The Meaning of "Vegetarian" in the USA.

[Veganism]

Vegetarians and Vegans. A survey!

 

There seems to be different definitions of “vegetarian” floating around – and I think this is an issue worth investigating. It became an issue in Vegan Ireland: The Vegan Society of Ireland when it was suggested
that maybe the term “vegetarian” means, or may mean, “vegan” in North America, otherwise phrases
such as ovo-vegetarian and lacto-vegetarian are generally used.

 

This issue was raised in the recent Priscilla Feral “chat” when a questioner suggested that there is some confusion about the use of the terms vegan and vegetarian on the Friends of Animals website. I thought Ms. Feral’s
answer to the question on this issue failed to clear matters up, if anything it
seemed to add to the confusion, especially when she suggested something about vegetarians being insulted which did not seem to be part of the question.  For
example, she answered in part, “We are not critical of the vegetarian diet.
Veganism when applied to the diet results in complete vegetarianism. While we
respect and embrace the vegetarian diet, we do hope and expect our work will
raise awareness about the importance of making the full commitment to vegan
living.” Before that, Ms. Feral implied that a vegetarianism amounts to a vegan
diet in that it “means deciding to live on a plant-based diet.”

 

This is an important question for animal advocates – and it certainly seems to be for FoA’s Lee Hall, who said this at the London Vegan Festival:-

 

Attendee in front of the room: Can I just -- I just got back from four weeks in your wonderful country, and there I found a lot of
use of the phrase “pure vegetarian” where I would have used vegan. Meaning no
use of animal products --

Lee: Hmmm.

Attendee in front of the room: -- rather than the word “vegan”; and could it be that they’ve confused vegetarian and vegan?
Because some vegetarians do eat eggs.

Lee: What you’re bringing up, what you’re leading me to think when you speak about this, is that we need to be serious about the use of the word vegan --

Attendee in front of the room: Oh, yeah. Absolutely.

Lee: And that we use it, and that we don’t allow it to be diluted. (My emphasis).

 

So, given this apparent confusion, can I ask North Americans in particular to say what they believe the word “vegetarian” to mean? Thanks in advance.

 

 

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Roger.
Grand idea for a discussion, and could be a great place to share information about this.
Here's a link to a website that I'm not particularly recommending or in opposition to. I share it here because it relates specifically to North Americans and how they define the word vegetarian.
http://www.navs-online.org/faq/index.php

Thanks.

[blackpanther]

In France, (so in french....) we have 3 words:
- vegetarians eat dairy products and eggs, but no meat or fish, and they wear animal products such as wool and leather shoes
- vegetalians don't eat any animal product at all, but do wear animal products such as wool and leather shoes
- vegan don't eat or wear any animal product

I don't know if it's the same in Ireland or the USA.....

wikipedia doesn't help clear things!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

and on the site Kate speaks about, a total vegetarian is a vegan, if I understand well
!

[Tim Gier]

Hello Roger:

My experience mirrors that of Al. When I was vegetarian, most people assumed that I didn't eat "meat", which most people define as the flesh of cows, pigs, lambs, etc. Most people weren't so sure if it meant abstention from poultry flesh or the flesh of fishes and I don't think I ever met anyone who assumed that I didn't eat dairy & eggs. So, vegetarian means very little at all. By way of contrast, to most people, vegan means "weirdo from another planet who worships satan and hates America".

tim

[red dog]

When I first started taking steps toward veganism, some of the resources that helped me included the magazine Vegetarian Times--which, at the time, included both vegan and nonvegan recipes and articles but generally encouraged vegan eating (for both health and ethical reasons), although it didn't take a definite position against eating animal products or in favour of animal rights--and a book called The Vegan Kitchen written by a representative of the American Vegan Society. Both sources definitely used "vegetarian" as an inclusive term that encompassed vegans, "pure" or "strict" or "total" vegetarians (who abstained from flesh, eggs and dairy products but might or might not use bee products and might or might not wear leather shoes, hunt, go to circuses, etc.), and lacto-, ovo- and lacto-ovo-vegetarians. Also, if you look at the statement by the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, it clearly applies to "vegetarian diets, including vegan diets." I was really surprised when I cited that statement on a message board a few years ago and people tried to tell me it excluded vegan diets--that these dietitians were telling people to eat eggs and dairy products when they clearly were NOT.

Until recently I didn't see anything wrong with using the word "vegetarian" as a general term in contexts where it wasn't important to be more specific. Obviously things have changed, and the word implies consumption of eggs and dairy products in many people's minds.

Regarding the French thing, I could have sworn I'd seen a translation of The Vegan Kitchen somewhere and that it was called "La Cuisine Vegetalienne" ... unfortunately I can't find any links. Was that a mistranslation? Vegetalien/ne = strict vegetarian? Was that always the case? When was the word "vegan" absorbed into French?

