REPORT Secularism Violations
Others

The Ethics of Veganism

Nancy Siy
Nancy Siy

The use of animals in our society is so normal that my choice to be vegan is often questioned and misunderstood. The idea of being vegan is just too radical for some. Their reactions are not exactly unfounded. Animal use is everywhere- the milk in your coffee, the pet hamster on the TV show you just watched, the leather in your watch strap, the gelatin in your halo-halo. So why be vegan? I throw the question back at you. Why not? Veganism is not just a diet, although going vegan can do wonders for your health. Veganism is not necessarily a religion-based code of ethics, although the ancient religion Jainism does prescribe Ahimsa or a path of non-violence towards all living beings. Even among vegans, we disagree about what the term vegan must mean, and we each project our own ideals onto the label. Must it be limited to the ethical motivation to be compassionate? Must it be inclusive of respect to your own health? What is not up to debate is that vegans abstain from any use of animals, animal products, animal byproducts, and animal excrements for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment etc in as much as it is practical and avoidable. The underlying principle is that we oppose murder and rape and other forms of violence and we see our use and abuse of animals as just that. These pre-meditated crimes are not acceptable just because they are committed against beings other than humans. Violence is violence. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Suffering is suffering. Veganism is a way of life that acknowledges that version of our reality.

The core of veganism is the reduction of suffering and violence. It is crucial to emphasize that the violence against animals is not limited to the obvious aspect of slaughter.  It also includes the way in which they have been born and raised- or to be more accurate, the way in which they have been manufactured and stored. Standard practices in the industry include cutting off the beaks of chicks without anesthesia, castration without anesthesia, slamming down baby pigs who do not meet weight requirements on the floor, branding cattle with hot iron without anesthesia, killing and skinning animals when they are still conscious, not to mention the atrocities of their living conditions that basically confine them to a single area equal to their body size for all their short miserable lives. Through our use and confinement of them, they have become artificially disabled. They cannot flap their wings, milk their young, or run freely as they would in their natural environments. Even their physiological form has been manipulated so consumers can have more meat and become more obese and business owners can have more cash in the bank. Animals are forced to be cannibals as the industry commonly feeds cows other cows, pigs other pigs, and chickens other chickens. Whatever the animal industry and whatever their use, the bottomline is the same. They suffer. Needlessly.

Factory farming aside, what is so wrong with eating animals or wearing a leather jacket or going to a zoo or dissecting frogs in Biology class? Doing any of those things presupposes that human beings own animals, that we can do with them as we please, regardless of their sentience or capacity to feel pain. The common argument I hear is that we are the more intelligent species. I find this illogical for a number of reasons. Why should intelligence be an excuse for abuse and savagery? If we were to accept that the more intelligent can do whatever they want with the less intelligent, does it mean we can kill infants with mental disabilities and make sausages out of them? And supposing that another species would emerge that appears to be more intelligent than us, are we ready and willing to be skinned alive to serve as materials for someone else’s jacket? Another similar argument for animal use is that humans are on top of the food chain. The food chain again presupposes that there is an order in nature, but there is nothing natural about the way food is produced and transported and consumed today. Other animals do not factory-farm other animals. It is only us humans who do.

An ethical aspect that people often overlook is human welfare. We are creating jobs that force people to kill, where desensitization is a near certainty and injuries are habitual. In slaughterhouses, many workers urinate and defecate in the assembly lines in order to keep up with the production speed requirements. They are also injured by the struggling half-alive half-dead animals who either still summon up enough will to fight back or are so delirious with pain they can only react in violent convulsions. In leather factories, workers are immersed knee-deep in toxic dye substances. In zoos and aquariums, trainers are given commands to treat the animals like things, to use electrocution freely, to stop themselves from making any emotional or empathic connection with the animals. We are building a world where the demand for assassins is growing, where we hire them to do our dirty work all the while absolving our own accountability. And for what good reason? Because they taste good to our chemically-drowned palates or because we need a new variation of shampoo to treat our colored hair. The world we inherited has brainwashed us into thinking this is the way the world works –that this is who we are.

