He was featured in an article in the LA Times, which you can see here. Here's a quote from him:
"So many people tell me, 'I could be a vegan if it weren't for bacon,' and I tell them, 'Be a "vegan" who eats bacon,'" Ronnen says with a shrug as he sits in the sun-dappled dining room of his loft in downtown Los Angeles.
"Real militant vegans hate when I say that. But if you are cutting back on the amount of meat that you eat, you're still doing something great for your health, for the planet and for the animal."
So... I guess if you think that being a vegan does not ever include eating bacon, you are then considered to be "militant." Nice. I guess you could also replace "bacon" with any number of things one would not want to give up to actually be a vegan. Such things as hamburgers, steak, lobster, etc. Is it just bacon that gets a pass, or is any meat of choice? In his mind you can be a "vegan" and still include a particular meat item in your diet. Just forget about those "militant vegans" who think that a vegan really doesn't eat any animal products.
Are people doing better by giving up all other meat and just eating bacon? That would depend on how often they are eating it! If it's only once in a while, and they are not eating any other animal products, then I would say yes, they are doing good for their health. And they may be causing less harm to animals, but they are not doing good for the animal that they are eating. Plus, they are causing more confusion about what a vegan is and what they do and don't eat.
When I meet people and they ask me if I still eat bacon, hamburger or some other piece of meat I am surprised that they would even think something like that. But articles like this will keep that question coming, because some do it and others are telling some to do it!
I don't know, I guess I'm one of those "militant vegans" that thinks bacon has no place in a vegan diet. How about you?