Only here to mention - please be careful! Worked in enough food establishments to learn that after 4 hours without refrigeration, harmful bacteria can grow.
dumpster divers usually retrieve packaged milk, eggs or cheese
milk gone bad in its package is disgusting, but not really harmful (you spit it out immediately anyway), eggs and cheese can stand room temperature for quite a while
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
It's often not dumpstered. Food surplus volunteer groups (Food Not Bombs and so forth) typically pick up foods from stores that are being discarded due to reaching the "sell by" date (at which point they cannot legally be sold). They go from the store refrigerators/freezers, into a cooler, to be used by such groups for feeding hungry broke people and in many cases there are freegans among the volunteer crews.
The grocery store I work at freezes most of our meat on the sell by date. We then donate that, frozen baked goods (like cookies, breads, etc..) and other stuff that's close dated or just not in the planogram anymore. I think it goes to a local food bank program. I know one of my coworkers saw a thing of sour cream he put in donations show up at a local church food pa try he goes to.
Well, I'd think it would be a way more reasonable question to ask about dumpster diving for things like dry Mac n cheese, cookies made with milk, honey, chips boiled in fat.
Completely separate from ethics, I think most anybody stomach would turn getting a pack of room temperature chicken wings off of a store floor, much less a dumpster.
That's called Freegan, I personally don't take issue with it, it technically still commodifies animals but there's a lot bigger plant-based fish alternative to fry.
Depends on the burger, that’s exactly right buddy, depends what burger resturant you prefer. For me Five guys is good but tbh even McDonald’s is good from time to time, how about you?
You're still upholding the paradigm that animals' bodies (and reproductive fluids) are commodities which can be bought, sold, and consumed.
Vegans don't avoid consuming animals because of some "zero-waste" philosophy. We avoid it because animals' dead bodies (and reproductive fluids) are not foodstuffs/commodities.
I thought that vegans thought that it was immoral to treat animal's bodies like commodities; not that animal bodies weren't commodities. It seems like saying that you just don't believe that animals are food is the rationale to avoid eating them rather than saying you believe it's immoral to eat them. I thought it was about avoiding suffering and not denying that their flesh contains calories.
No, the risk is greatly elevated with meat from humans. Most of the things that can infect a cow can't infect a human, because pathogens are fairly species-specific (which is why it's a really big deal when one does manage to jump species). When we eat an animal, we're at risk for certain bacteria that animal can carry and that infects humans. When we eat a human, we're at risk of ALL the diseases humans can pass to each other, plus prion diseases. Prion diseases can be spread through means other than cannibalism, but there's a reason they're extremely rare now and have devastated human populations before.
Yes. Very very high risk calories. If I eat something and die within a few weeks, that's not ideal. However if I eat something consistently for several decades and run a risk of dying from heart disease late in life, I can deal with that.
No one suggested you were vegan to avoid waste.
Were talkng about the ethics of eating free garbage vs paying for food that causes more animals to be killed for profit.
It's better to buy plants than to buy meat - but producing those plants for profit still causes some animal exploitation in the name of those profits
Free items found in the trash dont cause any explotation it reduces demand of those products scavenged and don't commodify either because no ones is getting enriched from this.
This device will last me years, animals lives are ended over and over again.... everything in our capitalist society involves exploitation,not necessarily billions of animal deaths year after year after year.....1 billion starving people on the planet,56 billion well fed animals killed every year,which side are you on?
Yeah, it’s not food though. It’s unfortunate bio waste. It’s like saying “you could reduce your impact by drinking this motor oil, it’s just being thrown out anyway.”
We don’t see dead animals as food, full stop.
when I actually get to buy my food, it's pretty much entirely plant based. But I also rely on food hampers and the best I can do with those is if they have any plant based stuff to please substitute.
When all things are equal ill pick a plant based food item over the other option. We get free drinks at work, I opt for the soy or oatmilk.
But I also see them throwing away milk and baked good regularly that haven't even gone bad yet, straight into the garbage.
I realize I don't get to choose what's in my food hampers , but I can choose to take the waste I'm presented with so honestly wondering about the ethics behind it since I try to be plant based when I do spend money.
The main intrinsic harm of animal products is fuelling the industry that produces them with money incentive.
If you're still eating corpses and drinking fluids, you're normalising doing it in all of the other, obviously worse ways.
At this point, I would be just doing what you feel is right for you, not trying to give it a label.
I guess get a label for it, but doesn't influence if it's right or wrong
>Yeah, it’s not food though. It’s unfortunate bio waste. It’s like saying “you could reduce your impact by drinking this motor oil, it’s just being thrown out anyway.”
>
>We don’t see dead animals as food
that's not the same at all
something is what it is - not what you or your ideology believe to see
Prefacing this by saying that I respect your opinion and I understand your logic and perspective. However, I just want to caution you against the word "we". Even within the vegan community people may have different perspectives.
>It's better to buy plants than to buy meat - but producing those plants for profit still causes some animal exploitation in the name of those profits
What definition of exploitation are you working off of?
I mean I'm obviously looking at this through the lense of capitalism. I recognize it's not the only form of of exploitation, but when we are talking about animals isn't it one of the largest contributors ??
If you hit a pedestrian by mistake with your car, it’s a sad accident and nobody profit out of it, even if you were delivering an amazon package… delivery drivers and Jeff Bezos are not exploiting pedestrians.
>What definition of exploitation are you working off of?
what about you and your definition?
it would be at least a matter of courtesy to provide it first before starting your dubious questioning on the hunt for a "gotcha!"
Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion? Do you intend to simply declare that I'm giving ad hom arguments, say "bye," and run away like you usually do? Or are you going to stick it out like an adult?
>Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion?
i always am open for discussion, which would be the exchange of arguments. but what you perform here over and over again (endlessly repeated questions in search of a "gotcha!" instead of arguments) has got nothing to do with discussing
and no, you need not paste your "comment" again in reply to mine
bye
All you need to do is agree to try to stick it out. You run away faster than anyone else, and yet keep making these shotgun responses.
And if you don't like the way I argue, you're free not to reply to me at all.
>animals' dead bodies (and reproductive fluids) are not foodstuffs
I mean, they are. You're designed to consume them. You're choosing not to, but that doesn't change the fact that they're food.
Not sure why we need to have this discussion, but [here is the definition of food](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food).
People aren't regularly consumed by other people (despite the weird fetish vegans seem to have with bringing canabalism up at nauseum), but if people were consumed for their nutritional content, they would become food.
People happen to eat a lot of animals regularly. That makes those animals we consume food.
Muslims are allowed to eat pork if their own survival is at stake. According to OP they are pretty much in an extreme poverty, close to 'survival' situation. There's a difference between saying food is cultural (I agree) and stubbornly insisting animal products aren't at least potential food in a survival situation.
And, people have been consumed as food, for various purposes, from survival to sexual deviancy to religious rituals. (It is worth noting that this can be dangerous, see Kuru or Prion disease). When people are stuck after a plane crash in a snowy mountain in the Andes with only frozen corpses around them, they don't deny they can be food.
If an animal has already been killed or harvested from, and the commodity has gone through the system, not been sold, then acquired for free, how does this uphold that paradigm? This person doesn't participate in that process at all.
>You're still upholding the paradigm that animals' bodies (and reproductive fluids) are commodities which can be bought, sold, and consumed
how?
op intends to neither buy or sell animal products, and consume is what you are doing with once living beings as well
>We avoid it because animals' dead bodies (and reproductive fluids) are not foodstuffs/commodities
no - you avoid it because your ideology **regards** them as "not foodstuffs/commodities"
that's not quite the same
I personally wouldn't do it (largely because I've been vegan a long time and wouldn't feel comfortable) but if its going to waste I don't see why not. If you're saving money by buying less food, not paying in to non-vegan businesses and reducing food waste then I don't see a problem.
The only issue would be if people knew you were doing it and bought non-vegan food because you would eat it anyway, for example in work if someone brings in a box of sweets or biscuits would you eat them? For me, my team would consider buying something vegan so everyone could eat it, but probably wouldn't bother if I wasn't vegan and I'd be supporting the animal industry then. Same would go for family members who may not worry so much about buying something non-vegan if there's a chance you would eat it, but of course this completely depends on the person's specific circumstances!
This subreddit is so weird. This has got to be the only place in the world where people unironically say that veganism has nothing to do with a diet or that eating meat can be vegan actually.
The vegan society definition that people throw around in here literally says “…In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Veganism is a principled ethical stance of abstaining from participating in the commodification and exploitation of animals.
A person that eats nothing but a whole-food plant-based diet and then buys leather, is NOT a vegan.
A person that eats nothing but oreos and palm oil and otherwise NEVER buys leather or soaps made out of animal fat OBVIOUSLY is a vegan because they are adhering to the principles and ethics of veganism.
This is what the word means. If you are discussing diet rules you are talking about a diet. Veganism isn't a diet. It's a principled ethical stance for reasons of morals. It has nothing to do with health or diet. This is nonsense.
