ehh question

[Rhiannon]

I second that!

[Cuguacuarana]

I agree. If its on the ingredients list part of the money for the item goes to whatever industry sells it. Traces left on equipment that has been cleaned is a different matter. Veganism isn't about absoulte purity for me, its about impact. To me buying a dark chocolate bar from a company that also processes milk chocolate tells that company that I will buy chocolate without milk in it. This has a positive impact not a negative one.

[Myrddin]

The distinction is: intentionally adding a non-Vegan ingredient i.e. the non-Vegan product is part of the recipe or an unintentional trace of a non-Vegan product.
Thats technically the difference between non-Vegan and Vegan.
But it becomes more complicated when the traces involve bits of dead animals. I wouldn't personally eat a product if there were unintentional traces of meat, animal fat or slaughter by products - even if it was technically "Vegan" - not just because the thought of injesting a mere trace of dead animal bits is utterly disgusting but because Veganism also requires us to minimise suffering/harm. Why eat a technically Vegan meal at a non-Vegetarian restaurant when Vegetarian restaurants exist? - Vegetarian restaurants should be supported rather than meat restaurants that offer "Vegan" options. If Vegetarian restaurants are too far away - why make the compromise? Meat restaurants can never do Vegan meals justice - I mean that in more ways than one.

Adam