Honey
Posted by Allychristine on Jul 21, 2008 · Member since Dec 2007 · 15438 posts
Eating honey is not vegan.
Discuss.
I know this has been talked about many a time on VW, but I would like to be involved in the discussion. If you aren't interested in debating if/why/etc. eating honey is not/is vegan, then don't post!
Bees are sentient beings like cows, chickens, dogs, etc. To me, it's wrong to exploit them. That being said, an apian-vegan(?) contributes to far less cruelty that someone who eats dairy/eggs/meat.
I'm not convinced of their sentience nor of their exploitation by small honey farms. Any (objective) information available to convince me otherwise would be much appreciated :)
Exploitation: use or utilization, esp. for profit.
Yeah? ???
I do like the idea of calling myself strict vegetarian instead of vegan. Because it's a reminder that we can always be doing more to help out the animals!
Exploitation: use or utilization, esp. for profit.
Yeah? ???
So are all employees being exploited? What about therapy dogs and their trainers who make money when people purchase a therapy dog (no matter how small the sum)? I think we all know that exploitation requires some sort of abuse and not simply use. Ex. Resource use vs. resource exploitation. Just because we use land for farming, for example, does not mean we are exploiting the land. Yeah? ???
KB - The info I can find online regarding bees sentient-status is all from vegan-based websites and therefore, IMHO, biased. I think HH has more info about bees and their 'personalities' from research. ;)b
This is why I'm yet to be convinced because I can't find info from non-vegan websites. We'll see if HH chimes in with some info! Thanks! :)
An employee works at her own will. If she were not employed at her own will, that would be exploitation. We cannot get a bee's consent to use its honey as we please. That's how it is exploitation.
I do like the idea of calling myself strict vegetarian instead of vegan. Because it's a reminder that we can always be doing more to help out the animals!
I like this as well. I don't like that some feel "entitled" to the label while others are not because no one is (or can be) a perfect vegan. Perhaps veganism is something to strive for but something that no one can obtain simply because it's impossible to be perfect? Like the holy grail of compassion or something...
An employee works at her own will. If she were not employed at her own will, that would be exploitation. We cannot get a bee's consent to use its honey as we please. That's how it is exploitation.
But we agree that exploitation is not simply use, correct, but instead implies some sort of abuse? Because even if an employee is there of her own will, she is still being "used" by her employer for profit, no?
Exploitation: use or utilization, esp. for profit.
Yeah? ???
So are all employees being exploited? What about therapy dogs and their trainers who make money when people purchase a therapy dog (no matter how small the sum)? I think we all know that exploitation requires some sort of abuse and not simply use. Ex. Resource use vs. resource exploitation. Just because we use land for farming, for example, does not mean we are exploiting the land. Yeah? ???
Well, humans have to consent to work, otherwise it's considered slavery...
No one mentioned anything about therapy dogs...last time I checked, dogs couldn't give consent to be "used" either and few would object to the use of therapy dogs. I'm just trying to emphasize that use, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad (regardless of consent) as long as the used party is not suffering. IMHO, of course...
But we agree that exploitation is not simply use, correct, but instead implies some sort of abuse? Because even if an employee is there of her own will, she is still being "used" by her employer for profit, no?
To me, it means that you are using another being to make a profit in a way that robs that individual of her right to self-determination, I guess. It is abusive in that sense. Fair enough. We have to be specific about the abuse. It could be physical abuse, but it could also be an abuse of power.
Like, for lack of a better example, I might train an army of five-year-olds to assist me in my money-making scheme for global domination. Even if I never, ever bring them physical harm, emotional harm, etc.--even if I treat them like royalty--I would still be exploiting them because they do not have the capacity, at that age, to communicate that they desire to be pawns in my business. That's what I think of as exploitation.
Not that I have an army of five-year-olds, though. I only use babies in my world domination schemes. ;D
But we agree that exploitation is not simply use, correct, but instead implies some sort of abuse? Because even if an employee is there of her own will, she is still being "used" by her employer for profit, no?
To me, it means that you are using another being to make a profit in a way that robs that individual of her right to self-determination, I guess. It is abusive in that sense. Fair enough. We have to be specific about the abuse. It could be physical abuse, but it could also be an abuse of power.
