‘Plant based’ initially meant vegan, but vegan is a dirty word for some people, likely because a lot of the early vegan meat alternatives were ghastly. As a vegan, I see a lot of labels boasting ‘plant-based’ but no mention of it being vegan or not, often not even on their website. That alone means I will not purchase. It’s either not vegan OR they’re scared to put that 5 letter word on their product.
Market it as plant-based all you want but mention if it’s vegan or not somewhere, even on your website.
I personally like the “plant based” term, because for me “vegan” was always defined as a negative (vegans dont eat this and dont eat that), whereas plant-based just means what it says.
In my experience in shops in the UK at least, there will always be a little “vegan” logo stuck on the packet as well
Ah, I see now what you mean by "euphemism treadmill", and I agree that the framework is valid.
If the term has a chance of avoiding the treadmill I suspect it'd be due to the awkwardness of identifying as such. "Vegan" can apply to both food and the people who consume just that food, but I don't see people calling themselves "plant-based" anytime soon. The tribal aspect of the context is potentially greatly diminished by removing that explicit identity.
I'm in the UK too, and find the plant-based phrase generally useful. For example, some double cream said 'plant-based' alternative and also had the Vegan logo.
I've never really thought about it, but I assumed 'plant-based' was for products like cream that would have dairy and non-dairy alternative.
Saying 'vegan' might imply it's only for vegans where plant based just means 'non-dairy' and might be billed as more inclusive.
I'm not too concerned about it also possibly including eggs, as I always check for vegan icon or read ingredients.
Veganism is an extreme and therefore it tends to attract people who are seeking extremes. This brings a rather negative image because there's always a part of intolerance and/or unreasonableness in extremes.
I think most people will think that, for instance, not eating honey or eggs is too extreme.
Most people, when made aware of how almost all of the eggs they consume are produced, would be a little uncomfortable at least. Mind you I still eat plenty of eggs, but I entirely grok a person not wanting to consume the output of industrial egg production. I try to buy eggs with adjectives added to the label about how nice they are to their hens knowing full well that these are of limited benefit.
Honey, on the other hand, I don't understand a moral objection to, but also who cares if somebody doesn't want to eat honey?
Maybe honey is extreme, but watch a youtube video of them shredding male live chicks that won't lay eggs so aren't useful is the closest thing to hell i've ever seen.
There is a difference between being against cruelty against animals and not eating any eggs.
Hens will lay eggs. That's what they do naturally and if those eggs are not fertilised they will rot and decay.
In veganism you cannot eat those eggs no matter how pampered the hens are.
That's obviously a personal decision, which I respect, but it should also be understandable that many people find this extreme (and not eating honey even more extreme).
Veganism = reduce animal suffering as much as possible.
Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering?
On the other hand you could also argue that veganism attracts people who want to move away from the extremes of the animal and dairy industry, which contributes massively to our carbon footprint and biosphere destruction on top of causing unnecessary animal suffering.
> Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering?
That's a (lazy) strawman [edit: because it that has nothing to do with what I wrote and unfortunately also seems to be a common Pavlovian response to any criticism].
If you want to make a constructive reply I will gladly engage with it.
If you look up the actual definition of veganism - it's all about not wanting to cause unnecessary suffering and destruction [0]
We live in a time where we don't need meat anymore to survive. Yes there are still regions of humans who need to hunt and farm animals as it's their only means of survival.
But I'm talking about us living in the western world who rely mostly on factory animal farms to provide meat and dairy. There are numerous studies that clearly show feeding the world with animal meat is not sustainable [1]
So what is extreme about not wanting to cause animal suffering and not wanting to support a food system that contributes heavily to biosphere destruction?
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
I understood your comment as saying that veganism is seen as an extreme act.
But veganism is far from that. Veganism isn't dogmatic. It's pragmatic as per the official definition.
E.g. if you are on a hike and you get lost and have to survive by hunting, even though you usually don't eat animals - you could still call yourself vegan - because you need to hunt to survive.
Or something simpler - if you have your own chickens and eat their eggs and you don't intend to slaughter the chickens later on- I'd class that as vegan, because you're not harming the chickens.
But I agree with you - people who promote veganism as a dogmatic philosophy can be seen as extreme.
> and eat their eggs and you don't intend to slaughter the chickens later on- I'd class that as vegan, because you're not harming the chickens.
You cannot make your own definition of 'veganism' as you go, that makes any discussion impossible even without your strawman argument.
What you describe here is not veganism (no animal products at all, including things like honey), it's a common flavour of vegetarianism (no killing of animals).
In the definition of 'veganism' you quoted from the Vegan Society, there is 'exploitation'. Veganism sees eating eggs or honey as exploitation no matter how well treated the animals are, which is why it is off-limits. That same goes with wearing wool, for instance.
There are vegans who have rescue chickens (from factory farms) and they do eat their eggs. The rescue chickens are given a happy life where they can roam freely in a garden.
It's a different matter when it comes to milk - which is intended for the baby cow.
Same with honey - it's actually being eaten by bees and you can't replace it with sugar water, as it has fewer nutrients for the bees.
Edit:
When it comes to wool, there are vegans who still wear their wool or leather items from their pre-vegan days. You wouldn't simply throw them away - you just don't buy new wool or leather products.
I think you're imagining what you wish should be. You've been to the Vegan Society's website, though... veganism is not pragmatic and is quite strict/dogmatic, that's the whole point, otherwise it would be generic vegetarianism.
If people don't even know and understand terms and philosophies/ideologies then there is nothing that can be discussed.
As with many other communities - the vegan community is not homogeneous. Like I said before - yes there are some people within this community who are dogmatic, but that doesn't mean veganism is dogmatic.
The core principle of veganism is not wanting to harm non-human sentient beings and generally not wanting to destroy our biosphere.
So if someone strives to live by those principles, but still has to use products that contain animal products, e.g. if you need to take medication that contains gelatin or similar and there are no alternatives then it's OK - it's not dogmatic.
> but vegan is a dirty word for some people, likely because a lot of the early vegan meat alternatives were ghastly
Probably more to do with stereotypes of vegans themselves - ie. condescending, arrogant, self-righteous hippies.
As a non-vegan, I think a lot of vegan food is actually really good. But as a rule of thumb I avoid vegan dishes that use substitutes for traditionally non-vegan dishes.
I recently became vegan, and I compare it to being straight-edge (i.e. not taking drugs). I don’t think there is a moral aspect to taking drugs, and I disagree with the way straight-edge people invent one and talk down to people who take drugs.
However, I do think there is a moral aspect to using animal products when other options exist. But, I also wasn’t vegan for most of my life, so I don’t think it’s for me to tell other people they are immoral, because that probably won’t get me very far in convincing them.
Not sure if anyone else has had any thoughts like this, I’d be interested to hear how they reconciled this in their own minds, it’s still unresolved for me personally.
What exactly is unresolved? You want to convince others eating meat is immoral but feel that your meat eating past removes any standing you have to do that? Why should the general argument be diminished because of one persons behavior? If you were trying to convince me, that wouldn’t matter for me personally.
In my experience, what does work is to lead with joy. I've found so much new life and enjoyment in my cooking since I went vegan. Cooking delicious food and sharing it with people is sometimes the best we can do.
Being serious, but have you ever met one of these vegans?
I've definitely heard about them online, but every vegan I've ever met have been nothing alike.
I've often been happily surprised to find someone who I'd been chatting to was also vegan as it didn't even come up before we'd ordered food and they go for a vegan dish.
I have. Took a tour of a sustainable co-op farm one time, which had dairy goats and cows, and chickens. One person asked, "When the cows are old and you kill them for their meat, do you think they want to die?" Well of course they don't, but unfortunately these farmers don't have the spring of eternal youth so the cows are going to die at some point, might as well not let the meat go to waste. In my eyes the sustainable farmers were certainly doing a lot more than that guy to reduce the amount of suffering they put out into the world, but he had a definite smug satisfaction with his question.
(I will agree generally that vegans are mostly great people, but like any group of people in existence ever there are those no so great people among them)
"Probably more to do with stereotypes of vegans themselves - ie. condescending, arrogant, self-righteous hippies."
I have met several vegans, and they are not condescending, arrogant etc.. To me, they are the good people who cares about environment, climate, and morals. So, imo vegans who are condescending, arrogants, self-righteous hippes represent minority of populations. People are just making a broad generalizations, which is not a good idea.
