Where do you draw your line? - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 26Likes
  • 1 Post By Lymo
  • 3 Post By Beautiful Joe
  • 3 Post By Shallot
  • 4 Post By Naturebound
  • 1 Post By no whey jose
  • 3 Post By Kiwibird08
  • 2 Post By no whey jose
  • 1 Post By Kiwibird08
  • 1 Post By Kiwibird08
  • 1 Post By no whey jose
  • 1 Post By Shallot
  • 3 Post By TailFin
  • 1 Post By Lymo
  • 1 Post By LedBoots
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 09-09-2015, 08:04 PM
Newbie
 
Smileyface3364's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United States of America
Posts: 91
Where do you draw your line?

Due to the recent post that was talking about ethical female products, it raised a lot of questions in my mind. The chemicals that were added to those products were tested on animals, so therefore, they are not ethical. I understand this. Make-up companies that are cruelty-free still test on animals in an indirect way. The chemicals and dyes and whatever else that was in the make up product were, at some point, tested on animals. The cruelty-free product itself was not tested on animals, but the products in it were at some point, so what makes it ethical in your mind? To me, the product would be unethical because those chemicals were tested at some point in time, otherwise they would not be sold in stores on such a large scale. To me, I would see most, if not all, make-up products to be unethical just like feminine products because those chemicals were tested on animals too, although the pad or tampon itself wasn't tested on animals either, only the chemicals.

Another question regarding make-up, why do some vegans refuse to buy from companies that are cruelty-free because the company that bought them is not? It seems counter-productive to me. If I wanted a higher demand for cruelty free make-up, why would I boycott it and make the demand smaller because of the company that owns it? It only causes lower demand for the products that you want in the first place.

Another question that came to mind while reading the ethical dairy post, the cow is not considered a pet because most cows are bred for dairy/meat and they can't give consent to giving away milk, according to the replies in the post, which I agree with. How does that apply to other animals though? How is it any different for a cat or dog, without the permission to take milk. By this, I mean why is it okay to breed dogs and cats and other animals to be sold and taken in by people, who dictate their whole lives? How is it okay to own a dog, but not a cow? If a dog can be a "companion", and a cow can't, I'm not understanding, unless I'm missing something. Granted, dogs are not as abused as cows, chickens, pigs, etc., but if a cow, or any other farm animal, gets treated with the same condition as a cat or dog, why can't they be pets? We do use dogs for things too. Dogs were bred for purpose like cows were, like herding dogs or hunting dogs, and we still use them for some purpose today, whether it be a companion dog or something else. Most people don't get a dog for no reason.

So, essentially, where do you draw your line when it comes to matter like these? Maybe you can explain to me what I'm misunderstanding or some puzzle piece I don't know about?
Smileyface3364 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 09-09-2015, 08:26 PM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: AZ
Posts: 109
Everyone should just make their own soap and grow their own food to be 100% sure of the ethicality of the production. There are always going to be grey areas. There are always going to be companies that are trying to greenwash you. There are always going to be deceit and misinformation. You've got to read everything very carefully, do full research, and stay informed. And even that isn't enough. Just try your best I guess. If you **** up oh well, just adjust your behavior to do better next time.
Lymo is offline  
#3 Old 09-09-2015, 09:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 1,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lymo View Post
Just try your best I guess. If you **** up oh well, just adjust your behavior to do better next time.
This.

If it's driving you crazy, then take a step back. It's better to do something that's sustainable for you in the long term. There's no such thing as a perfect vegan.
Beautiful Joe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 09-10-2015, 02:09 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Shallot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 437
I think it depends on how absolutist you are ... (yes I'm probably making up words here). If you demand that anything you use is absolutely ethical you will put yourself in an awkward position. How far back in the product chain do you want to go? How far back can you go?

I can't think of a single product in my house or life that hasn't at some point in it's life cycle been 'unethical' by these standards. Even the veg I grow myself will have contributed to the death of something - I have after all dug up earthworms and other critters and the kamikazee robin has munched them. So there you go, the organic veg I grow has still contributed to the death of a living creature. Is it therefore unethical? Whilst digging I disturbed about 3 ants nests ... I am sure this caused them an awful lot of trouble and that there were casualties. Whilst out running I swallowed a fly (yeurgh) - I didn't mean to but I did.