Like, for lack of a better example, I might train an army of five-year-olds to assist me in my money-making scheme for global domination. Even if I never, ever bring them physical harm, emotional harm, etc.--even if I treat them like royalty--I would still be exploiting them because they do not have the capacity, at that age, to communicate that they desire to be pawns in my business. That's what I think of as exploitation.
Not that I have an army of five-year-olds, though. I only use babies in my world domination schemes. ;D
Agreed. Using five year olds for world domination could be exploitation. But I guess if they still got to be five year olds and have normal five year old lives, then I wouldn't have a problem with that (does that make me a horrible person?).
I think that part of the issue also involves acceptable substitutes. Obviously, we have great substitutes for dairy, eggs, meat, and honey. Therapy dogs don't have an equivalent substitution (do they? ???). Driving a car with rubber tires is another example. When I live in a city, I can walk basically everywhere. In the sticks, where we do not have public transit or safe walking areas I must drive a car. There isn't a manufacturer I know of that offers cruelty-free tires. FWIW, DH eats granola that has honey as the next-to-last ingredient. To me, that is still 100x better than the meat and cheese guy he was a few years ago. I don't make it an issue. Now, if he started doing honey shots after dinner or something...
There are alternatives to everything when you get down to the nitty gritty. I mean, if you choose to live in the country then you are making a decision to live a life where you will need to drive a car. I'm not concerned with the nitty gritty, which is why we're having this debate I guess. When a recipe calls for honey, I use maple syrup or agave nectar as a substitute. If there is a vegan bread with honey and one without, I will choose the one without. If I'm out at a restaurant and there aren't honey-free options, I'll eat the honey. For example, there is a pizza place here in town that is extremely veg-friendly (lots of toppings to choose from and they even have FYH mozzerella!). However, their crust has honey in it. I will eat that. When suddenly my body decided to have an allergic reaction to whatever the heck was flying around in the Colorado air, I reached for the honey instead of Benedryl. I think substitutions are great and should be used as often as one sees fit, but to me it's a matter of personal choice rather than dogma.
But we agree that exploitation is not simply use, correct, but instead implies some sort of abuse? Because even if an employee is there of her own will, she is still being "used" by her employer for profit, no?
To me, it means that you are using another being to make a profit in a way that robs that individual of her right to self-determination, I guess. It is abusive in that sense. Fair enough. We have to be specific about the abuse. It could be physical abuse, but it could also be an abuse of power.
Like, for lack of a better example, I might train an army of five-year-olds to assist me in my money-making scheme for global domination. Even if I never, ever bring them physical harm, emotional harm, etc.--even if I treat them like royalty--I would still be exploiting them because they do not have the capacity, at that age, to communicate that they desire to be pawns in my business. That's what I think of as exploitation.
Not that I have an army of five-year-olds, though. I only use babies in my world domination schemes. ;D
Agreed. Using five year olds for world domination could be exploitation. But I guess if they still got to be five year olds and have normal five year old lives, then I wouldn't have a problem with that (does that make me a horrible person?).
I would have a problem with it. So I guess we just have to agree to disagree!
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to discount someone's entire effort to have as many actions they can align with veganism. I think that's great. And it's great that you choose vegan options whenever possible, in recipes and such. Can't argue with that! Again, agree to disagree. Although I am firm on the stance that honey is not vegan.
I think you are vegan, it's good with me if you want to call yourself one. ;)b
See, I really don't care whether or not I'm technically "vegan" I guess. If occasional local honey consumption isn't vegan ( by whatever definition is most widely accepted), then I won't define myself as that if people are offended by that. It's the deeper philosophy of lessening animal suffering of veganism that I appreciate. Since I'm not convinced that non-intensive honey production causes suffering, then honey avoidance doesn't fall in line with my philosophy. I mean, this could be compared to the pet food debate as well. Feeding my cats a vegan diet would impose less suffering overall, but since I know that my cats would suffer on a vegan diet, then I choose to avoid causing them intentional suffering (because I see it as intentional when I know it's not best for them). That doesn't fall in line with others' philosophies. That's fine. I just don't like when veganism becomes dogmatic because that's a big turnoff for me and why I've never been a part of organized religion.
i agree with this wholeheartedly.
Good debate dudes! I think my views differ from quite a few on this board, and that's OK (I know mdvegan and I have had to "agree to disagree" on numerous occasions). Ok, I really need to get camping stuff ready--Josh is getting antsy! TTFN!