That being said I agree with you, many people associate vegans with condescending ... But, this applies every other matter like climate change, slavery. In fact my neighbor views climate activists as condesending, arrogant and self-righteous hippes. Those neighbor thinks climate activists doesn't deserve to light up their house because electricity consumes fossil fuels ....
Lastly, dairy and meat industry have put so much money, vegans will definitely look bad in TV, social media etc.. In fact, my uncle think all vegans are malnourished.
If you're not buying it because of the case where they're scared to label something which is vegan as such, then you're part of the problem and you're hurting veganism.
What matters is reducing climate impact, reducing animal cruelty, and the health benefits. What doesn't matter is your feelings about labels. By boycotting such products, you're reducing their market, potentially causing them to drop their plant based offering, and making it more difficult for people to eat vegan. That, in turn, reduces the number of vegans and hurts everybody.
Why would they be scared to label it if it’s actually vegan? I can understand someone who feels morally about something not wanting to take a chance on something that the producer isn’t willing to back with a proper label
I think its as the GP says "vegan is a dirty word for some people". Between a lot of vegans being meme-level obnoxious about their veganism, and early plant based products being horribly bad (Boca burger, I'm looking at you), veganism has tended to get a bad name.
If they go out of their way avoid saying it’s vegan then I won’t waste my time on it as it may not actually be vegan, despite the listed ingredients. It’s suspicious.
> a lot of early vegan meat alternatives were ghastly
I think most people dislike vegan food because vegans eat it. Not because of the food. Vegans have done a number on their appearance to the public. Most people seem to have the same experience: how do you know someone is a vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you! (and chastise you for wanting to eat a steak)
When I was in college every holiday, like clockwork, a brigade of vegans would descend on campus and hand out flyers explaining how problematic it was eating meat. You do that enough times and people just avoid anything associated with you out of spite.
I've tended to see the term "plant-based" as synonymous with "vegan and/or vegetarian", used when there's variability or uncertainty about which of those more specific terms would apply. "Meatless" would also suffice but I think "plant-based" is used to emphasize what is present rather than absent.
But I think the essay is right the term has become vaguer than that even, and my own understanding of it doesn't quite make sense.
The marketers like "plant-based" because it's both in vogue and definitionally meaningless, much less precise than "vegan" (which itself is already imprecise, i.e., whether to include bugs killed in agriculture, or sugar processed with animal byproducts, etc.).
None of the examples in that article appear to use the term "plant-based" on their products, so it seems even those brands were respectful on the term. If anything, that seems like it makes the opposite case of "plant-based is definitionally meaningless."
They were released at the same time as the height of the plant-based craze. Plant-based is not a legally protected term the way that, say "organic" is (neither is "vegan", for that matter). Different marketers and/or third-party certifiers will use that term how they wish. And "made with plants" is already awfully similar, enough to cause confusion in the media: https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/21460-tyson-introduces-...
Tyson was intentionally muddying the waters with the Raised & Rooted brand, which initially contained meat and eggs and eventually became completely plant, but under the same brand name and very similar packaging. It caused a lot of controversy at the time for violating the spirit -- if not the letter -- of "plant-based".
I'm not saying things just to be a pedantic a-hole; as someone who's been vegan for a long time, seeing the plant-based products (especially frozen ones) hit the freezers but also hide animal ingredients was a very frustrating and confusing time. It's gotten a bit better now, I guess with enough consumer backlash, but for a couple of years there there were quite a lot of insidiously labeled products that you really had to scan the ingredients & allergens for no matter how they used the word "plant" on the front.
What I'm saying is that it's ultimately a marketing term, not a strict definition of any sort. Nobody is enforcing plant-based violations. You have to look at the ingredients rather than the front of the packaging if you want to figure out what it actually has.
That's pretty extreme, have to say! Haha. There are extreme people everywhere, have to try and find the consensus, which to me seems to mean "no animals were involved in processing this thing" and that means from the source, gathering it, to the testing of it, to distributing it (don't use cows to transport my impossible burgers, please). People aren't animals b/c they can technically choose to do work (like picking coffee) - hopefully no one is supporting slavery.
I think you can call yourself vegan if you eat clams for example if ethically sourced (tho I don't have any interest in doing so, b/c the farming is very harmful from my understanding - but if you go clamming yourself, maybe ok?).
I personally eat honey, but always local, b/c idk what happens at the industrial scale there and I like to support local businesses anyway.
Animal byproducts should not be "vegan" imo - like if you use fish something to filter your beer. No good. But no, I don't really look up if my sugar is vegan or my beer is vegan... but I know of "vegan brands" and I will get those first over other brands.
I think veganism is basically becoming "no, I don't ask constantly... but I never knowingly buy animal products, and I know of several brands that are vegan, and I buy them when I can" - which makes a lot of sense to me, but isn't quite the clean definition!
I even have some wool clothes I wear. Hopefully that can be done ethically, because it doesn't kill the sheep, but... lots of those farms are not great for the little guys :(
Veganism to me is supporting the reduction in the use of animal products. We use animals too much, and we don't need to.
“Plant based” Is a popular marketing term for processed food.
The plant based diet folks will tell you that this is basically junk food. They do this looking at what’s in the food and the science of it. They will tell you to eat plants instead of processed food.
> They will tell you to eat plants instead of processed food.
Just be very careful if you do this! Don't cut or chop the plants in any way, since that's technically processing it. Don't apply any form of heat -- applying heat is one of society's most common forms of industrial processing! Don't wash or clean the plant at all, as that is also a form of processing. You must carefully lower the whole plant down your esophagus into your stomach, but be warned! Human stomachs also attempt to process foods via dangerous acids and other chemicals! It takes deep concentration and meditation to prevent your stomach from processing your food; only with practice can you eat truly "un-processed" foods.
And be aware of those scary genetically modified foods! Humans have been artificially changing the genetic code of plants and animals for 10,000 years! You must only eat paleo-foods: never anything that any human has ever selectively bred, or you're eating a GMO!! All your food must be sourced from the untouched wilds, never artificially manipulated by humans. The deep rainforests of Papua New Guinea is a good place for this. Only ever eat plants from Papua New Guinea, that the dinosaurs ate, never grown or touched by other humans, and completely whole, uncut, uncooked, uncleaned, and unprocessed in any way. Everyone else is being UNHEALTHY!!
But you still need to be extra careful, because many foods contain chemicals!
If you look at the health of foods on our bodies, there is a difference between cooking/cutting/seasoning plants and what we do with factory processed foods.
Taking things out of context to attack them doesn’t help you or anyone else be healthy.
I think "plant-based" is a better term than "vegan". "Vegan" describes a person or food. "Plant-based" can only describe the food—you wouldn't say "Bob is plant-based", you'd say "Bob eats plant-based food."
If you order "vegan buffalo wings" you're attaching yourself to the vegan subculture and the baggage that comes along with that. Ordering "plant-based buffalo wings" just means you're ordering cauliflower.
They don't "disguise" things as burgers, sausages etc. That's how meat has been prepared since time immemorial across all cultures.
Why do vegans and vegetarians insist on disguising vegetables as meat - now that's the question. Even though the same cultures have a mind-boggling variety of foods that don't involve meat, and don't pretend to be meat.
The suggestion was for 'cauliflower' (or whatever) to replace 'vegan buffalo', no change to 'wing'.
I might buy 'halloumi and apple sausages', just like I might 'pork and apple'. I wouldn't buy 'vegetarian pork and apple sausages', even though it describes the former (and could be the same) - it's vague and unappealing.
But you accept that Buffalo Wings contain no actual buffalo, right?
Just like a Breaded Drumstick was unlikely to have been used by Ringo Starr.
People understand the colloquial terms for foods.
The term "vegetarian pork" may be vague an unappealing to you - but sales figures show it is pretty attractive to lots of people. And, to a veggie like me, it gives some indication of the flavour profile, which I personally find useful.
> But you accept that Buffalo Wings contain no actual buffalo, right?
Let's go back to your original statement, shall we: "Why do meat eaters disguise things as burgers, sausages, and nuggets?"
No part of that statement ever said anything about buffalos. And wings don't disguise themselves as wings.
Also, Buffalo Wings have nothing to do with buffalos, and everything to do with Buffalo, New York.
