Can eggs be vegan-friendly?

[Graeme M]

Either it is an animal rights term or it is a food term - make your minds up and stop being hypocrites!

It often seems to me that no-one is entirely certain what veganism is about. I've argued that it's about fairness and justice for other sentient species. While the Vegan Society coined the term and described it as a diet, their original stance was still fundamentally about animal rights in that they were motivated by the wish to prevent exploitation and cruelty to other animals.

I don't endorse the suggestion veganism is merely never eating/using anything animal related. That's an unnecessarily restrictive stance, but that's just me. Others are free to interpret in that way if they wish.

What's your opinion about taking the eggs? The eggs would become their offsprings, assumed they are fertilized.
Producing eggs demands much of the hens' bodies (think of the calcium and proteins that's needed), and if you take an egg from a hen, she'll lay another... and another... and another... until her body is exhausted and cannot lay any more.

Eggs are waste if unfertilised, no different from excreta. The birds don't care nor do they need them as food. But even if fertilised, they are not sentient beings and demand no particular moral duty, though that might depend on your personal views about when a being becomes a life to which we owe a duty.

AHIMSA, the first principle of yoga, means "harmlessness and non-violence". As far as i believe, that defines
what is vegan. With all chickens and cows, violence is inherent.

That is the US Vegan Society's stance, but it isn't the UK Vegan Society's stance. This is because the US Vegan Society was founded by Jay Dinshah, who being of Indian descent believed in the idea of Ahimsa. He proposed of veganism as a diet, while care for animals came from the Indian spiritual doctrine of Ahimsa. I suppoose much depends on what someone wants veganism to be for them, but the UK Vegan Society who coined the term were more interested in preventing animal exploitation and cruelty (ie a rights-based stance).

If vegan is an animal rights term, then what is wrong with calling yourself vegan if your source of eggs didn't involve causing animal suffering?

Quite right. The rights-based approach suggests we should not buy commercial eggs because their production violates the basic rights of other animals. Backyard eggs do not, provided the animals are well cared for. This is a much more reasonable and pragmatic approach that most folk might agree with. Being too strict with what veganism means simply puts people off. It's a higher standard than we even apply to human beings.

 

[silva]

I agree with that definition but then I believe vegan is a food term not an animal rights term. If vegan is an animal rights term, then what is wrong with calling yourself vegan if your source of eggs didn't involve causing animal suffering? In their idealism and vegan purity people have completely missed my point and continue to hold inconsistent definitions. Either it is an animal rights term or it is a food term - make your minds up and stop being hypocrites!

Ok then, lets say the term vegan is about animal rights--either way how do you see the treatment of the animals changing the fact their products are being used?
Humans

No-one is entirely certain what veganism is about. I've argued that it's about fairness and justice for other sentient species. While the Vegan Society coined the term and described it as a diet, their original stance was still fundamentally about animal rights in that they were motivated by the wish to prevent exploitation and cruelty to other animals.

I don't endorse the suggestion veganism is merely never eating anything animal related. That's an unnecessarily restrictive stance, but of course anyone is quite welcome to interpret in that way if they wish.


Eggs are waste if unfertilised, no different from excreta. The birds don't care nor do they need them as food. But even if fertilised, they are not sentient beings and demand no particular moral duty, though that might depend on your personal views about when a being becomes a life we owe a duty towards.


That is the US Vegan Society's stance, but it isn't the UK Vegan Society's stance. This is because the US Vegan Society was founded by Jay Dinshah, who being of Indian descent believed in the idea of Ahimsa. He proposed of veganism as a a diet, while care for animals came from Ahimsa. I suppoose much depends on what someone wants veganism to be for them, but the UK Vegan Society who coined the term were more interested in preventing animal exploitation and cruelty (ie a rights-based stance).



Quite right. The rights-based approach suggests we should not buy commercial eggs because their production violates the basic rights of other animals. Backyard eggs do not, provided the animals are well cared for. This is a much more reasonable and pragmatic approach that most folk might agree with. Being too strict with what veganism means simply puts people off. It's a higher standard than we even apply to human beings.

Your views are so idealistic. Again, if people have need they will do, and should do, whatever they can to feed and cloth their family. If that means raising chickens, so be it. However, your stance of "if the animals are well cared for" without the necessity does nothing but promote demand. It's a fact that humans will exploit and deceive where and when they can. "Well cared for hens" where the eggs are sold, will cost far more just for that branding. Trying to stick to the eggs from well treated hens is a higher standard than simply not eating eggs because they are not there for us.
Again, if you have the need you will do what is needed, whether that means your kids work in a slaughterhouse, you eat roadkill, or you keep chickens

 

[Graeme M]

However, your stance of "if the animals are well cared for" without the necessity does nothing but promote demand. It's a fact that humans will exploit and deceive where and when they can. "Well cared for hens" where the eggs are sold, will cost far more just for that branding. Trying to stick to the eggs from well treated hens is a higher standard than simply not eating eggs because they are not there for us.

Don't forget, the case I originally presented was being given free some eggs from well-cared for backyard chickens. There is no actual buying involved, so I was suggesting that in such cases I don't see anything that violates the chickens rights and it is therefore consistent with veganism. The case against backyard chickens usually turns on the problem of where they came from in the first place, but when people are simply being given excess chickens or friends are sharing around I don't think that problem arises. I agree that IF this practice contributes to increased demand for commercial production then it seems to be a rights violation.

 

[Clairey]

I don't think eggs could ever be vegan-friendly, since being vegan means avoiding to exploit animals when it's possible to do so.

Even those happy backyard chickens who live on the countryside - and enjoy its bucolic charm - are exploited.
They are kept specifically for producing eggs, and this is exploitation. A hen is a bird and not an egg-making machine. And we don't actually need to eat eggs, so this exploitation is unnecessary.
This is why I cannot see any scenario where eggs could possibly be vegan-friendly.

Happy chickens will not mind you taking an egg or two if they are not being used for egg production but are pets.
Eggs are still animal produce so not vegan in my opinion.
They are classed as vegetarian though for some strange reason. I was a cheese and egg vegetarian for years. Mostly cheese and egg salad.
I had the occasional omelette in a cafe.

 

[deadknight]

Happy chickens will not mind you taking an egg or two if they are not being used for egg production but are pets.
Eggs are still animal produce so not vegan in my opinion.
They are classed as vegetarian though for some strange reason. I was a cheese and egg vegetarian for years. Mostly cheese and egg salad.
I had the occasional omelette in a cafe.

Of course they won't mind it - but they'll continue laying.

Hehh, the strange reason is the eggs not contributing directly to the birds' death. This is why they take eggs for a vegetarian thing to eat (and this is why many "Vegetarian Day" products contain eggs).
I used to be ovo-lacto for years too, then I refreshed what I had studied (agriculture) and noticed being vegetarian was just not enough. Too idealistic and too romantic to continue exploiting the helpless ones.
May I ask what made you consider going vegan?

 

[g0rph]

Of course they won't mind it - but they'll continue laying.

Hehh, the strange reason is the eggs not contributing directly to the birds' death. This is why they take eggs for a vegetarian thing to eat (and this is why many "Vegetarian Day" products contain eggs).
I used to be ovo-lacto for years too, then I refreshed what I had studied (agriculture) and noticed being vegetarian was just not enough. Too idealistic and too romantic to continue exploiting the helpless ones.
May I ask what made you consider going vegan?

If you follow Gaz Oakley on Youtube (he is an awesome (now vegan) chef.
He got some rescue hens that were past their prime egg-laying days and due for slaughter, and has them in his garden. They are incredibly well looked after and they still produce some eggs.
They provide him with fertiliser and company and he provides them with a safe home and food.

Now, he doesn't eat the extra eggs himself, but he gives them to non-vegan family.

I don't regard this as "exploitation". And whilst he wouldn't be vegan if he ate them, he would, IMO still be morally justified in doing so.

 

[Clairey]

Of course they won't mind it - but they'll continue laying.

Hehh, the strange reason is the eggs not contributing directly to the birds' death. This is why they take eggs for a vegetarian thing to eat (and this is why many "Vegetarian Day" products contain eggs).
I used to be ovo-lacto for years too, then I refreshed what I had studied (agriculture) and noticed being vegetarian was just not enough. Too idealistic and too romantic to continue exploiting the helpless ones.
May I ask what made you consider going vegan?

