Well, I guess, that takes some âifsâ for explanation.
While âless efficientâ might regularely be the case, if judged simply by output per ha or the like, âworse for the environmentâ depends on the base for comparison, if I am not wrong.
Comparing two austrian apples, the bio one should be better for the environent, but if you compare an industrial apple from the tree around the corner to a bio one wrapped in plastics from new zealand, that is a different piece of cake. My feeling is just, that - though itâs comparing apples -, it is more like comparing apples with pears. 
1 Like
AFAIK traditionally, fields need to lie fallow for a while, more recently reused for different purposes. The organic fields give less yield because of inefficiency such as diseases, vermin, insects, etc.
To answer that specific question Iâd need to look up into organic farming for apples and non-organic farming for apples which are consumed in Austria. I have no idea if (enough) apples grow native in Austria.
Either way Austria falls under the EU regulations. The term âorganicâ is rather very relative in EU (long story short the legal definition got watered down). Weâve also been selectively breeding ever since, so the term ânon-GMOâ is also relative in that sense (besides, GMOs are perfectly safe, just like vaccines, and everything is in the end [a] âchemicalâ as well).
The joke is that many self-proclaimed health gurus, hipsters, and vegans come up with all kind of [often delicious] recipes which are vegan, organic, raw, yada yada yet contain non-environment friendly ingredients such as this one: 
and almond [1] (I both love these ingredients, btw, and my favourite nut is the macadamia). If everyone would be living according to the average organic, vegan diet, we wouldnât be able to sustain humanity as we know it.
If you consider by-products from our current industry such as gelatin and whey then these are strictly speaking not vegan (or even vegetarian). Yet theyâre there, and useful. However, with regards to cheese, the amount of calves which need to die for rennet is very low anyway, and weâd have a surplus either way because we donât need males. Not my personal preference, but these males are in surplus that is the reality we need to deal with. So it makes no sense to avoid something like gelatin, whey, or cheese. It is just the disgusting picture of where it comes from which makes you feel OK to avoid. I do get that, as I had the same (you only need to watch a documentary like Earthlings). It is the same with meat dishes such as sausage made from rests of meat (such as wurst or frikandel, also made of by-products or meat which would otherwise be tossed away). Recommended read PIG 05049 by Christien Meindertsma which shows 185 pictures of how we use pigs in every day products [2]. Youâll be guaranteed non-vegan (or a âsinningâ vegan) after you read that 
Now, if you look at meat, chicken require very little space, and donât live long, so theyâre effective. If youâd host chicken in liberty, and with welfare, we would not be able to feed the world with that direction, and theyâd be much more expensive (newsflash: everyone who visits this forum is relatively very rich compared to the rest of the world). Chicken also donât produce much harmful gas. Cow, OTOH, do produce these harmful gas, and use relatively a lot of space (which is inefficient), but in order to feed one human mouth youâll only use a very small part of the cow; so less animals suffer. If you ignore the [so-called] delicatesse parts of the cow, it is also cheap. Insects, such as grasshoppers and mealworms, also use very little space and they donât have a CNS, hence they arguably do not suffer. They are an abundant, rich source of protein, which can be grown locally. It is saving lives in Africa as we speak. I can personally attest, that they (grasshoppers and mealworms) taste very well if seasoned/combined well. They have a bit of a nutty flavour. My standpoint is that if you are currently able to enjoy nuts, you can enjoy these two insects species as well (I cannot speak for other species). That we donât is because it is in our head that eating insects is somehow dirty. Well, I donât like eating them in the wild eitherâŠ
My point? You can never win. You cannot optimize for both animal welfare and environment. Perhaps when you are starting out, you still have a passion, and lots of energy and time available to pull your weight in one or both of these issues. Eventually, though, one is going to lose. For that reason alone, a pragmatic take is better, but good luck arguing pragmacy in vegan communities. Youâll be seen as a sinner, and youâll experience the wrath of a religious mob. I have come to the sad conclusion that advocacy of [such] diet is, in effect, harmful just like perfectionism a harmful enemy of good. Bas van Abel also had to learn to be pragmatic when it came to the Fairphone 2. Iâm all for leading by example, but it needs to be practical for the rest of the world as well. Veganism, is not. And, for the record, I have eaten countless of absolutely delicious vegan, vegetarian, raw food, organic (or a combination of such) dishes. I highly recommend every person to experiment. However, do not commit to such -ism, as the dogma is going to crush your soul slowly but surely. An open, experimenting mind which naturally progresses and thinks in terms of solutions and options is much better. The only exception is allergies (not to be confused with intolerances).
