
River and silva like this.
unethicalvegan is offline  
#1850 Old 05-10-2014, 01:50 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Joan Kennedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lovettsville, VA and Portland, OR
Posts: 1,982

It does take energy to tap maple trees and boil the sap down into syrup. But the maple groves themselves don't take watering, pruning or feeding. No maintenance to speak of unless a tree falls and threatens other trees, in which case it's removed and turned into firewood or lumber. And the maple trees, like trees everywhere, take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.

Joan Kennedy is offline  
#1851 Old 05-10-2014, 02:43 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785

Gene Hamshaw of choosing raw on honey:

 

www.choosingraw.com/you-ask-i-answer-why-dont-you-eat-honey/

 

 

Quote:
 I know vegans who don’t care about honey at all (though those are primarily those who only identify as health oriented vegans, or plant-strong eaters). I know vegans who are adamantly opposed to consuming honey, and I know vegans who enthusiastically support small scale, local beekeeping. I’ve heard excellent, intelligent arguments from both pro-honey and anti-honey vegans.

 

Isa Chandra Moskowitz on honey:

 

Quote:
I only stopped eating honey when people would yell at me because honey isn't vegan. Honestly, I avoid subjects like honey and bone char when talking to non-vegans. So much more animal products go into the making of a mass produced vegetable, organic or not, (including animal bones) that the bone char thing starts bordering on ridiculous. I don't want veganism to start sounding ridiculous, and it doesn't matter to the animal whether or not thie biproducts were directly or indirectly involved in the making of a piece of food. 

So I'll just say "Some vegans avoid honey because [any of the reasons listed here]." Personally, I think that the reasons for avoiding honey are just as valid a reason for avoiding almonds or oranges or apples, which I don't. But I also don't want to argue with vegans endlessly about veganism, so I don't eat it.

 

http://forum.theppk.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14455&hilit=honey

 

 

Vegan Outreach on honey:

 

Quote:
Again, it depends on one’s definition of “vegan.” Insects are animals, and so their products, such as honey and silk, are often not considered vegan. Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products, because they do not believe insects are conscious of pain. Moreover, even if insects were conscious of pain, it’s not clear that the production of honey involves any more pain for insects than the production of most vegetables or other sweeteners, since the harvesting and transportation of all crops involve insect deaths. The question remains a matter of scientific debate and personal choice. When cooking or labeling food for vegans – particularly vegans you don't know – it’s best to be on the safe side and not include honey. As for vegan advocacy, we think it's best to avoid the issue as a defining one.

 

 

Matt Ball on honey:

 

Quote:
 If we present veganism as being about the exploitation of honeybees, it makes it easier to ignore the real, noncontroversial suffering.

 

Quote:
This simple means of defining “good” and “bad” attracted many of us because it was so straightforward. But even before the list began to grow into an encyclopedia, it was inconsistent. The production of honey kills some insects, but so does driving (and sometimes even walking).
 
Still, it can be difficult to give up a black-and-white set of rules. Over the years, people have added “exceptions,” definitions of “necessity,” or claims of “intention” to save the laundry-list approach. But trying to have a hard definition of what is “vegan” is, ultimately, arbitrary. Even the production of organic vegetables injures and kills animals during planting, harvesting, and transport.

Of course, we could all “do no harm” by committing suicide and letting our bodies decompose in a forest. But short of this, the best path is to take a step back and consider why we really care whether something is vegan.

 

 

 

And the argument made by logic and Greger can be found here:

Quote:
This way of defining veganism neglects several key points, not the the least of which is that everything involves some suffering. At some level, anything we consume harms some animals. Almost all organic foods use farmed animal manure, adding financial support to animal agriculture. Planting, harvesting, and transportating many foods kills and displaces animals...Some sugar is process with bone char, as is some water, and so on...

 

The goal can't be to totally eliminate suffering; the goal must be to make choices that cause the least harm...But if whey or “natural butter flavor” is in the “less than two percent” category on an ingredient list, the connection to cruelty, while perhaps uncomfortable and aesthetically questionable, is negligible and is probably no more, calorie for calorie, than many “vegan” foods.

 

From the Animal Activists Handbook written by Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich and endorsed by Peter Singer, Gene Bauer, Paul Shapiro, Erik Markus and Ingrid Newkirk.

unethicalvegan is offline  
#1852 Old 05-10-2014, 02:47 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan Kennedy View Post
 

It does take energy to tap maple trees and boil the sap down into syrup. But the maple groves themselves don't take watering, pruning or feeding. No maintenance to speak of unless a tree falls and threatens other trees, in which case it's removed and turned into firewood or lumber. And the maple trees, like trees everywhere, take in carbon dioxide and emit oxygen.

 

let's not get bogged down on maple syrup. some of the other sweeteners logic mentioned are more ethically problematic than honey (at least if you care about animals and the environment as opposed to "level 5 vegan purity*").

 

 

 

 

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFBeeBSIH5Q

unethicalvegan is offline  
#1853 Old 05-10-2014, 03:47 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,721
Should we be using sweeteners at all?
silva likes this.

