Is this virtue signalling or is it genuine consideration?

MissAdventure, very true. I wouldn't have made the distinction but I guess they think it's like saying clean water, hormone-free beef, or lead free paint, etc. Again, personal perspective re/ what's important and not.

My husband and I gave a couple of quid to a lovely homeless guy who sometimes sits outside our local co-op a couple of days ago. He offered a sandwich to us that someone had bought him but he couldn't eat - its like my husband who could never eat cheese and pickle even if he was starving as it would make him sick. Please dignify people with the right to make a choice if you are going to buy them a sandwich or a hot drink!

Its just not necessary to share the fact that it was vegan food.
It's food, that's all, for people to eat or not as they see fit.

Vegetarian American here. . From what I've read, son Jaden Smith is the one delivering vegan food to the homeless with his meals on wheels project. He also helps bring water to Flint residents through his JUST Goods Foundation. His mom is proud of him, which I can understand. I was proud of my son for his small gesture of giving peanut butter and jelly sandwiches to the homeless in Sacramento. I was privately happy to see him thinking of others. Celebrities have an opportunity to raise public awareness about issues of societal importance. It doesn't seem like they are "blowing their own horn" at all.

Re/ the type of food offered, I've been a vegetarian for over 30 years and, in any situation, am most likely to prepare food I'm used to making and eating. I did make my grandma a lot of meatloaf and bacon when I cared for her because I know she loved it , but usually people love the vegetarian food I bring to potlucks, parties and holidays. As many here have stated, being Omnivores, we are already used to it.

Finally, one note re/ the "ethical" debate. It all depends on perspective, doesn't it? My ex and I read the book Diet For A New America back in 1989 and stopped eating meat that day. The book was divided into sections covering animal, health, environmental, and planetary concerns over meat-based diets that, to ME, were compelling and ethical in nature. We all have beliefs based on personal ethics that are hard for us to share without sounding like we're judging or proselytizing.

Would it perhaps be better to encourage people who want to help the homeless to volunteer with homeless charities? That way the resources can be properly managed and co-ordinated, rather than individuals giving out food which may not have been cooked and stored properly? Going onto the streets may also present risks to well meaning individuals, so perhaps better to let the charities who know the local homeless community direct help appropriately and safely?

Just a thought. Celebrities can raise the awareness of certain issues, never mind about their motivation. If it inspires others - great.

Why did she feel the need to share that her daughter was taking vegan food to the homeless? Why not just say she was involved with a number of charities? By focusing on the vegan aspect it seemed that the charity side of things were less important than the bandwagon-y vegan element (IMO). I’d dearly love to know if the homeless people were offered choices - or if those choices were made on their behalf by an 18 year old who’s decided that they will only be fed ‘ethical’ food as suits her public profile?

In my opinion, being on the street doesn't take away your sense of ethics.
The only difference is, you don't have a permanent home!

My Korean friends feed homeless people (of all cultures) 3 nights a week and there are several vegetarians clients (not sure about vegan). They just leave the meat dishes for everyone else.

As for this young lady taking food to the homeless, why on earth shouldn't she?
The bigger question is "Why should she when she is wealthy and privileged?"

And why shouldn't her mother be proud of her and say so?

I'm very proud indeed of my son and what he does (and if I had the chance to go on telly and say so, I would) because he doesn't need to do any of it - he does it because he sees others in need, cares about them and can help.

Why can't we allow this excellent young lady the same sentiments without griping about it?

If famous people use their fame to bring issues to public attention - that's a good thing. If other famous people choose not to, that's fine too.
(Am a bit worried about the level of ignorance about vegan food though, and the stereotypes of vegans. I'm not vegan btw)
Willow Smith is 18, well-known and rich in her own right and, with both brothers, has an AIDS charity in Africa and is involved with one of the US young people's climate-change initiatives. To me, that sounds like she's a thoughtful young woman, privileged but wanting to give something back.

And as for vegan food - it could have been left quietly, on a 'take it or leave it' basis. I imagine those who hadn't eaten for a while would gladly eat any fresh food. However, I get the point (made earlier) that even those on the street have food preferences. Can't say I had thought much about it before.

George Michael was hugely generous but the countless stories of his kindness & generosity didn't emerge until he died

Yes and I liked him all the more for it- to hear this after his death. I think he went up in the estimation of most, whether they were GM fans or not. He didn't need praise or recognition.

