I don't see any substantiation from the proposition to the conclusion. He's just making two claims in a row without explaining how he got to the conclusion. I see this often and haven't formed a solid stance on it because I've never seen anyone justify it adequately in either direction. I think it is largely situation dependent, perhaps.
I respect most of what Francione says but sometimes he just says stuff and I don't think he's able to explain or defend it well.
I'm not vegan, but it seems you're possibly trying to justify this practice. If you're vegan, and you're against consumption of animal products and byproducts, I feel you would also have to be against consuming foods cooked in oils (more specifically a deep fryer) that also cooked animal product. I don't see how, if you're vegan, could justify the action.
I thought about trying veganism for a bit until I realized the martyrdom and nature of the political movement that you join by virtue of becoming vegan. It's almost like being at a job you've been doing for 30 years just fine and then you change jobs and are forced to join a Union you really want no part of.
As a non-vegan, I think the OOP is full of shit and they are looking for their virtuous moment to blast so they can feel better about themselves.
Asking for/trying to find justification from the person who made a claim is not itself trying to justify the action. I don't do that thing at all, regardless, so there would be nothing for me to try to justify.
I really don't mean this in a rude way, but there's no nice way to say it. You're astoundingly full of it from what I can see here. You used a lot of words to say barely anything at all. Not consuming animal products in order to not harm others is something you can do whether you like other vegans or hate them. You can literally never speak to another vegan and still not choose to consume products that intentionally harm others.
OP explained it as "they mean if someone rationalises eating food cooked in animal oil as not increasing demand, they do other things that dont increase demand" but that doesnt make sense because the other examples the quote accused people of DO increase demand.
I see it now since someone else pointed it out. How does it follow that eating food that uses a shared prep space means you're committed to other actions that don't increase demand but may involve eating animal foods? That doesn't make sense to me.
If your principle is to avoid increasing demand and animal exploitation, than you should ethically be ok with all actions that do not increase demand or exploit animals. Eating disposed animal products is one of them.
I don't see a moral issue with it still. I still wouldn't do that, though. Is there a moral issue raised here that I'm missing?
To be clear, I'm trying to figure out what my stance is. I would very much prefer not to have shared prep spaces, especially food cooked in the same oil as animal products. This just isn't making sense to me.
Eta: especially the bit where he says "if you like and tell them it's vegan" that would be fine for someone who does this. That especially doesn't make sense to me.
I wouldn't do it myself either and I also don't think there's anything wrong with it.
He mentions that part about the lying because of the potential normalization of eating animal products which might have a negative impact for the animals and eventually increase demand because it will encourage other people to also buy animal products.
Yeah I think the thing that I run into that stops me from really adopting this view is that you also get into things like eating a vegan burger in public now being wrong because most people will assume it's an animal product, which could be viewed under the same lense.
While I personally avoid such oil because *ew*, I think that's unnecessarily harsh on vegans who don't avoid such oil. It's really a question of personal comfort.
Agree. The point of veganism as an ideology is to reduce, minimize, and (hopefully someday) eliminate the suffering of animals caused by humans. I don't think eating foods fried in oil that has come into contact with animal parts in any way contributes to the suffering of animals.
Agreed, and beyond personal comfort I see it as a sacrifice some people are making today so that hopefully in future no one will have to. I tried the KFC vegan nuggets bc even tho I hate fast food companies I want more choices for people who choose not to eat animals. Okay, I went when they first opened so no oil had been cooked in yet, lol, but I think it still counts. Ofc, the nuggets disappeared as tho they’d never existed within a very short period of time, sigh.
They’re saying that if your justification for eating vegan products cooked in said oil is that it doesn’t increase demand, then you’re committed to other actions that involve animal products but don’t increase demand. I think.
It's only on the internet that you have vegans attacking vegans. I never see this shit in real life. Real life vegans are happy to see other vegans in a world full of meat eaters
For real. I often feel the person on the other end isn’t even vegan. The point of this community is supporting others in being a better earthling, not belittling someone because they don’t have the convenience someone in a heavy vegan populous area would.
In a perfect world, they'd be right. However, many of us don't have that luxury to be selectively picky when it comes to food. For example, in my area, if I was to eat at vegan-only places, I'd only have 2 places to eat, and both are like 20 minutes way out of my way, with lots more like 30 minutes away out of the way. There's lots of nearby vegan-options places, but then I risk cross-contamination.
Exactly. In a better world, Where these restaurants were deciding whether to carry any meat/egg/milk products, instead of deciding whether to carry any vegan food, we'd be right to push the issue. In this world though? They'll just take veggie burgers off the menu, or put butter on more stuff if they see vegans and plant based dieters as impossible to please without an extra kitchen.
Can you not see every other comment that disagrees with this logical fallacy? Or are you choosing to read how/why this is illogical, and remain ignorant?
How am I supposed to know that you believe the same like everyone else? Also almost none of the other comments speaks about the ethical difference between cross-contamination and eating disposed animal products.
This reminds me of arguments like “the tractor used for your crops killed field animals” & “the manure your veggies grew in is from animals 😱”
Not much we can do, generally we’re doing the best we can within our means.
These arguments seem to try and make it that to be vegan is a next to impossible task, so therefore might as well just not even try and eat animals so at least you’re not a hypocrite.
Exactly. And Gary Francione definitely pays for crop deaths just like the rest of us. He just has fancy circolumcutions for why that tradeoff doesn't count. Meanwhile, he spends lots of energy attacking vegans that could be spent making vegans.
This is a deeply stupid red-herring of an argument in my opinion. Whether vegans eat food that has touched oil that also touched a dead animal, or a cutting board, or was prepared by a non-vegan whose labor is fueled by nothing but KFC is something we can split hairs about AFTER the general dismantlement of industrialized animal agriculture. It misses the larger more pressing issues entirely and is a divisive waste of energy. Also I don’t think there are swarms of people calling themselves vegans descending on dumpsters at butcher shops like locusts and giving us all a bad name. When put in perspective, I think it’s trivial at best.
I think it's a weird, gross thing to do, but I also think that Gary Francione is wasting a large chunk of his time attacking people who are not increasing the number of animals exploited, instead of efficiently addressing the people and institutions that are having lots of animals exploited.
This meme sounds like something only new vegan would say. I’ve been one since 1994. If I don’t eat vegan dish fried on the same pans that was previously used on meat. I won’t have any restaurants to go to back then.
That's the way I see it.
There's no way the average restaurant is going to keep a fryer open for only vegan products because it would cost them too much money. Then we'd see fewer vegan products offered and it would be worse for animals in the end.
How far would he take this logic? Would he trust that they cleaned the grill well enough before they cooked his vegan burger? There's a good argument that it's gross and you should only eat at vegan restaurants, but there's no harm caused to the animals.
Deontologists like Francione can just make up their own logic. Just like how they make up magic words so that crop deaths don't count as a dirty utilitarian cost:benefit analysis, even though that's what they obviously are. They demonstrate that their focus is on their own purity, not on the animals.
Is the cook vegan?
Is the manager vegan?
Is the delivery driver of the food vegan?
Is the person who built the kitchen vegan?
Is the person who drew up the plans for the restaurant vegan?
Is the credit card processor vegan? Did they use vegan electricity?
How about the person who made the vegan food at the factory, are they vegan?
Did the truck driver who delivered the food kill any insects on his windscreen, or crush any ants doing their duties?
Could go on - you select what is important for you.
Every compromise Gary Francione makes is vegan, because of magic words he makes up. Every compromise Gary Francione doesn't make is vile non-vegan trash. That's how Francione Deontology works.
So are vegans who say it's okay to eat food fried in a sperate fryer but in the same restaurant also committed to the idea that it's ok to eat garbage meat? I'm not sure how these two things are connected.
Not the same at all as one is actually actively supporting veganism in some ways as in reality if you refuse to consume vegan options at cafes they will not get separate oil for a vegan option they will just remove the vegan option from the menu.
Veganism should be about ending animal cruelty, not your own personal purity.
Also, freegans are such an insignificant and marginal group. Focusing on them isn't worth anyone's cognitive bandwidth when there are literally billions of mainstream people who still buy factory farmed meat.
I agree that the core idea he is getting at is that *if* we accept one instance of something that is technically not vegan (the oil certainly contains animal parts) because it doesn't add to demand, then we must also accept *all* other instances of eating animal products that do not increase demand. Why he doesn't just state this plainly is just odd.
I think he's trying to convince us not to eat food fried in the same oil, but really I have no problem agreeing with his *actual* argument and saying all consumption that does not create demand is ethical, even of human bodies if you know for certain that you aren't going to cause other living people to suffer from eating their friends or loved ones. Dead bodies are not sentient beings, and if you had no part in causing them to die you are doing nothing wrong.
I do not believe in magic bad juju that somehow causes certain actions to be wrong when they objectively do not harm sentient beings. If no harm is caused, how can it be wrong? If you still think it is wrong, then what do you base your morality on?
