Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote:
This is really, *really* good.
Is honey the dairy of the insect world?
By Daniel Engber
There's never been a better time to be a half-assed vegetarian. Five
years ago, the American Dialect Society honored the word flexitarian for
its utility in describing a growing demographic—the "vegetarian who
occasionally eats meat." Now there's evidence that going flexi is good
for the environment and good for your health. A study released last
October found that a plant-based diet, augmented with a small amount of
dairy and meat, maximizes land-use efficiency. In January, Michael Pollan
distilled the entire field of nutritional science into three rules for a
healthy diet: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." According to a
poll released last week, Americans seem to be listening: Thirteen percent
of U.S. adults are "semivegetarian," meaning they eat meat with fewer
than half of all their meals. In comparison, true vegetarians—those who
never, ever consume animal flesh—compose just 1 percent. [that figure is >> almost certainly too high - Prof. Canoza]
The flexitarian ethic is beginning to creep into the most ardent sector
of the meat-free population: the vegans. In recent years, some in the
community have begun to loosen up the strict definitions and bright-line
rules that once defined the movement. You'll never find a self-respecting
vegan downing a glass of milk or munching on a slice of buttered toast.
But the modern adherent may be a little more accommodating when it comes
to the dairy of the insect world: He may have relaxed his principles
enough to enjoy a spoonful of honey.
There is no more contentious question in the world of veganism than the
one posed by honey. A fierce doctrinal debate over its status has raged
for decades; it turns up on almost every community FAQ and remains so
ubiquitous and unresolved that radio host Rachel Maddow proposed to ask
celebrity vegan Dennis Kucinich about it during last year's CNN/YouTube
presidential debate. Does honey qualify as a forbidden animal product
since it's made by bees? Or is it OK since the bees don't seem too put out by making it?
Old-guard vegans have no patience for this sort of equivocation: Animal
products are off-limits, period. Indeed, the first Vegan Society was
created in 1944 to counter the detestable, flexitarian tendencies of
early animal rights activists. Founder Donald Watson called their
namby-pamby lacto-vegetarianism "a halfway house between flesh-eating and
a truly human, civilized diet" and implored his followers to join him in
making the "full journey." That journey, as the society has since defined
it, takes no uncertain position on honey—it's summarily banned, along
with bee pollen, bee venom, propolis, and royal jelly.
The hard-liners argue that beekeeping, like dairy farming, is cruel and
exploitative. The bees are forced to construct their honeycombs in racks
of removable trays, according to a design that standardizes the size of
each hexagonal chamber. (Some say the more chaotic combs found in the
wild are less vulnerable to parasitic mites.) Queens are imprisoned in
certain parts of the hive, while colonies are split to increase
production and sprinkled with prophylactic antibiotics. In the meantime,
keepers control the animals by pumping their hives full of smoke, which
masks the scent of their alarm pheromones and keeps them from defending
their honey stores. And some say the bees aren't making the honey for us,
so its removal from the hive could be construed as a form of theft. (Last
year's animated feature, Bee Movie, imagined the legal implications of this idea.)
[the rest at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2008/07/the_great_vegan_honey_debate.html]
The article is from 2008, and some of the embedded links in the Slate
page are now defunct. One of them is worth elaborating, because of
several great things it illustrates about the irrationality known as
"veganism." It's in the third paragraph: "A fierce _doctrinal debate_
over [honey's] status has raged for decades..." The first interesting
thing is where the link used to go. It went to a site called
VeganMeat.com that is no longer operating. "VeganMeat.com" - that's
simply hilarious in and of itself. I doubt that it was trying to sell
real meat; rather, it probably was selling products that appeal to that
comical "vegan" desire for foods that resemble meat.
The second interesting thing is the idea conveyed by the literal words
"doctrinal debate." "veganism" is inextricably tied up with politics,
specifically Marxian politics regarding so-called "exploitation." I
explained long ago that "veganism" is nearly always a marker for far-left
politics. Not all leftists are "vegan" or even vegetarian, but nearly
all "vegans" are far-left zealots. "Doctrinal debate" evokes the image
of the "Disabled LGBT Maoists Club" sitting up at 3:00am in the
university dorm room arguing whether or not bottled water is "vegan."
"veganism" is bullshit.
Vegans tend to be far-left? Interesting.
This is really, *really* good.
Is honey the dairy of the insect world?
