My Visit to the Boston Vegetarian Food Festival

Yes it was crowded. A veritable pickpocket's paradise.

I was near Boston last weekend to visit my niece, but decided to drop by the 12th Annual Boston Vegetarian Food Festival to see some friends and what the fuss was all about. (Sorry that my pictures look like they were taken underwater. A finger-smudged iPhone in the dim light of a basketball gym is not a recipe for photographic excellence.)

The fest drew a reasonably diverse crowd - not too hippy, not too white, not too tattooed, not too old or too young. There were so many free samples that I wasn't even tempted by the food for sale (except the ice cream; details below). Many nationally distributed brands were present, as well as a bunch of Boston-area caterers and seed-and-granola roasters (that's not a glib insult; there were actually a lot of people selling seeds and granola). It was great to see that in almost every case, "vegetarian" meant "vegan." The focus was overwhelmingly food-related, though there was a smattering of other stuff.

A Carpenter Glove. The note on the Sox hat was either offering or begging for tickets; I can't recall which.

My favorite non-food item was the Carpenter Trade Company's baseball gloves. While Scott Carpenter played up the leather-free aspect at the veg fest, my impression is that his gloves are accidentally veg*n. The synthetics just perform better, plus his gloves are custom sized and significantly lighter than the standard models. He defaults to wool padding, but you can request a synthetic alternative when he makes your glove.

My least favorite non-food item was Vega. (Just kidding about it being non-food. Sort of. It's so completely gross it must be good for you. I tried it so you don't have to.)

Working hard at Wheeler's Black Label. The elusive Wheeler himself refused to be photographed, claiming he already gets stopped by strangers too often.

My favorite food item was Wheeler's Black Label Vegan Ice Cream (they also have a blog). This stuff is fucking incredible! Inspired by the pioneering work of 19th century African-American ice cream innovator Augustus Jackson, Wheeler made his own machines to churn out the freshest vegan ice cream I've ever tasted. He's is planning to open a shoppe in Kendall Square in Cambridge later this year.

Mike and Glenn from Bumblebar.

Most of the other food was hard to get excited about. There's just nothing too special about vegan chocolate, spices, baked tofu, fruit juice, peanut butter, or energy bars. Actually, there's one energy bar I want to post a shout-out to. I've generally ignored BumbleBars because I assumed they contained honey, but in fact they're vegan and always have been. The BumbleBar crew was super friendly and completely won me over with their unofficial (but oft-recited) slogan of "confusing vegans since 1995." And the bars are pretty tasty, too!

Post Punk Kitchen's Terry, Lolo from Vegan Yum Yum, PPK Isa, and Josh from Herbivore at their vegan hipster mafia table.

What else? The Boston Vegan Association seems to be doing some good work. I didn't go to any of the talks or presentations, but there were a bunch if you like that kind of thing. (Well, I tried to listen to Colleen Patrick-Goudreau's "Cozy Comfort Food for Chilly Nights" but I got bored and left after she spent the first 10 minutes making stale jokes about how normals think vegan food is weird and scary. C'mon, Colleen, you're preaching to the choir here, just get to the cookies already!)

All in all, a good time. If you're in the area when the 13th annual rolls around, definitely check it out. Admission is free, so you don't have much to lose.

Permalink

• 1.

  Comment by Laura Leslie [www] on October 24, 2007 10:57pm:

  I *SO* want some of that ice cream. Perhaps this'll be another place to make a pilgrimage to next time I'm in Boston.
• 2.

  Comment by Quirky on October 24, 2007 11:31pm:

  Aww, Colleen is awesome. Her podcasts opened my eyes and changed me forever.
  Love the slogan for BumbleBar- funny stuff.
• 3.

  Comment by IsaChandra on October 25, 2007 1:07am:

  Like you weren't hanging out at the hipster mafia table the whole time. As. If.
• 4.

  Comment by animalfriendly [www] on October 25, 2007 4:48am:

  Jason, thanks for the nod, and for signing up for our email list. You should have received your first BVA Update as of this posting.
  