> The term "vegetarian pork" may be vague an unappealing to you - but sales figures show it is pretty attractive to lots of people.
Because it turns out people crave meat, and the market is happy to disguise vegeterian/vegan food as meat. Including trying to replicate both taste and texture. Funnily, meat is never (or very very very rarely) disguised as vegetables.
> Also, Buffalo Wings have nothing to do with buffalos, and everything to do with Buffalo, New York.
Yes, and hamburgers have nothing to do with ham, they're named after the city of Hamburg. Frankfurters also not made of Franks.
> Funnily, meat is never (or very very very rarely) disguised as vegetables.
OTOH, what exactly do people think they're eating when they have wieners? Because I'm fairly sure the meat shapes that get replicated — bacon rashers, sausages, burgers, fillets, deli slices — even where they had a specific original cause like "stuff meat into intestine", stuck around because they're convenient. The meat that still looks like the original animal (whole roast chicken, whole leg of lamb, stuffed pig head), I've not seen replicated. Well, not since the "everything is a cake" meme, at least.
That "meaty" names are just as much nonsense regardless of whether or not meat is still involved.
Just remembered an even more extreme example, albeit one that may only exist in the UK: christmas sweet pastry called "mince pie" filled with "mincemeat" which is often entirely vegetarian because it's an extremely archaic use of "meat" in the sense of "food".
> That they eat a sausage made of meat that is named "weiner".
QED: the name and shape (in this case, both being penile) are not really that connected to the mental model the consumer has of what they're consuming.
To quote myself: "Because it turns out people crave meat, and the market is happy to disguise vegeterian/vegan food as meat. Including trying to replicate both taste and texture. Funnily, meat is never (or very very very rarely) disguised as vegetables."
I know you said that. I'm saying you're wrong, because it's vegetables being "disguised" as generic shapes that don't look anything like natural meat. The historical association you have between shape and substance is as irrelevant as the connection between hamburgers-the-food and the city named after the castle belonging to Hamma.
Honestly, I don't know what 'buffalo wings' are, I'm only aware of the phrase from American film.
To use 'chicken drumsticks' then, yes obviously no drumstick, but certainly chicken, as though a drumstick made of chicken instead of wood.
A 'vegetarian drumstick' only tells me it's not made of chicken, and that it's edible, non-wood, I suppose. 'Vegetarian chicken drumstick' is a contradiction.
An equivalent to 'chicken drumstick' would be 'jackfruit drumstick', or whatever it actually is.
This one is funny, the history doesn't really matter, but might as well throw it out there.
Buffalo wings are named after the city Buffalo in New York State. It's that spicy buttery style of baked on sauce that got popular and spread around.
You could obviously bread and bake the sauce onto anything, I like it on potatoes. It's a funny modifier, because it's sort of the sauce, it's sort of the preparation, like you might say cajun style, but the phrase only seems to be used around wings.
Buffalo cauliflower makes sense to me, but I internalized the word differently.
Those are not the natural forms of any animal's meat any more than they are the natural forms of vegetables. What you actually seem to be saying is "How dare vegetarians prepare their food in similar ways to how I do?"
The idea that vegans are being sneaky with their foods is kind of funny considering the usual reputation of vegans is best captured in the joke "How do you know if someone is a vegan? Don't worry, they will tell you."
> Those are not the natural forms of any animal's meat any more than they are the natural forms of vegetables.
Ah yes. The non-natural form of "vegetables that taste like pork hamburger". Funnily how you never see meat producst disguised or sold as replicas of non-meat products.
Animal products are constantly stuck into foods that are not clearly animal-derived. Every vegan is familiar with the experience of having to read the ingredients list on foods to look for random animal products or ask waiters if (for example) their Brussels sprouts are vegan. Many people don't realize that Jello is an animal products. Some "vanilla" flavoring is made from animals. Confectioner's glaze, many food colorings, Starburst candy, etc. And meat is very often covered or marinated in vegetables during preparation, leading to meat the incorporates the flavors of vegetables. The idea that vegetarians invented the concept of making a food look or taste different from its natural form is simply unrealistic.
But more fundamentally, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If "giving foods a different flavor or texture" were a totally new idea that vegetarians came up with, so what? Are you allergic to vegetables, but constantly being tricked into eating vegan food? What is the problem here?
The Hamburger is a sandwich derived from a method of meat processing historically popular in Hamburg, Germany. The "hot dog" however may have in fact been some morbid humor about the processing of sausages:
In the UK we usually say beef burger, chicken burger; maybe McDonalds has 'hamburger' on the menu, I don't know. In France it's steak haché, unless more in the American style when it's l'hamburger (pronounced l'omburger), borrowing that term.
Although 'hotdog' is familiar, in my experience, at a UK barbecue you'll likely be offered 'sausages and burgers' not 'hotdogs and hamburgers'. Not to say you can't or wouldn't put a sausage in one of those finger rolls, or a stick of baguette, just that probably nobody would say 'hotdog' during the process.
'Catsup', I had to look up, was a widely used term in America for a while, now usurped by (the familiar) 'ketchup'.
In brief, your examples are not contradicting, since they don't really fall in my sphere of experience or usage.
Perhaps though, there's an idea here that you in the US are more comfortable or accustomed to it; so it's natural on packaged products' marketing material, which is then used selling these things worldwide. Maybe.
To be clear, I am only talking of naming things, not preparation. I have no qualms with things that are supposed to emulate a different texture, I just don't understand why my vegan delivery place gives me 'vegetable cutlets' instead of saying "fried celeriac"
Not sure I have seen anywhere call them anything other than "Cauliflower Wings" around here. At least not recently. I have seen a bunch of places offer "Cauliflower Steak" too. May be regional though?
The one thing I do see that seems to be "disguising" food is some "Vegan Mac & Cheese" where it tastes good but it tastes nothing like cheese. I would rather know what's actually in it.
When you see ‘cauliflower wings/vegan buffalo wings’ on a menu it is typically _not_ because someone from the ‘vegan movement’, whatever that is, put it there, but because the restaurant wanted something vegan which is not alienating to its non-vegan customers.
You’re much less likely to see this sort of thing in actual vegan restaurants.
The first place I had buffalo cauliflower was at a vegan restaurant (Planta Burger, in Toronto). The second was a bar which was decidedly not vegan.
Planta Burger is (was?, this was pre-pandemic and we no longer have an office downtown) absolutely a wholly vegan QSR based around burger-like sandwiches and they were busy mostly feeding people who weren’t vegan themselves but really liked the food because it was damned good.
First, it suggests a preparation that is reminiscent of a food that people enjoyed before they stopped eating animal products. This means that the spices and texture will be similar. That's an indication for both vegetarians and non-vegetarians to expect a texture, condiment, and spice experience.
Second, it's not about disguising foods as other things; it's about combining foods. Falafel isn't fake meat, but it's ground chickpea (or fava bean in some cases) flour. Meatballs aren't somehow lesser because it's ground meat, no? As such, the thought of ground beans or other combinations into patties isn't somehow any more deceptive or disguised as ground meat. We transform food in all sorts of novel ways - that doesn't mean it's disguised because it is a substitute for other purposes.
Third, while vegans eat a lot of vegetables and mushrooms and beans, most people don't want every meal to be that. We crave variety in general, and a lot of plated vegetable plates are out of place at a barbecue or restaurant. So, it helps when things look in place.
Vegetarians typically eat a lot of food that isn't plant-based, and that vegans won't eat. Eggs, dairy, honey, etc.
Something that is literally only made from plant products is food that both vegetarians and (most) vegans would be comfortable eating, in the absence of any other dietary restrictions.
Even just in terms of actual meaning, "vegan" implies more than "plant-based." There are products that are unquestionably plant-based, but many vegans don't consider them to be in line with vegan ethics. For example, palm oil is literally from a plant and could be vegan, but in practice, the process of getting palm oil usually involves unnecessarily killing and maiming local primates, so many vegans do not consider it to be vegan.
For people who want to reduce meat consumption for environmentalist reasons, being strictly vegan would sometimes do more harm than good (e.g. almond "milk" involves more CO2 emissions than milk). So the concept of a meal that doesn't include large amounts of meat, without necessarily being vegan, is a valuable one.
> You're saying that vegan people have to use milk alternatives like almond milk. Which is certainly not the case.
