How vegan is vegan?

These thoughts have been coalescing in my mind for the past year or two. One of the reasons that I have not until now committed fingertips to keyboard keys is that the ideas seem to me to be somewhat obsessive. However, a recent unpleasant experience of what should have been an unremarkable meal, albeit kindly prepared and served with enthusiasm and goodwill, resulted in a bad stomach for several weeks. I was hurt because someone got some things badly wrong. My way of coping has been to commit my obsessions to print.

When I first encountered the term 'vegan' early in 1981, I assumed that most people already knew what the term meant. However, having travelled widely throughout western Europe; around Florida, to DC, Manhattan, Boston and Chicago; around Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and BC; and to Tokyo, Kyoto and Nara, I have come to accept that, the world over, the term 'vegan', even in locations where it is known at all, is unfamiliar to the overwhelming majority of people. Moreover, not all people who have encountered the term understand its meaning. Further, few people who are familiar with the term understand it other than as a broad concept.

There are probably many reasons why the term 'vegan', and its equivalents in other languages (vegetalien, veganisch) is barely known, although the broad concept is simple and has a religious pedigree stretching back millennia. Probably the most important reason why the term is neither known nor understood is that few people consciously adopt a vegan diet. However, an other reason for this lack of understanding is variation in the use of the word, both by people who are not vegan, and by people who are vegan. My particular variation is that, confronted with the unarticulated uncertainty of shop, restaurant or hotel staff, I typically qualify what I write or say about myself: that I am 'strictly vegan'. Although relative to the weak understanding of most people the qualification 'strictly' it ought to be a tautology, my intention is to imply a tighter set of standards than merely 'vegan'. One of my friends who is vegan conforms to looser vegan standards than me.

There is also variation in the way food and medication manufacturers use the term 'vegan'. For example, are all food manufacturers certain that the sugar that they add to sweeten a confection or a bottled sauce that is labelled 'suitable for vegans' has been refined without the use of animal-derived charcoal? In contrast, some food manufacturers avoid using the term 'vegan' in circumstances about which some or many vegans might otherwise be comfortable, which can be almost as unhelpful. Examples of the latter include the brewery Bateman's not labelling a bottled beer as suitable for vegans because of the animal-derivation of the glue on the bottle label (I am with Bateman's on that); and one of the vegan paté manufacturers not labelling their paté as suitable for vegans because of being required by the Health & Safety Executive to use rat poison around their factory (whilst I use humane mouse traps at home, I am less clear that an entire food-production environment needs to be vegan - but then I would say that, as I live with two people who are vegetarian).

A second complicating factor is that people get distracted by other issues that use terms such as 'vegetarian', 'organic' and 'cruelty-free'. In the UK, almost any food product that is labelled 'vegan' or 'suitable for vegans' is also labelled 'vegetarian' or 'suitable for vegetarians'. The logical, if incorrect, implication of this dual labeling is that a product that is vegan might not be vegetarian. However, my assumption is that food manufacturers believe that few people who are merely vegetarian are sufficiently well informed about a vegan diet / lifestyle to be confident that a food labelled as vegan necessarily means that the food is vegetarian.

UK Government discussions a few years ago with representatives from across the food and hospitality industries revealed alarming variation in use of the term 'vegetarian'. Whilst those discussions concluded that the term 'vegan' is more tightly defined than the term 'vegetarian', the implied definition of 'vegan' is much weaker (less strict) than my own use expectations of the term.

In response, I have, on many occasions, considered creating a vegan scale, ranging, say from 1 to 10, with clear definitions regarding each point on the scale, 1 being a minimum set of standards, and 10 being much tighter. (Sophistications of this scale might also include 0 for (lacto-ovo) vegetarian and minus numbers for animal-eating.) Two important difficulties presented themselves. First, that whilst there is sense in the idea of something being more vegan or less vegan, there are different ways in which something can be more vegan or less vegan - the issue is not simply linear, but multi-dimensional. Second, inviting widespread adoption of a numbered (or letter-coded) scale, particularly amongst sceptical groups such as food manufacturers, food retailers and the hospitality industry, could be like trying to invite unyeasted bread to rise.

Instead, I have collated a set of fairly transparent terms that can be used with relative ease by vegan people and non-vegan people alike.

Non-vegan terms
Cannibal: a person who eats parts of other people.
Carnivore: a person who eats animal, particularly mammal, flesh; an animal that eats other animals.
Omnivore: a person who eats anything, including animal flesh; an animal that eats vegetation and other animals such as insects, birds' eggs, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, small mammals, carrion.
Pescatarian: a person who eats a variety of foods, is unlikely to be concerned about consuming animal-flesh-derivatives, but the principal animal flesh consumed is from fish / shell-fish.
Meat-free: food that does not contain animal flesh, but might contain animal-flesh derivatives
Vegetarian / suitable for vegetarians: food unlikely to be based on animal flesh, although the variation in what is excluded is alarmingly wide - some restaurateurs include animal flesh from fish / shell-fish, and it is a commonplace in some countries to consider stock made from animal flesh to be acceptable.
Lacto-ovo vegetarian: a person who eats a variety of foods, including birds' eggs and mammary-gland fluids, but excluding animal flesh. Lacto-ovo vegetarians may or may not be concerned about the presence of animal-flesh derivatives in their food.
Lacto-vegetarian (Indian vegetarian): eats a variety of foods, including mammary-gland fluids, but excluding animal flesh and bird's eggs. Lacto-vegetarians may or may not be concerned about the presence of animal-flesh derivatives in their food.

Sub-vegan terms
Animal-free
Pure vegetarian: although British Airways use this term in preference to vegan (I do not know why), I understand that in India the term can include the use of dairy products

Vegan terms
I propose the abandonment of the term vegan to refer to a person. Instead, the term should be used as an adjective, like the term Kosher. To emphasise this point, I propose the adoption of a new general designation: vegan standard. This could be abbreviated to VS.
Vegan standard ingredients: the (main) ingredients are not animals-derived (this is not watertight because, whereas in the UK neither honey nor casein, both being animal-derived, are widely considered not to be vegan, in the US the situation is not as resolved).
Vegan standard additives and processing: nothing that has gone into the production of the food or meal is animal-derived, and every aspect has been checked (for example, if the food has been sweetened with sugar then the sugar is certified as vegan; this term does address the issue of UK beer being fined with fish guts).
Vegan standard handling: care has been taken to eliminate cross-contamination with non-vegan and sub-vegan food (for example, vegan food that is stored, prepared and served in a separate place, using separate utensils and crockery (analogous to the definition of Kosher; in factories, vegan food is never processed on lines that may also be used for non-vegan food).
Vegan standard environment: no aspect of the food production or preparation could be compromised (which is why, when I have a meal out, I prefer to eat in a vegan restaurant). In this context, the term 'cruelty-free' is important regarding medications, cosmetics and hygiene products (such as soap, toothpaste and washing powder)

This posting is not finished. Once I have completed it, I intend to move it to my website, as I should welcome some serious debate (particularly from vegans) on the issues.