By Daniel Engber
There's never been a better time to be a half-assed vegetarian. Five
years ago, the American Dialect Society honored the word flexitarian for
its utility in describing a growing demographic—the "vegetarian who occasionally eats meat." Now there's evidence that going flexi is good
for the environment and good for your health. A study released last
October found that a plant-based diet, augmented with a small amount of
dairy and meat, maximizes land-use efficiency. In January, Michael Pollan distilled the entire field of nutritional science into three rules for a healthy diet: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." According to a
poll released last week, Americans seem to be listening: Thirteen percent
of U.S. adults are "semivegetarian," meaning they eat meat with fewer
than half of all their meals. In comparison, true vegetarians—those who never, ever consume animal flesh—compose just 1 percent. [that figure is almost certainly too high - Prof. Canoza]
The flexitarian ethic is beginning to creep into the most ardent sector
of the meat-free population: the vegans. In recent years, some in the community have begun to loosen up the strict definitions and bright-line rules that once defined the movement. You'll never find a self-respecting vegan downing a glass of milk or munching on a slice of buttered toast.
But the modern adherent may be a little more accommodating when it comes
to the dairy of the insect world: He may have relaxed his principles
enough to enjoy a spoonful of honey.
There is no more contentious question in the world of veganism than the
one posed by honey. A fierce doctrinal debate over its status has raged
for decades; it turns up on almost every community FAQ and remains so ubiquitous and unresolved that radio host Rachel Maddow proposed to ask celebrity vegan Dennis Kucinich about it during last year's CNN/YouTube presidential debate. Does honey qualify as a forbidden animal product
since it's made by bees? Or is it OK since the bees don't seem too put out by making it?
Old-guard vegans have no patience for this sort of equivocation: Animal products are off-limits, period. Indeed, the first Vegan Society was
created in 1944 to counter the detestable, flexitarian tendencies of
early animal rights activists. Founder Donald Watson called their
namby-pamby lacto-vegetarianism "a halfway house between flesh-eating and
a truly human, civilized diet" and implored his followers to join him in making the "full journey." That journey, as the society has since defined
it, takes no uncertain position on honey—it's summarily banned, along
with bee pollen, bee venom, propolis, and royal jelly.
The hard-liners argue that beekeeping, like dairy farming, is cruel and exploitative. The bees are forced to construct their honeycombs in racks
of removable trays, according to a design that standardizes the size of
each hexagonal chamber. (Some say the more chaotic combs found in the
wild are less vulnerable to parasitic mites.) Queens are imprisoned in certain parts of the hive, while colonies are split to increase
production and sprinkled with prophylactic antibiotics. In the meantime, keepers control the animals by pumping their hives full of smoke, which
masks the scent of their alarm pheromones and keeps them from defending
their honey stores. And some say the bees aren't making the honey for us,
so its removal from the hive could be construed as a form of theft. (Last year's animated feature, Bee Movie, imagined the legal implications of this idea.)
[the rest at: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2008/07/the_great_vegan_honey_debate.html]
The article is from 2008, and some of the embedded links in the Slate
page are now defunct. One of them is worth elaborating, because of
several great things it illustrates about the irrationality known as "veganism." It's in the third paragraph: "A fierce _doctrinal debate_
over [honey's] status has raged for decades..." The first interesting
thing is where the link used to go. It went to a site called
VeganMeat.com that is no longer operating. "VeganMeat.com" - that's
simply hilarious in and of itself. I doubt that it was trying to sell
real meat; rather, it probably was selling products that appeal to that comical "vegan" desire for foods that resemble meat.
The second interesting thing is the idea conveyed by the literal words "doctrinal debate." "veganism" is inextricably tied up with politics, specifically Marxian politics regarding so-called "exploitation." I explained long ago that "veganism" is nearly always a marker for far-left politics. Not all leftists are "vegan" or even vegetarian, but nearly
all "vegans" are far-left zealots. "Doctrinal debate" evokes the image
of the "Disabled LGBT Maoists Club" sitting up at 3:00am in the
university dorm room arguing whether or not bottled water is "vegan."
"veganism" is bullshit.
On 8/19/2016 6:33 PM, Ted&Alice wrote:
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote:
This is really, *really* good.
Is honey the dairy of the insect world?