For vegans it certainly is the case. Vegans don't eat food that comes from animals. Milk is one such product. So vegans will definitely use milk alternatives.
Or... that almond milk is generally not great (IMO), and there are alternatives like oat milk which are really amazing. Oat milk also doesn't go rancid like cow milk... I've never had oat milk "go bad" before using it up, even after 10+ day vacations, so the waste can only be much less than cow milk, I imagine.
Also if you spill some somewhere your house doesn't smell like rotting bodily fluids (ok, probably getting a little extreme here but who likes the smell of rotting milk?)
Only downsides to plant milks, is they are harder to steam for lattes, they don't make cheese like we expect from animal milk (tho this has changed a lot and we're just about there now with some amazing brands), and they do have a unique flavor profile that is sometimes desired (for stuff like homemade egg nog for example).
No Vegan believes that everything they do is always the best for the environment - I just believe over the course of being a Vegan, I will end up reducing CO2 emissions overall.
I'd imagine Almond milk is a miniscule part of a Vegan's diet compared to how much meat someone would eat anyway.
This argument really annoys me because it seems like you're trying to discredit vegans and justify the act of eating meat to yourself.
I honestly do not care if people eat meat, but I do care when those people try and use mental gymnastic s to tell me (without any scientific evidence) that what I'm doing is somewhat worse.
The example in the parent comment is also wrong. Almond milk produces way fewer emissions than dairy. It just uses a surprisingly large amount of water, which is still roughly half that of dairy.
If methane from cattle was truly something to be concerned about, surely we'd be seeing an increase in the same carbon isotope as that in cattle methane in the atmosphere, except that's not what's happening.
You’re thinking of _water_ usage, not CO2, there. Though, even then the numbers are… dubious, and this factoid usually relies on comparing the worst-case for almonds (California, basically) with the best case for cows (un-irrigated pasture, little supplemental feed).
I think it's a shame that 'vegetarian' has come to mean 'lacto-ovo vegetarian' in the vernacular. Now, 'plant-based' generally takes the position in language that 'vegetarian' should occupy.
To be clear, there is also a distinction between 'plant-based' and 'vegan' in that the latter has ethical implications. If making a product caused animal suffering, but that product wasn't made from any animal products, then I'd argue it would be plant-based and not vegan.
As someone who has these ethical concerns, these distinctions are important to me, even if they're not to most people.
So a tomato picked by a trained monkey would be plant-based but not vegan? What about canned tomatoes picked by quasi-slaves on some mafia farm in calabria? Would they not be vegan then?
my question was more on how this is tracked/labelled. if something is sold in the UK with the vegan logo, does that mean it is also free from human exploitation?
Are you aware of how oil production proceeds fund global terrorism and warlords? Guess you can't buy any gasoline, since some % of oil is sold on the market from warlords committing atrocities in their countries.
Did you know when you buy gasoline at the pump you're supporting a market which buys missiles for Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen?
Needless to say, the idea that you are "supporting" something by voluntary exchange (how do you know that they aren't supporting you?) is a relatively recent development, and is of course completely unworkable. It's just another form of retail therapy.
> Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
I have never heard of the Vegan Society before; I suspect most people you interact with haven't either, even including those who are vegan due to ethical concerns. Could you explain why a random person should see this particular organization as having authority to define what the term means versus, say, their dictionary or Wikipedia? e.g., did this organization perhaps invent the word "vegan" originally? (I don't know the etymology.)
I agree with the sibling comment; You just opened a big can of (gelatin-free, gummy) worms.
Vegan absolutely refers to an ethical stance. One of the reasons plant-based is useful to distinguish from vegan when applied to people and their diets is that plant-based people may be doing it for health or religion or trendiness. Vegans are doing it for the animals (while health, the environment, religion, etc. may also play roles).
Someone who is vegan won't purchase animal products. Consumption is besides the point, though technically it means they don't consume animal products also. Some people consume animal products if they don't purchase them, for example, if they dumpster dived or took home food a buffet was about to toss. This is sometimes called "freeganism" (which is also used to mean other things), and references that it's likely more ethical to consume food that would otherwise be wasted (even if it would include animal products) than to purchase food, because it has environmental implications
> Someone who is vegan won't purchase animal products. Consumption is besides the point
Sure, but I "animal product" refers to composition of the item, not the animal pain induced in the process? At least I've never heard of anyone suggesting lettuce or tomatoes (say) can be non-vegan depending on whether an animal tilled the field in pain.
Generally yes, it includes anything whose production involves animal exploitation, but the more you look into things, the more impossible or impractical it becomes. So many vegans pick and choose what they're able to avoid as far as products which don't actually contain animal products. Of course, the items which are suitable for some vegans but not others are generally still considered "vegan" (often with caveats)
For example, sugar might be bleached through a process that involves bone char (but isn't always), coconuts from thailand are often harvested by enslaved monkeys who are forced to climb trees at penalty of pain or death, coffee and chocolate that isn't marked as fair trade is often harvested by child slaves. Some vegans might boycott entire companies like Nestle because of their exploitative practices.
If I go to a restaurant, I don't typically inquire about the status of the coconut milk, but I might only purchase cruelty-free coconut milk at home, or check for a fair trade symbol or status on the food empowerment project (https://foodispower.org/) before purchasing chocolate.
Also, many commercial crops require to be pollinated by domestic bees that are forced to breed, shipped around and then worked to death. It's principally impossible to have a nutritionally complete vegan diet without forced pollination, but fodder crops do not exploit bees. As a result, human food crops kill five times as many bees as all livestock slaughter combined and directly support honey production (taking excess honey is necessary for colony health). Vegans should also call around and make sure that their seasonally changing food exporters don't rely on insects, terriers, sheep, ducks or organic fertilizers.
There is another distinction: Vegan is like kosher. It is for people who "can't" eat meat. I feel funny if I order something that is vegan or kosher because I wonder what people think about my identity. But there is no such problem if I order something that is "without meat" or "made from vegetables" or even "plant-based" (or in the case of kosher: beef or chicken instead of pork).
Still, I prefer the term vegan over plant-based because the latter seems convoluted and corporate, as opposed to just "meatless" or even "food" (and marking the non plant based products instead).
I feel funny if I order something that is vegan or kosher because I wonder what people think about my identity.
Next time you've been out at a restaurant, after you leave ask yourself if you can remember any of the other patrons and what they ordered. Unless something out of the ordinary happened the answer will be no. Everyone else is the same. No one thinks about you, judges you, or even really notices that you exist.
I don't mean that in a mean way; the simple fact is that everyone has enough going on in their life that they don't need to spend time and energy wondering about why someone else ordered the vegan option.
> Next time you've been out at a restaurant, after you leave ask yourself if you can remember any of the other patrons and what they ordered.
Yesterday I was at a BBQ restaurant. Some of the other patrons (sitting at the same table as me!) had a chicken-fried steak, another had a half-rack of ribs and green beans. Someone the next table over had some brisket and okra. The table on the other side had a tower of onion rings. Remembering these things isn't really taxing at all. Now, I truly don't care about these things, other than that I do like to somewhat remember what my friends do and do not like to eat so I know what to suggest or potentially cook them when they come over for dinner.
I do somewhat agree though, if it's on the menu order what you want. If someone judges you immensely because you got the vegan chili, that's their issue.
Cashew production typically involves a great deal of suffering from the workers. Avocado and palm kernel production are contributing greatly to deforestation and major habitat loss. Yet all three of these products are considered vegan.
I think the reason people have begun to distance themselves from labels like vegan is that they’re associated with an ideology that is ethically inconsistent. Instead of examining every product and its complete role in society, economics, and in ecosystems, a short-hand is used which may have a lot of unintended consequences.
The cashew preparation process often involves exploitative practices that scar the hands of workers who harvest and prepare them. It doesn't always involve these practices (though it's hard to tell which ones don't), and these practices aren't necessarily an order of magnitude worse than the inherent exploitation in the production of almost every other food item which is imported from third-world countries. Some vegans generally try to avoid cashews (and many other products) for this reason. Most don't because the list of things to avoid would leave them with very little to subside on.
I’m mid 40s, live in the uk and was a vegetarian for a year in the 90s.
Vegetarian for me always meant something like “not eating meat”. Milk and eggs were seen by me and I believe the general consciousness as ok for the most part.
I’d disagree that vegetarian has “come to mean” lacto-ovo, unless you’re talking about a time before the late 80s, or a different scene than the uk.