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#1854 Old 05-11-2014, 07:50 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

Should we be using sweeteners at all?
That looks interesting. I use very little sweeteners when I cook, as we aren't big dessert people. I use maple syrup or Florida Crystals. don't like agave's taste, don't use honey, don't use artificial sweeteners, but do buy foods with sweeteners in them (except honey.)

It's not that I as a vegan "don't care" about the insect deaths and honeybee abuse in growing fruits and vegetables, grains, etc. It's that I have the least control over that.

I chose to live in a tropical place where there is lots of local produce nearly year-round. I buy organic when possible because it always tastes better, and I don't like all the pesticides. A local organic farm sells shares of its crops, and I buy a share each year, a combination of money and farm work hours. Another organic produce company delivers a yummy box of food to my door, much of it local.

I have fruit trees in my yard, and would have a vegetable garden if it were feasible. I did at our previous home, a raised organic plot that fed the local wildlife a little better than it did us. wink3.gif

Point being, we do what we can. There is no public transport to speak of here, and it's spread out, so I drive my subcompact, leather-free car bought used. I buy many products second-hand. I make the choices I feel do the least harm without having to live naked in the jungle living off of low-hanging fruit.
LedBoots is offline  
#1855 Old 05-11-2014, 10:59 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

Should we be using sweeteners at all?
Sure, why not? The primary problem with sweeteners is that they are empty calorie and may have metabolic consequences when consumed in excess....but when consumed in small amounts, as recommended, there is no known issue.

That documentary seems unfortunate, yet another health scapegoat. Doesn't help that they are interviewing people like Gary Taubes as if they are some authority on the matter of nutrition and obesity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

It's not that I as a vegan "don't care" about the insect deaths and honeybee abuse in growing fruits and vegetables, grains, etc. It's that I have the least control over that.
If you have two products and they are, as for as one can tell, equivalent in the total amount of harm it takes to produce them then what basis, ethically speaking, does one have to avoid one and use the other? This is, I think, the key question when it comes to honey and veganism.
logic is offline  
#1856 Old 05-11-2014, 11:03 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

Should we be using sweeteners at all?
Sure, why not? The primary problem with sweeteners is that they are empty calorie and may have metabolic consequences when consumed in excess....but when consumed in small amounts, as recommended, there is no known issue.

That documentary seems unfortunate, yet another health scapegoat. Doesn't help that they are interviewing people like Gary Taubes as if they are some authority on the matter of nutrition and obesity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

It's not that I as a vegan "don't care" about the insect deaths and honeybee abuse in growing fruits and vegetables, grains, etc. It's that I have the least control over that.
If you have two products and they are, as for as one can tell, equivalent in the total amount of harm it takes to produce them then what basis, ethically speaking, does one have to avoid one and use the other? This is, I think, the key question when it comes to honey and veganism.
Honey is just such direct, easily preventable harm. Just don't take the honey, problem solved.
LedBoots is offline  
#1857 Old 05-11-2014, 11:14 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

Honey is just such direct, easily preventable harm. Just don't take the honey, problem solved.
What problem did this solve? You ignored my question and instead focused on direct harm while ignoring indirect harm. To ask again, if you have two products that result in the same total harm (direct + indirect) what basis, ethically, does one have to use one and avoid the other? Avoiding honey doesn't prevent harm if the alternatives result in more or equal total harm.
logic is offline  
#1858 Old 05-11-2014, 11:58 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post


Honey is just such direct, easily preventable harm. Just don't take the honey, problem solved.

 

Rice syrup and sugar are just such indirect, easily preventable harm. Just don't eat rice syrup or sugar, problem solved.

unethicalvegan is offline  
#1859 Old 05-11-2014, 11:59 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,396
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

Honey is just such direct, easily preventable harm. Just don't take the honey, problem solved.
What problem did this solve? You ignored my question and instead focused on direct harm while ignoring indirect harm. To ask again, if you have two products that result in the same total harm (direct + indirect) what basis, ethically, does one have to use one and avoid the other? Avoiding honey doesn't prevent harm if the alternatives result in more or equal total harm.
A total amount of harm caused by alternatives to honey is difficult for me to calculate. I grew up in New England, saw maple trees being tapped, the sap boiled down. The amount of energy needed to do this is not as obvious to me as the direct walking over to a man -made hive, dressed in sting resistant clothing, and taking the honeybees' honey.

Probably not logical to you, but I'm not going to calculate indirect harm, I will instead avoid the obvious direct harm. I absolutely don't want to and won't debate honey, or the environmental damage done to my beloved everglades by Big Sugar. I just live my life avoiding direct harm as best I can by not consuming or using obvious animal products.

I miss the maples in New England in the autumn.

Interesting images I stumbled on while getting a maple tree image. smiley.gif

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/05/09/how-to-make-maple-syrup-like-a-vermonter/
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
u5araveg.jpgadusyryt.jpgunetuse9.jpgypu3udeh.jpge7ada4yr.jpgy7ejupar.jpg
LedBoots is offline  
#1860 Old 05-11-2014, 12:00 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: banned
Posts: 785
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

Should we be using sweeteners at all?

 

Should we eat fruit at all?

unethicalvegan is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off