Adam Kochanowicz

As long as it doesn’t hurt them.

As long as it doesn’t hurt them.

Speciesist ad used with CC 2.0 BY license from flickr.com/photos/equality

Apologies I haven’t written for so long. I find I am constantly thinking of things throughout the day that make me want to hop on this blog and drill out a post. Why that doesn’t usually happen, I don’t know.

But here’s something: A few posts ago, I wrote about a vegan bar in Brooklyn with a trophy deer hunting game as a “joke.” I was surprised from the support I got in the comments there. Only one comment disagreed with my position on the game,

No deers were harmed in the making of that video game

I’m vegan and I say get over it lol

Btw, agree or disagree, I took a very long time to approve everyone’s comments. I’m fixing my email notifications now so that doesn’t happen again.

Keep Reading

On Animal Rights and the Skeptic Movement

Follow Adam on Twitter.
I’m a big fan of the skeptic movement. I love listening to shows which debunk claims of paranormal activity and the like. Recently, however, I was suprised to see a lack of discussion about animal rights in skeptic circles. Skeptics ought to be the perfect audience for discussion on the rejection of a traditionally held belief (that it is justified for us to use animals.)
For this reason, I wish to suggest we use the term “skepticism” more often in our discussion of animal rights. Skepticism embodies the nature of our initial doubt of the justification of animal use. “animal skepticism” is not really a new concept, it’s just a rebranding of something many of us have been doing for a long time with great misunderstanding from animal people. 
What is skepticism?

First, let’s talk about what the skeptic community does. Skepticism asserts claims ought to have sufficient evidence to support them. Having not evidence, judgment ought to be withheld rather than appealing to beliefs that make us feel comfortable even though they are unsupported. For instance, an unidentified blip of light in the air means it is an unidentified blip of light, not that it is a visiting craft of humanoid aliens.

Skepticism isn’t intrinsically about debunking anything, although this is a common outcome of investigation. To be a skeptic is to believe any claim is fair game for questioning. The skeptic community often targets unscientific claims like astrology, homeopathic medicine, graphology, psychic powers, paranormal activity, and even religion.

But what does this field have to do with animal rights? If we accept the skeptic movement as crucial to a progressive society, should we not also apply skepticism to animal issues?

The skeptic movement takes a lot of heat from the public. Some of it is justified. If a skeptic comes to a conclusion that is, let’s say, unscientific, (s)he ought to be called on it. However, I’ve found that a lot of complaints put upon skeptics is not how they come to their conclusions, but that they are questioning something in the first place. 

This, to me, is fantastically ignorant. If done respectfully, there should be nothing wrong with scrutinizing a claim and investigating alternative explanations. Why should we ignore what might possibly be the truth?

The criticism I’ve heard from animal welfarists greatly mirrors those I’ve heard from defenders of psychic powers. There is an amazing parallel here, one which motivates me to write this article to demand skeptics and animal rights activists follow the same paths.

The parallel which truly irks me is the criticism skeptics receive just for being skeptics at all. In the animal rights movement, abolitionist vegans get these comments from new welfarists all too often.  As a background, animal rights is different from animal welfare in that animal rights activists believe animals should not be property (abolitionism) whereas welfarists believe we ought to take care of animals, ignoring that they are slaves. The “new welfarist” position describes a position that welfarism is a way to achieve abolitionism. The abolitionists assert welfarism cannot and will not lead to significant justice for animals.

How dare you disagree

The pro-violent animal liberation site, Negotiation is Over, posted the following about criticism from “inactive” vegans:

There are many good activists, hardcore activists, who are in the streets making real differences in the lives of actual living breathing animals, not merely debating philosophy about “theoretical animals.” And, when these in-the-street activists are having second thoughts about actions they take to save animals because these inactive theorists insist on being toxic and divisive, then it is past time to cut out the cancer.