One reason I dislike "plant-based" that's not in the article: it singles out plant-based food. But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Food should have labels when it includes stuff other than plants (or other than what we humans evolved to eat typically).
The other thing I don't like is that "plant-based" always sounds like marketing. Especially here in Germany where companies have started to use the English term, even though we have plenty of normal German terms. It sounds like a brand or a fad.
Homo sapiens is something like 100 to 300 thousand years old from the latest estimates I’ve seen. Agriculture is maybe six to twelve thousand years old. I don’t think there’s a strong evolutionary argument that humans are meant to primarily eat plants, but rather quite the opposite.
And then there’s the amusing observation that cows are entirely plant-based.
Are you implying humans evolved to only eat plants? Every documentary and paper on early humans I see points to otherwise, and that our large brain was directly a result of access to extra protein from hunting meat.
Do we know this for sure, though? I don't think we do. Sounds like self-congratulatory hogwash to me.
Creatures eat what they can. Some purely carnivorous species have been around way longer than us, and yet, the stars did not align just the right way for them.
Because meat is expensive, primarily. Especially from poorer backgrounds there is a culture of minimizing meat consumption and saving it for children just because of it's rarety.
I grew up in eastern Europe. Yes, meat was more expensive 30 years ago. These days, thanks to endless subsidies, meat is way cheaper than quality vegetables and most nuts.
And yet, people choose not to eat it. Earth shattering, I know. Damn, some people really get pissed off when you make the "wrong" choice of not eating meat.
Meat is cheap where I live and about 10% of the population doesn’t eat it. It’s actually 13% according to surveys, but let’s say 10% to be safe.
I could also hunt or spearfish like I used to. Meat is easy to get. There’s no need for it though.
Meat is amazing if you’re starving because it contains a lot of stuff a hungry person needs. Kale is not going to do the same things for you. However, it’s unlikely anyone on here is starving. Meat has rapidly diminishing returns as you stop starving and have a more stable diet of plants. Eventually eating meat becomes harmful, but eating plants does not.
It's obvious that we ate meat as early humans, but the article and theory that meat evolved our brains is just that, a theory.
There's also been theories that fire and cooking is more associated with brain development since we're able to absorb more nutrients from meat and tubers that we forged.
Here's an article citing research published this year that disputes the idea that our large brain was directly a result of access to extra protein from hunting meat:
"They concluded that the evidence for increased carnivory in our ancestors is merely an effect of increased sampling of the archaeological record at certain time intervals starting around two million years ago, meaning that there is no strong relationship between eating more meat and the evolution of larger brains in our ancestors."
There are as many (or more) studies indicating that human coprolites contained more plant than animal matter. It seems it would depend largely on the season, climate, location, and other factors. Some human populations had little to no reason to hunt. Others more recently would have needed to hunt due to relentless cold conditions from long winters. We are opportunistic and diverse feeders. It doesn’t seem like there’s a clear advantage to eating animals outside of calorie density and availability when plants are absent.
It seems more helpful to view meat eating simply as diversification. Our plant based diets would have supported large brains, and they still do. There’s no clear reason to believe that eating other animals enlarged our brains.
> But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be.
Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat.
We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved to eat meat. We've been eating meat for many millennia. I'll agree, not at the ratio that's common in the normal US diet these days, but its disingenuous to suggest that plants were the sole default of food, and it is only a modern thing to eat meat.
Evolved to eat plans as an option, yes, but not as a preference. It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting, and that's with modern, highly selected for plants... My bet would be we evolved to eat animal fats and protein, and that is most of the selection pressure for our big brains too. Hunting while being a rather frail primate takes brains.
Yeah, I mean you can even do a keto vegan weight gainer diet if you go fairly processed. It isnt hard at all if you allow carbs. Coconut oil, brown rice protein and pea protein for the keto. Use actual brown rice and legumes for the carb version. But to the point of the GP, I can't tolerate legumes (even fermented) and I don't think very many people at all tolerate brown rice protein, that is why they lowered it so much in soylent.
Some people have different dietary needs. I haven't found a way to get sufficient protein without animal products that doesn't leave me with digestive issues. Even just using broccoli and greens, along with oatmeal ended up being unpleasant. And this is just for normal fda levels of protein, not adding muscle mass after an injury or illness levels of protein.
Maybe so, but protein is a different story. How many professional athletes are true vegans for extended periods outside of Tom Brady, who is kind of psycho to begin with.
I think that's a silly argument anyway, if we're discussing health. Professionals do plenty of stuff that is awful for them to get performance gains. Steroids, exercise routines that are very punishing on the body long-term (plenty of power lifters who can barely even walk after retirement and they aren't that old), etc.. I am not sure you can say it's good for you if professionals do it... maybe good for short term performance, but not "good for you."
It's actually easier to get protein if you like legumes (including tofu and peas, not sure if these are technical legumes), gluten, and/or nuts. All of these have amazing nutrients, are really cheap, and easy to digest for most people. If they aren't for you that's ok - some people can't digest meat either.
Not saying you don't need to take some supplements as a vegan. You probably do, at least b12 and maybe omegas, but you're getting those from "supplements" anyway from meat (it is just fed to the animals first).
I think one exception is that some fish seem to promote health in moderation. I personally don’t find it worth supporting the fishing industry or killing countless animals to get the fish I want, so I’m content without that in my diet. And like you mentioned, supplementing omega is an option (even if it isn’t as effective with vegan options — I’m not sure).
The protein problem is a myth. And what percentage of the population is involved in athleticism that requires significant amounts of protein? This scenario is so uncommon as to be irrelevant to the average person.
I run, dive, lift weights, and rock climb without any issues. If I did it competitively I could easily supplement with plant proteins. Virtually anyone I know who eats meat and trains hard has also supplemented with whey or something similar. There doesn’t appear to be a meaningful difference when eating plants.
> It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting
I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely preposterous take. Are you suggesting that the ~80 million vegans and ~1.5 billion vegetarians worldwide are dealing with constant bloating and digestive issues? In fact I'd make the case that a _far_ greater number of people deal with poor digestion due to under-consumption of plants- leading to low intake of dietary fiber- than vice versa.
Also we did not "evolve to eat plants as an option." We evolved from primarily frugivorous apes, so plants were the starting point and the default. And some of the key changes to our biology were to support the consumption of additional plants, not just meat. Relatively large molars, a long GI tract, and enzymes for the digestion of starches.
We are biologically omnivorous, no one should deny that, but to suggest that we evolved primarily as meat eaters is a bit absurd.
That's an interesting theory, but do you have anything to back that up with? Plenty of people throughout the world live quite well on plant-based diets without these problems you mention. I know, because I am one of them.
I don't know how similar to humans are baboons. They are exactly the kind of omnivores [1] which savanna-inhabiting proto-humans are often described to be. They also hunt in organized groups, sometimes pretty large.
They're directly suggesting that food should have labels to let people know when foods are not wholly plant based. It seems they're really arguing that people should only rarely (if ever) eat non-plant-based foods and should avoid foods with animal products in them, because by default we should be eating plants not non-plants.
We didn't eat plants by default, we ate a mixture of plants and meats and other animal-derived products since we lived in caves.
You are now challenging the statement about plants being the "default" food. (Maybe you are not the original responder; I can't tell on my phone UI)
I think you're going to have to back that up with a citation.
For most of history, ordinary people could afford only plant based food. Meat was occasional. Industrial meat production in the West changed the economics of that.
Vegans are not the only people who care about our unsustainable practices. We all should. We could start by properly accounting for the externalities, ecological footprint, worker exploitation, and yes, the built-in cruelty to animals. I think the OP's suggestion to label animal parts is a step in the right direction.
That’s not true either. It was only plant based when they couldn’t obtain meat. Supplementing plant foods was the default when there was no prey available is more accurate.
Not sport in the sense of exercise purely for the sake of burning calories, but sport in the sense of fitness display for status, bonding through teamwork and practice for warfare, definitely. The amount of calories and protein that can be achieved from hunting large game is just far too low compared to the same amount of effort and risk expended on trapping, fishing and gathering.
Of course humans were eating meat in prehistory, and more than once agriculture began. But we make art of the ideal and aspirational more than of the everyday.
