How vegan is vegan?

These thoughts have been coalescing in my mind for the past year or two. One of the reasons that I have not until now committed fingertips to keyboard keys is that the ideas seem to me to be somewhat obsessive. However, a recent unpleasant experience of what should have been an unremarkable meal, albeit kindly prepared and served with enthusiasm and goodwill, resulted in a bad stomach for several weeks. I was hurt because someone got some things badly wrong. My way of coping has been to commit my obsessions to print.

When I first encountered the term 'vegan' early in 1981, I assumed that most people already knew what the term meant. However, having travelled widely throughout western Europe; around Florida, to DC, Manhattan, Boston and Chicago; around Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and BC; and to Tokyo, Kyoto and Nara, I have come to accept that, the world over, the term 'vegan', even in locations where it is known at all, is unfamiliar to the overwhelming majority of people. Moreover, not all people who have encountered the term understand its meaning. Further, few people who are familiar with the term understand it other than as a broad concept.

There are probably many reasons why the term 'vegan', and its equivalents in other languages (vegetalien, veganisch) is barely known, although the broad concept is simple and has a religious pedigree stretching back millennia. Probably the most important reason why the term is neither known nor understood is that few people consciously adopt a vegan diet. However, an other reason for this lack of understanding is variation in the use of the word, both by people who are not vegan, and by people who are vegan. My particular variation is that, confronted with the unarticulated uncertainty of shop, restaurant or hotel staff, I typically qualify what I write or say about myself: that I am 'strictly vegan'. Although relative to the weak understanding of most people the qualification 'strictly' it ought to be a tautology, my intention is to imply a tighter set of standards than merely 'vegan'. One of my friends who is vegan conforms to looser vegan standards than me.

There is also variation in the way food and medication manufacturers use the term 'vegan'. For example, are all food manufacturers certain that the sugar that they add to sweeten a confection or a bottled sauce that is labelled 'suitable for vegans' has been refined without the use of animal-derived charcoal? In contrast, some food manufacturers avoid using the term 'vegan' in circumstances about which some or many vegans might otherwise be comfortable, which can be almost as unhelpful. Examples of the latter include the brewery Bateman's not labelling a bottled beer as suitable for vegans because of the animal-derivation of the glue on the bottle label (I am with Bateman's on that); and one of the vegan paté manufacturers not labelling their paté as suitable for vegans because of being required by the Health & Safety Executive to use rat poison around their factory (whilst I use humane mouse traps at home, I am less clear that an entire food-production environment needs to be vegan - but then I would say that, as I live with two people who are vegetarian).

A second complicating factor is that people get distracted by other issues that use terms such as 'vegetarian', 'organic' and 'cruelty-free'. In the UK, almost any food product that is labelled 'vegan' or 'suitable for vegans' is also labelled 'vegetarian' or 'suitable for vegetarians'. The logical, if incorrect, implication of this dual labeling is that a product that is vegan might not be vegetarian. However, my assumption is that food manufacturers believe that few people who are merely vegetarian are sufficiently well informed about a vegan diet / lifestyle to be confident that a food labelled as vegan necessarily means that the food is vegetarian.

UK Government discussions a few years ago with representatives from across the food and hospitality industries revealed alarming variation in use of the term 'vegetarian'. Whilst those discussions concluded that the term 'vegan' is more tightly defined than the term 'vegetarian', the implied definition of 'vegan' is much weaker (less strict) than my own use expectations of the term.

In response, I have, on many occasions, considered creating a vegan scale, ranging, say from 1 to 10, with clear definitions regarding each point on the scale, 1 being a minimum set of standards, and 10 being much tighter. (Sophistications of this scale might also include 0 for (lacto-ovo) vegetarian and minus numbers for animal-eating.) Two important difficulties presented themselves. First, that whilst there is sense in the idea of something being more vegan or less vegan, there are different ways in which something can be more vegan or less vegan - the issue is not simply linear, but multi-dimensional. Second, inviting widespread adoption of a numbered (or letter-coded) scale, particularly amongst sceptical groups such as food manufacturers, food retailers and the hospitality industry, could be like trying to invite unyeasted bread to rise.

