Aspartame- Safe or Not?

[EquALLity]

That says "some", not "good chance". This seems unlikely, and unless they have a credible source that it would be unlisted, I doubt it (I've read gelatin listed on ingredients for gum, and I know this is a concern for Jews and some Muslims as well).

Fair enough, but lets say that 1/10 chewing gums have gelatin. There's a significant chance you're buying gelatin.

Why not just contact the companies?

Just say, "Hi, is your chewing gum vegan (free of animal derived ingredients)?"
It takes like two minutes. Better safe than sorry.

Also, Wrigley's seems to commonly referenced as having gums suitable for vegans, so I don't think that's relevant.

I'm not sure why you linked a forum. That's not really a reliable source.
Lots of people on there are saying Orbit is vegan, when the company that produces it tortures animals in tests that are completely unnecessary.

The issue they're debating is aspartame, not gelatin or lanolin.

I know; I just am pointing out to be careful with gum, because it was recommended on this topic, and you can't assume it's vegan.

[brimstoneSalad]

Fair enough, but lets say that 1/10 chewing gums have gelatin. There's a significant chance you're buying gelatin.

Where's your cut off? If it's not on the ingredients, my guess is well under 1%, maybe one in a thousand. And I would only expect it from the smaller companies.

Why not just contact the companies?

Just say, "Hi, is your chewing gum vegan (free of animal derived ingredients)?"
It takes like two minutes. Better safe than sorry.

1. Advocating that seems to make veganism more difficult, in particular when it seems phenomenally unlikely that gum base would contain any meaningful animal derived ingredients in the majority of gums out there if not otherwise listed on the ingredients.

2. You won't necessarily get reliable results that way. The people who answer those e-mails frequently either guess yes out of ignorance, or say "no" because they're instructed to in order to avoid liability when in fact the product may be vegan -- there was a big fiasco over Campbell's tomato soup around that (which yes it is vegan) when the person answering the question said it wasn't.

Also, Wrigley's seems to commonly referenced as having gums suitable for vegans, so I don't think that's relevant.

It is when it's the biggest company with the lion's share of the gum market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gum_industry

Two multi-national companies, Wrigley and Cadbury, together account for some 60% market share of the worldwide chewing gum market. The global market shares for the top 5 chewing gum companies are estimated to be:

35% Wrigley Company (USA)[1]
26% Cadbury Trebor Bassett (UK)[2]
14% Lotte (South Korea + Japan)[3]
6% Perfetti Van Melle (Italy)[3]
2% Hershey's (USA)[4]
The remaining 17% of the global market is provided by an estimated 200 to 250 smaller gum companies, some of which are listed below.

I think Trident is Cadbury's biggest gum line (and the biggest sugar free), and also referenced as vegan except for Trident Splash (which contains gelatin which is clearly listed in the ingredients).
All the research I have done supports the "just read the ingredients" method, particularly for large brands.

It's commonly referenced not because it's some niche vegan gum brand, but because it's the most common brand, period. And in terms of sugar free gums, the dominance of the top couple brands is probably even more pronounced (since it's harder to formulate).

If most gum is Wrigley's, and most Wrigley's are vegan, then that's meaningful. The same goes for Trident.

Outside the U.S. there may be other brands that are dominant, but good luck getting information from a Korean or Italian company.

As far as Hershey's goes read this:
http://www.vrg.org/blog/2015/12/22/hers ... oubous-ms/

Complicated much? You could spend weeks trying to figure out if there may be shellac in the gum base. But it's not lanolin or gelatin (as the site you links to suggests would be the concern).

I'm not sure why you linked a forum. That's not really a reliable source.

I disagree. Having a domain name doesn't make a website reliable. The fact that they don't have sources for their claims make it much more suspect. Many sites like that have lists compiled by one or two people based on heresay (they're using things like forums and lists other people have posted to obtain the information).
A forum itself contains debate and discussion on the issue from multiple perspectives, with multiple critical eyes researching and reviewing the content.