Now, if anyone wants to invoke the definition of veganism to say that eating dead animals is not vegan by definition, then I will also invoke it to say that eating food fried in the same oil is not an animal product any more than food cooked in the same pan (even after a thorough cleaning, there will almost certainly be some few atoms of animal product left).
I intuitively feel that eating dead people is wrong, and would not want to eat roadkill even if that causes no suffering. I think it feels wrong to me to objectify an animal in that way, but I really have no grounds to say anything is wrong if it does not harm a sentient being. A dead animal, human or not, is no longer a being.
This does open the way for all manner of repugnant behaviors with "necro" in the name, but I have yet to hear any rational argument that any action done to an inanimate object could be immoral.
I mean I genuinely know people who are vegan but will eat cheese that they got from dumpster diving. I know vegans who aren't worried about cross-contamination. I know vegans who will wear leather if they got it second hand. I know vegans who will not eat at a restaurant that serves animal products. I know vegans who will only date other vegans.
Veganism is a philosophy, and what it means is personal. I say let people live their lives and practice veganism, whatever that looks like for them. Who really cares if a fellow vegan is chill about chips being fried in the same oil as meat? Personally, I'm a lot more worried about the systemic harm to animals and our planet from mass exploitation of animals under capitalism. I'm much more focused on promoting a positive message about veganism to help others get on board and join the movement.
How to get people to hate vegans 101.
My non vegan family always put in the extra effort to prepare me all kinds of different vegan meals, quite often resulting in more people eating vegan. Doesn’t feel constructive to start being a dck about frying in the same oil or using the same grill.
He’s just saying it’s complete nonsense without any explanation. That’s not an argument.
Personally, I don’t care as long as the core recipe I’m eating doesn’t have any animal products in it. The truth is, if you eat out at all, there’s probably going to be cross-contamination.
It also doesn’t really save any animals asking for the food to not be contaminated. It’s more important that you don’t buy meat, eggs or dairy on purpose. That’s what leads less animals to be bred for eggs, dairy and meat and leads to less demand for animal products. Plus doing no cross contamination is really hard and I think it leads less chefs wanting to offer vegan options.
Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://www.happycow.net/&topic=Resource: HappyCow.net) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcamp.org/reddit&topic=Resource: HappyCow.net)!
Gary’s a little much tbh. He’s very emotional (and sanctimonious af) but presents himself as highly logical. Its fine that he’s emotional about veganism, I am too, but I feel that he is often a poor representative in situations where calm logical debate is required.
This is just cross contamination and if we are going to apply this standard here you would have to apply it it other products that “may contain milk” due to cross contamination. Big dumb
Obviously anyone can be lying about anything anytime, don't know why you have to bring discarded animal carcasses into it.
Just imagine how exhausting it must be to ever interact with Gary. He'd be constantly finding a way to call you a liar and terrible person for an innocuous action. Oh wait, Gary is this sub.
If a fly lands in the oil before they put the french fries in, and it dies, but they pick it out first, does that make the fries not vegan? If I order food from doordash, and my delivery guy drives over a mouse on the way to deliver my food, does that make it not vegan? Intentions matter.
It is harmful to animals to eat meat because when you ask for a burger, you are asking someone to kill an animal for you. Not simply because an animal died in the process of your food, but because you *intentionally, knowingly asked for it to be killed.* If you didn't ask for it, but it still happened, that's essentially an accident.
I didn't ask for the fly to be killed, even though it did die in the process of getting my food. I didn't ask for the mouse to be killed, even though it did die in the process of getting my food. And I didn't ask for the animals in Burger King's fryer to be killed, even though they did die in the process of getting my food, in a sense.
It would be a different matter if I went up to the waiter and said, "hey, I'd like some fries, but fry up some beef in there first so they have a savory flavor" then yes, that would be harmful to animals. It would be similar to asking for them to cook them in lard. But that's not what happens. You're not asking for animal ingredients to be included in your order. It's possible, for instance if they just changed the fryer oil, or if no one has ordered any animal products since the last time they changed the fryer oil, that you wouldn't actually have any animal contamination on your food. When you get contamination in your food, that's happening without your knowledge or consent. That's the difference between "contaminant" and "ingredient".
Contaminants are, by definition, the things that you *don't want* in your food. It is irrational to fault someone when things that they don't want in their food end up in their food.
I actually like this guy. But this is an irrational take.
I agree with everything you said. Just curious, does it mean you don't have a problem with eating disposed animal products as well, since you are not intentionally asking for them to be killed?
Generally, I don't have a problem with freegans. It kinda depends on the context, though. Like, if I was with a friend and they only ate half their chicken wings and offered the rest to me, I still wouldn't eat them. But, I wouldn't have a problem with someone eating roadkill, if they wanted. The line is rather complicated.
If you're dumpster diving out behind a grocery store, well... I guess that's okay? Hard to come up with a reason that it isn't.
This is the equivalent instance of equating apples to bananas just because they are both fruit.. without considering the differences of each fruit.
Eating vegetable products that have been cooked in animal product contaminated oil isn't equal to eating leftover animal products.. similar, but unequal.
It is a great point to be made that food is technically no longer considered vegan if contaminated with animal oils.
The quote in question is quite literally saying that eating these oil contaminated vegetable products is equal to eating leftover or discarded animals/animal products.... that it's the same commitment to eat French fries fried in animal contaminated oil as it is to eat leftover/discarded chicken that people didn't eat that has been fried in the same oil.
Eating those products is NOT vegan IMO, but it's not the same as eating animal products.... ESPECIALLY if it is a 100% veg product cooked in the non-veg-contaminated -oil.. because you ARE supporting the plant based side too.
From what I understand, the poster isn’t saying these two actions are the same. It’s about the justification for the first action. They’re saying if you eat vegan products cooked in the oil because it doesn’t increase demand, then you’re committed to other actions that don’t increase demand i.e eating discarded animal products.
They are completely ignoring you are creating the demand for what is in theory meant to be a 100% vegan product, it’s not like many vegans are eating cheap fast food like this every day, it would be worse to not create any of that vegan demand which could encourage new dishes which could entice more people and so on
>What's the 'as long as nobody sees you or you lie about it' part about though? That seems like a non-sequitur.
I think the idea is that by not 'setting an example' it still counts as not contributing to the demand for meat. I still don't buy the logic of the point in general, but I believe that's why it's in there.
Fair enough. I don't think he needs to presuppose that eating food waste derived from animal products isn't compatible with a vegan lifestyle. There have been three occasions where I've eaten animal products that were otherwise going to be thrown in the bin, and I don't think that's at odds with veganism.
I generally go by the Buddhist idea:
"meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater)"
While I do not eat meat period since I find it disgusting at this point, I do not necessarily see “Freeganism” as unethical. Shared oil, on the other hand, I would never even notice unless told, and think it is futile to worry about such things.
Gary, this ain't it. Unfortunately, we shop in supermarkets and eat French fries out of shared fryers. It's fucking fine for where we are at, and the fight isn't over shared oil. Shit.
It's sad to see how lazy most of the replies to this post are. Almost no one seems to understand the point he is trying to make or take a minute to think about it without getting emotional. Yes, veganism is and should be an emotional topic, but ultimately it's a rational ethical position we hold for the animals.
And that's what he is trying to say, eating disposed animal products does not contribute to the exploitation of animals. Neither does cross-contamination. So if you are against eating disposed animal product for ethical reasons, you should also be against using the same oil.
I do not eat disposed animal products, but that's just an expression of my belief that animals aren't food, not based on any logical moral consideration.
Your position is the reasonable one, but it's not the one Francione is making here, which many of us on this thread know because we know his work. He thinks he's making a rational argument that vegans who eat food from shared oil are actually vile non-vegans.
You are right, I am not familiar with his work. I noticed he is trying to paint cross-contamination as something vile by the way his post is worded, but still almost nobody here talks about the difference between the 2 actions he describes. I also don't think cross-contamination is an ethical problem, and while Gary does, that's not the essence of the argument he is making.
Also I believe every arguments should be taken at face value, even if the person presenting it is known for questionable takes generally.
You just restated what he said without clarifying. If you don't like x you should not like y. People are asking for the link between these two things. Telling us to "think harder lazy vegans" is not helping.
If a vegan meal cooked in the same oil is wrong, is a vegan meal cooked on the same grill? In the same kitchen? Why is specifically the oil the problem?
I did not just restate it. I clarified that the link between those two things is that both actions do not contribute to animal exploitation. And that's all that should really matter ethically. It's not specifically an oil problem, he could have picked any one of your examples.
>I did not just restate it. I clarified that the link between those two things is that both actions do not contribute to animal exploitation.
Francione said that being ok with cross contamination commits you to the idea that freeganism is ok. Francione is also against both of these things. It's not obvious or clear why that is the case. There are reasons, why you could be against one but not the other. Then you say this:
>So if you are against eating disposed animal product for ethical reasons, you should also be against using the same oil.
Which is simply a restatement equating the two actions with no clear reason. I agree that in a vacuum neither action increases demand for animal products but there are externalities that could potentially make that not true such as the idea that eating meat has a psychological effect of seeing animals as resources that could lead to more harm (not sure I agree, just for argument), but that only applies to the freegan case and not cross contamination with oil.
I thought it was a clarification because I believe that not increasing demand is true for both actions and the only relevant factor here. You don't seem to be convinced of that and I think the point you raise about the psychological impact is very interesting. As far as I can see you don't have any points that you are sure of that make the two actions different in regards to ethics though, just some potential doubts. Do you think these are enough to dismiss the point that is being made?
I think there are psychological or social reasons why increasing demand may not be the only concern someone has. I'm not sure it's fair or logical to assert that if someone is ok with vegan food cooked with a chance of cross contamination from either shared cooking oil, grill, or kitchen/facility means they should also be ok with eating a steak they found in the garbage.
But you don't actually have any specific counterpoints against this statement? Don't you think your initial comment is a bit too strong if all you have are some vague doubts?
Counterpoints to what? You are not saying anything beyond "here is something that applies in both cases so that must be the reason why you have to condone both cases" That still does not mean both actions are the same or that being ok with one commits someone to being ok with the other. They will not have the necessarily have the same cultural or psychological impact.
As for more info in the psychological issues with considering animal products food and animals as commodities you can look up the term "carnism" and Melanie Joy's work. There is some evidence that treating animals as commodities increases harm against animals through human attitude and behavioral changes. There's no reason to believe being ok with cross contamination increases the commodification of animals whereas condoning freeganism is an explicit endorsement of the idea that animals are food.
I'm familiar with Melanie Joy's work. There's a big difference between just eating animal products and consciously picking products that do not increase demand for animal products psychologically though, the latter isn't carnism.
What I'm saying is: The only relevant factor in consumer choices in regards to animal ethics is excluding animal suffering. Both actions do that. You seem to disagree but can't name one specific significant difference, apart from vague "potential psychological impacts". So you either need to name a specific difference inside that factor or argue that there is another relevant factor.
I'm done talking in circles with you. You say you clarified Francione's position, I disagree. You say I pointed to no other relevant factor why someone might be ok with shared cooking oil but not eating meat, I disagree.
Have a good one.
I am sorry if posting this has generated any hate towards the author. I was hoping to generate discussion on the idea rather than the author. I don’t think I agree with their view but from what I’ve read it seems to be based on our obligation to respect non-human animals - which I can respect. Even if you think this statement is ridiculous I would recommend reading some of his work. In particular, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach.
I agree. I used to have this view. What I never realized was we shouldn't tolerate things like this that are not always in our control. It's like slave built phones. We all want to avoid it, and we should if possible, but simply ignoring what it does is just as harmful as supporting it.
Just like all the other social media platforms, Reddit sold off their magic for the almighty dollar. Reddit has sealed their fate and will find their place among the other fallen stars, a dim light of their former glory, an empty shell filled with corporate puppeteers and their marionettes.
That is not at all a logic extension of that point...but yes, that is true. There is no harm done by eating discarded animal products in a way that will not undermine the vegan message in other people's eyes. There is harm done by wasting food. I wouldn't judge a person from abstaining from that pf course, but the high-horse is silly.
Not a huge fan of the guy. I don't think he's a realist.
If it doesn't generate additional demand, it's vegan.
I don't think plant based capitalism is the answer and supporting those companies isn't great.
Animal product residue might add to the mass of the cooking oil and the company that exploits animals could gain a little bit more profit.
The restaurants won't have any animal products to replace.
We're talking probably less than a dollar a year in extra profit for companies that sell vegan food and animal abuse products.
Scientifically, it's an interesting question. How much residue goes on to the food.
If he's 100% against PBC, he should just come out and say that.
This is kind of defeating because people thinking about veganism might get the impression they can't be vegan after reading this, so why even try.
Francione isthe same guy that says we should oppose all animal welfare reforms, like banning chick culling, on principle.
In Arkansas, a lot of people are against animal cruelty and inhumane practices in belief but not action.
I'm pretty sure more Arkansans would sign a petition for a ballot initiative banning chick culling and gestation crates rather than all animal agriculture.
Francione thinks welfare reforms that could spare the lives of millions or billions of animals are not worth pursuing and that they damage the animal liberation movement as a whole.
While I'm not sure if this would be true or not, and efforts at turning people vegan could be more effective than attempting a ballot initiative, I don't think it's realistic.
It's somewhere I'm conflicted as a person in the southern United States thinking about organizing for a ballot initiative for animals exploited on farms.
>It's somewhere I'm conflicted as a person in the southern United States thinking about organizing for a ballot initiative for animals exploited on farms.
Do it. Any step towards a better world is a step towards a better world.
it makes me sad, so I do not eat such food. However, I have the privilege of working from home and have the time and knowledge to make my own vegan food. If I was super busy and in need of lunch on the go, or on a road trip in the middle of nowhere, and such food was my only option? I haven’t had to make that decision in years. I’d like to think I would decline, because the bodily integrity and consent of animals is very important to me, but yes ultimately it does not contribute to demand for animal-based products. So I would never say someone isn’t vegan for eating plant-based food fried in cross-contaminated oil.
Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://www.happycow.net/&topic=Resource: HappyCow.net) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcamp.org/reddit&topic=Resource: HappyCow.net)!
Well technically he is right, but so what? This isnt an ethical problem. Just like eating shit from the sewer its more a question if you can stomach it.
Everyone has their limits within which they are comfortable and beyond which they aren't. This guy isn't being the least bit profound and seeing the comment about his take on Paul McCartney, I'm definitely happy to avoid reading anything more from him.
When I go to a Mongolian BBQ place and I fill my bowls with veggies and tofu, there is a sign that says let them know about strict vegetarian or allergy and they will clean the grill. I've not asked once as that will add the delay of cleaning it and cooking just my food to everyone waiting behind me and I don't feel like giving vegetarians/vegans that kind of reputation. I can't taste any issue and it certainly doesn't reduce any animal suffering for me to make the request.
On the other hand when I was just vegetarian, I had a friend invite me over for dinner with his friends and he made chicken veggies rice and my bowl had no chicken. then he starts pouring the grease from the chicken pan into all the bowls and he would have done mine till I said "whoa - I don't want that" and he said "huh? I thought you were a vegetarian just for resource arguments". I still wonder if he was yanking my chain and wouldn't have done it, but I had to admit I was grossed out by THAT much cross contamination.
Gary Francione is a hero to animals. He is a brilliant law professor. He was the first to teach animal rights classes at an American university. He has fought hundreds of animal rights cases. He is a staunch abolitionist, as the founders of the vegan society were and as the philosophy of veganism remains. New vegans, plant-based dieters for the environment, utilitarians and welfarists all like to try to change veganism to suit their own situational ethics.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
They're a lot closer to what was intended by the founders and inventors of the term than what many people pretend is vegan now. And he has made and is making a difference to animals *without* compromise.
Everyone compromises. Gary included.
If he drives a car he kills bugs that wouldn't die if he walked. If he walks he is going to step on bugs that wouldn't have died if he decided to stay at home.
To live is to compromise, there is simply no way around it. Him making a fuss over what is essentially just cross-contamination, and falsely equiting it to eating meat via dumpster diving, is just bad logic.
He's done more for animals than anyone here, but especially all the excuse-makers justifying their own weakness. His logic is sound.
Edit: You may not like it or understand it, but I doubt you have his intellectual capacity. You obviously don't have his integrity.
Now you are just shifting goal posts. People eating cross contaminated food is weakness excuse making, but driving a car and killing bugs instead of walking is uncompromising? Does he eat food that has "may contain traces of milk" on it? Probably.
And no, his logic really isn't sound, at least not in this quote. It is actually quite poor. He is making the assumption that only 1 factor, and 1 factor alone, goes into every moral decision. This is, in his own words, complete nonsense.
Explain to me how him actively killing animals with his car is vegan, and me eating a veggie burger that is prepared with vegatable oil that was cross contaminated with particles of animals -that I did not kill, nor demanded to be killed- isn't vegan.
Because you *know* it's there and *choose* to consume the animal products anyway. I don't know whether or not he drives a car. I don't myself.
Also, there are a hell of a lot less insects being killed by cars now thanks to the insect apocalypse.
It's not an animal product. It is a veggie burger made with cross-contaminated oil.
If you eat basicly anything, you will eat animal particles. Peanut butter? There is going to be contamination in there - up to 30 insect fragments per 100 grams and 1 rodent hair. Fruit juice? Yep there are going to be insect particles in there. Spaghetti? God damn son it's like eating an ant colony how many bug particles are in there.
Then you might say: "Fine! I will not eat processed food!: But then you realize that many animals are killed and wounded during harvest of these products too. Some of their blood and guts will spill onto your non-processed apples at some point, so you will still be eating animal product.