It is this kind of language that has no place in skepticism. This quotation suggests it’s not just the disagreement of the animal skeptic, it is the fact they are disagreeing at all, especially since they are “good activists, hardcore activists, who are in the streets making real differences.” Why are they being characterized as the victims of anything? The following quotation from the same article is too ironic not to share:

Vegans need to continually challenge each other’s positions and ideology, not each other. We need a revolution of thought, personal growth as activists, and evolution as a movement. We do not need dogma, disagreement, and divisiveness.

Read that again: “Vegans need to continually challenge each other’s positions….We do not need…disagreement…” All of this was in response to a statement by Prof. Gary L. Francione, a vegan who continually challenges others’ positions and ideology:

“Peter Singer and Ingrid Newkirk recently complained that I attacked their views but that we were all ‘on the same side.’ If there is one thing that of which I am certain, I am not ‘on the same side’ as Peter and Ingrid. Our views are very different. Our goals are very different. We need more disagreement within the movement, not less. And we should not be afraid of being labeled as “divisive.” That is a label used by those who have nothing of substance to say in response to legitimate criticisms or observations.”

The term “infighting” comes up a lot for the same reason as well.  As this commenter writes on a blog post about the problems of animal welfarism, the very fact the writer is criticizing, however civil, is inherently wrong.

I wonder how many people we could have convinced to go vegan if we didn’t get distracted with this type of infighting. It boggles the mind.

You don’t have the right to disagree

Indeed, the skeptics have to face this nonsense in their criticism against claims of psychic powers as well.  In this Anderson Cooper interview with well-known skeptic James Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and self-proclaimed psychic Sylvia Browne’s business manager Linda Rossi, Rossi attacks Randi, not for his reasoning but for the mere fact he dares to question Browne by asking her to take a scientific test to prove her psychic abilities.

(4:35) And for Randi, a professed atheist, to judge anyone of spirituality is a joke.

Anderson Cooper even interjects to point out Rossi’s fallacy:

(4:50) That’s like a high school debating tactic—to attack the guy who’s asking the questions.

This is especially amusing to me because Rossi implies that the fact Randi disagrees is what makes it “a joke” for him to disagree. Does Rossi expect disagreement from people who agree?
Respecting skepticism
My message to welfarists and new welfarists as an abolitionist: feel free to disagree with us. If you disagree, you ought to express it respectfully and, better, engage in a dialogue about it. But we can both be skeptics. We can listen to the arguments and let the evidence speak for itself. If the evidence shows that welfarism is a morally justifiable and effective solution to ending the property status of animals, I will immediately and proudly call myself a new welfarist. Not only that, my abolitionist friends will respectfully debate me.
Abolitionists are skeptics who collect and analyze evidence on the efficacy of welfarist legislation. Despite its superficial appearance of being beneficial for animals, we are confident, based on evidence, that it is not. We are ready to defend idea peacefully. No one should criticize someone merely for raising questions. Indeed, the conclusions we come to in the animal movement are more than just “theory” or “words” being passed around; they influence how we reach out to the public and the decisions we make over the fate of animals.

Animals are Sentient

I didn’t know there was any controversy over whether or not animals are sentient. I would guess that most people at least minimally believe animals have some sentience. However, I’ve found myself in two separate animal rights discussions this week alone with opponents who firmly believed animals were fully instinctual, habitual machines.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, when I was younger, I remember adults telling me all kinds of “difference between humans and other animals” stories.  For instance, “animals are instinctual, humans have free will.” After getting my education in biology, I learned this was a false dichotomy.

After some discussion, It appears to be a misunderstanding of the word “sentience” and perhaps not an actual disagreement:

What is sentience?

Random House Dictionary

“condition or character; capacity for sensation or feeling.”

Collins English Dictionary

“1.the state or quality of being sentient; awareness.

2.sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling.”

Webster’s English Dictionary

“1: a sentient quality or state.

2: feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought.”

