On Freeganism and Purism
In the interest of full disclosure (and some say I disclose too much), until recently I had only the most basic knowledge of freeganism. Peter Singer and Jim Mason introduced me to the idea in The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter:
Many dumpster divers began as vegans, but became convinced that boycotting animal products is not radical enough. . . . While freegans are more radical than vegans in refusing to purchase any kind of food at all, they are also more flexible, in that they see no ethical objection to eating animal products that have been thrown out. They want to avoid giving their money to those who exploit animals (267).
I thought nothing of it when I first read it, probably a year ago, beyond: Hmmm, that’s weird FOR ME, when it comes to food. My friends and I pass around clothing, furniture, and even artwork. And yes, even shoes. I’ve got some gorgeous shoes from my non-vegan days that girlfriends borrow rather than plunking down $500 on new ones for some fancy event. But food? I don’t think I could do it. "The psychological ‘ick’ factor" gets in my way.
I’m a big fan of using the realities of supply and demand to change the world. And I was struck when I read a comment by Adam Weissman in a rather lively, um, discussion (?) regarding freeganism on supervegan.com (his is the very long comment):
What most people don’t seem to understand is that freeganism is a CRITIQUE of veganism–the term freeganism is a take-off on veganism intended to challenge veganism’s moral myopia and failure to offer a holistic of oppression and injustice under industrial capitalist production. Freegans aren’t "lazy vegans" or "wannabe vegans"–we are people who think that vegan shopping fundamentally misses the point– that if you think you can save the world through vegan shopping, you don’t understand the economic forces driving things like factory farming in the first place.
. . . . [R]etail vegans either don’t have an understanding of the problems with capitalism and industrialism and therefore can’t comprehend that there’s A LOT more to ethical lifestyle choices than choosing tofu over steak, or otherwise simply get defensive when it’s suggested that maybe being vegan isn’t enough– that maybe their CO2 spewing cars with non-leather seats and overpackaged, overprocessed Not Dogs are part of the problem, too.
I found the comments, and the supplementary material through links, fascinating. And I agree with Weissman. I’ll just never be a freegan (they’re the purists, it seems).
Kraft brands include Boca Burger, Oscar Mayer, California Pizza Kitchen and Lunchables. L’Oreal took over the Body Shop. If you shop at Whole Foods, Publix, or anyplace but a vegan store or co-op (we don’t have one), you are supporting the slaughter of animals by giving money to the store that makes them available. By, ahem, funding Rural Area Veterinary Services, you’re (I’m) indirectly funding the general HSUS fund.
It’s very difficult to live a remotely mainstream existence and be a pure vegan once you have to get out of bed and eat or buy something. I admire the freegans. Fifteen or 20 years ago, when I was still in the fringe-y, radical mix, freeganism would have been right up my alley. But I’ve made my choices, and now I live a life that requires far more compromise than most hardcore activists would ever accept.
That’s my path. You have yours.
I have only "freegan"ed clothing in NYC where people actually used to put clothing they were tossing on top of the trash cans for anyone to take. But having had food poisoning more than once I'm not anxious to ever risk my health in that way again (I got food poisoning from a 'home-cooked meal' and from a salad I got in an omni restaurant my grandfather wanted to go to). I don't have anything against people who choose to do that though. Actually my dogs are freegans to some extent. If I'm at a catered event (usually for work) and they're about to toss a bunch of perfectly good food into the trash at the end I'll take some stuff that is healthy for dogs and even cats to eat and take it home with me. But I don't risk their health by taking anything questionable.
There are things I admire about freeganism, but I have to say I still see buying vegan foods as a positive step, even if the money goes to big corporations, as it means they'll make more vegan products since there's demand and more people will see and try the vegan products. I've heard people claim that veganism is too radical for a lot of people to try, but it's about 500 times less radical than eating from the trash, at least for most I think.
I agree. I haven't given up on supply and demand. It definitely shifts what is produced–we've seen that. Even though "cage-free" causes as much harm and persuades some to eat eggs, etc…, which is definitely bad, it's still an example of the power of pressure. But I do get that happy meat and vegan food both offer the opportunity for diversification for the big corps–different streams of income. And in that sense, happy meat supports the corps as much as vegan food (if they sell both).
I find a lot of what the freegans say to be really compelling. Especially what I read in Food Not Lawns. The author isn't vegan, but she speaks really strongly about how important it is for the earth to remove things from the waste stream, essentially. It was a different sort of argument, and actually more compelling to me than the anti-capitalism argument, even though I'm not a cheerleader for capitalism. (Though I do also see the point in favor of the purchasing, as you both mentioned.)
However, putting these ideas into practice seems to be more or less beyond me. My compromise, which isn't all that great, is to buy little and wear it into the ground. (This is easy for me – I hate shopping.) But dumpstering for food…I don't know, it just doesn't seem accessible to me. Which is perhaps an excuse. If I relied on it for myself, I think I'd just not eat most of the time instead.
But…if I can grow more food (and get it before the birds do) then I'll feel less guilty about the food I do purchase. Or something like that.
Oh, Mary, I tagged you for a meme.
http://invisiblevoices.wordpress.com/2007/07/14/memed-8-true-things/
Neva, I never even thought of the health issues, which is sort of unconscious of me. I went to the website to the photo gallery and one of the photos of freegans had dozens of cans of iams cat and dog food. They're thrown away for a reason–probably because they were involved in the recall and could be deadly. Then I started thinking about all the "people" food that's thrown away because the thrower knows something you don't know about its contents or the health of its contents. The food part of freeganism quickly became a scary proposition and too risky (at least in my head).
Exactly.. I think freeganism can be very dangerous to our health. Sometimes people throw stuff out for a reason. What will it say about freegans when several people in a group end up in a hospital sick or worse after mistakenly eating something..
And, i'm wondering how many of these freegans won't sue….i'm sure a case could be made that the company didn't 'do enough' to prevent people from accessing their trash..right? Would you go along with this argument if it could land you tens of thousands of dollars or more..? So much for the anti-capitalists.
I think Adam and his ilk have missed the boat. Freeganism isn't a critique of veganism (tho that's an entertaing new spin on it to me). Veganism isn't about buying every vegan item you can find, it's about challenging speciesism. Freeganism does not do this in any respect, and perpetuates it, by continuing to view other animal corpses and excretions as 'food'.
Would they eat human flesh as well?
Those who call themselves vegan, but still drive everywhere and consume at will have not, imo, adopted the true spirit of veganism, nor really considered what's it's about beyond 'diet'. For all intents and purposes, these people are strict vegetarians to me. Not vegans. And there are a lot of these people, unfortunately.
Is this the fault of veganism? Certainly not. Donald Watson surely didn't intend for this. I think the fault lies squarely in groups that promote veganism this way.
Eating out of stolen garbage isn't radical, if you ask me. What would be radical would be working with the businesses that are discarding usable foods and items, and finding a fair way to keep them in circulation, and distributing them safely. Freeganism is short-sighted, and while some people might feel self-righteous shuffling through garbage, it's hardly solving anything. It's allowing the system to persist, at the supposed profit of those exploiting this system, and challenges nothing. Well, nothing except the person's immune system.
My two cents, anyway. 😉
Okay, I'll bite (!). What's the difference between a strict vegetarian and a vegan? I google one, I get the other. Is there some kind of Francione/Perz, Dunayer controversy regarding this, too?
I have a lot to say about some of the thoughts offered here, and I may follow up with later messages, but just one quick point– the Iams dog food comment is based on an incorrect assumption. Those dog food cans were found LONG before the pet food recall. Yes, it's true that retail goods are thrown away in volume for a reason — it's called planned overordering. It's an extremely well-documented phenomenon, facilitated by high retail prices on commodities and tax write-offs for "spoilage" (even when goods aren't spoiled. Stores order goods with the idea of keeping shelves filled 100% of the time with items that look like they've just arrived in the store and discard vast quantities of goods whenever new shipments arrive. This is why stores rarely have sparse display cases– because they maintain constant surplus.
The stores reason that losing a potential sale is worse than wasting. They'd rather throw out 100 bananas in a single day than risk not having enough to sell.
This is illustrated most dramatically in "fresh every day" type businesses– buffets, bagel shops, pizzerias, bakeries, fish markets etc., most of which throw away 100% of the product on sale at closing time– even if those goods were only prepared an hour or two earlier to restock a depleted item.