Given the overall intelligence of the ppk community, I would consider it a much more reliable source if the thread consensus suggests that lanolin and gelatin aren't serious concerns in the terms of mystery gum ingredients.

The bigger issue in candies seems to be insect resins. Gelatin is almost always listed.

I know; I just am pointing out to be careful with gum, because it was recommended on this topic, and you can't assume it's vegan.

But should we even be careful with gum? Is that helpful? Should we spread the message that being vegan means being careful with gum, and unlisted mystery ingredients?

[EquALLity]

Where's your cut off? If it's not on the ingredients, my guess is well under 1%, maybe one in a thousand. And I would only expect it from the smaller companies.

Why would you say that?
They can just hide it under 'gum base'.

1. Advocating that seems to make veganism more difficult, in particular when it seems phenomenally unlikely that gum base would contain any meaningful animal derived ingredients in the majority of gums out there if not otherwise listed on the ingredients.

2. You won't necessarily get reliable results that way. The people who answer those e-mails frequently either guess yes out of ignorance, or say "no" because they're instructed to in order to avoid liability when in fact the product may be vegan -- there was a big fiasco over Campbell's tomato soup around that (which yes it is vegan) when the person answering the question said it wasn't.

1. It's not phenomenally unlikely.
2. Maybe, but it's better than nothing.

It is when it's the biggest company with the lion's share of the gum market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gum_industry

Ah, I didn't know that. However, I did some more research, and like Orbit, Wrigley's is owned by Mars. So Wrigley's is actually is not vegan, anyway.

As far as Hershey's goes read this:
http://www.vrg.org/blog/2015/12/22/hers ... oubous-ms/

Complicated much? You could spend weeks trying to figure out if there may be shellac in the gum base. But it's not lanolin or gelatin (as the site you links to suggests would be the concern).

If you can't get a clear answer, I'd say it's best to just avoid the product.

I disagree. Having a domain name doesn't make a website reliable. The fact that they don't have sources for their claims make it much more suspect. Many sites like that have lists compiled by one or two people based on heresay (they're using things like forums and lists other people have posted to obtain the information).

Onegreenplanet.org is more trustworthy to me than random people online.

A forum itself contains debate and discussion on the issue from multiple perspectives, with multiple critical eyes researching and reviewing the content.

No, not necessarily.

Given the overall intelligence of the ppk community, I would consider it a much more reliable source if the thread consensus suggests that lanolin and gelatin aren't serious concerns in the terms of mystery gum ingredients.

It depends on the forum. That one might generally be good, but like I said, they didn't know Orbit (and apparently Wrigley's too) are owned by Mars.

But should we even be careful with gum? Is that helpful? Should we spread the message that being vegan means being careful with gum, and unlisted mystery ingredients?

Gum is a particular case.

[brimstoneSalad]

Why would you say that?
They can just hide it under 'gum base'.

They can, but in practice they do not, as demonstrated by the claims of the gum industry sites, and the major players in the market. Hershey's gum base probably doesn't even have anything in it, but that's your best bet for a non-vegan gum base in a sugar free gum, and only possibly because it might contain lac resin, not due to lanolin or gelatin.

1. It's not phenomenally unlikely.

At what objective point would you say the cutoff is? We just don't have data on this.

I'm going by what makers of gums are saying. Industry practice seems to be to not hide these products (gelatin and lanolin) in gum base. They're allowed to, but they don't. Probably because they don't need it, and it would piss people off.
Most smaller makers buy their gum bases from larger manufacturers, which are also using cheap petrochemicals and the same cheap food grade materials the big guys do -- because they're cheap, and it's a common formula.