  Introduce yourself next time, sir!
• 5.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 25, 2007 10:19am:

  I have been an advocate of vegetarianism for over 35 years and have written a number of books on the subject. I was dismayed that I could not get a booth at the festival last year because we use eggs and dairy products. I think that the Boston Festival should think about changing its name to Boston Vegan Food Festival.
  David Goldbeck
  HealthyHighways.com
• 6.

  Comment by wheelerscrew [www] on October 25, 2007 11:40am:

  Thanks for covering this, and for your kind review of our ice cream!
• 7.

  Comment by ariela on October 25, 2007 1:26pm:

  i want to know why there's never a vegetarian festival in nyc dammit!! >:
• 8.

  Comment by lilacwine on October 25, 2007 10:47pm:

  Mr. Goldbeck,
  With due respect, I am thrilled to pieces that you were not welcome to have a booth at the BVS Food Festival. As someone who has advocated vegetarianism for 35 years, clearly there is no way you can be ignorant of the fact that from any ethical perspective which includes a meaningful desire for justice for our nonhuman animal kin, only veganism qualifies. I am glad that BVS understands and acknowledges this, and that they strive to publicly put forth an ethos of vegetarianism which does not encourage the consumption of products that necessitate the mass killing of innocents. I hope you will follow suit, Mr. Goldbeck. Thirty-five years of denial is plenty long enough, don't you think? And if you're not educated about the many true horrors associated with egg and dairy production, then PLEASE educate yourself and see if the wanton abuse, mutilations and other bodily violations, destruction of families, and slaughter involved are really something you want to continue to, in your words, "advocate".
• 9.

  Comment by Tara on October 26, 2007 3:34pm:

  Man!
  I missed the vegetarian festival. Again! Ugh! I'm going to have to go online and find out more about that ice cream. I just joined by the way. I'm always grateful for anything veggie on the web.:)
• 10.

  Comment by Tara on October 26, 2007 3:37pm:

  I'm from Boston, by the way. :-D
• 11.

  Comment by Laura Leslie [www] on October 26, 2007 5:39pm:

  Hey, Tara, welcome to SuperVegan! You're welcome to comment on any of our blog posts (even the old ones), and check out our forum if you want to start a new topic.
• 12.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 28, 2007 2:20pm:

  Dear lilacwine,
  Thank you for your comment.
  1. I never in any way criticized veganism. I merely stated that if it is a vegan festival they shouldn't call it vegetarian. Just a matter of honesty.
  2. Since you brought it up, I have learned much from the vegan and animal rights movement. One thing I have always wondered about is what is wrong with eggs from humanely treated hens(other than being eggs from another species)?
  3. I believe if the festival wants to encourage veganism they should be more tolerant of vegetarianism. It is much, much, better than a meat-based diet, but more importantly, many vegans move through vegetarinism to veganism.
  David Goldbeck
  HealthyHighways.com
• 13.

  Comment by BlueButterfly on October 29, 2007 12:40am:

  1. Why can't they call it vegetarian David? Vegan food IS vegetarian. It's not like it was called Boston LACTO-OVO Vegetarian Food Festival.
  2. How can eggs ever be humane? I don't consider holding sentient beings in confinement (slavery) ever humane. In the egg industry, males are considered "garabage". Even when "free-range" 50% of chicks are male and useless to the industry so they are killed. Chickens are also killed when their egg production declines, much earlier than their natural lifespans. And chickens will NEVER give you permission to take their eggs no matter how you treat them. When chickens lay eggs it takes alot of calcium out of their bodies. To replenish this calcium chickens will often consume their eggs. When you take the eggs away you make them unable to do so, resulting in weak chickens.
  3. Tolerant of vegetarianism? When does "vegetarian" mean you HAVE to exploit animals by consuming eggs and dairy? Sorry, but I think the lives of sentient beings are far more important than your desires to have menstrual products of birds and the breastmilk (meant for their babies!) of cows in food. It's just not necessary at all!
• 14.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 29, 2007 8:51am:

  Dear Bluebutterfly,
  
  1. Vegan and vegetarian are different. Words matter. From Wikipedia: Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes all animal flesh, including poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, and slaughter by-products. There are variations that admit dairy products, eggs and/or products from animal labor such as honey.
  