With regards to product recalls, freegans are cognizant of such concerns. You'll notice a link from the http://freegan.info homepage to the USDA product recall page.
By and large, though, it's really a non-issue. I've been freegan for 12 years with no adverse effect. I primarily harvest fresh produce, supplemented by some prepared foods from buffet delis and restaurants. I also eat wild growing greens. I've known many freegans who've said that the only time they got food poisoning was when they deviated from freeganism and purchased food at a restaurant!
Freeganism really just requires the same sort of common sense we use every time we open our refrigerators and can tell what foods are still good and what foods have gone bad. The idea that freegans are more likely to get sick than other consumers has actually been debunked by a number of prominent dieticians and nutrionists. The "eating garbage" soundbite certainly has a high "ick factor", but when people see where and how freegans actually obtain our food, it becomes clear why amongst us food poisoning is no more common than among any other population. I'd actually say it's LOWER among freegans, because we are people who pay attention to our food. We ask questions. We want to know where, why, and how it was produced. We are skeptical of corporate marketing. And we are thus careful consumers.
I'll save it for another comment, perhaps by another person, but I also want to stress that freeganism is about A LOT more than diet– it's about how we live our whole lives in a society where every level of our economic participation contributes to exploitation. It's about building community around the principles of mutual aid, cooperative gift economics, ecological sustainability, personal freedom, and social responsibility, and trying to create methods to fulfill our needs that reflect these fundamental values. A few freegan living strategies are listed here: http://freegan.info/?page=Practices and here: http://freegan.info/?page=Practice . I encourage folks to consider experimenting with any of these practices that make sense to you. Embracing the label "freegan" when you do is entirely optional.
David:
Were you aware that many freegans are strict vegans? And that those who aren't don't label themselves vegans? You seem to be under the impression that freeganism, by definition, means eating non-vegan stuff for free–which is not even close to the widely used definition of the term. The view that Singer describes– that using wasted animal products is ethically acceptable is certainly accepted by some freegans, but it is not universal, and it is certainly not an essential component of being freegan.
I think I may have been an early freegan to a certain extent. When I was young and homeless (I'm 67 and housed now), I adopted a policy of not touching money, and, of course, if you won't touch money, you can't buy anything. But the economy was much better in those days. Nowadays there are so many homeless people that the competition for garbage is fierce.
Thanks, Adam, for clearing up the Iams thing. I was petrified for the cats and dogs there for a minute. Thanks also for clarity about how it all works. I don't get beyond the food-from-the-garbage part. I did know that some freegans are vegans, and should've caught that one from Dave. Do notice, though, that we all realize it's not just about food, and though we're by no means freegans, we all participate in and encourage recycling among us of pretty much everything BUT food. Where we part, it seems, is on the economic theory. We still have faith (but it's more than faith as faith is belief without evidence and we do have evidence) that our vegan purchasing, particularly when done from companies that sell only vegan products (and perhaps from companies that also sell non-vegan products, but we understand the problems there) that our actions will indeed shift what is being offered in the marketplace. When I became a vegan in 1984, it was largely in name only, as I couldn't find shoes that didn't have a leather sole. Now I can. And I can go to restaurants with only vegan (not vegetarian–vegan) food. That's because there was a demand for these things. Yes, it proceeded at a glacial pace, but it did proceed, nonetheless. Thanks for the clarity about your position and for the links to further info.
Heya Mary,
> What's the difference between a strict vegetarian and a vegan?
A lot. =)
Veganism, from my reading and discussion with others, is not a diet or lifestyle — it's a philosophical perspective, one that denies that there's any reason to using or exploiting other animals. The extension of this, of course, is not eating or using animal products.
Veganism was created in 1944 by Donald Watson and his partner in order to address the inconsistencies with vegetarianism, specifically using dairy products at the time, which they recognized (way back before factory farms, etc) that death and killing was just as big a part of dairy as with flesh, and that you couldn't be vegetarian and still consume dairy (or other animal products.)
Vegetarianism, typically, is a dietary choice. Leather is not often an issue, nor is honey, etc.. People may be 'health' vegetarians, etc.. I really don't believe that there are 'health vegans'. I'd argue that they are actually 'health vegetarians', and that the only type of vegan is an ethical vegan. (If one respects the definition of vegan, which i do. 😉
That's it in a nutshell. =)
Adam – who's 'David'?