Given it's an unknown, it's better not to create a panic over nothing. Instead, we should focus our efforts on known issues, and keep veganism easy.
I think the burden of proof should lie on showing something isn't vegan, and not showing something is. Most things are obvious, or on the ingredients lists. Otherwise, if somebody has to prove something is vegan to eat it, that's a very high bar, and there will be very few people willing to go vegan.
Unfortunately, due to the all-or-nothing mentality of many people, they're more likely to go back to eating meat and obvious animal products if they think being a perfect vegan is too difficult.

2. Maybe, but it's better than nothing.

I think it's a lot worse than nothing, because of the consequences of advocating such careful measures.

It's easier said than done, and it can be demoralizing for new vegans to try to get information like this and find out how truly difficult it is. Stuff like this inclines people to give up, unfortunately.

It's fine when activist groups do it and publish the results, but I don't think this is a useful undertaking to suggest for the typical lay vegan.
Sites that lists a bunch of "maybe not vegan" things and basically fear monger are probably harmful to veganism.

Ah, I didn't know that. However, I did some more research, and like Orbit, Wrigley's is owned by Mars. So Wrigley's is actually is not vegan, anyway.

It doesn't matter if it's owned by Hitler, it's a vegan product.

Saying something isn't vegan because it's owned or sold by a company that also participates in animal cruelty is an impossible bar.
Do you shop at grocery stores that also sell meat?
It's the same thing.

Claims that silk isn't vegan because the company also sells dairy, or that Ben and Jerry's new vegan ice cream isn't vegan because of the parent company, or the Wendy's new black bean vegan burger isn't because it's sold by Wendy's, are ALL harmful to promoting the vegan message. Encouraging non-vegan companies to develop and market vegan products to the general public is essential to spreading veganism in the mainstream.

I think you need a little perspective on the Mars company, which is not as limited in scope as Hershey's. A substantial portion of Mars' operation in in production of pet food and products, and research into animal nutrition.

http://www.mars.com/global/about-mars/faq.aspx

Does Mars use animal testing when developing any of its products?
In the day-to-day development of our chocolate, gum and confection, food, drinks, and pet care products we do not undertake, support or sponsor studies that harm animals.

Mars has led scientific study in pet nutrition and well-being, and has been advancing the frontiers of scientific research into the nutrition and health of companion animals, for more than 50 years. As part of that effort, we work with a number of animals — dogs, cats, horses, birds and fish — in our pet nutrition centers.

They help us learn more about things like nutrient requirements across the various life stages, energy requirements, immune function, gastrointestinal health, skin and coat condition, oral health, feeding behaviour, and clinical nutrition. We also study the special relationship between people and their pets, including the psychological and physical benefits of pet ownership and the role of pets in child development.

Read more about our animal research policy, which is a public commitment to ensuring that any research we do involving animals — and all our interactions with animals — is responsible, ethical and humane.

http://www.mars.com/global/press-center ... lfare.aspx

Mars’ policy on animal research

In the day-to-day development of our chocolate, gum and confection, food, drinks, and pet care products we do not undertake, support or sponsor studies that harm animals. This represents the vast majority of our activities and products.
On very rare occasions, we need to introduce a new raw material that has not been used in foods before. Legal and regulatory requirements compel us to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of this new raw material. In these isolated instances:
We may sponsor a limited number of studies involving rats, mice, fish and other aquatic species.
We always meet, and in many cases exceed, the legal and regulatory requirements for the humane treatment of animals on local, state and national levels.
We apply the widely accepted “3R’s” principle of replacement, reduction and refinement* to the design of these safety and efficacy studies. This means that we look to replace animal studies with non-animal approaches that meet regulatory requirements wherever possible, ensure we only use the minimum number of animals necessary to provide scientifically valid results, and constantly review the care provided and the methods used to conduct our studies.
Compliance

In 2007, we established the Mars Animal Research Review Board, an international body of internal and external experts, to guarantee that our research, and the research of our partners, complies with this policy and that we maintain the highest ethical standards when conducting studies involving animals.
The Mars Animal Research Review Board also ensures that we only support university educational initiatives that are fully in line with our policy.
To appropriately and responsibly respond to a health and safety emergency, the Mars Animal Research Review Board may approve exceptions to this policy.
For more information on the “3R’s” principle, please refer to the website of The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), an independent scientific organization tasked by the UK government with supporting the application of the 3R’s.