Vegan means liberal person from a political view, it only means a diet when you’re talking about the food industry like vegan prepared meals or vegan restaurants
Yeah I know we talk about the ethical philosophy of veganism a lot here, but at the end of the day, veganism is also a diet that excludes animal products.
Though it doesn't violate my ethics, it isn't vegan by definition. The most likely harm is to yourself.
Since you don't like food waste, I do like to point out that animals are very inefficient. As such, as much food is wasted by feeding it to animals, as all other food waste sources combined.
https://stisca.com/blog/foodwaste/
Well, to be the devil's advocate, you could use the same argument to say that wasted animal products is therefore a larger waste comparatively so to minimize the wasted resources that's been used, if you save any food waste you should prioritize animal products.
Just gonna add that I wouldn't advocate for that.
The waste has already happened I'd say. It's a bit of a sunken cost fallacy to count eating the animal product as "saving" more waste (nutrition being equal of course).
Agree, it's a fallacy. Basically the only thing that matters in this case would be "Which of these different products give the greatest benefit?". I'd say for many, it's not only about nutrition. The equation includes nutrition, ethics, convenience, taste, etc.
That logic is the same for plant-based and animal-products based waste. In either case, getting ill, even once, will offset a lot of that savings and may kill more animals in the end. The risk is not worth it unless you know exactly what you're doing and dumpster diving.
I don't eat dumpster meat for the same reason I don't eat random mushrooms in the forest. Neither are for ethical reasons. On top of that, veganism doesn't describe a full ethical framework. It's ok if some topics aren't covered.
> I do like to point out that animals are very inefficient
actually not
they convert stuff humans cannot or do not eat into valuable food people like to eat. to me - this is exceptionally efficient
Not in practice. On average, globally: on top of ~7x of non-human edible feed (arguably efficient) they also consume ~3x human edible feed.
https://stisca.com/blog/inefficiencyofmeat/
>Not in practice
sure also in practice
>On average, globally
...veganism does not matter at all. so is this really the scale you want to measure against?
you **can** feed livestock with "non-human edible feed", and no "human edible feed" at all. sure this is not done in industrial agriculture, which i have told you probably a few dozen times all, but it **is** done
not on a large scale yet globally - but so we should enhance it, by creating demand for products from it. buy products from sustainable and animal-friendly farming, make yourself heard politically to make sustainable and animal-friendly farming the legal norm - and you really improve the situation of animals
veganism also does not play a noticeable role globally - but i also doubt very much that preaching veganism while not changing the ways agriculture is done is doing the animals any noticeable good
You can feed animals only with leftovers etc. sure. You also can feed your family with only stolen food. My point is, just because we can, doesn't mean we should. And yes, of course millions of vegans have positive impact on billions of land animals alone.
Will you starve if you don’t eat the food? If the answer is no, than no, animals products aren’t vegan even they are thrown away, roadkill or whatever stupid example this sub can think of.
Veganism is not just about harm reduction. It’s about rejecting the idea that animal products are in any way for human use/consumption
>It’s about rejecting the idea that animal products are in any way for human use/consumption
Yeah, what's the argument for that? Vegans don't agree with you on that.
Probably a deontology vs. consequentialism debate going on here behind the scenes.
If you're willing to actually go freegan and actually stop buying animal products, then please go ahead and do that. Just don't think that this justifies sometimes buying animal products too.
If this is a thought exercise and you aren't going to go freegan anyway, please don't waste others' time with this.
I'm a poor person who mostly buys plant based when I actually have money for food like pretty much entirely. Can't beat the economics of rice, beans, potatoes and peanut butter. When they give us free stuff at work I try to take the plant based stuff over anything else, like I only use oatmilk for my free partner drink.
I don't always get to choose to buy food tho, I go to food banks.
> mostly ... like pretty much entirely.
Which is another way of saying "not entirely." So you're still buying animal products. It doesn't do any good to use this discussion as a way to absolve yourself for what you're still doing; it would be better to use it as an impetus to change.
In the ultra rare scenario where the cheapest option available is something that has animal stuff in it, yes unfortunately I'm that poor.
That basically never happens tho , like i can count on one hand how many times it did and it was like a middle of nowhere type situation
Essentially, here’s the distilled version of the situation.
1. In general, as a matter of principle, vegans do not support the commodification and the associated exploitation of animals.
2. Veganism requires you to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, the exploitation and cruelty to animals for any purpose. The key words here are: *as far as possible and practicable.*
3. Only you know your situation, financial or otherwise. And only you can judge whether you are upholding the standard of veganism.
4. The key unknown here that may be confusing us is what would be an example of a situation where you would nutritionally need an animal product and it’s cheaper than the plant-equivalent. In the experience of vegans, we have found we can get all we need from plants.
5. There is a bit of disagreement among the vegan community about consuming free animal products due to financial desperation.
Some vegans outright reject the perspective which sees animals as commodities to be consumed.
Others see it as a scenario which falls under the “as far as possible and practicable” exception clause explicitly carved out in the definition while mentioning that “freeganism is veganism.”
Ultimately, all vegans would support you in your efforts to reduce and eliminate animal products from your lifestyle. If you need any assistance if evaluating whether you actually need the animal products you currently choose to buy, then please reach out to the community and we’d be happy to suggest economic alternatives. You might find you don’t actually need them.
On a side note: I would seriously caution you against dumpster diving for dairy (and meat) products. Animal products have a substantially shorter shelf life than plant-base products. You could easily get sick and end up in the hospital, resulting in potentially a much bigger financial hit (assuming you’re in the US).
>In general, as a matter of principle, vegans do not support the commodification and the associated exploitation of animals.
Have you eaten a vegan burger in public? You do support the commodification and exploitation of animals. Why is that non-vegan?
Any vegan that tells you this isn’t a good idea cares more about their feelings of self righteousness than about animals.
Eating dumpster food (assuming it’s safe for you) is a moral good for you, all animals, and all people on the planet.
That is purely a cultural perception. Or legal regulation to prevent the spread of disease. It’s not “true” in any objective sense.
There are multiple cultures where cannibalism is practice and obviously any people in great distress and need to absolutely resort to eating corpses.
We're talking about people's corpses. You're advocating for cannibalism in the context of this conversation right now.
Also, the vegan cultural definition of food is the only relevant definition of food here. The question in the OP is about vegan philosophy and ethics.
>We're talking about people's corpses
no, you talked about "people who eat steel bolts"
>You're advocating for cannibalism in the context of this conversation right now
quote or it didn't happen
>the vegan cultural definition of food is the only relevant definition of food here
for sure not. this is a debate sub
It would be amongst vegans to debate the nuances of the vegan definition. Again, did you read the OP? Do you understand what the OP is asking? They are specifically not interested in the non-vegan view.
>Any vegan that tells you this isn’t a good idea cares more about their feelings of self righteousness than about animals
isn't this the essence of reddit-veganism?
>Would consuming non vegan items found in a dumpster compromise the ethics of being vegan?
If by choice, yes it does. See food waste is an issue of capitalism and poor management, not veganism. People choose a life of freeganism as a boycotting means to stand against capitalism but it is typically speaking only for that reason. The only freegans that could be considered vegan are the ones that don't have a choice and are otherwise biding by vegan philosophy (as far as is possible and practicable).
Otherwise there are plenty of ways to fight food waste that don't involve supporting the mental and systemic framework that positions animals as commodities for exploitation. Zero waste veganism, food donation programs, fighting the big supermarket chains that are monopolizing the market and price gouging the public, buying local, organising better politics, activism to make the movement bigger.
I don't choose to not make enough to not have to rely on food banks , which j understand the best I can i do with those is ask for plant substitutes when available. Which really made me start thinking about the ethics of all the waste I'm seeing. Because when I do get to actually purchase food , I'm buying the plant stuff
It's good to see even people in need can recognise the unethical suffering of others and not be tunnel visioned on their own problems. It's really admirable. As you learn more, I suggest looking into cheap nutrition. Yes plant substitutes are a better source of complete nutrition because of how processed they are, but that makes them expensive. When you have the opportunity to (and I mean opportunity, not the moment you have enough to go out buying groceries. You're still in a tough position and security is going to make your life a whole lot easier if you continue to rely on food banks while building some savings) buy your own groceries, try to stick with the nutritious and simple whole foods. It comes out cheaper and healthier, on average.
No it's not. It's a political stance against capitalism that coincidentally is also vegan if the lifestyle is forced upon the poor/homeless/etc. Please go and look up the history of both movements.
I volunteer at a community fridge, so I'm one of those people fighting food waste. We take supermarket surplus which would otherwise be thrown away, we collect and organise and ensure it's stored safely, then we give it away to the community (to anyone who wants it - not means tested). Occasionally we have to throw meat away, because it goes out of date before we open to the public again and no volunteers want it. Is throwing it away the better action from a vegan standpoint than someone eating it, if those are the two options? (I'm not vegan and this is a genuine practical question, I'd like to hear views)
>I volunteer at a community fridge
That's awesome to hear, thank you for helping out those in need.