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/food/2014/07/your-almond-habit-sucking-califoirnia-dry/
4 Likes
Do you have any statistics as for what an average vegan diet actually is? I have a feeling most vegans who eat a lot of unsustainable foods are influencers and those they influence - of which most will probably not be vegan for a long time.
Also you are arguing against an extreme that nobody is aiming for here. I have never met a vegan who said that all humanity has to become vegan. So youâd have to compare that to the opposite extreme and if everybody would eat as much meat and animal products as we do in Europe and the US weâd already need 10 planets to feed everybody.
I absolutely donât get your point about the (by)products of the livestock industry. How is your whole paragraph not an argument to become vegan. You know that those byproducts are there because of meat-eaters, not because of vegans right?
Yes you can: Just minimalize capitalism. Itâs not like we need to produce as much as we do now. We only do it so the rich can keep getting richer.
I agree. And such a mind usually finds out that veganism is best.
2 Likes
That part is based on a study which compared the different diets.
I would guess that, for starters, we need to compare diets which contain all the ingredients we need. An average vegan diet, could for example, be very well deprived of enough vitamin B12, or not be fully vegan. I mean, there are vegans who eat spirulina and other algae as a source of B12, while these are not bioactive. They donât work in the human body, and are harmful. (Theyâre also expensive.)
The book PIG 05049 proves it highly unlikely there is such a thing as a full-vegan, lifestyle-wise. So in the end, I regard the term if I want to sound positive as a nice idealistic dream, or if I want to sound negative as a fake it until you make it lifestyle. But the toxicism in that community? Harmful, even for adoption of a veg*n-esque diet. Which is where my interest lies. I believe if we slowly introduce people to plant-based foods, and teach them to cook meals that way, and teach them that dishes can be delicious without meat (and eventually, without dairy) that we make much, much more progress towards our goal than veg*nism. If every European would skip meat on Monday, the impact on the environment is already better than a few more vegans via advocacy such as this thread. If science would allow us to eat in-vitro meat so that we no longer need to grow farms with cows such allows us to be more efficient with our space which is a net plus for the environment. If we can overcome the âewwwâ and âit is not veganâ factor we can restart eating insects as a viable, reliable, environment-friendly source of protein.
Iâve never met a vegan who is not condescendingly, in one way or another, trying to convince other vegans and non-vegans alike that their lifestyle is superior. Honestly, I find it frightening. Like, I donât even dare to visit a vegan restaurant or shop for fear of an argument that something I do/own/talk about is not according to their principles.
[EDIT]There are a few exceptions here and there. Mainly in the Facebook group âFriendly & Pragmatic Vegans And Vegetariansâ. Offline, I donât remember I ever met these people, but I guess there are some silent non-vocal vegans. How many, not sure, but if it is some majority of vegans it is certainly a silent majority⊠I mean, consider the fact that said Facebook group is basically a hideout for pragmatic veg*ns who dare to criticize their own ideals, the movement, the diet, etc. Unheard of elsewhere. It is like cursing in the church. Albeit the church of veganismâŠ[/EDIT]
Because these by-products are there, right now. Theyâve been there for decades, if not centuries. Theyâre very cheap. Why not use them? From an environmental PoV, we should. From a vegan or animal welfare PoV, we shouldnât. I say: fuck the latter. The former is better for the environment, and not one animal less is going to die or survive because you donât pop a B12 supplement with a gelatin coating. None. Your idealism makes zero sense in that context. The effort would be better spend otherwise (a pattern one can find again and again in veganism; see my posts throughout this thread for more examples).
