The risk in embarking on an “awareness” approach – a bit like “being nice” – is that once you model yourself as a proactive benefactor, in this case to help disseminate important information to those who need it, you can become too focused on all the good you do and unaware of the not-so-good consequences. We are all vulnerable to it.
This is a partially indiscriminate advance that is likely to encounter little resistance as you continue your laudable campaign. Concerns about any questionable tactics are too often brushed aside by members of your various circles, out of politeness or a simple aversion to confrontation. It’s just easier for people to give you a like on social media and be done with it. Your vision is never properly magnified.
I’ve seen it manifest during health awareness weeks, when brands spend most of their energy promoting their products rather than the illnesses those products were designed to address, as well as in petitions, sometimes supported by charities, who call for unreasonable changes. policies and laws, this would cause problems for the very people these charities were created to support.
All of this, remember, takes place under a concept that has acquired almost sacred status in allergy circles: “Awareness»…
“We need more awareness!” »
“We’re going to demystify whether a vegan product is actually vegan,” begins a recent video from Creative naturewhich basically boils down to “Does “vegan” really mean vegan?” — a question I pondered, arriving at the conclusion that one might as well ask whether “suspension bridge” really means suspension bridge.
In order to avoid circular self-reference, the question should of course be “What does vegan mean?” » and no one knows why CN fails to provide the Vegan Society definition on which food labeling is based.
This strikes me as a bit of “maintaining ignorance” as well as “raising awareness” – perfectly reflected by these voxpopulated consumers, all surprised to be presented with a vegan and vegan-labeled product bearing a “may contain milk/egg” warning.
To be vegan is to live without supporting the use and exploitation of all animals wherever possible, which is pretty much what the VS say, and is the closest they come to an “official” definition » that we have. When applied to what we eat, vegan food means food made from vegan ingredients And intention. Accidental cross-contamination, either from milk, eggs, or even fish, is not an ingredient and is not intentional, so it does not affect vegan status.
It is unfair to conclude that the commission was deliberate – but rather than acknowledge this and show that consumers did not understand it, CN misdefined the vegan problem, presenting the issue as a sort of legal loophole, a case of “fake” advertising”, an advertisement with which certain naughty “not really vegan” brands brazenly get away with.
What needs to change?
It is not unreasonable to dislike the definition and believe that it should be revised and legalized. I might agree.
It is not unreasonable to think that the definition is potentially misleading, nor that at least a few vegan products have no place in the “free from” aisle. I completely agree.
But CN’s decision is more seismic. Not only do they state that certain vegan foods are not vegan, but also that any product with a “may contain” warning should not be in the gluten-free aisle – probably including gluten-free products with one or two precautionary warnings regarding allergens such as nuts that celiacs without food allergies can safely ignore.
Such products should not even be considered “food-free,” they argue, and only products excluding all 14 declarable allergens should be in the “free from” aisle, which currently “is not food-free.” danger for people with food allergies. It is unclear where the immediate danger might lie. Did vipers build a nest behind Mrs. Crimble’s macaroons?
Ironically, such a rule, if strictly enforced, would result in the disappearance of certain CN products, particularly those containing the reportable allergen, gluten-free oats. If “false advertising” is such a problem, a re-examination of their own “14 Best Allergen Free” brand claim should be in order.
This is all a shame, of course. With products that meet all expectations and a young and friendly team, CN has every chance to set an example and encourage other brands to follow its no-cross-contamination policy, thus improving the “free” sector for all.
Instead, we’ve seen accusations and calls for competitors to be demoted from shelves, implications that vegans are not vegan if they consume products that “may contain milk or eggs,” and the potential alienation from society even necessary if any definition of the term “vegan” is to be renegotiated.
If they continue on this path, they will not only raise awareness.
It will also be more hackles.
