fyi. [www.rawfoodsupport.com]

While I am gravely disappointed [where do you draw the line? a little raw milk or egg ok? because they might be healthier than soy, I don't see a good rationale here], he who pays makes the rules. fwiw.

Re: My favorite bread recipe new
Posted by: john ()
Date: August 15, 2011 04:06PM

While this is a VEGAN raw foods board, and does not allow things like meat and dairy in the recipe section, Honey in my opinion while not purely vegan, is ALOT healthier than "vegan" sweeteners such as raw agave and will be allow in minimal amounts in recipes, in my opinion.

I do eat honey once or twice a month. If you would consider me "not vegan" because of my minimal honey consumption, that is up to you. Lets strive not to live my "labels" but live with compassion for each person's personal choices.

Of course, the best sweetner of all is fresh fruits, I encourage everyone to eat as many fresh fruits instead of concentrated sweeteners.

As a side note: if you do eat fresh fruits, can you still consider yourself vegan? Consider this: Commercial growers (including organic growers) import bees from mexico and other places to POLLINATE the flowers that will form into your fruit. so even if you eat fruits you are contributing to the slavery of bees used in pollination..

That being said, lets try to be nice to everyone and cordial.

Here is a recent video I made explaining the dangers of agave:

[www.youtube.com]

I have closed this thread from future comments.

Namaste
John



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2011 04:11PM by john.

My question to you, Krefcenz, is why you are "gravely disappointed?" Is it that big an issue to you? It is my understanding that there is a humane way to beekeep (is that an actual word?). I am glad to hear John state this! So no one can shut me up about the H-word.

But they could still shun me...

I think it's each to their own, but in my view, honey is not a vegan food.

Personally, I don't have a use for any sweetener, including agave, and I've never tasted it. But again, each to their own, and I really mean that.

Just for the record, many organic fruit growers do not keep bees. Unfortunately bees have been dying, including wild bees. Many growers are bringing in hives so they can have enough fruit to stay in business.

I've been wondering if the domestication of bees for taking their honey has produced a genetic weakness that has entered the gene pool and made bees more susceptible to disease. If so, further reliance on domesticated hives may worsen the condition. And if that's the case, then certainly no honey-sweetened recipe is worth it!

People have of course eaten honey for centuries, but much of the honey has been collected from wild hives. Today, beekeeping using manufactured hives and manipulative techniques has reached industrialized levels. Maybe my theory is totally off, but it does seem that where I live, all the domesticated bees die almost as soon as the hives are placed. There are still some wild bees, although their population has decreased as well.

Whatever, I'm hoping the wild bees can pull through and create a new population of more resistant bees. Meanwhile, I hope people will reconsider their consumption of honey. Whatever is killing the bees, my first bet would be something coming from a human disturbance - since that's what bringing so many other species to extinction. I think maybe we should leave the honey alone.

I see no need for honey nutritionally when there are other sweeteners available if that's your thing.

On the other hard bee pollen is a great nutritional food especially for those with adrenal fatigue due to its rich concentration of B vitamins in particular vitamin b5. It was one of the major foods that helped me get over years upon years worth of ill health and if needed i wouldn't hesitate to use it again. Not that i need it anymore but now being a vegan i cant see any reason why not to use the bee pollen as long as its procured ethically if i was to get un well again in the future. There would be no plants without pollen.

[www.vegankingdom.co.uk]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2011 09:24PM by powerlifer.

banana who Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My question to you, Krefcenz, is why you are
> "gravely disappointed?"

I'm gravly disappointed because John had been someone who was stallwort and helped keep the line when the line was under assault. And in the past he'd had a zero tolerance approach to animal products here. But my real disappointment isn't with the content, it's with the process. Changing rules in the 4th quarter. If he wants to allow "bee-gun", just say so. Just don't leave those of us trying to support him out there hanging at the last minute. Honey is animal,animal isn't vegan, ergo honey isn't vegan. And neither is rawfoodsupport.com. What's next milk?, a little isn't so bad is it???

