Vegan eatery in Spain bullies parents

Our audience matters more than the perceived consistency of our doctrine.

“A vegan restaurant in the Spanish city of Tarragona, in Catalonia, has been accused of “humiliating” mothers bottle feeding their babies while dining there, sparking an online spat.” — El Pais in English, 29 March 2017

This vegan eatery has a sign amongst others at the entrance telling people that they are not welcome to bottle feed their babies on the premises because they are against dairy, and there is dairy in most formula. Staff members have been targeting patrons and have asked them to use a vegan formula, stop feeding their babies or leave.

Let’s have a rational look at the pros and cons of this restaurant’s strategy as far as animal advocacy is concerned:

PROS

• It makes vegans feel safe in a safe space.
• it puts this topic in the news and people may look at how dairy cows and calves are treated. This is similar to PETA’s strategy that any exposure is good to take.
• It reinforces the idea/importance of “consistency”

CONS

• When exposure is likely to put most people off and make vegans sound like “talibans” (as was said in mainstream media), is it not counter-productive and over all hurting the cause and, in turns, animals?
• There is no consistency there — why don’t they also police leather shoes? They are obsessing over food. Consistency is often oversold in vegan spheres. They obsess over perceived consistency of practices and don’t look at the consistency of results and consequences.
• You’re not going to make people think by policing what parents feed their babies. Anyone who has any experience with parents and children will know this.
• They make it sound like they know better what is good for everyone’s baby. It is presumptuous and potentially dangerous. I dread to think of how many dogmatic and ignorant vegan parents don’t feed their children adequately and don’t pay enough attention to b12 and Omega 3s for instance. (Note that it can be perfectly healthy to raise vegan children, I am not saying it is not).
• It encourages judgemental and ignorant comments from people who find it appropriate to tell carers how they should feed their babies even though they are not qualified professionals. It is unfairly targeting people who are already under a lot of pressure.
• It helps vegans create a space where their narrow minded interpretation of veganism is upheld and they get to feel superior to others.
• It is a missed opportunity for a vegan eatery to attract non-vegans so they can enjoy their food and have more animal friendly dishes more often.

I find it worrisome that many vegans are choosing to back the restaurant because they see it as “consistent”.

Veganism is 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. Here, the restaurant owners are choosing for others what is possible and practicable. It is not reasonable. Adding the fact that this involves feeding babies and it becomes quite simply preposterous.

And again, they’re not saying anything about leather shoes, so…