It’s a new term in English, too; I assume because people found ‘vegan’ off-putting? Not really sure; it turned up about a decade ago, and as the article says is poorly defined.
Veganism is a moral and ethical lifestyle choice with wide ranging implications whereas plant-based is a descriptor of the things that go into a foodstuff.
A vegan will only eat plant-based food (and so “plant-based” and “vegan” are often used interchangeably to describe a food) but someone who follows a plant-based diet might buy leather goods (and is therefore not vegan).
A good example of this nuance is the Impossible Burger. The Impossible Burger is plant-based but not vegan because it was tested on animals.
Interesting. Apparently they had to do it or they wouldn't get FDA approval. Probably a necessary step for wide adoption. I'd still consider them vegan.
I don't think "not tested on animals" is something generally accepted as being required to be vegan.
AFAIK, the main qualifier is "does not consume animal products." Impossible meat does not have animal products in it and is not currently being tested on animals. Similarly, most medicine is animal tested, yet I've never heard someone claim that medicine isn't vegan.
Indeed, "animal-free" could look more cool. It also is more strict, and may get you sued.
Say, crepes with fruit jam are definitely plant-based, but they may not be animal-free: the jam may contain bits of gelatin, and the easiest way to make nice-looking crepes is to fry them on lard.
Yeah, but the non-rational parts of the brain aren’t good with negation. Reading “animal”, even when suffixed by “-free”, the brain feels it doesn’t want that thing with “animal” on it. Better give it something with “plant” on it.
It’s a priming effect. Once your brain sees “animal”, it associates the product or label with animals right away, before higher-level linguistic processing, an association which then has to be undone by the “-free”. That undoing is time-delayed and incomplete.
One common analogy is how when someone says “don’t think of X”, it’s hard to not think of X.
Does Germany not have an ingredient list on food products? Unfortunately it's usual full of things we didn't evolve to eat, but that's the place to look
Also, while actual plants are pretty great, the "plant based" products aren't imo. I find that they are very processed. They aren't throwing the "plant based" label on the salad mix. Every now and then it's put on something that was already plant-based prior to the fad, like falafel, but that's not the norm. The label in itself is tantamount to non-meats "other than what we humans evolved to eat"
Chimpanzee's still eat meat as part of their diet, they don't eat highly processed soy topped with thickener laden vegetable oils.
Did you read this? It's like a carnivore fan-fic, it's absolutely hilarious. I've almost never read a clearer example of starting with a conclusion and trying to bend the evidence to fit it.
My canine teeth tell a different story. Meat was eaten when it was available. Certainly they also ate berries and what not as cavemen. However, it wasn't like grug, or medieval grug, went out of their way to eat 3 square meals consisting of mostly vegetables. Grains, probably. But vegetables were often times as much of a luxury as meat.
"Beyond meat" etc are all poisons as far as I am concerned. To turn vegetables into a meat-like substitute requires some seance with dark magic. Their entire marketing gimmick is to compare it to Tofu. Tofu is minimally processed. Beyond meat and things like it are typically processed more than your average bag of potato chips.
> Same with “plant-based cookie”—does that mean no animal butter, but yes to eggs?
An egg isn't the fruit of a plant; of course it's not plant-based if it contains eggs.
Everyone should be irked, regardless of their political alignment in the area of food, if they are told that something with eggs is plant-based. It is a mistake or misrepresentation.
Plant-based can only possibly mean that it's made from leaves, stalks, fruits, nuts, seeds, bark, roots or any other part of a plant.
If it contains mushrooms, yeasts or fungi, it's not plant-based; those are not plants. However, I would be generous in that if some plant comes with certain naturally occurring bacteria or fungi, then something made with that plant can still be plant-based. If the plant material is fermented, confirming bacteria or moulds, let's say it can be plant-based anyway. Insects have to be removed, though.
"Plant-based" does not imply uniquely made of plants as per the dictionnary definition of 'based'. That's an issue with the term, which is fuzzy and aimed at marketing.
Sure, though it still feels a little sneaky, clearly the majority of a cookie that contains eggs and butter is still wheat... It reminds me a little more of packaging that proclaims that a box of table salt is "fat-free!" or a box of sugar is "gluten-free!" - well, yes, I'd hope so, since you'd have to go out of your way to add those in...
> you'd have to go out of your way to add those in
And yet food companies are adding minimal amounts of peanut oil or sesame flour to products, specifically so they don't have to guarantee that they are free of those allergens.
Well, those two aren't quite the same, otherwise they'd be adding them to EVERYTHING they make. I was reacting to the duplicity of claiming something was free of an ingredient that would never be present, where choosing to add an allergen because it's cheaper than paying to prove it isn't present is a perverse outcome of well-intentioned regulations + cut-throat corporations.
Fungus foods are absolutely considered "plant-based" in the way this term is used. It just means "not-animal". Spirulina, chlorella, blue-algae would also definitely qualify.
For bug spray I think it does make sense, at least to some level. Natural means of bug repellant like eucalyptus, lemongrass, or citronella seem to have less side effects than something like DEET. And may be the preference if there isn't a high level of insect borne illnesses in the area.
What do you mean by this? I genuinely don't understand, and don't mean to flame bait, and no offense, but to me it sincerely seems like your comment is a mix between some kind of dog-whistle and... flame baiting...
I’ve never seen “omnivore” used negatively before.
Personally, I love fake-bleeding plant based impossible burger. Tastes great. Better for the planet. I am sad that vegans have decided it’s gross and wrong.
I share some of the concerns of the author, but I think she's failing to "never ascribe to malice ..." -- in this case "when there are a myriad of other, less malicious reasons that are probably the cause."
I suspect the biggest reason companies are choosing "plant-based" (and including "vegan" somewhere less prominent, or maybe not at all) is because they want their products to appeal to both vegans and non-vegans. In fact, they may be making products that don't appeal at all to vegans despite being vegan, but would appeal to non-vegans.
First -- non-vegans -- if I see "Vegan" on something, I won't buy it unless it would only ever come that way (or would typically come that way, like a salad). If it's a "Vegan Burger", I'm assuming it's a piece of minced paper mixed with soy/plant oils and packed with enough herbs "used for grilling" to make it taste like "burnt grilled something" attempting to hide the fact that it tastes nothing like beef. If it's cheese, I assume it won't melt. It'll kind-of melt, then it'll start to harden, brown, and catch fire. If it's chicken, it's probably not vegan, but vegetarian (which are actually very good), but if it's vegan, it'll be ... wrong ... I don't know how to describe it.
I was Lacto Ovo Vegetarian for a year (for health, not puppies). I tried every single vegetarian pretend-to-be-meat product that Whole Foods and Kroger sold (in 2005). Amazingly, I found a brand of sausage that almost passed if you squinted at it just so. The vegetarian (non-vegan, I think) Morningstar Farms "plant-based" chicken was better than the frozen "real" chicken equivalents a few doors over. Everything else was inedible if it was trying to be meat. I like Black Bean burgers and Portabello Mushroom burgers, but you have to season/prepare them as that kind of product. When they tried to turn it into "something beef like", it was a disaster.
Fast forward to today where we have burgers that are "plant-based" that have the right texture, taste and even bleed. I don't know if my set is skewed or if this is normal but every Vegan I know (out of about 6) is vegan for their own moral, not health, reasons. Not one of them liked the meat-substitute products that I liked. They think eating animals is disgusting and it makes the flavor/texture gross to them. I'd imagine a plant-based burger that bleeds would have a similar impact.
So marketing to vegans with "Vegan" prominently on the label (and any required certification/testing/other necessities to ensure you don't get a class-action by accident) and there's a good chance your actual market avoids the product right along with the vegans who don't want it (unless it stops you from eating meat, you can have that crutch. :P).
> I used to hate the phrase “plant-based” because I thought it was a cute way of avoiding saying vegetarian or vegan, as well as all the cultural baggage that comes with those identifiers (and I do believe some cultural baggage here can be a mark of honor).
And there's the last little nugget. To those that "Vegan" doesn't mean "Soy Pretending to be Meat and So Not Pulling it Off", it elicits images of judgemental people being vocal (in passive-aggressive ways) about the smell of the rare, juicy, Ribeye on the plate in front of me.