Instead, I have collated a set of fairly transparent terms that can be used with relative ease by vegan people and non-vegan people alike.

Non-vegan terms
Cannibal: a person who eats parts of other people.
Carnivore: a person who eats animal, particularly mammal, flesh; an animal that eats other animals.
Omnivore: a person who eats anything, including animal flesh; an animal that eats vegetation and other animals such as insects, birds' eggs, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, small mammals, carrion.
Pescatarian: a person who eats a variety of foods, is unlikely to be concerned about consuming animal-flesh-derivatives, but the principal animal flesh consumed is from fish / shell-fish.
Meat-free: food that does not contain animal flesh, but might contain animal-flesh derivatives
Vegetarian / suitable for vegetarians: food unlikely to be based on animal flesh, although the variation in what is excluded is alarmingly wide - some restaurateurs include animal flesh from fish / shell-fish, and it is a commonplace in some countries to consider stock made from animal flesh to be acceptable.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian: a person who eats a variety of foods, including birds' eggs and mammary-gland fluids, but excluding animal flesh. Lacto-ovo vegetarians may or may not be concerned about the presence of animal-flesh derivatives in their food.
Lacto-vegetarian (Indian vegetarian): eats a variety of foods, including mammary-gland fluids, but excluding animal flesh and bird's eggs. Lacto-vegetarians may or may not be concerned about the presence of animal-flesh derivatives in their food.

Sub-vegan terms
Animal-free
Pure vegetarian: although British Airways use this term in preference to vegan (I do not know why), I understand that in India the term can include the use of dairy products

Vegan terms
I propose the abandonment of the term vegan to refer to a person. Instead, the term should be used as an adjective, like the term Kosher. To emphasise this point, I propose the adoption of a new general designation: vegan standard. This could be abbreviated to VS.
Vegan standard ingredients: the (main) ingredients are not animals-derived (this is not watertight because, whereas in the UK neither honey nor casein, both being animal-derived, are widely considered not to be vegan, in the US the situation is not as resolved).
Vegan standard additives and processing: nothing that has gone into the production of the food or meal is animal-derived, and every aspect has been checked (for example, if the food has been sweetened with sugar then the sugar is certified as vegan; this term does address the issue of UK beer being fined with fish guts).
Vegan standard handling: care has been taken to eliminate cross-contamination with non-vegan and sub-vegan food (for example, vegan food that is stored, prepared and served in a separate place, using separate utensils and crockery (analogous to the definition of Kosher; in factories, vegan food is never processed on lines that may also be used for non-vegan food).
Vegan standard environment: no aspect of the food production or preparation could be compromised (which is why, when I have a meal out, I prefer to eat in a vegan restaurant). In this context, the term 'cruelty-free' is important regarding medications, cosmetics and hygiene products (such as soap, toothpaste and washing powder)

This posting is not finished. Once I have completed it, I intend to move it to my website, as I should welcome some serious debate (particularly from vegans) on the issues.

Antibiotic resistance: culprit identified

A news story supplied by Reuters at:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47795/story.htm

highlights the danger to human health perpetrated by the dairy industry.

In a nutshell, the antibiotics that are fed to cows remain active in bovine manure. Germs and microbes in the soil become resistant to the antibiotics. As a result, the current array of antibiotics becomes progressively less effective. In the United States, during 2005, 19,000 people died of MRSA. In the UK, MRSA has been instrumental in testing to breaking point the effectiveness of the National Health Service and the credibility of the government.

Were the dairy industry to be wound down, the rate at which antibiotic-resistant germs evolve will slow down.

Diet and health

Of course I am what I eat. If I eat junk then my bodily functions get junked. If I eat poisons my body gets poisoned. If I drink carcinogens I get cancer. This is not rocket science. It is, however, experienced as extremely challenging to people who, wedded to unhealthy habits, deny evidence that demonstrates their habits to be unhealthy. Under the hot African sun an ostrich may be wise to bury its head for a while in the sand. To leave its head buried indefinitely, however, leads inevitably to death. The British news media exist not even in a parallel universe, but in a universe that at times appears to be perpendicular to reality. In keeping with "Up Yours, Delors", "Gotcha" and "Freddy Starr Ate My Hamster", the British news media can be relied on to deride any suggestion that might enpale the deepest ultramarine of political, cultural, social and scientific status quos. (When Murdoch supported Blair in 1997, Murdoch already knew what most of us then did not.) "Bonkers nanny state claims Earth is round" "Boffins claim phlogiston does not exist" "Pinko bishops say Earth goes round sun" If alcohol is a mild carcinogen, then alcohol is a mild carcinogen. If eating mammals too often leads to a variety of cancers and to heart disease, then it probably makes good sense not to eat mammals very often, or even not at all. As I understand it, Canute/Knut did not believe that he would stop the tide: he was demonstrating that not even he could stop the tide. Third, the food, drink and drugs manufacturers. "Would you like to try this lead-based make-up?" "How about this mercury-based medicine?" "Smoking tobacco will improve both your health and your image."
I am happy that money raised from taxes should be spent on promoting healthy living. I do not understand why money raised from taxes is used to promote healthy living at the same time as money is spent promoting those same products. This is like permitting an arsonist to continue to spray petrol onto a fire that firefighters are trying to extinguish.
Manifesto for immediate action:
1. ban all advertising (including sponsorship) of food related to mammals
2. ban all advertising (including sponsorship) of alcohol
3. ban any retail outlet (including supermarkets) from selling alcohol for consumption off the premises, with the exception of licensed, sole-purpose premises (off-licenses), and prohibiting the sale from those licensed, sole-purpose premises of anything that is not explicitly identified in legislation as alcohol-consumption-related (specifically: confectionery, snack foods and soft drinks)
4. ban any retail outlet from selling tobacco with the exception of licensed, sole-purpose premises (tobacconists), and prohibiting the sale of anything that is not explicitly identified in legislation as smoking-related (specifically: confectionery, snack foods, soft drinks, newspapers and magazines)
5. require anyone importing alcohol into the UK, or entering the UK with alcohol (no exceptions) to be in possession of a wholesale or retail license to sell alcohol
6. require anyone importing tobacco into the UK, or entering the UK with tobacco (no exceptions) to be in possession of a wholesale or retail license to sell tobacco.

In case the above appears extreme, it is worth noting that there are places in the world where the sale of alcohol is either banned (such as in some Musim countries) or restricted in a manner similar to that described above (such as in Scandanavia and parts of Canada). There is legislation in most countries about which drugs may be retailed, and control of the way in which those drugs are advertised and retailed. There is legislation in many countries restricting the import without an appropriate license of any quantity whatsoever of a wide variety of foodstuffs (try taking a sandwich into the US through JFK).

There are many people employed in industries relating to the production and distribution of tobacco, alcohol and food derived from mammals. These people will lose their jobs. New jobs must be found for them. Part of the UK, EU and world economies are based around these products, and there will be a reduction in economic activity. New opportunities must be found and exploited. There is very much to be done in the world: spreading education; building developing economies out of their poverty; improving the natural environment; developing and exploiting energy sources that are less destructive of the natural environment; finding ways to rescue archaeology, cultures and languages that are being eclipsed by the modern world; seeking out new ways and places to live; seeking out new pharmaceutical products; improving the quality of the housing in which people live; spreading and embedding new technology; helping people to get fit and lead healthier lives.

Were western societies to progress in the simple ways described above, the move would represent further steps towards a more wholesome existence.