However - I'm just aiming to do the best I can with the resources I have available. I doubt it's every going to be a fully vegan life but for the spaces that are under my control I try to make them as low impact as possible.
Shallot is offline  
#5 Old 09-10-2015, 03:21 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Naturebound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 4,608
[QUOTE=Smileyface3364;3775273]


Another question that came to mind while reading the ethical dairy post, the cow is not considered a pet because most cows are bred for dairy/meat and they can't give consent to giving away milk, according to the replies in the post, which I agree with. How does that apply to other animals though? How is it any different for a cat or dog, without the permission to take milk. By this, I mean why is it okay to breed dogs and cats and other animals to be sold and taken in by people, who dictate their whole lives? How is it okay to own a dog, but not a cow? If a dog can be a "companion", and a cow can't, I'm not understanding, unless I'm missing something. Granted, dogs are not as abused as cows, chickens, pigs, etc., but if a cow, or any other farm animal, gets treated with the same condition as a cat or dog, why can't they be pets? We do use dogs for things too. Dogs were bred for purpose like cows were, like herding dogs or hunting dogs, and we still use them for some purpose today, whether it be a companion dog or something else. Most people don't get a dog for no reason. /QUOTE]

Vegans are also against breeding any animal for any reason, including dogs and cats. But many of us will take in animals that have been rescued or would otherwise be put down from animal shelters, slaughter houses, or injured animals etc. It is not the same as buying from a breeder/pet store/puppy mill and perpetuating the pet trade. Though I will admit that oftentimes having a companion animal such as a cat means inevitably supporting animal exploitation indirectly by buying animal based food which a cat needs to thrive. It is a tricky area. Vegans will not force cats/dogs/birds etc to do tricks or work for them in any way. But vegans do believe that it is important that the lives that are already here on this planet be treated with love and respect and have a chance at life. Many of us work in some capacity to try to eventually end the pet trade and farming of animals for food, entertainment, work, etc. Sharing one's home with an animal is not forcing it to do anything, though it is true the animal is not totally free to live it's own life. It is nearly impossible at this point in most communities to safely allow animals to roam the streets and come and go as they please. Domesticated animals do not have the same capacity for survival on their own that wild animals have. Laws are created...leashed dogs, keeping dogs secured on one's property etc...to protect animals, not harm them. I find it sad that there are so few laws to protect farm animals also, but many vegans are working to change that.

I believe cows can be companion animals also, and there are plenty of rescue organizations that care for them and befriend cows that once were bound for slaughter or came from an abusive farm and so on. Again, not the same as buying from a breeder or an active farm where cows are raised as a source of food. These rescue organizations will NOT impregnate a cow and/or force her to give milk, and even if she produces it in a natural way it is unnecessary and against the beliefs of rescue organizations to use that milk for their own purposes. Just as we wouldn't skin and eat our cat or dog after it passes away. It is pointless.

In the end, only kindness matters. - Jewel



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Naturebound is offline  
#6 Old 09-10-2015, 03:34 AM
Veggie Regular
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Exactly what @Naturebound said. Vegans don't breed or sell any animal, buy from breeders or pet stores, or adopt abandoned animals for our own use. The only acceptable motivation for taking an animal into your home is a genuine desire to give that animal a good life, much as you would if you were adopting a child. Cows can certainly be considered companion animals, but of course we don't take milk from our companions.

Regarding feminine products and toiletries, the best you can do is the best you can do. It's nearly impossible to avoid using products which have some ties to animal exploitation, so just keep an eye out for more ethical options and use them whenever possible.
Kiwibird08 likes this.
no whey jose is offline  
#7 Old 09-10-2015, 07:03 AM
No flesh since 99'
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 959
I draw the line at directly linked to animal exploitation. I also tend to avoid unnecessary products like cosmetics, hair products, lotions ext... and live a fairly eco-conscience, minimal lifestyle overall. The less you buy (especially disposable, single use and unnecessary products) the less you have to worry about where things originated and if they are ethical.

