3 ms·

It’s the exploitation of animals. So chicken eggs aren’t vegan but eggs are unfertilised.

• culi 4y ago
  California's almond industry is notorious for the devastating effects it has on honeybees and the diseases it spreads. By that definition, California almonds are also not vegan
• noobermin 4y ago
  If that's the case, then a lot of foods can be considered not vegan by that definition. That includes some trees that are fertilized by dead animals, inadvertently, or by petroleum based fertilizers. Death of wasps by a very natural process is similar in spirit to the latter two. Not just eating meat (which eggs can sort of be considered, same for drinking milk). I wouldn't say a wasp that died in a fig was exploited intentionally by any human, at least, unless the wasps are introduced to figs in order for them to pollinate them. If the absence of action also is considered exploitation, then eating fruit from a tree that a rat has died under could be considered exploitation of animals by that criteria. Yes, this is a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, but a dead wasp in a fig is already a bit down that road. There is certainly a difference between drinking milk from a cow and a (likely) accidentally dead wasp in a fig.
  • 2muchcoffeeman 4y ago
    I’m not a vegan, but I think this take is way off. If you purposely exploit an animal for food, especially in unfavourable conditions, like putting chickens in cages and harvesting their eggs, farming animals for meat, that’s not vegan. If you are out in the woods and eat the fruit of a tree that an animal died under and fertilised, that’s fine. It probably also doesn’t extend to animals that were dead long enough to turn into oil.
    • noobermin 4y ago
      Then I suppose you think that the article under question is in fact vegan and the "controversy" about it is overblown.