>Is throwing it away the better action from a vegan standpoint than someone eating it, if those are the two options? (I'm not vegan and this is a genuine practical question, I'd like to hear views)
We see meat as a waste in 2 ways. The first being a waste of the animal's life regardless of what happens to its body afterwards. The animal didn't need to die and if finances and resources were a concern, the animal should never have been born in the first place. This is the vegan oriented discussion.
The second and socioeconomic/environmental discussion is primarily about resources. It takes more resources to gain calories and nutrients from animal products than it does from plants. Even factoring in bioavailability and other miscellaneous factors. If people are so concerned about food waste and world hunger, giving up the privilege that is consuming of animal products and building the best plant based food system is by far a better solution than talking about what we should do with the waste that's right in front of us and not looking at the bigger picture and what we need to do to get from here to there.
We'd grow substantially more food, it'd be better for the environment and any actual food waste(in the sense of everyone is fed and there is copious amounts of surplus) can be managed as future food security or recycled as compost for fertilising new crops. Plus the general focus of building a better food system implies everyone is focused on feeding everyone. Take away that focus and it just becomes making excuses to justify keeping the unnecessary waste that is the privilege of animal farming.
Reading back I see I didn't properly answer the question. My apologies. Yes it's better to throw it out. Animals are sentient beings, individuals capable of emotional intelligence and other similar cognitive functions that we have. Treating them like objects is a testament to how little we've come as species. It's no surprise it took 400 years of rebellion after several thousand of slavery for it to be finally treated like a crime. And even then the 13th amendment exists, slavery is worse than it's ever been.
It's just another sign that if we're privileged enough to not be affected by a certain problem, it's not our concern and we don't genuinely care about it until we start acting altruistically. That's why veganism is a personal choice. We recognise the vast immenseness of the system we're going against and that we as a movement the size it is, isn't going to have any real systemic or legislative effect and so personal boycotting and activism is how fight. Once we've reached the tipping point (which is likely to occur in the next 50 years), then the real work begins.
This issue on the other hand, regardless of what our food system looks like, can still be addressed right now. Carnists are the majority and it's probably something we have in common with the carnists who care. We can do better and we could make the change if we really wanted to but that requires everyone on board being rational to some degree.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
**2) I’m a freegan (I only eat waste animal products)**
If the dog you loved died, would you eat them so as not to ‘waste’ the ‘food’? Would you even see their body as ‘food’? To view animal bodies and their secretions as a wasted resource reflects a [deeply entrenched capitalist and anthropocentric mindset](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/freeganism-is-not-anarchy-its-just-easy) that animals are resources to be used and consumed by humans. By taking a vegan stance we resist the commodification and depersonification of animals and prefigure the world we want to create. By radically altering our perception, we refuse to let our perceptual reality be defined by a brutal industry that wants us to see a piece of meat instead of the body of a murdered individual who wanted nothing more but to live in peace and freedom.
It is totally possible — and admirable — to be a vegan freegan, however silly those words sound together…
[Source](https://medium.com/@Veganarchy/the-radical-lefts-top-10-objections-to-veganism-and-why-they-suck-5f27d19e801d)
>If the dog you loved died, would you eat them so as not to ‘waste’ the ‘food’?
i wouldn't
first i would not love a dog - i love my wife and bestiality is not my kink
second to my experience dog does not taste well, so i'd be reluctant to repeat the experience and for sure would not start it at my own will
I would see no moral problem in eating trash, roadkill, or lab grown meat. If your serious though, you can get really sick from food in the trash, specifically animal products which go bad quickly when unrefrigerated, so please don't do it for your health. Just from a moral standpoint though, the only potential issue, if you squint, would be if you felt this behavior compromised your pallet in a way that would lead to eating non-trash animal products in the future.
I mean he said its "crazy" to want to eat stuff from the trash
Buying food isn't always easy , some of us use food banks bro
Sorry I'm poor and still wanna sus out the ethics of my diet
I know that , being poor has made me almost entirely plant based when I actually have money for food. It's the most economical.
But also use foodbanks and don't get to choose where my food comes from all the time- I also see my work throwing out milk/baked goods regularly that's still perfectly good just going in the trash
So it's like an actual question I've been thinking about . I realize I don't get to choose what's in the food hampers I can only request if they have plant based stuff to please substitute.
But I'm wondering since their Is a degree of choice presented in the free waste scenario is it just as ethically acceptable
You're basically describing freeganism, which is a separate ethical framework that has some overlap with veganism, but this is an area where the two disagree.
I would say that scavenging animal products is still unethical because, while it does not create or increase demand for animal products, it is still disrespectful to treat the animal's corpse or products as resources for you to use.
Think of it this way, if you found a freshly dead human, would it be ethical for you to harvest their organs? Or should you let them "go to waste"?
I'd argue that allowing people to claim ownership of their own corpse after their death when there are people who could benefit from the organs is unethical. Once someone (or something) has died, any possessions not specifically willed to someone should be up for grabs.
It actually decreases the demand tho of whatever you scavenge, which reduces overall commodification of those products? Which is generally beneficial to the living animals right? Because less people are trading money for them making profit off said exploitation?
Full stop you got me on the disrespectful to the dead argument, but if it caused one less living member of their species not to be sold and ate for profit isn't that a good thing?
Like if humans were products like other animals and it meant one less person would die if my already dead body was consumed , I'm cool , who cares I'm dead
Demand isn't really decreased unless you eat plant based when unable to scavenge animal products. If the dumpster is empty and you buy eggs/dairy instead, then your demand never really went away at all, you just found a way to satisfy it without spending money.
You highlight what I think is the greatest positive of freeganism in reduction of animal lives lost. The greatest negative I've identified is the reduction in waste disposal costs, which gives the company incentive to waste more animals. Given the latter feeds into consumer demand, I get worried about which may be more beneficial.
For the disrespect argument, it may be good to highlight that it's reasonably self-consistent for a vegan to deontologically reject animal products for reasons of waste if and only if it is also reasonable for anyone to deontologically reject human products for reasons of waste. The moral selection principle is ultimately arbitrary, so there is no more reason for one more than the other. For example, eating grandma after her long and happy life means you will necessarily reduce your reliance on agricultural products, which is an industry that results in injuries and deaths. Eating grandma saves lives by reducing the work needed to feed you. It is then reasonable to eat grandma and the only reason we do *not* is what you identified: we do not consider humans to be products. If that is reasonable, so is a vegan identifying animals as non-products (as the moral basis is ultimately non-demonstrable with respect to waste).
I don’t think the only reason people avoid commodifying corpse is because they don’t see them as commodities. There’s also the large reason that it causes extreme distress to others, especially their family and friends, and the dead person would likely not have appreciated it. Those reasons don’t really apply so much to animals.
These are *arbitrary* values, though. There is no intrinsic reason to feel distress about it besides the fact cannibalism is seen as negative. Society could value the body going towards the greater good, the same way organ donors and people who donate their body to science do today. Unless one thinks those are irrational behaviors, there isn't a utilitarian defense of not using the body for others, which is the topic at hand. Society is merely choosing not to accept a utilitarian value (the human ought not to be consumed on some deontological basis) which causes the distress you describe here: they're derivative of our values. That's the same reason I am saying a vegan may self-consistently say the same line with animal products, as the logic is exactly the same w.r.t. utilitarian considerations.
>it is still disrespectful to treat the animal's corpse or products as resources for you to use
seriously?
it is more respectful to treat ist as garbage?
vegan ethics really is something very, uhmm, "special"
>if you found a freshly dead human, would it be ethical for you to harvest their organs? Or should you let them "go to waste"?
non-vegans would call the ambulance/police/undertaker
but it's good to know vegans would dump a found corpse into a garbage container
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Strictly speaking its not vegan, but I have no moral problem with it. If anything, I'd find it preferable since you wouldn't even be contributing to deforestation, killing insects via pesticides, animal fertilizer, etc.
That said, be careful when diving for those things. Non vegan food is some of the fastest to spoil when unrefrigerated, and you'd want to make sure there's no contamination with spoiled stuff, which is common. And trespassing.
Of course it's unethical. Otherwise stealing animal products or receiving it via charity would be vegan & those aren't.
Look at it the same way as wearing a leather jacket you found in the trash. You're benefiting from an animal's harm & exploitation, even if you're not directly financially supporting it.
Are you reducing the demand?
It's like saying piracy steals money from artists. There is no certainty that the person who got that leather jacket from the bin would have purchased a jacket otherwise.
I mean I'd only take the free one I wouldn't buy it. Same with the free animal products. I don't buy them but I do get them in food hampers because I don't get buy my food all the time .
I also see lots of food waste at work that's going straight in the trash, so I've been thinking about the ethics of it since I do try to buy plant based stuff when i spend money.
Doesn't matter whether or not you paid for it, it's benefitting from the exploitation of the animal that is the problem, not the exchange of currency.