"Plant-based" might be "Vegan except LARD" or might be "Vegan except some ingredient with an unpronounceable name that is an animal byproduct" (gelatin/glue). It probably means the latter in most cases and that's fine for the people they're marketing to.
as far my experience goes, generally people who stick with veganism are doing it for ethics/morals... it is really hard to keep that life sty for health or environmental reasons, as it is pretty easy for humanity be sustainable while producing livestock (take a read about regenerative agriculture) if we really want or if we implement regulations towards it
i think i got 2 weeks of veganism when i first tried for health, then i got how healthy and cheap one can be with some ocean fish here and there, eggs etc.
some weeks of pause and then the moral part hitted pretty hard and i am going strong for +4 years now
i still carve it when i get in events that have it (i used to eat and like it a lot) but one thing i noticed is that after trying to copy or have some substitute for animal stuff, the thing just flows... the fungi and flora kingdom is pretty vast and there is a lot to-do than worrying in trying to get a fake burguer or cheese
Is it not all just an attempt at re-branding to avoid the stigma attached to the labels? A subgroup turned “vegan” into a culture and now the word is broken for use as an objective descriptor.
Veganism is an attitude towards the suffering and commodity status of animals. Being vegan you agree to boycott of products/services that entail animal suffering, "as much as possible".
Vegetarianism, by contrast, is exclusively a diet that excludes dead animals.
Plant-based is a diet that does not include the products that a derived from animals. Basically the diet component veganism. Though products that are produced with the help of animals (like monkeys in coconut production) is certainly not vegan, but still plant based.
Plant-based does not imply meatless, vegan, or vegetarian. Many people who eat a mostly plant diet call themselves "plant-based" even if they e.g., eat meat 10–20% of the time, or eat only chicken for instance.
It is its own category: where vegetarian to binary omnivore has become a spectrum. The author's confusion derives from trying to fit a round peg in the existing square holes.
One can eat largely salads and vegetables with occasional meat and still be plant-based.
209 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 215 ms ] threadMarket it as plant-based all you want but mention if it’s vegan or not somewhere, even on your website.
In my experience in shops in the UK at least, there will always be a little “vegan” logo stuck on the packet as well
If the term has a chance of avoiding the treadmill I suspect it'd be due to the awkwardness of identifying as such. "Vegan" can apply to both food and the people who consume just that food, but I don't see people calling themselves "plant-based" anytime soon. The tribal aspect of the context is potentially greatly diminished by removing that explicit identity.
I've never really thought about it, but I assumed 'plant-based' was for products like cream that would have dairy and non-dairy alternative.
Saying 'vegan' might imply it's only for vegans where plant based just means 'non-dairy' and might be billed as more inclusive.
I'm not too concerned about it also possibly including eggs, as I always check for vegan icon or read ingredients.
I think most people will think that, for instance, not eating honey or eggs is too extreme.
Honey, on the other hand, I don't understand a moral objection to, but also who cares if somebody doesn't want to eat honey?
Maybe honey is extreme, but watch a youtube video of them shredding male live chicks that won't lay eggs so aren't useful is the closest thing to hell i've ever seen.
Hens will lay eggs. That's what they do naturally and if those eggs are not fertilised they will rot and decay.
In veganism you cannot eat those eggs no matter how pampered the hens are.
That's obviously a personal decision, which I respect, but it should also be understandable that many people find this extreme (and not eating honey even more extreme).
Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering?
On the other hand you could also argue that veganism attracts people who want to move away from the extremes of the animal and dairy industry, which contributes massively to our carbon footprint and biosphere destruction on top of causing unnecessary animal suffering.
That's a (lazy) strawman [edit: because it that has nothing to do with what I wrote and unfortunately also seems to be a common Pavlovian response to any criticism].
If you want to make a constructive reply I will gladly engage with it.
If you look up the actual definition of veganism - it's all about not wanting to cause unnecessary suffering and destruction [0]
We live in a time where we don't need meat anymore to survive. Yes there are still regions of humans who need to hunt and farm animals as it's their only means of survival.
But I'm talking about us living in the western world who rely mostly on factory animal farms to provide meat and dairy. There are numerous studies that clearly show feeding the world with animal meat is not sustainable [1]
So what is extreme about not wanting to cause animal suffering and not wanting to support a food system that contributes heavily to biosphere destruction?
Where is the (lazy) strawman?
Again - genuine question.
[0] https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
[1] Just one of those studies: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environme... Many more from the UN and other universities.
I understood your comment as saying that veganism is seen as an extreme act.
But veganism is far from that. Veganism isn't dogmatic. It's pragmatic as per the official definition.
E.g. if you are on a hike and you get lost and have to survive by hunting, even though you usually don't eat animals - you could still call yourself vegan - because you need to hunt to survive.
Or something simpler - if you have your own chickens and eat their eggs and you don't intend to slaughter the chickens later on- I'd class that as vegan, because you're not harming the chickens.
But I agree with you - people who promote veganism as a dogmatic philosophy can be seen as extreme.
You cannot make your own definition of 'veganism' as you go, that makes any discussion impossible even without your strawman argument.
What you describe here is not veganism (no animal products at all, including things like honey), it's a common flavour of vegetarianism (no killing of animals).
In the definition of 'veganism' you quoted from the Vegan Society, there is 'exploitation'. Veganism sees eating eggs or honey as exploitation no matter how well treated the animals are, which is why it is off-limits. That same goes with wearing wool, for instance.
There are vegans who have rescue chickens (from factory farms) and they do eat their eggs. The rescue chickens are given a happy life where they can roam freely in a garden.
It's a different matter when it comes to milk - which is intended for the baby cow.
Same with honey - it's actually being eaten by bees and you can't replace it with sugar water, as it has fewer nutrients for the bees.
Edit: When it comes to wool, there are vegans who still wear their wool or leather items from their pre-vegan days. You wouldn't simply throw them away - you just don't buy new wool or leather products.
Keyword here is pragmatism.
If people don't even know and understand terms and philosophies/ideologies then there is nothing that can be discussed.
In any case, best wishes for the new year.
As with many other communities - the vegan community is not homogeneous. Like I said before - yes there are some people within this community who are dogmatic, but that doesn't mean veganism is dogmatic.
The core principle of veganism is not wanting to harm non-human sentient beings and generally not wanting to destroy our biosphere.
So if someone strives to live by those principles, but still has to use products that contain animal products, e.g. if you need to take medication that contains gelatin or similar and there are no alternatives then it's OK - it's not dogmatic.
Further down this article there are various other examples: https://veganfta.com/2022/11/23/practicable-veganism/
Or here is another article talking about this: https://veganstrategist.org/2017/09/13/beware-vegan-dogma/ - this person wrote a book called "How to Create a Vegan World: a Pragmatic Approach".
The goals is to get rid of animal factory farming and the destruction of our biosphere. Dogmatism isn't going to get us there.
Probably more to do with stereotypes of vegans themselves - ie. condescending, arrogant, self-righteous hippies.
As a non-vegan, I think a lot of vegan food is actually really good. But as a rule of thumb I avoid vegan dishes that use substitutes for traditionally non-vegan dishes.
However, I do think there is a moral aspect to using animal products when other options exist. But, I also wasn’t vegan for most of my life, so I don’t think it’s for me to tell other people they are immoral, because that probably won’t get me very far in convincing them.
Not sure if anyone else has had any thoughts like this, I’d be interested to hear how they reconciled this in their own minds, it’s still unresolved for me personally.
I've definitely heard about them online, but every vegan I've ever met have been nothing alike.
I've often been happily surprised to find someone who I'd been chatting to was also vegan as it didn't even come up before we'd ordered food and they go for a vegan dish.
(I will agree generally that vegans are mostly great people, but like any group of people in existence ever there are those no so great people among them)
I have met several vegans, and they are not condescending, arrogant etc.. To me, they are the good people who cares about environment, climate, and morals. So, imo vegans who are condescending, arrogants, self-righteous hippes represent minority of populations. People are just making a broad generalizations, which is not a good idea.
That being said I agree with you, many people associate vegans with condescending ... But, this applies every other matter like climate change, slavery. In fact my neighbor views climate activists as condesending, arrogant and self-righteous hippes. Those neighbor thinks climate activists doesn't deserve to light up their house because electricity consumes fossil fuels ....
Lastly, dairy and meat industry have put so much money, vegans will definitely look bad in TV, social media etc.. In fact, my uncle think all vegans are malnourished.
