.png)
In November of 1944, a gentleman named Donald Watson publised the very first edition of "The Vegan News," Now called "The Vegan Magazine." It was in this document where the word "vegan" was first defined.
...ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.
In this document, Watson also talked of the trouble of the term "lacto-vegetarian," an alternative form of "vegetarianism" which describes a vegetarian who consumes dairy. This may seem an odd prefix to the reader as we currently define a "vegetarian" as someone who consumes dairy anyway. However, the word "vegetarian" once referred to a similar diet as is prescribed by a vegan lifestyle. Some dictionaries still define it this way.
Lacto-vegans etc.
In his discussion of lacto-vegetarians, he was optimistic of them as people, but noted the inconsistency of a "lacto vegetarian" diet with vegan values.
To resign oneself to lacto-vegetarianism as a satisfactory solution to the diet problem is to accept a sequence of horrible farmyard and slaughter-house incidents as part of an inevitable Divine Plan. Need it be added that it would imply too accepting the spectacle of a grown man attached to the udder of a cow as a dignified and rational intention on the part of Nature!
The idea of veganism was to preserve a word to describe those of us who abstain from the use of any animal for any reason to our highest practical abilities.
Of course, sooner or later, someone would come along and start making their own versions, doing the very same thing to the meaning of veganism as was done to vegetarianism.
A few days ago, I learned of an individual who started their own site on what they called lactoveganism to address the need for a word to describe vegans who consume dairy.
You may be asking yourself, “What does lactovegan mean?”. Well, lactovegans are individuals who limit their dietary intake to products that include anything considered vegan and dairy products.
Why invent a new term? In American society, the term vegan is very well understood. But, everybody has their own definition of vegetarianism. Depending upon indivdual interpretation, a vegetarian food may include dairy, eggs or fish. To overcome this vagueness in description of individuals who do not consume meat, eggs, fish etc. but do consume veggies and dairy, we use the term lactovegan.
When word got out on Twitter, the @lactovegan individual was apparently impaled by a storm of disagreement.
@lactovegan replied to the statement "It is not possible to be a lactovegan" with "Yes it is. We are." I'm not sure who the "we" is but perhaps there is more than one person out there who doesn't see any problem with calling a vegan who consumes dairy a "lactovegan."
The problem with "forms" of veganism
.jpg)
It's understandable to put conditions in front of some words. For instance, a union carpenter is different from a carpenter having not the word "union" before his name. However, being a part of a union does not defy the characteristic of being a carpenter. But some conditions do defy the characteristic.
The word "lactovegan" doesn't make any more sense than "out-of-work employee" or "nonviolent murderer." Murder is always a violent act; it would have to be or it wouldn't be murder. This goes beyond being a matter of opinion--it's a matter of definition. For the same reason, the word "vegan" describes a lifestyle of non-violence, one which does not use animals as property or as means of consumption.
This same argument applies for an individual who called themselves a "part-time" vegan, because they consumed animals and animal products only on the weekends. Veganism is a lifestyle, not a diet. It means you have taken on the identity of being a vegan not only in the behavior of consumption but in one's personal mindset about animals. If I only murder people on the weekends, does that make me a part time non-murderer?
In addition, the above quoted statement is terribly ironic. The author uses the fact vegetarianism is so losely-defined as a reason to modify veganism. As mentioned before, the very inspiration for creating the word vegan was to absolve oneself from being confused with an individual who diets from some animals but not others. The fact vegetarianism is so loosely-defined is the very reason why it would be disrespectful and counterintuitive to create the term "lacto vegan" How can an indivdual admonish the animal industry while at the same time say the rape, kidnapping, and slaughter of one particular species is justifiable?
The disrespect of such a term doesn't seem to phase the author, however. It is described as more of a trade-off for their own personal convenience.
That is what I wanted to say ["lacto-vegetarian,"] until I realized I had to explain everytime I ate out what my definition of vegetarian was… “No, I don’t eat eggs, No sir, fish is not vegetarian.. bleh bleh”. For some reason everytime I say I am lactvegan, waiter’s tend to understand.. at least here in Cali they do! Or else they ask and I explain and it’s settled once and for all
Comments
I agree. By the same token, veganism is a process, not an endpoint. I think that people who call themselves vegans should continuously strive to seek minimize the suffering they cause to others. When vegans think that by eliminating meat, dairy and eggs that they have done everything in their power to decrease their support for the exploitation of other animals (including human animals) then they have forgotten the meaning of veganism. Just as vegetarians could do better by using alternatives to milk and eggs, "vegans" can do better by going organic, local, veganic, fair trade, etc. It's easy enough to look back at those "vegetarians" who have not come as far in the "vegan" process as we have. But don't forget that even for us "vegans," the process continues.
I assume these are "leather wearing" lactovegans - right? What a farce!
As a vegan, I'd prefer the term lacto stick with vegetarian. When vegitarians grow up they often become vegans.
Allen, I couldn't agree with you more. The world is not perfect and we should all strive to do better. Unfortunately, it seems like there will always be some things that our out of our control. For example, many municipalities filter water through bone chard. Should we not shower? That being said, the idea of a lactovegan is ridiculous! Sorry, but for me, it borders on offensive. Veganism is a philosophy. If you're still consuming dairy, you're either horribly uninformed about the exploitation of cows or you've chosen to willingly participate in it. Either way, you're not vegan.