  Veganism in comparison, excludes all animal products from diet and in some definitions from attire also, whether or not the production of clothing or items has involved the actual death of an animal (dairy, eggs, honey, wool, silk, down feathers, etc.)
  
  2. I raised my question about eggs very carefully: Can eggs be humanely produced? I get my eggs from a local farmer whose hens run freely. As matter of fact, I once had a few hens. We fed them organic vegetable trimmings from the health food store and feed. When they stopped laying we gave them to a farmer who let them run free until they died. Many humans don’t get treated this well. You say :”And chickens will NEVER give you permission to take their eggs no matter how you treat them.” Do you have pets? Condone having pets? Do they give permission?
  
  3. I know the arguments about cow’s milk. If you notice, I never mentioned milk in my post.
  David Goldbeck
  HealthyHighways.com
• 15.

  Comment by carlottavaldez [www] on October 29, 2007 12:02pm:

  Mr. Goldbeck makes a valid point: if a vegetarian vendor isn't allowed at a "vegetarian" festival, there is certainly an issue here. Not an issue that I myself (a vegan, before you start with the yelling again) feel is best addressed with shrill claims of "exploitation," especially with someone who I imagine has heard this before.
  
  But since you guys seem like you'd be amenable to my new project: I'm pleased to announce the creation of my new Vgn Society, for those who wish to scream louder, throw *more* fake blood and not even dare to make eye contact with animals. Our first plan of action will be to remove all household pets in the Park Slope area and return them to the wild. Bring your favorite raw hemp spirulina granola for snack time afterwards. Viva la revolucion!
• 16.

  Comment by lilacwine on October 29, 2007 3:18pm:

  Hi Mr. Goldbeck.
  Thanks for responding. I never felt that you criticized veganism, but still appreciate your trying to clarify that you didn't mean to put it down.
  
  I'd like to address the other points you made, and hope you can read with an open mind. I realize that I probably came across pretty harshly in my first response to you, so it's important to let you know that there's no personal anger, I just feel passionate about exposing the truth of the issues, esp. the animal issues. Thanks for engaging the dialogue.
  
  Vegetarianism defined as abstinence from animal flesh is thought of by most people worldwide as a diet which spares animals from slaughter, and is used to connote such. However, the factual truth is that whenever dairy or egg products are consumed, slaughter of the animals who produced them is funded, the same as it would be with any flesh food.
  
  The practice of abstinence from eggs and dairy as well as meat is required to fulfill that implied goal of vegetarianism (no slaughter). For that reason, many people would like for the word "vegetarian" to stop being used as shorthand for a diet which DOES cause animals to be killed (i.e. lacto-ovo-ism) while connoting harmlessness, and to be reclaimed to actually refer to choices which do not result in the systematic deaths of animals by slaughter (i.e. ethical vegetarianism which is currently referred to as "veganism").
  
  I think it is in part because many of us who are better-informed about the cruelty and slaughter of egg and dairy production *have* been (overly) tolerant of vegetarianism as currently defined (i.e. the consumption of eggs/dairy) and haven't foregrounded the incredible brutality egg and dairy producing animals face before and up to the point of having their lives brutally stolen, that so many people who do not want to be complicit in animal cruelty or killing remain ignorant to the fact that they are very much a part of it, "vegetarian" as they may be, unless they go vegan.
  
  There is no natural law or even logic which says one must first become vegetarian before going vegan, and given that certain segments of the meat industry (beef, for one example) are less cruel than egg and dairy production, it would in fact make more sense for someone who wanted to eliminate all cruelty but felt s/he needed to do so incrementally to give up the eggs and dairy first. They arguably entail some of the greatest cruelties of all animal-food production, far surpassing, for instance the cruelty of beef production (not that ANY of it is anywhere near humane or acceptable. it is all hell). Also, it is entirely possible to go directly from non-veg to vegan, as evidenced by the many people I've met who have done so. Had I known the truth about eggs and dairy when I first ditched meat- not wanting anyone to die for my lunch- I would have become vegan then, for the very same reason.
  