It strikes me that the Pinkett-Smiths were on a little mission to blow their own trumpets. Acts of kindness are always good but stars, who have the ear of media outlets, do have the option to just get on with it and do what they can without looking for praise. Does the average person take a selfie every time they pass a homeless person and throw a coin into a begging bowl/hat? Nope.

In a different vein, we remarked today that very few people knew how gravely ill Victoria Wood was before her death was announced suddenly. What a shock that was. The choice to keep their deeds and life private is one every 'star' has. It's a shame that some need a platform and the limelight.

We are omnivores, food is food so I think that the recipient if hungry and cold will be grateful for whatever anyone provides him/her with. Does it really make any difference whether the soup you are given or stew has meat in it or not.

I think these are fake ethical dilemmas, that only the virtue signalling worry about.

I am a vegetarian, so I too only buy vegetarian foods when I pop things into the food bank collections; this would normally be the same if I were buying food for a homeless person (but in fact I always ask what they would like to eat/drink and recently bought my Big Issue seller a ham salad at his request) I assume that street homeless folk are just as likely to have food allergies/intolerances as all of the rest of us, and have as much right to choice of food as I do so will try to honour this when I can.

I am a vegetarian, and if homeless and someone gave me a meat sandwich, I couldn't eat it and not be /feel sick afterwards. Its like me asking someone what foods they do not like and serve it up to them for lunch.

Or would you prefer to be asked what you wanted?

I think I'd prefer that - it would make me feel that my choices mattered and that I was still a person with preferences.

Not a vegan, but if I was starving, I would prefer eating vegan than nothing. Vegan is not that bad actually.....there are a lot of tasty, nutritious and 'protein adequate' menus that are vegan.

Sheilasue
Now that's virtue signalling.

My daughter recently left her job to start another new one.
She was giving a leaving present of a box of chocolates, she had some food over from a leaving do Buffett which she arranged for her colleagues, there is a homeless guy outside our local station she gave him the chocolates and food and bought him a coffee he was very pleased. She can’t eat milk chocolate because she is lactose intolerant.

Jaxie, Matthew 6:1-4 says it all really. Good for the girl if it was her idea, vegan or not. Not so impressed if it was mainly a publicity stunt which the presence of cameras seem to imply.

I think BTW that it is ok to eat non-kosher food in extremis. The point being that maintaining life is sacred.

I'm perfectly OK with the homeless being given vegan food. Omnivores can eat anything and vegan/vegetarian recipients will be happy that somebody has thought of them.
What I can't stand are the (mainly) US celebrities who bring along camera crews on their charity missions and go on chat shows to talk about how kind and generous they are. Why not just stay anonymous while they're doing their charity stuff? Better still, why don't they use their celebrity status and contacts to work towards a proper welfare state, so that they wouldn't have to do charity work?

Has anyone considered those with lactose intolerance or gluten allergies?

But what if that hungry person wasn't vegan - does Willow's food choices trump theirs because they're hungry and homeless, and should therefore be grateful for any morsel given to them?

I'm moving steadily to a vegetarian diet, as a nod to the environment and to animal welfare. Yes I think it was dubious "self" promotion to mention her daughter's actions, but I wouldn't have a problem with the food being offered to someone genuinely hungry as vegan.

As a kid in the 60's & 70's we didn't eat meat as part of a daily diet. I don't think the choice was there for one, plus storage - I'm now 60 and I remember vividly the milk bottle being kept in a bucket of cold water as we didn't have a fridge.

Lots of different points brought up here. I am a vegetarian, don't preach, it is quite easy for me as I have never really liked meat, the only difficulty was the occasional bacon sandwich. But, going slightly off at a tangent; how far would anyone think it sensible to take their ethical/religious beliefs? I saw a recorded interview, many years ago, with a woman who had fled atrocities against Jewish people, was found, half starved by some people in the country who took her in, gave her a warm bath, clean clothes and a hot meal. She was proud of the fact that despite being starved to the point of emaciation and permanent physical damage, that she refused to eat the pork which was all these people were able to offer her, they too had suffered deprivation. I was astonished, to put it mildly, that anyone would think their God would judge them for going against dietary laws in such extremis. Possibly off the original conversation, but maybe not?