I want a vegan diet diet for good health and because i do not want farm produce.
I am unsure about no leather but could probably manage alright when i do eventually pick up on it.
I was cheese and egg vegetarian for a few years.

 

[deadknight]

I want a vegan diet diet for good health and because i do not want farm produce.
I am unsure about no leather but could probably manage alright when i do eventually pick up on it.
I was cheese and egg vegetarian for a few years.

A vegan diet - though it's certainly not some magic diet - comes with a bunch of unexpected advantages. At least, this is my experience. And, not wanting farm produce is very nice of you.

The question about leather is not an easy one. Vegan shoes, belts and the like can be complicated to find. Some vegans say they would buy second-hand products at thrift shops - so that they don't support the death industry and no "new" animals are killed - but some do react to the thought of wearing the skin of a dead animal.

To be totally honest, I got rid of all the wool things I had owned earlier - not only clothes but also blankets - after having gone vegan.
Wulffmorgenthaler did a quite rough caricature about this some years ago (sorry, I cannot find it any more on the net), inverting the situation: it was sheep who kept humans in captivity and when their body hair grew long enough, sheep came with big, dangerous-looking clippers to shred it (I mean, not only from their heads, the drawing was rather obscene). Humans looked really scared and helpless while they were shaved, and the sheep told them "I decided to do this again after your hair has grown out!"

Yes you've mentioned your having been ovo-lacto before. I went through the same phases.

 

[timlange9049]

I've been on a bit of a quest to figure out if eggs count as a non-meat animal product. Despite the common belief that eggs aren't really meat, they do come from animals, and that's where the debate kicks in. Some argue that, because eggs are sourced from animals, they should be considered an animal product. On the flip side, there's the whole unfertilized egg angle – no chicks involved, and therefore, no harm to animals, right? Also, the conditions in which eggs are produced play a role in this debate, with some folks pushing for better, more species-appropriate care.

I've stumbled upon a bunch of discussions about this on veganfoodsite.com. They dive into the nitty-gritty of whether vegans can justify eating eggs based on factors like where they come from, how they're made, and if the animals are treated right. If you're into this kind of debate, you might want to check out what they have to say on their website: Can Vegan Eat Eggs.

Hope u enjoyed reading

 

[Lou]

If you're into this kind of debate, you might want to check out what they have to say on their website: Can Vegan Eat Eggs.

I took a look at the website. I didn't really see any evidence of a debate.

Actually, is it a debate?
If it is - it's sort of a naive and uniformed debate.

Despite the common belief that eggs aren't really meat, they do come from animals, and that's where the debate kicks in.

There are several accepted definitions of what a vegan is. None of them allow for eggs.

Some argue that, because eggs are sourced from animals, they should be considered an animal product.

Seems like the only reasonable conclusion.

On the flip side, there's the whole unfertilized egg angle – no chicks involved, and therefore, no harm to animals, right?

Wrong. the harm is done to the hen who lays the egg.

Also, the conditions in which eggs are produced play a role in this debate, with some folks pushing for better, more species-appropriate care.

There are some who think that eggs from backyard chickens are humane. I'll even give them that. but in no ways does that make it vegan.

I've stumbled upon a bunch of discussions about this on veganfoodsite.com. They dive into the nitty-gritty of whether vegans can justify eating eggs based on factors like where they come from, how they're made, and if the animals are treated right.

Yeah. the keyword there is Justify. Why justify? why not just not eat eggs? they are not essential. They are not necessary. There are many substitutes in baking and cooking. And even fake eggs now.

Eggs are not even especially healthy. That could be legitimately debated, egg-cept that the Egg Board has hopelessly clouded the issue.

 

[silva]

I can see justifying eggs, just like wool, and honey, but they aren't vegan. Vegan means not using what's not consentualy given
Like human breast milk,or blood banks. When people voluntarily donate it's fine. Honestly in some places I can see the symbiotic relationships between hens and families where both can benefit--but that is an exception. I still don't quantify it as vegan, but ethical

 

[Sosarah]

Yeah I don’t think eggs are healthy, vegan or ethical

 

[g0rph]

I've been on a bit of a quest to figure out if eggs count as a non-meat animal product. Despite the common belief that eggs aren't really meat, they do come from animals, and that's where the debate kicks in. Some argue that, because eggs are sourced from animals, they should be considered an animal product. On the flip side, there's the whole unfertilized egg angle – no chicks involved, and therefore, no harm to animals, right? Also, the conditions in which eggs are produced play a role in this debate, with some folks pushing for better, more species-appropriate care.