In general, vegans don't support breeding animals for the pet trade or buy animals breeders or pet stores. Most vegans have no problem with rescue animals, provided you are adopting them to give them a wonderful life and are committed to caring for them. I don't see why someone couldn't have a rescued cow as a pet, except for the fact most people do not have the room to comfortably house a cow. They need a lot of acreage to roam. You can't just keep a 2000lb animal in your 1/2 acre suburban backyard. I personally would love to have some pet hens who are past laying age after we have a house with a yard. I adore chickens, they are very sweet birds when showed love and people are always giving away laying hens who have many years left to live but have "grown past" their "usefulness" (and may otherwise be slaughtered).

Last edited by Kiwibird08; 09-10-2015 at 07:06 AM.
Kiwibird08 is offline  
#8 Old 09-12-2015, 08:01 PM
Newbie
 
motokrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 7
I draw the line at my lips. I don't ingest dead animals or their fluids/eggs. Does that mean I'm not vegan? I own leather products (like gloves).
motokrome is offline  
#9 Old 09-12-2015, 08:29 PM
Veggie Regular
 
odizzido's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 727
buying leather and being vegan isn't possible.....unless it's maybe used leather I guess.....then maybe?....I'd lean towards still no because it would increase resale value which could influence the initial purchase.
odizzido is offline  
#10 Old 09-12-2015, 08:43 PM
Newbie
 
motokrome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by odizzido View Post
buying leather and being vegan isn't possible.....unless it's maybe used leather I guess.....then maybe?....I'd lean towards still no because it would increase resale value which could influence the initial purchase.
Oh snap. I never realized I didn't know the actual definition of the word. I thought it was strictly a diet thing. I guess I am not vegan. Hopefully, I'm at least vegetarian, but I feel like it's so much more than that. My wallet and belt are nylon. Most of my shoes are synthetic, it's just that my motorcycle riding gear utilizes leather. Dang it. Should I not even post here now?
motokrome is offline  
#11 Old 09-13-2015, 01:42 AM
Veggie Regular
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by motokrome View Post
Oh snap. I never realized I didn't know the actual definition of the word. I thought it was strictly a diet thing. I guess I am not vegan. Hopefully, I'm at least vegetarian, but I feel like it's so much more than that. My wallet and belt are nylon. Most of my shoes are synthetic, it's just that my motorcycle riding gear utilizes leather. Dang it. Should I not even post here now?
VB is for vegetarians of all types, including strict vegetarians (which it sounds like you are.)
Kiwibird08 and motokrome like this.
no whey jose is offline  
#12 Old 09-13-2015, 08:09 AM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: New York
Posts: 161
Send a message via AIM to DTASFAB
Logic isn't always logical. It makes sense to want to avoid ingredients that were once tested on animals, even if that testing has stopped, and even if the ingredients are combined into a product that itself was never tested on animals. It also serves absolutely no benefit in the present or future. It only helps maintain an air of consistency when looking back at the past. And that's a bit illogical, even though it's perfectly logical.

I oppose all use of animals in medical research, simply because it's immoral, and I can stop right there. But in addition to its immorality, it's also not nearly as beneficial in curing human diseases as research corporations would like us to believe. The benefit of curing cancer in mice or rats whose cancer has been artificially manufactured by scientists who managed to afflict the mice and rats with cancer intentionally hardly ever translates into a viable cure of any sort for humans. That being said, I'm sure that somewhere along the line, some sort of medical breakthrough was achieved as a result of some mad scientist obtaining knowledge through the immoral practice of vivisection. If the testing has stopped, are we obligated to throw away the knowledge obtained and pretend it doesn't exist? Again, it's about looking at the present and future vs. looking at the past.

The same is true of animal testing on cosmetics ingredients. If I start manufacturing shampoo for retail sale, I have to conform to regulations that are already in effect. The government will tell me what ingredients have already been approved, and therefore, I can use those ingredients without any further testing trials. Why the government has agreed to allow me to use those particular ingredients is not really of concern to me. I can obtain those ingredients today without harming animals, and I can mix them into a final product without harming animals. Then I can sell it without harming animals. It's a vegan product.

As for cruelty-free companies that have sold out to the devil, it's about voting with dollars. Is Tom's of Maine deodorant any less or more vegan than original Pringles? They're both not tested on animals and they're both free of animal-derived ingredients. Just because Pringles are put out by Proctor and Gamble directly while the deodorant is put out by a SUBSIDIARY of Colgate doesn't mean that Tom's of Maine products are any less immoral than Palmolitive dish soap.

