Vegan leather - it's an oxymoron

[txomsy]

I have nothing against vegans, let each one live the life they choose as long as it does not get in the way of other people's living choices.

 

But I do have a strong bias against misleading advertising. Yes, it is a contradiction, and yes it is clearly stated that it is "vegan". But the truth is it is none. And that is a complete and absolutely scam.

 

The only way it could be is if all the production chain was vegan. All the materials, all the workers producing said materials and the product, transport, selling, advertising, etc... You cannot claim, say, a chocolate is "bio/organic/ecologic/whatever the denomination is in your place" / "sustainable culture" / "fair trade" if you use pesticides, if only the cocoa is, but not the sugar and/or milk, and you can't claim the milk is if the cows have not been grown using sustainable methods and fed on bio/organic/..." fields only, in the open, and workers/producers must abide by specific rules, paid fairly and the supply chain fulfills corresponding restrictions.

 

But you can claim anything is "vegan" no matter what the production methods are. I guess no worker does eat any meat, so no animals are involved in production, transport, investors, everyone stays away from animals...

 

Which BTW would be even a worse condition for then there would be no use for animals and we all know what the investors, "leaders" and "developers" will claim next: they are a waste of resources and should be eliminated. Great protection of the ecosystem! Just see how vast the Amazon basin is destroyed because it does not "produce" immediate wealth to big corporations or small enterprises alike.

 

And even if all that applied, calling it leather is also a scam for it is not. I can accept that some products have traditionally been called "milk" (like coconut's) but then maybe a new word should be sought to avoid misleading advertising: you cannot claim sterilized fermented milk to be yoghourt, for if it lacks living organisms it no longer is, and the main advantage of yoghourt has been lost. You cannot call chocolate products without a minimum amount of cocoa. But you can call "leather" something with no leather at all? Something without any of the advantages of leather? Something that is the absolute opposite? That is a scam. And shouldn't be accepted. Ever. Not even by vegans.

 

Not to mention the harm done to willing buyers who cannot (or hardly can) tell one from the other on a processed picture: many sellers (specially Chinese ones) prominently say "leather" and hide the PU, fake, whatever denomination in the tiny-weeny print or do not even mention it at all. That something "looks like" any other thing in a processed picture does not justify a denomination. Plus, it makes it almost impossible to find legit products among the vast ocean of aggressive misleading advertising.

 

And the fact that many claim to become "vegan" for their "green" side. How does introducing more low quality, non-degradable, short-lasting, quick-fashion-fading, plastic products help a quickly deteriorating environment? How does increased use of fossil combustible in the production chain help? And how is it any better that a more long lasting, fully natural and degradable, recyclable, product that will be produced for as long as animal exists --and therefore requires animals are preserved?

 

All in all, I see a long list of contradictions (and many more), no advantage whatsoever (not even in face-up price in the vast majority of cases) and a huge lot of drawbacks, problems and damages.

 

It may be their God-given right to make money as they see fit, but at this point I feel like these practices are starting to have a heavy toll on our (all of us) lifestyle and chances of survival. It is at this point, where they damage my own life for their quick egotistic benefit when I think these scammers are crossing the line.

 

I know the implications of leather. They are like those of scammers selling any other product and abusers misproducing anything. That's what lead to protected denominations. I understand over-hunting/over-fishing/over-culturing almost extinguished (and in some cases did) valuable species and damaged essential resources. But that is not because the practice is bad, but because of the blind excess in greed. And what we witness is the result of similar scamming tactics by those greedy abusers to lay a curtain of smoke and derive attention somewhere else. It is not consumption of whale products that extinguishes whales, it is over-fishing by some, it is not cholesterol in butter that destroys fields, but the greed which makes producers use palm oil -which is worse but cheaper- at the cost of destructing rain-forest to plant palms. It wasn't cowhide leather that almost extinguished minks, but greed and over-hunting before farming. And on and on...