Mars probably isn't killing rats to make gum, and it sounds like their new research policy is to only do so when required by law or regulation -- which is a political issue which needs reform, not a problem with the company.

If you can't get a clear answer, I'd say it's best to just avoid the product.

If you want to. But it's better not to advise people to spend time and endure stress looking for those answers, or imply that's important to being vegan.
These products are probably all vegan, and the rare case where they aren't isn't an issue we should be fixating on.

Onegreenplanet.org is more trustworthy to me than random people online.

I think it's less trustworthy than random people, and particularly less trustworthy than credible and intelligent members of the ppk forum.
You might want to spend some time investigating both sources; don't judge a book by the cover.
Onegreenplanet has very high quality branding, but their promotion of pseudoscience discredits them.

No, not necessarily.

It depends on the forum, but PPK is pretty good. I would not expect anything credible from Yahoo answers or veggieboards necessarily.

That one might generally be good, but like I said, they didn't know Orbit (and apparently Wrigley's too) are owned by Mars.

They know that, and they know it doesn't make them non-vegan.

Gum is a particular case.

A lot of things are very much like the gum issue; it's a trend of unhelpful, and even harmful, paranoia about hidden ingredients that makes veganism more difficult, and harms the vegan movement by discouraging large companies from making vegan products if vegans will reject them and decry them anyway because they aren't vegan companies.

[EquALLity]

They can, but in practice they do not, as demonstrated by the claims of the gum industry sites, and the major players in the market. Hershey's gum base probably doesn't even have anything in it, but that's your best bet for a non-vegan gum base in a sugar free gum, and only possibly because it might contain lac resin, not due to lanolin or gelatin.

In practice, most mainstream brands don't. Some gums still do, though.
This isn't something minor like not knowing where riboflavin in your pasta is derived from. It's like not knowing if there's dairy in the gum.

At what objective point would you say the cutoff is? We just don't have data on this.

I'm going by what makers of gums are saying. Industry practice seems to be to not hide these products (gelatin and lanolin) in gum base. They're allowed to, but they don't. Probably because they don't need it, and it would piss people off.
Most smaller makers buy their gum bases from larger manufacturers, which are also using cheap petrochemicals and the same cheap food grade materials the big guys do -- because they're cheap, and it's a common formula.

Given it's an unknown, it's better not to create a panic over nothing. Instead, we should focus our efforts on known issues, and keep veganism easy.
I think the burden of proof should lie on showing something isn't vegan, and not showing something is. Most things are obvious, or on the ingredients lists. Otherwise, if somebody has to prove something is vegan to eat it, that's a very high bar, and there will be very few people willing to go vegan.
Unfortunately, due to the all-or-nothing mentality of many people, they're more likely to go back to eating meat and obvious animal products if they think being a perfect vegan is too difficult.

I'm not saying we should focus on this or make a big deal out of it.
You guys were just talking about it, and I pointed out that gum isn't necessarily vegan, and recommended contacting companies about it.

I think it's a lot worse than nothing, because of the consequences of advocating such careful measures.

It's easier said than done, and it can be demoralizing for new vegans to try to get information like this and find out how truly difficult it is. Stuff like this inclines people to give up, unfortunately.

It's fine when activist groups do it and publish the results, but I don't think this is a useful undertaking to suggest for the typical lay vegan.
Sites that lists a bunch of "maybe not vegan" things and basically fear monger are probably harmful to veganism.

I don't think that the gum issue translates to the larger problem of vegan 'purity' (vegans avoiding foods with ingredients like 'calcium carbonate' just in case).

It doesn't matter if it's owned by Hitler, it's a vegan product.

What?

Ethical veganism isn't just about avoiding things that contain animal products.

