Original definition of vegan was better

[nobody]

One essentially involves pointing fingers and saying "you're not one of us".

I'd rather leave it up to individuals to interpret a definition and use the detailed insight they have on their own lifestyles to determine if the definition fits them, or if they'd like to change their lifestyle to fit. The current definition's "possible and practicable" leaves room for the different challenges and circumstances different people may face in eliminating animal products from their consumption.

Sure, some people will straight up interpret the definition wrong (or use a different definition entirely). But I think if we could end the infighting over who's vegan enough it would help our cause more than ostracizing some well-meaning people who perhaps don't fully get what veganism is about.

It sounds like we disagree on how veganism should be defined. But I think there's more to be gained from seeing ourselves as allies than in me accusing you of not being a real vegan and you accusing me of being an animal rights extremist.

I am a believer in animal rights and an ethical vegan, and I don't have anything against animal rights extremism or groups like A.L.F. I don't think you using the Vegan Society's definition even remotely makes you an animal rights extremist.

The Vegan Society's definition defines ethical veganism, even though they just call it "veganism". Vegans who do not believe in animal rights can completely disregard the V.S. definition, and the "possible and practicable" part is irrelevant.

You are against vegans saying other vegans are not real vegans. People who require the "dietary" qualifier for dietary vegans are saying just that. The only people who I am saying are not real vegans are people who do not follow the diet.

If vegans disagree with eachother, it ostricizes would-be vegans and animals suffer, right? So why do people who feel that way chime in on these dangerous, divisive topics? Why not just stick to the threads about Tofurky where everyone agrees with each other? Aren't you afraid the omnivores will see all this infighting and go running? Why add to it?

 

[Sax]

If vegans disagree with eachother, it ostricizes would-be vegans and animals suffer, right? So why do people who feel that way chime in on these dangerous, divisive topics? Why not just stick to the threads about Tofurky where everyone agrees with each other? Aren't you afraid the omnivores will see all this infighting and go running? Why add to it?

Who said vegans shouldn't disagree with each other?

I feel like I'm contributing to a discussion, not adding to infighting.

 

[nobody]

But arguing about it not only does nothing but may even dissuade some "proto-vegans" from even trying.

But I think if we could end the infighting over who's vegan enough it would help our cause more than ostracizing some well-meaning people who perhaps don't fully get what veganism is about.

Who said vegans shouldn't disagree with each other?

I feel like I'm contributing to a discussion, not adding to infighting.

You and Lou used the words arguing and infighting to describe a disagreement, which is fine, but you are both saying something bad may happen as a result.

I know you are not arguing for one side or the other but every time you and Lou chime in with a comment about how bad for the animals this all is, you bump the thread up to the top of the Recent Posts list where omnivores or "well-meaning people who perhaps don't fully get what veganism is about" are more likely to see and be repulsed by this horribly vicious infighting between me and TofuRobot or Forest Nymph, both of whom did state in so many words that dietary vegans are not vegans proper.

 

[Sax]

I'm not neutral here. I support the current Vegan Society definition 100%. Veganism isn't a diet.

This thread has been pretty civil. It's fine to debate what is and isn't vegan. But when it comes to pointing fingers and saying who is or isn't vegan...that's not a discussion I want to take part in.

Am I splitting hairs for the sake of maintaining peace? Probably. I'll save my fire for the omnis.

 

[Nekodaiden]

One of the reasons I object to the Vegan Societies definition is that I feel it is ambiguous and leaves open the question of whether one is vegan or not.

• - You live in a time or area where there is no mechanized transport, and you need to travel a long distance in a relatively short time. Can you call yourself a Vegan and ride a horse?
• - You want to farm or otherwise develop some land for human use. Animals may eat your crops, invade your facilities, cause damage and spread disease. Do you kill them after all other options have failed?
• - Too many people come to the idea, based on the “speciesism” argument (ie: why is it wrong to kill a pet dog that is causing no harm but not a cow or other animal for food?) - that humans and animals are of equal value, and thus may have a moral qualm when faced with a situation where one must choose between them in protecting either from harm or injury.
• - It introduces a fairly complex moral system that leaves many questioning if this or that is vegan. Thus questions like “are guide dogs vegan?” or “are pets vegan” or “must my carnivore friend (for instance, a cat) eat a vegan diet too?” etc. Many people find such questions difficult or problematic to answer in light of the Vegan society’s definition.
• - Because of the point above, there are those who will judge others to “not be vegan” if they do not adhere to whatever conclusions they themselves have come to with regards to these types of things. If not an outright rejection of the label, they may think of them as “less vegan” than themselves.
• - Non diet related considerations considered as part of one’s “Veganism” can become lengthy and highly specific and personal, leading to one thinking the diet is only a small or possibly less important part than the rest. It’s easy to see how some can still occasionally (regularly?) eat animal products and call themselves vegan if in their minds diet is but a small part of what makes them vegan.

All these points and considerations are not an issue under Watson Veganism. As there is only 1 rule to abide by: No animal products in the diet (your diet) followed by encouragements to a) eat wholesome foods from the plant kingdom and b) to avoid animal exploitation where you can. Of course, technically, someone could torture, hunt, exploit animals under this definition – but I really see this as an ethical consideration that need not fall under the umbrella of Vegan. Ethics extend far and above our relationship with other species, and equating ethics with veganism misdefines the term and causes confusion.

It is easy (at least for me) to see how the Watson definition brings in, and keeps in the most people. You can be Vegan for whatever reason you want, but the definition of “what it is to be vegan” doesn’t have to include that motivation. The motive is irrelevant for the binding definition, and only the action of abstinence defines whether you are one or not.



Lastly, honestly this seems to be an issue only with “Veganism”. In contrast, everyone knows what a vegetarian is. They don’t eat meat. Maybe eggs or milk, but not any meat. Simple, straightforward, unconfusing and unambiguous. If people added all these extras then the term would become highly confusing with all the questions it adds.

 

[veganDreama]

I'm happy with the definition the way it is. I try to be vegan as far as it is possible. I eat only vegan food. I use toiletries that are not tested on animals. I try to get my cleaner only to use cleaning agencies that are not tested on animals. I don't wear fur, leather, silk, wool or any other products that came from an animal.

However I do need medicine that was once tested on an animal. I don't want to but neither do I want to be ill.

I also used to have rescue rats, rescue chinchilla's, and a guide dog while calling myself vegan. I may even get a 3rd guide dog in the future. I can live life without a guide dog but having a guide dog makes life easier for me. If the guide dog association don't insist I feed the dog meat I plan to put the dog on a vegan diet.

Instead of watering down the definition of veganism I suggest using other terms like dietry vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, or flexitarian where applicable.

Saying that I'm afraid as a pescatarian I used to call myself vegetarian but now I'm more knowledgeable on all the issues and terminology.

If someone cares enough about animals to give up meat, dairy and eggs etc... why would they want to go to zoo's circuses or aqua prisons?

 

[nobody]

If someone cares enough about animals to give up meat, dairy and eggs etc... why would they want to go to zoo's circuses or aqua prisons?

There may be religious reasons to eat vegan, like it is easier to stay kosher that way. Other people do it for health or the environment.

Since dietary vegans are a group of which ethical vegans, religious vegans, health vegans and environmental vegans are subgroups, it would be better if the Vegan Society changed their name to the Ethical Vegan Society..."Ethical veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable,....". That way, you would still have to figure out what things are ethical vegan and what are not, but at least you would be using clearer terminology and not excluding people by saying only ethical vegans are true vegans. My motto is, "if you eat vegan, you are vegan".

Edit: P.S. I forgot it is the Vegan Society that does the vegan certification of products. So that wouldn't work, changing the name.

So, I'm in favor of them just using the phrase "ethical veganism" in the definition and leaving the name of the society as is.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Instead of watering down the definition of veganism I suggest using other terms like dietry vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, or flexitarian where applicable.

The person who coined the term was not the UK Vegan Society – but Donald Watson. Therefore the “definition of Veganism” is what he says it is, not the society that he founded and actually pressured him to leave after it was taken over. His definition is not “veganism light”, it’s the original one.

If someone cares enough about animals to give up meat, dairy and eggs etc... why would they want to go to zoo's circuses or aqua prisons?

That would fall under encouragement not to exploit animals where unnecessary. If one is a vegan they should be encouraged not to participate in such unnecessary exploitation for entertainment, but it is not required of them in maintaining the title nor membership, provided they eat only from the plant kingdom.


If animal welfare is any individuals greatest motivation to stop eating them, then it should be realized that the biggest, most positive results are gained from addressing the cruelest, the most unnecessary and the most destructive habit of mankind towards animals by addressing first and foremost what we all do typically 3 times or more a day – eat. All other considerations are but a drop in the ocean to that in terms of numbers. You can focus on the drops, and save 1000’s or none at all with quibbling on whether this or that is 'vegan', or on the ocean, and save billions. The choice of which to choose to not alienate the majority of other humans seems obvious to me.

 

[FredVegrox]

Veganism means there is desire to not have any contribution to exploitive use of animals, and that was always the idea, even as wording of the definition changed. We want the world to be in such a way that animals are never used exploitively, that they are harmed or killed among human people. If there isn't change all the way in choices for that, at least with desire for doing that, such don't really act on desire for no such contribution to animals. Then such are not really vegan, and it corrupts the meaning of vegan to say they are. The word vegetarian was corrupted from that long ago. Why not choose all the way to not contribute to such treatment of animals? For any reason to change from use of animals, it is more effective to go all the way for not using them, whether for animals, or your own health, or people who are starving, or the great use of land, water, and resources, or the environments, or global warming. Compromise to that is not as effective so why should not going all the way be encouraged?

 

[Nekodaiden]

Veganism means there is desire to not have any contribution to exploitive use of animals, and that was always the idea, even as wording of the definition changed. We want the world to be in such a way that animals are never used exploitively, that they are harmed or killed among human people. If there isn't change all the way in choices for that, at least with desire for doing that, such don't really act on desire for no such contribution to animals. Then such are not really vegan, and it corrupts the meaning of vegan to say they are. The word vegetarian was corrupted from that long ago. Why not choose all the way to not contribute to such treatment of animals? For any reason to change from use of animals, it is more effective to go all the way for not using them, whether for animals, or your own health, or people who are starving, or the great use of land, water, and resources, or the environments, or global warming. Compromise to that is not as effective so why should not going all the way be encouraged?

Go to poster veganDreama, and read her post. #46 in this thread.

- She uses a product for her illness that was tested on animals

- She uses guide dogs

According to you, she’s not really vegan – by your own words. An “all the way” vegan wouldn’t use a product tested on animals, and wouldn’t use an animal that could in any way be considered exploitation.

However, according to Donald Watson, she is, provided she eats only from the plant kingdom. I agree with Donald Watson. She’s vegan as long as she abstains from eating animal products. As such, her self label should never be questioned on any other basis.

Surely this is not a hard concept to grasp. Alienate more people by using the definition you use = less people adopt vegan diet which = more animals being misused, abused and killed. Doesn’t exactly help the greatest number of animals if that’s one’s motivation, does it?

 

[FredVegrox]

Go to poster veganDreama, and read her post. #46 in this thread.

- She uses a product for her illness that was tested on animals

- She uses guide dogs

According to you, she’s not really vegan – by your own words. An “all the way” vegan wouldn’t use a product tested on animals, and wouldn’t use an animal that could in any way be considered exploitation.

However, according to Donald Watson, she is, provided she eats only from the plant kingdom. I agree with Donald Watson. She’s vegan as long as she abstains from eating animal products. As such, her self label should never be questioned on any other basis.

Surely this is not a hard concept to grasp. Alienate more people by using the definition you use = less people adopt vegan diet which = more animals being misused, abused and killed. Doesn’t exactly help the greatest number of animals if that’s one’s motivation, does it?

Wrong, I would think still she is vegan. You don't notice I mention intention, do you? She needs medicine, and her intention is to have vegan medication for her not realizing if it's available. She is still vegan with that. We all are not perfect, and might unintentionally have use of sonething that involved an animal. It is not choosing to do so, and that matters. Where we can choose, we are vegan if we choose not to use anything from animals then. Some clearly can't do that. I don't blame eskimos for using animals from the sea, if that is all for food that's available to them. They still aren't vegan, but can't help it with no other choices. But you have choices. Don't you always choose for what would not harm animals? Why not, when you can choose. And the guide dog issue? It's not an issue. I trust a vegan would treat her guide dog very nicely, and not ever give the dog up to what would ever be harm.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Wrong, I would think still she is vegan. You don't notice I mention intention, do you? She needs medicine, and her intention is to have vegan medication for her not realizing if it's available. She is still vegan with that.

So, it logically follows that you do not oppose testing drugs on animals when there is a possible benefit to humans. I believe this violates your own statement.

We all are not perfect, and might unintentionally have use of sonething that involved an animal. It is not choosing to do so, and that matters. Where we can choose, we are vegan if we choose not to use anything from animals then

Guide dogs could be (and would be by some) argued as a form of animal exploitation. So is medicine that is first tested on animals. They may result in positives for humans, but they are still forms of animal exploitation. One may result in a dog having a positive relationship with a human, but that dog was and is never free. One may result in a human having life saving medicine, but an animal or animals had to (in some cases) suffer and die until the drug maker got it right.

Again, your statement is not consistent.

Some clearly can't do that. I don't blame eskimos for using animals from the sea, if that is all for food that's available to them. They still aren't vegan, but can't help it with no other choices. But you have choices. Don't you always choose for what would not harm animals? Why not, when you can choose.

No, I don’t. I kill dangerous spiders if they are in my residence. I've been bitten by one that I just left alone. Never again. The non deadly ones get moved or left alone. If a deadly snake found it’s way in, I’d kill it too. I also feed my cat a non-vegan diet – but I’m fine with that because it’s going to consume animals anyway (and does, when it is out)– and I don’t believe in keeping it cruelty locked up and forced on a diet like some people.

Otherwise, I leave animals alone, don’t wear them and don’t pay for them to be exploited for my entertainment – but I do make an exception in the case of a human need. Needs would include medical reasons (guide dogs for the blind, life saving medicine etc), and even human’s need to be protected from the dangerous animals. Clothing when there is no other option (like in a non Industrialized society, in the wild, in past times) etc. The key exception is – human need.

In all this, the question of "is it vegan" doesn't come up for me, because I understand it's original definition was a diet, with 2 encouragement clauses.

And the guide dog issue? It's not an issue. I trust a vegan would treat her guide dog very nicely, and not ever give the dog up to what would ever be harm.

The point is is that some (based on your definition of veganism) would see this as exploitation, no matter how well the dog is treated. Your original statement (as well as the UK Vegan Society's definition) don't align with guide dogs. It's another reason I don't take it as my own:

"
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose."

Guide dogs for human benefit = exploitation
Medicine tested on animals for human benefit = exploitation
Horse riding for human benefit (past benefit in developed nations) = exploitation
Adopting a cat to get rid of mice = exploitation (often mutual, but still exploitation)
Using animals to pull carriages/farm equipment in times past = exploitation

 

[FredVegrox]

Still vegans go further than vegan dieters, which you are content with. Most vegans, still those with the current meaning, which real vegans will keep, do not demand perfection with which any not meeting it are excluded, but vegan dieters indeed refer to it against vegans, to have a distorted justification to not bother really being vegan. Vegans don't generally have use of any such justification, as the definition you show says, they do so from their intention as far as possible and practicable. So if it isn't possible or practicable to live without a guide dog, a vegan would have one, but treat the dog better than any just using one to exploit. Freedom is a false standard for veganism which isn't in the definition. Wildlife can be free from humans, if we leave all wildlife be. But vegan dieters don't do that. Domesticated animals cannot just be left free. The best treatment for them are sanctuaries or much like sanctuaries, and animals which are much safer there still can't be said to be truly free. Same for medication regarding what is possible or practicable. Vegan dieters don't bother with pursuing any of it as far as possible. Lashing out at those with ethically choosing doesn't change that. There isn't need generally to be using horses as they are used in our society. People with cats are not fully vegan unless they are feeding them vegan food, unless the cats are in sanctuary, where they are free enough to live natural lives as predators, but still not provided anything for food from animals humans are providing them. And I don't approve of using draft animals either. But what change that is enough for betterment do you show, while you don't care about "is it vegan", since you think it is alright to use extremely high standards to dismiss others?

 

[Nekodaiden]

Still vegans go further than vegan dieters, which you are content with. Most vegans, still those with the current meaning, which real vegans will keep, do not demand perfection with which any not meeting it are excluded, but vegan dieters indeed refer to it against vegans, to have a distorted justification to not bother really being vegan. Vegans don't generally have use of any such justification, as the definition you show says, they do so from their intention as far as possible and practicable. So if it isn't possible or practicable to live without a guide dog, a vegan would have one, but treat the dog better than any just using one to exploit. Freedom is a false standard for veganism which isn't in the definition. Wildlife can be free from humans, if we leave all wildlife be. But vegan dieters don't do that. Domesticated animals cannot just be left free. The best treatment for them are sanctuaries or much like sanctuaries, and animals which are much safer there still can't be said to be truly free. Same for medication regarding what is possible or practicable. Vegan dieters don't bother with pursuing any of it as far as possible. Lashing out at those with ethically choosing doesn't change that. There isn't need generally to be using horses as they are used in our society. People with cats are not fully vegan unless they are feeding them vegan food, unless the cats are in sanctuary, where they are free enough to live natural lives as predators, but still not provided anything for food from animals humans are providing them. And I don't approve of using draft animals either. But what change that is enough for betterment do you show, while you don't care about "is it vegan", since you think it is alright to use extremely high standards to dismiss others?

What extremely high standards would this be? I have, throughout this thread, defended Watson’s definition, which simply gives 1 rule: No animal products in the diet. 2 encouragements follow. Anyone eating a diet void of animal products is a vegan. It’s not me that is raising the bar, but you, and it’s clear you can’t even defend the definition you subscribe to. I’m also fairly certain you don’t look after a cat. In case you missed basic biology – they’re a natural carnivore. Feeding them a vegan diet and keeping them locked up so they don’t “mis-behave”is contrary to their true nature. It may fit the fantasy world some vegans live in, but that’s not a fantasy I would cruelly impose on my friend.

Please, go off and form your own true society. Keep a cat locked indoors like it’s a natural criminal and feed it vegetables and supplements. Scold it for catching mice and birds. Perhaps even declaw it for the sake of your fantasy view. You’ll be being compassionate towards it’s natural prey while shaking your fist at whatever Being created the cat, because in you’re super enlightened view, that Being seriously screwed up and needs enlightened human intervention to show the error of it’s ways, lol.

Oh, and do you hold the same view of other natural omnivores/carnivores? After my feline friend sucks the blood from the rodents it consumes, it leaves them for the ants. I watched over the course of about 2 weeks while these ants slowly and methodically dismantled a dead rodent, taking everything from it, including bones.

Perhaps we can teach ants to be vegan too? This philosophy applied to other species is madness, and it hurts the cause. WE – humans – are not designed to, nor benefit health wise from – consumption of animals, above our natural diet. Applying this truth to other species – natural carnivores and omnivores, is for those who wish to pursue a false worldview, and who will ultimately hurt the cause by this.

But, go ahead. Millions of rational human beings will read opinions like yours and decide not to be vegan. They will continue with the idea that veganism is a misguided worldview because of people who hold your views. And the result of that will be less people adopting a vegan diet. Congratulations! Just like Leslie Cross, you’ve contributed to more animal suffering through your “en-lighted” philosophy.

