George Guimarães, nutritionist specializing in vegetarian diets, founding member of the Vegan Society

April 2010

For some time, I began to realize was bothered when someone says proud to be "vegetarian". After evaluating if I would be with that expressing a symptom of intolerance, I found that it was not an intolerance directed at individual, but a nuisance on the inconsistency implicit in this supposedly pride in declaring themselves "vegetarian", especially in the common use of the term, which currently covers also those who consume eggs and dairy.

In my view, being vegan (exclude not only eggs and dairy food, but also all other derivatives of animal origin from all the daily) is no more than a moral obligation to all. Being only the minimum to be done, what's it to be proud of? The fact that a person not be so ignorant or accommodated as most that surrounds it is not any reason for pride. Depending on the environment where the person is located, this may be reason to admire her for her courage, determination and willpower, but not something that can be proud of itself. After all, she is doing nothing more than his duty, which is not to exploit other sentient beings, thus freeing them from misery, slavery and death they would be imposed in exchange for some pleasure or momentary comfort and individual.

But if the person raises your veganism a step further, deciding to dedicate himself to bring the message of animal rights to others (becoming an activist), from there she could consider doing something beyond their moral obligation, despite that another perspective might come to the conclusion that activism is also nothing more than our moral obligation.

The dilemma facing the finding of inconsistency implicit in this "proud vegetarian" applies not only to vegans, but (and greater severity) those who exalt his benevolence while rejoice with products that derive from the same amount (more than) farm animal and meat. I mean, of course, products such as eggs and dairy. With a break to reassess my tolerance (or the possible lack thereof), I understand that the transition phase of the consumption of some foods derived from animals, Though not essential, is commonly required in view of the degree of alienation that prevails in our society. Thereby, a phase of "decompression" (the consumption of animal products) can be useful to the individual to achieve normality (Veganism). However, we must not fail to consider that the direct transition from carnism to veganism is also perfectly feasible from a physiological standpoint. The impediment is not in physiology, but the habit.

I admire the fact that the individual has awakened and begun to review and release addictions, matrices and comodismos that still maintain the large mass attached to ignorance and neglect, unconscious, but not exempt, the responsibility that each has on the perpetuation or the abolition of animal slavery. Although I can understand that this process may require some time until the person abandon all animal products, I still can not say that I see this as something to be proud of. There are those that pass quickly through this phase transition or that, if not do so quickly, galgam steadily the steps necessary and this is admirable.

However, is because they think that's good that is because they think they are not able, there are those who reach the "status" of having abandoned the consumption of animal meats and consider it the final conquest, as the possibility of veganism was reserved for a chosen few or unusually developed in their understanding of morality. The fact is that behind the "satisfaction" with their food classification is one reason: self-indulgence. Yes, self-indulgence, since the physiological point of view it is possible to abstain from the consumption of animal products in their entirety. If there is any attachment to them, this attachment is clothed with the excuse that their social condition or your daily routine does not make the transition, the fact is that addiction is. Even though there is an attachment to the food itself, there is an attachment to this daily routine that supposedly prevents the change. Now, if the person does not change his routine, is because it would bring consequences that would generate some discomfort, some? Logo, the person chooses to keep the discomfort to the animal will be explored so that she can keep the routine you consider to be the most comfortable for herself. That is laziness.

Being self-indulgence considered by most as a negative behavior, I wonder where does the huge inconsistency boast of a practice guided by ease. Perhaps the comparison criterion is the, after all, although accommodated, people who continue to consume strongly some products derived from animals are less well than the majority of the population continues to consume strongly everyone Products of animal origin. Or, perhaps, this acceptance is because it was instituted to abandon meat consumption is already something sufficiently worthy of admiration and pride, and therefore would not be necessary to go beyond. As I have already explained, even said "besides" (the abandonment of all animal foods diet) is well below the minimum that everyone should practice (the veganismo, applied to all the everyday) and too short of the ideal being objectified (veganism added to animal rights activism).

Therefore, if we are to help people in their process of letting go of what keeps them linked to the consumption of products derived from animals, we, before anything else, pointing to them where your inconsistency, as this motivate them to continue moving forward. Evict them from undue laurels is not directing them an attitude of intolerance, but encourage them to follow walking with conviction and consistency until they can take ownership and pride, more suitably, satisfaction that aim with your rank dietary.

In this sense, and coming against solve my particular nuisance already reported, new terms are proposed to classify those who choose to leave the consumption of food of animal origin. The terms that are presented below were discussed by the members of the newly founded Vegan Society, an organization that was part of the motivation for its creation in the apparent confusion and misuse that has been made of the concepts of vegetarianism and veganism. As well as 1944 Vegan Society UK surgiu to highlight vegetarians (to use the setting time) who abandoned the consumption of eggs and dairy, coined the term "vegan", similarly Society Vegana, established in Brazil em 2010, proposes to reclassify the concept hitherto known as vegetarianism to its true condition, that is to protovegetarianismo.

The prefix therefore (Greek) designates that which gives evidence of being, or who leans to be, but which is not yet. Examples of this usage the terms prototype and protozoan. Examples of a protovegetariano the ovolactovegetarians, lactovegetarianos, ovovegetarianos, apivegetarianos or any combination of the prefixes that designate the animal food that continues to be added to your vegetarian diet (but not, precisely because these foods bring animals aggregates). Protovegetarianos are, therefore, those who want to be vegetarians (feed exclusively on plant foods), but not there yet, they still remain attached to the consumption of certain products of animal origin.

Already the term vegetarian applies to that individual who bases his power entirely on plant foods and mineral. The term Vegan applies to the individual, in addition to adopting a vegetarian diet (eliminating everyone Products of animal origin of their food), also fails to consume the products of animal exploitation in other aspects of their way of life, such as in healthcare and sports and entertainment of which choose to participate.

Naturally, the terms do not apply only to the individual, but also to food, the product, the establishment, etc.. To cite some examples following the new terminology, to designate, is vegetarian, a restaurant should serve only foods of plant origin, but does not need to be especially careful with the origin of the cleaning products you use. Already a restaurant vegan is consistent with the term when it goes beyond the food we serve to also take care of other aspects related to its operation and that may involve the use of products derived from animal exploitation. Similarly, an entity that calls itself vegetarian can not be permissive with the consumption of foods of animal origin. The correct designation for an entity that may be condescending with the consumption of animal products is protovegetariana. To cite another example, a cookbook vegetarian does not deserve the name if there be recipes with eggs and dairy. If a book with recipes that keep those animal products, correct classification is a cookbook protovegetarianas (to use a generic term) or a cookbook ovolactoapivegetarianas or similar composition in case you want to be more specific about the ingredients they use or do not use. However, becomes incorrect to use the title "vegetarian recipes" to designate a publication containing animal ingredients in your recipes.

FRAMEWORK ==== ====

In this time of transition, a small glossary listing the new terms to the above terms can be useful:

Protovegetariano - Some guy who keeps animals derived added to your diet. May be a combination of prefixes egg-, lacto- and API- (example: ovolactovegetariano). Formerly known as vegetarian.

Vegetarian - Individual who consumes only plant foods and mineral. Formerly known as strict vegetarian, What we see today is a redundancy in terms.

Vegan - Individual who adopts a vegetarian diet (disclaims any food of animal origin) and also abolishes the animal products from other aspects of their way of life.

FRAMEWORK ==== ====

It is natural that there is some confusion in the use of these terms during the first years of transition. You will need to work its use not only in communication between vegetarians and protovegetarianos, but also with the media and the public. Although this change may bring some confusion at the beginning, we are paving the way for clearer communication and free of flaws that keep today indulgence hidden under the eyes of the individual who remains attached to it, stroking it bother the providential, if it were not hidden, would motivate him to follow in his path towards abolition of all forms of animal exploitation of their way of life.