Weighty issues concerning food

4 March 2005: Weighty issues concerning food

Since the start of February I have been trying to reduce my body weight. The issue of weight reduction, so simply expressed, is complicated by a raft of personal and social issues. Preparedness to reduce my weight is dependent on my willingness to admit that I am overweight. Attempting to lose weight requires me to make some lifestyle changes, such as no longer drinking alcohol. Shedding weight is not considered a manly concern: it is not what blokes do. In contrast, most women I know are trying to lose weight: the issue is one that is very much associated with women (Fat is a Feminist Issue). All the same, it would be hard to describe my body shape as sveldte. I would not look out of place at a pub darts match - come to think of it, I have played in pub darts matches! Less wittily, I receive verbal comments and insults on a daily basis regarding my body shape, frequently shouted after me by, although by no means exclusively, young people. I have been physically assaulted in a mild but unpleasant manner twice because of the challenge felt by strangers regarding my body shape: "When's it due?" each asked (15 months apart) while poking me in the stomach. I witness much non-verbal behaviour towards me that indicates the discomfort that some people feel in my presence. I could ignore the abuse and the discomfort of other people, but that would seem both a little dishonest (a pretence would be more accurate), and also a wasted opportunity to invigorate my motivation to lose some weight. Happily, or perhaps sadly, there were more objective criteria as well. With a Body Mass Index of 28, I was closer to the 'obese' portion of 'overweight' than to the 'normal' portion. It was not even that I had pigged out over Christmas and the so-called 'festive season': I was simply slowly though inexorably gaining weight. My blood pressure was consistently high, with a diastolic oscillating between the high nineties and the low teenies, and frequently in the naughties. I believed that, were I to weigh less, my blood pressure would reduce. I was feeling tired quite a lot of the time, making it hard to concentrate on my work. As a response, I tended to use strong coffee to keep me alert during the day, and alcohol in the evening to counteract the stimulant effects of the coffee. I was hoping that a reduction in my weight would give me back some of my natural energy. On Monday 1 February 2005 I weighed myself several times, arriving at a weight somewhere between 94.5 kg and 95 kg. The bathroom scales are not best known for their precision, or even their accuracy. A clutch of readings, averaged, seemed more likely to produce a fair result. It may also be true that, if one is attempting to measure in units of 100g, then a mug of tea and a slice of toast are likely to affect the reading. On Sunday 14 February 2005 I weighed 91.5 kg. On Wednesday 2 March 2005 I weighed 87.9 kg. My body weight has dropped. According to some website I found concerning BMI and other measures of obesity, the BMI of 53% of men my age in the US is higher than mine. Moreover, the same website confidently asserts that social perception would give my ideal weight for my height as 82 kg. I have my doubts. I have three target weights: a) 82 kg - for my height, this weight would give me a BMI that is on the boundary between 'normal' and 'overweight', and I wish this to become a future ceiling; b) 73 kg - this would put my BMI in the middle of 'normal'; c) 63 kg - for my height, this weight would give me a BMI that is on the boundary between 'normal' and 'underweight', and would give me back my 18 year old body shape. I have a long way to go in reducing my weight. I am hoping that there is a good correlation between my weight and my body shape, so I shall no longer be exposed to the taunts and sniggers of total strangers. I know that to appear trimmer I must exercise my tummy muscles. The trouble is that I avoid vigorous tummy exercise because my hiatus hernia objects to it painfully. My supposed diet largely consists of a great deal of fruit, the absence of alcohol, much less starch and slightly smaller portions. I have been trying to walk further and more often as my preferred means of exercise. I started February with a ten day detox: some detox medicine from Tesco's and an abstinence from coffee, the latter of which I have continued. However, in all, my diet does not amount to much. I have a nagging sense of guilt that the diet is not more demanding ("If it isn't hurting, it isn't working.") The thing is, though, it is working. Lots of people have commented on their perception that I have lost weight. Good. Long may my weight loss continue, for I have yet many more kilos to lose.