Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 05:03 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James Strutz" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message news
If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
sourced from other animals.


No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of animals.
The case in which human mothers breastfeed their children is not
exploitation.


Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
exploitative, so if your only objection to it as a valid
vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
treated or exploited.

The case in which human mothers feed their children
dairy milk is exploitation.


If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
vegan fare? Also, it is on record that women can receive
2.30 for each pint they express. What if some third-
World country were to take advantage of that market
and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?

As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
no grounds.

You can't just blanket define anyone who
comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
issues.


Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.

Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.


And it fails.


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 06:36 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote in message
...
Road kill is not vegan fare. You're very wrong on this point.


So where is your definition of vegan from? I got mine from the Vegan Society
in England, the original home of veganism.

Here it is again

"Today, the Society remains as determined as ever to promote vegan
lifestyles - that is, ways of living that seek to exclude, as far as is
possible and practical, all forms of exploitation of animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose. "

If you can tell me how eating some roadkill is animal exploitation, I would
be interested to know.

I already rejected the dairy argument as cows are pretty clearly exploited.


although you might be taking food away from predators -


Irrelevant.


not to predators

John


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 06:39 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Ghost of Pete Charest" [email protected]@hell wrote in message
news.com...
What makes you think that humans are not natural meat eaters?


our anatomy and biochemistry is that of a fruigivorous plant eating
species - there are no meat eating adaptations

See McDougalls Newsletter which as a nice explanation. I posted a link on a
prior thread.

John


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 06:52 PM
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James Strutz"

wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message

news

If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
sourced from other animals.


No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of

animals.
The case in which human mothers breastfeed their children is not
exploitation.


Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
exploitative,


You must not know much about the process of producing milk. Before you
reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research milk production and
dairy farming. Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new born calves, and
what they do to dairy cows who stop producing. Then check your
dictionary for "cruel" and "exploit" and think about how they might
apply to dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
anything but "relief" for cows.

so if your only objection to it as a valid
vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
treated or exploited.


You're concluding from flawed logic.

The case in which human mothers feed their children
dairy milk is exploitation.


If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
vegan fare?


And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?

Also, it is on record that women can receive
2.30 for each pint they express.


It's exploitation.

What if some third-
World country were to take advantage of that market
and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?


No.

As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
no grounds.


Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
them from a production farm. It's exploitation.

You can't just blanket define anyone who
comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
issues.


Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.


I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?
While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is between
making love and prostition. I wonder if you can draw any
similarities...

Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.


And it fails.


Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 07:01 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:

"Digger" wrote in message

...
Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.


incorrect


Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
as vegan.


why - cow milk yes, a result of exploitation, but human milk no

And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
a vegan source of nourishment?


it does not - where does it conclude that human breast milk isn't vegan?

There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
are vegan sources of nourishment.


they are not excluded either - but the definition says it all, one simply
has to apply it

And certainly not according to the definition you've brought
here, either. In another thread to this you've claimed meat
can be sourced from animals that die accidentally, and be
regarded as vegan fare, and now you're claiming a woman's
placenta is vegan fare as well. What other animal products
do you regard as vegan fare and ware, John?


Any that fall outside the definition already given - do you not understand
this?

Vegans are people who seek to AVOID EXPLOITING ANIMALS. Eating roadkill
doesn't cause exploitation, so isn't prohibited in veganism.

They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
its exploitative component. "It applies to the practice
of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the
exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and
its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for
all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm


This simply says that an exclusively plant based diet, animal free lifestyle
falls within the definitions bounds of being vegan. I agree. It doesn't say
that one must exclude animal products if they can be obtained without
exploitation.

Nor does it say breast milk isn't vegan - quite the opposite:
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/peo...astfeeding.php

No, you haven't explained, and you haven't explained
how meat sourced from animals involved in accidents
is vegan fare either.


Well I did.

It goes without saying that in some cases, milk and
eggs can be sourced without causing any harm to the
animal concerned at all, yet it still wouldn't be vegan
fare.


according to what definition?

However, as I keep trying to point out, milk can be
sourced from dairy and feral cows without harming
them in the least, so why isn't that milk vegan while
human milk is?


I think exploitation could still be involved in that case, afterall you are
still _using_ the cow, and that is exploitation - you simply cannot
establish consent.

cruelty or exploitation. It can, so why can't it be seen
as a vegan source of nourishment?


I don't agree with your assertion of obtaining milk without exploitation. I
think exploitation is probably inherent, although there might be a little
greyness.

It's of enormous practical value and would have been
even more so had you not snipped out what the question
referred to.


so expand - and start with THE definition given, not making it up yourself

John




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 07:39 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Coleman" wrote

Vegans are people who seek to AVOID EXPLOITING ANIMALS. Eating roadkill
doesn't cause exploitation, so isn't prohibited in veganism.


So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my crops,
there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 08:14 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"The Ghost of Pete Charest" [email protected]@hell wrote in message
news.com...

That must explain why our ancestors have been eating meat for at least
2.5 million years,


logical fallacy - argumentum ad antiquitatem

and why chimpanzees and bonobos eat meat when
available.


It is acknowledged that chimps do not need to eat meat, chimps are very
susceptable to atherosclerosis, and it is found in wild chimps. Even rabbits
will eat rabbit meat. I don't doubt that meat is nutritious and useful to
many wild living species, but that is not a reason for us to eat it.

You might want to read this as well.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml


why? I am into real science, Billings has no scientific credentials or
ability, he is a spin doctor

John


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 08:24 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Digger" wrote in message
news
No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
as human breast milk.


Pure rubbish - the milk is given voluntarily, not through "exploitation".

Digger, accept that your version of "veganism" is your own, and not the
original version.

John


  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 08:31 PM
Richard
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Digger" wrote

You're not implying that a vegan parent who breastfeeds their baby
isn't a 'true vegan', but that the baby of said vegans is 'vegetarian'?


No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
as human breast milk.


What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is vegetarian.

I'd call a suckling baby 'vegetarian', myself.


I wouldn't, for the simple fact that it doesn't feed exclusively
on vegetables. It's a suckling baby without any labels or
stigma attached to its diet.


What have vegetables got to do with it? You could be a vegetarian without
eating vegetables. Do you have even the slightest idea as to what a
vegetarian is? Of course the baby is vegetarian. It only stops being
vegetarian when you make it meat.

Richard


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 08:37 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"John Coleman" wrote

8
So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my crops,
there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?


no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it is cruel
and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture

John




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 08:47 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 13:52:34 -0400, "C. James Strutz" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 11:22:55 -0400, "C. James wrote:
"Digger" wrote in messagenews[email protected] .com...

If the vegan society want to pretend that human milk is
a valid source of nourishment for vegans to consume,
then they have no rational basis for excluding the milk
sourced from other animals.

No. Veganism is a lifestyle that avoids the exploitation of
animals. The case in which human mothers breastfeed
their children is not exploitation.


Relieving a cow of her milk is not inherently cruel or
exploitative,


You must not know much about the process of producing milk. Before you
reply, do us all and yourself a favor and research milk production and
dairy farming.


I've been on these groups for years and understand all
the bad practices that go on in the diary industry, but,
nevertheless, in spite of this inherent cruelty involved
in the industry, relieving a cow of its milk is not inherently
cruel or exploitative. That being so, according to your
criteria which qualifies a foodstuff as valid vegan fare
so long as nothing has been exploited, you have no rational
basis on which to disqualify cows milk sourced from cows
that can be shown not to have suffered or been exploited.
Such a source for milk is possible, both in theory and in
practice, so now tell me why that milk is disqualified as
a valid vegan food item.

Look into artificial insemination, grain-feeding and
antibiotics, living conditions, what they do with new born calves, and
what they do to dairy cows who stop producing. Then check your
dictionary for "cruel" and "exploit" and think about how they might
apply to dairy farming and milk production. You will see that it is
anything but "relief" for cows.


I've campaigned to close the dairy industry for years
now, and there's nothing you can tell me about it that
I don't already know.

so if your only objection to it as a valid
vegan food source is on the basis that it is, you must
then allow vegans to use diary products sourced from
animals which can be shown not to have been cruelly
treated or exploited.


You're concluding from flawed logic.


You disqualify foods as vegan fare if the person or animal
has been exploited while procuring it. That much is clear,
so you therefore have no rational basis, in theory or in practice,
on which to disqualify cows milk if it can be shown that the
animal never suffered or was exploited.

The case in which human mothers feed their children
dairy milk is exploitation.


If exploitation is the sole reason for defining a food as
non-vegan, then what argument have you against those
who declare milk sourced from unexploited animals as
vegan fare?


And just how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?


In exactly the same way I would get milk from any
nursing mother with an excess of it. There's nothing
inherently cruel or exploitative in relieving a mother of
its milk.

Also, it is on record that women can receive
2.30 for each pint they express.


It's exploitation.