> Yes, it's true that retail goods are thrown away in volume for a reason
I think you're being a bit dishonest. I don't think i've ever seen you say 'retail goods are discarded because they are not safe to use'. You only ever indicate that 'good' things are thrown out.
I agree that the process you describe occurs, doubtless, but at the same time, there's also discarded items because they're unsafe. I wish you'd address this more.
> You'll notice a link from the http://freegan.info homepage to the USDA product recall page.
How vigilant are you in keeping this up-to-date? Are you checking all the databases for unsafe products and listing them? Do most freegans visit your site before going out? How responsible are you to your fellow freegans? Can i sue you because i ate something out of the garbage that wasn't listed on your site?
> I primarily harvest
This cracks me up. Sure, it's accurate as secondary terminology, but it still cracks me up. 😉
You don't 'collect garbage' you 'harvest […]'..hahha..
> The idea that freegans are more likely to get sick than other consumers has actually been debunked by a number of prominent dieticians and nutrionists.
Fantastic! Please list all the peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate this! (Note that anyone can call themself a 'nutritionist'; it isn't a medically recognized position. I can say i'm a nutritionist.)
> We ask questions. We want to know where, why, and how it was produced.
Who do you ask while you're standing in the dumpster at 11pm at night?
> I also want to stress that freeganism is about A LOT more than diet– it's about how we live our whole lives in a society where every level of our economic participation contributes to exploitation
As is veganism. And as i pointed out, many who refer to themselves as vegans don't realize this. And i blame groups like Vegan Outreach, who fail to understand this, making veganism a 'dietary' issue, and even trying to make animal products like honey 'vegan'.
> Were you aware that many freegans are strict vegans?
There are no 'strict' vegans. It's like calling someone a 'strict anti-racist'. Are there 'lax anti-sexist activists' whom only denigrate the opposite gender part of the time?
Otherwise, sure. Did you know that there are many vegans who choose to select where their $$ goes, who ask questions, supporting vegan and local businesses, and who also work to encourage veganism and peace in their communities?
> You seem to be under the impression that freeganism, by definition, means eating non-vegan stuff for free
I agree, and i apologize if i gave that impression which was not my intent. However, as far as i can tell, freeganism fails to address the issue of veganism or animal rights directly, and has few qualms with consuming discarded animal products, which i would argue continues to perpetuate the notion that it's okay on some level to use animal products – which is a failure when one understands what veganism is about, and latching 'free' onto the name.
Please read my posting, i'd love to hear your thoughts on affecting *real* change, and actually addressing the issues freeganism purportedly brings up, by changing the systems, rather than allowing the systems to continue, and profiting personally from the very system it supposedly opposes.
As a vegan, i do not benefit from the animal exploitation system, and refuse to participate in it. As far as i can tell, freegans benefit greatly from consumerism, capitalism, and the waste produced by these systems, and the act of taking stuff out of dumpsters fails to challenge this system in any significant way.
But that's just my own perspective. Maybe i'm wrong.
I had an inkling that lifestyle was the answer, but I also thought strict vegetarians didn't wear leather or wool or silk or use products experimented on or containing animal products. Funny, when I became a "strict vegetarian" in 1984, it was described to me as veganism, yet no one used that word. We eschewed dairy, honey, etc…, and WERE READING PETER SINGER AND THOUGHT HE HAD ALL THE ANSWERS! Oy vey! Ah, youth . . .
Perhaps next week when I have more time I'll give a more thorough answer to David's points-particularly the point about what freegans are doing to create overall change.
In the interim, here are a few quick answers to some of his other points.
On David's point that spoiled stuff gets thrown out.
Well, duh. I've certainly seem bloated containers on occasions. I've seen salads that were wilted. I've seen cut melon that had turned sour. But what exactly is your point?
If you are afraid to risk eating stuff that should be thrown out because it was spoiled, how do you dare eat from your refrigerator? Do things not go bad in there? Answer– you have five senses.
However there is a VERY big difference — stores throw out goods WAY before consumers do. Stores maintain MUCH higher standards, because they are interested not only in useability, but in appearance to a degree no consumer ever would be. Would you throw out a box of cereal because the corner was dented? The supermarket would.
People seem to equate retail garbage with their own household trash. I can assure you the two are as different as night and day.