I've stumbled upon a bunch of discussions about this on veganfoodsite.com. They dive into the nitty-gritty of whether vegans can justify eating eggs based on factors like where they come from, how they're made, and if the animals are treated right. If you're into this kind of debate, you might want to check out what they have to say on their website: Can Vegan Eat Eggs.

Hope u enjoyed reading

There is zero debate as to whether eggs are vegan. They aren't.
1. The chickens we use for eggs have been selectively bred to lay far more eggs than natural. This, over time, destroys their bodies.
2. The chickens usually come from hatcheries. The male chicks are not needed. They get thrown on a conveyor belt that drops them into a grinder. Look up "hatchery culling" on Youtube.
3. After a certain age, the egg-laying drops off, so chickens are routinely discarded, slaughtered and made into cheap food (think McDonalds chicken nuggets or pet food)

There *can* be considered one way (that I am aware of) to consume eggs ethically. If you rescue chickens that are past their egg-laying prime, then give them a good home, I can see that using any eggs they lay could be considered ethical (but still, never vegan). But in this case, care must be made to make sure they get enough nutrients (many simply feed the eggs back to the chickens).

Ultimately though, even rescues...if bought and paid for, are supplying money into the industry.

Is it worth even a debate? I haven't missed eggs at all since I gave up animal products...

 

[Graeme M]

To be totally honest, I got rid of all the wool things I had owned earlier - not only clothes but also blankets - after having gone vegan.
Wulffmorgenthaler did a quite rough caricature about this some years ago (sorry, I cannot find it any more on the net), inverting the situation: it was sheep who kept humans in captivity and when their body hair grew long enough, sheep came with big, dangerous-looking clippers to shred it (I mean, not only from their heads, the drawing was rather obscene). Humans looked really scared and helpless while they were shaved, and the sheep told them "I decided to do this again after your hair has grown out!"

I guess I'd not have done that because presumably I would have to buy a replacement and there is no reason associated with veganism to get rid of already owned products. We still have many woolen and leather products from before we took on veganism.

As to wool shearing, it can be a harmful process for the sheep. The main objections of course are that of using the sheep in this way and the fact that most of the sheep are eventually killed for meat. If it weren't for the latter and farmers sheared sheep carefully, I am not sure I'd object too much. Still, a lot of lambs die here in Australia during lambing season from lack of attention by farmers. The main causes of death are "natural" causes such as dystocia and mismothering, but of course none of that would happen if the sheep weren't being used like this.

My friend who run sheep hires teams to shear her sheep and from what I've seen it isn't a particularly harmful process when done right. Sheep in sanctuaries still have to be shorn because we've made them that way.

Wrong. the harm is done to the hen who lays the egg.

How so, if the egg is unfertilised (or even if fertilised)?

There is zero debate as to whether eggs are vegan. They aren't.
1. The chickens we use for eggs have been selectively bred to lay far more eggs than natural. This, over time, destroys their bodies.
2. The chickens usually come from hatcheries. The male chicks are not needed. They get thrown on a conveyor belt that drops them into a grinder. Look up "hatchery culling" on Youtube.
3. After a certain age, the egg-laying drops off, so chickens are routinely discarded, slaughtered and made into cheap food (think McDonalds chicken nuggets or pet food)

As you know, I am not so obsessive about this because I don't regard veganism as a completely black and white issue. To an extent, the knowledge that vegans wave away the vast scale of harm from crop farming leaves me less than moved by such inflexible definitions.

That said, I was at my friend's farm on the weekend and we talked some about her chickens while we received several dozens of her chicken's eggs from her. She observed that the heritage breeds in her care live long healthy lives and are not blighted by the problems that commercial breeds are. She has had some commercial rescues there and they really experience degraded wellbeing and usually die very young. What we do to chickens for commercial gain is a deep injustice. So when we are talking commercial production systems, 1, 2 and 3 are exactly true and why we shouldn't support these systems. But I remain supportive of backyard chickens in the right circumstances and have zero concerns about eating the eggs of such chickens, even rescues. But of course like everything to do with veganism, what one does is up to them.