 

Needless to say: it feds me up.

 

Shortly, I think it is about time we all start growing up and thinking about the real consequences of what we all do (not just what we do) and that we start helping others learn to think as well.

[InesF]

3 hours ago, txomsy said:

Shortly, I think it is about time we all start growing up and thinking about the real consequences of what we all do (not just what we do) and that we start helping others learn to think as well.

👏 +1

[Bo Bo Olson]

Great well thought out post Txomsy.

 

Vegans can have their cake and eat it also; and blame others for the word cake.

[sansenri]

On 11/9/2021 at 2:48 PM, InesF said:

Hi @sansenri.

The message is fully correct, especially with the side note in parentheses.

 

My 2 ç just for curiosity - and because I like to be picky by intention:

 

No animal is killed (a specific animal) for leather production. The animal is killed for the meat and all other parts remain (as waste). If not producing leather, you may utilise the skin for feed, for fertiliser or for producing biogas. Non of the other uses is better or worse. Instead of wasting the skin, why not producing leather?

 

Plastik made from fossil oil is, surprise, surprise, made from a mixture of dead plants and dead animals. This prehistoric dead biomass is not vegan - it always contains former animals in a certain fraction. In other words: animals had to die to form fossil oil.

 

+++ end of picky rant +++

 

No doubt, it may be better not to produce (and consume) so much meat.

Without contradictory feelings, I prefer leather over synthetic materials (if leather is a useful option).

 

You may be quite right, that you do eat the meat of the animal, although I would not be 100% sure (I'm not in that sort of business) whether the principal scope for killing the animal that ends up yielding the leather is for the meat, and only as a side product you get the leather.

Vegans would actually object to both things, btw...

And I don't doubt either that to make plastic originally there may be some animal origin in the fossil it comes from.

 

I was just trying to explain what, in my opinion, crosses the mind of the average "consumer" when you talk to them of an item made of "vegan leather" as opposed to telling them it's plastic.

 

And perhaps your picky rant actually further clarifies that there's more to it if you dig deeper, but the point is that most buyers just don't (and marketing relies on that, trying with alluring words to overturn your priorities).

 

As far as my personal preferences are concerned, I much prefer real leather too!!

 

 

[Aether]

@txomsy,  i believe you are misusing the term' scam' and are misinterpreting the use of common terms like 'milk' and 'leather'.  in advertising something as imitation leather it is not the intent of the advertiser to suggest the good has anything other than a similarity to an aesthetic aspect of genuine leather.  There is no scam here because most people understand what it is.

 

By the way, for anyone who are interested, the expression is 'eat your cake and have it too', not the other way around (a very common mistake).

 

Veganism doesn't exclude the use of animal products per se, but rather seeks not to exploit or be cruel to animals.  If you found a dead deer in the forest and decided to use its carcass to make some shoes, you are not exploiting anything.

 

 

[austollie]

3 hours ago, Aether said:

By the way, for anyone who are interested, the expression is 'eat your cake and have it too', not the other way around (a very common mistake).

 

I disagree that this is a mistake, not that this is a phrase that I use in either form.  See link below for a Wikipedia article that explains that both versions are in common usage.  Whichever way you arrange the sentence, it is equally illogical (or logical, depending on your point of view).  

 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_can%27t_have_your_cake_and_eat_it

 

[ParramattaPaul]

Cake?  Did somebody say, 'Cake'?  Yes, please, and may I have a big scoop of ice cream too?

[txomsy]

9 hours ago, Aether said:

@txomsy,  i believe you are misusing the term' scam' and are misinterpreting the use of common terms like 'milk' and 'leather'. 

Well, that is the wonder of the Internet. And its curse too.

 

Not all of us come from the same cultural background. I fully know and understand that in many places that is accepted and valid use. I also know and understand that in places where consumer protection is higher, it is not allowed and considered a 'scam'. Same way, I know up until a few decades ago, the use of some words had expanded to a broader scope (like 'body "milk" '), but not others.

