I see now that your reasons for avoiding also has to do with allergies. I would say most of those products will be ok unless you have severe allergic reactions to minute amounts. I know people who can die from exposure to a few pieces of peanut shells. A friends of mine is so severely allergic to watermelon, just a drop of watermelon juice can put her into anaphylaxis. If you have these kinds of reactions then please avoid them for your safety. If you live in a place where you have certified vegan options available then only use those. When you go to a restaurant that serve vegan options you should tell them of your allergies because sometimes they would cook everything on the same fryer or grill or pan, etc. I have numerous allergies and intolerances as well so I understand. I'm lactose intolerant but not allergic to milk. I'm sadly allergic/intolerant to bananas, strawberries, tomatoes, citrus fruits, chickpeas, black beans, peanuts, most nuts, hot peppers. As you can see, this severely limits my options as a vegan. As long as the symptoms aren't severe enough to give them up, I still eat from that list in limited amounts (bananas are completely out for me). I have numerous non-food allergies as well, so I understand what it's like to live with allergies.

The warnings, I believe, are for people who have to be scrupulous about allergies. I would not avoid.

I question why cross-contamination is considered such an issue, aside from allergies. It doesn't make a difference to the animal. You can't unslaughter, unmilk, or unlay any of the products you might be consuming. I look at supply and demand. If you pay for products that use animals or animal byproducts, they will breed more to provide them. Like you said, if you pay for vegan products, and show there's a profitable demand for it, it makes it more likely they'll provide that, which also makes it more available and easier for people to convert to veganism or at least have easier access to more vegan foods, even if it only means they reduce their non-vegan food consumption and don't eliminate it. It's already hard enough to find a good selection of vegan foods here, if I ruled out anything that might be contaminated, it would do the animals no good, and do me no good. If you can't eliminate, reduce where possible. If you have a wider variety and can easily get uncontaminated foods, then sure, you might prefer to financially support those companies and products rather than companies that pay the livestock industry, but if not, don't sweat it. It'll be more helpful to educate and advocate to change the situation than to try to walk a tightrope to avoid it.

No I don't. It is good that some companies are open minded enough to take vegans into account in their corporate philosophy. Polarization is not just about people.

I think economically supporting vegan products, even if they are flawed in the way you describe, is the only way to ensure they stay available. Once production gets big enough, the company could afford a separate facility. If they have to have a facility to begin with, the barrier for entry into the market might be larger than the company can or will be willing to surmount.

That's a good question. I understand your point too. I don't like the idea of the two being in the same factory. I don't know...

Not concerned as you. I'm vegan for health reasons, and don't have ethical issues with animal products like eggs and milk. On the other hand, I am allergic to milk, so don't drink it.

My ethical concerns are based on climate change. It is supposed to take 3000 gallons of water to make a Big Mac, and machinery to farm, deliver, and make a Big Mac spews gobs of CO2 into the air. I've read that if everyone in the US became vegan, it would eliminate the same amount of CO2 from being released as removing all cars and trucks from the roads. These are my ethical concerns. Whether there are small amounts of animal products in something I eat does not concern me.