By Daniel Engber
There's never been a better time to be a half-assed vegetarian. Five
years ago, the American Dialect Society honored the word flexitarian for >>> its utility in describing a growing demographic—the "vegetarian who
occasionally eats meat." Now there's evidence that going flexi is good
for the environment and good for your health. A study released last
October found that a plant-based diet, augmented with a small amount of
dairy and meat, maximizes land-use efficiency. In January, Michael Pollan >>> distilled the entire field of nutritional science into three rules for a >>> healthy diet: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." According to a
poll released last week, Americans seem to be listening: Thirteen percent >>> of U.S. adults are "semivegetarian," meaning they eat meat with fewer
than half of all their meals. In comparison, true vegetarians—those who >>> never, ever consume animal flesh—compose just 1 percent. [that figure is >>> almost certainly too high - Prof. Canoza]
The flexitarian ethic is beginning to creep into the most ardent sector
of the meat-free population: the vegans. In recent years, some in the
community have begun to loosen up the strict definitions and bright-line >>> rules that once defined the movement. You'll never find a self-respecting >>> vegan downing a glass of milk or munching on a slice of buttered toast.
But the modern adherent may be a little more accommodating when it comes >>> to the dairy of the insect world: He may have relaxed his principles
enough to enjoy a spoonful of honey.
There is no more contentious question in the world of veganism than the
one posed by honey. A fierce doctrinal debate over its status has raged
for decades; it turns up on almost every community FAQ and remains so
ubiquitous and unresolved that radio host Rachel Maddow proposed to ask
celebrity vegan Dennis Kucinich about it during last year's CNN/YouTube
presidential debate. Does honey qualify as a forbidden animal product
since it's made by bees? Or is it OK since the bees don't seem too put out by making it?
Old-guard vegans have no patience for this sort of equivocation: Animal
products are off-limits, period. Indeed, the first Vegan Society was
created in 1944 to counter the detestable, flexitarian tendencies of
early animal rights activists. Founder Donald Watson called their
namby-pamby lacto-vegetarianism "a halfway house between flesh-eating and >>> a truly human, civilized diet" and implored his followers to join him in >>> making the "full journey." That journey, as the society has since defined >>> it, takes no uncertain position on honey—it's summarily banned, along
with bee pollen, bee venom, propolis, and royal jelly.
The hard-liners argue that beekeeping, like dairy farming, is cruel and
exploitative. The bees are forced to construct their honeycombs in racks >>> of removable trays, according to a design that standardizes the size of
each hexagonal chamber. (Some say the more chaotic combs found in the
wild are less vulnerable to parasitic mites.) Queens are imprisoned in
certain parts of the hive, while colonies are split to increase
production and sprinkled with prophylactic antibiotics. In the meantime, >>> keepers control the animals by pumping their hives full of smoke, which
masks the scent of their alarm pheromones and keeps them from defending
their honey stores. And some say the bees aren't making the honey for us, >>> so its removal from the hive could be construed as a form of theft. (Last >>> year's animated feature, Bee Movie, imagined the legal implications of this idea.)
[the rest at:
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/food/2008/07/the_great_vegan_honey_debate.html]
The article is from 2008, and some of the embedded links in the Slate
page are now defunct. One of them is worth elaborating, because of
several great things it illustrates about the irrationality known as
"veganism." It's in the third paragraph: "A fierce _doctrinal debate_
over [honey's] status has raged for decades..." The first interesting
thing is where the link used to go. It went to a site called
VeganMeat.com that is no longer operating. "VeganMeat.com" - that's
simply hilarious in and of itself. I doubt that it was trying to sell
real meat; rather, it probably was selling products that appeal to that
comical "vegan" desire for foods that resemble meat.
The second interesting thing is the idea conveyed by the literal words
"doctrinal debate." "veganism" is inextricably tied up with politics,
specifically Marxian politics regarding so-called "exploitation." I
explained long ago that "veganism" is nearly always a marker for far-left >>> politics. Not all leftists are "vegan" or even vegetarian, but nearly
all "vegans" are far-left zealots. "Doctrinal debate" evokes the image
of the "Disabled LGBT Maoists Club" sitting up at 3:00am in the
university dorm room arguing whether or not bottled water is "vegan."
"veganism" is bullshit.
Vegans tend to be far-left? Interesting.
Nearly all of them. The right-wing or libertarian "vegan" is rarer than hens' teeth.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 239:29:10 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,320,000 |