Saying something isn't vegan because it's owned or sold by a company that also participates in animal cruelty is an impossible bar.
Do you shop at grocery stores that also sell meat?
It's the same thing.

That's different. Mars is uniquely immoral in that it tortures animals in gruesome experiments for junk food.

I think you need a little perspective on the Mars company, which is not as limited in scope as Hershey's. A substantial portion of Mars' operation in in production of pet food and products, and research into animal nutrition.

http://www.mars.com/global/about-mars/faq.aspx

I'm sure a corporation would never be misleading in any way to benefit monetarily.

Notice how they don't specifically say they don't test when unnecessary, and how they use vague terminology like we don't do "day to day" testing (what?)?

http://www.marscandykills.com/experiments.asp

Mars recently funded an experiment on rats at the University of California, San Francisco, to determine the effect of chocolate ingredients on the animals' blood vessels, even though the experimenter admitted that studies have already been done using humans. Experimenters force-fed the rats by shoving plastic tubes down their throats and then cut open the rats' legs to expose an artery, which was clamped shut to block blood flow. After the experiment, the animals were killed.

Mars funded a deadly experiment on mice that was published in a 2007 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience in which mice were fed flavanols (phytochemicals that are found in chocolate) and forced to swim in a pool of water mixed with white paint to hide a submerged platform, which the mice had to find in order to avoid drowning, only to be killed and dissected later on.

In one experiment supported by Mars and conducted by the current Mars, Inc., endowed chair in developmental nutrition at the University of California, Davis, rats were fed cocoa and anesthesized with carbon dioxide so that blood could be collected by a needle injected directly into the heart—a procedure criticized by U.S. Department of Agriculture researcher Dr. William T. Golde, who notes: “This is not a simple method. … Missing the heart or passing the needle completely through the heart could lead to undetected internal bleeding or other complications.”

Mars supported a cruel experiment to learn how a chocolate ingredient called PQQ affects metabolism by cramming baby mice into 200-milliliter Plexiglas metabolic chambers—around half the size of a 12-ounce soda can—and then submerging the chamber for nearly five hours in a chilled water bath, inducing labored breathing in the distressed mice. Experimenters then shoved tubes down the mice’s throats every day for 10 days to force-feed them the PQQ, after which they were killed and cut up for analysis.

Mars funded a test in which experimenters forced rabbits to eat a high-cholesterol diet with varying amounts of cocoa, then cut out and examined tissue from the rabbits' primary blood vessel to the heart to determine the effect of cocoa on rabbits’ muscle tissue.

Mars supported a test in which experimenters attached plastic tubes to arteries in guinea pigs' necks and injected cocoa ingredients into their jugular veins to examine the effect of cocoa ingredients on their blood pressure.

If you want to. But it's better not to advise people to spend time and endure stress looking for those answers, or imply that's important to being vegan.
These products are probably all vegan, and the rare case where they aren't isn't an issue we should be fixating on.

I didn't say we should fixate on it. I'm just pointing it out.

I think it's less trustworthy than random people, and particularly less trustworthy than credible and intelligent members of the ppk forum.
You might want to spend some time investigating both sources; don't judge a book by the cover.
Onegreenplanet has very high quality branding, but their promotion of pseudoscience discredits them.

Do you have a specific example of them promoting pseudoscience?

They know that, and they know it doesn't make them non-vegan.

Well, if they do know that, I think they're wrong about that.

A lot of things are very much like the gum issue; it's a trend of unhelpful, and even harmful, paranoia about hidden ingredients that makes veganism more difficult, and harms the vegan movement by discouraging large companies from making vegan products if vegans will reject them and decry them anyway because they aren't vegan companies.

Again, I think the gum issue is different from vegan obsession over 'purity'.

[brimstoneSalad]

In practice, most mainstream brands don't. Some gums still do, though.
This isn't something minor like not knowing where riboflavin in your pasta is derived from. It's like not knowing if there's dairy in the gum.