It's about withdrawing all support from all corporations and all their subsidiaries and affiliates that continue their testing on animals for any part of their product lines, even if the specific products you buy might technically be vegan.

Because there are plenty of truly vegan options that compete with Tom's of Maine and other formerly independent vegan companies that are no longer independent and therefore no longer vegan, it's better to simply buy the competing product that's still truly vegan.

Last edited by DTASFAB; 09-13-2015 at 08:12 AM.
DTASFAB is offline  
#13 Old 09-13-2015, 08:50 AM
No flesh since 99'
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by motokrome View Post
Oh snap. I never realized I didn't know the actual definition of the word. I thought it was strictly a diet thing. I guess I am not vegan. Hopefully, I'm at least vegetarian, but I feel like it's so much more than that. My wallet and belt are nylon. Most of my shoes are synthetic, it's just that my motorcycle riding gear utilizes leather. Dang it. Should I not even post here now?
I would say strict vegetarian. And now that you know, perhaps consider alternatives in the future when your leather items wear out.

I have a few things around that contain animal products- a sweater I bought at a garage sale I didn't realize contained wool and a pair of suede gloves my husband got me for Christmas a long time ago when I was a vegetarian not a vegan. It's not the end of the world, I still use them because I wouldn't want them to go to waste, but I am more aware now.
no whey jose likes this.
Kiwibird08 is offline  
#14 Old 09-13-2015, 09:02 AM
No flesh since 99'
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTASFAB View Post

As for cruelty-free companies that have sold out to the devil, it's about voting with dollars. Is Tom's of Maine deodorant any less or more vegan than original Pringles? They're both not tested on animals and they're both free of animal-derived ingredients. Just because Pringles are put out by Proctor and Gamble directly while the deodorant is put out by a SUBSIDIARY of Colgate doesn't mean that Tom's of Maine products are any less immoral than Palmolitive dish soap.

It's about withdrawing all support from all corporations and all their subsidiaries and affiliates that continue their testing on animals for any part of their product lines, even if the specific products you buy might technically be vegan.

Because there are plenty of truly vegan options that compete with Tom's of Maine and other formerly independent vegan companies that are no longer independent and therefore no longer vegan, it's better to simply buy the competing product that's still truly vegan.
THIS is the kind of convoluted stuff that makes me glad I wash my hair with beer, my face with water, my body with a scrubber, make my own toothpaste and don't worry about cosmetics. Makes life a WHOLE lot simpler than worrying about what products are "most vegan" or "not vegan enough".
no whey jose likes this.
Kiwibird08 is offline  
#15 Old 09-13-2015, 09:20 AM
Veggie Regular
 
no whey jose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: West Sussex, UK
Posts: 2,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTASFAB View Post
Logic isn't always logical. It makes sense to want to avoid ingredients that were once tested on animals, even if that testing has stopped, and even if the ingredients are combined into a product that itself was never tested on animals. It also serves absolutely no benefit in the present or future. It only helps maintain an air of consistency when looking back at the past. And that's a bit illogical, even though it's perfectly logical.

I oppose all use of animals in medical research, simply because it's immoral, and I can stop right there. But in addition to its immorality, it's also not nearly as beneficial in curing human diseases as research corporations would like us to believe. The benefit of curing cancer in mice or rats whose cancer has been artificially manufactured by scientists who managed to afflict the mice and rats with cancer intentionally hardly ever translates into a viable cure of any sort for humans. That being said, I'm sure that somewhere along the line, some sort of medical breakthrough was achieved as a result of some mad scientist obtaining knowledge through the immoral practice of vivisection. If the testing has stopped, are we obligated to throw away the knowledge obtained and pretend it doesn't exist? Again, it's about looking at the present and future vs. looking at the past.

The same is true of animal testing on cosmetics ingredients. If I start manufacturing shampoo for retail sale, I have to conform to regulations that are already in effect. The government will tell me what ingredients have already been approved, and therefore, I can use those ingredients without any further testing trials. Why the government has agreed to allow me to use those particular ingredients is not really of concern to me. I can obtain those ingredients today without harming animals, and I can mix them into a final product without harming animals. Then I can sell it without harming animals. It's a vegan product.