Veganism is about awakening our senses, learning the truth, sometimes having to dig through it, and ultimately facing it. It is connecting the dots. It is knowing that if I eat animals, I am directly responsible for both the screams and screeches of the animal and the unabashed violence of the slaughterhouse worker in and outside his workplace. Veganism is about examining my values, weighing the importance of my personal trivial interest of swimming with the dolphins in an aquarium against the importance of letting the dolphins live their natural lives in a vast ocean. Veganism is listening to my true nature as a human being, that even if I did not have the literacy to express the wrongness of killing, I would already know it. Veganism is looking at cruelty and seeing it for what it is and saying “No, I simply cannot be a part of this.”

Related content

79 comments

  1. there is a case in the US where an employee (who is a vegan) refused to receive flu vaccines developed from chicken eggs. the flu vaccine was required by her employer. it became a legal issue because the employee claimed her right to refuse the vaccine based on her freedom of religion. have you heard of any similar case happening in the Philippines?

  2. I think plants have as much consciousness as animals and people. It's just that animals have blood and internal organs that people can relate to more. Some people talk and sing to their plants, and as observed, plants respond positively to that. True, humans don't own the animals, but animals among themselves, even fish among themselves, eat each other. I think that is just part of the food chain of nature. Aliens eat humans, humans eat animals, big fish eat small fish, animals eat plants, and so on.. I don't agree with consuming more than what is needed, but I don't find it 'that cruel' to eat animals.

    Animals among animals eat each other. Should that be stopped first? How?

    • Wow, schopa. That's the first sane comment I've seen you post ever since you started trolling.

      Re: the article, I admire how non-meat eaters can, well… not eat meat. And meat products. It's very hard to switch especially if you're used to it… And if one of your favorite foods happen to be chili con carne. 🙁 Kudos to you!

      • Silver of Silver, thanks. I was a big meat-eater before and I can say it's not as hard as people imagine =) I eat better-tasting food now, and don't miss animal products one bit. Plant-based food have so much variety, flavors, and textures!

  4. strangely enough, catholicism's most animal-loving saint, St. Francis wasn't vegetarian…

    "Brother pig, sister chicken I love you… I love you with a little rub of rosemary, a touch of thyme, a savory gravy sauce… om-nom-nom-nom…" >:)

    Can somebody please explain how somebody like him didn't start the vegan movement within the church?

  5. I would like to rewrite the entire first paragraph of this essay. I realize I was too judgmental and too attached to the labels. I think that anyone who gives veg*nism any sincere attempt is a good thing, and regardless of their motivation, the last thing they need is my intolerance. Even if they end up not following through, at least less animals were harmed- that's still something.

    Revised first paragraph:

    The use of animals in our society is so normal that my choice to be vegan is often questioned and misunderstood. The idea of being vegan is just too radical for some. Their reactions are not exactly unfounded. Animal use is everywhere- the milk in your coffee, the pet hamster on the TV show you just watched, the leather in your watch strap, the gelatin in your halo-halo. So why be vegan? I throw the question back at you. Why not? Veganism is not just a diet, although going vegan can do wonders for your health. Veganism is not necessarily a religion-based code of ethics, although the ancient religion Jainism does prescribe Ahimsa or a path of non-violence towards all living beings. Even among vegans, we disagree about what the term vegan must mean, and we each project our own ideals onto the label. Must it be limited to the ethical motivation to be compassionate? Must it be inclusive of respect to your own health? What is not up to debate is that vegans abstain from any use of animals, animal products, animal byproducts, and animal excrements for food, clothing, medical research, entertainment etc in as much as it is practical and avoidable. The underlying principle is that we oppose murder and rape and other forms of violence and we see our use and abuse of animals as just that. These pre-meditated crimes are not acceptable just because they are committed against beings other than humans. Violence is violence. Rape is rape. Murder is murder. Suffering is suffering. Veganism is a way of life that acknowledges that version of our reality.

  7. Well, "most" of don't even think about it. I didn't even think about it much until now. I know chickens are electrocuted. For one. So that's a more humane way of killing them with less pain. I don't know about how the Pig and the Cow are put to death.

    We've grown accustomed to the sight of the bodies or parts of those particular animals. In a market, you see dead chickens/cows/pigs all the time. All those people need to do is chop them for us.

