Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

This is why we care so much about labelling

Like us on Facebook:

Again and again I’ve decried these labels that latch on to, hijack or distort veganism and confuse the masses. And today, National Hog Farmer exhibits what I feared to be true; denouncing veganism because we have “stylish” cheats for justifying meat eating anyway. On a site literally established to promote the exploitation of animals, they are talking about how vegans are no different, other than our desire to be “cool.”

First, the writer lumps being vegan in with some diets like paleo and gluten free. That’s the common mixup that calling a “plant-based” diet vegan has done, so it rolls off our shoulders pretty easily. But when they claim we label ourselves this way to fit in, and argue that meat eaters “will grunt and pound their chest to defend the right to eat meat but many do not feel it is necessary to work into daily conversation or use it as a tool to be among the “cool crowd,” they’ve totally lost me. I’m certain I’ve still seen more bacon paraphernalia than all vegan conversations combined. But that’s still not where they’ve boiled my blood.

It’s not even their sorry use of statistics from Vegetarian Times or PETA to try to show that a 5% market of vegetarians is smaller than our loud voices – mostly because hey, why are we talking about vegetarianism now? Again, we’re back to a diet devoid of ethics?

No, no, no. The real upsetting bit is towards the bottom, where Venus Williams and Jared Leto’s “cheagan” diets are mentioned. It’s where “flexitatarian” and “freegan” are defined in an attempt to highlight that all vegans are just looking for an excuse to sneak animal products back in to their lives here and there. They legitimately pose the idea that vegans eat the way we do simply when it’s convenient or popular, and that all people would prefer a little meat, especially at home. They have formed an opinion of all vegans without understanding the one label they meant to take down. These are not “vegans,” and this is not something we do. This is why encouraging others to *at least* be flexitarian isn’t working.

The only truth put out in this piece is when they say; “Cheagan, freegan or flexitarian are just individuals who eat meat.” If the National Hog Farmers can see it, why do other vegans so routinely fight us about it? Sure, they drivel on about meat being “timeless and trendy,” but even with their warped mentalities, they can see the inconsistencies in these confusing labels. And the problem with it is that now, they are comfortably claiming that all veganism is a waste of time. Unless we advocate for veganism clearly, and make sure to highlight the morality that makes it impossible to submit to these bogus labels, people will continue to disregard our message. If we’re simply the latest fad diet, veganism stands to be ignored.

A vegan would not use animals at any time, and shouldn’t support the decision of others to either. Clarity and consistency of the vegan message is continually lost and is leading to articles, opinions, and naysayers like this. Go vegan, and then do your best to make sure it’s effectively understood by those you educate on the subject. 

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments
  • Emilia Leese

    omg yes.

  • AlpineJim

    Those of us who have morally internalized veganism don’t see animal products as food. We see nonhuman
    animals as innocent and vulnerable to exploitation, similar to the way we see children. Our instinct is to protect. Animals are not food to us. Not only are we not tempted, but we are strongly disgusted by animal products, just as we would be disgusted by products of child exploitation.

    I can see where it might be difficult for some people, who have internalized the speciesist indoctrination most of us receive from the time we understand language, who have not explored the issue critically and rationally, and who may have an exploitation-based income to protect, to understand our radically different viewpoint. But we have come to this viewpoint by critically and rationally examining the arguments for animal rights, for veganism, and against speciesism (see the work of Tom Regan and Gary Francione). We have found such arguments to be completely convincing, as morally airtight and logically compelling as any moral arguments supporting human rights, and overwhelmingly superior to opposing arguments.

  • I agree with the author but would offer a couple of edits for content and clarity.

    “…the writer lumps being vegan in with some *other* diets like…” – the use of “other” in this statement makes it read as if being vegan is one diet among others, when of course that’s not the ecorazzi author’s intention. Perhaps it would reduce the possibility of confusion if it read “…the writer lumps being vegan in with diets like…”

    “It’s not even their *lame* use of statistics…” – the use of the word “lame” as a pejorative in this statement has the potential to reinforce ableism, as the primary definition of lame is “(of a person or animal) unable to walk normally because of an injury or illness affecting the leg or foot.” Again, I’m sure this is not the author’s intention, however I would strongly suggest using another word in its place that doesn’t have ableist overtones.

    “They legitimately pose the idea that vegans *eat the way they we simply* when it’s convenient or popular…” – the bit inside the asterisks seems to be a typo, as it is not a sentence.

    I hope this helps!

    • I just want to offer my support for this: “the use of the word “lame” as a pejorative in this statement has the potential to reinforce ableism, as the primary definition of lame is “(of a person or animal) unable to walk normally because of an injury or illness affecting the leg or foot.” Again, I’m sure this is not the author’s intention, however I would strongly suggest using another word in its place that doesn’t have ableist overtones.”

      Using “lame,” “dumb,” etc. as pejoratives is every bit as harmful as using “gay” or “bitch” etc. in the same way, and this is for the same reasons.

      • ecorazzi

        We appreciate you sharing your feelings on this, and have removed that word.

    • ecorazzi

      Thanks for these suggestions!

      • And thank you for incorporating them! 🙂

  • G B

    Good stuff! Thanks!

France’s ban of faux-meat branding won’t stop veganism

I’ll take “mycoproteinous food tube” over a tube of dead pig any day.

Concerned about endangered animals? Stop eating them

Methods of animal conservation that support the exploitation of animals don’t exist for the animals, they exist for human profit.

What you can do if live exports disturb you

The outcry should go further than importation and should be directed at the fact that the animals in question were on their way to slaughter in the first place.