Freeganism and its Discontents

In 2005, Lord Haskins, then adviser to the government on food issues, stated that around one third of all food bought in the UK was wasted between farm & kitchen table, and that food wastage was increasing 15% each decade. [1] In the years since there has been little evidence to suggest this trend has changed. Meanwhile, the greater part of this food is discarded whilst still tasty and perfectly healthful - having been deemed rubbish solely on account of the typically conservative 'use by' dates its packaging is marked with.

In light of this, and when we consider that all modern, large-scale food production entails the deaths of large numbers of animals and damage to the environment, it becomes apparent that those concerned about these issues can, if they choose to, do a lot more than simply be green/vegan consumers. In recent years an increasing number of people have begun practising the art of 'freeganism' - that being the recovery of usable items, including food, from the waste of others. This of course is nothing if not a repositioning - new emphasis - for that basic survival skill that every homeless person has known about from day one.

In my experience a small number of vegans and vegetarians judge unfavourably those others, often former/quasi-vegetarians themselves, who consume 'freegan' animal products, particularly those containing animal flesh. It is my contention that with appropriate attention to food hygiene/safety as well as maintenance of a balanced diet, freegan food, with or without animal ingredients, can help toward reducing animal suffering, environmental degradation and waste, and has the added benefit of saving money.

Undeniably, freeganism depends entirely on the enormous amount of wastage inherent in our modern post/industrial society. At the same time, by its very nature it minimises support of the economics of consumerism and wastefulness that have conspired to bring about the current situation.

The reader should understand that I do not seek to condemn those who consume store-bought and/or strictly vegan foods (with appropriate supplementation of course), but only to extol the merits of freeganism, vegan or otherwise.


Freeganism: Reducing Strain on Animals and the Environment
Freeganism might be likened to breaking the traditional chain of cause and effect involved in feeding oneself in modern civilisation. Food obtained this way is effectively free of any practical ethical concerns in that it already exists in the physical and of course nutritional senses, but in having been wasted it has been disconnected from the market signals - supply & demand - of the economic system that produced it. A need is thus satisfied without creating any additional demand.

Conversely, when food is sourced via the markets in the usual way, the market signals are triggered and the great engine of industrial capitalism roars into life, with devastating consequences...

'Bykill' and habitat destruction in producing and transporting vegan food products
I believe that for many, the adjective 'vegan' is understood to describe goods produced with no adverse effects on animals. Others understand the reality is very different, but do not give a lot of thought to the matter. In fact, a large number of animals are killed as 'collateral damage' each year in the production and transportation of foods whose ingredients are strictly vegan. Oregon State University's Steven Davis wrote:[2]

Animals of the field are killed by several factors, including:

1. Tractors and farm implements run over them.
2. Plows and cultivators destroy underground burrows and kill animals.
3. Removal of the crops (harvest) removes ground cover allowing animals on the surface to be killed by predators.
4. Application of pesticides.

So, every time the tractor goes through the field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, harvest, etc., animals are killed. And, intensive agriculture such as corn and soybeans (products central to a vegan diet) kills far more animals of the field than would extensive agriculture like forage production, particularly if the forage was harvested by ruminant animals instead of machines.

And:

Accurate numbers of mortality aren't available, but Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that wood mouse population density in cereal fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest. This decrease was attributed to migration out of the field and to mortality. Therefore, it may be reasonable to estimate mortality of 10 animals/ha in conventional corn and soybean production.

In research published elsewhere, Davis "found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa, caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest".[3]

Although the conclusions Davis drew were deeply flawed, and subsequently refuted in Gaverick Matheny's insightful response [4], the issue of animal mortality in modern plant food production still stands.

It could be argued that these deaths might be avoided were we to source vegan foods not produced with mechanised agriculture, but for most this would be difficult, expensive and highly inconvenient, probably far more so than finding waste food - it may also lead us further into symbolic veganism.