 

[veganDreama]

I might not have a 3rd guide dog after all as the guide dog association say I should only walk the dog twice a week and to in fact avoid the park or leave the dog at home if I was going their. I'm not going to do that with a dog. It would be cruel as ALL dogs enjoy going for a walk. My last 2 guide dogs got a walk around 3 times a day. They were happy and good working dogs. I haven't even discussed the dog's vegan diet. That might be another stumbling block.

I CAN survive without a guide dog so I suppose that's definitely a grey area.

I NEED medicine. Always have done. I've tried to stop taking medicine and just made myself ill. I think that the "as far as is possible' means I'm still vegan as it's NOT possible to stop taking medicine. It won't bring the animals who were tested back to life. All medicine is tested on animals at one time or another. If their was a choice of ethnically produced medicine that would be differant but unfortunately their isn't.

 

[FredVegrox]

What extremely high standards would this be? I have, throughout this thread, defended Watson’s definition, which simply gives 1 rule: No animal products in the diet. 2 encouragements follow. Anyone eating a diet void of animal products is a vegan. It’s not me that is raising the bar, but you, and it’s clear you can’t even defend the definition you subscribe to.

I don't come up with the standards I hold others to. I have standards for me, these agree with the meaning of veganism we have now, which you disagree with, and say we demand of others to perfection in it that is extremely high. You base it on what Donald Watson said, to disagree but don't show that he ever made an issue arguing to change it back. So you come here as just a vegan dieter with arguing with vegans in such way, when we do things to avoid contribution to use or harm to animals that you won't change to. I can see value of this forum being open to those not vegan who are open to the change to veganism, but you are not open to it at all, and just want to argue to change the meaning to include you and others like you who won't change yourselves.

You were told by one not to talk with her again, though you persisted. It can be seen why she might say that. I will say if you respond again with abusive language or personal remarks directed at me, which is out of line showing trollish posting, I will report your post. Do watch how you communicate.

I’m also fairly certain you don’t look after a cat. In case you missed basic biology – they’re a natural carnivore. Feeding them a vegan diet and keeping them locked up so they don’t “mis-behave”is contrary to their true nature. It may fit the fantasy world some vegans live in, but that’s not a fantasy I would cruelly impose on my friend.

I certainly don't have a cat and haven't been caring directly for a cat since being vegan. But it is wrong to say I don't like cats at all. My family I was with had cats in several times in my life, I certainly was kind and caring to each, and familiar with how they are.

It is from ignorance that you communicate how they would be fed, the vegan food I speak of is with there really being vegan cat food, with what is needed including taurine. If cats eat as predators, which I said I agree, they do not catch animals from which the cat food you would give them are made, the support for those animals being slaughtered is still not vegan. But a vegan is not responsible with the cat they care for catching a small prey that they would according to their nature, if this vegan is feeding them well, with such vegan food. That is all I meant, and this is truly the case, with what veganism actually means, which you argue with. The false representation of me is not needed, for communicating.

Please, go off and form your own true society. Keep a cat locked indoors like it’s a natural criminal and feed it vegetables and supplements. Scold it for catching mice and birds. Perhaps even declaw it for the sake of your fantasy view. You’ll be being compassionate towards it’s natural prey while shaking your fist at whatever Being created the cat, because in you’re super enlightened view, that Being seriously screwed up and needs enlightened human intervention to show the error of it’s ways, lol.

Along with the rest of the abusive communication this is completely inappropriately representing what I believe and I didn't say, ask, assume or know what you believe about God.

Oh, and do you hold the same view of other natural omnivores/carnivores? After my feline friend sucks the blood from the rodents it consumes, it leaves them for the ants. I watched over the course of about 2 weeks while these ants slowly and methodically dismantled a dead rodent, taking everything from it, including bones.

Perhaps we can teach ants to be vegan too? This philosophy applied to other species is madness, and it hurts the cause. WE – humans – are not designed to, nor benefit health wise from – consumption of animals, above our natural diet. Applying this truth to other species – natural carnivores and omnivores, is for those who wish to pursue a false worldview, and who will ultimately hurt the cause by this.

But, go ahead. Millions of rational human beings will read opinions like yours and decide not to be vegan. They will continue with the idea that veganism is a misguided worldview because of people who hold your views. And the result of that will be less people adopting a vegan diet. Congratulations! Just like Leslie Cross, you’ve contributed to more animal suffering through your “en-lighted” philosophy.

All this is total complete misrepresentation, such that should not be repeated.

 

[nobody]

Veganism means there is desire to not have any contribution to exploitive use of animals, and that was always the idea, even as wording of the definition changed.

Originally, it was a diet that had benefits for animals, health and the environment. Beyond the diet, it was left to the individual's conscience what they did regarding non-food animal use. So it wasn't just about animal exploitation, it was also about health, which is only affected by diet, not by other animal use.

