Philosophical Vegan Forum

There are some vegans who think that foods which contain trace amounts of animal products are not vegan by definition and that it is unethical to buy or consume these products. Do you think a vegan should try to avoid such trace amounts? Would it make a difference if there was trace amounts of meat instead of dairy or eggs?

What do you mean by trace amounts?

Are you referring to when a product says, "may contain trace amounts of ______"?
If so, all that means is that the products are manufactured in a facility that contains whatever there might be trace amounts of. Animal products weren't actually used to make those foods, so there's nothing wrong with consuming them.

If you are referring to foods containing certain ingredients or nutrients that could be animal derived, but probably aren't, and that are present in small amounts, I think it's best not to worry about consuming those foods. I think that it makes veganism look impractical and extreme, because most processed foods in the average supermarket fall under that category.

If you mean that dairy or eggs are present, but in small amounts, then I wouldn't consider that food vegan. Animal products were definitely added, and they're clearly animal products.

EquALLity said it well.

Also, while I don't always agree with PETA, this is good advice: http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/

I don't eat food with unambiguous animal products intentionally added, but if it's produced in a facility with those products and it might have some minor cross-contamination, or contains something that could maybe be animal derived but is probably plant derived, I don't worry about it.

Same thing with the sugar and bone char issue.

Would it make a difference if there was trace amounts of meat instead of dairy or eggs?

I would feel less comfortable about that, and it might put me off the food more if there were another option, but in principle it should be the same as above if it's just a rare cross contamination issue.

Jaywalker wrote:There are some vegans who think that foods which contain trace amounts of animal products are not vegan by definition and that it is unethical to buy or consume these products. Do you think a vegan should try to avoid such trace amounts? Would it make a difference if there was trace amounts of meat instead of dairy or eggs?

If there is a tortilla, and it says "contains milk" in the allergen warning, it isn't vegan. But if you mean like, Cheereos and their possibly animal-derived Vitamin D? Go for it. I eat the hell out of breakfast cereal like Raisin Bran and Cinnamon Toast Crunch, I am perfectly fine with being 99.999% vegan.

If you need a multivitamin, and the best one contains gelatin, I'd say go for it. Sacrificing that trace amount of gelatin to help stay 99.999% vegan, I'd say is a pretty good sacrifice. But if you could get a vegan multivitamin easily, then go for it.

But all that crap about White Castle buns containing amino acid L-Cysteine, or Cheereos containing Vitamin D from Lanolin, or sugar possibly being processed using Bone Char? Just ignore that. Making veganism look TOO strict is one of the reasons veganism is not on the rise.

EquALLity wrote:What do you mean by trace amounts?

Are you referring to when a product says, "may contain trace amounts of ______"?
If so, all that means is that the products are manufactured in a facility that contains whatever there might be trace amounts of. Animal products weren't actually used to make those foods, so there's nothing wrong with consuming them.

Yes, I should have clarified. I meant products with "may contain..." warnings, and also food that was cooked on the same equipment that was used to cook animal products but your replies covered that as well. I don't know if I would feel as comfortable as you eating or ordering a vegan food that was cooked in the same oil as meat, for instance (thought not suggesting you'd feel perfectly comfortable either). I agree it's important to not make veganism look difficult but also wonder if not refusing such food in some situations would trivialise the issue, particularly in the eyes of meat eaters in company, since they are often looking to point out perceived contradictions in a vegan lifestyle. In such cases, do you find it effective to explain your reasons?

Do you think these lines are drawn arbitrarily or based on the current state of the world and societal response?

I'm also interested in how those strict vegans I mentioned may be convinced that their stance isn't pertinent to the movement and may in fact be harmful. What would be the best arguments (or even emotional rhetoric) against that uncompromising view?

On a related note, I recall Peter Singer saying he would not decline a dish containing dairy if offered while he was a guest and there was no alternative. I couldn't find the quote, I may just be mistaken, but if not what are your thoughts on this?