[circleofcompassion.org]

I am a raw-foodist but primarily a vegan for ethical reasons, so I don't think this article is applicable to everyone. I do think he brings up some good points to think about. I am curious of your responses to it.

wow, that was very insightful. interesting concepts, i will definately read it again and again.
thanks.

I agree with a lot of the article.

But with the environment side, I think a lot of the problem lays in the 'media friendly' raw i.e. gliving.tv where newbie raw foodists are subjected to gorgeous-looking meals made from green coconut, coconut oil, papaya and other tropical fruits. A lot of raw cookbooks have coconut as a primary ingredient in a lot of dishes, as well as agave and weird imported seaweed and lets face it, when you're new to raw, what's going to do it for you: a SAD-style raw banana pudding with coconut custard or a bowl of apples. We need more berry-based meals! More cold-climate recipes

But anyway, on the ethical side...

I wrote a grouchy article on my blog about being a bit peeved over how not enough raw foodists take the time to look into the 'vegan' aspect of their diet. Veganism is the most important step we can take towards protecting the environment and animals- so what is the point of being a 'dietary' vegan who supports the meat/dairy industries by buying leather, silk, wool and suede?

Very good post - thank you.

I've read this article before, and I really agree with it.

"As rawfoodists, we eat what seems to be a vegan diet, but when we can no longer stick with it, unless we already have a strong vegan motivation, we typically revert to being omnivores again, not to being vegans who eat both cooked and uncooked food."

This is very true. So many people come into raw veganism with no conviction, but actually a lot of barely addressed fear and prejudice that they can't live without animal products, and then after a few months they believe that they have formed a deficiency in a nutrient that stays stored in the body for years, and go running back to meat and dairy, and away from health. And then sometimes the same people who go on about the 'ethics' of fruitarianism, are the ones that in a few years go back to eating animals because they couldn't find a stable vegan diet that they could really handle.

I was already a stable vegan for all of the right reasons before coming to raw, and I will stay that way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/11/2008 09:25PM by dream earth.

I disagree with the idea that you cannot be vegan for anything but compassion. I am vegan, because I believe that my nature as a human is to nourish myself from vegetable matter. I am raw, because that's how vegetables and fruits present themselves in nature. I feel nourished and healthy when I eat this way. You can absolutely be both vegan and raw for health reasons. You don't have to be compassionate. Vegans don't save the antelope from the lion, do they?

I don't disagree with the article. In fact, I think there is a deeper issue: one of 'conscious responsibility'.

#1 - It is NOT everyone's path to attain more consciousness through improvement in diet and health practices (although there is often 'room' in people's life to do so....many will not...and that's OK....they might find other ways).

#2 - Other people become very present in the now....and develop conscious bliss in other ways.....and externally those things can appear ridiculous, or even destructive to the so-called 'healthy eaters'.

-In my thinking, the main issue with any given person is a lack of conscious goal-setting, choice-making, and identification with what THEY think are the best/worst things (which is the ONLY way they will ever achieve their own consciousness. The 'rightness' of some external program will never do so). Until that time, and to some degree, people are abdicating that 'free-agency' to some other agency (or just not thinking about it at all....and being dominated by old cultural/genetic patterns).

-Thus: If a person decided....hypothetically....that they were NOT going to eat ANY animal product at all unless they personally maintained (or raised) the animal for a long time, and slaughtered it with their own hands or hand-implements (not a gun or a machine).....then there would be a LOT more vegans....and it WOULDN'T take a big 'ethical commitment' because people will then be following the natural path of not wanting to expend that kind of energy.

-Not eating a conscious diet (or avoiding being conscious in some other area)....is an 'energetic' indication that the person is not ready to practice that level of free agency, consciousness, etc. It is not a individual failure, but rather something not everyone is ready for. Thus, they cannot be 'bullied' or even 'reasoned' into healthy eating. What people need is an example of happy grace and consciousness......and knowing who you really are. If one does this, then they are in a position to be GIVING to others.....and empowering THEIR dreams....and THEIR free-agency.....which doesn't always line up with what YOU think they need to be doing. Looking beyond appearances helps here.

-Just some thoughts....which I hope are helpful.

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

Thank you David Zane for a great post to end my night

In the article the author states that raw foods require more energy to transport and move raw foods versus typical cooked vegan foods. Here is another dimension of cost to observe, based on some statistics from the latest Vibrance magazine:

To produce:

1 kg of wheat takes over 1,000 liters of water
1 kg of potatoes takes 540 liters of water
1 kg of barley, 1,300 liters of water
1 kg of eggs, 3,300 liters of water
1 kg of cheese, 5,000 liters of water
1 kg of milk, 6,200 liters of water
1 kg of beef, 16,000 liters of water

Versus some raw foods:

1 kg of apples, 420 liters of water
1 kg of orange juice, 22 liters of water

(the following statistics came from vegsource, converted from gallon/pound)

The statistics for water for beef is all over the place, depending who you ask. The beef industry says 3,500 liters/kg. The commonly accepted number is 20,000 liters/kg. One scientist named David Pimentel, Ph.D., Professor of Ecology and Agricultural Science, Cornell University says 96,000 liters/kg.