Is it that big an issue to
> you? It is my understanding that there is a humane
> way to beekeep (is that an actual word?). I am
> glad to hear John state this! So no one can shut
> me up about the H-word.

There maybe a humane way to keep chicken and fish or sheep before sheering if you want to wear humanely raised wool. Do what you want to but don't call it vegan. It's not. Yes, the label matters.
>

> But they could still shun me...

I hope you have enough common sense not to use honey for the health issues alone. Date sugar is still vegan tastes great. You don't have to lower your standards as fearless leader has done. Think it through. And shine as the example.


Kref

btw, I think it's pretty clear that rawfoodsupport is "Bee-gun", not Vegan, though it remains vegan friendly. Only question is is that good enough?
To each their own. I've been burned by John, going to lick my wounds and look for higher ground.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2011 09:27PM by Krefcenz.

I think it's dangerous to hold people in such high regard, that it disappoints you to find out he/she is not exactly what you had imagined. In my opinion, a lot of people here are on the verge of fanaticism when they speak (type) in a manner as to look down on others for their decisions.

You are disappointed because you thought he was 'better than that.' People like this man are idols in the minds of many of theirs viewers/followers - his opinions are overly respected. He is afterall, just a person. He can be as wrong as you and I. Do not hold distant figures in such high regard.

As many studies people find against a food item, an equal amount can be found for it.

If you are to forbid the mention of any food item that is not grown from the soil, you are likely to find yourself in a very tight group, with no diversity.

Jargon,

Thanks for the unsolicited advice. Please save it for someone to whom it applies. I've always liked John. Still do. Don't read into my statements. Never idolized him.

My complaint is he changed the groundrules without notice, not that his advice is somehow beyond reproach. He'd be the first to admit he's still learning like the rest of us.

Also, never used the phrase "better than that". So don't put words in my mouth. And be careful in characterizing anyone as a "fanatic" who interpets vegan as what it means when Watson originated it. [en.wikipedia.org]. Just because there are a lot of people who both want to water down the term and use it doesn't mean that those of us who respect its original meaning somehow have a less valid claim to it's definition. Abraham Lincoln once asked "if you called a dog's tail a leg, how many legs would a dog have?" And a man answered "5". Lincoln said "Nope, calling a dog's tail a leg, doesn't make it a leg". And so, if you like honey, fine. Use it as you will. You might like cottage cheese too. It's still not vegan.

Kref.

The quotations were merely there to identify it as a phrase I typically do not use, not to imply that you had used it.

Many terms originated as very specific ideas. Over time they tend to broaden. Maybe you could try referring to yourself as a Fundamentalist vegan? It works for the Baptists.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2011 02:18AM by jargon.

jargon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The quotations were merely there to identify it as
> a phrase I typically do not use, not to imply that
> you had used it.

Maybe next time, you could watch your prounouns a little more carefully. And do you mean the figurative "you" or literal "you" in the paragraph below? You seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between them. But I take your meaning.

> Many terms originated as very specific ideas. Over
> time they tend to broaden. Maybe you could try
> referring to yourself as a Fundamentalist vegan?
> It works for the Baptists.

Maybe you could try labeling yourself instead of others. It works for most of us.

Kref



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2011 02:44AM by Krefcenz.

Let's not be so sacrosanct or hypocritical - or hypercritical. We happily are sitting in front of computers that consume electricity that is polluting the planet.We're happy to use electricity in general. We're happy to eat fruit that is shipped thousands of miles by heavy polluting transport, as well as enriching those same meat eating people who own the fruit farms and modes of transport. They're a bigger danger to the planet than a bit of honey. It's such a petty issue in the big scheme of things.

Most of us city folk are unable to live in perfect harmony with nature, so at times we may have to make minimalist choices.