  It is not necessarily factually the case that a meatless diet plus eggs/dairy ("vegetarian") is better for the animals than a diet which includes meat (non-vegetarian). In some cases, this may be so, however in others, clearly it is not. For example, I'd assert that someone who eats steak every night, but avoids eggs and dairy for allergy reasons causes less harm and suffering than a "vegetarian" who consumes a three egg omelet with cheese for breakfast every day and alternates between fettucini alfredo, cheese lasagne, quiche, and macaroni and cheese for lunches and dinners. The first person is funding slaughter of cows, but eating meat from a larger animal (fewer deaths = more "portions"). The second is pouring money into industries in which animals can be starved for up to two weeks, males can be legally ground alive into fertilizer or suffocated to death, animals are violated on "rape racks" in order to get them to reproduce only to have their babies stolen from them almost immediately after birth, and subsidizing the veal industry, etc, etc. As well as funding the slaughter of all the animals involved.
  
  As to the question of what is wrong with eggs from humanely treated birds...Well, where do these birds come from? It's worth looking into commercial hatcheries- the origin of the birds on virtually all commercial farms (not just "factory farms" but free-range ones, too). Where do all the males (roosters) end up? And what happens to the hens when they're no longer producing eggs? There's not a commercial egg farm that isn't complicit in the slaughter of chickens.
  
  Dairy you seem to have more of an understanding of, as you didn't argue the point there. So, I do wonder then why it is that you still use and promote that.
  
  Please check out the following links for more info. I hope this helps you to understand from another perspective, and to make sense of why it is that there is a resistance on the part of vegans and animal rights/animal liberation advocates to perpetuate a traditional notion of "vegetarianism" that leaves the horrible treatment and killing of certain animals unexamined and unaddressed. It's gone on for too long, and it is time to seek justice for these victims, too, as a matter of principle. And as a matter of integrity, using the word vegetarian to infer benevolence/ non-harm to food animals lacks honesty unless it is used to label a lifestyle which actually removes support from the slaughterhouses.
  
  http://www.peacefulprairie.org/outreach/cageFreeEggs.html
  
  http://www.peacefulprairie.org/outreach/humaneFarming.html
  
  http://www.peacefulprairie.org/outreach/theTruthAboutOrganicDairy.html
  
  http://www.peacefulprairie.org/outreach/theTruthAboutOrganicDairy2.html
• 17.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 29, 2007 6:18pm:

  Dear lilacwine,
  
  Before I attempt to reply your last posting, I am wondering why you didn't mention the pet issue.
  
  BTW, open minds are necessary on both sides of a discussion.
  David
• 18.

  Comment by lilacwine on October 29, 2007 10:09pm:

  I certainly don't condone buying or breeding any animals for the purpose of providing companionship to humans. But, of course, I think it is wonderful to provide homes and care for animals who are already currently alive and in need of caretakers. I don't see what this has to do with the egg/dairy issues at all, but if there's a connection I'm not making, I apologize and feel free to point it out.
• 19.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 31, 2007 10:14am:

  Dear lilacwine,
  
  Why doesn't this statement from your posting(above) about hens apply to pets? "I don't consider holding sentient beings in confinement (slavery) ever humane.... . And chickens will NEVER give you permission... to take their eggs no matter how you treat them."
  Is not confining a pet to a house or yard or leashing them confinement? Is owning any animal not "slavery" as you put it? And where is the pet's "permission" (which is so important that you emphasize NEVER in caps)?
  David Goldbeck
  HealthyHighways.com
• 20.

  Comment by Laura Leslie [www] on October 31, 2007 10:51am:

  Erm, not to butt in, but one of the obvious differences is that most people adopt companion animals out of care for the animals themselves. (Generally these are animals that wouldn't be able to survive on their own without human care.) That's far different from breeding animals for the purpose of profiting off of the products of their bodies.
• 21.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 31, 2007 10:59am:

  Laura,
  
  Thanks for your input. This is not a private discussion.
  You say "One of the obvious differences is that most people adopt companion animals out of care for the animals themselves." So, if someone has a pet for a different reason such as their personal pleasure (while treating them well) they shouldn't be allowed? You say "(Generally these are animals that wouldn't be able to survive on their own without human care.)" Really? Cats and dogs can't survive in the wild? You say "That's far different from breeding animals for the purpose of profiting off of the products of their bodies? Do you realize how hard this would be to verify? If I breed pets for a profit no good. But If I mate my dog with a neighbor's dog OK? If I mate my dog with a breeders dog - what then?
  But, in no case have you addressed the main point of my last post which is to address the "permission" issue.
  David
• 22.