As for updating the USDA link– it's a LINK, David. It links to the USDA's recall page. The info there is as updated as any info provided to retailers. Does every freegan look at it before dumpstering? I'd doubt it. Does every retail consumer read the newspapers and watch TV every night to ensure that the products they've purchased haven't been recalled? I doubt that, too.
As for the "nutritionist" cheap-shot– nice try.
The safety advice on Freegan.info was prepared by a vegan physician who has lectured on nutrition at Cornell U.
Others who have offered supportive comments include the chair of the New York state Dietetic Association and Keri M. Gans, MS, RD, CDN, chair of the New York State Dietetic Association.
Here's a quote you might enjoy.
Asked about the health risks of dumpster diving:
"I guess you could hurt yourself falling headfirst into an empty Dumpster. Strange as it sounds, most food that's thrown out by stores is still safe to eat if you clean it and cook it appropriately."
-Dr. Ruth Kava, Ph.D., R.D., quoted in the NY Daily News, 2/13/06)
As for the comment that freeganism fails to address animal rights, I have to wonder if you've read the very substantial section of Freegan.info devoted to just these questions:
In particular, please read Why Animal Rights Supporters Should Go Freegan at http://freegan.info/?page=ARFreegan, which explains why the violence towards animals involved in capitalist production of vegan foods, even by small, local, organic farmers, led me to go freegan in the first place.
And here's a challenge David. Try to refute this article. Find me vegan companies or restaurants that will guarantee unequivocally that these animal abusive methods weren't used to produce their products. I suspect you won't have much luck. Personally, I find conventional veganism's choice to rationalize or ignore the areas of animal oppression described in this article to be pretty damned hypocritical.
For more thoughts on this connection, visit http://freegan.info/?page=AnimalRights Among other things, it addresses the question that David has raised about the ethics of using discarded animals' bodies.
But really, the whole context of that question speaks volumes to vegan myopia. Why the focus on the ethics of discarded animal products? What about discarded sweatshop made products? What about discared products that were produced in environmentally destructive ways? What about discarded organic produce grown in manure and sprayed with "organic" pesticides? The whole context of this question speaks to exactly what freegans disapprove of about many non-freegan vegans– that they treat animal flesh, secretions,and animal tested products as the only morally questionable commodities. This is why I find phrases like "vegan revolution" so silly– as if people simply switching to vegan shopping would somehow eliminate cruelty and injustice in the world with no requirement to actually challenge capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy, technology, heterosexism, anthropocentricity, etc.
what you refer to as the fringy radical mix seems to me to be the moral, ethical living of life on earth. it seems that you are saying that, at one time, you were concerned with becoming a real human being, but, that sometime later you decided to join in the orgy of consumerism.
i think you have joined a fringy radical mix by going against your own core values. this is a fringy mix that threatens the existence of all of us here on the earth. the fetishes you love, 500.00 shoes for example, have stories to tell of personal nightmares. the people who are involved in their production are often slaves. anybody who has to work for a living that is barely sustainable is a slave. anybody who is willing to benefit from their labor is a slave-master.
and, this, the human aspect is only the tip of a big dirty iceberg. the same system that produces goods with fetish-value produces meat and leather goods through torture of animals.
it also pollutes the water and air of earth.
from top down, it is a sickness, many believe, a terminal one for us here on earth.
freegans challenge this system. they challenge each of us to examine ourselves. do you dare to look at the world in your food, in your shoes, in all of the goods that you value? what do you see there? is it pain, and suffering people, animals, and environment?
humans do not have to find their pleasure in these places. we are capable of doing better.
it is up to each one of us to ask some questions of ourselves. the satisfaction of a full belly, a well-stocked closet, nice big cars, and other expressions of conspicuous consumption, is a hollow one. empty, manipulated, like a carp in a tub, driven by desires grafted onto you by capitalists–can this really bring you happiness?
see what a lonely fringe you occupy? it is possible to be satisfied. but, not by endless chasing the high of consumerism and waste.
come on back and join the human beings.
Oh, Doug, Doug, could you not have found a way to make your point in a less mean-spirited way?
*it seems that you are saying that, at one time, you were concerned with becoming a real human being, but, that sometime later you decided to join in the orgy of consumerism.