Here in Humboldt county, the best watermelons are dry farmed. No irrigation.

ilsewdm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I disagree with the idea that you cannot be vegan
> for anything but compassion. I am vegan, because
> I believe that my nature as a human is to nourish
> myself from vegetable matter. I am raw, because
> that's how vegetables and fruits present
> themselves in nature. I feel nourished and
> healthy when I eat this way. You can absolutely
> be both vegan and raw for health reasons. You
> don't have to be compassionate. Vegans don't save
> the antelope from the lion, do they?
----
It sounds like you eat a plant-based diet and are not vegan. Do you avoid leather, silk, wool, etc., and buying any items, such as personal care, that contain animal products, down to carmine, and that were tested on non-human animals? I don't see any health reasons for those things. THe definition of vegan includes avoiding clothing and personal care items that potentialy or actually did harm non-human animals. The definition can't be changed to suit people's whims. It's fine if you aren't vegan, but to call yourself one and not be one causes confusion.

how do you know if the clothes you wear and the toiletries you use are REALLY vegan? the companies just have to state whether they personally tested the products on animals and if they didn`t do it themselves they don`t have to disclose it, it may have been done by the people/company prior to them.
patty

exactly what i was thinking patty. though to purposefully not make use of info that is out there because it was obtained via animal testing at some time in the past is pretty obtuse. that's a little bit of a grey area for me.

utopian life, i agree with your thoughts. this is why i don't refer to myself as a vegan, because i am Not ~ in the strictest sense of the word. the closest i can come is to say that i follow a mostly vegan diet. i have house pets, leather shoes, wool and silk clothing (second hand but it still counts), i kill bugs that are biting the kids, etc. i'm not a vegan. but that's ok, i don't need a label anyhow

The above posts are great. The idea of being a vegan is a one of PROCESS. If a person is doing everything that THEY think is reasonable to increasingly avoid killing...then THEY are on an UPWARD path. The minute the person says internally to their dreams: "Oh, why bother?" Then they are on a DOWNWARD path. It is a personal / internal decision....and a path/process. I am perfectly content with some one calling themselves a 'vegan' if they think eating eggs are NECESSARY for them.....and wearing leather....and these things cannot be avoided....but they are doing their best to minimize it...you know?

-David Z. Mason

WWW.RawFoodFarm.com

dewey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how do you know if the clothes you wear and the
> toiletries you use are REALLY vegan? the companies
> just have to state whether they personally tested
> the products on animals and if they didn`t do it
> themselves they don`t have to disclose it, it may
> have been done by the people/company prior to
> them.
> patty


EVERY single time we buy or eat something, we are taking someone's word for it. That's the nature of interacting as a community. I buy from natural companies and watch out for alerts re: products sourced from companies that DO test.

(not to mention that most of my products are so natural that I recognize every ingredient, such as "organic rice" "organic sugar" "organic hemp oil."

The Vegan Society logo has a lot of clout, so I personally trust this on products. Not only must the product be suitable for vegans, but animal testing on the product is also disallowed.

I agree with your above post, UL. It's so much better to be able to read a short list of natural ingredients instead of being faced with some horrible list of chemicals you have to research.

davidzanemason - I like how you describe veganism as being on an upward path verses being on a downward path. If people could only call themselves vegans who practice it in only the stricted sense that the term implies, hardly anyone could truly call themselves vegan. I think it is about genuinely doing your best to avoid causing suffering to others, but it is impossible to be perfect. Sometimes we must make difficult decisions. I don't think it should be about strict dogma. It should be about genuine intention.

Joanne81 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes we must make difficult
> decisions. I don't think it should be about
> strict dogma. It should be about genuine
> intention.

That is true, but ego/desire plays a big part in making easy situations feel like difficult ones.

Veganism has a very straight forward definition. Some people don't consider insects to be in the same league as animals, but the vegan society definitely do

In addition to animal products, here are some other things that typically aren't vegan-

bicycle & car tyres (animal products), anything that kills bugs - from pesticides to driving, smoking (animal tests), buying products from most major brands (animal testing), buying certain non-organic produce (causes decline in wild birds), buying pets (instead of rehoming). The list goes on.

Of course, avoiding a lot of this stuff isn't convenient for many people. BUT in addition to being a vegan by the vegan society's definition (no eating/wearing animals), doing things like avoiding animal-tested products and not buying from pet shops goes a very long way to making the world a better place for all.