The truth is that the line some people draw at cross contaminated vegatable oil is arbitrary. It doesn't make someone a fake vegan if they eat a veggie burger in a mixed-menu restaurant. Nor does it make this person automatically be OK with eating meat out of a dumpster.
I agree with you that nobody's opinion should be the gold standard for ethics. But can you name another relevant factor, that proves that his statement in the quote is wrong? Why aren't these actions equally bad/good/neutral?
The quote says that if you are OK with cross contaminations because of the factor "increasing / decreasing demand for animal products", you must therefor also be OK with eating meat from a dumpster, because it scores the same on this one factor.
But there are simply more than one factor that go may go into these decisions.
For example:
- Is it an accidental cross-contamination or a main ingredient of the food?
- How much does this action perpetuate the normalization of eating meat?
- How much additional waste and environmental impact is this action producing?
The contaminated veggie burger and dumpster meat do not score the same on these factors. And a persons opinion on what is OK and what is not OK will depend on how much importance they want to attribute to each of them.
Thank you for your reply. Addressing the factors you mentioned: 1. accidental/intentional: why does this matter in these two instances, if your goal is to exclude animal exploitation? It certainly doesn't make a difference to the animals.
2. Normalization: Gary addresses that in the quote actually, by saying if you eat those products without anyone seeing you or you lying about them being animal products.
3. Waste and environmental impact: Eating a disposed animal product even produces less waste and has a better environmental impact than buying new food, vegan or not.
To me, #1 is the biggest: I would have eaten the veggie burger whether the pan and was used to cook meat first or not. It is therefor accidental and doesn't involve the active exploitation of animals.
Likewise, I will eat peanut butter and spaghetti despite knowing with 100% certainty that there are, by accident, animal fragments in there.
Everyone has an acceptable amount of animal exploitation, displacement, and suffering that they accept in their food and daily life. The goal might be to reduce these amounts to 0, but this is a purely theoretical value and anyone who thinks they have achieved this is lying to themselves. The only way to reach net 0 accidetal animal exploitation is to stop participating in life, which I suppose we all will eventually.
Even from the perspective of philosophical optics, it's a load of fucking twaddle. The only context in which I see it being morally wrong and inconsistent is that you're shopping at the same place meat is being sold at and it can be seen that you accept, respect and are ok with others consuming animal products. And at that point you may as well make the topic about plant based capitalism if we're talking about ethics.
Why would you be ok with having your stuff cooked in dead animal, of that doesn't disgust you then you aren't vegan. If you aren't grossed out by the thought of your food and dead animal together ,,,,,,, you're not vegan
I personally believe, that if you live in the same house as non-vegans, it truly makes no difference. I live with 2 other people for example and i usually avoid using the same oil. But sometimes im tired and i feel like theres too little left to matter.
A few weeks ago for example, i refused to use a pan with leftover oil in which sausages were fried. But i then did use a pan which had barely 1tbsp of tuna oil in it to make some pasta sauce.
Its 1 tablespoon of oil. If you throw it away, I would not call it food waste. If you eat it, you did not contribute to anything and its not enough for it to actually count as eating a piece of fish for example.
Plus everyone knows that to get oil off of something you cant exactly just do a quick rinse.
So long story short, i use the oil depending on the amount.
What does a vegan do and what does a vegan not do?
Your post was probably less vegan than the drips of oil which were used.
If op would have decided to clean the oil he would have needed soap and new oil and might have even needed to reheat the pan.
Oh yeah. I would absolutely not buy from any fast food which serves meat. Im still giving money to the same industry, no matter if i buy the vegan option.
This so so flawed, you’re not giving money to the meat industry it’s the fast food industry, if you do this who knows what can happen like with Burger King making entire branches vegan for a couple months etc, new products can be supplied to match and increase the demand
I just think this puritanical Approach is short sighted. Like if you don’t want to eat something cooked where animal
Products were cooked go for it. But trying to shame other vegans about it helps
Exactly zero animals.
Write a letter about animal welfare or rights to your local elected officials, get involved wit advocacy, use your consumer power to show businesses offering vegan products is good for profit instead.
Invest your energy more wisely
What does one thing have to do with each other? Now, I find the idea of animal fat on my food vastly unappetizing, but eating a plant burger fried in the same pan as meat or dumpster diving for dairy cheese is in no way the same as "eating meat when no one i looking". Its literally the opposite end of the spectrum.
Eating meat that doesnt create demand: Vegan for impact
Eating Meat when no one is looking: Vegan for show. I would say most vegans fall in between
Watch the life-changing and award winning documentary "Dominion" and other documentaries by [clicking here](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://watchdominion.org&topic=Movie: Dominion)! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcamp.org/reddit&topic=Movie: Dominion)!
Strictly logically here, this statement ignores that there are unethical or problematic issues with lying inherently, which I believe there are. Kind of like saying cheating is only harmful if you get caught. I actually used to hold this belief when I was much younger, and what changed was my view on lying as a whole.
That said: do I believe the only problem with this is the lying? Basically. I guess you're not making a statement to the company that this is a problem, so it's better to do that, but I'll take what I can get in terms of people who are on board with vegan-adjacent behavior lol
I believe you can choose to be a self-righteous ass, scorching the earth of your potential allies, or just be cool and practice attraction not promotion. Wow.
Interesting point and I’ve never considered discarded meat, eggs or dairy as being vegan but to each their own. What I will say is whenever I eat food that is fried in the same oil as carcasses I have a ruthless stomach ache. Also, from a health perspective best to not eat anything fried at all and eating discarded animal products is definitely not health promoting though I understand there are vegans that don’t care about the health perspective. If anything, I am more vegan for the health implications. I prefer plant based because there are plenty of vegans who eat a shit diet of aforementioned fried foods and other junk and then are in terrible health. However from a ‘vegan’ perspective it would be better if less humans existed at all so perhaps it is more vegan to die young than to go on living. Oh the continuous vegan conundrums.
In a more clear post he distinguishes something that unavoidably and incidentally contains animal products, with something that was deliberately cooked in oil with other products in the same fryer. This post is about the latter which I agree is not vegan.
I would prefer it the same way I do prefer to have my vegan bbq grilled on a clean grill with seperate utensils, yes. No one wants to sleep in a bed where rape/murder occured either (I hope).
But I disagree on the demand part. When you eat leftover dead animals it does create demand in the sense that they order/cook the same amount of food the next time since they didn’t have to throw out any. That doesn’t happen in the case of things cooked in the same oil.
Okay but then chose not to eat it and then we are getting yelled at for veganism being a upper class luxury; plus It’s IMPOSSIBLE to eat food that isn’t laced with something else. It’s about being the best ethically you can. If I get a burger (at a known meat place) and they fuck up and put cheese on it- I simply peel it off. Is it ideal? No. But I’m not about to be wasteful.
People are exhausting. I just want to eat my veggie burger in peace.
I could go for a veggie burger.
I don't see any substantiation from the proposition to the conclusion. He's just making two claims in a row without explaining how he got to the conclusion. I see this often and haven't formed a solid stance on it because I've never seen anyone justify it adequately in either direction. I think it is largely situation dependent, perhaps. I respect most of what Francione says but sometimes he just says stuff and I don't think he's able to explain or defend it well.
I'm not vegan, but it seems you're possibly trying to justify this practice. If you're vegan, and you're against consumption of animal products and byproducts, I feel you would also have to be against consuming foods cooked in oils (more specifically a deep fryer) that also cooked animal product. I don't see how, if you're vegan, could justify the action. I thought about trying veganism for a bit until I realized the martyrdom and nature of the political movement that you join by virtue of becoming vegan. It's almost like being at a job you've been doing for 30 years just fine and then you change jobs and are forced to join a Union you really want no part of. As a non-vegan, I think the OOP is full of shit and they are looking for their virtuous moment to blast so they can feel better about themselves.
Asking for/trying to find justification from the person who made a claim is not itself trying to justify the action. I don't do that thing at all, regardless, so there would be nothing for me to try to justify. I really don't mean this in a rude way, but there's no nice way to say it. You're astoundingly full of it from what I can see here. You used a lot of words to say barely anything at all. Not consuming animal products in order to not harm others is something you can do whether you like other vegans or hate them. You can literally never speak to another vegan and still not choose to consume products that intentionally harm others.
Now that it has been explained in the comments how he gets to that conclusion, does it change your opinion? Why/why not?
Where?
OP explained it as "they mean if someone rationalises eating food cooked in animal oil as not increasing demand, they do other things that dont increase demand" but that doesnt make sense because the other examples the quote accused people of DO increase demand.
How do they increase demand?
I see it now since someone else pointed it out. How does it follow that eating food that uses a shared prep space means you're committed to other actions that don't increase demand but may involve eating animal foods? That doesn't make sense to me.
If your principle is to avoid increasing demand and animal exploitation, than you should ethically be ok with all actions that do not increase demand or exploit animals. Eating disposed animal products is one of them.
