Vegans practicing on moral principle ought to become Freegan instead

The basic assumption made in this debate is that practitioners of either diet do so on a moral basis. Therefore health is not an issue of discussion. It is also not the intention of this debate to imagine a world where all people are either Freegan or Vegan. Our debate operates in a world where the number of Vegans and Freegans remains a constant. So neither my opponent nor I are claiming that everyone should switch to the respective diet we're arguing in favor of. It would be morally superior for practicing Vegans to become Freegan because it would reduce waste and preserve resources. Freeganism works to reduce the waste created in a traditional consumer economy. Freegans only eat food they are able to find for free that would otherwise go to waste. In 2008, food lost in retail totaled up to 43 billion pounds[3]. That is equivalent to 10% of all food sold at retail. But it's not just that this food is destroyed or wasted, most of this food is just thrown out after passing it's expiration date. And while it's true that you probably don't want to eat a piece of meat that's been in the open air for a few days, there's no reason meat that's slightly past it's expiration date and well packaged can't be eaten. Freeganism reduces this waste by consuming goods which would otherwise perish. Vegans do not reduce waste but instead consume goods they find less objectionable. Demand for vegan alternatives actually increase waste by adding potential goods to consume. [3] . http://www.nrdc.org... Sometimes, it's not even that the food has gone bad. Many companies won't sell food that doesn't meet a certain standard. I work at a bookstore / coffee shop. At the end of the night, any unsold coffee is poured down the drain; staff members aren't allowed to take the coffee instead of disposing it even if they want to. And because believe me, I want to. Further, we have to change the coffee we keep in the cylinders every 3 hours to ensure freshness as the coffee tastes burnt if it's in there for too long. Coffee can be stored in this format for up to two weeks before it goes bad[4], but because we don't want the coffee to taste burnt we waste it. Demand for vegan alternatives actually makes this waste worse. We can't just brew anything, we have to brew organic coffee also. This too is wasted every three hours and at the end of the night. [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org... Organic produce is expensive and unsustainable. The refusal to use fertilizer in organic farming strips land of it's fertility[5]. Instead of being good for the environment, vegan food wastes resources. Any argument on meat consumption doesn't hold water either. If one becomes a vegan, they may not directly contribute to waste of meat from over production, but they don't reduce it either. Eating meat that has been thrown away doesn't increase demand or contribute to the deaths of more animals. If an animal has already been slaughtered, refusing to eat it's meat won't bring the animal back to life. Not eating meat that would otherwise go to waste in preference of other goods is not a moral high ground, but a waste by means of omission. [5] . http://www.spiked-online.com... If meat is thrown into the trash, Vegan practices don't redeem the animal's death by not consuming it. Freegan practices do. Freegans don't opt to consume goods they find less objectionable, they eat whatever would otherwise go to waste. Their consumption doesn't even promote the slaughtering of animals if they happen to eat meat, as it doesn't correspond to any kind of market demand. They do however keep the animal from dying for no reason. They put the animal's resources to use. In conclusion Veganism is wasteful while Freeganism actually makes up for the waste of others. If existing Vegans became Freegan, we would greatly reduce waste without promoting the slaughtering of animals or unsustainable food production methods.