But it's not dairy. It's maybe traces of lac. Seems pretty minor.
Dairy would also have to be listed as an allergen.

Regardless of whether it was dairy or not, the fact that it's a hidden ingredient is the problem: it makes ingredient hunting more than just reading ingredients, and inspires additional paranoia which is probably not helpful overall.

Reading ingredients is fine to advocate, but I think it's harmful to advocate veganism being more difficult than reading ingredients. I would even say we shouldn't push hard for reading ingredients if people really don't want to: 99% of animal products are pretty obvious. A person is doing a lot of good by just avoiding the obvious ones.

I'm not saying we should tell people not to read ingredients, but I would say that should be the limit. We have to stop at some point for practicability so people don't see this as obsessive. Having to call or email companies is over the top.

I'm not saying we should focus on this or make a big deal out of it.
You guys were just talking about it, and I pointed out that gum isn't necessarily vegan, and recommended contacting companies about it.

I know you were just mentioning it... but I think pointing out things that are this minor is more harmful than helpful, because other people could read this and see veganism as too difficult.

I don't think that the gum issue translates to the larger problem of vegan 'purity' (vegans avoiding foods with ingredients like 'calcium carbonate' just in case).[...]Again, I think the gum issue is different from vegan obsession over 'purity'.

Why not? And in what way is it different?

Ethical veganism isn't just about avoiding things that contain animal products.

Sure, but buying vegan products at fair market value from non-vegan companies is not encouraging animal abuse.

That's different. Mars is uniquely immoral in that it tortures animals in gruesome experiments for junk food.

Does it really, though? You need to be skeptical of these claims, particularly when they don't cite any sources.

I've read the same sites you have. I couldn't find any evidence of experiments after 2007. Neither could this guy:

http://pilotonline.com/life/pets/waggin ... 64e99.html

That's consistent with what I have read.
See this: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files ... 07mars.pdf
(the conclusion of the investigation)

The only testing was done by Symbioscience and Mars Fishcare: None of the testing was related to human food products, but to certain pharmaceutical and therapeutic products. Yes, they were testing flavinoids for their supplements and shit, but no, it seems to have had nothing to do with candy or the marketing and development of their junk food.

It seems like PETA's pressure (and their FTC complaints) may have even effectively stopped Symbioscience from doing these nasty tests. Mars Fishcare was probably just testing products for fish on fish (like for food/nutrition and treatment of disease).

http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/companys ... goryId=207

A phone conversation with PETA UK's media team, made in November 2014, confirmed that the boycott had ceased, the reasons for which were unknown.

Apparently they're not even pushing the boycott anymore. Those seem to be old sites/articles.
The launch of a boycott tends to be a lot better publicized than its end. It probably ended quietly due to internal disagreement over its purpose and efficacy at PETA.

I'm sure a corporation would never be misleading in any way to benefit monetarily.

They're operating in the U.S. too, so they have to obey the rules of the Federal Trade Commission. It's more harmful for them to do tests than not to at this point considering the blow back.

Continued boycott -- particularly of non Symbioscience products -- doesn't make a lot of sense.
Totally boycott Symbioscience if you want, but the other brands that Mars happens to own as an international conglomerate probably have nothing to do with the testing going on (possibly) at Symbioscience (which probably isn't even going on anymore since 2007).

It makes even less sense (if possible) to boycott the gum branch, which doesn't even have anything to do with the chocolate candy branch, which probably doesn't even have anything to do with their global health & life sciences branch.

Well, if they do know that, I think they're wrong about that.

Do you still?

I didn't say we should fixate on it. I'm just pointing it out.

But what if it's harmful to point it out, because some people might take it the wrong way and decide veganism is too difficult and quit?
Am I saying we should be walking on egg shells when we're talking about possibly animal derived ingredients? Kind of, yes.

Do you have a specific example of them promoting pseudoscience?

I'll edit and post back in a few minutes with some examples.