Doug, that's ridiculous. What on earth is a real human being? There's no orgy here. You don't really know anything about me. You don't know how much stuff I have, how I spend my time or money, or where I shop. How can you make such judgments?
*the fetishes you love, 500.00 shoes for example, have stories to tell of personal nightmares. the people who are involved in their production are often slaves. anybody who has to work for a living that is barely sustainable is a slave. anybody who is willing to benefit from their labor is a slave-master.
and, this, the human aspect is only the tip of a big dirty iceberg. the same system that produces goods with fetish-value produces meat and leather goods through torture of animals.
Doug, if you knew anything about shoes, you'd know that the more expensive they are the more likely they were made by hand, by grown ups who are crafts people.
*freegans challenge each of us to examine ourselves. do you dare to look at the world in your food, in your shoes, in all of the goods that you value? what do you see there? is it pain, and suffering people, animals, and environment?
Doug, do you think vegans aren't looking at these things? Do you read our blogs? Of course we care about the people the animals and the earth. Do we DARE look at those things? All the time.
*it is up to each one of us to ask some questions of ourselves. the satisfaction of a full belly, a well-stocked closet, nice big cars, and other expressions of conspicuous consumption, is a hollow one. empty, manipulated, like a carp in a tub, driven by desires grafted onto you by capitalists–can this really bring you happiness? see what a lonely fringe you occupy? it is possible to be satisfied. but, not by endless chasing the high of consumerism and waste.
come on back and join the human beings.
Doug, I hate to break it to you, but I have a full, satisfying life. I'm a philanthropist, a writer, an advocate, and I have enormous gratitude for the gifts I have that position me to change my small corner of the world. I choose to create my change through love, support and compassion, and by trying like hell to refrain from judging others for where they are on their paths. I try to live by example, and though I clearly live a life that is unacceptable to you, so much so that I have been deemed NOT human by you, I am at peace with most of my choices. I am, alas, human, hence I'll always know that I could've done some things differently, but I do not live in the past, as that's not productive.
I wish you a fraction of the peace that I feel, knowing I am doing my best to show others that it's possible to live a mainstream life that factors in what's best for nonhuman animals, the environment and people. I understand that compromise is a part of grown-up life in mainstream America, and you need to understand that you are not my judge and jury.
Who is this 'David' character Adam keeps referring to?
He either has you confused with someone, or you have a history of attacking freeganism. He is going to the AR 2007 conference and expressed interest in commenting further. He has said he intends to do so when he returns.
As an aside: When I first met my husband, Dave/David, I knew 5 men with that name. And I now know 3 in the AR community. Maybe it's not you.
the real philanthropists are the poor, the underpaid, the hard-working people trying to live on minimum wage so that america's elite can keep up their so-fulfiling lifestyle.
why is the work of a phd. worth any more than that of a cook, a factory worker, a tomatoe picker, or a yardman?
it is nothing personal, mary, it is the class war and we are all in it.
the real beneficiaries of the "welfare state"are the rich who live off the sacrifices of the poor.
Doug,
Here's the problem as I see it: you say unreasonable things, hence people will not take you seriously. When you tell someone she's not a human being or a "real" philanthropist, most people will instantly tune you out because you sound ridiculous.
*the real philanthropists are the poor, the underpaid, the hard-working people trying to live on minimum wage so that america's elite can keep up their so-fulfiling lifestyle.
Doug, those people aren't philanthropists, according to the definition. They are the working poor. You cannot redefine words willy nilly when you want to insult someone. The working poor aren't working for me: they're working for themselves, trying to provide for their families and reach whatever goals they have.
*why is the work of a phd. worth any more than that of a cook, a factory worker, a tomatoe picker, or a yardman?
Doug,
Damn good question. Most of my ph.d. classmates are teachers and some are working paycheck to paycheck. A ph.d. in applied linguistics isn't worth much at all. But the skill and knowledge of research, writing, editing and publishing is worth more. Meanwhile, my husband, who is a financial planner, has a B.A. and his CFP (which is equivalent, in work, to a Masters) and what he does is worth more than what I do. Why? Because what he does is more important than what I do–according to the marketplace.
*it is nothing personal, mary, it is the class war and we are all in it.
the real beneficiaries of the "welfare state"are the rich who live off the sacrifices of the poor.