    My thoughts now are that we seem to think that those animals are less intelligent than other animals we don't usually eat. I think that's the reason those animals are the ones people started to eat. They look less intelligent.

    • "We seem to think that those animals are less intelligent than other animals we don’t usually eat"- We were born into this mindset. We were born into a world that objectified animals and labeled them. This is an exmaple of how we as children were taught to objectify animals:

      Dog- pet
      Chicken- food
      Cow- food
      Monkey- research object
      Elephant- circus/zoo object

      This system of categorizing animals into certain uses has been so repetitive that it has mostly been left unquestioned. That is why we keep dogs in our homes, eat burgers for lunch, and watch elephants in the circus. And yet, the idea of keeping a cow as a pet, watching a chicken in the circus, and eating elephant meat seem unnatural. We have taken repetition and tradition to be the norm.

      And again, because we are objectifying animals, we oppose the cruel treatment but we do not oppose slaughter. If we think suffering in factory farms is unnecessary, why do we think that killing is necessary? What is the difference? It still boils down to the way we have labeled animals. We see them as objects and properties with no interests of their own, no different from my ownership of a car. I take care of my car so it can serve me, not because the car has interests of its own.

      I am glad people are thinking about this. I haven't thought about this for most of my life either. So I understand where everyone is coming from. My resistance was so great at first, my wall of denial so high, that the first time I found out how chickens were treated, I deliberately walked into KFC (just 7 months ago). But like I said, the experience for me is more emotional than intellectual. As I sat there, I took a few bites and thought, what am I doing? I realized I really cannot see it the same way anymore.

        • I have a signed copy of Elmer 😀 I love Gerry's work, its rare to be both a good writer and artist at the same time.

          Follow this up with Image Comic's "Chew" – a world wherein eating chickens is banned and everyone's scrambling to find the next best substitute.

    • In the case of pigs and cows, I've read that they use a captive bolt pistol. It's almost like shooting them in the head, and the hot happens to quickly they don't feel anything.

      On a side note, the hitman from "No Country For Old Men" used one for killing his victims, and busting open doors.

  8. The problem is, as consumers we don't get see what happens to the animals while they are getting prepped for our consumption. All we see are the piece of meat on our plates. There are a lot of videos on the internet where they show shark's fins getting sliced off their back, then the sharks are thrown back into the ocean like they were nothing. Without the fins they just drown. A single fishing ship can catch hundreds of sharks in a day. Imagine that. I've seen some other videos showing some kind of dog with it's skin on the face peeled off. Another one is a baby crocodile's leather being peeled off while it's still alive too. It's easy to talk about it while we are sitting comfortably in our homes. It's another thing to witness how animal goods reaches us.

    • Actually, I do know. I know what a cow goes through before it becomes the steak I buy at Santis', and I know what a pig goes through before it ends up as longganisa.

      Is it disturbing to watch a cow get slaughtered? Yes, but just makes me much less hesitant to waste any food.

      I suddenly recall the movie Lion King, and Mufasa's discussion with Simba on the circle of life.

      • You are disturbed to watch the cow get slaughtered and it's a normal reaction (unless one is a psychopath). I cannot, however, agree that this justifies "wasting" food. The animal isn't "already dead". The beef/chicken/pork etc is there because we demanded it, we ordered it, and we made the execution happen. The animal agriculture industry is still a business. There won't be supply if there isn't so much demand. If people stop eating it, the business owners will find other ways to make money. They are impartial to whether the profit came from cows or broccoli.

        One analogy I sometimes make is playing a video game. We have the controller, and we tell the animal agriculture industry/ slaughterer to kill the animal whenever we eat animals. When we stop eating animals, it is like putting down the controller. The game is not going to play itself. The slaughterer is not going to continue to kill cows if nobody wanted to eat them.

        I want to ask you these questions: What do you have against a world that is vegan, wherein we do not use animals and we continue to have an abundance of food, clothes, entertainment etc? What does this world view violate? Whom does it harm?

        • We made the execution happen?

          Nancy, tell me the last time that a restaurant showed its patrons the cow that they are about to eat. The meat is pre-packaged and frozen in storage long before you ever walked into that establishment.

          With the exception of Chinese restos, where they ask you which fish you'd pick for your dish.