@Krefcenz, I was referring to you *and* others in both cases - no difficulties here. I actually don't like labels. It categorizes people as if they are only one thing or another. Others begin to have certain expectations of them based on that category. I was never a fan of that. I don't even like the terms (categories) boyfriend/girlfriend. People wonder why, but the reasons are obvious when others start to act or react certain ways based on their expectations and assumptions.

In any case, you were the one throwing the word vegan around, arguing (discussing) that this guy should not consider himself one.

I probably shouldn't even be posting here about this. I'm not a long time member like some people are here, and I may never be one - I don't know. Maybe your initial post came out a bit more dramatic than you intended it?

BJ's got the right idea, imo.

Kref,

You are clearly upset about this, and that's a shame. I am surprised at the news, but not distressed: John Kohler still has great ideas and support to offer us. By the way, I think that John's post is the "warning" that he's changing tack, though ever so slightly, IMO--honey isn't vegan but neither is it comparable to dairy products. Please do not anticipate a slippery slope of cavings; they will likely not come to pass and it's not worth the aggravation to worry they will. Peace to you

jargon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Krefcenz, I was referring to you *and* others in
> both cases - no difficulties here. I actually
> don't like labels. It categorizes people as if
> they are only one thing or another.

Then why make unsolicited suggestions to call myself a "fundamentalist" [to me a pejorative] vegan. For someone who doesn't like labels, you certainly use them frequently enough. As to your point that terms change frequently from their original meanings, true enough. And I'm not suggesting that this is either a bad thing or that it isn't appropriate in general or can even be controlled given the nature of language and linguistics. What I am suggesting is that this has not happened yet for the term "vegan" like Abraham Lincoln's dog's tail. A dog's tail is still a tail. A vegan is still a vegan.

The term "vegetarian" has been coopted and bastardized by pescatarians and flexitarians who profess to be "vegetarians who eat flesh". While being an affront to those of us who eat no animal products and do not use animal products, it is all the more egregious because it so waters down the term "vegetarian" as to create an exception that swallows the general rule. If someone can eat fish and call themselves "vegetarian" why can't someone who eats veal be called vegetarian. What distinction can you make between an anemic calf who's been boxed its whole life an a salmon? Omega 3s.

And so it is with vegans who consume animal products. Why not just use the term "bee-gun" and have done with it? What is the benefit of retaining a label that no longer applies? Because it's trendy, has social benefit? Whatever the motive, it's sloppy self-serving, inaccurate nonsense. Call your self vegetarian, bee-gun, flexitarian, whatever you like. But calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't make it one.

> Others begin
> to have certain expectations of them based on that
> category. I was never a fan of that. I don't even
> like the terms (categories) boyfriend/girlfriend.
> People wonder why, but the reasons are obvious
> when others start to act or react certain ways
> based on their expectations and assumptions.
>
> In any case, you were the one throwing the word
> vegan around, arguing (discussing) that this guy
> should not consider himself one.

I'm not throwing the word vegan around, I'm discussing it because it is important to understand the boundries of rawfoodsupport.com for its members. That's not throwing a term around. It's a conscious, careful and principaled look at what this forum is all about. And I do not apologize for it. And no, for the record, if John is eating honey once or twice a month, by definition, a tautology if you like, he isn't vegan. No big deal. John Kohler is no more a vegan than the "vegetarian" who eats fish is a vegetarian. He still does great things. He's a bee-gun who has created a free web site for other bee-guns and vegan who can compare notes. His research into juicers, blenders, home grown vegetables is unparalleled. As I said above, I like John. My personal disappointment for his renouncing his vegan status when there are so many non-agave vegan sweetners such as date sugar, molasses, etc that work pretty well. Even z-sweet (erythritol) is a great vegan substitute. [nutritionfacts.org]. There is a great quote from the movie "The Contender" starring Joan Allen as a female senator, Laine Hanson, who refused to address a baseless accusation of philandering. "Principles only mean something when you stick to them when its inconvenient. " And so it is with veganism. If you are committed to your principals, the fact that you like the taste of honey is no more of an excuse to eat animal products than someone who has a particular taste for beef or veal or pick your poison.
>
> I probably shouldn't even be posting here about
> this. I'm not a long time member like some people
> are here, and I may never be one - I don't know.
> Maybe your initial post came out a bit more
> dramatic than you intended it?