As for cruelty-free companies that have sold out to the devil, it's about voting with dollars. Is Tom's of Maine deodorant any less or more vegan than original Pringles? They're both not tested on animals and they're both free of animal-derived ingredients. Just because Pringles are put out by Proctor and Gamble directly while the deodorant is put out by a SUBSIDIARY of Colgate doesn't mean that Tom's of Maine products are any less immoral than Palmolitive dish soap.

It's about withdrawing all support from all corporations and all their subsidiaries and affiliates that continue their testing on animals for any part of their product lines, even if the specific products you buy might technically be vegan.

Because there are plenty of truly vegan options that compete with Tom's of Maine and other formerly independent vegan companies that are no longer independent and therefore no longer vegan, it's better to simply buy the competing product that's still truly vegan.
If you know which product that is, and can find and afford it, then absolutely! I admire anyone who can keep up with which companies own which companies, but it's too much for me. I buy all our toiletries from Superdrug, where the generic line is cheaper than anything else and is marked both "vegan" and "cruelty-free."
Shallot likes this.
no whey jose is offline  
#16 Old 09-14-2015, 01:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Shallot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 437
Superdrug's vitamin E range is amazing! It doesn't bring me out in spots or blisters. :-) Only downside is it's quite heavily perfumed ...
no whey jose likes this.
Shallot is offline  
#17 Old 09-14-2015, 02:29 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 114
OP - Let's say a product being sold today hasn't been tested on animals but it's ingredients all were somewhere else, sure that product isn't holy but it does mean that the people responsible for the animal testing are less likely to profit from it. That to me is a good place to start even if it seems somewhat hypocritical etc.

The second point you make I agree with you, refusing to buy products heading in the right direction because you don't like part of their business is shooting yourself and your goals in the foot - But considering my answer to your first point it's easy to see why a lot of vegans/vegs don't see it that way, you know full well the company is profiting from the using and abuse of animals - there isn't at least a company of separation and that will be too close to home for those of high morals.

Your last point challenges our perception of norms surrounding animals, all around the globe you see different species treated with varying degrees of humanity on the basis of which animals are seen as special in that part of the world - we do it within our own species, doing it with animals should be of no surprise even if for some of us, it's frustrating and wrong.

Conclusion - The world isn't perfect, we have to do what we think is best with that in mind and support what we think will lead to a better world and withdraw our support for what we believe will not. It doesn't wrap up nicely into a one size fits all plan for attack, it comes down to individuals choice/debate/consensus going forward because the world is imperfect. Whether we like to acknowledge it or not most things we have made in this world have at some point exploited or wronged something or someone - does it mean we should just sit on our hands and wait for death? For me it's about actively trying to do the right thing or the better thing while seeking ways to avoid repeating the wrongs. Things evolve over time and there will be a day when we can leave the ills of the past exactly there, in the past.
RiggerBoots is offline  
#18 Old 09-14-2015, 09:51 AM
Veggie Regular
 
TailFin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 498
I draw my lines in the sand.

That way, I can smooth them out and draw them again and again when the sands shift.
silva, DTASFAB and Fluffy Bunny like this.
TailFin is offline  
#19 Old 09-14-2015, 01:02 PM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: AZ
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTASFAB View Post
Logic isn't always logical. It makes sense to want to avoid ingredients that were once tested on animals, even if that testing has stopped, and even if the ingredients are combined into a product that itself was never tested on animals. It also serves absolutely no benefit in the present or future. It only helps maintain an air of consistency when looking back at the past. And that's a bit illogical, even though it's perfectly logical.

I oppose all use of animals in medical research, simply because it's immoral, and I can stop right there. But in addition to its immorality, it's also not nearly as beneficial in curing human diseases as research corporations would like us to believe. The benefit of curing cancer in mice or rats whose cancer has been artificially manufactured by scientists who managed to afflict the mice and rats with cancer intentionally hardly ever translates into a viable cure of any sort for humans. That being said, I'm sure that somewhere along the line, some sort of medical breakthrough was achieved as a result of some mad scientist obtaining knowledge through the immoral practice of vivisection. If the testing has stopped, are we obligated to throw away the knowledge obtained and pretend it doesn't exist? Again, it's about looking at the present and future vs. looking at the past.