Well, we are living in a capitalist society. What we could try is minimize/revert harm as an individual (and that is one aspect I like about vegans and environmentalists as long as they keep it to themselves instead of shoving it up to otherâs throats). Also, without drawing towards perfectionism because it is impossible to reduce harm for animals, environment, and human beings. We will need to make concessions. Vegans tends to be unwilling to make such concessions, and as environmentalist that is going to lead into conflicts with vegans, eventually. Also, we need practical solutions for people (read: adults who donât have much income, and work from 9 to 5, and have a kid or two). Ie. these people do not have much time or money. That sums up the vast majority of the people on planet Earth!
Vegans donât take such into account. That is because it is first and foremost a (pardon my French) hipster lifestyle. [EDIT]I guess I should add that hipster lifestyle is a product of capitalismâŠ[/EDIT]
While theyâre still young, perhaps. The amount of people who bounce back from veganism to a more sane, pragmatic diet gives a more accurate picture 
if not merely for the fact that a truly vegan diet is basically not affordable for people, and impractical (though I admit, it does become slowly more practical, diet-wise, but if one makes concessions the imperfect variants are already a huge plus). People in Africa eat insect-based protein because it is a readily available, cheap, and sustainable source of protein. Avocados, almonds, soy, palm oil, coconut oil? Not so much.
1 Like
Evolution does not design us for anything, itâs just that traits that are beneficial for survival or reproduction are spreading. In that way, a species can adapt to a situation. Just because having sharp teeth was beneficial for a meaty diet and that seems to be successful for a few hundred thousand of years, that does not mean we need to eat meat today. We should always be careful basing arguments on evolution
4 Likes
Okay, but than you have to do the same with every other good idea that isnât currently possible because of the capitalistic system we live in.
That is exactly what vegans are trying to do. Who are these militant vegans you know who are trying to force you to become 100% vegan from one second to another?
I absolutely donât get any of your points here. Why would a non vegan person have a vegan consciousness that tells them not to eat sustainable meat, but only unsustainable meat?
Thatâs the same as saying âI have nothing against gays as long as they donât be too open about it.â Being vocal about your veganism just means you are fighting for animal- and human rights and a sustainable lifestyle. And sure: Sometimes activism has to be a bit provocative, but just because that is an effective tool to prompt discussions, not to diss people who are not 100% subscribed to âthe causeâ.
So we are not allowed to change things?
Then go on use them. Why do you want to get vegans to use them and not meat-eaters?
Those that eat meat should, yes. Those that live a more sustainable livestyle shouldnât slow down their progress just so others can catch up.
Veganism doesnât value meat over other animal (by)products, so this is simply not true. In a world where everybody would be vegan (which nobody is aiming for) nobody should eat animal products. In a world where we have meat-eaters, vegitarians, vegans and a whole other spectrum these products should of course be eaten. Iâm sure 99%-100% of vegans agree with this.
Individual actions wonât save the world. Only a system change can.
Why? Not everybody has to live the same lifestyle. I can see that people who are using Google, people who try to avoid Google as well as possible, but canât go as far as completely live without it and people who are completely livingwogoogle can co-exist peacefully in this forum. The same is true for vegans and other people.
If we all agree that we should consume less animal products then how is not consuming any animal products a bad thing just because other people donât want to or canât go that far.
If Fairphone would all of a sudden produce a 100% fair phone would you not buy it because it is to perfectionist and sets an unrealistic standard for other phone companies?
So now you are calling me insane?
And Iâm willing to bet that most vegans applaud that.
Absolutely true. But still better than meat from animals that were raised on one continent, fed with food grown on another, slaughtered on a third and sold on a 4th.