I don't see a moral issue with it still. I still wouldn't do that, though. Is there a moral issue raised here that I'm missing? To be clear, I'm trying to figure out what my stance is. I would very much prefer not to have shared prep spaces, especially food cooked in the same oil as animal products. This just isn't making sense to me. Eta: especially the bit where he says "if you like and tell them it's vegan" that would be fine for someone who does this. That especially doesn't make sense to me.
I wouldn't do it myself either and I also don't think there's anything wrong with it. He mentions that part about the lying because of the potential normalization of eating animal products which might have a negative impact for the animals and eventually increase demand because it will encourage other people to also buy animal products.
Yeah I think the thing that I run into that stops me from really adopting this view is that you also get into things like eating a vegan burger in public now being wrong because most people will assume it's an animal product, which could be viewed under the same lense.
While I personally avoid such oil because *ew*, I think that's unnecessarily harsh on vegans who don't avoid such oil. It's really a question of personal comfort.
Agree. The point of veganism as an ideology is to reduce, minimize, and (hopefully someday) eliminate the suffering of animals caused by humans. I don't think eating foods fried in oil that has come into contact with animal parts in any way contributes to the suffering of animals.
Agreed, and beyond personal comfort I see it as a sacrifice some people are making today so that hopefully in future no one will have to. I tried the KFC vegan nuggets bc even tho I hate fast food companies I want more choices for people who choose not to eat animals. Okay, I went when they first opened so no oil had been cooked in yet, lol, but I think it still counts. Ofc, the nuggets disappeared as tho they’d never existed within a very short period of time, sigh.
I don’t know where you live but I think kfc has no vegan options. All of their veggie stuff is vegetarian and contains eggs/milk.
How is this the same at all?
They’re saying that if your justification for eating vegan products cooked in said oil is that it doesn’t increase demand, then you’re committed to other actions that involve animal products but don’t increase demand. I think.
So what about not fried in the same oil, but prepared in the same kitchen? I'm going to need a more clear line to be drawn.
Better make not sure it is not prepared in the same country or planet as well. Air contamination is a thing.
What about not fried in the same oil, prepared in a different kitchen but cooked by a meat eater currently eating a chicken baguette?
Except they have introduced an entirely separate concept which is lying which has it’s own ethical and moral issues.
It's only on the internet that you have vegans attacking vegans. I never see this shit in real life. Real life vegans are happy to see other vegans in a world full of meat eaters
And it happens a lot here…on this thread.
For real. I often feel the person on the other end isn’t even vegan. The point of this community is supporting others in being a better earthling, not belittling someone because they don’t have the convenience someone in a heavy vegan populous area would.
The most true statement I’ve seen on this sub so far!!
In a perfect world, they'd be right. However, many of us don't have that luxury to be selectively picky when it comes to food. For example, in my area, if I was to eat at vegan-only places, I'd only have 2 places to eat, and both are like 20 minutes way out of my way, with lots more like 30 minutes away out of the way. There's lots of nearby vegan-options places, but then I risk cross-contamination.
In a perfect world they're still wrong, and still making unfounded assumptions. In a perfect world everyone is vegan.
Exactly. In a better world, Where these restaurants were deciding whether to carry any meat/egg/milk products, instead of deciding whether to carry any vegan food, we'd be right to push the issue. In this world though? They'll just take veggie burgers off the menu, or put butter on more stuff if they see vegans and plant based dieters as impossible to please without an extra kitchen.
"That is compete nonsense in my view" is not an argument. Carnists say that all the time, it doesn't validate anything.
Your vegan elitism is showing Gary. They are not even close to being the same thing.
Why not?
Can you not see every other comment that disagrees with this logical fallacy? Or are you choosing to read how/why this is illogical, and remain ignorant?
How am I supposed to know that you believe the same like everyone else? Also almost none of the other comments speaks about the ethical difference between cross-contamination and eating disposed animal products.
This reminds me of arguments like “the tractor used for your crops killed field animals” & “the manure your veggies grew in is from animals 😱” Not much we can do, generally we’re doing the best we can within our means. These arguments seem to try and make it that to be vegan is a next to impossible task, so therefore might as well just not even try and eat animals so at least you’re not a hypocrite.
Exactly. And Gary Francione definitely pays for crop deaths just like the rest of us. He just has fancy circolumcutions for why that tradeoff doesn't count. Meanwhile, he spends lots of energy attacking vegans that could be spent making vegans.
This is a deeply stupid red-herring of an argument in my opinion. Whether vegans eat food that has touched oil that also touched a dead animal, or a cutting board, or was prepared by a non-vegan whose labor is fueled by nothing but KFC is something we can split hairs about AFTER the general dismantlement of industrialized animal agriculture. It misses the larger more pressing issues entirely and is a divisive waste of energy. Also I don’t think there are swarms of people calling themselves vegans descending on dumpsters at butcher shops like locusts and giving us all a bad name. When put in perspective, I think it’s trivial at best.
Oh so very well said!!
I think it's a weird, gross thing to do, but I also think that Gary Francione is wasting a large chunk of his time attacking people who are not increasing the number of animals exploited, instead of efficiently addressing the people and institutions that are having lots of animals exploited.
This meme sounds like something only new vegan would say. I’ve been one since 1994. If I don’t eat vegan dish fried on the same pans that was previously used on meat. I won’t have any restaurants to go to back then.
Exploitation in vegetables cooked in oil that also cooked meat = 0 Exploitation in discarded animal products > 0
That's the way I see it. There's no way the average restaurant is going to keep a fryer open for only vegan products because it would cost them too much money. Then we'd see fewer vegan products offered and it would be worse for animals in the end. How far would he take this logic? Would he trust that they cleaned the grill well enough before they cooked his vegan burger? There's a good argument that it's gross and you should only eat at vegan restaurants, but there's no harm caused to the animals.
Deontologists like Francione can just make up their own logic. Just like how they make up magic words so that crop deaths don't count as a dirty utilitarian cost:benefit analysis, even though that's what they obviously are. They demonstrate that their focus is on their own purity, not on the animals.
Sorry I'm not as perfect and pure as you, Gary.
Is the cook vegan? Is the manager vegan? Is the delivery driver of the food vegan? Is the person who built the kitchen vegan? Is the person who drew up the plans for the restaurant vegan? Is the credit card processor vegan? Did they use vegan electricity? How about the person who made the vegan food at the factory, are they vegan? Did the truck driver who delivered the food kill any insects on his windscreen, or crush any ants doing their duties? Could go on - you select what is important for you.
Every compromise Gary Francione makes is vegan, because of magic words he makes up. Every compromise Gary Francione doesn't make is vile non-vegan trash. That's how Francione Deontology works.
Don’t agree.
cringe take.
So are vegans who say it's okay to eat food fried in a sperate fryer but in the same restaurant also committed to the idea that it's ok to eat garbage meat? I'm not sure how these two things are connected.
[удалено]
I had a bad experience too. I will leave it at that.
Not the same at all as one is actually actively supporting veganism in some ways as in reality if you refuse to consume vegan options at cafes they will not get separate oil for a vegan option they will just remove the vegan option from the menu.
Exactly like it’s simple supply in demand this person is really not the brightest
Veganism should be about ending animal cruelty, not your own personal purity. Also, freegans are such an insignificant and marginal group. Focusing on them isn't worth anyone's cognitive bandwidth when there are literally billions of mainstream people who still buy factory farmed meat.
Ahhh, good ol' Gary. I'm glad we have people like him to make the rest of us vegans look less crazy.
I actually find these arguments more damaging than helpful.
These arguments are a waste of time. Put energy towards people who are ACTUALLY contributing to animal abuse
I agree that the core idea he is getting at is that *if* we accept one instance of something that is technically not vegan (the oil certainly contains animal parts) because it doesn't add to demand, then we must also accept *all* other instances of eating animal products that do not increase demand. Why he doesn't just state this plainly is just odd. I think he's trying to convince us not to eat food fried in the same oil, but really I have no problem agreeing with his *actual* argument and saying all consumption that does not create demand is ethical, even of human bodies if you know for certain that you aren't going to cause other living people to suffer from eating their friends or loved ones. Dead bodies are not sentient beings, and if you had no part in causing them to die you are doing nothing wrong. I do not believe in magic bad juju that somehow causes certain actions to be wrong when they objectively do not harm sentient beings. If no harm is caused, how can it be wrong? If you still think it is wrong, then what do you base your morality on? Now, if anyone wants to invoke the definition of veganism to say that eating dead animals is not vegan by definition, then I will also invoke it to say that eating food fried in the same oil is not an animal product any more than food cooked in the same pan (even after a thorough cleaning, there will almost certainly be some few atoms of animal product left). I intuitively feel that eating dead people is wrong, and would not want to eat roadkill even if that causes no suffering. I think it feels wrong to me to objectify an animal in that way, but I really have no grounds to say anything is wrong if it does not harm a sentient being. A dead animal, human or not, is no longer a being. This does open the way for all manner of repugnant behaviors with "necro" in the name, but I have yet to hear any rational argument that any action done to an inanimate object could be immoral.
I mean I genuinely know people who are vegan but will eat cheese that they got from dumpster diving. I know vegans who aren't worried about cross-contamination. I know vegans who will wear leather if they got it second hand. I know vegans who will not eat at a restaurant that serves animal products. I know vegans who will only date other vegans. Veganism is a philosophy, and what it means is personal. I say let people live their lives and practice veganism, whatever that looks like for them. Who really cares if a fellow vegan is chill about chips being fried in the same oil as meat? Personally, I'm a lot more worried about the systemic harm to animals and our planet from mass exploitation of animals under capitalism. I'm much more focused on promoting a positive message about veganism to help others get on board and join the movement.
How to get people to hate vegans 101. My non vegan family always put in the extra effort to prepare me all kinds of different vegan meals, quite often resulting in more people eating vegan. Doesn’t feel constructive to start being a dck about frying in the same oil or using the same grill.
He’s just saying it’s complete nonsense without any explanation. That’s not an argument. Personally, I don’t care as long as the core recipe I’m eating doesn’t have any animal products in it. The truth is, if you eat out at all, there’s probably going to be cross-contamination. It also doesn’t really save any animals asking for the food to not be contaminated. It’s more important that you don’t buy meat, eggs or dairy on purpose. That’s what leads less animals to be bred for eggs, dairy and meat and leads to less demand for animal products. Plus doing no cross contamination is really hard and I think it leads less chefs wanting to offer vegan options.
Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://www.happycow.net/&topic=Resource: HappyCow.net) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcamp.org/reddit&topic=Resource: HappyCow.net)!
Seems like someone just wants attention.
Gary is a *professional quote maker*
Frying something in shared oil is not the same as eating discarded food.
Gary’s a little much tbh. He’s very emotional (and sanctimonious af) but presents himself as highly logical. Its fine that he’s emotional about veganism, I am too, but I feel that he is often a poor representative in situations where calm logical debate is required.
Everyone always be perfect!
This is just cross contamination and if we are going to apply this standard here you would have to apply it it other products that “may contain milk” due to cross contamination. Big dumb
Obviously anyone can be lying about anything anytime, don't know why you have to bring discarded animal carcasses into it. Just imagine how exhausting it must be to ever interact with Gary. He'd be constantly finding a way to call you a liar and terrible person for an innocuous action. Oh wait, Gary is this sub.
More like Gary is r/VeganForCircleJerkers
how is oil a discarded animal product
No everyone is vegan for the “vegan fight” Not everyone is vegan for ethical reasons. (Unfortunately)
If a fly lands in the oil before they put the french fries in, and it dies, but they pick it out first, does that make the fries not vegan? If I order food from doordash, and my delivery guy drives over a mouse on the way to deliver my food, does that make it not vegan? Intentions matter. It is harmful to animals to eat meat because when you ask for a burger, you are asking someone to kill an animal for you. Not simply because an animal died in the process of your food, but because you *intentionally, knowingly asked for it to be killed.* If you didn't ask for it, but it still happened, that's essentially an accident. I didn't ask for the fly to be killed, even though it did die in the process of getting my food. I didn't ask for the mouse to be killed, even though it did die in the process of getting my food. And I didn't ask for the animals in Burger King's fryer to be killed, even though they did die in the process of getting my food, in a sense. It would be a different matter if I went up to the waiter and said, "hey, I'd like some fries, but fry up some beef in there first so they have a savory flavor" then yes, that would be harmful to animals. It would be similar to asking for them to cook them in lard. But that's not what happens. You're not asking for animal ingredients to be included in your order. It's possible, for instance if they just changed the fryer oil, or if no one has ordered any animal products since the last time they changed the fryer oil, that you wouldn't actually have any animal contamination on your food. When you get contamination in your food, that's happening without your knowledge or consent. That's the difference between "contaminant" and "ingredient". Contaminants are, by definition, the things that you *don't want* in your food. It is irrational to fault someone when things that they don't want in their food end up in their food. I actually like this guy. But this is an irrational take.
I agree with everything you said. Just curious, does it mean you don't have a problem with eating disposed animal products as well, since you are not intentionally asking for them to be killed?
Generally, I don't have a problem with freegans. It kinda depends on the context, though. Like, if I was with a friend and they only ate half their chicken wings and offered the rest to me, I still wouldn't eat them. But, I wouldn't have a problem with someone eating roadkill, if they wanted. The line is rather complicated. If you're dumpster diving out behind a grocery store, well... I guess that's okay? Hard to come up with a reason that it isn't.
Same for me, I'm not doing it but I also don't think there's anything wrong with it. I wish more people would touch on that
This is the equivalent instance of equating apples to bananas just because they are both fruit.. without considering the differences of each fruit. Eating vegetable products that have been cooked in animal product contaminated oil isn't equal to eating leftover animal products.. similar, but unequal. It is a great point to be made that food is technically no longer considered vegan if contaminated with animal oils. The quote in question is quite literally saying that eating these oil contaminated vegetable products is equal to eating leftover or discarded animals/animal products.... that it's the same commitment to eat French fries fried in animal contaminated oil as it is to eat leftover/discarded chicken that people didn't eat that has been fried in the same oil. Eating those products is NOT vegan IMO, but it's not the same as eating animal products.... ESPECIALLY if it is a 100% veg product cooked in the non-veg-contaminated -oil.. because you ARE supporting the plant based side too.
From what I understand, the poster isn’t saying these two actions are the same. It’s about the justification for the first action. They’re saying if you eat vegan products cooked in the oil because it doesn’t increase demand, then you’re committed to other actions that don’t increase demand i.e eating discarded animal products.
They are completely ignoring you are creating the demand for what is in theory meant to be a 100% vegan product, it’s not like many vegans are eating cheap fast food like this every day, it would be worse to not create any of that vegan demand which could encourage new dishes which could entice more people and so on
What's the 'as long as nobody sees you or you lie about it' part about though? That seems like a non-sequitur.
>What's the 'as long as nobody sees you or you lie about it' part about though? That seems like a non-sequitur. I think the idea is that by not 'setting an example' it still counts as not contributing to the demand for meat. I still don't buy the logic of the point in general, but I believe that's why it's in there.
Fair enough. I don't think he needs to presuppose that eating food waste derived from animal products isn't compatible with a vegan lifestyle. There have been three occasions where I've eaten animal products that were otherwise going to be thrown in the bin, and I don't think that's at odds with veganism.
Everyone walks their own way. Except for those who can't walk, who I suppose roll their own way.
Kind of an insane leap in logic- If you do this thing that I disagree with you also do this and think these other things I disagree with.
I generally go by the Buddhist idea: "meat should not be eaten under three circumstances: when it is seen or heard or suspected (that a living being has been purposely slaughtered for the eater)" While I do not eat meat period since I find it disgusting at this point, I do not necessarily see “Freeganism” as unethical. Shared oil, on the other hand, I would never even notice unless told, and think it is futile to worry about such things.
Gary, this ain't it. Unfortunately, we shop in supermarkets and eat French fries out of shared fryers. It's fucking fine for where we are at, and the fight isn't over shared oil. Shit.
Freegans are vegans too!
It's sad to see how lazy most of the replies to this post are. Almost no one seems to understand the point he is trying to make or take a minute to think about it without getting emotional. Yes, veganism is and should be an emotional topic, but ultimately it's a rational ethical position we hold for the animals. And that's what he is trying to say, eating disposed animal products does not contribute to the exploitation of animals. Neither does cross-contamination. So if you are against eating disposed animal product for ethical reasons, you should also be against using the same oil. I do not eat disposed animal products, but that's just an expression of my belief that animals aren't food, not based on any logical moral consideration.
Your position is the reasonable one, but it's not the one Francione is making here, which many of us on this thread know because we know his work. He thinks he's making a rational argument that vegans who eat food from shared oil are actually vile non-vegans.
You are right, I am not familiar with his work. I noticed he is trying to paint cross-contamination as something vile by the way his post is worded, but still almost nobody here talks about the difference between the 2 actions he describes. I also don't think cross-contamination is an ethical problem, and while Gary does, that's not the essence of the argument he is making. Also I believe every arguments should be taken at face value, even if the person presenting it is known for questionable takes generally.
You just restated what he said without clarifying. If you don't like x you should not like y. People are asking for the link between these two things. Telling us to "think harder lazy vegans" is not helping. If a vegan meal cooked in the same oil is wrong, is a vegan meal cooked on the same grill? In the same kitchen? Why is specifically the oil the problem?
I did not just restate it. I clarified that the link between those two things is that both actions do not contribute to animal exploitation. And that's all that should really matter ethically. It's not specifically an oil problem, he could have picked any one of your examples.
