animal milk , its chemical transformation during the production process makes it a vegan-friendly option .” The practitioner conveyed this to the client whose response was : “ As it is derived from milk it isn ' t vegan even if it has undergone a chemical transformation . For example , salami has been transformed but still comes from an animal .”
Solution for similar situations : Apply critical thinking to company responses . In this case , the company gave conflicting information in their statement . Either the product is obtained from dairy ( so , non-vegan ), or it ’ s vegan-friendly . From a vegan perspective , it isn ’ t both . A vegan can psychologically perceive milk as being a product that causes considerable physical and emotional suffering to cows , including separation of mother and baby cows , as well as many deaths , including those inflicted for the veal industry , 14 forced artificial insemination , and other cruelties . 15 A vegan is usually emotionally invested in avoiding non-vegan products . With this in mind , be transparent and tell the client that the lactulose is derived from lactose . If they don ’ t wish to take it , be collaborative with the client by being aware of their world view , and discuss potential alternative tests and workarounds . Accept that the client may or may not choose to proceed with this test and respect their decision either way .
Scenario 3 : A liquid glycetract has been recommended for a client . The client asks if the product is vegan . The practitioner is transparent and states that they don ’ t conclusively know , so they reach out to the company . The company states , “ Due to our hydroethanolic extracts currently being made using an ethanol produced from New Zealand whey , if a glycetract is manufactured using the first method , it cannot be classed as a vegan product .” The product is made with a method that utilises whey . This information is conveyed to the client who appreciates the transparency and does not wish to take it . The practitioner has satisfied the requirements of informed consent , and recommends an alternative product which the client is happy to take .
Solution for similar situations : This was a positive outcome . Being transparent and checking with the company in this way instils client trust and may lead to word-of-mouth referrals . Of note here is that a number of vegans ( and non-vegans ) with spiritual and religious motivations , work responsibilities and prior addictions also refrain from alcohol / ethanol . Client and personal experience support that burning off alcohol by adding boiling water to the herb dose does not work . Even using the bain-marie method 16 to evaporate the ethanol can take multiple boils and can reduce or erode compliance . Hence , if using glycetracts it is useful to be aware that they may have been made using some form of dairy in the process .
IF THEY DON ’ T WISH TO TAKE IT , BE COLLABORATIVE WITH THE CLIENT BY BEING AWARE OF THEIR WORLD VIEW , AND DISCUSS POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVE TESTS AND WORK-AROUNDS .
Scenario 4 : Prescribing homeopathics for vegans entails many grey areas . Here are two real-world experiences .
Scenario A : Someone had been prescribed a homeopathic product and approached me for a second opinion about whether or not it was vegan . The person didn ’ t understand what a homeopathic product was . Answering their question required first explaining what a homeopathic product was , and then looking at the specific ingredients . One ingredient of the product was Apis , which is derived from bees . The client decided that by her standards the product was not vegan , and returned it to the practitioner . In this scenario the practitioner was not knowledgeable or transparent about the vegan viewpoint . The client had asked directly if the product was vegan . The practitioner answered through their own lens , not considering the client ’ s vegan viewpoints . Informed consent wasn ’ t met and client trust was eroded .
Solution for similar situations : You may need to explain what homeopathy is and then explain what a specific ingredient is . In my experience most vegans have studied the production of honey and choose not to consume it based on factors such as suffering and killing of bees , and why and how bees make honey . In my experience , the practitioner will also find it helpful to acknowledge and concede that many vegans will have more detailed knowledge than themselves about facets of production involving animal and insect ingredients . Being able to concede this and being amenable to learning from the client can also foster improved client-practitioner relationships . While many homeopaths may view Apis as vegan because it doesn ’ t contain physical remnants of bees , a vegan will often see it as non-vegan because a bee was harmed to create the remedy .
Scenario B : An educator recommended to practitioners that they could tell vegan clients to swirl homeopathic products that contained lactose in their mouths to obtain treatment . The recommendation was for vegans to then spit out the homeopathic product without swallowing it . This is a presumptuous approach that doesn ’ t show an understanding and respect for vegan values .
Solution for similar situations : Be transparent . As an educator , acknowledge that the product contains lactose and that many vegans may choose not to use it . Present mouth swirling as a potential way of taking the product , and inform learners that clients may still not choose to do this as the product isn ’ t intrinsically vegan . Model transparency and respect for client values to students . Encourage future practitioners to be transparent and engage in discussions with the clients that includes recommending other alternatives if the client so chooses , and thereby enable informed consent .
JATMS | Autumn 2025 | 17