The same is true of animal testing on cosmetics ingredients. If I start manufacturing shampoo for retail sale, I have to conform to regulations that are already in effect. The government will tell me what ingredients have already been approved, and therefore, I can use those ingredients without any further testing trials. Why the government has agreed to allow me to use those particular ingredients is not really of concern to me. I can obtain those ingredients today without harming animals, and I can mix them into a final product without harming animals. Then I can sell it without harming animals. It's a vegan product.

As for cruelty-free companies that have sold out to the devil, it's about voting with dollars. Is Tom's of Maine deodorant any less or more vegan than original Pringles? They're both not tested on animals and they're both free of animal-derived ingredients. Just because Pringles are put out by Proctor and Gamble directly while the deodorant is put out by a SUBSIDIARY of Colgate doesn't mean that Tom's of Maine products are any less immoral than Palmolitive dish soap.

It's about withdrawing all support from all corporations and all their subsidiaries and affiliates that continue their testing on animals for any part of their product lines, even if the specific products you buy might technically be vegan.

Because there are plenty of truly vegan options that compete with Tom's of Maine and other formerly independent vegan companies that are no longer independent and therefore no longer vegan, it's better to simply buy the competing product that's still truly vegan.
That's stupid and redundant. Like 1% of companies do nothing bad to animals, so it goes back to what I said earlier, you basically can't buy **** at the store if you want to make sure everything is completely ethical.
Lymo is offline  
#20 Old 09-14-2015, 01:04 PM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: AZ
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by TailFin View Post
I draw my lines in the sand.

That way, I can smooth them out and draw them again and again when the sands shift.
Lol love this!
TailFin likes this.
Lymo is offline  
#21 Old 09-14-2015, 01:59 PM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: New York
Posts: 161
Send a message via AIM to DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lymo View Post
That's stupid and redundant. Like 1% of companies do nothing bad to animals, so it goes back to what I said earlier, you basically can't buy **** at the store if you want to make sure everything is completely ethical.
Stupid how? Redundant how?

It's not convoluted either. I answered a question in the OP by making an analogy to knowledge obtained unethically in medical research. We are not ethically required to brand every piece of knowledge obtained through torture with a scarlet letter. We are merely obligated to stop the torture.

Knowledge isn't representative of torture. It's just information. JHC.
DTASFAB is offline  
#22 Old 09-14-2015, 02:16 PM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: AZ
Posts: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTASFAB View Post
Stupid how? Redundant how?

It's not convoluted either. I answered a question in the OP by making an analogy to knowledge obtained unethically in medical research. We are not ethically required to brand every piece of knowledge obtained through torture with a scarlet letter. We are merely obligated to stop the torture.