          In short, you're oversimplifying how that meat arrives on the table, and in doing so, you're attempting to shock us with a guilt trip. You're appealing to emotions – not the best way to convince somebody to your side.

          As for your insistence that people will find a different occupation when their trade dies.

          Nancy, our farmers are barely getting by with the farms they have at the moment. I have a friend who used to work in the government's finance department, and from what he tells me, a good majority of our farmers are unable to repay their loans for whatever reason, be it due to natural disasters, or NPA activity.

          They are barely scraping by with whatever produce they decide to make, and now you're going to think that they can simply change their produce? That will take money, Nancy. Money to buy the seeds and fertilizer needed for the vegetable crops. Money that will take

          It is money they are unable to produce. Money they'd rather use to feed their families, or send their kids to school, or probably to pay off the local rebels as "Revolutionary tax" so their fields and equipment do not get burned down. Again.

          And on another note, I'm a psychopath?

          So anybody who eats meat, or doesn't throw up or feel sick after watching a cow get slaughtered (I've read my fair hare of survival guides, thank you) is now in the same league as the Son of Sam, the Unabomber, The Virginia Tech shooter, and Bin Laden?

          Do I now fit the bill? Do you honestly think that I'd translate my inability to empathize with an animal getting slaughtered into some wild killing spree some day?

          That is bullshit.

          • Tim,

            You are exaggerating Nancy's points, and this does not help your argument.

            Also the fact that our poor Filipino farmers for whom you are making an appeal to emotion cannot afford to switch to growing vegetables is immaterial to the argument of the ethics of veganism. Please don't let the fact that you were a farmer affect your argument, Tim.

            You seem to be unable to grasp the simplicity of the law of supply and demand, which I think Nancy has illustrated sufficiently. By ordering meat, we contribute to the demand, which fuels the supply, which necessitates the killing of animals. It is not an oversimplification, Tim; it is simple.

            You already said you were disturbed by the images of animal brutality. By Nancy's definition, you are normal, and not a psychopath. Everything that followed "And on another note, I’m a psychopath?" is exaggeration against a straw man. That, Tim, is bullshit.

            I will clarify that I am a carnivore. Hell, I love the taste of meat. But I am not about to go and claim that the reason for this is because I am concerned about the NPA-plagued farmers or that "somebody has already decided to kill that cow". That's just stupid.

            I am a speciesist (for the moment). And it is easy to see that so are you. The difference, Tim, is that I am not about to defend it with sarcasm, appeal to emotions, shock, and bullshit.

            I am not defending Nancy's points; she has presented them eloquently, effectively and civilly. Try to keep up, Tim.

          • My point is that long before we even walked into that resto, somebody has already decided to kill that cow.

            We did not "pull the trigger," or "order the hit" on it any more than the waiter who asks us how well done we'd like the Rib Eye. Or are they accessories to a crime as well?

          • @twin: i can't even understand how your farmer argument fits into all this. 3rd-party assholes or nature will hit them regardless what they raise.

            its not like a vegan-awareness campaign like Nancy is promoting will result in an overnight eradication of all meat consumption in the entire country that will render poor helpless chicken farmers jobless in the blink of an eye. please tone down the exaggerated worst-case scenarios. it's, dare I say it… fundie-like. I suggest you simmer down and re-read what you wrote and re-think if you've overstepped the boundaries between good basic netiquette and gross over-sensitivity. the discussion is getting far too heated for a topic that actually promotes empathy towards other sentient life

            its basic supply and demand. if there's a market for it, then people will produce it (or kill it).

            there's no demand for pork in an islamic region thus no suffering piggies in that country.

            we vote with our wallets (and our gullets)

          • In retrospect, I realize that I was way over the line with that comment. I haven't had much sleep over the past few days, and between that and a head cold and sore joints, has left me with raw nerves.

            I apologize to Nancy for acting like a complete twat, and not reading her replies with the due effort they deserve 🙁

            I also thank you guys for not hesitating to keep me in line.

            If you may allow me, frank, you said it better than I did – I'm simply being a specieist, and I enjoy food as much as I enjoy cooking.

            And no – I was not farmer. I was simply stating the news that I have been reading lately.

            That said, I'll be shutting up until I get a better grasp of the topic.