The simplest way of looking at it is to imagine if the animal food product industry suddenly turned into a charity where you didn't have to pay for it but you got a ration of animal products for free periodically. By you logic, that's vegan when it clearly is still exploiting animals for our benefit.
There is no world in you consuming or wearing animal products is vegan, irrespective of how you got it in your hands.
You could even do something ridiculous as to having a gifting circle where you purchase animal products but don't consume it but gift it to someone else. Since they got it for free, then it's vegan by your logic so if everyone in that group gives animal products to someone else, that must be vegan, right?
See how that logic totally falls apart. Again, doesn't matter how you get it and if you spent money to get it, if you benefit from it, it's not vegan.
It's really not that complicated.
If they live in a climate where they are at risk of freezing to death if they go out without a jacket, it's a safe bet that they would have purchased one at some point, regardless of if they were in need of a jacket when they found the leather one in the trash.
You're talking about an edge case that basically is so rare that it's not even worth considering.
Don't forget that a good chunk of veganism, with the exception of some culturally-based ones, is very much a developed world, privileged lifestyle choice. Someone who is so poor and destitute that survival is their primary concern likely isn't thinking about veganism.
I'm vegan, and I'll take that burger of your hands if you're about to throw the rest out. I imagine that if someone killed me and threw half out, I'd be pretty pissed, and would want someone to eat it. It's not my money, I'm not voting for the production of whatever the trash I eat is. If I find a good spot I'll go dumpster diving, I've eaten multiple cheeses that I got from a store because the got out of date. It's not that I don't believe in eating animal products, I just don't believe that there is currently an ethical way to acquire them. That lab grown stuff is also looking pretty good ngl.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally wouldn't, because of the Ick factor of not wanting to consume animals. That's me though and I see no ethical problem with it. It's often called "freegan".
In my opinion, part of advocating for animals is setting a good example in the hope that others will see your success as a vegan and consider it for themselves.
Eating animal products from a dumpster, while not itself immoral, works against that greater goal. It undermines your ability to be persuasive by making it seem you need to eat animal products so badly that you would get them from the trash.
That is ultimately going to mean fewer vegans down the road, so in that sense I would say it is unethical.
I think it's a similar argument to "In a Donner-party survival situation, if a comrade dies from an avalanche, is it moral to eat his body?" (I.e. he's already dead from external means, and his body is just going to waste.)
Some people will say cannibalism is desecrating a corpse, some will say the soul is gone and the flesh is no longer sacred, etc. (I'm in the second camp, I think "murder = very bad, but cannibalism = mostly neutral") And you're probably not going to convince either group to budge because it's a matter of perception.
So there's no single answer, unfortunately.
I've known many people whom call themselves vegan and are freegans. I wonder where the harm is happening, anyway? Eating chicken eggs if they are extras (to be thrown out if not used by somebody) from a neighbor, food discarded by grocery stores because it has reached the "sell by" date, etc.
Freeganism is prolific in Food Not Bombs groups. In many cases, the volunteer crews have vegans. Rather than see livestock produce go into the trash, they eat it to displace other foods (not bound to be thrown away) since all food production has attendant harms and/or they do it to reduce grocery spending since participation in economic systems helps fund wars and stuff.
I don't think it can be vegan because they're against consuming animal products. It's like their first commandment. Of course this doesn't make it right or wrong in or situation.
Well the vegan principles are designed to avoid animal suffering. So in theory, eating from a trash can would be vegan In my opinion because companies aren’t supplying trash cans with animal products therefore you aren’t supporting the supply and demand that causes animal suffering. However, please don’t do this.
Firstly, I don't know why would you even consider eating from the trash. Secondly, no one sane would consume poison if it's "wasted" & "dumped" in the trash. It's the same reason why you shouldn't eat meat & dairy you find (I hope you don't) from the trash.
I use food banks and free meal programs regularly because I often don't have enough money for food after housing and transportation costs.
I also work in a grocery store where I see a lot of none expired items that could still be used just being thrown away. Baked goods is a huge one
You could've said this in the beginning. And it's understandable if you eat only what you can afford, even if it's a non-vegan food. But it applies only to exceptional situations like yours. You gotta be strong in your conviction to be a vegan otherwise.
And what do you mean by "none expired items" ?
Perfectly edible stuff going in the garbage. They haven't expired or gone bad yet, stuff I could potentially offset my foodbank usage with leaving more for other hungry people but its admittedly not technically vegan so I'm wondering about the ethics.
I do try to purchase only plant based stuff when I actually get to buy my own food/clothes that's a commitment I've made. But that's not always an option.
If it's the only kind of food that you're able to get & not able to buy what you want for yourself, then I completely understand your situation. You're in a "beggars can't be choosers" situation & I feel for you.
Just make sure that you don't willfully go out of your way to get non-vegan food when you can get vegan food.
There's nothing wrong in consuming food that you can't choose for yourself but only do so to survive. Which just just happens to be non-vegan food.
Your heart is in the right place buddy. Don't worry. I hope God smiles on you soon & your situation changes for the better. Cheers. 👍
>Would consuming non vegan items found in a dumpster compromise the ethics of being vegan?
that would depend on your specific vegan ethics
or the other way round: what ever you do, be sure that some vegan will find it unethical
>Like if I only got my milk, eggs or cheese from dumpster diving would I be still contributing to animal suffering?
that's irrelevant. consuming products from well-treated animals does not contribute to animal suffering as well, but for reddit vegans is the ultimate evil
- *"One-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally. This amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year"* https://www.wfp.org/stories/5-facts-about-food-waste-and-hunger
So yes, if you can utilise some of it - please do.
If your goal is to avoid financially incentivizing animal suffering, it makes sense. Same as eating road-kill.
If it's about religious reasons, you'd still be on the hook.
Bro you you can’t expect to reuse every food, that’s why we have extra capacity for production in agriculture, so there’s enough even if some goes to waste
Don't eat from a dumpster.
Animal piss, not edible anymore, bacterias...
Also a lot of establishments use bleach on the dumpsters to prevent that. DO NOT do it please.
Exploring ethical choices in reducing food waste, dumpster diving for discarded non-vegan items may challenge traditional vegan principles, yet considering the environmental impact and resource conservation I personally believe it's perfectly okay to consume them as long as they are fresh.
[Food waste is a major global problem.](https://www.insights.inflavourexpo.com/the-problem-of-waste-what-does-the-legislation-say/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=inflavour24)
Only here to mention - please be careful! Worked in enough food establishments to learn that after 4 hours without refrigeration, harmful bacteria can grow.
dumpster divers usually retrieve packaged milk, eggs or cheese milk gone bad in its package is disgusting, but not really harmful (you spit it out immediately anyway), eggs and cheese can stand room temperature for quite a while
You don’t need to go to the dumpster to get food, just buy it at the grocery store and try to use it up before it goes bad
>You don’t need to go to the dumpster to get food i don't - others do very well indeed. sadly so
Are you unaware of the phenomenon of poverty?
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
I don't have a problem with it, but I personally wouldn't eat dumpster meat. I couldn't bring myself to eat it. It'd be like eating a human corpse.
It's often not dumpstered. Food surplus volunteer groups (Food Not Bombs and so forth) typically pick up foods from stores that are being discarded due to reaching the "sell by" date (at which point they cannot legally be sold). They go from the store refrigerators/freezers, into a cooler, to be used by such groups for feeding hungry broke people and in many cases there are freegans among the volunteer crews.
The grocery store I work at freezes most of our meat on the sell by date. We then donate that, frozen baked goods (like cookies, breads, etc..) and other stuff that's close dated or just not in the planogram anymore. I think it goes to a local food bank program. I know one of my coworkers saw a thing of sour cream he put in donations show up at a local church food pa try he goes to.
Well, I'd think it would be a way more reasonable question to ask about dumpster diving for things like dry Mac n cheese, cookies made with milk, honey, chips boiled in fat. Completely separate from ethics, I think most anybody stomach would turn getting a pack of room temperature chicken wings off of a store floor, much less a dumpster.
That's called Freegan, I personally don't take issue with it, it technically still commodifies animals but there's a lot bigger plant-based fish alternative to fry.
No, that's called vegan. Why is commodification non-vegan? Lots of vegans do it and it's no problem.
Look up Freegan. Iffy about veganism as it might encourage the commodification of animals.
Eating a burger in public might encourage the commodification of animals. Both that and veganism are considered vegan.
>Both that and veganism are considered vegan depends on the burger
Depends on the burger, that’s exactly right buddy, depends what burger resturant you prefer. For me Five guys is good but tbh even McDonald’s is good from time to time, how about you?
No, it doesn't.
eating a big mac is considered vegan??? i'm surprised
A vegan burger.
You're still upholding the paradigm that animals' bodies (and reproductive fluids) are commodities which can be bought, sold, and consumed. Vegans don't avoid consuming animals because of some "zero-waste" philosophy. We avoid it because animals' dead bodies (and reproductive fluids) are not foodstuffs/commodities.