A lot of big brands who test on animals also have awful human rights and environmental issues, so even if someone is a dietary vegan who isn't all that bothered about animals, then they should be aware that non-vegan companies often have no problems exploiting humans and children behind the scenes as well.

Well, to me, I don't think it's dogmatic buying one pair of shoes versus another, when it's your intention to cause the least harm possible.

Utopian Life Wrote:

> EVERY single time we buy or eat something, we are
> taking someone's word for it. That's the nature
> of interacting as a community. I buy from natural
> companies and watch out for alerts re: products
> sourced from companies that DO test.

completely in today`s world marketing plays such a big part in selling. i think some peeps who maybe haven`t done their research get dooped by the "all natural" label or not tested on animals label. that`s why i feel it`s so important to do the research and btw i wasn`t saying/doubting your original post, just trying to give people who may not be aware a heads up. just like the "raw" website selling pasta
patty

I hear ya, Patty. I went to the health food store the other day looking for nail polish that isn't No Miss (which is vegan but my nails are drying out from it, which is probably why I shouldn't use any, but anyway....), and I saw one that said not tested on animals and had tons of ingredients that I had NO idea what they were and I don't know how anyone else would. Turns out I recognized one, carmine, which is crushed-up beetles and/or their juice, which wouldn't even be vegetarian! It's hard to recognize this crap, which is why it's good to not eat/use crap.

But I've heard of strawberries with fish genes injected into them, so who knows what hte hell we're eating? :/

Utopian Life Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Turns out I recognized one,
> carmine, which is crushed-up beetles and/or their
> juice, which wouldn't even be vegetarian!

OMG THAT`S DISGUSTING!!
>
> But I've heard of strawberries with fish genes
> injected into them, so who knows what hte hell
> we're eating? :/

same here...it`s kinda scary
patty

whenever you see red food (unnaturally so) it is generally coloured with carmine. lots of products too, car paint etc.

Donald Watson, who coined the word "vegan" defined it in this way:

"Veganism is a philosophy & way of life which seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all forms of cruelty to animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose."

I just wanted to throw this out there. It seems like the most sensible approach.

Great Posts and thread.

I follow veganism as far as I can, for so many reasons, animal cruelty and waste of resources etc, The rain forest is being destroyed to grow soya for cattle food, and it takes 10 pounds some say 16 pounds of grain protein to make 1 pound of animal protein. 50% of grain grown is fed to cattle.


It just seems to me the better direction to go in as far as one can for the health/balance of the eco system, and oneself on a spiritual level, as well has having compassion for animals. There are people starving in the third world who could benefit from the grain currently being fed to cattle.

i disagree with this article

raw foodism is not mutually exclusive of veganism

most raw foodists are highly motivated and far more motivated than cooked vegans because the benefits are far more overt

raw foodists also take into account animal compassion as well as the pragmatics of environmental issues... far more than cooked vegans

this article is a bit of a misnomer in the title alone since it separates the two and holds ideas that are not unilateral

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i disagree with this article
>
> raw foodism is not mutually exclusive of
> veganism
>
> most raw foodists are highly motivated and far
> more motivated than cooked vegans because the
> benefits are far more overt
>
> raw foodists also take into account animal
> compassion as well as the pragmatics of
> environmental issues... far more than cooked
> vegans
>
> this article is a bit of a misnomer in the title
> alone since it separates the two and holds ideas
> that are not unilateral



I kinda agree on that, infact I think the raw food community/lifestyle is made up of all kinds of individuals from all different backgrounds and don't think it makes much sense to lump everybody together as if it were one unit...and ask if the unit supports veganism, unless the purpose was to purposely ignite discussion.

I think it's up to the individual to determine if they or their lifestyle supports veganism or not....just my opinion.

F1

well, i do sort of agree that i came by raw for health reasons but veg and vegan for ethical reasons. health too but that was not the biggest factor. at one point my partner and i discussed adding in some animal products entirely for health reasons. that isn't something that i would have done when eating veg or vegan. i can see the point of the article.

Yeah Coco....me too, I went raw for health reason's, I already knew I wasn't going to go killing and hunting animals anytime soon so the vegan thing wasn't even an issue.

It's funny because I know a lot of people/animal lovers in dog rescue that are religous/passionate about the welfare/saving the lives of animals but yet they still eat meat, I mean these guys go all out to make sure these dogs get re-habed and in a good home....I've seen many vegans fail to step up in this regard.

I think it comes down to the individual and it's important not to judge, I can't tell you how many times I've had people tell me how much they hate vegans because they are too judgemental....I'm in dog rescue myself, I've saved/re-homed probably over a hundred dogs in need and I don't buy clothing made from animals....I don't claim to be vegan, it's just something I do naturally...but nobody wants some vegan inspector judging them because the glue in their shoes is not vegan.

F1

I work at the vet school now. All these people who really "love" animals. But I have not bumped into a single vegan yet. Or even vegetarian.