Iâm a vegan (went vegan about a year ago). Before then I always liked leather and felt it was a by-product so why not use the whole of the animal. Jts already died so its wasteful not toâŠbut did you know, the single most expensive part of the cow is its hide. That means its not really a by-product is it? It IS the product. That changed my way of thinking significantly. I didnât want an animal to die because I wanted a bag. This is also not mentioning the environmental impact of leather tanning (chemically).
That aside there are hundreds of reasons for me to be vegan (especially the health aspect) but also things like social aspects. People that live near live stock farms in the US are subjected to masses of chemicals, antibiotics, hormones etc. They spread the pig manure all over the nearby land and let it wash into rivers. You should watch âwhat the healthâ on netflix.
Anyway, what I mean to say is people forget that vegans were once just like everyone else. We donât think we are any different but we do feel weâve been guided to something brilliant and would like other people to experience the same thing. We love our âclubâ and want you to join its a friendly thing not a âyou must join otherwise you are evilâ.
(Also just to add, we are a one income family with 2 kids. At first only me and the baby went vegan my husband was a full omnivore. My eldest child a vegetarian. I never pushed anyone into veganism in my family. My eldest is still vegetarian and youngest still vegan, but interestingly my husband now hardly eats any meat or fish and occassionly eats egg. He does eat honey but all the other changes he made himself without pressure. As a vegan I feel this is the best way. Lead by example. If people like what they see, theyâll follow)
4 Likes
I know that B12 is a critical nutrient for vegans. However Vitamin B12 is nor an animal product nor a plant product. It is produced by bacteria.
1 Like
But - if I get it right - you naturally get active vitamin B12 from animal products only.
Otherwise you have to get it from supplements or fortified foods.
But I may have got it wrong of course.
1 Like
Itâs correct that animal products contain B12. like your flesh contains it. The farmers also give fortified food to livestock, because modern farming is also far away from whatâs natural and the animals do not get all their nutrients naturally. I think Selen is also a major critical nutrient for animals.
I am not sure but I think cows have bacteria in their bowels who produce b12 and can absorb it like this. And I think we as humans also have those in the bowels but too far at the end of the digestive system, therefore absorption is not possible anymore. But I am not entirely sure about this.
I view it like this. Many things are not ânaturalâ anymore in our modern lifestyle. and the argument about b12 seems like an argument against veganism, but itâs not. Like I said above itâs nor an animal nor a plant product, it comes from bacteria (or synthetically produced). B12 defienciency can be found in all kinds of diets and I suggest also to keep an eye on it in an omnivore diet. Suplementing yourself or eating meat which contains b12 is both far from whatâs natural (Talking about how animal agriculture is far away from what is natural) I would prefer suplementing myself, instead of supplementing animal and then eat the animal. Like this I can dose it myself and have not all the unhealthy things from meat like antibiotics residues, cholestorol and trans fats.
Suplementing is not something bad, itâs a very good thing if done correctly. In many countries they add iodine in salt, which prevents the defiencies which can not be covered with our normal diet of today. And here nobody bats an eye that itâs suplemented.
2 Likes
Itâs just, that industrially produced meat is not the only choice, while you will not find naturally produced active vitamin B12 in a tablet or the like. This kind of things is always produced industrially.
As I already stated, I donât eat meat, I âjustâ eat dairy (and eggs, when they come as cakes or cookies).
I guess, there are bad, better and good practices to all kinds of âdietâ.
So maybe a Demeter steak every sunday could be ok.
When it comes to all the unhealthy things, I agree to all the things, that do not belong there like antibiotics. But regarding the rest, I am a bit more cautious classifying stuff as good or bad, as itâs often the dose that makes the poison. And e.g. butter regularly is healthier than margarine, if you donât actually have a cholesterol problem (at least as far as I know).
3 Likes
Hey guys, itâs me your farmer from the neighbourhoodâŠno, no, iâm joking !
But iâm really a farmer and actually an organic and community supported one. AND I love such discussions. Because they are part of my âjob/lifeâ.