  Comment by Laura Leslie [www] on October 31, 2007 11:44am:

  After thousands of years of domestication, no, most dogs and cats can't survive on their own. And when they do it is in dangerous and unhealthy circumstances, since humans have devastated the environments that they could have thrived in. (See the recent JFK airport cat melodrama.)
  
  Most people have pets because it makes them happy to do so AND because they care about the animal they've adopted. As long as they put the animal's health and well-being before their own pleasure (ie not doing anything pleasurable for the human but dangerous/unhealthy for the animal) then it's fine.
  
  This is very different from breeding animals for the purpose of profit, because profit comes before the health and well-being of the animals.
  
  You seem to think this is no different than having a pet. How about answering lilacwine's questions:
  
  "As to the question of what is wrong with eggs from humanely treated birds...Well, where do these birds come from? It's worth looking into commercial hatcheries- the origin of the birds on virtually all commercial farms (not just "factory farms" but free-range ones, too). Where do all the males (roosters) end up? And what happens to the hens when they're no longer producing eggs? There's not a commercial egg farm that isn't complicit in the slaughter of chickens."
• 23.

  Comment by Jason Das [www] on October 31, 2007 12:04pm:

  I just want to say that it is possible to have a pet hen (perhaps a rescue from a work/production/exploitation situation). And it is entirely likely that this hen will lay eggs. And while I wouldn't eat them myself (because they're unhealthy, but mostly because I'm really not into eating menstruation) I wouldn't have a huge problem with anyone who did. But as soon as you're basing a business around these eggs, you've got trouble.
  
  I forget who said it first, but in many ways veganism is both made necessary and made possible by industrial agriculture. This is a good example of that.
• 24.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 31, 2007 12:56pm:

  No one want to address my question about hens or any pet giving permission for their captivity - rescue or not.
  David
• 25.

  Comment by Laura Leslie [www] on October 31, 2007 1:08pm:

  Man, what is your hang-up with "permission"? Animals do not have the intellectual capacity to fully understand the trade-offs involved in their captivity. Humans do, and it's our responsibility to use our understanding in a way that's not exploitative.
  
  My cat doesn't know that he's risking his life when he tries to dart out my apartment door, but I do and I stop him. I'm doing what I know is best for him, because he doesn't have the ability to understand the danger of strangers and dogs and cars. I know from his behavior that he is content with his life and that he's better off living with me than running wild on the streets.
  
  That is so different from keeping an animal in exploitative captivity that I don't even know where to begin. But again, it comes down to doing what's best for the animal versus exploiting the animal for human profit.
  
  I'd like to see you respond to our points before I continue to respond to yours.
• 26.

  Comment by Jason Das [www] on October 31, 2007 1:09pm:

  I can't speak for everyone else, but I don't want to answer your question(s) because you're long-winded, boring, needy, and meddling, David. You don't really seem like someone worth debating, especially not in this context.
• 27.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 31, 2007 1:21pm:

  Wow. Amazing - the trashing I've received from some posting to the board. Very humane.
  The reality is that you have no good answer to the question about "permission". The reason I keep bring it up is that it appears in many ways to be at the heart of the vegan philosophy. (See post 13.) It seems you can give permission for your pet to be your pet, but I can't give permission for my hen (who lives in a humane situation like your pet) to give me eggs??
  Am I "long-winded, boring, needy, and meddling" as Mr. Das says? You'll have to ask the million and half people who have bought my vegetarian cookbooks and guides (and by implication the animals that have not been exploited because of them).
  David
• 28.