            This is truly new ground for me, so please forgive the actions of a hot-head who needs to learn not to rush into situations half-cocked.

          • @Ryan Tani

            "Frank-ness"

            Bad puns? Nooooooooo!!!!

            Please sir, anything but that! I'll behave – I promise!

            Just don't hit me with another 🙁

        • Although it is my fervent hope that people will be "convinced to my side", I know it is not something that I can do. It is a personal decision- sometimes intellectual, sometimes emotional. All I can do is speak my truth. I cannot apologize for showing my own emotions because this is my truth. Maybe not the right place since this is Free "Thinkers" but this is my process.

          You said so yourself that you were disturbed. And that is why I said your reaction was normal. I believe it is the psychopaths who will enjoy torturing animals.

          Long before we walked into the restaurant, the animal has been killed. True in the literal sense. But as long as we continue the cycle of demand, the restaurant will continue to get the meat from its supplier, its supplier from the slaughterhouse, the slaughterhouse from the factory farm. I don't think people who eat meat are immoral at all. I was a heavy meat-eater most of my life. I just think most of us cannot see that the connection is closer than we think. That we made the choice, and everyday, we continue to make the choice. I cannot answer all your questions because I do not have all the information. But my position stands that there must be a better way to live than this. There must be.

          To answer your question, for me, anyone in the industry contributed to it. But I am not going to fault the waiter who has 5 kids to raise and cannot find another job for taking that particular job. I, however, can make more conscious choices, because my living conditions are much better and I am under no such pressure. I am infinitely thankful for that.

          I repost my questions: What do you have against a world that is vegan, wherein we do not use animals and we continue to have an abundance of food, clothes, entertainment etc? What does this world view violate? Whom does it harm?

          • None if I think about it. On the contrary, a world where we don't have to fight wars over food or resources would actually be beautiful.

            Norman Borlagu would cry manly tears if he had ever lived to see that happen.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug

            But if you will allow my sci-fi geekiness to play a bit on your idea of this world, I believe I have heard of an alien race that fits your profile of a vegan society somewhat: Quarians from Mass Effect 🙂

            http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_…

            Alt-F for the segment on "Quarian Liveships"

          • ah, if given the sci-fi route, I'd vote to develop photosynthetic cells for human augmentation 😀 if we were at least partially solar-powered, we'd be less dependent on consuming other living things for sustenance.

            other than having morbidly obese sun-bathers, that'd be cool 😛

          • Why do we have to be obese if we take in too much sun? I was thinking that the excess energy could simply be converted into something more practical.

            Remember: Superman derives his power from the earth's sun 🙂

            And besides, I'd rather be like Bender – powered by beer! XD

          • Exactly. How wonderful it could be if animals could live the length of their natural lives with their own families, if every single human being in the world can be fed, if we can eat healthfully…

            Thanks for the links. Will find the time to read them.

  9. Innerminds, that is where our positions differ. You are for animal welfare. I am for animal rights.

    When I first stopped my conscious use of animals, I also didn't know where I stood. If I know for sure that an animal has led a good life, would I eat it? That question lingered in the first few months. Now, I have to say I have no intellectual argument to back it up. I mean, I could talk about exploitation and the property status of animals, but it somehow doesn't feel as true as my instinctive sense of right and wrong, and that is- I no longer want animal products, I don't need them, and I won't have them.

    I am not a wild animal and I don't live in the jungle. I am lucky enough to have the luxury of choice to be vegan without sacrificing anything in my life.

    I know that by posting here, I will be getting feedback here and there that require me to defend my position logically. The ironic thing is, I find my "awakening" less intellectual and more experiential.

    Nonetheless, thanks for giving the animal rights issue the time and attention you have. Regardless of people's reactions, I do feel some hope when people become more aware of it.

  10. As a man who reads history, I am rather appalled that you would equate what happens in a slaughterhouse to the murder and genocide of entire races of people.

    PETA itself attempted to equate what happens in KFC poultry farms as something tantamount to the holocaust.
    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283452

    Try telling the holocaust survivors that you're now equating the brutality they went through to chickens.

    I feel your article has misplaced its sympathies.