It could be that the word vegetarian is becoming obsolete and should be replaced with "non-flesheater" as Joan Dunayer suggests. Until that usage takes off, what would you call someone who eats a vegan diet but doesn't necessarily practice veganism in other aspects of life? Should I call myself a "non-flesheater" because I don't eat animal products, but do feed them to my cats?

[blackpanther]

red dog, the word "vegan" has only been existing very recently in France, and only vegans know what it means!
I'm not sure it's in the french dictionnary......you are well ahead of us
and I think as we didn't find any translation, we just took the word as it was.
But a french "végétalien" (vegetalian? doesn't seem it exists in english) doesn't have a vegan lifestyle (that's the difference) in his clothing (can wear wool for example). As for his diet, of course, it's a vegan one, so the translation is right, if you only speak about food......and I guess if the title had been "la cuisine vegan", very few people would have bought the book, not knowing what it can be!!!!!

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Great comment red dog! Thank you. Your interpretation and explanation of this is very helpful. You have highlighted some of the points I wanted to raise, and you have explained them with great clarity. I find your reference to - "vegetarian diets, including vegan diets." To be very helpful.

As for your point about feeding flesh to cats who are in your care. I see no conflict between doing this and veganism. As abolitionists we work towards a time when there will be no nonhuman animals kept as human slaves (including pets) but we have not reached that point yet. For now (and possibly for the rest of our lives) we’re living in the pre-emancipation period. For as long as there are nonhumans who can benefit from living with us, we have a duty to try to provide whatever is appropriate and best for them. In the case of cats, some vegans live with cats who survive well on a supplemented herbivore diet, but many vegans find that the only way to keep cats happy and healthy is by feeding them the flesh of others. I see no issue with this. As long as we do everything we can to ensure they cannot breed then we’re not directly contributing to the problem.

I appreciate that you make this point, “It could be that the word vegetarian is becoming obsolete and should be replaced with "non-flesheater" as Joan Dunayer suggests.” I agree with Joan Dunayer. This is the word I use to describe someone who only abstains from flesheating.
You then ask the great question – “Until that usage takes off, what would you call someone who eats a vegan diet but doesn't necessarily practice veganism in other aspects of life?”
Personally I regard the word “vegetarian” or perhaps “100% vegetarian” as a good term to use to describe someone who fits into this category. i.e. they are a dietary vegan – with or without the ethical aspect of veganism.
For someone who consumes honey (or other products taken from exploited bees). I would consider them to be in the same category as a flesheater. I agree with the Jain categorization that the consumption of honey should be recognized as being in the same class as flesheating.
For those whose lifestyle involves consumption of other nonvegan products, I see significant value in the prefixes lacto-, ovo-, lactovo- (sometimes abbreviated to LO-vegetarian) to differentiate between people who consume the products of these practices of exploitation and murder (whom often have good intentions but much ignorance), and someone who's a flesheater (who's also complicit in exploitation and murder, of course), and between someone who is a “total”, “pure”, “strict”, or “100%” vegetarian.
I’m aware that there’s an alternative position to this. Some say that “lacto vegetarian” “ovo-vegetarian” and “lactovo-vegetarian” are in fact oxymoronic and not useful, in the same way that the terms “pesca-vegetarian” and “pollo-vegetarian” are not useful and may be regarded as being dishonest or deceitful. I recognise this as a valid point, and foresee that at some point I may decide to adopt this position. Some proponents of this position suggest that the words “necrovore” or “necro” be used to describe nonvegans. I can see value in this, although I find the term nonvegan to be preferable.

As it relates to this, I would also like to highlight the problem with the use of the word “omnivore” and its abbreviation “omni” to describe someone who has not chosen to live as a vegan. This really is nonsense. To clarify, the word “omnivore” is a biological classification. As humans we are all born omnivores and we will all die omnivores. Accurately used the word describes our physiology and nothing more. All animals are one of three things - they are carnivores, herbivores or omnivores. We don’t change our physiology by choosing to live an ethical lifestyle. We don’t become herbivores by becoming vegans. It’s apparent to me that the use of words like “omnivores” to describe nonvegans demonstrates real ignorance about biological classifications and terminology.

To summise, my current understanding of these terms is this.
A flesheater is an omnivore who consumes anything edible including someone’s flesh.
A non-flesheater is an omnivore who consumes anything except someone’s flesh.
A vegetarian is an omnivore whose diet excludes flesh but may or may not include any other product taken from a nonhuman animal. It covers a wide variety of dietary and ethical practices. It may include those who consume a 100% plant-based diet. It may also include those who are ethical vegans in every sense of the word, in which case they are sometimes referred to as “vegan vegetarians”.
A vegan – Hopefully we all know what one of these is by now! I personally think the term vegan should refer only to those who are “ethical vegans”.
I think those who consume a vegan diet but who do not adhere to the ethical aspect of veganism can be more accurately described as being pure/total/strict/100% vegetarians.

Thankyou

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hey Rog,

I don't know if I count or not, but Australia is pretty much the same as Al described the US to be.