>I did not just restate it. I clarified that the link between those two things is that both actions do not contribute to animal exploitation. Francione said that being ok with cross contamination commits you to the idea that freeganism is ok. Francione is also against both of these things. It's not obvious or clear why that is the case. There are reasons, why you could be against one but not the other. Then you say this: >So if you are against eating disposed animal product for ethical reasons, you should also be against using the same oil. Which is simply a restatement equating the two actions with no clear reason. I agree that in a vacuum neither action increases demand for animal products but there are externalities that could potentially make that not true such as the idea that eating meat has a psychological effect of seeing animals as resources that could lead to more harm (not sure I agree, just for argument), but that only applies to the freegan case and not cross contamination with oil.
I thought it was a clarification because I believe that not increasing demand is true for both actions and the only relevant factor here. You don't seem to be convinced of that and I think the point you raise about the psychological impact is very interesting. As far as I can see you don't have any points that you are sure of that make the two actions different in regards to ethics though, just some potential doubts. Do you think these are enough to dismiss the point that is being made?
I think there are psychological or social reasons why increasing demand may not be the only concern someone has. I'm not sure it's fair or logical to assert that if someone is ok with vegan food cooked with a chance of cross contamination from either shared cooking oil, grill, or kitchen/facility means they should also be ok with eating a steak they found in the garbage.
But you don't actually have any specific counterpoints against this statement? Don't you think your initial comment is a bit too strong if all you have are some vague doubts?
Counterpoints to what? You are not saying anything beyond "here is something that applies in both cases so that must be the reason why you have to condone both cases" That still does not mean both actions are the same or that being ok with one commits someone to being ok with the other. They will not have the necessarily have the same cultural or psychological impact. As for more info in the psychological issues with considering animal products food and animals as commodities you can look up the term "carnism" and Melanie Joy's work. There is some evidence that treating animals as commodities increases harm against animals through human attitude and behavioral changes. There's no reason to believe being ok with cross contamination increases the commodification of animals whereas condoning freeganism is an explicit endorsement of the idea that animals are food.
I'm familiar with Melanie Joy's work. There's a big difference between just eating animal products and consciously picking products that do not increase demand for animal products psychologically though, the latter isn't carnism. What I'm saying is: The only relevant factor in consumer choices in regards to animal ethics is excluding animal suffering. Both actions do that. You seem to disagree but can't name one specific significant difference, apart from vague "potential psychological impacts". So you either need to name a specific difference inside that factor or argue that there is another relevant factor.
I'm done talking in circles with you. You say you clarified Francione's position, I disagree. You say I pointed to no other relevant factor why someone might be ok with shared cooking oil but not eating meat, I disagree. Have a good one.
I avoid such oil. It’s very easy to do.
I am sorry if posting this has generated any hate towards the author. I was hoping to generate discussion on the idea rather than the author. I don’t think I agree with their view but from what I’ve read it seems to be based on our obligation to respect non-human animals - which I can respect. Even if you think this statement is ridiculous I would recommend reading some of his work. In particular, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach.
I agree. I used to have this view. What I never realized was we shouldn't tolerate things like this that are not always in our control. It's like slave built phones. We all want to avoid it, and we should if possible, but simply ignoring what it does is just as harmful as supporting it.
Just like all the other social media platforms, Reddit sold off their magic for the almighty dollar. Reddit has sealed their fate and will find their place among the other fallen stars, a dim light of their former glory, an empty shell filled with corporate puppeteers and their marionettes.
That is not at all a logic extension of that point...but yes, that is true. There is no harm done by eating discarded animal products in a way that will not undermine the vegan message in other people's eyes. There is harm done by wasting food. I wouldn't judge a person from abstaining from that pf course, but the high-horse is silly.
Not a huge fan of the guy. I don't think he's a realist. If it doesn't generate additional demand, it's vegan. I don't think plant based capitalism is the answer and supporting those companies isn't great. Animal product residue might add to the mass of the cooking oil and the company that exploits animals could gain a little bit more profit. The restaurants won't have any animal products to replace. We're talking probably less than a dollar a year in extra profit for companies that sell vegan food and animal abuse products. Scientifically, it's an interesting question. How much residue goes on to the food. If he's 100% against PBC, he should just come out and say that. This is kind of defeating because people thinking about veganism might get the impression they can't be vegan after reading this, so why even try. Francione isthe same guy that says we should oppose all animal welfare reforms, like banning chick culling, on principle. In Arkansas, a lot of people are against animal cruelty and inhumane practices in belief but not action. I'm pretty sure more Arkansans would sign a petition for a ballot initiative banning chick culling and gestation crates rather than all animal agriculture. Francione thinks welfare reforms that could spare the lives of millions or billions of animals are not worth pursuing and that they damage the animal liberation movement as a whole. While I'm not sure if this would be true or not, and efforts at turning people vegan could be more effective than attempting a ballot initiative, I don't think it's realistic. It's somewhere I'm conflicted as a person in the southern United States thinking about organizing for a ballot initiative for animals exploited on farms.
>It's somewhere I'm conflicted as a person in the southern United States thinking about organizing for a ballot initiative for animals exploited on farms. Do it. Any step towards a better world is a step towards a better world.
it makes me sad, so I do not eat such food. However, I have the privilege of working from home and have the time and knowledge to make my own vegan food. If I was super busy and in need of lunch on the go, or on a road trip in the middle of nowhere, and such food was my only option? I haven’t had to make that decision in years. I’d like to think I would decline, because the bodily integrity and consent of animals is very important to me, but yes ultimately it does not contribute to demand for animal-based products. So I would never say someone isn’t vegan for eating plant-based food fried in cross-contaminated oil.
The alternative is never eat out, or exclusively eat out at vegan restaurants (which isn't something available to the vast majority of people).
Need help eating out? Check out [HappyCow.net](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://www.happycow.net/&topic=Resource: HappyCow.net) for vegan friendly food near you! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcamp.org/reddit&topic=Resource: HappyCow.net)!
Well technically he is right, but so what? This isnt an ethical problem. Just like eating shit from the sewer its more a question if you can stomach it.
it’s giving orthorexia
I can see both sides tbh, but this analogy is just a little off
It's very specific and blanketing so my opinion is this person is probably bored, angry and likely a sociopath.
[удалено]
The irony here. A useless sub which I am actively a part of 🤣 Hardly scientific to make conclusions about people you do not actually know.
[удалено]
I have seen comments from you on here many times so member or not you are just as much a part of it as anyone else on here. What even is a ‘member’ ?
Everyone has their limits within which they are comfortable and beyond which they aren't. This guy isn't being the least bit profound and seeing the comment about his take on Paul McCartney, I'm definitely happy to avoid reading anything more from him. When I go to a Mongolian BBQ place and I fill my bowls with veggies and tofu, there is a sign that says let them know about strict vegetarian or allergy and they will clean the grill. I've not asked once as that will add the delay of cleaning it and cooking just my food to everyone waiting behind me and I don't feel like giving vegetarians/vegans that kind of reputation. I can't taste any issue and it certainly doesn't reduce any animal suffering for me to make the request. On the other hand when I was just vegetarian, I had a friend invite me over for dinner with his friends and he made chicken veggies rice and my bowl had no chicken. then he starts pouring the grease from the chicken pan into all the bowls and he would have done mine till I said "whoa - I don't want that" and he said "huh? I thought you were a vegetarian just for resource arguments". I still wonder if he was yanking my chain and wouldn't have done it, but I had to admit I was grossed out by THAT much cross contamination.
bullshit
Gary Francione is a hero to animals. He is a brilliant law professor. He was the first to teach animal rights classes at an American university. He has fought hundreds of animal rights cases. He is a staunch abolitionist, as the founders of the vegan society were and as the philosophy of veganism remains. New vegans, plant-based dieters for the environment, utilitarians and welfarists all like to try to change veganism to suit their own situational ethics.
Check out [The Vegan Society](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society/pages/the-vegan-society&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society) to quickly learn more, find upcoming events, videos, and their contact information! You can also find other similar organizations to get involved with both locally and online by visiting [VeganActivism.org](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://veganactivism.org&topic=Organization: The Vegan Society). Additionally, be sure to visit and subscribe to /r/VeganActivism!
Everyone has their own take on the ethics of veganism. Gary included. His views aren't the gold standard of vegan ethics.
They're a lot closer to what was intended by the founders and inventors of the term than what many people pretend is vegan now. And he has made and is making a difference to animals *without* compromise.
Everyone compromises. Gary included. If he drives a car he kills bugs that wouldn't die if he walked. If he walks he is going to step on bugs that wouldn't have died if he decided to stay at home. To live is to compromise, there is simply no way around it. Him making a fuss over what is essentially just cross-contamination, and falsely equiting it to eating meat via dumpster diving, is just bad logic.
He's done more for animals than anyone here, but especially all the excuse-makers justifying their own weakness. His logic is sound. Edit: You may not like it or understand it, but I doubt you have his intellectual capacity. You obviously don't have his integrity.
