Talk:Freeganism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Web hits

This term has ZERO hits on Google! Freaganism and neo-freaganism both have a bunch of mentions, but not in this sense... they seem to be philosophical/logical theories. I vote that this page be deleted as garbage. KJ 01:37 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Further to that, 'freeganism' has 25 google hits and seems to be what the OP was aiming at. However it also seems to be an invented term with little backing. KJ

Try "freegan." It's got some hits but not a lot. I've heard it, anyway, in the SE U.S., and not from wikipedia. Koyaanis Qatsi

I just got 1590 hits for "freeganism", and 3780 for "freegan", all on Google. Thats hardly zero, I'd say. --El.tula 11:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I run the website freegan.info, and we've gotten as much as 70,000 hits in a single day. 4.250.36.56 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fregganism was featured on Rocketboom, it's not a major new program, but as far as vblogs go it is significant. Jon513 21:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Google hits update: "about 93,300 for freegan", "about 31,000 for freeganism." Seems like the terms are experiencing a significant rate of growth in usage. —GrantNeufeld 17:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It was mentioned on Gordon Ramsay's F Word, that well known friend of Veganism ;-) but that probably exaplins why there was a lot more interest (its where I heard the term and am thus reding about it having seen a repeat) Ant

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00711FF3B5B0C728EDDAF0894DF404482 there was a front page new york times article on freeganism a few weeks back. jon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.116.201.2 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

HOW TO SAFELY BE A FREEGAN?

I am somewhat confused as to how you can do this safely? Eg eat by dates etc and the possible consumption of meet!Could someone answer this query or at least point me into the right direction as to where I can get these answers???? YOU CAN EMAIL ME AT: SEANWHITE100@AOL.COM

There is no way to "safely" be a freegan. Eating trash is unhealthy and disgusting. - Stancel 20:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

... Not if the "trash" is consumed before it reaches the garbage -- say, food from a buffet that at the end of the day was going to the dumpster. This is an excellent example of freeganism -- literally, consuming food that would otherwise be completely wasted. There is nothing unhealthy about the above example; if the food was safe for customers an hour ago, it's safe for a freegan before it reaches the garbage can. Lobsterkins 22:56, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

How brainwashed are you? Most trash cans aren't that dirty, especially big corporate dumpsters. And best before dates are more cautious than necessary because we live in an age of lawsuits. Most food is good past the date. I had a soda that "expired" 2 years ago last night and I'm fine. A lot of our "rules of hygiene" are ridiculous. It's not easy to deprogram the voice in your head that says gross, but most things we consider unhygienic aren't gonna hurt you. Think of the 5 second rule. How do you justify eating food off the ground but not out of a trash can (not to say you practice the 5 second rule, but many do)? And like I said, most trash cans aren't that bad, depending on what it thrown in there. BTW, I'm not even freegan, but I do practice occasional freegan behaviors. I got a york peppermint patty out of the trash at my job. It was still wrapped and perfectly good, the only reason it was thrown out was because it was smashed. Wow, how horrible huh? I ate that a month ago and am fine. And to use an old cliche, "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

Supermarkets routinely throw away produce that is perfectly good but is perhaps no longer attractive enough to sell, or even if they simply have too much of a certain item to sell before it'll spoil. It is entirely possible to get this before it goes in the dumpster, simply by befriending someone in the produce department and asking nicely. --Mumblingmynah 09:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is a webpage on freegan food safety: http://freegan.info/?page=safety

all this ignores the fact that food can be washed. if that apple is in a dirty dumpster, just wash it before you eat it. no big beal. Murderbike 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

packaging on discarded food is as abundant as the food itself. most of what i eat has never touched a bin, because its still all rapped up, nice and clean. my diet has improved dramatically since my food has no monetary value. i choose what i eat based on health and taste, not what i can afford. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.45.61.157 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Also in the UK (and i think everywhere else) we have SELL BY dates and CONSUME BY dates. The supermarket has to throw the food out when its SELL BY date expires. There will at least be a couple of days before this product then passes it's CONSUME BY date. If the item is packaged (nearly all food is these days) then a freegan can VERY safely eat the food. If you are the paranoid type you can just wash the packaging! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.91.50.125 (talk) 13:32:59, August 19, 2007 (UTC)

It should be added that...

This is viewed by most (including me) in the vegan and vegetarian community as some kind of stupid joke. I think that freeganism is so stupid and disgusting and there are other ways to make a difference than eating trash. Perhaps you could add this under a "criticism of freeganism" section. - Stancel 18:17 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, its unclear what you mean by a joke. Do you mean you disapprove of the practice? Or do you see it a hoax. If the latter, I can assure you that freeganism is very much a real thing. Second, what is your basis for saying "most?" Please don't confuse personal biases with factual information 4.250.36.56 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Great, you think something is stupid. Hardly makes it "most of the community." Most vegans I know, even if they're not freegan themselves, support freeganism. --Teri

In my experience, the term more often refers to those who simply aren't strict vegans. They won't directly buy anything non-vegan, but (for example) would eat a non-vegan dinner at a friend's house without raising a fuss. Dumpster diving and trying to get all your food for free is a whole different thing.--Mumblingmynah 09:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an incorrect definition of freeganism, one of several floating around. The definitive work on the subject is Why Freegan? (http://freegan.info/?page=WhyFreegan), which is largely responsible for popularizing the term. Unfortunately years of misuse by detractors have led to lots of misconceptions as to the acutal meaning of the term. 4.250.36.56 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I would put it that, through years of misuse, a new definition (that is, "almost-vegan") has become part of popular usage (in vegan/vegetarian circles, anyway), and this ought to be better acknowledged in the article. Although this new usage isn't the 'original' sense of the word, it is common enough that writing it off as simply 'incorrect' isn't very helpful. 66.185.0.211 05:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

what's incorrect is the definition offered by adam weissman, who runs freegan.info and who seems to have created an entirely new definition for the word all by himself. he wants to include the term to describe practices that have nothing to do with food -- such as squatting, train-hopping, and other subcultural practices he seems to know little about, other than they're "free." the idea that "freegan" no longer has anything specifically to do with the word "vegan" is just plain wrong, and no one else has ever used the term to describe anything other than food.

further, weissman seems to be promoting his new definition as part of a campaign of self-promotion -- of which his complete altering of this very wikipedia page, on more than one occasion, is a part of. after all, it's great advertising for his website. weissman's agenda strikes this reader as highly suspect, and i see no reason why this one man should be allowed to redefine the term just because it's convenient for his own self-aggrandizement.

And yet, again the truism that people who use ad hominems generally do so because they don't have solid foundations for their arguments rings true. Perhaps the definitive work on freeganism is "Why Freegan Freeganism is essentially an anti-consumeristic ethic about eating; asking Why Freegan", which includes a lengthy section called "Extending the Ethic", relating to practices extending beyond food, including sections on using alternative energy, reducing water usage, using reusable cups, using hankerchiefs, squatting, avoiding throwing away useable goods, borrowing, repairing, recycling, buying second-hand, hitchhiking, train hopping, bike riding, etc. Admittedly, Why Freegan begins by describing freeganism as "an anti-consumeristic ethic about eating", and thus may have intended the Extending the Ethic section to describe practices similar in spirit to freeganism but not necessarily within the definition of freeganism, but freegans long before the advent of freegan.info came to consider these practices part and parcel of the overall freegan livestyle and to define them as aspects of their freeganism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.250.31.129 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

What about....

.....Shoplifting? I would consider that freegan if you get by on shoplifting, but then again, you are still taking a good that would not have been thrown away. It depends on your idea and reason. But do others consider that a part of it?

I would say no, if one is freegan in order to avoid supporting the production and sale of non-vegan foods. Stealing food still creates an economic demand for it. If you just want free food, on the other hand, then go for it. --Mumblingmynah 07:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, you do create demand for the product, but at the same time, you are inflicting economic damage on the corporation. As the person below states, it's a grey area.

Again, refer to Why Freegan, which suggests that this is a grey point.(http://freegan.info/?page=WhyFreegan) 4.250.36.56 02:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how shoplifting or other theft could be considered freegan since not only does it possibly increase costs to consumers, exacerbating the exploitation of the working individual, companies are not beyond increasing prices beyond reason under the guise of recouping costs incurred by shoplifters.

Sources needed

Some of this info needs sources:

• They are also concerned about the enormous volume of waste generated by a society that produces more than it actually uses.
• Freegans see the pressure to maintain employment in order to purchase commodities and pay for necessities like food and shelter as a form of oppression. They view the advertising-driven push to constantly purchase new commodities as a form of manipulation for profit.

I'm not disputing the accuracy of these statements, but without references, it sounds like a personal opinion. --Mumblingmynah 07:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The F word

There was a 5-minute slot on freeganism on Gordon Ramsey's The F word on the UK's Channel 4, Nov 4, 2005. (Should be available as a torrent.) A food journalist in conversation with a freegan, and then they went and found some discarded food from the sandwich shops in central London, and then had a picnic in the park with this food. The food journalist was from the Times - I expect he wasn't used to eating food from dustbins! Trious 00:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

FNB and CNN

I added a link to an article on CNN.com and I am about to put Food not bombs back into the see also list. I don't know how to comment on the history page to say why, so I'm doing it here. If anyone knows how to comment on the history page, tell me. But yeah, FNB is relevant since a large amount of the food FNB serves is dumpster-dived, at least in my town. I am pretty sure that is the case all over too. So I am adding it back in.

Archive 1

Archive 2