 

[Tom L.]

I've been on a bit of a quest to figure out if eggs count as a non-meat animal product. Despite the common belief that eggs aren't really meat, they do come from animals, and that's where the debate kicks in. Some argue that, because eggs are sourced from animals, they should be considered an animal product. On the flip side, there's the whole unfertilized egg angle – no chicks involved, and therefore, no harm to animals, right? Also, the conditions in which eggs are produced play a role in this debate, with some folks pushing for better, more species-appropriate care.

I've stumbled upon a bunch of discussions about this on veganfoodsite.com. They dive into the nitty-gritty of whether vegans can justify eating eggs based on factors like where they come from, how they're made, and if the animals are treated right. If you're into this kind of debate, you might want to check out what they have to say on their website: Can Vegan Eat Eggs.

Hope u enjoyed reading

The article you linked to ("Can Vegan Eat Eggs") specifically stated several times that eggs are a byproduct. This is incorrect: many hens are raised primarily for egg production, and even if they are well-cared-for (many, if not most, are not), they are killed and eaten when their egg production falls off. It could be argued that eggs from hens, with the hens kept by themselves, could be benign for the chickens in this situation. The eggs would contain no developing chicks. But even this doesn't hold up: what happened to the equal number of roosters who hatched?

The only way eggs could be animal-friendly would be if they were from hens rescued/adopted from a farm, and had been due to be "culled" (i.e., killed) because their egg production was falling off. But as I understand it, even this wouldn't be vegan.

 

[silva]

Regardless of whether you can find reasons to condone eating eggs, or ways to feel it's ethical, eggs are not vegan
If someone robs a grocery to feed their family you can look the other way, say they are justified, but it's still stealing!

 

[g0rph]

As you know, I am not so obsessive about this because I don't regard veganism as a completely black and white issue. To an extent, the knowledge that vegans wave away the vast scale of harm from crop farming leaves me less than moved by such inflexible definitions.

Most vegans do not "wave away" the crop farming harm. Many point out the fact that animals eat more of the crops than humans do. And many point out the fact that we "could" go to a form of veganic farming. If veganism ever becomes a majority, then I am certain that we would move this way. But in the mean time, reduction is attainable by people going plant-based

As for not black and white. Indeed. The word "practicable" is subjective.
But using any animal products at all, when not necessary does mean someone is not "vegan".
BTW, I don't consider myself vegan. I have eaten mussels from time to time since giving up everything else...food, clothes, toiletries where animals are used or abused, and my stance on "pets" and "service animals" means I am not against all "exploitation" in its purest sense.

But I remain supportive of backyard chickens in the right circumstances and have zero concerns about eating the eggs of such chickens, even rescues. But of course like everything to do with veganism, what one does is up to them.

I think it depends on "right circumstances".
If the "heritage birds" that you mention are bred for the purpose of egg laying, then the male chicks will be macerated just the same.

I think spare eggs from rescues is the only ethical way to eat eggs. And even then it is not vegan. But I have no moral issue with them, even if I would personally avoid them anyway....why eat something that I used to love, but have managed to cut out, when the supply is limited?

 

[Graeme M]

Most vegans do not "wave away" the crop farming harm. Many point out the fact that animals eat more of the crops than humans do.

I find most vegans make some sort of general, global claim - that because animals eat some of the crops we produce, it somehow means vegans aren't responsible for the harms of cropping. I agree that on average, many vegans cause less harm than many non-vegans, but it isn't true that people could not do better while eating animals. And that's my point. If your metric is animal suffering and death, then some form of backyard eggs just might be better because probably, fewer animals will be harmed for you to eat those.

But using any animal products at all, when not necessary does mean someone is not "vegan".

I guess so. But I suppose I am not very much interested in people being "vegans", as I have said before. I think expecting people to adopt a super strict lifestyle is a bridge too far and explains the generally poor uptake of genuine ethical veganism. Given that veganism has been a thing for about 80 years, the fact that genuine ethical vegans remain stubbornly around 2-5% of any population suggests failure at garnering general buy-in. I am much more interested in the idea that people are encouraged to makie the changes they feel comfortable making and focus on education and encouragement.