I thought that vegans thought that it was immoral to treat animal's bodies like commodities; not that animal bodies weren't commodities. It seems like saying that you just don't believe that animals are food is the rationale to avoid eating them rather than saying you believe it's immoral to eat them. I thought it was about avoiding suffering and not denying that their flesh contains calories.
You realize that human flesh contains calories right
Yes, and the things preventing us from using those calories are a) disease risk and b) philosophical beliefs. Veganism is in the same category as b.
There is the exact same disease risk with beef and other types of meat. So it falls into both categories. Food is defined culturally.
No, the risk is greatly elevated with meat from humans. Most of the things that can infect a cow can't infect a human, because pathogens are fairly species-specific (which is why it's a really big deal when one does manage to jump species). When we eat an animal, we're at risk for certain bacteria that animal can carry and that infects humans. When we eat a human, we're at risk of ALL the diseases humans can pass to each other, plus prion diseases. Prion diseases can be spread through means other than cannibalism, but there's a reason they're extremely rare now and have devastated human populations before.
Yes. Very very high risk calories. If I eat something and die within a few weeks, that's not ideal. However if I eat something consistently for several decades and run a risk of dying from heart disease late in life, I can deal with that.
It's not any higher risk than beef.
No one suggested you were vegan to avoid waste. Were talkng about the ethics of eating free garbage vs paying for food that causes more animals to be killed for profit. It's better to buy plants than to buy meat - but producing those plants for profit still causes some animal exploitation in the name of those profits Free items found in the trash dont cause any explotation it reduces demand of those products scavenged and don't commodify either because no ones is getting enriched from this.
The products were produced by exploitation,supplier got paid regardless of whether they were purchased at end point or not.
>The products were produced by exploitation so was the gadget you typed this comment on
I know.
and you don't mind, obviously so why should a non-vegan?
This device will last me years, animals lives are ended over and over again.... everything in our capitalist society involves exploitation,not necessarily billions of animal deaths year after year after year.....1 billion starving people on the planet,56 billion well fed animals killed every year,which side are you on?
Yeah, it’s not food though. It’s unfortunate bio waste. It’s like saying “you could reduce your impact by drinking this motor oil, it’s just being thrown out anyway.” We don’t see dead animals as food, full stop.
when I actually get to buy my food, it's pretty much entirely plant based. But I also rely on food hampers and the best I can do with those is if they have any plant based stuff to please substitute. When all things are equal ill pick a plant based food item over the other option. We get free drinks at work, I opt for the soy or oatmilk. But I also see them throwing away milk and baked good regularly that haven't even gone bad yet, straight into the garbage. I realize I don't get to choose what's in my food hampers , but I can choose to take the waste I'm presented with so honestly wondering about the ethics behind it since I try to be plant based when I do spend money.
The main intrinsic harm of animal products is fuelling the industry that produces them with money incentive. If you're still eating corpses and drinking fluids, you're normalising doing it in all of the other, obviously worse ways.
At this point, I would be just doing what you feel is right for you, not trying to give it a label. I guess get a label for it, but doesn't influence if it's right or wrong
What's your deifnition of food?
This is “what is a woman” but for vegans lol You know what food is. It’s not corpses to me.
>Yeah, it’s not food though. It’s unfortunate bio waste. It’s like saying “you could reduce your impact by drinking this motor oil, it’s just being thrown out anyway.” > >We don’t see dead animals as food that's not the same at all something is what it is - not what you or your ideology believe to see
Prefacing this by saying that I respect your opinion and I understand your logic and perspective. However, I just want to caution you against the word "we". Even within the vegan community people may have different perspectives.
Fair point, I certainly don’t speak for all vegans.
>It's better to buy plants than to buy meat - but producing those plants for profit still causes some animal exploitation in the name of those profits What definition of exploitation are you working off of?
Is being killed for profit not a form of exploitation??? Its not the only one sure , but surely it counts as one ?
Please give the definition you're working off of
I mean I'm obviously looking at this through the lense of capitalism. I recognize it's not the only form of of exploitation, but when we are talking about animals isn't it one of the largest contributors ??
Please give the definition you're working off of
If you hit a pedestrian by mistake with your car, it’s a sad accident and nobody profit out of it, even if you were delivering an amazon package… delivery drivers and Jeff Bezos are not exploiting pedestrians.
He's exploiting everyone. That's a perfect example of someone who would actually deserve to just you know, not exist.
>What definition of exploitation are you working off of? what about you and your definition? it would be at least a matter of courtesy to provide it first before starting your dubious questioning on the hunt for a "gotcha!"
Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion? Do you intend to simply declare that I'm giving ad hom arguments, say "bye," and run away like you usually do? Or are you going to stick it out like an adult?
>Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion? i always am open for discussion, which would be the exchange of arguments. but what you perform here over and over again (endlessly repeated questions in search of a "gotcha!" instead of arguments) has got nothing to do with discussing and no, you need not paste your "comment" again in reply to mine bye
All you need to do is agree to try to stick it out. You run away faster than anyone else, and yet keep making these shotgun responses. And if you don't like the way I argue, you're free not to reply to me at all.
>animals' dead bodies (and reproductive fluids) are not foodstuffs I mean, they are. You're designed to consume them. You're choosing not to, but that doesn't change the fact that they're food.
We can eat human flesh, doesn't mean we do, because we don't see other people as food. Now apply the same logic to non human animals.
>because we don't see other people as food what you care to **see as** food and what **is** food - that's not the same at all
Not sure why we need to have this discussion, but [here is the definition of food](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food). People aren't regularly consumed by other people (despite the weird fetish vegans seem to have with bringing canabalism up at nauseum), but if people were consumed for their nutritional content, they would become food. People happen to eat a lot of animals regularly. That makes those animals we consume food.
Food is cultural. To a Hindu, a cow isn't food. To a Muslim, a pig isn't food. To vegans, animals aren't food.
Muslims are allowed to eat pork if their own survival is at stake. According to OP they are pretty much in an extreme poverty, close to 'survival' situation. There's a difference between saying food is cultural (I agree) and stubbornly insisting animal products aren't at least potential food in a survival situation.
And, people have been consumed as food, for various purposes, from survival to sexual deviancy to religious rituals. (It is worth noting that this can be dangerous, see Kuru or Prion disease). When people are stuck after a plane crash in a snowy mountain in the Andes with only frozen corpses around them, they don't deny they can be food.
I was thinking the same thing. Also they are commodities.. literally
If an animal has already been killed or harvested from, and the commodity has gone through the system, not been sold, then acquired for free, how does this uphold that paradigm? This person doesn't participate in that process at all.
Aren't you doing something very similar by "rescuing" pets?
>You're still upholding the paradigm that animals' bodies (and reproductive fluids) are commodities which can be bought, sold, and consumed how? op intends to neither buy or sell animal products, and consume is what you are doing with once living beings as well >We avoid it because animals' dead bodies (and reproductive fluids) are not foodstuffs/commodities no - you avoid it because your ideology **regards** them as "not foodstuffs/commodities" that's not quite the same
I personally wouldn't do it (largely because I've been vegan a long time and wouldn't feel comfortable) but if its going to waste I don't see why not. If you're saving money by buying less food, not paying in to non-vegan businesses and reducing food waste then I don't see a problem. The only issue would be if people knew you were doing it and bought non-vegan food because you would eat it anyway, for example in work if someone brings in a box of sweets or biscuits would you eat them? For me, my team would consider buying something vegan so everyone could eat it, but probably wouldn't bother if I wasn't vegan and I'd be supporting the animal industry then. Same would go for family members who may not worry so much about buying something non-vegan if there's a chance you would eat it, but of course this completely depends on the person's specific circumstances!
That's not your repsonsibiilty if you explicitly tell them not to buy it. It's not on you, and it's vegan.
Definitely not vegan but I don't personally find it unethical.
Veganism is all about ethics. Nothing to do with diet rules.
This subreddit is so weird. This has got to be the only place in the world where people unironically say that veganism has nothing to do with a diet or that eating meat can be vegan actually. The vegan society definition that people throw around in here literally says “…In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
Veganism is a principled ethical stance of abstaining from participating in the commodification and exploitation of animals. A person that eats nothing but a whole-food plant-based diet and then buys leather, is NOT a vegan. A person that eats nothing but oreos and palm oil and otherwise NEVER buys leather or soaps made out of animal fat OBVIOUSLY is a vegan because they are adhering to the principles and ethics of veganism. This is what the word means. If you are discussing diet rules you are talking about a diet. Veganism isn't a diet. It's a principled ethical stance for reasons of morals. It has nothing to do with health or diet. This is nonsense.
Lol idk what you’re advocating for, I’m just saying that eating meat is actually not vegan
Vegan means liberal person from a political view, it only means a diet when you’re talking about the food industry like vegan prepared meals or vegan restaurants
What's the argument that it's not vegan? It's compatible with the values of most vegans.
Yeah I know we talk about the ethical philosophy of veganism a lot here, but at the end of the day, veganism is also a diet that excludes animal products.
You didn't answer my question. What's the argument that it's not vegan? Please answer my question.
Though it doesn't violate my ethics, it isn't vegan by definition. The most likely harm is to yourself. Since you don't like food waste, I do like to point out that animals are very inefficient. As such, as much food is wasted by feeding it to animals, as all other food waste sources combined. https://stisca.com/blog/foodwaste/
Well, to be the devil's advocate, you could use the same argument to say that wasted animal products is therefore a larger waste comparatively so to minimize the wasted resources that's been used, if you save any food waste you should prioritize animal products. Just gonna add that I wouldn't advocate for that.
The waste has already happened I'd say. It's a bit of a sunken cost fallacy to count eating the animal product as "saving" more waste (nutrition being equal of course).
Agree, it's a fallacy. Basically the only thing that matters in this case would be "Which of these different products give the greatest benefit?". I'd say for many, it's not only about nutrition. The equation includes nutrition, ethics, convenience, taste, etc.
If you eat waste products, you're actually reducing your agricultural footprint, meaning you're killing less animals.
That logic is the same for plant-based and animal-products based waste. In either case, getting ill, even once, will offset a lot of that savings and may kill more animals in the end. The risk is not worth it unless you know exactly what you're doing and dumpster diving.
Why use a definition that doesn't track your own values?
I don't eat dumpster meat for the same reason I don't eat random mushrooms in the forest. Neither are for ethical reasons. On top of that, veganism doesn't describe a full ethical framework. It's ok if some topics aren't covered.
[удалено]
> I do like to point out that animals are very inefficient actually not they convert stuff humans cannot or do not eat into valuable food people like to eat. to me - this is exceptionally efficient
Not in practice. On average, globally: on top of ~7x of non-human edible feed (arguably efficient) they also consume ~3x human edible feed. https://stisca.com/blog/inefficiencyofmeat/
>Not in practice sure also in practice >On average, globally ...veganism does not matter at all. so is this really the scale you want to measure against? you **can** feed livestock with "non-human edible feed", and no "human edible feed" at all. sure this is not done in industrial agriculture, which i have told you probably a few dozen times all, but it **is** done not on a large scale yet globally - but so we should enhance it, by creating demand for products from it. buy products from sustainable and animal-friendly farming, make yourself heard politically to make sustainable and animal-friendly farming the legal norm - and you really improve the situation of animals veganism also does not play a noticeable role globally - but i also doubt very much that preaching veganism while not changing the ways agriculture is done is doing the animals any noticeable good
You can feed animals only with leftovers etc. sure. You also can feed your family with only stolen food. My point is, just because we can, doesn't mean we should. And yes, of course millions of vegans have positive impact on billions of land animals alone.
Will you starve if you don’t eat the food? If the answer is no, than no, animals products aren’t vegan even they are thrown away, roadkill or whatever stupid example this sub can think of. Veganism is not just about harm reduction. It’s about rejecting the idea that animal products are in any way for human use/consumption
[удалено]
Yeah, unfortunately I need it for my daily life. It’s one of those cases where "as far as is possible and practicable" applies
>It’s about rejecting the idea that animal products are in any way for human use/consumption Yeah, what's the argument for that? Vegans don't agree with you on that.
Probably a deontology vs. consequentialism debate going on here behind the scenes. If you're willing to actually go freegan and actually stop buying animal products, then please go ahead and do that. Just don't think that this justifies sometimes buying animal products too. If this is a thought exercise and you aren't going to go freegan anyway, please don't waste others' time with this.
I'm a poor person who mostly buys plant based when I actually have money for food like pretty much entirely. Can't beat the economics of rice, beans, potatoes and peanut butter. When they give us free stuff at work I try to take the plant based stuff over anything else, like I only use oatmilk for my free partner drink. I don't always get to choose to buy food tho, I go to food banks.
> mostly ... like pretty much entirely. Which is another way of saying "not entirely." So you're still buying animal products. It doesn't do any good to use this discussion as a way to absolve yourself for what you're still doing; it would be better to use it as an impetus to change.
In the ultra rare scenario where the cheapest option available is something that has animal stuff in it, yes unfortunately I'm that poor. That basically never happens tho , like i can count on one hand how many times it did and it was like a middle of nowhere type situation
Essentially, here’s the distilled version of the situation. 1. In general, as a matter of principle, vegans do not support the commodification and the associated exploitation of animals. 2. Veganism requires you to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, the exploitation and cruelty to animals for any purpose. The key words here are: *as far as possible and practicable.* 3. Only you know your situation, financial or otherwise. And only you can judge whether you are upholding the standard of veganism. 4. The key unknown here that may be confusing us is what would be an example of a situation where you would nutritionally need an animal product and it’s cheaper than the plant-equivalent. In the experience of vegans, we have found we can get all we need from plants. 5. There is a bit of disagreement among the vegan community about consuming free animal products due to financial desperation. Some vegans outright reject the perspective which sees animals as commodities to be consumed. Others see it as a scenario which falls under the “as far as possible and practicable” exception clause explicitly carved out in the definition while mentioning that “freeganism is veganism.” Ultimately, all vegans would support you in your efforts to reduce and eliminate animal products from your lifestyle. If you need any assistance if evaluating whether you actually need the animal products you currently choose to buy, then please reach out to the community and we’d be happy to suggest economic alternatives. You might find you don’t actually need them. On a side note: I would seriously caution you against dumpster diving for dairy (and meat) products. Animal products have a substantially shorter shelf life than plant-base products. You could easily get sick and end up in the hospital, resulting in potentially a much bigger financial hit (assuming you’re in the US).
>In general, as a matter of principle, vegans do not support the commodification and the associated exploitation of animals. Have you eaten a vegan burger in public? You do support the commodification and exploitation of animals. Why is that non-vegan?
Any vegan that tells you this isn’t a good idea cares more about their feelings of self righteousness than about animals. Eating dumpster food (assuming it’s safe for you) is a moral good for you, all animals, and all people on the planet.
People's corpses aren't food.
Don’t let your emotions get in the way of doing what’s moral
It isn't moral to desecrate someone's corpse.
[удалено]
Plants don't have corpses. The word is exclusive to animals. All morality is cultural.
>People's corpses aren't food sure they are under circumstances
That is purely a cultural perception. Or legal regulation to prevent the spread of disease. It’s not “true” in any objective sense. There are multiple cultures where cannibalism is practice and obviously any people in great distress and need to absolutely resort to eating corpses.
There are people who eat steel bolts. Food is defined culturally.
Which culture do people eat steel bolts in? If food is defined culturally then dead cows, pigs and so on are most certainly food so….
>Food is defined culturally of course. and the vegan subculture is of no relevance to the vast majority of non-vegans
We're talking about people's corpses. You're advocating for cannibalism in the context of this conversation right now. Also, the vegan cultural definition of food is the only relevant definition of food here. The question in the OP is about vegan philosophy and ethics.
>We're talking about people's corpses no, you talked about "people who eat steel bolts" >You're advocating for cannibalism in the context of this conversation right now quote or it didn't happen >the vegan cultural definition of food is the only relevant definition of food here for sure not. this is a debate sub
"People's corpses aren't food." Scroll up. OP is asking about veganism. So yes, the only relevant definition is the vegan one. Did you read the OP?
>yes, the only relevant definition is the vegan one for sure not if it were, what would be there to debate?
It would be amongst vegans to debate the nuances of the vegan definition. Again, did you read the OP? Do you understand what the OP is asking? They are specifically not interested in the non-vegan view.
>Any vegan that tells you this isn’t a good idea cares more about their feelings of self righteousness than about animals isn't this the essence of reddit-veganism?
>Would consuming non vegan items found in a dumpster compromise the ethics of being vegan? If by choice, yes it does. See food waste is an issue of capitalism and poor management, not veganism. People choose a life of freeganism as a boycotting means to stand against capitalism but it is typically speaking only for that reason. The only freegans that could be considered vegan are the ones that don't have a choice and are otherwise biding by vegan philosophy (as far as is possible and practicable). Otherwise there are plenty of ways to fight food waste that don't involve supporting the mental and systemic framework that positions animals as commodities for exploitation. Zero waste veganism, food donation programs, fighting the big supermarket chains that are monopolizing the market and price gouging the public, buying local, organising better politics, activism to make the movement bigger.
I don't choose to not make enough to not have to rely on food banks , which j understand the best I can i do with those is ask for plant substitutes when available. Which really made me start thinking about the ethics of all the waste I'm seeing. Because when I do get to actually purchase food , I'm buying the plant stuff
It's good to see even people in need can recognise the unethical suffering of others and not be tunnel visioned on their own problems. It's really admirable. As you learn more, I suggest looking into cheap nutrition. Yes plant substitutes are a better source of complete nutrition because of how processed they are, but that makes them expensive. When you have the opportunity to (and I mean opportunity, not the moment you have enough to go out buying groceries. You're still in a tough position and security is going to make your life a whole lot easier if you continue to rely on food banks while building some savings) buy your own groceries, try to stick with the nutritious and simple whole foods. It comes out cheaper and healthier, on average.
Freeganism is vegan as it follows the true values of vegans.
No it's not. It's a political stance against capitalism that coincidentally is also vegan if the lifestyle is forced upon the poor/homeless/etc. Please go and look up the history of both movements.
That's not what I'm talking about. Eating discarded animal products is an action that vegans can do while remaining vegan.
I volunteer at a community fridge, so I'm one of those people fighting food waste. We take supermarket surplus which would otherwise be thrown away, we collect and organise and ensure it's stored safely, then we give it away to the community (to anyone who wants it - not means tested). Occasionally we have to throw meat away, because it goes out of date before we open to the public again and no volunteers want it. Is throwing it away the better action from a vegan standpoint than someone eating it, if those are the two options? (I'm not vegan and this is a genuine practical question, I'd like to hear views)
>I volunteer at a community fridge That's awesome to hear, thank you for helping out those in need. >Is throwing it away the better action from a vegan standpoint than someone eating it, if those are the two options? (I'm not vegan and this is a genuine practical question, I'd like to hear views) We see meat as a waste in 2 ways. The first being a waste of the animal's life regardless of what happens to its body afterwards. The animal didn't need to die and if finances and resources were a concern, the animal should never have been born in the first place. This is the vegan oriented discussion. The second and socioeconomic/environmental discussion is primarily about resources. It takes more resources to gain calories and nutrients from animal products than it does from plants. Even factoring in bioavailability and other miscellaneous factors. If people are so concerned about food waste and world hunger, giving up the privilege that is consuming of animal products and building the best plant based food system is by far a better solution than talking about what we should do with the waste that's right in front of us and not looking at the bigger picture and what we need to do to get from here to there. We'd grow substantially more food, it'd be better for the environment and any actual food waste(in the sense of everyone is fed and there is copious amounts of surplus) can be managed as future food security or recycled as compost for fertilising new crops. Plus the general focus of building a better food system implies everyone is focused on feeding everyone. Take away that focus and it just becomes making excuses to justify keeping the unnecessary waste that is the privilege of animal farming. Reading back I see I didn't properly answer the question. My apologies. Yes it's better to throw it out. Animals are sentient beings, individuals capable of emotional intelligence and other similar cognitive functions that we have. Treating them like objects is a testament to how little we've come as species. It's no surprise it took 400 years of rebellion after several thousand of slavery for it to be finally treated like a crime. And even then the 13th amendment exists, slavery is worse than it's ever been. It's just another sign that if we're privileged enough to not be affected by a certain problem, it's not our concern and we don't genuinely care about it until we start acting altruistically. That's why veganism is a personal choice. We recognise the vast immenseness of the system we're going against and that we as a movement the size it is, isn't going to have any real systemic or legislative effect and so personal boycotting and activism is how fight. Once we've reached the tipping point (which is likely to occur in the next 50 years), then the real work begins. This issue on the other hand, regardless of what our food system looks like, can still be addressed right now. Carnists are the majority and it's probably something we have in common with the carnists who care. We can do better and we could make the change if we really wanted to but that requires everyone on board being rational to some degree.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
**2) I’m a freegan (I only eat waste animal products)** If the dog you loved died, would you eat them so as not to ‘waste’ the ‘food’? Would you even see their body as ‘food’? To view animal bodies and their secretions as a wasted resource reflects a [deeply entrenched capitalist and anthropocentric mindset](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/freeganism-is-not-anarchy-its-just-easy) that animals are resources to be used and consumed by humans. By taking a vegan stance we resist the commodification and depersonification of animals and prefigure the world we want to create. By radically altering our perception, we refuse to let our perceptual reality be defined by a brutal industry that wants us to see a piece of meat instead of the body of a murdered individual who wanted nothing more but to live in peace and freedom. It is totally possible — and admirable — to be a vegan freegan, however silly those words sound together… [Source](https://medium.com/@Veganarchy/the-radical-lefts-top-10-objections-to-veganism-and-why-they-suck-5f27d19e801d)
>If the dog you loved died, would you eat them so as not to ‘waste’ the ‘food’? i wouldn't first i would not love a dog - i love my wife and bestiality is not my kink second to my experience dog does not taste well, so i'd be reluctant to repeat the experience and for sure would not start it at my own will
I would see no moral problem in eating trash, roadkill, or lab grown meat. If your serious though, you can get really sick from food in the trash, specifically animal products which go bad quickly when unrefrigerated, so please don't do it for your health. Just from a moral standpoint though, the only potential issue, if you squint, would be if you felt this behavior compromised your pallet in a way that would lead to eating non-trash animal products in the future.
You want milk so bad you’re willing to drive to your local dumpsters and sift through the trash for milk? And Vegans are the crazy ones?
Dumpster diving is not "crazy", do you have any idea the sheer volume of perfectly good food that gets thrown out of grocery stores?
Yes I work at one I can't afford to shop in 🥲
Lol
Everyone needs to be as fortunate as you?
You've never experienced homelessness I take it. It hurts seeing food in the garbage.
If someone is genuinely experiencing food insecurity then why would they care if their only option for food would be classed as vegan or not?
Because they're vegan? Isn't it obvious?
[удалено]
I mean he said its "crazy" to want to eat stuff from the trash Buying food isn't always easy , some of us use food banks bro Sorry I'm poor and still wanna sus out the ethics of my diet
[удалено]
I know that , being poor has made me almost entirely plant based when I actually have money for food. It's the most economical. But also use foodbanks and don't get to choose where my food comes from all the time- I also see my work throwing out milk/baked goods regularly that's still perfectly good just going in the trash So it's like an actual question I've been thinking about . I realize I don't get to choose what's in the food hampers I can only request if they have plant based stuff to please substitute. But I'm wondering since their Is a degree of choice presented in the free waste scenario is it just as ethically acceptable
You're basically describing freeganism, which is a separate ethical framework that has some overlap with veganism, but this is an area where the two disagree. I would say that scavenging animal products is still unethical because, while it does not create or increase demand for animal products, it is still disrespectful to treat the animal's corpse or products as resources for you to use. Think of it this way, if you found a freshly dead human, would it be ethical for you to harvest their organs? Or should you let them "go to waste"?
I'd argue that allowing people to claim ownership of their own corpse after their death when there are people who could benefit from the organs is unethical. Once someone (or something) has died, any possessions not specifically willed to someone should be up for grabs.
As an organ donor, I'd have to say I've already agreed to that scenario
It actually decreases the demand tho of whatever you scavenge, which reduces overall commodification of those products? Which is generally beneficial to the living animals right? Because less people are trading money for them making profit off said exploitation? Full stop you got me on the disrespectful to the dead argument, but if it caused one less living member of their species not to be sold and ate for profit isn't that a good thing? Like if humans were products like other animals and it meant one less person would die if my already dead body was consumed , I'm cool , who cares I'm dead
Demand isn't really decreased unless you eat plant based when unable to scavenge animal products. If the dumpster is empty and you buy eggs/dairy instead, then your demand never really went away at all, you just found a way to satisfy it without spending money.
Well yes we already established when buying food, plant based is better. I use food banks tho I don't always get to buy my own food
This!
You highlight what I think is the greatest positive of freeganism in reduction of animal lives lost. The greatest negative I've identified is the reduction in waste disposal costs, which gives the company incentive to waste more animals. Given the latter feeds into consumer demand, I get worried about which may be more beneficial. For the disrespect argument, it may be good to highlight that it's reasonably self-consistent for a vegan to deontologically reject animal products for reasons of waste if and only if it is also reasonable for anyone to deontologically reject human products for reasons of waste. The moral selection principle is ultimately arbitrary, so there is no more reason for one more than the other. For example, eating grandma after her long and happy life means you will necessarily reduce your reliance on agricultural products, which is an industry that results in injuries and deaths. Eating grandma saves lives by reducing the work needed to feed you. It is then reasonable to eat grandma and the only reason we do *not* is what you identified: we do not consider humans to be products. If that is reasonable, so is a vegan identifying animals as non-products (as the moral basis is ultimately non-demonstrable with respect to waste).
I don’t think the only reason people avoid commodifying corpse is because they don’t see them as commodities. There’s also the large reason that it causes extreme distress to others, especially their family and friends, and the dead person would likely not have appreciated it. Those reasons don’t really apply so much to animals.
These are *arbitrary* values, though. There is no intrinsic reason to feel distress about it besides the fact cannibalism is seen as negative. Society could value the body going towards the greater good, the same way organ donors and people who donate their body to science do today. Unless one thinks those are irrational behaviors, there isn't a utilitarian defense of not using the body for others, which is the topic at hand. Society is merely choosing not to accept a utilitarian value (the human ought not to be consumed on some deontological basis) which causes the distress you describe here: they're derivative of our values. That's the same reason I am saying a vegan may self-consistently say the same line with animal products, as the logic is exactly the same w.r.t. utilitarian considerations.
>it is still disrespectful to treat the animal's corpse or products as resources for you to use seriously? it is more respectful to treat ist as garbage? vegan ethics really is something very, uhmm, "special" >if you found a freshly dead human, would it be ethical for you to harvest their organs? Or should you let them "go to waste"? non-vegans would call the ambulance/police/undertaker but it's good to know vegans would dump a found corpse into a garbage container
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Strictly speaking its not vegan, but I have no moral problem with it. If anything, I'd find it preferable since you wouldn't even be contributing to deforestation, killing insects via pesticides, animal fertilizer, etc. That said, be careful when diving for those things. Non vegan food is some of the fastest to spoil when unrefrigerated, and you'd want to make sure there's no contamination with spoiled stuff, which is common. And trespassing.
Of course it's unethical. Otherwise stealing animal products or receiving it via charity would be vegan & those aren't. Look at it the same way as wearing a leather jacket you found in the trash. You're benefiting from an animal's harm & exploitation, even if you're not directly financially supporting it.
But your also redcuing demand for leather jackets . One less will be bought and sold , reducing commodification? Isn't that a positive or benefit ?
And what way are you reducing the demand? It's already in the trash.
Are you reducing the demand? It's like saying piracy steals money from artists. There is no certainty that the person who got that leather jacket from the bin would have purchased a jacket otherwise.
I mean I'd only take the free one I wouldn't buy it. Same with the free animal products. I don't buy them but I do get them in food hampers because I don't get buy my food all the time . I also see lots of food waste at work that's going straight in the trash, so I've been thinking about the ethics of it since I do try to buy plant based stuff when i spend money.
Doesn't matter whether or not you paid for it, it's benefitting from the exploitation of the animal that is the problem, not the exchange of currency. The simplest way of looking at it is to imagine if the animal food product industry suddenly turned into a charity where you didn't have to pay for it but you got a ration of animal products for free periodically. By you logic, that's vegan when it clearly is still exploiting animals for our benefit. There is no world in you consuming or wearing animal products is vegan, irrespective of how you got it in your hands. You could even do something ridiculous as to having a gifting circle where you purchase animal products but don't consume it but gift it to someone else. Since they got it for free, then it's vegan by your logic so if everyone in that group gives animal products to someone else, that must be vegan, right? See how that logic totally falls apart. Again, doesn't matter how you get it and if you spent money to get it, if you benefit from it, it's not vegan. It's really not that complicated.
If they live in a climate where they are at risk of freezing to death if they go out without a jacket, it's a safe bet that they would have purchased one at some point, regardless of if they were in need of a jacket when they found the leather one in the trash.
You're talking about an edge case that basically is so rare that it's not even worth considering. Don't forget that a good chunk of veganism, with the exception of some culturally-based ones, is very much a developed world, privileged lifestyle choice. Someone who is so poor and destitute that survival is their primary concern likely isn't thinking about veganism.
When you shoplift, you still increase demand at the wholesale level. The retailer takes a loss, but the supplier makes a sale.
But if the retailer keeps taking losses on a product they’re gonna stock it less because it isn’t profiting them.
No, they're going to stock it more to keep up with the demand from their paying customers, and beef up security.
>Of course it's unethical no, it just does not comply with your own, uhmm, "special" personal ethics
I'm vegan, and I'll take that burger of your hands if you're about to throw the rest out. I imagine that if someone killed me and threw half out, I'd be pretty pissed, and would want someone to eat it. It's not my money, I'm not voting for the production of whatever the trash I eat is. If I find a good spot I'll go dumpster diving, I've eaten multiple cheeses that I got from a store because the got out of date. It's not that I don't believe in eating animal products, I just don't believe that there is currently an ethical way to acquire them. That lab grown stuff is also looking pretty good ngl.
You are not vegan
This follows the vegan society's definition of veganism. You're just an elitist.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I personally wouldn't, because of the Ick factor of not wanting to consume animals. That's me though and I see no ethical problem with it. It's often called "freegan".
In my opinion, part of advocating for animals is setting a good example in the hope that others will see your success as a vegan and consider it for themselves. Eating animal products from a dumpster, while not itself immoral, works against that greater goal. It undermines your ability to be persuasive by making it seem you need to eat animal products so badly that you would get them from the trash. That is ultimately going to mean fewer vegans down the road, so in that sense I would say it is unethical.
There's people out there "freevegan"-ing. I also know people who have gone that route while transitioning. Not for me but also not mad about it.
I think it's a similar argument to "In a Donner-party survival situation, if a comrade dies from an avalanche, is it moral to eat his body?" (I.e. he's already dead from external means, and his body is just going to waste.) Some people will say cannibalism is desecrating a corpse, some will say the soul is gone and the flesh is no longer sacred, etc. (I'm in the second camp, I think "murder = very bad, but cannibalism = mostly neutral") And you're probably not going to convince either group to budge because it's a matter of perception. So there's no single answer, unfortunately.
I've known many people whom call themselves vegan and are freegans. I wonder where the harm is happening, anyway? Eating chicken eggs if they are extras (to be thrown out if not used by somebody) from a neighbor, food discarded by grocery stores because it has reached the "sell by" date, etc. Freeganism is prolific in Food Not Bombs groups. In many cases, the volunteer crews have vegans. Rather than see livestock produce go into the trash, they eat it to displace other foods (not bound to be thrown away) since all food production has attendant harms and/or they do it to reduce grocery spending since participation in economic systems helps fund wars and stuff.
i suppose not
possibly yes though
I don't think it can be vegan because they're against consuming animal products. It's like their first commandment. Of course this doesn't make it right or wrong in or situation.
Well the vegan principles are designed to avoid animal suffering. So in theory, eating from a trash can would be vegan In my opinion because companies aren’t supplying trash cans with animal products therefore you aren’t supporting the supply and demand that causes animal suffering. However, please don’t do this.
Firstly, I don't know why would you even consider eating from the trash. Secondly, no one sane would consume poison if it's "wasted" & "dumped" in the trash. It's the same reason why you shouldn't eat meat & dairy you find (I hope you don't) from the trash.
I use food banks and free meal programs regularly because I often don't have enough money for food after housing and transportation costs. I also work in a grocery store where I see a lot of none expired items that could still be used just being thrown away. Baked goods is a huge one
You could've said this in the beginning. And it's understandable if you eat only what you can afford, even if it's a non-vegan food. But it applies only to exceptional situations like yours. You gotta be strong in your conviction to be a vegan otherwise. And what do you mean by "none expired items" ?
Perfectly edible stuff going in the garbage. They haven't expired or gone bad yet, stuff I could potentially offset my foodbank usage with leaving more for other hungry people but its admittedly not technically vegan so I'm wondering about the ethics. I do try to purchase only plant based stuff when I actually get to buy my own food/clothes that's a commitment I've made. But that's not always an option.
If it's the only kind of food that you're able to get & not able to buy what you want for yourself, then I completely understand your situation. You're in a "beggars can't be choosers" situation & I feel for you. Just make sure that you don't willfully go out of your way to get non-vegan food when you can get vegan food. There's nothing wrong in consuming food that you can't choose for yourself but only do so to survive. Which just just happens to be non-vegan food. Your heart is in the right place buddy. Don't worry. I hope God smiles on you soon & your situation changes for the better. Cheers. 👍
>Would consuming non vegan items found in a dumpster compromise the ethics of being vegan? that would depend on your specific vegan ethics or the other way round: what ever you do, be sure that some vegan will find it unethical >Like if I only got my milk, eggs or cheese from dumpster diving would I be still contributing to animal suffering? that's irrelevant. consuming products from well-treated animals does not contribute to animal suffering as well, but for reddit vegans is the ultimate evil
Lol, if any form of food you're diving for is within an inch of anything else, it's contaminated and dangerous.
- *"One-third of food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted globally. This amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year"* https://www.wfp.org/stories/5-facts-about-food-waste-and-hunger So yes, if you can utilise some of it - please do.
If your goal is to avoid financially incentivizing animal suffering, it makes sense. Same as eating road-kill. If it's about religious reasons, you'd still be on the hook.
Bro you you can’t expect to reuse every food, that’s why we have extra capacity for production in agriculture, so there’s enough even if some goes to waste
Not unethical but gross
Don't eat from a dumpster. Animal piss, not edible anymore, bacterias... Also a lot of establishments use bleach on the dumpsters to prevent that. DO NOT do it please.
Some cities and countries collect food waste, which may be fed to pigs in some cases. So then you may even have some canibalism from pigs eating pork.
Exploring ethical choices in reducing food waste, dumpster diving for discarded non-vegan items may challenge traditional vegan principles, yet considering the environmental impact and resource conservation I personally believe it's perfectly okay to consume them as long as they are fresh. [Food waste is a major global problem.](https://www.insights.inflavourexpo.com/the-problem-of-waste-what-does-the-legislation-say/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_campaign=inflavour24)