From these definitions, it must be the case that if an animal can feel pain and is aware, he or she is sentient, de facto.  However, this spawned several questions from my friends.  Two of which I will discuss:

(1) By this logic, are plants like trees and blades of grass sentient?
(2) If this is all sentience is, having nothing to do with intelligence, why should animals be afforded the right not to be property based on this alone?

What is not sentience?

One of my followers on Twitter aptly noted people confuse sentience with sapience. (Last definition, I swear. Then we’ll get on with it.)

Webster’s English Dictionary

“having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment.”

Whether or not animals have sapience, I don’t know, but is it relevant?  If you were being physically assaulted, barred from moving freely, or any other condition of slavery, is sentience not enough for it to be an injustice?

What about plants, are they not sentient?  Dan Cudahy of Unpopular Vegan Essays has an excellent analysis of this question. But we can review this briefly.

Most of the claims of plant sentience point to reactions from plants. The assumption is that if they are responding to their environment, they are sentient. However, this does not support any claim that the plant is aware.

A chicken feels a cut, feels sorrow from being locked up, she feels this with a brain.  She senses the environment through nerves in the peripheral nervous system which connect to a central nervous system (CNS).  The CNS is responsible for cognition and makes sense of the senses, so to speak.

How do we know what it’s like to be a plant? We can observe nonsentient reactions in our own bodies. When the doctor taps above your knee cap, (s)he is testing your reflex arc, specifically, the patellar reflex.  A reflex arc is like any other tactile stimulation except that it does not go to the brain, the CNS.  

The nerve impulse goes from a nerve in the knee, to the spinal cord and back to the quadriceps muscle.  Of course, you could argue that you sensed the instrument hit your knee, but we could numb the skin on and around your knee and the reflex would still occur.

This reflex is completely thoughtless, yet it is arguably far more complex than the reflexes of plants.  Plants have no brains; they don’t even have nerves. This demonstrates empirically the responsibility of the CNS to sentience. If plants are sentient for their reactions, we would have to argue that brain dead human beings are still sentient because their reflex arcs are still intact (That’s another article.)

Surely there are some fringe organisms who lie in a grey area of sentience, I understand this.  However, none such organisms that I know of are those which we domesticate for our use.

Why does sentience matter?

While we’re talking about the brain, what is it that makes ours so different from the other animals? The strongest difference in my research is the development of the neocortex. Briefly, it is responsible for things like symbolic language and social organization. Animals have a neocortex, just not as large, proportionally.

But what about the rest of the brain? There is nothing to suggest the nerves and neurons themselves are more superior in humans than in nonhuman animals. For the most part, pain is pain.

If there is anything to suggest our intellect can make this pain more painful, we have to ask why we would need this intellect for this to matter?

Is it equally as likely that a lack of such intellect can make pain more painful?

Animal rights ideology points to sentience as the only necessary cognitive factor required for the one basic right not to be property. The reason why is simple: if a being is consciously aware of their desire to do something, they must possess the fundamental right not to be property. As property, you cannot have fundamental rights.

This is a short version of this explanation, but a more in depth discussion can be found in Gary L. Francione’s Animals, Property, and the Law.

Rich and poor

For brevity, consider the following analogy.  I am a rich person, and I can tell you that the poor do not have the same kind of enjoyment of their food as we do. There is no reason to say the poor have the right to or even need tasty food.

My meals consist of 100% organic, fresh exotic fruits and vegetables prepared by my own private chef.  They are drizzled with pure cacao and gold flakes.  You see where I’m going with this. Contrast this to the processed, freeze-dried, microwaved food the poor eat.  The disparity between my food and theirs is enormous.  Clearly, my tastes are superior.

Raising Awareness is no Excuse

The shield of “raising awareness” comes up a lot in my arguments about PETA tactics. I find no matter what criticism I make about animal charities making boldly destructive moves, the fact they are “raising awareness” seems to make it all okay. Here’s an example from a post called “In Defense of PETA” on Associated Content:

Interestingly, she begins:

Let me begin by noting that I am not a member of PETA, nor do I approve of all their tactics. In fact, I excoriate their financial support of ALF members

And turns around to say:

But I do believe that their naked protest tactics are often unfairly targeted, especially when other organizations engage in similar—or worse—campaigns….PETA’s naked campaigns are, primarily, for the purpose of raising awareness about the fur industry (although they’ve been known to use nudity for other issues, too.)

The “raising awareness” claim is comparable to the “no tag backs!” tactic you shouted on the playground in grade school. Once your campaign is raising awareness for whatever it might be, it doesn’t matter how sexist or perverse your campaign is. It doesn’t matter if you invest donations in McDonalds and at least 80 other such companies. It doesn’t matter if you give awards to slaughterhouse designers or advertise for KFC.  

The fact is, you’re raising awareness, and for anyone to question you is infighting, divisive, and you are simply stepping on people who are trying to make gradual steps.

You’re raising awareness, but how?

Raising awareness is important. Actually, it’s really important. Raising awareness might be the first, most crucial step in getting your cause started.

Yet raising awareness simply means informing the public that a problem exists.  It means nothing more than that. Raising awareness is the bare minimum expectation for a campaign. Can you imagine campaigning for an issue without raising awareness? No? So why are we so quick to excuse theatrics, miseducation, and downright offensive displays because they fall under the umbrella of “raising awareness?”

The issue has gotten so out of hand, awareness raising seems to be the only thing that matters in a campaign anymore. Campaigns are judged in awareness raising as if by some point system. That a campaign is more obtuse or more offensive simply feeds into why it’s so great, for this reason.

I’ve recently had a few exchanges with a PETA apologist who gave me permission to publicly post our conversations alongside my comments.

While this is the opinion of one person, the parts I have excerpted greatly resemble the many opinion pieces I’ve scanned defending PETA and their campaigns. Interestingly, few such pieces actually wholly defend the charity. They even take time to distance themselves from their blatantly offensive nature.

I’ll admit there are certainly things they (and other groups) do that sometimes cause me to shake my head, but as an activist/vegan I always feel there is no use bashing one another when there are plenty of better ways to spend that energy to help the cause.

Why, despite this, there remains a strong urge to back the organization is a frustrating mystery to me. However, I get the feeling from discussions on the topic there is a consistent feeling of helpless dependency, as if we need to fear losing our beloved multimillion dollar animal charities.   This excerpt from the same letter says it all:

PETA is made up of hundreds of people who dedicate every waking moment to helping animals. The turnover is very high because the work is very rough. I know I am not going to change your opinion of them, but I would hope you would not bash them publicly as they are just doing the best they can to help animals, and there is no doubt they have more victories for animals than any organization in history.

It doesn’t matter what their tactics are, they are “dedicated,” they mean well.  They are doing “the best they can.” It doesn’t matter how wrong they might be, they are made up of “hundreds of people.”  This is where the motivation to defend PETA comes from.  We are infants, we believe we need our multimillion dollar PETA mommy.

This article on the Facebook cartoon profile picture slacktivism takes a similar stance on “raising awareness.”  The author says aptly, “RAISING AWARENESS WITHOUT ACTION IS MEANINGLESS.”  I agree, but what is more, raising awareness with misdirected action is dangerous.  

Yes, PETA certainly raises awareness. There’s no question. However, PETA encourages people to support legislature which strengthens the animal industry and to believe exploitation of animals is morally justified provided it is “humane.”  This is the core of PETA.

This is where the PETA movement is sending us.  We are immunizing our concern for the plight of animals by supporting a barbaric movement to produce ethical rape, torture, and slavery.  We are immunizing the industry from the threat of decreased demand by labeling procedural improvements as welfare victories.  Frankly, I don’t want to raise awareness for that.

Do you find yourself encountering the “raising awareness” shield often?  Simply memorize this article’s short link: http://vegan.fm/awareness to give to your friend anytime this comes up.

What if you were forced to do something you didn’t believe in?