On top of all this, the initial conversion of 'wild' land into cropland takes a heavy toll indeed on the animals and nature. Normally, before it can bring forth food the land must be 'terraformed' and transformed, killing or displacing the animal inhabitants as their habitats are destroyed. In time, animals which are particularly hardy and well-adapted will return to the now cropland, but the loss of biodiversity is great. Furthermore, the animals who return are of course at great risk of being killed by the ongoing harvesting, poisoning and possibly other intensive farming processes.

In partaking of the bounty of waste food, and unlike in either buying or shoplifting food, our dear freegan creates no new demand for animal products, whilst at the same time sustains themselves without creating new demand for even the so called 'vegan' products of mechanised agriculture.


Participation in the monetary economy
In addition to creating new demand for replacement products to re-stock store shelves, so called 'ethical' purchases also produce profits for the vendors. Are these profits spent or invested in ways which we would agree with? Is there a case for reducing our part in the monetary economy, with its opaque layers of exploitation which shield the conscience of the consumer; its philosophy of perpetual growth at all costs? Money saved here might permit a freegan to survive without full-time employment, freeing up time or money for animal or environmental advocacy.


Omnivorous Freeganism
Most of the practical issues with food produced by modern agricultural practices are conveniently side-stepped when food is sourced from the waste stream. Nonetheless, there are several factors worthy of consideration in deciding whether or not to entirely omit animal products from the freegan diet:

Spirituality
For those of a spiritual persuasion, the status of animals and the question of how we ought to treat them seem to have been important concerns in all forms of mysticism. Almost all forms of spiritual practice in most civilisations throughout history seem to have sanctioned, or at least not decried, the use of at least some animals, in some situations, for human ends - albeit to different extents in different traditions.

From the perspective of the Eastern religious traditions, I wonder if karma is actually applicable to food that has been recovered from waste? It would seem to me that in the spiritual sense, as in the practical ethical sense, such recovered food has no such baggage.

Another aspect to consider is the notion of maintaining the 'purity' of body/mind/spirit by abjuring animal products, which to its adherents could present a valid argument against consuming omnivorous freegan food.

Legitimising animal products as food
As biological omnivores, animal products are a legitimate part of the diet we humans have evolved to eat. However, if we as vegans are seen to consume omnivorous food in some cases we may reinforce in some people common stereotypes about the inadequacy of vegan diets, or of vegans secretly craving animal products. These are perhaps more issues to do with the symbolic practise of being vegan, than with the goal of reducing animal suffering, for which veganism is but one tool amongst many.

Supplementation
Strict vegan diets require supplementation for optimal health. [5][6][7][8][9] The addition of modest amounts of omnivorous freegan products to the diet could potentially alleviate or even obviate the need for supplementation and attendant environmental issues resulting from industrial production of some supplements. In many cases animal products, consumed sparingly, are more reliable sources than supplements for many nutrients not found in strict vegan diets.


Conclusion
With prevailing levels of food waste and the toll taken on animals and environment by modern food production, those concerned about environmental impacts of modern farming, and the plight of animals both wild and farmed would do well to consider incorporating more freegan food in their diet. With attention to the issues detailed above, there does not appear to be any fundamental reason that omnivorous freegan food not make up part of this, if so desired.

Further Reading
See also Adam Weissman's excellent article "Cruelty-free Retail: Can We Shop Our Way to Animal Liberation?", which I discovered after publishing this posting.


References
[1] Britons throw away third of food (BBC, 14 April 2005)
[2] S. L. Davis (2001). "The least harm principle suggests that humans should eat beef, lamb, dairy, not a vegan diet"
[3] Time Magazine, July 15 2002
[4] Gaverick Matheny (2003). "Least harm: a defense of vegetarianism from Steven Davis's omnivorous proposal"
[5] Vegan Health: Vitamin B12
[6] Vegan Health: Bone Health
[7] P Appleby; A Roddam, N Allen and T Key (02 2007). "Comparative fracture risk in vegetarians and nonvegetarians in EPIC-Oxford"
[8] Vegan Health: Iodine
[9] Obeid R, Geisel J, Schorr H, Hubner U, Herrmann W. (2002). "The impact of vegetarianism on some haematological parameters". Eur J Haematol. 69 (5–6): 275-9.
PMID 12460231