Some moderate vegans are now suggesting that, in an effort to grow the movement faster, a little compromise might not be such a bad thing. This has not sat well with the abolitionists, for whom veganism is a moral baseline.
TIM ELLIOTT: ‘The Vegan Society defines Veganism as “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 purposes”… Vegans avoid not only meat but the consumption and use of all animal products, including cheese, milk and eggs, as well as fish and other marine animals such as oysters and mussels, and the use of leather, wool, fur, down and silk. (Silkworms invariably die in the production of silk.)
Vegans can’t eat honey, since using “animal secretions” is prohibited, and because queen bees sometimes have their wings clipped to prevent them leaving the hive. Wine is also problematic, because it is often clarified with “fining agents” made from casein (milk protein), chitin (fibre from crustacean shells), and isinglass (gelatin from fish bladder membranes). Zoos are a no-no, as are domestic pets, and you can’t have guide dogs, presumably making life hell for blind vegans…
Many people find this a difficult way to live, which is why Veganism, despite its recent gains, has yet to take over the world… Most of the growth in Veganism is being driven by affluent Millennials, whose shopping habits are more likely to take into account food ethics, planetary health and animal welfare. There’s also a certain cohort, usually young women, who see Veganism as a way of losing weight, an approach that purist vegans like Andy Faulkner regard with suspicion. “This isn’t a mundane diet,” he tells me. “This is a stance against a massive injustice, against enslavement and murder”‘…
Indeed, some moderate vegans are now suggesting that, in an effort to grow the movement faster, a little compromise might not be such a bad thing. Would it be the end of the world, they say, if aspiring vegans were allowed to eat the odd oyster, or put a dollop of honey in their tea? This has not sat well with the purists, or “abolitionists” as they are known, for whom Veganism is the “moral baseline”, the very least a person can do to prevent animal suffering.
The tension between these two schools of thought has sharpened of late, with species decline and the climate emergency fuelling an increasingly febrile debate about what Veganism is and isn’t. There have been smear campaigns and black bans, online harassment, and accusations of treachery, betrayal and corruption. There is a battle raging for the soul of the movement, and this time it’s the vegans on the menu.’ SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: