Update 3/1/11: The Vegan Society has responded to the dispute over their publication in the Autumn 2008 issue.  Here is the page in question.  According to the society,

The criteria for the Trademark have not changed but we have provided a more detailed explanation in response to questions from manufacturers. We have always allowed Trademark products to be manufactured on shared equipment that also produces non-vegan products.

The have also provided us with the exchange between the society and Plamil Foods.

In early 2009, a company called Plamil Foods, formerly Plantmilk Foods,  announced they would no longer be renewing their British Vegan Society Trademark.  It wasn’t Plamil who was no longer vegan.  Rather, they claimed the society’s trademark itself loosened restrictions to allow certain products openly (possibly) containing animal products to become vegan certified.

According to the company,

In the 1980′s Plamil was the first company to proudly label products with the Vegan Trademark. Then the Trademark was the historical flagship symbol for vegans, indicating a product had been made to widely achievable vegan standards ‘as far as is reasonably practicable’.

In the Vegan Society’s (VS) Autumn 2008 magazine, the VS published new ‘Animal Free’ Trademark criteria, in which the use of ‘may contain milk/eggs/fish’ statement would be allowed alongside the Trademark. This statement is used if a manufacturer is unable to ensure their product does not contain milk, eggs or fish.

This is big news, especially because of the history of this society. The British Vegan Society, currently based out of Birmingham, England, is not merely one of many regional vegan societies. The actual invention of the word “vegan” by founder Donald Watson in 1945 was the actual beginning of the society–the first vegan society.

Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to acquire a copy of the Autumn 2008 issue of the Vegan Society magazine. The vegan society itself does not yet offer back issues of the magazine. However, if Plamil Foods’ claim is correct, the change in definition came just about three years after the passing away of Mr. Watson at the age of 95.

Does the Vegan Society Trademark Non-Vegan Products?

I contacted The Vegan Society’s head of information, Rosamund Raha.  In regards to the society’s policy, she told me, “This has been the position since the trademark started.  We haven’t changed our position at any time.” She also directed me to the society’s official statement on the inclusion of products which may contain allergy-exacerbating quantities of animal products.  Here is an important excerpt from the statement:

We have to accept that some accidental contamination from animal substances is likely in many situations. Insect remains may occur in foods such as fruit, vegetables, flour and spices.

Even after thorough cleaning some cross-contamination may occur on production lines that are not dedicated to vegan products.

…

Even then manufacturers could not claim their product contains zero animal cross-contamination. To make such a claim would require the manufacturer to test every batch of every ingredient for animal contamination. A further problem is that the detection levels for the test methods do not go as low as zero. For example the detection limit for lactose is 70 parts per million (ppm) and so if this test produces a negative result a manufacturer can claim only that the product is known to contain less than 70 ppm of lactose.

So if enough of an animal product exists to incite an allergic reaction, is that enough to be non-vegan?

This is a tricky question.  We should remember an allergy is a type of hypersensitivity.  An allergy is a harmful immune reaction at the molecular level.  Very little of an allergen need exist for extreme allergies to flare.

When I am at a restaurant, I will not eat fries that have been cooked in the same oil as animal products.  However, I will accept a glass of water that has been cleaned thoroughly after possibly being full of milk prior for a previous customer.

Even in this scenario, despite thorough cleaning, there may be a allergic quantity of milk molecules still present in the glass.  This scenario is analogous to an all-vegan company thoroughly cleaning leased kitchen equipment once used to process animal products.  If that company’s products are not vegan, I should no longer dine from plates and glasses from non-vegan restaurants if I want to call myself a vegan.

However, maybe I am in the clear? The society enforces the producers to sign a legally-bound agreement that they have strived ”diligently to minimise cross-contamination from animal substances used in other (non-vegan) products as far as is reasonably practicable.”  We should remember, the definition of veganism itself is bound to the condition “…as far as is reasonably practicable.”

An additional objection is that my two scenarios are not analogous.  Perhaps the standards upon me as a consumer and those upon the trademarkee are different.

Either way, the statement from the society raises some questions.  The statement also says:

Chocolate production is a particular problem since production lines are not cleaned with detergent and water in between different products. Instead some of the next product is used to flush out the previous product and then discarded. This means that low levels of dairy contamination are likely if a vegan chocolate is manufactured after a milk chocolate. The only way to avoid this is to operate a completely vegan production area.

This is a very different scenario. It is certainly not analogous to my washed cup example.  Here, the society contextualizes the lack of cleaning as a forgivably non-vegan operation. The passage states “production lines are not cleaned with detergent and water” why then does the society not demand that production lines are cleaned with detergent and water?

Detergent is an especially important factor here.  Many of the animal product contaminants come in the form of proteins and oils.  Oils are not soluble in water. Some proteins are soluble in water, but stubbornly so. The detergent works to form “micelle” formations around these molecules to literally make them soluble. In English, that means detergent is extremely effective at removing these contaminants, especially over flushing the equipment with chocolate.

Who can we trust?

The society has also been under scrutiny from many in the United Kingdom and by Rutger’s University professor Gary L. Francione for their advertisements of nonvegan businesses.  This issue deserves a separate article.

In light of these events, vegans are wondering how we can trust certifications and labels? Is this problem exclusive to the British Vegan Society? The answer is simply: no.

You may recognize the encompassed V in a heart trademark from the  organization Vegan Action. They also certify products which they claim are vegan.  Do they also allow for allergic quantities of animal products? The answer is much more troubling:

When we were starting the Vegan Certification Campaign we had to establish what was going to be considered “vegan”. Most products with vegan ingredients would not be considered vegan under the strictest standards because of some form of processing contamination. We decided that we would not exclude products that may possibly contain trace amounts of “contamination”. We consulted with other prominent vegan organizations and we all agree that vegan purity is more harmful then helpful.

Our motivation is working to end cruelty to animals and we don’t feel that avoiding trace amounts of animal products in vegan foods helps end animal suffering. It is far better for the animals that these vegan products exist. So many vegans say that Soy Delicious is the best vegan ice cream they have ever had. Soy Delicious would most likely not exist if they had to purchase their own vegan dedicated machinery. It is far better for people to realize that they have this option instead of nothing. If there was no vegan ice cream how many people would become vegan?

“If there was no vegan ice cream how many people would become vegan?” I don’t know, what is the company’s point by asking this? Is this just a quip?

It appears Vegan Action is taking the same position as many welfarist organizations have taken on allowing for “99.9% vegan” (whatever that means) products to be called “vegan.”  The reasoning for calling these products vegan is not because they contain no animal products, but that by doing otherwise would scare people away from veganism. It is perfectly acceptable to this organization to help sell you non-vegan food with a “certified vegan” label. In their own words “purity is more harmful than helpful.”

Are the Organizations Protecting us from Cruelty?

“Vegan” certifications aren’t the only animal-protection trademarks being stamped on our products. More likely, you’re likely to see trademarks like the Leaping Bunny which certify products as “cruelty free.”  But what does that mean, “cruelty free”?

The Leaping Bunny list does not provide information about the composition of ingredients. Because ingredient information is available—and required by law— we know that conscientious consumers can read labels to discover whether products are vegan or not. For this reason, Leaping Bunny chooses to focus its resources on validating information that is not readily available to consumers, such as animal testing claims. Many Leaping Bunny companies are committed to manufacturing natural and vegan products; however, the Leaping Bunny Program can only certify the animal testing component of this process.

Okay, the organization does not provide the ingredients because they’re already provided. However, they will overlook those ingredients “whether products are vegan or not” and confirm them as “cruelty free.” What does this mean? According to the company’s statement, if you, a vegan, consume Leaping Bunny Certified Cruelty free veal (not knowing what veal is) it is your fault, despite their printed certification that such a product is cruelty free. It only means the product was not animal tested. “Cruelty free” does not necessarily mean free of cruelty.

This is the same position as PETA’s Caring Consumer program.

If your company does not test its products on animals, we hope that you will join PETA’s Caring Consumer program, which shares information about cruelty-free companies and products with consumers. Many of our members and other people who are concerned about animal testing turn to us for definitive information on a company’s animal-testing policies.

No mention whatsoever is made of animal ingredients.

Interestingly, Choose Cruelty Free‘s Cruelty Free logo includes ingredients into their criteria, but only animal ingredients “which are cruelly derived.”

Some companies claim they are cruelty-free, but are not on the list. Why?

• …
• Because they may use some animal ingredients which are cruelly derived such as whale products, seal oil, musk from the civet cat and musk deer (used as fixatives in perfumes).

What is it about whales, seals, civet cats, and deer that makes their exploitation cruel while the exploitation of other animals is not?

Towards understanding

I am compelled to investigate this issue of labeling for the very reason I started what has now become Vegan.FM. While we have a large database of alcohols (from Barnivore.com), ingredients, products, animal testers, and places, we do need to get better at sourcing some of this information.

Furthermore, I am making it my mission to stray away slightly from “is vegan” and “is not vegan” labeling.  Ideally, postings should show full ingredient listings including warnings of allergens. If you have any suggestions as to how Vegan.FM investigates products and ingredients, feel free to contribute in the comments.