 

Trying to exploit accepted uses to push extending the application to other, non-accepted uses, for the mere purpose of misleading someone to get their money is not different from any other con or scam practices, where someone is lured to believe they are getting the actual goods when they are being given worthless (or less worth) goods instead.

 

There are great specialists in twisting words to make others believe what they want while at the same time being able to claim they did not actually say "exactly, literally so" to avoid legal responsibility. I ain't going to enter into political, mass media, celebrities, advertising, (pseudo)religious, etc. examples, but I am sure everybody can think of some example or another. Needs not be a crook conman in a dark alley to be a scam.

 

But, you are likely "right" in your context. In some countries, one cannot say anything about others (no matter how true it is or how gross their behavior) if they can claim your words may harm them in any way. You cannot for instance publicly call out scammers/conmen/fraudsters in some places without being sued for libel, e.g., for instance. No matter if you can prove they are a fraud or the extent of the damage they inflict to society and/or the common good.

 

That is not the same in all countries. Homeopathy, for instance, is unquestionable in some while forbidden by the neighbor (like France -home to some of the biggest industries- and Spain)†, likely related to the economical power of its industry in the places who do not allow questioning it. Which doesn't make it any better or worse. So, likely, both of us are actually right in our respective contexts.

 

† Oops!: it seems that since this year (2021) its support in France is vanishing too.

[Bo Bo Olson]

9 hours ago, Aether said:

The expression is 'eat your cake and have it too', not the other way around (a very common mistake).

Works either way...............though why one would want to keep stale cake is beyond me.

 

IMO with out a great free lawyer, it appears scammers can scam your money.  And sue you for more. Anyone know a Vegan Lawyer?

[Aether]

Tell me how exactly the term 'coconut milk' is a scam - bearing in mind that for me the term scam means a deliberate act to cheat or trick someone out of something.  

[inkypete]

Coconut milk is just wrong. Scam? Don't think so by my standards. More like very good marketing. But here is a common definition of milk.

 

Milk is a nutrient-rich liquid food produced by the mammary glands of mammals. It is the primary source of nutrition for young mammals, including breastfed human infants before they are able to digest solid food.

 

So to me coconut milk, soy milk, almond milk etc is just not right. My 'vegan' leather is a similar argument.

 

Interesting discussion but lets not get too testy with each other. We can agree to disagree.

[Aether]

Not really.  It's called coconut milk because of its visual similarity to animal milk.  Nothing more, no scam, not a marketing device, no attempt to deceive. 

 

What I get from this conversation is that we are moving into a human era where individuals lack appropriate education or intelligence to allow them to make accurate assessments in the face of potentially ambiguous statements.  Coconut milk is not ambiguous.  I've never come across anyone (until this thread in fact) who would have misinterpreted coconut milk as being in any way (other than visually) related to animal milk.  Sad sign of the times.

[ParramattaPaul]

My only comment is that 'coconut milk' to me has always been the somewhat clear liquid contained within a coconut that I would drink straight from a newly opened coconut when we lived in the tropics when I was a child.  Apparently it is now called 'coconut water'.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Been called coconut milk, long before 1960** when I first ran into it, and wondered why the almost clear coconut milk wasn't white like the flesh. Why it was called coconut milk, when it was not white?

So that pre-dates Vegan era philosophy.

 

**Back then I took my coconut in Peter Paul 'Mounds'. Pealing a coconut, hammering a ten penny nail through the eyes to get the coconut milk, which was ever so, so-so-so..............In sadly I didn't drink cocktails at 11-12. And back in the dark ages of B&W TV there really wasn't much one could do with the insides of a coconut......a tablespoon could be sprinkled on some sort of cake or pie, but it really wasn't worth going through all that work to peal a third one. I'm sure I was dumb enough to do it the second time in hopes of a better coconut. No such luck.