I said what I meant and felt in my initial post. To me, John Kohler not being vegan is pretty important. So, I stand by what I said. The fact that he left me out to dry is also part of that message to I stand by that as well.

Regarding your right to post, you do not need a number of post counts to say what you feel as long it complies with the terms of service, assuming you know what they are. One header for the Other (non health related) reads "This is still a vegan forum, no mention of animal products..." Not anymore.
>

Kref

Tamukha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kref,
>
> You are clearly upset about this, and that's a
> shame. I am surprised at the news, but not
> distressed: John Kohler still has great ideas and
> support to offer us. By the way, I think that
> John's post is the "warning" that he's changing
> tack, though ever so slightly, IMO--honey isn't
> vegan but neither is it comparable to dairy
> products. Please do not anticipate a slippery
> slope of cavings; they will likely not come to
> pass and it's not worth the aggravation to worry
> they will. Peace to you

Tamara,

As usual, there is much truth and value in your statements. I'll send the rest of my comments via PM and call it a day in this forum. I have no tolerance for duplicity.

Kref

xxxxxxxxxxx



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2011 03:27PM by Krefcenz.

Gosh, Krefcenz, sorry to see you go. I like your commitment to being vegan.

Looking more thoroughly at the link Krefcenz provided, I think I get a better understanding of Krefcenz's concern.

In the link, when someone mentioned honey in a recipe, someone else informed the person that this is a vegan forum. Krefcenz and others agreed. Many of us have given new people this same information, and often the person we're addressing just wasn't aware of the rules. In this case though, the caution was not heeded. A somewhat low-key debate ensued about whether or not honey was a vegan food and whether or not it was OK to discuss it on the forum.

John Kohler entered the discussion and said, "Honey in my opinion while not purely vegan, is ALOT healthier than 'vegan' sweeteners such as raw agave and will be allow in minimal amounts in recipes, in my opinion."

In the general context of the thread, I can see how that might be perceived as a slap in the face to someone whose intent was to preserve the perceived vegan integrity of the forum, and defend the rules of the forum as they have been applied for so many years.

It was also somewhat disturbing to me when John asked readers to consider whether eating fruit was vegan, since, as he stated, farmers (including organic farmers) use bees as "slaves" to pollinate the fruit. In response to John's comment: First, many farmers do not place hives, and second, when they do, the fruit is still vegan, and the people who eat the fruit are still vegan.

If the farmer uses bees, maybe it could be argued that the farmer is not vegan - like wearing leather shoes. But the fruit is still vegan because it comes from a plant.

I am a vegan. My husband is a vegan. We have both been PURE vegan (the ONLY kind of vegan) for 25 years this October. Not once, never, ever, during that time, have we strayed. We are committed, and we believe in our commitment. We don't think it's fanatical, any more than it's fanatical that we're committed to each other in our relationship. When we tell people we are vegan, we don't want them to think we eat fish (although some people ask us that because others have corrupted the word). We don't want them to think we drink milk (although some people ask us that because others have corrupted the word). We don't want them to think we eat honey (although some people may now think we eat honey because a certain raw food "vegan" website allows the discussion of honey, but no other nonvegan foods).

We want them to understand that we are vegan, and that being vegan - no fish, no milk, no honey - is a healthy and normal goal that others can realistically achieve.

If this forum now allows the discussion of honey, but no other nonvegan foods, then there should be a clear announcement in the rules section that states in no uncertain terms that honey is NOT VEGAN, but we can talk about it anyway, as an exception to the rules. That way, at least we can agree on a vegan definition. Also, if "minimal" discussion of honey is allowed, that should also be clearly defined.

Please, John, I hope you will rethink your stance and keep this a vegan forum. The rules are so much more simple and clear without mucking them up with sticky old honey!