  Comment by lilacwine on October 31, 2007 2:49pm:

  RE:
  "Dear lilacwine,
  Why doesn't this statement from your posting(above) about hens apply to pets? "I don't consider holding sentient beings in confinement (slavery) ever humane.... . And chickens will NEVER give you permission... to take their eggs no matter how you treat them."
  Is not confining a pet to a house or yard or leashing them confinement? Is owning any animal not "slavery" as you put it? And where is the pet's "permission" (which is so important that you emphasize NEVER in caps)?
  David Goldbeck
  HealthyHighways.com"
  
  I didn't even make that statement. At least now I understand that what you were trying to do was "catch me" in a contradiction; I honestly had no clue what you were getting at with a question about pets, but now it makes sense. Someone else made the statement you quoted.
  
  In any case, "permission", free-will, guardianship vs. ownership, etc. are interesting concepts, but have nothing to do with the points at hand (at least where I'm coming from). I'm trying to get you to acknowledge that these animals are systematically bred to be used and are then systematically KILLED. A far cry from the situation of a rescued housecat.
• 29.

  Comment by lilacwine on October 31, 2007 2:53pm:

  It would certainly be interesting if we could get a little input from the animals who HAVE been exploited (and, again, KILLED) due in part to the encouragement you've provided in your cookbooks. Would you look those animals in the face and call yourself their advocate? The reality (S.L.A.U.G.H.T.E.R.) is not that incredibly difficult to understand. Can't you just admit that you're encouraging slaughter when you publish new and creative ways to cook up the eggs and breastmilk of animals who will be slaughtered as part of the production process? Really, there isn't any gray area about that; there's nothing to discuss. I don't understand why you can't just admit what is already completely obvious to everyone else involved in this discussion. You're coming across as pathetically ill-informed / willfully ignorant on a topic about which you claim to be expert. Either that, or just delusional.
  
  Dairy and egg producing animals are slaughtered. Fact.
  Do you seriously wish to claim otherwise?
• 30.

  Comment by Edita on October 31, 2007 4:06pm:

  Mr. Goldbeck, you stated that you know the arguments against dairy, (and presumably how the veal industry exists because of the dairy industry) yet you created and sell a "YoChee Maker" on your website as well as a "Eat Well the YoChee Way" Cookbook. Apparently, being armed with all the grim facts about dairy production hasn't stopped you from trying to convince the public that the answer to all their health problems is to guzzle as much spreadable dairy yogurt as they can.
  It's puzzling that you are trying to equate responsible pet adoption with eating animal products.
  My sense is that you know better, but are reacting out of your defenses in trying to find hypocrisy in the vegan philosophy.
• 31.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on October 31, 2007 4:40pm:

  I assume the last unsigned comment above is from Mr. Das. I see apologies are not a part of a humane treatment of humans.
  
  Nowhere in any of my emails (or books) have I defended the inhumane treatment of animals. (I hope you guys will give us some credit for advocating a meatless diet since 1972, when vegetarianism was about as accepted as veganism is today. I like to think that veganism grew out of the vegetarian sensibility that was revived in the '60's.)
  
  I was trying to understand what the problem is with humanely raised and kept hens and I still don't know. (I have the same question about a dairy cows, but didn't want to get into the milk from another species discussion now.) As I wrote earlier, I had hens and when they stopped laying they were "put out to pasture." What is the problem with that? (I am not speaking about slaughtering ANYTHING.)
  
  Edita, First, where did you see that I am "trying to convince the public that the answer to all their health problems is to guzzle as much spreadable dairy yogurt as they can." It's not nice to put words into peoples' mouths. We provide tools for good nutrition. Yogurt is a traditional low-fat food rich in protein, calcium and good bacteria. While you are trying to save animals I am trying to save humans from the current dietary scheme.
  
  Second, yes, I think there is an inherent contradiction in saying its all right to coop up a pet, etc. but it's not OK to derive milk or eggs from a humanely kept cow or hen. When I write a cookbook I cannot account for the sources of ingredients. When I started writing, organic was a joke; today it is mainstream. I see similar progress with dairy and eggs. I am happy to see eggs in the market from free running hens - a big improvement I think. The demand for them, by the way, was not the result of shrill name-calling and the like, but from education. I expect we will see this for dairy too. I look forward to the day when people start using our YoChee cookbook to make YoChee from humanely derived milk. (For the record, YoChee can be made from soy milk too.)
  