Have you ever been met with a really difficult question on something in which you strongly believe?  Here’s one that I got recently:

So you don’t believe it’s justified that animals are kept as property? I was doing some work in Mexico a couple years back, and let me tell you; without animals, some of these small poor family farms just couldn’t survive.  They just couldn’t.  It’s their way of life. Do you think it’s wrong that these people use animals? What else can they do?

Another variation might be:

So you don’t eat animal products?  What if you were on a desert island and all there was to eat was a pig. The pig survives on a plant (we’ll say) that you can’t consume.

Or

What if your son needed an animal product to save his life?  What if his life-saving medication was made of animal products?

Sometimes I just don’t answer these questions, at least not right away. It’s not to be hostile nor that I’m avoiding them. I don’t answer the questions because they’re entrapping to begin with.

Essentially, these questions are asking,

So you don’t believe x, what if you were in a situation where your only option would be to do x?

My response is,

Then I would do x.  Apparently, I have to.

While you’re giggling about taking ecstasy, realize the point is: if I am a hypocrite for doing x, something I don’t believe in by definition, it follows that no matter what the belief might be, any belief is hypocritical. This of course is not true.

Most of us don’t believe in stabbing someone, but we might excuse this if we were defending ourselves, or a schoolbus full of children.  What if we are forced to do something we didn’t believe in?  Well who cares? We’re forced.  What does this tell us about that belief in and of itself?  

Of course, holding a certain stance against doing something can provide difficulties now and then. However, what does this have to say about morality?

So no, I have no trip planned in the future to shame poor farmers for using animals nor do I intend to let my child die so as to prevent using animal products. But is this really the conversation we should be having?  What about the use of animal products outside of dire circumstances?  What about every meal to which we sit down?  What about clothing or occasional visits to the zoo? 

The question, in daily life circumstances, turns around: Forget deserted islands or life-saving medication.  How can we possibly justify the enslavement of so many billions of animals every year? Can we really excuse this behavior because it provides us comfort, entertainment, or amusement at the extreme expense of other sentient beings?

Restaurant Patrons Outraged over Lion Burgers

An Arizona restaurant recently caused a stir when announcing they would soon unveil a burger made from lion meat.  The menu option was just one of a series of “exotic” food choices at Boca Tacos y Tequila including “python, alligator, elk, kangaroo and rattlesnake….frog legs, turtle, duck and Rocky Mountain oysters ”

After a storm of public outrage, the restaurant announced the would be pulling the burger from the menu.  Of course, it’s not that the restaurant won’t be serving animals, they just won’t be serving this animal.

Of course, this is the Michael Vick moral schizophrenia all over again.  By that I mean, animal people are outraged not merely by the use of animals but the use of particular animals.  In the case of Michael Vick’s use of dogs for entertainment, no one questioned any of the other Eagles team members use of animals for food or clothing.

Here are some of the comments left on the original article and my reactions to them:

Shame on Boca restaurant. We will never go there and will spread the word about this. How they could even think about doing this is so unbelievable.

Boycott, I never would patronize a place like this.

This is beyond disgusting. He’s gotten his name out there alright, and I hope it causes his business to go bankrupt!

These first two comments bring me to my first point: You bet it’s bad than lions are being killed for burgers, but why isn’t there any outrage about any of the other animals served at the restaurant?  Some of the comments below answer this question in the minds of the public.

If this was a lion that died of natural causes or was accidentally killed I don’t have a problem with it. Otherwise, I do have somewhat of a beef (no pun intended) with killing a large capitol predator for this.

I think this is incredibly sad. These are elegant creatures that deserve better…May as well serve up the Bald Eagle next-or have they already done that?

Really disgusting. I hope these people go out of business soon. Tucson already has a bad image around the country. Who could eat a cat? Hummm, maybe a Nogo taco stand. How could this be legal?

ABSOLUTELY GROSS! DISGUSTING! UNCIVILIZED!