Krefcenz had a good point about the dairy. The next time someone here talks about how great dairy is, we won't be able to say to them, "This is a vegan forum."

Please John, if you want to eat honey, I have no complaint with that. Not at all. But please, can we keep this forum vegan? If not, I hope you will restate the rules in the rules section, and refer to honey as an exception. Thanks!



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2011 07:32AM by suncloud.

Personally, I think you die-hard vegans are over the top.

However, I don't eat honey or any sweetener because I don't like how they make me feel. *Fresh fruit* is nature's divine sweetener, and it makes you feel fabulous. If you're really craving some extra sweetness- how about some dates? For me mangos and papayas and melons do the trick.

That said, I don't think we should be judgmental about each others' choices.

omega-3 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Personally, I think you die-hard vegans are over
> the top.
>.....
>
> That said, I don't think we should be judgmental
> about each others' choices.

You think "die hard vegans are over the top" but also "don't think we should be judgemental about each other's choices". Hmmm.

I don't really think it's a matter of being judgemental about others' choices. Others' choices are fine with me.

It's a matter of having a real vegan forum - a place to go to that is totally supportive of the choice of being vegan. Being vegan, by definition, includes the rejection of nonvegan foods (not the people who eat nonvegan foods).

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's a matter of having a real vegan forum - a
> place to go to that is totally supportive of the
> choice of being vegan.

I haven't seen anyone on the forum who is not supportive of others being 100% vegan.

jargon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> suncloud Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's a matter of having a real vegan forum - a
> > place to go to that is totally supportive of
> the
> > choice of being vegan.
>
> I haven't seen anyone on the forum who is not
> supportive of others being 100% vegan.

That's not the issue. The issue is having folks on the forum being supportive of others not being vegan , is it not? But then, that's ok now. At least for honey.

Paul



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2011 06:16PM by pborst.

jargon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I haven't seen anyone on the forum who is not
> supportive of others being 100% vegan.

I agree that most people here are supportive of others being 100% vegan. One big reason for that is: up until now, this forum has not allowed the favorable discussion of nonvegan foods or the criticism of a 100% vegan diet. I'd like for things to stay that way.

I don't want to come here and read that my choice to be 100% vegan is "fundamentalist", or "over the top". (sorry Omega-3, but really, I come here to give and get support for being 100% vegan. If that's all about to change, then so be it; but I'll go down fighting for the cause ).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2011 07:34PM by suncloud.

AND another thing: A 100% vegan diet is the only kind of vegan diet there is.

AND another thing: We really, really, really ARE in the throes of a massive biological attack on our planet's BEES! This is not fantasy. I am a very down-to-earth person, and this is real. The university here recently was donated dozens of hives for their research farm. The bees were supposed to be a more resistant variety, but they all died within a month. Doesn't it seem somewhat likely to anyone else out there that manipulating the life cycle of a huge proportion of the planet's bee population (while simultaneously destroying their natural habitat and adding toxic pesticides) might have something to do with weakening the genetic makeup of the planet's bee population?

The consumption of honey may turn out to be the biggest deal of all if we lose all of our bees and so many of our fruits right off the face of the planet - not to mention the production capacity of so many other plants - at least in part because we've corrupted the natural process of pollination due to our taste for the bee's product: honey. The proliferation of industrialized honey production has soared in the past few decades. No connection? HELLO!

I have these big huge queen palms that put off a seed something like a date. All the critters love these seeds - the rats, the mongooses, the wild pigs, and me too. When the queen palm is ready for seeding, it develops a long, heavy appendage full of sweet-smelling flowers that attract hundreds or even thousands of bees. You can hear the hum of the bees far from the palm, there are so many. But lately, when the palm is flowering, there are maybe 5 - 10 bees.