  BTW nobody has told me why the Boston Vegetarian Food Festival should not change its name to vegan - which was the reason for my post in the first place.
  David
• 32.

  Comment by lilacwine on November 1, 2007 10:33am:

  i did address the food festival using the word "vegetarian" rather than "vegan". apparently, you don't read anyone else's responses.
  
  again, commercial eggs and dairy entail SLAUGHTERING animals. it's the elephant in the room. you're making yourself look foolish denying it.
• 33.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on November 1, 2007 12:46pm:

  lilacwine,
  Why so nasty? Do my responses appear like I didn't read other posts? How else could I respond? I was saying that in general, I was interested in a discussion on calling something vegetarian when actually it is vegan. You want justice for animals - I want justice for the English language!
  
  You have called me a lot of things (ignorant, in denial, delusional) now its foolish. Is this how we are to have the dialogue you mentioned?
  
  You just won't accept the possibility that there is a humane way for one to have hens and their eggs. Perhaps this possibility is a threat to veganism. When one has a pet dog the owner gives and also receives - love, companionship, etc. Why can't my pet hen (pedigreed - no breeders involved) likewise provide eggs as part of our relationship? Just as I would not SLAUGHTER my dog when it is no longer capable of giving, I would not SLAUGHTER my hen. Isn't this what you are looking for?
  David Goldbeck
  HealthyHighways.com
• 34.

  Comment by homicidalmaniacal on November 1, 2007 1:44pm:

  *cough*
  http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/debradownsth/Trolls.html
• 35.

  Comment by lilacwine on November 1, 2007 6:01pm:

  let's have the name and number of the source where you acquired your hen as well as name and number of the farm where you dumped her when she was no longer useful to you (always a sign of care and concern for an individual's needs) and where she supposedly is/was able to live the rest of her life?
  
  oh, and about the dairy? do you have a rescued cow in your living room as well who just happens to be lactating? and do you assume that the million and a half purchasers of your books do as well? likely, very likely.
• 36.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on November 1, 2007 7:07pm:

  It was a rhetorical question, but I see you didn't get that.
  You have added liar to the insults. Wish I could be as humane as you are. Do you want me to post Don and Maryanne's number? (You, who don't even reveal their identity?)
  
  Cows again? What an obsession. And now sarcasm too and obscure writing. Actually, I was thinking recently about programs that give free goats and cows to poor people. Lifts them out of poverty. But it appears you care more about the cow than the person. (All cows and goats BTW are AKC.)
• 37.

  Comment by lilacwine on November 2, 2007 3:09pm:

  What exactly was a rhetorical question? I'm confused. We're not talking about rhetorical animals on rhetorical farms where they live to a ripe old age and die of natural (yet rhetorical) causes. You may be, but "we" are not.
  
  We are talking about actual animals- actual extant sentient individuals- who are used to produce the actual commercial eggs and breastmilk which people buy (to consume and use in preparing actual recipes such as the ones you have published). Actual sentient beings who are raised on actual farms of varying scales, and whose actual lives are then violently taken by in-no-way-rhetorical slaughter.
  
  I'm happy to reveal my identity. Sarah Florez. White female. 27 years old. Boulder, Colorado. Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary board member. 5'9, reddish brown hair, green eyes. Other questions? Feel free to email me at stipendous@hotmail.com. Details about me are as irrelevant as details about you. This discussion isn't about us, Mr. Goldbeck. It is about the animals. It's about the REALITY of what they endure for eggs and dairy, and the fact that they ARE killed as part of the production process.
  
  IF Don and Maryanne run the "farm" where your hen (is it "hens" now?) supposedly now lives out the rest of her life, I feel it would certainly be appropriate for a concerned citizen to have the name and number of this farm so that we may contact them and ask some simple questions about their animal suppliers and their disposal (of life) methods. If this farm is as wonderful as you imply, they ought to be proud and eager to have an opportunity to answer these basic questions truthfully, since there's no blood on their hands, right?
  