Doug,
I'll partly agree with you there. I do my own lawn, with battery-powered equipment, and it is organic. I look at my neighbors, all of whom have plenty of service people, none of whom are caucasian (yet the business owners are) and I don't want a part of that.
However, you might want to entertain the idea that some people with money work 7 days a week, long hours, and make many sacrifices to succeed (by their definitions). Not all wealthy people are living off the sacrifices of the poor. They make sacrifices, too. Different ones, and for them, no less valid.
Finally, you cannot blame someone for the family they were born into or the class they were born into.
mary,
the bit about you cannot blame someone for the class they were born into. well, no. but, mary, are you saying that you are defined and imprisoned by such pettiness?
do you owe something to your birth circumstances? do the circumstances of your birth seperate you from your fellow humans?
this gets close to my comment about real humans, see?
if you answer yes, then why?
I think I'm one of the few people I know who believe in transcending class. The only debt I have to my class (middle), is the same debt I have to my parents, everyone else on the planet, and the planet itself: use any talents, knowledge and skill I have to make this world a better place. It sounds cliche, but it's true.
Nobody is separate from anybody. I believe we are all connected, and what you do to me, you do to my neighbor, the tree outside your neighbor's house, and an alligator in the Everglades. We all have an obligation, in my opinion, to act with integrity and compassion toward each other, to leave the nonhuman animals alone, and to tread as lightly on the earth as possible. But that's me.
Having said that, I know plenty of people born into a position of privilege who believe they have a responsibility to use that privilege in a way that challenges the status quo and supports nonviolent change. You might agree with how that manifests, but their intentions are pure, nonetheless.
On food poisoning, perhaps I'm wrong that it might be more likely when eating discarded items. However I wanted to note that just looking at food and making common sense decisions is often not enough. When I got food poisoning from a restaurant it was a restaurant my grandfather picked out. There was literally nothing I could eat there, so I got a salad with no dressing. The salad was iceberg lettuce, a couple cherry tomatoes, some carrot slices and that was it. Everything looked and smelled fine. My grandfather got a salad with dressing and a cheese burger. We both got deathly ill, he wound up in the hospital, but the only thing we'd both eaten was the salad. They said that maybe the same knife had been used on the lettuce as the meat or something, but there was nothing that could be detected. No weird taste. Nothing.
For this reason if produce and animal products are handled together and thrown out together I'd be worried.
Also I might note that living in the low-income area where I do I see a lot of produce left out in the stores after it's really bad. It's not unusual to see moldy bananas right next to the fresh ones, or to go into a grocery and find no lettuce that is really edible. Sometimes I find goods on the shelves that are a year past their expiration date. It's not out of the ordinary to see faded, dirty canned beans on the shelf and look behind them and find the newer cans with a whole new design on the label. Sadly I often find cans that are damaged or puffy, which I try to bring to the store's attention. If I'm in a hurry though it's easy to come home with bad food. My husband bought a loaf of bread in a brown paper wrapper only to come home and find it was totally encrusted with blue mold. When I returned it the store was nice, but the woman said "what you sendin your husband for to buy bread, sweetie you know no man can pick good bread." So that was that. I asked that they please check the rest of the bread on the shelf, but I don't know if they did.
I drive to the one "organic store" in the area. Their produce is ok, but they remove the parts that look bad, so they don't just toss lettuce, they go through and remove the spoiled outer leaves. But then they also compost behind the store and let people take the compost. I could be wrong, but given these situations I'm not sure what I'd find in the dumpsters behind these stores.
That said there likely is a lot of perfectly good food tossed in stores across the bridge…
========================
> He either has you confused with someone, or you have a history of attacking freeganism.
Yeah, maybe he's commenting to the David who's posting in this thread. 😉
I don't think i have a history of attacking freeganism (what would trigger this comment?) Is my posting an 'attack'?
I find freeganism to be misguided and impotent, and i don't have a problem explaining why…i'd hope that what i'm saying is rational and based on critical thought, but who knows, maybe i'm out of my mind, and i'm just blindly attacking it whenever i see it. I'd hope not…
As for my name…i dated someone who dated four other Dave/David's in a row before me..how's that? hahaha
This topic is quickly disappearing down your blog, so i prolly won't be back here in case anyone's hoping to draw my attention…