The simple act of being Vegan is conducive to getting in a lot of debates about one’s lifestyle. Mostly, these debates are with Carnists, and it’s easy to see why. Occasionally, though, these debates can emerge as schisms within the Vegan community, and those are often the hardest to bear. Within Vegan spaces, we have the support of our Vegan brethren. It’s easy to be upfront about one’s beliefs with the backing — whether vocal or in the form of likes or upvotes — from our Vegan peers. The debates become more difficult, however, when they are between Vegans. Vaccines, “not being Vegan enough,” the use of crystals or essential oils, etc. may be some common ones. I would like to speak today, however, about the argument over whether a new Vegan product is “healthy,” the inspiration for which evolved out of a recent meme I posted on Instagram:

Obviously, I am in support of this new product. More Vegan options means less dead animal options. Moreover, the mainstream adoption of Veganism means people may be more likely to give Veganism a shot. Some other Instagram users had different opinions, however. Here are a few of the comments:

How about a whole plant diet. Not shit in a can, even if it says vegan… Not sure this is winning. Canned food? For me it’s about eating real food. Does it have omega 3’s and zinc like in real tuna? I’m all for Vegan substitutes but they gotta have the nutrients ya know? This is trash not everything vegan is good. Soy, really? Listen don’t just be vegan for the animals…canned food is still toxic and full of chemicals.

Health is undoubtedly important. It also has absolutely nothing to do with Veganism. Veganism is — as I’ve said ad nauseam — “a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.” I would say it’s possible that the Vegan community would even be comfortable grouping in those that are primarily motivated by environmental factors into that definition. However, there is one thing that is definitely not in that definition: you. Veganism has nothing to do with you. If you eat an absolute garbage diet that seeks to exclude exploitation of animals, you’re Vegan. If you eat an extremely strict soy-free, gluten-free, nut-free, GMO-free diet that seeks to avoid the exploitation of animals, you’re also Vegan.

Now, I’m not saying that the above dietary restrictions are wrong, inaccurate, or not adequately supported by science. They are, but that’s not my point. My point is that, if you don’t like the way something is produced, you have the remarkable ability to choose not to eat it. Don’t want to eat GMO foods? Then don’t. Think soy gives you man-boobs? Then stay away. Those are your personal choices and they are decisions that have absolutely nothing to do with Veganism.

At this point, one who feels that all Vegans ought to be restrictive in the manner of which we are speaking might say “but why can’t I advocate healthy foods while advocating Veganism?” To this my response would be, “you can,” but with one main caveat. Don’t bash new Vegan companies for releasing a product that your personal, restrictive diet doesn’t agree with. You can support the existence of a new Vegan product (i.e. vegan canned tuna) acting as a replacement for people that already eat “canned processed crap” (i.e. non-vegan canned tuna) without actually eating it! As a Vegan, it is your responsibility to promote the growth of Veganism because, more Vegan products = less dead animals, regardless of whether soy was used as an ingredient. In the case of the tuna, every can of Vegan tuna purchased instead of regular tuna is one less can’s worth of dead fish. Which one do you think you should be supporting? If you’re in need of a format on how to appropriately comment on a new Vegan product that doesn’t jive with your diet, try this out. I think she captures it pretty well: