Do we need another label?

[Tom L.]

There is a "label". It is called a " Reducetarian". It is actually a growing movement. I've talked to my friends and family about reducing their intake of animal products. My daughter has reduced her consumption of meat and eliminated dairy from her diet.

Some of my friends feel that reducing their consumption of animal products by 25-50% is doable. I applaud anyone who reduces their consumption of animal products.

I've only quoted part of your post (which is quite informative!). I would have thought the term "flexitarian" covered this.

ETA: Oops- maybe not. I googled the term "Flexitarian", and the article said that although flexitarians aim to reduce their meat/fish consumption, it merely said that they normally include dairy and eggs.

 

[Lou]

it merely said that they normally include dairy and eggs.

not necessarily.

The best definitions of flexitarian are vague. But they May eat meat, fish, dairy, and eggs. Just not a lot or too often.

I've said this before but in case someone hasn't seen this yet.

This definition is a haiku.

eat food,
not too much,
mostly plants.

However, as far as definitions go - it's pretty vague. How much is "mostly?
90%? 80%? 66%?

 

[KLS52]

I think a new label/word is a good idea but I disagree with watering down the word/definition of vegan.

 

[silva]

not necessarily.

The best definitions of flexitarian are vague. But they May eat meat, fish, dairy, and eggs. Just not a lot or too often.

I've said this before but in case someone hasn't seen this yet.

This definition is a haiku.

eat food,
not too much,
mostly plants.

However, as far as definitions go - it's pretty vague. How much is "mostly?
90%? 80%? 66%?

From "In Defense of Food"

 

[silva]

I think a new label/word is a good idea but I disagree with watering down the word/definition of vegan.

I don't understand why people insist on saying vegan if they're willingly eating/wearing animal products. I'm not talking exceptions but those who will post something with honey or egg and justify their consumption. They also have been the ones who can't understand people caught up in labels, in my experience, which is just so contradictory!
I've been saying "mostly vegan", and have had no issues

 

[Graeme M]

Mic the Vegan just posted on his YT channel about this very recent study concerning actual "anti-vegans". I haven't read the paper, but will quote from the conclusions. I think we could have told them this without going to all that effort, but hey... Nice to see it quantified.

"Anti-vegans endorsed a suite of values related to social aggression and dominance, traditional gender norms, and relativism as a moral philosophy. These characteristics stood in stark contrast to the more egalitarian, non-traditional, and non-relativistic stance of vegans, as well as the more moderate profile of non-antagonistic omnivores. Anti-vegans appear to be a subgroup of the population with a strong anti-moralistic stance towards food, fuelled by a complex nexus of right-wing ideology, science scepticism, moral relativism and a pragmatic view of animal suffering."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666323025886?via%3Dihub

 

[g0rph]

A little harsh.

I think anyone who reduces their consumption of animal products, for any reason, is to be applauded. My children were raised on a vegan diet, and I was disappointed that they didn't stick with it. I am happy, that as they are in their 40's, that they are returning to some of lessons that I taught them in their childhood.

I don't care why people are reducing their animal product intake. I can only judge myself. I have been a vegan for 40+ years. It started because of a variety of food allergies in my children. By the time I had removed everything that could cause a problem, all of the animal products disappeared.

I started for health reasons, and then moved into the ethical and environmental aspects.

Any reason for reducing or eliminating animal products is a win for me. It is an ongoing process. Today's Reducetarian becomes tomorrow's WFPB, and then the future vegan.

And even if they only reduce their consumption of animal products by 50%, it still has a massive impact.

I live in "dairy country", and drive past abandoned dairy farms that were closed because of the reduced consumption of dairy products. It wasn't all vegans that did that. It was the vegans, the Reducetarians, and everybody who mixed up their week with a few animal free meals.

Yeah, I agree that any reduction is better than nothing. Absolutely.

But I couldn't call myself a reduceatarian as for me that logically isn't an ethical stance. I don't eat animal products soley for ethical reasons.

 

[Lou]

Anti-vegans appear to be a subgroup of the population with a strong anti-moralistic stance towards food, fuelled by a complex nexus of right-wing ideology, science scepticism, moral relativism and a pragmatic view of animal suffering."

yes. I think this is new too. Post Trump.
And lets throw into the mix Hypermasculinity

There is even a new thing with milk being a Nazi symbol now.

How the alt-right uses milk to promote white supremacy

From #SoyBoy to #MilkTwitter, there’s a sinister side to milk.

theconversation.com

From my gleanings it seems like this has been going on for decades but picked up momentum post trump.

We can hope for a backlash. where regular liberals stop drinking Right Wing Milk and embrace Left Wing Soy.

 

[Sax]

They oppose breeding, which I don't.
The idea that labradors or beagles or etc etc breed simply vanishes is awful in my opinion.

However, "ownership" and "breeding" should come with MUCH stiffer regulations.

What's awful is shelter dogs being euthanized while breeders bring even more dogs into a world that can't find enough loving homes for the ones already here.

"Every dog bred means a shelter dog dead"

I love beagles and labs. But they don't suffer as a result of not being bred. They exist purely for human aesthetic pleasure and that comes at a cost for already living dogs that desperately need a family.

 

[Tom L.]

I think a new label/word is a good idea but I disagree with watering down the word/definition of vegan.

Absolutely. I'm confused as to why someone would claim the term "vegan" if they didn't intend to embrace it. If someone wants to reduce, but not eliminate, their consumption of animal foods- great! I'd call that a big step in the right direction. And I don't think anyone should have a problem with someone calling themselves "vegan" if they're moving in that direction, either. For most people, this is a big change, and maybe if they identify as "vegan", it will help them: once they talk the talk, they'll follow through and walk the walk.

 

[g0rph]

What's awful is shelter dogs being euthanized while breeders bring even more dogs into a world that can't find enough loving homes for the ones already here.

"Every dog bred means a shelter dog dead"

I love beagles and labs. But they don't suffer as a result of not being bred. They exist purely for human aesthetic pleasure and that comes at a cost for already living dogs that desperately need a family.

Obviously rescues should come first where applicable. But then so should adopting unwanted children.
But we have that choice...as I believe we should outside our species.

And I disagree that "They exist purely for human aesthetic pleasure".

Different dogs are bred for different temperaments.
You have young kids, then rescues can be risky.
You live in a madhouse with kids screaming all day, then a timid dog is not a good idea. Rescues mostly would suffer here, whereas a Boxer or a Malinoix would probably revel in it.

If our family were getting a dog now and not before I went vegan, I would have got a rescue, but my partner was quite "dog-scared" and we needed one that was small and friendly...
I personally would have rescued a Staffie if possible. But again, brought up badly (which you never know), they can be dangerous.