 

 

[ParramattaPaul]

Living in the tropics in the 1950s, harvesting a coconut for a drink and a snack was a common experience. 

 

What was not common then was vegans. Those with which I was familiar were called herbivores, and were either the farm animals raised to provide sustenance or native wildlife.

[txomsy]

As I said, I do think that there are same uses that have been accepted through time. And that everyone knows and understand because they have been consistently used for a long time and become mainstream.

 

I gave the example of "body milk" intentionally: originally (as in the times of Cleopatra) it was actually milk. Then someone came with the idea of calling milk any whitish liquid product to be used on skin so as to exploit well-established associations between beauty and milk to satisfy their own commercial interests, stressing the similarities in ads. And although many at the time would scorn it, it has become mainstream use and nobody expects any similarity any more.

 

Once could say similar things of other now common uses.

 

But that is not a blank check to allow anybody call anything whatever they like if that can fill their pockets. Some 10-30 years ago there was an argument in the EU on whether cocoa substitute preparations with no cocoa at all in them could be called "chocolate". With industry pushing to allow the denomination with similar arguments: since someone had started to sell these products as "chocolate" the term should no longer be considered specific but a generic for anything brownish and sweetish (had it cocoa or not). With no way for buyers to distinguish which one they were buying since there would not be a different term (that would spoil all the trick) for cocoa products, unless they looked at the tiny composition print (which shouldn't be compulsory either accordingly to pushers of the legislation). Then, when it didn't work, they pushed for anything with any cocoa (even trace amounts) to be allowed to be called "chocolate".

 

Similar pushes surge constantly about different products: should "butter" contain butter or should just anything that remotely could be construed like similar under loose conditions be allowed to be called "butter" too? Or should it be called "margarine" or something else? Here the bad name of cholesterol and the lack of knowledge led finally the industry to pursue a different name to exploit the (now disparaged) perception that vegetable fat was healthier. And I could go on for days giving examples.

 

Luckily, here, it wasn't allowed, and minimal contents in some ingredients (and absence of others) are required to avoid misleading consumers into believing they are buying the real thing when it isn't. That has even been needed to be extended to local denominations, so that now almost every local producer must join with others to define exactly what the local product is, how it should be made, from what (and what not), define a normative and get it approved so that their name is not diluted by abusive marketing.

 

As I said, I know it is not the same everywhere. So YMMV But here, in the EU at least, there is a general perception that we need to be on the lookout to protect from abusive, misnaming, misleading market techniques that try to exploit the good perception of a good quality product to pass a low quality one as legit and reap the benefit, while diluting and destroying the reputation of the real one at the same time. All in the name of "commercial competition" (as if it were an absolute, untouchable God given right).

 

Thus, "Modena balsamic", "Champagne", "Gewürztraminer", "Beaujolais nouveau", "Tokaji", "Sherry", "Rochefort", "Telemea de Ibanesti", "Cabrales" and and endless list had to be defined to avoid fraudulent use.

 

If that fraudulent use is not a scam, pray, tell me what is.

 

Now, from an EU-citizen point of view, that there is not legislation yet to protect terms like "leather" does not mean that abusive use is not wrong or should be allowed. Specially when, as I mentioned, one can easily find lots of ads in, e.g. Amazon, of "leather" products where no mention is done of its non-animal origin or where one has to carefully look into the tiny print and understand the various alternative names continuously popping up to dodge consumers awareness when a term becomes known.

 

No claim on "coconut" or "body milk". These terms have been around for long enough with consistent use that now everybody can be expected to understand them. What is wrong is the continuous change in qualifier adjectives used now, as soon as one is understood by buyers, to keep buyers always in the dark and sell them what they actually do not want.

 

No complain either with anyone selling plastic products to people who wants them, they have their place and use. Or vegan products. My complain is with those who try to exploit the good name and perception of quality products to sell bad-quality, cheap, products as if they weren't, at inflated prices for a quick buck.