Vegan: As a noun it's unclear as to it's exact meaning, but generally implies either a person who does not eat any animal products or a product that does not contain any ingredients sourced from animals.
What is an animal?
A person who practices, or has a mind to acknowledge the vegan idea(l) will have a unique set of included creatures to avoid using. So for me it includes bees for honey, beetles for cochineal red dye and water born sprites, such as Daphnia, for testing regimes.https://calstock.org.uk/vow.php/daphnia
A person may have a vegan diet for health reasons and have no ethical concern for the origin, this can apply to an organic diet, where the notion of the foods health benefits are of prime importance.
The ethical vegan will be more concerned with compassion; such a person who is likely to avoid leather, wool and silk etc.
In my case where veganism is more a meditation to aid spiritual focus I avoid the use of shells, as in mother of pearl inlays in a guitar recently purchased.
So a practising compassionate vegan may extend the avoidance to any product they are responsible for.
At this degree of attention to detail, the word veganism is appropriate, as it's a life style akin to religion.
So contrary to general views veganism for a spiritual focus downgrades the compassionate side and those of health as being materially based and part of the consumer protection racket.
What is sourced from?
This highlights the consumer racket alluded to.
Of course the production of anything may have, and is likely to have, been fashioned with the exploitation of animals. Bees for pollination, wasps for figs, horses, dogs and various helpers in the farming world.
There is also the use of animals as pets, and in the case of cats, the meat they consume. So yes there are 'vegans' who buy meat so they can feed their pet; would they do the same for a car that runs on chicken shit or blood and bones.. and here we go ... blood and bones as fertiliser, a must have for organic farmers.
So to focus on compassion would lead to an avoidance of material consumption and in this case would be akin to spiritual veganism. Yet those I have met who tout compassion do not support the questionable spiritual notion. As long as they consume . . . .
Organic: Commonly products of an organic nature contain carbon, but the usage here, organic food, refers to the absence or minimal use of synthetic fertilisers, insecticides etc.
Minerals seem acceptable, as do simple plant based 'cides, the issue here is not an obsession with avoiding animal products but concern for the environment in general. Animals are exploited but should have a nicer environment to live in, free from poisons, which trickles through to less toxicities in food and a nicer walk in the countryside.
Some vegans will have a problem with organic food as it likely to be grow with the use of animal products in fertilisers.
However if veganism is a religion then personal health may not be an issue so chemical in the food don't matter as much as the blood used to grow, however the same arguments can mean that it is better generally for animals if we as humans don't poison the world they live in. Of course 90% of the non-human animal biomass is human generated.
Now we get to a society were individuals are so weak we need each other to survive in the material world, so just by using each other we use human animals who use other animals, so where could veganism lead?
For if it is based on compassion neither chemicals or blood will do.
Ethics of Commercial Fruit Juice 