About 90% of the stuff here:
onegreenplanet.org/channel/natural-health/
Lots about detox, food and acne, adrenal fatigue, healing with herbs.

[EquALLity]

I didn't quote everything you wrote here, but I think I addressed all the points:

But it's not dairy. It's maybe traces of lac. Seems pretty minor.
Dairy would also have to be listed as an allergen.

It's not just maybe shellac, it could be gelatin or lanolin also.

Why not? And in what way is it different?

Gelatin and lanolin are definite animal products that are harmful. They're not on the same level as thiamine mononitrate, or whatever.
But I guess it's not really a stretch to suggest that people would perceive it that way, and think veganism is super difficult as a result.
So I won't point it out to people in the future. I think it's still best to email the companies, though.

Sure, but buying vegan products at fair market value from non-vegan companies is not encouraging animal abuse.

Yeah, but if they're owned by Hitler, I'd consider them non-vegan by default...

There's a certain line with the buying from a non-vegan company thing.

Does it really, though? You need to be skeptical of these claims, particularly when they don't cite any sources.

What incentive does that site have to lie about the Mars animal testing?
Mars has an obvious motive ($$$). What motive could animal activists have to lie about that?

I've read the same sites you have. I couldn't find any evidence of experiments after 2007. Neither could this guy:

http://pilotonline.com/life/pets/waggin ... 64e99.html

That's consistent with what I have read.
See this: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files ... 07mars.pdf
(the conclusion of the investigation)

The only testing was done by Symbioscience and Mars Fishcare: None of the testing was related to human food products, but to certain pharmaceutical and therapeutic products. Yes, they were testing flavinoids for their supplements and shit, but no, it seems to have had nothing to do with candy or the marketing and development of their junk food.

It seems like PETA's pressure (and their FTC complaints) may have even effectively stopped Symbioscience from doing these nasty tests. Mars Fishcare was probably just testing products for fish on fish (like for food/nutrition and treatment of disease).

Hmmm, ok, I trust the FTC about this. I guess the animal activist organizations just need to update their information (why would they lie?).

It seems like Mars was doing testing for candy a long time ago, but stopped due to the bad publicity.
So, ok, I don't see any reason to boycott the gum anymore.

I'll edit and post back in a few minutes with some examples.

About 90% of the stuff here:
onegreenplanet.org/channel/natural-health/
Lots about detox, food and acne, adrenal fatigue, healing with herbs.

Ah, I see. It's pretty frustrating that so many vegan organizations and activists have that pseudoscience element to them. >.<

[brimstoneSalad]

It's not just maybe shellac, it could be gelatin or lanolin also.

If true that would be gross, but I can't find any credible information that this is ever used in gums. The FDA permits a lot of things in theory that are just never done in practice.

It's kind of like, according to the regulations, your fruit juice "could" have natural flavors derived from beef in it... but what are the chances? Who wants to flavor fruit juice with beef? I don't think it's ever done, or has ever been done. Just because the FDA allows something doesn't mean anybody in the world actually does it.
Lanolin may have been in a really old gum formulation somewhere that's never actually used anymore.
Now some kind of "natural" or "organic" gum I would be less likely to trust, since their gum bases probably are not made from plastic.

Yeah, but if they're owned by Hitler, I'd consider them non-vegan by default...

I don't agree. No matter how evil the company otherwise is, showing them there's a market for vegan products is a good thing. Capitalism is mindlessly driven to profit, and by creating demand we can change the behavior of these companies and put more vegan products on the market.
As long as that product isn't tested on animals unnecessarily, whatever else the company does is irrelevant to that product line.

Now, if it said on the package "10% of profits donated to the Aryan Nations" then yeah, go ahead and avoid that if you want. That's a company that's going out of its way to do something evil based on ideology, so isn't purely driven by capitalistic interest (which means all bets are off in terms of predictability).

But much like the issue with the gum base, if the evil activities of the company are not both obvious to the consumer in picking up the package and clearly linked to that specific product, I think it's harmful to advocate this as important to veganism.

It's like when you're buying shampoo or cosmetics (unlike gum), many clearly say they aren't tested on animals. Great, it's easy! Go ahead and buy the brands that say that instead of those that don't.

When recommending specific products, you could totally do the research on the back end and just recommend the brands you like the most -- I just wouldn't push too many details of why unless people are really interested in looking into that.

There's a certain line with the buying from a non-vegan company thing.

I don't think there is. In terms of supply and demand, look at the consequences.

Let's assume to begin with that Symbioscience is evil (which I don't completely agree with, since they were developing health products, so there's some argument to be made for the validity of some or maybe even all of their medical testing -- we don't have both sides of the story).

If people refused to buy from Mars because of Symbioscience, what would happen?

Mars wouldn't close down Symbioscience, they would sell it to another company. Now Mars is animal testing free! But it makes no difference whatsoever, because the same testing is still being done.
Mars also isn't going to siphon the profits from their chocolate and gum lines in order to fund Symbioscience if that company isn't pulling its own weight, so even being owned by a smaller company doesn't make much of a difference to Symbioscience since they're probably not being meaningfully subsidized anyway.

Refusing to buy from large conglomerates that own companies that do testing only consolidates all of the companies doing animal testing into multinationals where that kind of stuff makes up the majority of their portfolios.
Are those consolidated companies going to be more or less ethical with respect to their research policies and response to PR than distributed ones?

What incentive does that site have to lie about the Mars animal testing?

A negative one, because they would be sued, and possibly sanctioned by the FTC, and it would severely affect their PR.

What motive could animal activists have to lie about that?

Ignorance, biases, cherry picking, etc. It's not that they would fabricate it outright, but you know how these things go. These people aren't rigorously fact checking. This stuff just gets repeated and sometimes exaggerated with each retelling.
People who are strongly against animal testing may be looking for dragons to slay (meanwhile, most of them are probably eating meat ).

I guess the animal activist organizations just need to update their information (why would they lie?).

Why would they update it? They don't see a point. For some people, it's a dogmatic policy of "never forgive, never forget"; they don't think in terms of compromise and change, but total abolition and the absolute destruction of any company that has ever done animal testing.

They don't imagine a future where McDonalds is vegan, for example, and would never support vegan products at McDonalds: they prefer one where McDonalds doesn't exist and won't compromise until it happens.

PETA is a large organization, divided between more sensible consequentialists, and ideologues. There are probably internal political reasons why this stuff doesn't get removed or updated, and why the boycott ended without so much as a press release. I know there was a lot of internal controversy around PETA supporting in vitro meat.

It seems like Mars was doing testing for candy a long time ago, but stopped due to the bad publicity.

Why do you think they were doing it on candy? Symbioscience sells some cocoa derived health products as some kind of supplement. Look at their site.

Ah, I see. It's pretty frustrating that so many vegan organizations and activists have that pseudoscience element to them. >.<

Yes, and the wrong/outdated information, and that the ideological approach is so common compared to being practical about things.

[Red]

That would be a case where you can't, and so should chew sugar free gum instead. Most gum is vegan, except those with gelatin in them, but I'd avoid the sour or acidic ones (usually fruit flavors).

But what if they would give you detention for chewing gum?

[brimstoneSalad]

That would be a case where you can't, and so should chew sugar free gum instead. Most gum is vegan, except those with gelatin in them, but I'd avoid the sour or acidic ones (usually fruit flavors).

But what if they would give you detention for chewing gum?

Get a note from your dentist, saying you need to chew non-acidic sugar free dental gum for five minutes (or whatever) after lunch, and take it to the principal's office so you can get permission?
They're mainly worried about kids spitting gum out in the halls and sticking it on things.
Show them that you keep all of your chewed gum. Retain the wrapper to spit it into, and put it back in your pocket.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_g ... _Singapore