Here is a list of definitions from the UK Vegan Society so you can see animal rights exclusively wasn't "always" the idea.

Following is from here:

http://vegansociety.today/honey.html

Below we present the 14 different definitions of "vegan" from the UK Vegan Society's newsletter, along with the date that the change took place. As can be seen, the definition of "vegan" has been changed a total of 13 times since Donald Watson coined the word, and honey was excluded or included as vegan at various times:

May 1945
Veganism is the practice of living on fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, and other wholesome non-animal products. Veganism excludes as human food; flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey; and animals' milk, butter and cheese. Veganism aims at encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal products.

Spring 1946
The aims of the Society are:
1. To advocate that man's food should be derived from fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products and that it should exclude flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals milk, butter and cheese.
2. To encourage the production and use of alternatives to animal commodities.

Spring 1947
The aims of the Society are:
(a) To advocate that man's food should be derived from fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products and that it should exclude flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals milk, butter and cheese.
(b) To encourage the production and use of alternatives to animal commodities.
(c) To extend and organise Veganism nationally and internationally between those endeavouring to follow this way of life.

Spring 1948 -- (Honey is removed as a banned food)
The Vegan Society, founded 1944, ADVOCATES that man' food should be derived from fruits nuts, vegetables and grains, and ENCOURAGES the use of alternatives to all products of animal origin.

Spring 1954 (belated catching up with Cross's Constitution, after Cross re-joined the committee, the 1950 change and new rules were published inside the magazine in 1951, but the newsletter definition was not changed until 1954 -- still no mention of avoiding honey) The Society affirms that man has no right to exploit animals, advocates that man's food should be derived from fruits, nuts, vegetables and grains, and encourages the use of alternatives to all products of animal origin.

Winter 1954 (getting stricter, but no prohibition on honey)
Veganism is the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals. The Vegan Society seeks to end this exploitation in its many forms, advocates that man's food should be derived solely from the vegetable kingdom to the exclusion of all animal products, encourages the production and use of alternatives to commodities of animal origin, promotes veganism at home and abroad, and facilitates contacts between those endeavouring to further the aims of the Society.

Summer 1957 (back to food as #1- following John Heron's members' meeting - no prohibition on honeys)
Veganism is the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom - to the exclusion of all animal foods - proceeding from a wide consideration of man's place in nature. The objects of the Vegan Society are to provide in thought and practice for the advance of veganism and to relate veganism to every aspect of creative co-operation between man and nature.

Summer 1962 (Animal Rights vegans take over again, honey now prohibited)
Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence and compassion for all life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourage the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly, or in part from animals. Veganism remembers man's responsibilities to the earth and its resources and seeks to bring about a healthy soil and plant kingdom and a proper use of the materials of the earth.

Autumn 1972 (honey removed as banned food)
The Vegan Society, founded 1944, advocates living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of all food and other commodities derived wholly or in part from animals. Its members base their lives on the ethic of Reverence for Life and seek to free themselves from all forms of cruelty and exploitation. They are aware of man's responsibilities to his environment and seek to promote the proper use of the resources of the earth.

Winter 1974 ('exploitation' has gone, along with 'reverence' honey still not banned):
Veganism is defined as a way of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, animal milk and its derivatives. It encourages the study and use of alternatives for all commodities normally derived wholly or partly from animals. The objects of the Vegan Society are to further knowledge of an interest in sound nutrition and in veganism and the vegan method of agriculture as a means of increasing the potential of the earth to the physical, moral and economic advantage of mankind.

Winter 1979 (honey affirmatively mentioned as permissible):
Veganism is defined as a way of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, animal milk and its derivatives (the taking of honey being left to individual conscience). It encourages the study and use of alternatives for all commodities normally derived wholly or partly from animals. The objects of the Vegan Society are to further knowledge of an interest in sound nutrition and in veganism and the vegan method of agriculture as a means of increasing the potential of the earth to the physical, moral and economic advantage of mankind.

Winter 1981 (much expanded, honey still affirmatively mentioned as permissible):
The Vegan Society was formed in 1944 by a group of vegetarians who had become aware of the suffering inseparable from their diet. Its advantages as regards human health and the wise use of the world's resources became apparent and in 1964 it was granted Charity status. In 1979 it became a Limited Company and its Charity status was confirmed. Its declared object is "to further knowledge of an interest in sound nutrition and in veganism and the vegan method of agriculture as a means of increasing the potential of the earth to the physical, moral and economic advantage of mankind". Veganism is defined as a way of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, animal milk and its derivatives (the taking of honey being left to individual conscience). It encourages the study and use of alternatives for all commodities normally derived wholly or partly from animals. Free from commitment to any religious, political, philosophical, social, dietary or medical group, members of the Vegan Society endeavour to co-operate with all who are seeking a positive way forward for mankind.

Summer 1985 (exploitation is back at the top, but honey still optional)
Veganism may be defined as a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom for food, clothing or any other purpose. In dietary terms, it refers to the practice of dispensing with all animal produce - including flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, (non-human) animal milks, and their derivatives, with the taking of honey being left to the individual conscience. [the society's website claims that this definition began in 1979 - they are clearly wrong, as the previous definition appeared in its newsletter until spring 1985]

Winter 1988 - as above, except honey added to the list of banned substances.


© 2016 Vegan Society Today. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Forest Nymph]

Originally, it was a diet that had benefits for animals, health and the environment. Beyond the diet, it was left to the individual's conscience what they did regarding non-food animal use. So it wasn't just about animal exploitation, it was also about health, which is only affected by diet, not by other animal use.

Here is a list of definitions from the UK Vegan Society so you can see animal rights exclusively wasn't "always" the idea.

Following is from here:

http://vegansociety.today/honey.html

Below we present the 14 different definitions of "vegan" from the UK Vegan Society's newsletter, along with the date that the change took place. As can be seen, the definition of "vegan" has been changed a total of 13 times since Donald Watson coined the word, and honey was excluded or included as vegan at various times:

May 1945
Veganism is the practice of living on fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, and other wholesome non-animal products. Veganism excludes as human food; flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey; and animals' milk, butter and cheese. Veganism aims at encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal products.

Spring 1946
The aims of the Society are:
1. To advocate that man's food should be derived from fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products and that it should exclude flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals milk, butter and cheese.
2. To encourage the production and use of alternatives to animal commodities.

Spring 1947
The aims of the Society are:
(a) To advocate that man's food should be derived from fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products and that it should exclude flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, and animals milk, butter and cheese.
(b) To encourage the production and use of alternatives to animal commodities.
(c) To extend and organise Veganism nationally and internationally between those endeavouring to follow this way of life.

Spring 1948 -- (Honey is removed as a banned food)
The Vegan Society, founded 1944, ADVOCATES that man' food should be derived from fruits nuts, vegetables and grains, and ENCOURAGES the use of alternatives to all products of animal origin.

Spring 1954 (belated catching up with Cross's Constitution, after Cross re-joined the committee, the 1950 change and new rules were published inside the magazine in 1951, but the newsletter definition was not changed until 1954 -- still no mention of avoiding honey) The Society affirms that man has no right to exploit animals, advocates that man's food should be derived from fruits, nuts, vegetables and grains, and encourages the use of alternatives to all products of animal origin.

Winter 1954 (getting stricter, but no prohibition on honey)
Veganism is the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals. The Vegan Society seeks to end this exploitation in its many forms, advocates that man's food should be derived solely from the vegetable kingdom to the exclusion of all animal products, encourages the production and use of alternatives to commodities of animal origin, promotes veganism at home and abroad, and facilitates contacts between those endeavouring to further the aims of the Society.

Summer 1957 (back to food as #1- following John Heron's members' meeting - no prohibition on honeys)
Veganism is the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom - to the exclusion of all animal foods - proceeding from a wide consideration of man's place in nature. The objects of the Vegan Society are to provide in thought and practice for the advance of veganism and to relate veganism to every aspect of creative co-operation between man and nature.

Summer 1962 (Animal Rights vegans take over again, honey now prohibited)
Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence and compassion for all life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourage the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly, or in part from animals. Veganism remembers man's responsibilities to the earth and its resources and seeks to bring about a healthy soil and plant kingdom and a proper use of the materials of the earth.

Autumn 1972 (honey removed as banned food)
The Vegan Society, founded 1944, advocates living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of all food and other commodities derived wholly or in part from animals. Its members base their lives on the ethic of Reverence for Life and seek to free themselves from all forms of cruelty and exploitation. They are aware of man's responsibilities to his environment and seek to promote the proper use of the resources of the earth.

Winter 1974 ('exploitation' has gone, along with 'reverence' honey still not banned):
Veganism is defined as a way of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, animal milk and its derivatives. It encourages the study and use of alternatives for all commodities normally derived wholly or partly from animals. The objects of the Vegan Society are to further knowledge of an interest in sound nutrition and in veganism and the vegan method of agriculture as a means of increasing the potential of the earth to the physical, moral and economic advantage of mankind.

Winter 1979 (honey affirmatively mentioned as permissible):
Veganism is defined as a way of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, animal milk and its derivatives (the taking of honey being left to individual conscience). It encourages the study and use of alternatives for all commodities normally derived wholly or partly from animals. The objects of the Vegan Society are to further knowledge of an interest in sound nutrition and in veganism and the vegan method of agriculture as a means of increasing the potential of the earth to the physical, moral and economic advantage of mankind.