Vegetarian, as far as I'm concerned, means ovo-lacto vegetarian. Again, I agree with Al, a lot of people are unsure if this includes eating fishes or chickens. Something I've always found odd.

Personally I think there are far too many labels, and they just further confuse everyone.

It's a shame the word "vegetarian" has been so far corrupted that it now means ovo-lacto vegetarian, but I don't think we'll ever change it back. I think that's what some from FoA were trying to do, which led to the confusion in the definition of the word in Priscilla's chat.

[blackpanther]

FOUND ON CARE2...I didn't know the european parliament was interested in veganism and it's definition........

http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/vegan-more-than-a-d...

by Angel Flinn
"In June of this year, the European Parliament passed an Amendment to the consumer food information regulations, giving legal protection to the word ‘vegan’, and making it a legally-enforceable term in the European Union by the year 2014. According to the new law:

“…the term ‘vegan’ should not be applied to foods that are, or are made from or with the aid of, animals or animal products (including products from living animals).”

Although this obviously indicates that veganism is making its way into our culture and society in a whole new way, this development should perhaps be of some concern to those of us for whom veganism represents much more than food, as it has the potential to reinforce the widespread acceptance that veganism is nothing more than a dietary choice.

The word ‘vegan’ was originally introduced in 1944, by the founder of the UK Vegan Society and inventor of the term, Donald Watson. Although the word was originally used to signify a dietary practice (abstaining from dairy, eggs and honey as well as flesh), the definition was soon expanded to include all products of animal exploitation, including animal-derived fabrics and clothing.

“The word 'veganism' denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.”

[red dog]

Is it really that interesting? I thought those definitions were pretty well established.

Also, I tend to agree with Kate that it's probably too late to reclaim the word vegetarian and better to be clear rather than general.

I think Dan Mathews must have been making those statistics up ... they don't have any way of knowing what their members do or don't do, do they? Even if they did a survey, I don't see how they could get any reliable information.

[red dog]

Thank you for clearing up something that had me confused for a long time! I think the book must have been translated long before the word végan was absorbed into French. It may be out of print now ... as I said, I couldn't find any links to it when I looked.

[red dog]

The problem with the terms pure/total/strict/100% vegetarian is that they're unclear to most people. Unless the reader/listener is already familiar with the different definitions, they may suggest the person is a (lacto/ovo) vegetarian who doesn't "even" eat fish, or fish stock, or turkey on Christmas.

The word "omnivore" sounds value-neutral, and the abbreviation "omni" sounds kind of cutesy. "Necrovore" sounds great, but it also suggests flesh-eating and doesn't seem to address eggs/dairy/honey. A "non-necrovore" who eats dairy is still harming animals significantly. I think "flesheater" and "non-flesheater" are clear and accurate, and I think Dunayer's intention was to avoid bestowing a positive term on someone who may have just replaced flesh with more dairy products.

I understand that reasoning, but a while ago I had a chance to interview two families who were raising their children on animal-product-free diets. Only three of the four parents I spoke to turned out to be genuinely vegan--the other was a dietary vegan (or pure/total/strict/100% vegetarian) for religious reasons and had no problem using leather, wool, etc. Even so, it was great to meet an adult who had been raised on a diet completely free of animal products--a real rarity in Korea--and was giving his kids such a good start in life. I felt it was more appropriate to focus on the positive aspects of that situation. Calling him a "non-flesheater" would have sounded insulting, but I didn't refer to him as a vegan either--I just said he had been raised on a vegan diet. Some people would find that objectionable, but it seemed like the clearest way to get the point across.

Re: the cats--I've introduced some vegan kibble to their diet and would like to switch them over. One complicating factor is that we just got a temporary foster kitten who will eventually be going to a new home, and it's unlikely the new family will want to keep feeding him Ami. I'm also concerned about the non-kibble portion of their diet, because my two girls are picky eaters and don't like any of the vegan human foods I've offered. I've just gotten to them to accept Ami, as long as it's mixed with another brand of kibble that they like. I may face another battle when I give them a bowl of nothing but Ami.

[Herdis Daugbjerg]

As from 2014 the word ”Vegan” will be protected term in the European Union , but only in the food part of the term: No meat, no dairy, no eggs, no honey. Avoiding fur, leather, wool and silk is not included. There will also be restrictions for the term “vegetarian” which means that chicken and fish will not be considered vegetarian. (http://www.vegansociety.com/news/%60vegan%E2%80%99-%E2%80%93-a-lega...) . The way I read this cheese cannot be considered vegetarian anymore. It contains rennet (at least most of the cheese here in Denmark does), so animals ARE killed to produce it.
In a Danish vegetarian/vegan forum we have had a discussion about what veganism actually means, and people tend to delude the word – just as it happened to the word vegetarian years ago. They like to themselves vegans but they don´t want to live without honey, wool or other animal products. Here in DK we have lots of different vegetarians depending on what people do not want to live without. Some drink milk, some eat fish, some eat eggs and so on – or a combination of two or more.