Erm, this kind of vegetarianism already exists - it has been called pure vegetarian, and is the basis of many Indian diets.
And doesn't lacto-vegetarian already mean one who abstains from eggs and meat but not milk?
I think the word vegan emerged to distance itself from vegetarianism. It's a shame that it's getting stolen from vegans again to potentially create further ambiguity for vegans trying to explaining their lifestyle. Why wasn't lacto-vegetarian good enough? I think that clearly explains it without needing a new word.
I don't know where this person lives in cali, but I'm from there, and the word vegan confuses waiters enough, let alone trying to introduce lacto-vegan. I don't see what problems they're solving there.
Ugh. This op-ed and the comments about it merely confirm why I think most vegans are utter twats. You're a preachy, pretentious, condescending lot who seem more interested in petty infighting than in bringing about meaningful change that improves peoples' lives. On top of that, many of the vegans I personally know have serious eating disorders and are using veganism to mask that. Yes, I have met a few smart, committed, healthy vegans, but they were few & far between.
Just out of curiosity: If you had a nasty, debilitating medical condition that could be cured or significantly improved but only with a drug that had been tested on animals, would you take that drug?
Veganism has a strong relation with the concept of necessity; 99,99% of animal use is unnecessary and 99,99% of animal use causes them harm therefore it is wrong to use animals. The situation you depict falls in the 0,0001% of situations where animal use is necessary for a person to function. Justifying a wrong by another wrong ("I *need* to participate in 0,0001% of animal use so I might as well participate in 100% even if 99,99% of it is unnecessary") is a logical fallacy.
You need to understand a vegan diet isn't necessarily healthy. There are unhealthy vegans. There are far more unhealthy nonvegans, bc plant-based diets are by default healthier than other diets. Vegans, just like non vegans, can have eating disorders. Someone who has an ED and pretends to be a vegan to hide it isn't a vegan. You're pointing out attitudes that both vegans and non vegans have, but you seem convinced they are only a problem when vegans display them. Newspapers will report that a child died from a "vegan diet", well, vegan or not, feeding your child only potatoes or only meat or only eggs will kill him (malnutrition). It's not a problem in relation to veganism, it's a problem in relation with human ignorance. Vegans can be ignorant about nutrition, but so can nonvegans.
Your arguments are anecdoctical, they do not hold against the fact several studies showed vegans to be *in average* and logically more healthy than nonvegans. Here is one: veganforum(DOT com)/forums/showthread.php?24-Nutrient-deficiencies-more-common-in-meat-eaters-than-in-vegans
Is "preaching" for equality a bad thing in your eyes? Was MLK a "preacher" for equality between all humans, and was it a bad thing? Why is it different when we "preach" for equality between all sentient beings? Because speciesism; you value humans more than other species based on an irrelevant criterion: specie. What matters is sentience. Adam's article isn't offensive, it's not rude, pretentious or condescending, it's accurate, well elabored and argumentated. You can disagree with him, but saying what he wrote, basically, "sucks", is, again, a logical fallacy. Starting your comment by insulting all vegans is an injust and unjustified generalization (another logical fallacy).
Who knew us pointing out LactoVegan ,asking people to contact them and tell them there was no such thing, would go so far on Twitter and off of Twitter (multiple people have blogged about it and people have left comments on the LactoVegan blog, lactovegan.wordpress.com/, even though he/she/they have not posted all of the comments).
It is quite possible it is just someone trying to mess with Vegans. Seems like they have went through a little bit of work doing it (setting up a Twitter and getting followers, setting up a blog, making multiple posts that are real looking, adding sidebar information,etc). Not a ton of work,but still.
They have been sort of weird though. They have retweeted messages from us and others that asked people to tell LactoVegan there is no such thing. They also recently made a small blog linking to here.
This was my message to her/him/them because he didn't approve a similar post to the blog.
shorttext.com/887azuzk4
Diana, I strongly disagree with your mal-nutrition logic. I know many vegans who are in way better shape and health that meat-eaters.
But, at the same time, don't dare to be sensible. Vegan's hate that.
It's not about "infighting." It's about effective advocacy. In a day and age when "vegetarian" means anything from, "I eat no animal products" to "I don't eat beef, but I'm fine with anything else" we *have to* have a clear understanding in the minds of the general public just *what it is* we're actually advocating for. "Lacto-vegan" is counterproductive to that effort.
Oh I just LOVE people like Diana. You know they type "Stop talking about your lifestyle! I don't want to see it, I don't want to hear it, I don't want to know about it! Get into the closet, VEGAN! You have no rights!" Then they go onto our websites and bitch some more about how *WE* are preachy.
@Diana you are a very toxic person, probably a side-effect of all the animal products you consume. I would suggest a detoxification program that will allow you to emit the toxicity from your body so that your being refreshes as a whole, your mind clears, and your attitude improves. You don't insult us with your petty words because you're obviously just offended by the vegan lifestyle as it challenges your own. You are what you eat, and you sound like an enraged animal.
I invite you to see my blog. lactovegan(dot)blogspot(dot)com
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!