What horrible people…It is because of this type of greed that more noble creatures are slaughtered every year…Pretty soon, lions will suffer the same fate as tigers and become nearly extinct….

One of the common themes here is the insistence that the elite nature of the lion is the core issue: “May as well serve up the Bald Eagle next” Contrast this to the issue of a sentient being’s interest in being sentient. (This is like a golden rule for me).

It is pretty bad when someone wants to send the government after someone else merely because they don’t approve of what they eat. While I myself have no interest in eating a lion, I am not going to try to force my dietary habits on others. Once you open that door where does it stop? When all of us are surviving on tofu?

I left this one here because it’s rather funny to vegan readers. There’s a few things wrong with it besides being a slipper slope fallacy.  We come back to this idea of “forcing on others.”  It’s a way of looking at the issue while completely disregarding the party for whom it concerns in the first place.  

It’s not a matter of your right to eat something, it’s a matter of the animal’s right not to be eaten.  Would this person concede to his own logic and let us eat his loved ones?  After all, (s)he can’t force his/her dietary habits on us.

Also, the question is a bit like saying “They’re freeing slaves in Mississippi?  What next, all of the southern states?  We’d have freed slaves just running all over the place. Where do you stop?  Where do you draw the line?”

I don’t know if these commenters consider themselves “activists” for animals.  However I do see many posts from people in the animal movement speaking out against Michael Vick, lion burgers, or whatever it may be.  I think this is inappropriate.

I realize some of my readers may instinctively come back saying “Inappropriate?  What are you saying, that we should just keep quiet about this injustice?”  My answer is: absolutely not.  This conclusion is the mistaken “all-or-nothing” attribution of the abolitionist approach.

We should always be outspoken for animals, however, when we speak out in this way, we automatically associate ourselves (whether or not we intend to) with a drastically different position.  This position is that the use of animals is perfectly acceptable, as long as they aren’t on “this” list or as long as they aren’t in an arbitrary “protected” category.  Again, this doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on the issue.  

To the contrary, news stories like these provide a perfect opportunity to reach out to the public, already sensitized to the issue, to encourage them to extend their thinking.  That’s exactly what the purpose of this article is.  That’s exactly the reason why a small group of animal people were saying “Concerned about Vick’s dogs?  What about the animals on your plate?”

Veganism becoming more mainstream?

The Chicago Sun Times reports veganism is becoming more mainstream.

I’ve always wondered how journals get that one percent statistic.  That is, the statistic that 1% of Americans are vegan.  Is it really one percent, or is that rounded up? Also, in what direction is that figure going?  If it’s one percent, one point what?  The Chicago Sun Times reports this number may be increasing while readily admitting,

It’s difficult to come up with hard numbers of practicing vegans. There’s a blurry line between people who define themselves as vegan and vegetarian, and some eaters dip in and out plant-only diets.

Good point.  While I’m happy that newspapers are covering veganism with a positive, or even a neutral light, I am skeptical about how this data is collected.  I don’t remember filling out a vegan census, do you?

I was also pleased the article mentioned Mark Bittman’s horrendous self-labeling of veganism including his “vegan till six” diet which allows him to eat a vegan diet before six while reverting back to an omnivorous one in the evening.  He has actually called this “vegan plus.”  Are people like Bittman being counted in the 1%?

The article does a decent job explaining the difference between veganism and (lacto-ovo) vegetarianism. At least this reporter didn’t write something idiotic like “…and the more strict vegans won’t even wear wool.”  I actually read this a few days ago in someone’s newspaper. (By the way, if you’re a journalist in need of a definition, I can be reached by email.)

However, I retain my skepticism about this article.  Of course, I want veganism to spread, but the examples given by the paper aren’t very convincing. For instance, Alicia Silverstone (who is not a vegan) released her book “The Kind Diet,” some actress from Glee is allegedly vegan.  But so what?  Celebrities go vegan all the time.