      • So you would attribute as much empathy for a bunch of chicken herded in a poultry farm to, let's say, the illegal detainees we have in our own prisons?

        • Why the need to weigh them against each other? Assuming the answer is "no, I feel more empathy towards the illegal detainees", what is the point you are making?

    • do we have to quantify suffering? to weigh who suffers more? say, a suffering chicken is only worth 1/10 of a suffering person? I hope it won't come to that. the very fact that there is suffering of any sort should already trigger one's humanistic sympathies towards other sentient beings.

      but i agree with twin that PETA's shock tactics are uncouth. just like the theism-atheism switch, you just can't convert someone to vegetarianism through inane preaching and terror propaganda. it just pisses everyone off. meeting a few good vegetarians personally who are living testimonials towards living a sustainable and sensible lifestyle? that may be the big ticket.

      • And what do you call the video that was posted on chicken farms?

        That video would have all of us assuming that ALL livestock farms put their animals through the same amount of brutality.

        My point is that there are more humane farms that do exist; free-roaming chickens, traditional farms, etc.

        Then there is the greenpeace as a source. With all due respect to Nancy, I do not trust that group. I reported on them before during my stint as a video game reporters, and I've seen how some of their ratings work. Quite frankly, their coverage of companies such as Nintendo was poorly done, and alarmist.

        In fact, most of the sources posted are far too pro-vegan. I think her assertions would be far more solid if she justified her case by using third-party, non-agenda driven groups and think tanks.

        Perhaps lab reports proving the advantages of vegan living. In short, solid, empirical data please.

        • Is a group like Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine pro-vegan? You can say yes. After having all the information they need, their position is pro-vegan.

          If it's intellectual discussion you are interested in, look up Gary Francione's work: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/

          For your distrust of Greenpeace, here is a link with UN's full report: http://www.worldalmanac.com/blog/2007/01/livestoc…

          There is no such thing as humane farms in my pro-vegan biased opinion. I just think eating animals is wrong. My dog seems to live a pretty good life, but I'm not going to eat him when he dies.

          • //I just think eating animals is wrong.//

            I disagree. Eating animals is not wrong per se. In the wild animals are being eaten by other animals everyday. What I deem wrong is the herding of animals. All animals die; it's how they live that matters. And that is why as much as possible I only eat those animals that live in the wild or in the sea.

          • hehe, I mulled over the "roadkill argument" Dawkins raised in the video and if you think about it, eating animals that died naturally can't ever be commercially feasible because:

            -farming animals until they die of old age raises the costs signigifantly
            -meat from old foggies would be tougher
            -you'd have to do an autopsy to determine the cause of death to make sure it's safe to consume, remember it didn't die at the peak of health, it could be some horrible disease you could catch if you ate its contaminated meat

            so then the conclusion is:
            – the commercial scenario: a meat industry that relies on animals that died naturally is not feasible
            – the DYI scenario: even if you chanced upon roadkill or your own pet died, you still wouldn't eat it for hygienic purposes (unless you're highly skilled in conducting veterinary autopsies to determine if its safe to eat)

          • mmmm… yummy! 3-day old roadkill 😀 the meat must be melt-off-the-bone tender if already post-rigor mortis.

            unfortunately, its hard to get a suitably meaty specimen of gourmet delicacy in manila. the occasionally trampled cat or dog here have already been run over a hundred time or more by 18-wheeler trucks or bigger. so you'd end up eating more asphalt than roadkill… which isn't entirely a bad thing because I heard its chock-full of essential minerals and also provides dietary roughage.

            Which reminds me… may proponents na dito of vegan diets, carnivorous diets here… nasan na yung mga geo-phage (is that the correct term?) activists? you only eat non-sentient rocks… you love the earth so much that you will literally eat earth 😀

  11. Thanks for the comments, everyone. I'm glad people have taken some interest in this. I only covered the animal rights and human welfare angle. I encourage everyone to read more on the environmental aspects and world hunger aspects of veganism.

    I think children are definitely more connected to animals and if they start early on they will not even acquire the taste of animal meat. Realistically, though, you cannot get children to live a veg*n life if the parents themselves cannot commit to it. I heard of some situations wherein children wanted to be veg*n but their parents will not support them. They are given the choice of eating animals or eating nothing at all. Sadly, the animal agriculture spends a lot of money on propaganda so most people think animal products are necessary for good health.