Hey, we planted all these palms, all these fruit trees. Literally thousands of palms and trees. We know they didn't just get here by coincidence. It takes effort to have food - and not just the effort of earning money and picking up food at the store. Food actually has to GROW somewhere. It has to be exposed to natural forces. When the bulk of those forces are no longer natural, it just will not happen. Sure, some pesticides here, some stockyards there, a few more oil wells and nuclear power plants, well OK. But when the balance shifts to the point where too much of nature is manipulated, there's a collapse. Enough collapses, and we have sealed our fate.

Leave the bees alone.

I see it as being potentially so typically human, so typically ironic, so typically karmic, that maybe we'll kill all the sweet fruit we could be eating - for the pursuit of something sweet that we don't need, as we potentially harm another being: the bee. And in the end of course we won't have the fruit OR the honey, because there won't be any bees.

So, so typical.

This is one vegan who will not support the consumption of honey. I support us as people, no matter what our choice, whether we choose to eat meat, eggs, cheese, or honey; whether we are alcoholics or drug addicts. I will not support the choice of meat, eggs, cheese, honey, alcohol or drugs. I will not.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2011 09:26PM by suncloud.

suncloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't really think it's a matter of being
> judgemental about others' choices. Others'
> choices are fine with me.

I didn't word that correctly. I should have said:

Other people are fine with me, no matter what their choices. But other people's choices are not always fine with me. I'm not judging the people who make the choices! I've made more stupid choices than most people!

C'mon folks, there's a difference between judging a person, and judging a choice.

The fact is that all of us, including me, are capable of making choices that totally suck! Nuclear power is a choice that sucks. Eating animal products - which I have done myself many many times (though not recently thank goodness) - are included in that sucky category, in my humble but tenacious opinion!

I think there was a wave of our current health Pros to go from Raw Vegan to Cooked Vegetarian. I know Paul Nison was drinking Goats Milk, and Matt and Kevin were experimenting in what a little cooked-food would do for their Bodies. Someone correct me if I'm wrong......WY

Well, that's interesting WY. Yes, I watched a video with Paul Nison about drinking goats milk. And I noticed Prana had a very good pro-vegan comment after the video. Here is an excerpt from Prana's comment:

"If humans were supposed to drink milk, why do humans reduce and sometime lose entirely their ability to digest lactose after the age of 5 or 6?

And digestibility issues aside, there is the issue of animal enslavement. As long as we treat other conscious being in this fashion, we tell the universe that its OK that we are enslaved. Meaning, how can we ask that of other that we are unable to ask of ourselves?"

Thank you Prana! I think it's a very good point.

I don't know about Matt Monarch, but Kevin Gianni is eating cooked food. Really, I'm not surprised or even disappointed in the least. I think what he's doing is just fine. I think he should experiment, if he's not satisfied with what he was doing before.

Here is an article by Kevin Gianni:

[renegadehealth.com]

Raw came in a while back as a huge trend, and maybe some people jumped right in without taking enough time to test some less extreme alternatives. Raw food leaders are under much more pressure than the rest of us to be all raw. But everyone has to go through a process. I think people who are healthy should research options and experiment for as long as it takes to find what works consistently for them. Maybe it's not a raw food diet. I experimented all over the place for 13 years after being drawn to raw. And even when I settled on raw, I went off it several times/year before I figured out what to eat that could help me become consistent with it. It's not always an easy or clear transition. If someone finds they'd rather not be all raw, no shame!

Actually, I think this is a great article by Kevin, because no one should feel pressured to be all raw.

Yay Kevin for staying vegan!

My point is: raw is good for me, but I just think vegan is so much more important to the planet - and for ethical reasons - than raw.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2011 09:27PM by suncloud.

WY: Matt Monarch has always maintained that he's been 100% raw for about 13 years or so. I wasn't sure if you were referring to that Matt.

I agree with Suncloud. I think that I saw Kevin G. recently saing that he's "high-raw" and if that works for him, it's more inspiring to me than someone saying you have to be 100% or you're not going to see benefits. I read that sort of thing and found it very frustrating.

WE'VE ONLY JUST BEE-GUN...

BW,

you a Carpenter's fan???

Paul