In fact, celebrities are as much as a risk to the portrayl of veganism as they are a benefit.  Take Angelina Jolie who went vegan only briefly and reported it made her ill.  No word on what the hell she was eating, apparently the very generalness of “veganism” made her sick.  

Or, you may recall the vegan blogs on fire a couple years ago when Oprah was doing a 21 day vegan cleanse.  She even welcomed Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS to talk about some worthless animal welfare legislature his organization was trying to pass.  A few days later, she gave away free KFC to her viewers.

Apparently, the 1% statistic comes from the Vegetarian Resource Group which polls random people to come up with a number.  Whether or not this statistic is accurate, I think we ought to turn our attention to how we are going to get this number up.  

We don’t need to be shy about promoting veganism or suggest that we instead use the more consumer friendly “vegetarian.”  Veganism means zero animal exploitation.  How can we be morally comfortable suggesting anyone do anything less than this?

Follow Adam on Twitter.

Vegan Ad Network Looking for Testers

Follow Adam on Twitter

According to a post from prlog, vegan bloggers will soon be able to display vegan-targeted ads on their websites.  The company, Vegan Mainstream, will be starting a three-month program to test their Vegan Blog Network at the end of this month.

Unfortunately, it appears the ads will be “vegan or vegetarian,” this obviously leads the door wide open to promoting animal exploitation.  However, the company claims authors will have the option to set the ads to vegan-only mode.  I’m skeptical.

Sound like something that interests you?  Be sure to check out the criteria for bloggers.  It’s not that bad: 

Blogs listed in the network must acknowledge that they do not promote, sell or provide advertising information on any products or services that use any animal-based ingredients. Blogs must also receive a minimum of 20,000 page views each month. 

Interested bloggers may register for the program for free at veganblognetwork.com.  At the end of the three month pilot period, blog owners then decide whether or not they want to stay in the program as it is opened to more bloggers.  

Vegan Mainstream is based out of San Diego, California and provides marketing to vegan and vegetarian businesses and seeks to provide awareness for “animal cruelty free products.”  It appears the company does indeed leave the door wide open for “nicer” exploitation but I’m happy to report they do offer a product which (as far as I can tell) offers bloggers a vegan-only advertising solution.  I still see advertisements for steak and milk products on my own blog.  Unfortunately, this is not in my hands otherwise I might consider this service (or just take down the ads.)

Subway’s falafel sandwich not necessarily vegan

Subway recently announced they’ve been testing a falafel sandwich version of their popular 6” and footlong subs.  The sandwich appears to only be available in the Chicago area and in some of its suburbs.

By default, unfortunately, the sandwich is not vegan due to the addition of a cucumber sauce.  This removed, the sandwich has been claimed to be vegan.  I have, however, heard reports of the bread having bone-char processed sugar. As of yet, I have not been able to confirm or deny this.

The company’s promotional page, aptly named “SubwayFalafel.com” touts the sandwich in much the same way as their other meals.  The falafel sandwich is part of the $5 footlongs deal and can be purchased with a bag of chips and a drink.

According to the website, the sandwich is served on 9-grain wheat bread which is not vegan*.

Enriched wheat flour (wheat flour, barley malt, niacin, iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), water, yeast, high fructose corn syrup, whole wheat flour, wheat gluten, contains 2% or less of the following: oat fiber, soybean oil, salt, wheat bran, rolled wheat, rye nuggets, dough conditioners (DATEM, sodium stearoyl lactylate), yeast nutrients (calcium sulfate, ammonium sulfate), degermed yellow corn meal, rolled oats, rye flakes, caramel color, triticale flakes, parboiled brown rice, refinery syrup, honey, barley flakes, flaxseed, millet, sorghum flour, azodiacarbonamide, natural flavor (maltodextrin, natural flavor, silicon dioxide, lactic acid).

Instead, vegan blogs have recommended switching to the Italian bread which, again, may include bone-char processed sugar.  Overall, the sandwich includes bread lettuce, tomatoes, and falafels.