I think people have to understand that everything you can find in the supermarket doensât come from the neighbourhood and sometimes a food is produced more like an objectâŠlook at the soooo beautiful and perfect red/green applesâŠ
Animal products have always been part of our cultureâŠbut with more moderationâŠI mean, in todayâs abundance it will be difficult to appreciate the life of animals. They used to be much more a part of our work/lifeâŠa kind of âsymbiosisâ. Itâs become necessary to think outside the boxâŠgo to the next farmer, organic or not, talk to him. If he/she doesnât want to talk, choose the next one. Some are just waiting for it ! Found a community supported agriculture, where you can act together for a better future, for a better foodâŠAnd if you donât want to eat meat, so donât eat it. Same for honey, cheese, etcâŠBUT act/eat local and support YOUR LOCAL FARMERS !..sorry for my bad englishâŠ
10 Likes
I think the Vegan Society cover it well: https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/honey-industry
1 Like
Sorry, I really donât think so, as they just cover âconventional beekeepingâ under the point âunethical practicesâ.
There is not one single word about more ethical practices or ecological beekeeping, like the practices @paulakreuzer has described.
Insofar the explanation of the vegansociety goes, they are correct, but they do not cover beekeeping to itâs full extent. Maybe, just maybe, because it would be much harder arguing against that eco-friendly beekeeping.
Another example, how about city farming with beekeeping on rooftops, areas, where otherwise no wild population of bees would exist?
Therefore, to me, that explanation falls a bit short of the target.
3 Likes
SorryâŠbut they really only describe the bad beekeepers and the bad methodâŠif someone wants to live vegan, the person can do itâŠbut I think, the confrontation with food production belongs absolutely to itâŠand not only one-sidedly !
2 Likes
Can honey be vegan?
Nope. Honey is the vomit of bees. Bees are animals.
2 Likes
Honeybees gather nectar in a vesica that evolution specifically designed to store nectar/honey and voluntarily discharge it again to give it to the next bee to produce honey. So itâs not vomiting.
But sure, itâs not a plant-based product. So it could never legally be called vegan. Nobody ever put that into question.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 182 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.
Hi I just asked for this to be opened as it poses a few issues around fairness.
Bees are domesticated and used, not a really nice attitude to support, be it bee or be it me or thee.
Using honey can be vegan even if the honey is technically from an animal. The vegan society only have very limited ethics and so they define them harshly.
But is this about the bee or being vegan?
Using an animal product or one produced by animals like honey or manure isnât vegan if the issue is using animals, but that excludes pets for comfort and miners and factory workers to make phones. Does anyone think they would work if they didnât have to due to poverty. Fair use is new abuse.
Whether first hand animal use or in production vegan is a mediation not a goal.
The use of humans that are either too frail physically or in intelligence is frowned upon as it goes against the idea of being caring âhumanâ, The idea is not to exploit anyone weaker physically or less âintelligentâ hence laws on exploiting the young, old and infirm.
Itâs not that those people that need protecting, as they still are used, but ourselves from using them, it degrades us: and as cows and bees are dumb animals we use them to our disgrace
Yet this care is for the individual to assert, it is not for the benefit of the poor, weak humans or dumb animals. Most animals would not exit if they were not bred for human use. 95% of the animal biomass on Earth is now human derived.
Domesticating people or animals doesnât sit well with me as an individual but co-operative businesses rely on exploitation.
I like Fairphone as they show care for the workers, who no doubt are not vegan in any sense.
If the vegan is on a path to learn how to care by avoiding using dumb and weak creatures then we shouldnât require definitions and laws to hold each other to account but practice as best we can for the sake of our own being.
That we continue to use the poor to do do the manual labour puts the use of honey as a non issue. Better wages for the miners and factory workers mean they can now afford honey rather than white sugar.
So each of us can reduce our use of others and be more careful.
This all about business ethics, it is not a moral issue. For morality requires that the consumption of one for another goes against the idea of eternal existence for all.
The intellect requires work to develop a consciousness that is not dependent upon consumerism if the soul is anyoneâs goal.
Being vegan can be a demanding mediation, so for those who take it on.