    Ethics-wise, fish are also sentient animals so the same arguments apply. Health-wise they are full of mercury. Omega 3 derived from flax seeds and flax oil is safer. By-catch is another environmental issue in eating fish.

    As for food, the tip is to eat a wide variety or go for different colors. Most people find it surprising that I don't even like salad. I like cooked food, anything from vegetable tempura to curry to gising gising (without the pork). People's Palace, Healthy Kitchen, and Greens have a good vegetarian menu. At home, I cook simple dishes like tofu scramble (instead of scrambled eggs), stir-fry veggies, sauteed broccoli etc.

    The nutrient that veg*ns tend to lack is Vitamin B12 (not protein, surprise surprise). This is because B12 is derived from bacteria. We cannot get B12 from most fruits and vegetables now because we wash them so thoroughly. I take one 1000mcg- B12 lozenge around once a week. B12 is necessary to guard against infections. Also, if you want to go veg*n and take supplements, take ones without iron (unless you're anemic). We get plenty of iron and the iron content in supplements may give you an overdose of iron- which is bad! I am obviously not a health expert so do read more on this.

    Is it tough being veg*n? Different people adjust to it differently. My personal experience is that the food part is easy. I do get to pick the restaurant most of the time when I'm with friends. I never really had cravings because after I watched so many undercover investigations, I have lost my appetite for animals. So when people eat crispy pata in front of me, I do not feel envious, I feel repulsed. I just don't want it any more than you would want a monkey for dinner.

    As for the label vegetarian or vegan, my intention is not to be self-righteous. I think it creates a lot of confusion when people like Oprah proclaim that she's going to be vegan for 21 days. I think veganism has more to do with the intention and motivation of doing it. But you are right, the label is not important. As John Robbins said, "I don’t care whether you call yourself a vegetarian, a vegan, or an asparagus. I care whether you live in accord with your values, whether your life has integrity and purpose, whether you act with compassion for yourself and for all of life."

    Some Useful References:
    1. Vegan. For the People. For the Planet. For the Animals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6_hjA4cdjM
    2. Undercover Videos
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4
    3. Vegetarian Starter Kits
    http://www.veganoutreach.org/guide/gce.pdf http://pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/index.html
    4. Nutrition
    http://www.goveg.com/optimal_vegan_nutrition.asp
    5. Vegetarian Podcast
    http://feeds.feedburner.com/VegetarianFoodForThou…
    6. Earthlings Movie
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=636187296…
    7. Environment Stats
    http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/getinvolved/green-g…
    8. World Peace Diet
    http://worldpeacediet.org/download.htm

    =)

  12. Frank is right. Before discussing veganism/vegetarianism, we should have first read this and watched the videos you and Ram mentioned. Maybe we can continue the discussion on our next meetup. You and Ram could teach practical first steps to those who are interested in living the nonmeat-eating lifestyle. Anyway, thanks for writing this, Nancy. (And on such short notice 🙂 )

  13. "I have to admit that I cringe a little whenever I meet people who declare themselves as vegetarians or vegans when all they do is keep certain items off their plates."

    i think the formal definition, however, provides for their inclusion as vegans. no true scotsman, anyone? XD

    • i believe your issuance of "the no true Scotsman" applies to vegetarians, but not vegans. The author is wrong to "cringe" towards people who claim to be vegetarians, but reasonable enough to cringe towards who claim as vegans. Vegetarianism is a dietary practice (which is keeping certain items off their plates), veganism is a lifestyle choice (which is not limited to eating).

  14. Hey Nancy, great article.

    I must admit I'm not a full-on vegetarian but only abstain from eating beef due to Buddhist traditional reasons. But the reasons are somewhat parallel, its a reminder that benevolence should extend not only to other people but to animals who can feel pain as well.

    I experienced going purely vegetarian on while on a retreat in Taiwan a while back and I hardly missed meat at all, what with the amazing vegetarian dishes they have there. The stuff they can do when they get creative with tofu and gluten is just crazy 😀

    But here in the Philippines, its tough being vegetarian. If its not the same old salads and mashed potato from fastfood, you're stuck with pinakbet and talong in filipino restos which gets old pretty fast while you see your friends having crispy pata and sisig, its enough to make the strongest resolve buckle in, espcially when you're just a newbie vegetarian. There are only a few good vegetarian restaurants in the metro that I know of (got any you can recommend?)and if you choose to eat at home, its hard to prepare your own meals just for yourself when you're living with non-vegetarians.

    Perhaps you can share tips of how to start easing your way to vegetarianism for those who want to try it out? I'd also like to get your take on the social aspect of going vegetarian, like how you deal with eating out with non-vegetarians. There's usually a bit of awkwardness when you order food just for you when everyone else is sharing.

    • wes, you can try going Chinese.

      The fun thing about being fil-chi is that given how diverse chinese cuisine is, you can actually go veggie for up to weeks and not really notice it.

      Happened during my family tour of Beijing – we had meat only once during the two-week trip, and we didn't go hungry XD

      Indian cuisine is also vegetarian-friendly, if you don't mind spicy food.

    • it may be anecdotal, but i can attest that i never needed supplements when i was vegan. I don't know about others. I guess when we ask for data, there would be for arguments for and against.

  16. "Either one is a vegan or one is not." – This establishment of an absolute binary is one of the reasons why i eschewed the label and disassociated myself from it.

    Don't get me wrong – I'm lacto-ovo vegetarian now and was a strict vegetarian (plus other lifestyle choices qualified me as vegan) for 5 years. So that's a total of 10 years with the accompanying radical ecological activism. I'm not someone who will diss you due to some human progress philosophy that would brand you as anti-human (though i am quite sure a lot of the FF people will, based on my earlier engagements with them), but don't you think what i pointed out previously is valid as a sanctimonious statement?

    But enough of my rants. I may have broke with the label, but i'm still for (most of) its ideas. So to support your endeavor and for other readers to learn more, here's a conversation between Peter Singer (author of Animal Liberation) and Richard Dawkins (the ultimate freethinker matinee idol).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYYNY2oKVWU

    • why not pesco-vegetarian?

      health-wise, fish is sensible food
      ethics-wise, being caught from the ocean is fair game as we played the predator-prey relationship (natural) instead of say growing chickens in farms like they were vegetables instead of of animals (unnatural) and as the video mentioned, their nervous systems are more primitive compared to mammals being killed for food

    • That video explains why I can't justify my meat-eating even to myself.

      Since a large part of taste is about getting used to a particular dish and noticing subtle tastes past the more obvious ones (such as the bitterness of ampalaya, which I still completely dislike), what if children were targeted by vegan food product marketers? (Sort of like indoctrination. Haha.) That way, when they grow up, they are not only morally revolted by meat, their taste buds will agree. (I am only being half-facetious.)

  17. Thanks for this great post, Nancy, and welcome to the FF! 🙂

    This reminds me of the Boston Legal episode "The Chicken and the Leg":

    Carl Sack: Do you realize chickens are smarter than dogs? Much, much smarter than horses. And we call them fowl. How sad that the chicken by far is the most abused animal on the planet. Raised in crates less than a square foot, the ends of their, beaks snapped off after hatching, pumped up with antibiotics to keep them alive in conditions that would otherwise kill them. Genetically altered so that they grow twice as fast, sent off to the slaughterhouse after only six weeks of living, typically in open crates where millions of them either freeze to death or get baked alive. The ones who do arrive undead are scaled to de-feather them. Then they are hung up-side down and electrocuted just enough so they don’t flap around while getting their throats slit. It’s not good to be a chicken. Now, the cock-fighters… they get real food. They get real room to move. They’re often loved as pets. They get at least two good years before they’re even asked to do combat. And if he’s a really good fighter, he gets to retire to stud service, where he could live the life of … well, of Denny Crane. The simple truth is that if a chicken is in this country hopes to be afforded a modicum of dignity, he has to fight. Studies show they might actually enjoy it.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

SUBSCRIBE

Stay Updated

Subscribe now

REPORT

Secularism Violations

Report here

one who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief; one who doubts or denies religious dogma

Contact us at [email protected]

© 2021 Filipino Freethinkers. All rights reserved.

Menu

Blog

Featured Articles