Thank you. You've now excluded human milk as vegan
fare on the grounds of exploitation. Check out the 70000
hits on human milk banks from http://tinyurl.com/6dbs8
and see how many infants you've now disqualified as
being vegan, and all because of your criteria of
exploitation.

What if some third-
World country were to take advantage of that market
and hold women in milk parlours to extract their milk
for a small wage; would that be vegan fare?


No.


Thank you.

As you can see, exploitation is not the sole issue that
qualifies or disqualifies a food as vegan fare. Eggs,
for example, can be found on the ground, yet they
still don't qualify as a vegan foodstuff either, so your
basis for qualifying vegan foods on exploitation has
no grounds.


Eggs are a form of life whether you find them on the ground or take
them from a production farm. It's exploitation.


Not all eggs are fertilised. So what about them then?
Will we soon be seeing recipes from Mr Falafel that
include non-fertilised eggs and human milk? Nothing
has been exploited by eating an unfertilised egg found
in a hedgerow, but we still don't regard that as vegan
fare, do we?

You can't just blanket define anyone who
comsumes milk as non-vegan without considering the exploitation
issues.


You just did, and on the basis of exploitation, no less.

Then you cannot exclude any diary product from the
list of vegan foods so long as it was produced without
cruelty and in a non-exploitative way.


I ask again, how do you get milk from a cow without exploiting her?


In theory and in practice, a cow can be relieved of
its milk without exploiting it. That being so, according
to your criteria of what constitutes vegan fare, milk
from such an animal would qualify.

While I'm at it, I'll ask you what you think the difference is between
making love and prostition.


Another day - yeah?

I wonder if you can draw any
similarities...

Agree with it or not, there's your rational basis.


And it fails.


Only if you conclude from faulty information and logic.


If I'm wrong in saying your criteria for excluding certain
foods as valid vegan fare is based solely on exploitation,
what else would it be based on, and how will you then
be able to include human milk onto that list?
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 08:58 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 19:24:45 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message news

No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
as human breast milk.


Pure rubbish - the milk is given voluntarily, not through "exploitation".


Cows milk can be given up quite voluntarily without any
exploitation involved at all. In fact you may even be relieving
her of a huge excess of it and helping her. If you disqualify
foods as vegan fare on the basis of exploitation rather than it
being an animal product, you then have no rational basis on
which to disqualify milk sourced from a well treated an
content cow.

Digger, accept that your version of "veganism" is your own, and not the
original version.


The original version says nothing of human breast milk. In
fact it makes it quite plain that all animal milk must be
avoided.
"It applies to the practice of living on the products of the
plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly
or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 09:09 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:31:44 +0100, "Richard" wrote:

"Digger" wrote

You're not implying that a vegan parent who breastfeeds their baby
isn't a 'true vegan', but that the baby of said vegans is 'vegetarian'?


No, I'm not implying anything like that. The mother, if vegan
remains a vegan by virtue of her diet and lifestyle. The baby,
however, cannot be said to be a vegan or even a vegetarian
while it gains nourishment from animal derived products such
as human breast milk.


What do you mean not vegetarian? A vegetarian doesn't eat the meat of
animals? If the baby doesn't eat the meat of animals, then it is vegetarian.


Does that logic apply to suckling lion cubs as well?

I'd call a suckling baby 'vegetarian', myself.


Pearl - is a suckling lion cub a vegetarian?

I wouldn't, for the simple fact that it doesn't feed exclusively
on vegetables. It's a suckling baby without any labels or
stigma attached to its diet.


What have vegetables got to do with it?


Quite a bit, actually.

You could be a vegetarian without
eating vegetables.


No, you couldn't.

Do you have even the slightest idea as to what a
vegetarian is?


Some.

Of course the baby is vegetarian.


No, it is not.

It only stops being
vegetarian when you make it meat.


It was never a vegetarian or a vegan to begin with,
and no, I wouldn't make a baby eat meat.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 10:09 PM
Digger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:01:37 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:44:29 GMT, "John Coleman" wrote:
"Digger" wrote in message ...

Milk is an animal product and thereby non-vegan by default.

incorrect


Then you must allow all diary users to announce themselves
as vegan.


why - cow milk yes, a result of exploitation, but human milk no


Humans can be exploited for their milk, in theory and
in practice, so according to your definition of what
constitutes proper vegan fare, human breast milk is
disqualified so long as people claim women are being
exploited for it.

And where, in any of that does it conclude milk to be
a vegan source of nourishment?


it does not


Then you cannot conclude that human milk has been
made an exception unless clearly stated.

- where does it conclude that human breast milk isn't vegan?


Human milk is animal milk, and according to the material
below this line it should be avoided.

"It applies to the practice of living on the products of the
plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages
the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly
or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

There is nothing in that definition that says milk an placenta
are vegan sources of nourishment.


they are not excluded either


They have to be if they are to be made an exception to the
rule. A man can easily sustain himself on placentas and
human milk, and according to your position on this issue
regarding vegan fare, that man would qualify as a vegan.

- but the definition says it all, one simply
has to apply it


That exactly what I say, so read the bit where it refers
to animal milk and meat again.

And certainly not according to the definition you've brought
here, either. In another thread to this you've claimed meat
can be sourced from animals that die accidentally, and be
regarded as vegan fare, and now you're claiming a woman's
placenta is vegan fare as well. What other animal products
do you regard as vegan fare and ware, John?


Any that fall outside the definition already given - do you not understand
this?


Then list these animal products, please.

Vegans are people who seek to AVOID EXPLOITING ANIMALS. Eating roadkill
doesn't cause exploitation, so isn't prohibited in veganism.


You're very very wrong on this. Meat sourced from road kill
is a non-vegan product.

They avoid animal products for other reasons apart from
its exploitative component. "It applies to the practice
of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the
exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and
its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for
all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm


This simply says that an exclusively plant based diet, animal free lifestyle
falls within the definitions bounds of being vegan. I agree. It doesn't say
that one must exclude animal products if they can be obtained without
exploitation.


Then all one need do is scavenge for meat and still be
regarded as a vegan.

Nor does it say breast milk isn't vegan - quite the opposite:
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/peo...astfeeding.php


Breast milk is just breast milk. It's no different to any
other mammal's milk. It's source can be exploited like
any other source, and just as easily procured without
any cruelty or exploitation. You have no rational basis
on which to exclude one while promoting the other.

No, you haven't explained, and you haven't explained
how meat sourced from animals involved in accidents
is vegan fare either.


Well I did.


Why won't you be told that scavenged meat isn't vegan
fare when all logical evidence shows that it cannot be?
"It applies to the practice
of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the
exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and
its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for
all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals."
http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm

It goes without saying that in some cases, milk and
eggs can be sourced without causing any harm to the
animal concerned at all, yet it still wouldn't be vegan
fare.


according to what definition?


Anyone's definition, and that's always going to be your
stumbling block, because whenever the claim is made
that a animal based food was sourced without causing
it harm or exploitation, you'll always be obliged to accept
it as vegan fare. Good luck with that. Any anti worth
his salt will rip you up within three posts with that.

However, as I keep trying to point out, milk can be
sourced from dairy and feral cows without harming
them in the least, so why isn't that milk vegan while
human milk is?


I think exploitation could still be involved in that case, afterall you are
still _using_ the cow, and that is exploitation - you simply cannot
establish consent.


A cow may have to be milked in some circumstances
to relieve her of her heavy burden. That wouldn't be
exploiting her or being cruel. Is that milk now vegan
because of that philanthropy?

cruelty or exploitation. It can, so why can't it be seen
as a vegan source of nourishment?


I don't agree with your assertion of obtaining milk without exploitation.


Just as I don't agree with your assertion that meat
sourced from road kill is vegan fare.
[..]
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 13-10-2004, 10:39 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"John Coleman" wrote
"Dutch" wrote
"John Coleman" wrote


So if I killed some animals to prevent them from destroying my crops,
there's no exploitation, so are vegans OK with that?


no, the reason that vegans seek to avoid exploitation is because it is
cruel
and cynical, so is killing - vegans do "veganic" agriculture


I don't know any vegans who "do agriculture" at all, they shop at the same
markets I do. Judging from their actions, not your rather glib assurances, I
conclude that vegans do not have a problem with killing animals to protect
crops (i.e. paying others to do it for them).

This is where vegans nearly always let themselves down. I can understand and
respect your desire to not exploit animals, but then when pressed further
you always begin to equivocate. Why? Vegan diets are generally quite
healthy, pretty darn good for the environment, and they harm fewer animals
than the vast majority of diets. Why isn't that enough? Why do vegans have
to believe they have hit the world's most colossal moral home run?




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dan Congs considered bitter? Rainy Tea 5 11-10-2008 03:49 AM
Have You Considered Raccoon...??? Gregory Morrow[_34_] General Cooking 1 18-01-2008 02:27 PM
why is breast feeding considered vegan? magnulus Vegan 42 07-11-2004 03:48 AM
Why is fried food considered unhealthy? Saerah General Cooking 46 31-07-2004 08:11 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017