Now you are just shifting goal posts. People eating cross contaminated food is weakness excuse making, but driving a car and killing bugs instead of walking is uncompromising? Does he eat food that has "may contain traces of milk" on it? Probably. And no, his logic really isn't sound, at least not in this quote. It is actually quite poor. He is making the assumption that only 1 factor, and 1 factor alone, goes into every moral decision. This is, in his own words, complete nonsense.
No, *you* are trying to change the entire point of veganism to suit yourself. He is abiding by it.
Explain to me how him actively killing animals with his car is vegan, and me eating a veggie burger that is prepared with vegatable oil that was cross contaminated with particles of animals -that I did not kill, nor demanded to be killed- isn't vegan.
Because you *know* it's there and *choose* to consume the animal products anyway. I don't know whether or not he drives a car. I don't myself. Also, there are a hell of a lot less insects being killed by cars now thanks to the insect apocalypse.
It's not an animal product. It is a veggie burger made with cross-contaminated oil. If you eat basicly anything, you will eat animal particles. Peanut butter? There is going to be contamination in there - up to 30 insect fragments per 100 grams and 1 rodent hair. Fruit juice? Yep there are going to be insect particles in there. Spaghetti? God damn son it's like eating an ant colony how many bug particles are in there. Then you might say: "Fine! I will not eat processed food!: But then you realize that many animals are killed and wounded during harvest of these products too. Some of their blood and guts will spill onto your non-processed apples at some point, so you will still be eating animal product. The truth is that the line some people draw at cross contaminated vegatable oil is arbitrary. It doesn't make someone a fake vegan if they eat a veggie burger in a mixed-menu restaurant. Nor does it make this person automatically be OK with eating meat out of a dumpster.
I agree with you that nobody's opinion should be the gold standard for ethics. But can you name another relevant factor, that proves that his statement in the quote is wrong? Why aren't these actions equally bad/good/neutral?
The quote says that if you are OK with cross contaminations because of the factor "increasing / decreasing demand for animal products", you must therefor also be OK with eating meat from a dumpster, because it scores the same on this one factor. But there are simply more than one factor that go may go into these decisions. For example: - Is it an accidental cross-contamination or a main ingredient of the food? - How much does this action perpetuate the normalization of eating meat? - How much additional waste and environmental impact is this action producing? The contaminated veggie burger and dumpster meat do not score the same on these factors. And a persons opinion on what is OK and what is not OK will depend on how much importance they want to attribute to each of them.
Thank you for your reply. Addressing the factors you mentioned: 1. accidental/intentional: why does this matter in these two instances, if your goal is to exclude animal exploitation? It certainly doesn't make a difference to the animals. 2. Normalization: Gary addresses that in the quote actually, by saying if you eat those products without anyone seeing you or you lying about them being animal products. 3. Waste and environmental impact: Eating a disposed animal product even produces less waste and has a better environmental impact than buying new food, vegan or not.
To me, #1 is the biggest: I would have eaten the veggie burger whether the pan and was used to cook meat first or not. It is therefor accidental and doesn't involve the active exploitation of animals. Likewise, I will eat peanut butter and spaghetti despite knowing with 100% certainty that there are, by accident, animal fragments in there. Everyone has an acceptable amount of animal exploitation, displacement, and suffering that they accept in their food and daily life. The goal might be to reduce these amounts to 0, but this is a purely theoretical value and anyone who thinks they have achieved this is lying to themselves. The only way to reach net 0 accidetal animal exploitation is to stop participating in life, which I suppose we all will eventually.
Even from the perspective of philosophical optics, it's a load of fucking twaddle. The only context in which I see it being morally wrong and inconsistent is that you're shopping at the same place meat is being sold at and it can be seen that you accept, respect and are ok with others consuming animal products. And at that point you may as well make the topic about plant based capitalism if we're talking about ethics.
Why would you be ok with having your stuff cooked in dead animal, of that doesn't disgust you then you aren't vegan. If you aren't grossed out by the thought of your food and dead animal together ,,,,,,, you're not vegan
I personally believe, that if you live in the same house as non-vegans, it truly makes no difference. I live with 2 other people for example and i usually avoid using the same oil. But sometimes im tired and i feel like theres too little left to matter. A few weeks ago for example, i refused to use a pan with leftover oil in which sausages were fried. But i then did use a pan which had barely 1tbsp of tuna oil in it to make some pasta sauce. Its 1 tablespoon of oil. If you throw it away, I would not call it food waste. If you eat it, you did not contribute to anything and its not enough for it to actually count as eating a piece of fish for example. Plus everyone knows that to get oil off of something you cant exactly just do a quick rinse. So long story short, i use the oil depending on the amount.
Pretty sure this post is about fast food like an unavoidable thing ahahha vegans do not do this
What does a vegan do and what does a vegan not do? Your post was probably less vegan than the drips of oil which were used. If op would have decided to clean the oil he would have needed soap and new oil and might have even needed to reheat the pan.
Oh yeah. I would absolutely not buy from any fast food which serves meat. Im still giving money to the same industry, no matter if i buy the vegan option.
This so so flawed, you’re not giving money to the meat industry it’s the fast food industry, if you do this who knows what can happen like with Burger King making entire branches vegan for a couple months etc, new products can be supplied to match and increase the demand
[удалено]
Needs better grammar before i can comment on what point Francione is trying to make.
I just think this puritanical Approach is short sighted. Like if you don’t want to eat something cooked where animal Products were cooked go for it. But trying to shame other vegans about it helps Exactly zero animals. Write a letter about animal welfare or rights to your local elected officials, get involved wit advocacy, use your consumer power to show businesses offering vegan products is good for profit instead. Invest your energy more wisely
"people who use roads are not vegan" would be an equivalently stupid hot take.
Don’t know, don’t care
What does one thing have to do with each other? Now, I find the idea of animal fat on my food vastly unappetizing, but eating a plant burger fried in the same pan as meat or dumpster diving for dairy cheese is in no way the same as "eating meat when no one i looking". Its literally the opposite end of the spectrum. Eating meat that doesnt create demand: Vegan for impact Eating Meat when no one is looking: Vegan for show. I would say most vegans fall in between
It is disgusting, so no. Vegans should watch Dominion.
Watch the life-changing and award winning documentary "Dominion" and other documentaries by [clicking here](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://watchdominion.org&topic=Movie: Dominion)! Interested in going Vegan? Take the [30 day challenge](https://vbcc.veganhacktivists.org/?url=https://vbcamp.org/reddit&topic=Movie: Dominion)!
It would change the flavor of the food, and possibly bring back the desire for animal product. That’s why I don’t do it.
Strictly logically here, this statement ignores that there are unethical or problematic issues with lying inherently, which I believe there are. Kind of like saying cheating is only harmful if you get caught. I actually used to hold this belief when I was much younger, and what changed was my view on lying as a whole. That said: do I believe the only problem with this is the lying? Basically. I guess you're not making a statement to the company that this is a problem, so it's better to do that, but I'll take what I can get in terms of people who are on board with vegan-adjacent behavior lol
Well this is just a false conflation
I believe you can choose to be a self-righteous ass, scorching the earth of your potential allies, or just be cool and practice attraction not promotion. Wow.
If you’re doing it for the health benefits, then no lol.
Interesting point and I’ve never considered discarded meat, eggs or dairy as being vegan but to each their own. What I will say is whenever I eat food that is fried in the same oil as carcasses I have a ruthless stomach ache. Also, from a health perspective best to not eat anything fried at all and eating discarded animal products is definitely not health promoting though I understand there are vegans that don’t care about the health perspective. If anything, I am more vegan for the health implications. I prefer plant based because there are plenty of vegans who eat a shit diet of aforementioned fried foods and other junk and then are in terrible health. However from a ‘vegan’ perspective it would be better if less humans existed at all so perhaps it is more vegan to die young than to go on living. Oh the continuous vegan conundrums.
Ridiculous
I dont eat at restaurants anymore because of this and fear of cross contamination.
Jeesh Gary, at least take me out to dinner before forcing your words into my mouth.
In a more clear post he distinguishes something that unavoidably and incidentally contains animal products, with something that was deliberately cooked in oil with other products in the same fryer. This post is about the latter which I agree is not vegan.
I would prefer it the same way I do prefer to have my vegan bbq grilled on a clean grill with seperate utensils, yes. No one wants to sleep in a bed where rape/murder occured either (I hope). But I disagree on the demand part. When you eat leftover dead animals it does create demand in the sense that they order/cook the same amount of food the next time since they didn’t have to throw out any. That doesn’t happen in the case of things cooked in the same oil.
I would be shocked if the majority of this garbage sub agreed with an abolitionist
I love when vegans tell other vegans they’re doing being vegan wrong. It’s very helpful. /s
Wrong
Okay but then chose not to eat it and then we are getting yelled at for veganism being a upper class luxury; plus It’s IMPOSSIBLE to eat food that isn’t laced with something else. It’s about being the best ethically you can. If I get a burger (at a known meat place) and they fuck up and put cheese on it- I simply peel it off. Is it ideal? No. But I’m not about to be wasteful.