I think you are vegan, it's good with me if you want to call yourself one. ;)b
See, I really don't care whether or not I'm technically "vegan" I guess. If occasional local honey consumption isn't vegan ( by whatever definition is most widely accepted), then I won't define myself as that if people are offended by that. It's the deeper philosophy of lessening animal suffering of veganism that I appreciate. Since I'm not convinced that non-intensive honey production causes suffering, then honey avoidance doesn't fall in line with my philosophy. I mean, this could be compared to the pet food debate as well. Feeding my cats a vegan diet would impose less suffering overall, but since I know that my cats would suffer on a vegan diet, then I choose to avoid causing them intentional suffering (because I see it as intentional when I know it's not best for them). That doesn't fall in line with others' philosophies. That's fine. I just don't like when veganism becomes dogmatic because that's a big turnoff for me and why I've never been a part of organized religion.
i agree with this wholeheartedly.
Ditto.
I have some slightly different views than many on this site also…a lot of which I haven’t shared yet. I agree with everything you are say kb. I extended your reasoning to eggs and milk also…. I think it’s acceptable to consume eggs and milk off my grandma’s small farm because I know she treats her animals very well, they are not exploited in any way. For this reason I will never be able to call myself a vegan. I do not however purchase mass market eggs and milk from grocery stores because those cows, chickens, goats, ect are exploited for a profit. I chose to go vegetarian exploitation and suffering of innocent animals is appalling to me.
I have mentioned this before in other posts but I call myself vegan basically because I feel that is what best describes me. I do not buy honey, or cook with it. However, sometimes if a natural cereal that I buy is sweetened with honey I don't let that stop me from eating it. I am vegan for health reasons, to live a longer, disease-free life. I don't think that eating some cereal that has honey in it a few times a year is going to interfere with that, but I am not going to tell people "I am a strict vegetarian, no dairy, no eggs, but I eat honey on occasion." Saying that I have a vegan diet is much easier, and I claim it. I don't think anyone is perfect, and we shouldn't worry about what other people do. If someone wants to eat honey and claim that it is vegan, then whatever, it is their business. I am not debating that honey isn't vegan, just in my circumstances, it is such a minuscule part of my life, that I think being 98% animal free is good enough for ME. It is a personal decision how you want to view yourself. IF I was vegan for environmental reasons I would most definitely be more aware of honey consumption and not eat it.
OK, but what is the big deal about just picking a different cereal? There are aisles and aisles of cereal.
Not trying to be a jerk, but I've never felt so strongly compelled to buy cereal or something that I had to throw up my hands go against veganism. I guess I just can't relate.
You can't claim the act of eating honey is vegan though. I mean, at the end of the day, you can call yourself vegan or not, consequences be damned, but the act of eating honey is not vegan.
I said in my post that I was not debating that honey isn't vegan. And no, I am not compelled to buy a certain cereal, but the matter isn't important enough to me, personally, to care to find an alternative.
hmpf.
The honey debate is like the abortion debate. People who think that insects do or don't deserve consideration aren't going to change their minds. People who are pro- or anti- choice aren't going to change their minds.
I just read though all of this and I must say that quite a good debate is happening here--and without anyone resorting to name calling too! Good job vegwebbers!
I find the debate interesting, as a relatively new vegan (got 1 year down :) ) I was under the impression for several months that honey was personal choice in the vegan diet, I really didn't think anything of it and continued to eat honey. Like many people I didn't know much about the farming of bees and honey production--I had the notion that bees, even farmed bees were relatively free given the fact they were allowed to leave the hive. Boy was I wrong! Farmed bees are horribly treated--bees have a very specific work and life cycle and farmed bees are worked completely out of sync with this. From the studies I have read, because of this over working a fairly new phenomenom called Colony Collapse Disorder is happening on a wide spread basis--one day the hive is there the next tday they are all dead and gone! Some people blame anything from cell phones to global warming for the disorder--because working them to death just couldn't be the answer right? Anyways--I think I pretty much agree with the majority on this one honey=seceretions from a living creature. bee's=living creatures. collecting honey and farming bee's=exploition of said living creature. taking honey from wild bee's=stealing a living creatures sustinence. whole thing's pretty uncool.
Here's a little blip about CCD off BBC news--it basically says it's a "big mysterious why they are dying"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZr9ztQPNXA
Pages