The idea behind freeganism is that you get as much of your food as you can from stuff that has been thrown out by supermarkets, restaurants and street markets. Though the practice is also known as voluntary simplicity and monetary minimalism it’s only partly about living cheaply. It’s more a political philosophy, a statement of defiance against what freegans regard as the wasteful consumerist culture of the developed world, which is why it has also been called ethical eating and the ultimate boycott.
The name is usually said to be a blend of free and vegan, since early practitioners were either vegetarian or vegan (not least because it is much more dangerous to eat discarded meat or fish than vegetables and grains). But it has also been argued from a political perspective that it’s short for free gain. The evidence is that some normally vegan freegans will take animal products, since there’s another term, meagan, for vegans who will eat meat if they can get it for nothing.
Source: [x] (please read more here)
I wonder about this term’s usage. Is it also applied to those who take discarded food because they have no other options for food sources? If so, the definitian that is written here is obviously flawed and biased.
Even as a movement of choice it seems quite interesting to me. Is there really anything wrong with choosing to use what would otherwise go to waste? I certainly don’t believe so, especially if the “freegan” in question does not disrupt the lives of others to attain their meals. Though a dangerous way to aquire nourishment, this seems to be a mostly positive philosophy. Surely there are fanatics in the movement, like any other, but it seems to be a noble exposure of our collective waste and ignorance, and I certainly respect that.