  You seem not interested in answering the question of where this ("your") hen or hens came from in the first place. I wonder why that is.
  
  And yeah, cows again. I know, silly me. Why would someone who cares about animals being allowed to live ("vegetarianism", wasn't it?) bring up such a trivial silly thing as a cow's interest in being free from pain and not having her babies torn from her and then her life stolen. It's all just so incredibly dumb! Pardon my obsessiveness, and my stupidity, please.
  
  I don't think your evasion of that (cow) question has as much to do with not wanting to kindle the issue of drinking from another species as you'd like to have us assume. Could it be that even you can't come up with circuitous enough logic to make it appear that there are commercial farms where all the calves born (in order that their mothers' milk can be taken for commercial gain) to dairy cows, as well as the mother cows themselves are allowed to live 15-20 years beyond the time where their mothers and the female calves yield adequate milk to be commercially profitable, while the farmers continue to dole out the huge sums of money necessary to care for, feed, shelter, provide an environment that respects their needs, and provide veterinary care to them, as well as paying the addition hundreds of dollars for carcass removal when they die of old age? Working closely with Peaceful Prairie, I can tell you it is certainly not cheap or physically easy to provide a decades-long humane and loving environment for a cow. No commercial production farm is doing it. No commercial animal farm is a sanctuary, period. Biological facts (for one, they don't spontaneously lactate out of the blue) and the economic realities mentioned above make slaughter an integral part of the dairy business on any commercial scale, just as it is with eggs, and with flesh "foods".
  
  It's not about rhetorical scenarios, and it's not about us. The animals are slaughtered, and there's no denying it. It's how commercial farms operate and survive. That and reliance on the ignorance of the populace about the suffering of the animals, and in the case of dairy and egg animals, their untimely and violent deaths. I just wish you would turn your advocacy from perpetuating this ignorance to acknowledging and illuminating the facts for people. We all have some power to make the world a better place. Why not try?
  
  Giving up the cheese is no sacrifice when you compare it with the ultimate price paid by the cow whose mastitis ridden udder the breastmilk used to make it came from. Giving up the omelet is no sacrifice when you compare it with the ultimate price paid by the hen whose weak depleted body it came out of. Isn't it logical, isn't it easy to make a different choice when you know someone dies at your hand if you proceed? Vegetarianism SHOULD mean no one has to die... which is why I am glad that BVS strives to use it to refer to No Eggs, No Milk, No Meat.
• 38.

  Comment by bunk existence on November 3, 2007 4:09am:

  Wholesoy & Co. yogurt is pretty damn good.
• 39.

  Comment by GJohans on November 4, 2007 2:59pm:

  I just wanna thank everyone who's taken the time to hammer home that point that David Goldbeck has done nothing to reduce the suffering of animals. I mean as lilacwine has shown it's quite a leap to say that someone who eliminates flesh from their diet has reduced suffering in any way. It could easily be that they have increased it by consuming more dairy and eggs. As there is no ethical reason to follow a ovo-lacto veggie diet it's pretty much just a food preference. I mean he might as well be writing cookbooks for people who don't like onions. Thank you BVS for excluding people like Goldbeck from the festival.
• 40.

  Comment by TraditionalVeg on November 6, 2007 6:51pm:

  Re: Difference between Vegan and Vegetarian
  
  Legalize Vegan and Vegetarian' - Vegans Warn UK Prime Minister
  October 28, 2007 Food & Beverage News
  
  (PRLEAP.COM) Initiatives by vegans for World Vegan Day include a petition to the UK Prime Minister to legislate for a legal definition of the word 'vegan' similar to 'Organic' protection. The UK Government admit there is no legal definition of the word vegan or vegetarian. There is only recently released guidance from the UK Food Standards Agency for manufacturers.
  
  Apart from trading standards regulation that states that products should be suitable for the use intended and trade description regulations there is nothing in law to protect ethical consumers.
  
  As part of a number of initiatives for World Vegan Day, 1st November, Vegans are calling upon the UK Government to draw up a framework using the model of the 'Organic' standard and The Indian Government's experiences to create a legal definition for 'vegan' and 'vegetarian'.....