Knowledge isn't representative of torture. It's just information. JHC.
I was talking about your bit about how you should totally boycott a company if they make other things that exploit animals, even if they make some that don't. That's the redundant part. It does nothing but discourage them from making cruelty-free products and isolates all of us further into our bubble. Hardly any companies are 100% vegan, that's just a fact of living in a world full of predominantly omnivores.
Lymo is offline  
#23 Old 09-15-2015, 07:17 AM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: New York
Posts: 161
Send a message via AIM to DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lymo View Post
I was talking about your bit about how you should totally boycott a company if they make other things that exploit animals, even if they make some that don't. That's the redundant part. It does nothing but discourage them from making cruelty-free products and isolates all of us further into our bubble. Hardly any companies are 100% vegan, that's just a fact of living in a world full of predominantly omnivores.
That's not exactly what I said. I routinely shop at stores that sell animal products and I routinely buy vegan foods from companies that also sell non-vegan foods. Where I draw the line is with animal testing on non-food products. My freezer is full of Amy's frozen foods, but I won't buy Pringles because P&G tests Gillette razors on rabbits. The distinction and logic to me are clear. When P&G stops all animal testing, I'll be willing to buy whatever Pringles varieties are vegan while avoid the non-vegan varieties and discouraging their production. As long as the company is testing on animals, I will boycott the entire company and hope for them to fail financially.
DTASFAB is offline  
#24 Old 09-15-2015, 10:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by DTASFAB View Post
That's not exactly what I said. I routinely shop at stores that sell animal products and I routinely buy vegan foods from companies that also sell non-vegan foods. Where I draw the line is with animal testing on non-food products. My freezer is full of Amy's frozen foods, but I won't buy Pringles because P&G tests Gillette razors on rabbits. The distinction and logic to me are clear. When P&G stops all animal testing, I'll be willing to buy whatever Pringles varieties are vegan while avoid the non-vegan varieties and discouraging their production. As long as the company is testing on animals, I will boycott the entire company and hope for them to fail financially.
P&G sold the Pringles brand to Kellogg in 2012.
leedsveg is offline  
#25 Old 09-15-2015, 11:59 AM
Beginner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: New York
Posts: 161
Send a message via AIM to DTASFAB
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post
P&G sold the Pringles brand to Kellogg in 2012.
You mean so I can eat them now?
DTASFAB is offline  
#26 Old 09-15-2015, 12:44 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post
P&G sold the Pringles brand to Kellogg in 2012.
This is why I don't worry about parent companies that make my vegan goods. It is impossible to keep up.
LedBoots is offline  
#27 Old 09-15-2015, 12:56 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,394
https://crueltyfreeblog.wordpress.com/tag/kelloggs/
Kelloggs

Kelloggs Statement

Kellogg does not use animal testing in Europe.

That is literally their entire statement. (?!)

http://pressoffice.kelloggs.co.uk/in...287&item=29952

I found little other sources which say Kellogs do test however, it must be remembered that Kellogs did extensive testing on animals, pregnant women, children and babies at the turn of century well up until the 50s or 60s.

Kelloggs also own All-Bran, Apple Jacks, Cinnabon, Corn Pops, Corn Flakes, Cracklin’ Oat Bran, Crispix, Crunchmania, Coco Pops, Country Store, Crunchy Nut, Eggo, Fiber Plus, Frosted Flakes, Fruit ‘n Fibre, Froot Loops, Frosties, Frosted Mini-Wheats, Fruit Flavoured Snacks, Honey Smacks, Honey Loops, Honey Pops, Just Right, Krave, Low Fat Granola,Mueslix, Nutri-Grain, Pop Tarts, Premium Fruit Muesli, Raisin Bran, Rice Krispies, Ricicles, Special K, Start, To Go, Wheats and Winders.

http://www.kelloggs.co.uk/en_GB/prod...arch.pt-*.html

http://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/product-search.pt-*.html
DTASFAB likes this.
LedBoots is offline  
#28 Old 09-16-2015, 01:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Marjoram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 703
I draw my line to the best of my knowledge. If one day a product I though good for vegan is not, I try to find an alternative. I don't know by heart the big scientific name list of all non-vegan ingredients. I do know the more common ones and try to learn more but I can make mistake when I do the grocery. I don't want to pass 10 min on a label so I try to buy stuff with very few ingredients, it's simpler!

For feminine hygiene I'm a fan of reusable pads and thinking of trying diva cups. I stopped wearing makeup, my skin thanks me everyday. For deodorant I take a slice of lemon and rubs it under my arms, odor free for the day no joke, old grandma trick. If it's a hot day I always keep a moist baby washcloth in a ziploc bag (because it's small) to wipe the sweat off (they do that in Japan with moist towelette).

Concerning animals, taking care of abandoned animals is a favorable with me. Buying from anyone not. If one day the planet goes vegan the wild cats and dogs will stay as they are and all the human created races not suitable for living in the wild will slowly die out of old age as pets.

For the companies, again, depending on the knowledge I have of them but I'm not omniscient. It breaks my heart but I have to buy non-vegan work gear, like my safety boots (I'm studying as an electromechanic). The vegan option are not CSA approved and most don't include all the security options anyway. To find vegan safety boots and work gloves for small woman hand and feet is hard enough. As soon as I can find a proper option I'll jump on it though. Meanwhile I hate it but 100% vegan life is not possible yet (hopefully in my son's lifetime), so lets do our best until then!

"To the world you may be just one person, but to one life you may be the world."

Marjoram 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