I think it depends on "right circumstances".
If the "heritage birds" that you mention are bred for the purpose of egg laying, then the male chicks will be macerated just the same.

I think spare eggs from rescues is the only ethical way to eat eggs. And even then it is not vegan. But I have no moral issue with them, even if I would personally avoid them anyway....why eat something that I used to love, but have managed to cut out, when the supply is limited?

I agree re the context. In the case I mention, I really don't think there is any chick maceration happening. there may have been some distance back in the past when some of these flocks came into being, but my friend's flock is essentially the result of rescues and gifts. I honestly cannot see any problem with what she does, though many would disagree with the killing of some male roosters. In the context, I am not much bothered by this, in fact rather less than by the animals killed to grow the crops I eat.

As an aside to this thread, I don't recall if I shared my thoughts here about my belief that veganism needs a major reformation:

Does Vegan Advocacy Need A Reformation? | Just Us Too

 

[g0rph]

I find most vegans make some sort of general, global claim - that because animals eat some of the crops we produce, it somehow means vegans aren't responsible for the harms of cropping. I agree that on average, many vegans cause less harm than many non-vegans, but it isn't true that people could not do better while eating animals. And that's my point. If your metric is animal suffering and death, then some form of backyard eggs just might be better because probably, fewer animals will be harmed for you to eat those.


I guess so. But I suppose I am not very much interested in people being "vegans", as I have said before. I think expecting people to adopt a super strict lifestyle is a bridge too far and explains the generally poor uptake of genuine ethical veganism. Given that veganism has been a thing for about 80 years, the fact that genuine ethical vegans remain stubbornly around 2-5% of any population suggests failure at garnering general buy-in. I am much more interested in the idea that people are encouraged to makie the changes they feel comfortable making and focus on education and encouragement.


I agree re the context. In the case I mention, I really don't think there is any chick maceration happening. there may have been some distance back in the past when some of these flocks came into being, but my friend's flock is essentially the result of rescues and gifts. I honestly cannot see any problem with what she does, though many would disagree with the killing of some male roosters. In the context, I am not much bothered by this, in fact rather less than by the animals killed to grow the crops I eat.

As an aside to this thread, I don't recall if I shared my thoughts here about my belief that veganism needs a major reformation:

Does Vegan Advocacy Need A Reformation? | Just Us Too

I tend to agree with much you say.

One thing veganism needs is at least a brush of utilitarianism. Although I still do think deaths due to wanting flesh or milk or eggs are morally far worse than deaths that are necessary to grow plants.
In the end, less suffering is good. So if doing something that is not considered vegan, yet decreases suffering, I am all for it.
An example is Beyond, who did taste tests against meat based burgers... Many vegans were in uproar. Why? They want their product to taste as authentic as possible. A few real burgers out of the billions sold each week is irrelevant... But it isn't vegan.

Or Impossible and their animal testing. They did in order to get the product out to more places, faster. And every Impossible burger that sells is potentially one less beef based burger.

And as you say, if you have rescue chickens, then giving away eggs to friends that might otherwise buy them from stores, IMO is a positive thing.

 

[Graeme M]

Although I still do think deaths due to wanting flesh or milk or eggs are morally far worse than deaths that are necessary to grow plants.

I agree, and I have rights-based reasons for saying so, though I don't think my reasoning resonates with the average person. I made the case on my blog for why I think the killing of pests is a lesser moral failure.

The argument I made is that as Vegans/Animal Rights advocates, we seek to prevent violations of the three basic rights of other animals (ie the right to be free, to live one's own life and not to be treated cruelly). When we farm animals, we very often violate all three - farmed animals are not free, do not get to live their lives on their own terms and can be treated cruelly. On the other hand, when we grow crops and kill pests, we are certainly violating at least one, and possibly two of those rights, but not all three. Plus, we have the claim that we have a right to defend ourselves - our right to provide food for ourselves trumps their right to be left to live their own lives. On balance, I think we do better to grow crops and kill pests than to kill animals directly.

Still, when the quantum of harm is so large, maybe we do have to take a more nuanced view on this problem.