Winter 1981 (much expanded, honey still affirmatively mentioned as permissible):
The Vegan Society was formed in 1944 by a group of vegetarians who had become aware of the suffering inseparable from their diet. Its advantages as regards human health and the wise use of the world's resources became apparent and in 1964 it was granted Charity status. In 1979 it became a Limited Company and its Charity status was confirmed. Its declared object is "to further knowledge of an interest in sound nutrition and in veganism and the vegan method of agriculture as a means of increasing the potential of the earth to the physical, moral and economic advantage of mankind". Veganism is defined as a way of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, animal milk and its derivatives (the taking of honey being left to individual conscience). It encourages the study and use of alternatives for all commodities normally derived wholly or partly from animals. Free from commitment to any religious, political, philosophical, social, dietary or medical group, members of the Vegan Society endeavour to co-operate with all who are seeking a positive way forward for mankind.

Summer 1985 (exploitation is back at the top, but honey still optional)
Veganism may be defined as a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom for food, clothing or any other purpose. In dietary terms, it refers to the practice of dispensing with all animal produce - including flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, (non-human) animal milks, and their derivatives, with the taking of honey being left to the individual conscience. [the society's website claims that this definition began in 1979 - they are clearly wrong, as the previous definition appeared in its newsletter until spring 1985]

Winter 1988 - as above, except honey added to the list of banned substances.


© 2016 Vegan Society Today. All Rights Reserved.

The United States' Constitution also has many amendments. Do you think it's fine that only men should vote or that Blacks are 3/5 of a person since that's what the original constitution says? How about guns? Are you a purist, that we should all have as many guns as we like, since "right to bear arms" is so black and white? Do you take into consideration that AR15s and similar weapons did not exist 250 years ago?

That's what this reverence of some vague words Donald Watson said looks like to me, personally. It looks like a bunch of Right Wing Libertarians sitting around bemoaning that we don't take the Constitution literally word for word in its original form.

As someone who studies science, I can tell you that scientific thinking MUST be open to rational changes all of the time. The Vegan Society has rationally weighed scientific evidence and advancements since the 1940s. If ecologists followed this line of thinking, we'd all be saving trees but denying climate change, and there's nothing intelligent about that.

 

[Nekodaiden]

Definitions can change, for the better or worse. The current constitution (for example) of the USA, just because it is used, does not mean it's the best one. Unless one considers massive inflation, massive debt and multiple theater wars that put the country more in debt is a good thing. Anywhoo - not wanting to argue that point at any length.

Insofar as the original definition of Veganism is concerned, and following changes, what is the best indicator for their efficacy? In terms of membership, http://vegansociety.today has done a good job in showing that when the definition is extended to animal rights (as opposed to encouragement), then membership drops. As I've said multiple times in this thread - if one's individual motivation is the welfare of animals, then the greatest number of animals are served when more people adopt a Vegan diet. If it's demanded that they have mono-motives, or constantly need to question whether or not they are vegan, or have their veganism questioned by others because of things outside of diet - this certainly cannot be good for both increasing and keeping the most members. All it does is discourage, cause division, and serve the egos of a few. You can refrain from zoos, circuses and all other forms of animal exploitation, feed your cat vegan and whatever else your conscience dictates without demanding it of someone else.

 

[nobody]

The United States' Constitution also has many amendments. Do you think it's fine that only men should vote or that Blacks are 3/5 of a person since that's what the original constitution says? How about guns? Are you a purist, that we should all have as many guns as we like, since "right to bear arms" is so black and white? Do you take into consideration that AR15s and similar weapons did not exist 250 years ago?

That's what this reverence of some vague words Donald Watson said looks like to me, personally. It looks like a bunch of Right Wing Libertarians sitting around bemoaning that we don't take the Constitution literally word for word in its original form.

As someone who studies science, I can tell you that scientific thinking MUST be open to rational changes all of the time. The Vegan Society has rationally weighed scientific evidence and advancements since the 1940s. If ecologists followed this line of thinking, we'd all be saving trees but denying climate change, and there's nothing intelligent about that.

In the case of veganism, the original version was more inclusive. I'd like to show you something. Here is a thread I started about boycotting movies and TV that use real animals, where I revealed I had watched the period piece Turn: Washington's Spies, which uses a lot of real animals.

Is boycotting movies and TV necessary to maintain your vegan status? If so, that's a really exclusive club and there is no reason for it to exist, other than to make members feel special. That is why Cross veganism is also called ego veganism: "plant based people use that entrance over there, you are not vegan".

Also, most people probably see boycotting movies and TV shows that use real animals as part of the rules of an animal cult. And the suffering endured by animals in movies and TV is infinitesimal compared to that of animals exploited for food, so to require that for membership is a completely ineffective strategy for helping animals.

As I mentioned previously, I have heard (I believe from you but I may be wrong) that people are more likely to exclude other forms of exploitation after adopting the diet. The diet is always first and is the most important thing.

Also, in Watson veganism, there is still the sense that it is vegan to boycott animal movies in that you are encouraged to exclude other animal use, so doing that is vegan. You are not losing anything, but you do gain members, like all the plant based people for starters.

P.s. on second thought, I believe animals used in movies is outside of the scope of Watson veganism due to the use of the word commodities. It doesn't sound like entertainment was meant to be included. But vegan shoes are vegan because they are encouraged, under Watson veganism.