What matters is reducing climate impact, reducing animal cruelty, and the health benefits. What doesn't matter is your feelings about labels. By boycotting such products, you're reducing their market, potentially causing them to drop their plant based offering, and making it more difficult for people to eat vegan. That, in turn, reduces the number of vegans and hurts everybody.
I think most people dislike vegan food because vegans eat it. Not because of the food. Vegans have done a number on their appearance to the public. Most people seem to have the same experience: how do you know someone is a vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you! (and chastise you for wanting to eat a steak)
When I was in college every holiday, like clockwork, a brigade of vegans would descend on campus and hand out flyers explaining how problematic it was eating meat. You do that enough times and people just avoid anything associated with you out of spite.
But I think the essay is right the term has become vaguer than that even, and my own understanding of it doesn't quite make sense.
The marketers like "plant-based" because it's both in vogue and definitionally meaningless, much less precise than "vegan" (which itself is already imprecise, i.e., whether to include bugs killed in agriculture, or sugar processed with animal byproducts, etc.).
Tyson was intentionally muddying the waters with the Raised & Rooted brand, which initially contained meat and eggs and eventually became completely plant, but under the same brand name and very similar packaging. It caused a lot of controversy at the time for violating the spirit -- if not the letter -- of "plant-based".
Here's another example of a plant-based product with with real cheese: https://target.scene7.com/is/image/Target/GUEST_351013af-154... (although I think they later changed the packaging on that to be clearer).
I'm not saying things just to be a pedantic a-hole; as someone who's been vegan for a long time, seeing the plant-based products (especially frozen ones) hit the freezers but also hide animal ingredients was a very frustrating and confusing time. It's gotten a bit better now, I guess with enough consumer backlash, but for a couple of years there there were quite a lot of insidiously labeled products that you really had to scan the ingredients & allergens for no matter how they used the word "plant" on the front.
What I'm saying is that it's ultimately a marketing term, not a strict definition of any sort. Nobody is enforcing plant-based violations. You have to look at the ingredients rather than the front of the packaging if you want to figure out what it actually has.
That's pretty extreme, have to say! Haha. There are extreme people everywhere, have to try and find the consensus, which to me seems to mean "no animals were involved in processing this thing" and that means from the source, gathering it, to the testing of it, to distributing it (don't use cows to transport my impossible burgers, please). People aren't animals b/c they can technically choose to do work (like picking coffee) - hopefully no one is supporting slavery.
I think you can call yourself vegan if you eat clams for example if ethically sourced (tho I don't have any interest in doing so, b/c the farming is very harmful from my understanding - but if you go clamming yourself, maybe ok?).
I personally eat honey, but always local, b/c idk what happens at the industrial scale there and I like to support local businesses anyway.
Animal byproducts should not be "vegan" imo - like if you use fish something to filter your beer. No good. But no, I don't really look up if my sugar is vegan or my beer is vegan... but I know of "vegan brands" and I will get those first over other brands.
I think veganism is basically becoming "no, I don't ask constantly... but I never knowingly buy animal products, and I know of several brands that are vegan, and I buy them when I can" - which makes a lot of sense to me, but isn't quite the clean definition!
I even have some wool clothes I wear. Hopefully that can be done ethically, because it doesn't kill the sheep, but... lots of those farms are not great for the little guys :(
Veganism to me is supporting the reduction in the use of animal products. We use animals too much, and we don't need to.
The plant based diet folks will tell you that this is basically junk food. They do this looking at what’s in the food and the science of it. They will tell you to eat plants instead of processed food.
Just be very careful if you do this! Don't cut or chop the plants in any way, since that's technically processing it. Don't apply any form of heat -- applying heat is one of society's most common forms of industrial processing! Don't wash or clean the plant at all, as that is also a form of processing. You must carefully lower the whole plant down your esophagus into your stomach, but be warned! Human stomachs also attempt to process foods via dangerous acids and other chemicals! It takes deep concentration and meditation to prevent your stomach from processing your food; only with practice can you eat truly "un-processed" foods.
And be aware of those scary genetically modified foods! Humans have been artificially changing the genetic code of plants and animals for 10,000 years! You must only eat paleo-foods: never anything that any human has ever selectively bred, or you're eating a GMO!! All your food must be sourced from the untouched wilds, never artificially manipulated by humans. The deep rainforests of Papua New Guinea is a good place for this. Only ever eat plants from Papua New Guinea, that the dinosaurs ate, never grown or touched by other humans, and completely whole, uncut, uncooked, uncleaned, and unprocessed in any way. Everyone else is being UNHEALTHY!!
But you still need to be extra careful, because many foods contain chemicals!
Taking things out of context to attack them doesn’t help you or anyone else be healthy.
If you order "vegan buffalo wings" you're attaching yourself to the vegan subculture and the baggage that comes along with that. Ordering "plant-based buffalo wings" just means you're ordering cauliflower.
I will never understand why parts of the vegan movement need to disguise foods as something else. Vegetables are good!
Why do vegans and vegetarians insist on disguising vegetables as meat - now that's the question. Even though the same cultures have a mind-boggling variety of foods that don't involve meat, and don't pretend to be meat.
As to why vegans do it - hotdog buns are really well designed for holding a tube of protein.
I might buy 'halloumi and apple sausages', just like I might 'pork and apple'. I wouldn't buy 'vegetarian pork and apple sausages', even though it describes the former (and could be the same) - it's vague and unappealing.
Just like a Breaded Drumstick was unlikely to have been used by Ringo Starr.
People understand the colloquial terms for foods.
The term "vegetarian pork" may be vague an unappealing to you - but sales figures show it is pretty attractive to lots of people. And, to a veggie like me, it gives some indication of the flavour profile, which I personally find useful.
Let's go back to your original statement, shall we: "Why do meat eaters disguise things as burgers, sausages, and nuggets?"
No part of that statement ever said anything about buffalos. And wings don't disguise themselves as wings.
Also, Buffalo Wings have nothing to do with buffalos, and everything to do with Buffalo, New York.
> The term "vegetarian pork" may be vague an unappealing to you - but sales figures show it is pretty attractive to lots of people.
Because it turns out people crave meat, and the market is happy to disguise vegeterian/vegan food as meat. Including trying to replicate both taste and texture. Funnily, meat is never (or very very very rarely) disguised as vegetables.
Yes, and hamburgers have nothing to do with ham, they're named after the city of Hamburg. Frankfurters also not made of Franks.
> Funnily, meat is never (or very very very rarely) disguised as vegetables.
OTOH, what exactly do people think they're eating when they have wieners? Because I'm fairly sure the meat shapes that get replicated — bacon rashers, sausages, burgers, fillets, deli slices — even where they had a specific original cause like "stuff meat into intestine", stuck around because they're convenient. The meat that still looks like the original animal (whole roast chicken, whole leg of lamb, stuffed pig head), I've not seen replicated. Well, not since the "everything is a cake" meme, at least.
And your point is?
> OTOH, what exactly do people think they're eating when they have wieners?
That they eat a sausage made of meat that is named "weiner".
That "meaty" names are just as much nonsense regardless of whether or not meat is still involved.
Just remembered an even more extreme example, albeit one that may only exist in the UK: christmas sweet pastry called "mince pie" filled with "mincemeat" which is often entirely vegetarian because it's an extremely archaic use of "meat" in the sense of "food".
> That they eat a sausage made of meat that is named "weiner".
QED: the name and shape (in this case, both being penile) are not really that connected to the mental model the consumer has of what they're consuming.
To use 'chicken drumsticks' then, yes obviously no drumstick, but certainly chicken, as though a drumstick made of chicken instead of wood.
A 'vegetarian drumstick' only tells me it's not made of chicken, and that it's edible, non-wood, I suppose. 'Vegetarian chicken drumstick' is a contradiction.
An equivalent to 'chicken drumstick' would be 'jackfruit drumstick', or whatever it actually is.
Buffalo wings are named after the city Buffalo in New York State. It's that spicy buttery style of baked on sauce that got popular and spread around.
You could obviously bread and bake the sauce onto anything, I like it on potatoes. It's a funny modifier, because it's sort of the sauce, it's sort of the preparation, like you might say cajun style, but the phrase only seems to be used around wings.
Buffalo cauliflower makes sense to me, but I internalized the word differently.
The idea that vegans are being sneaky with their foods is kind of funny considering the usual reputation of vegans is best captured in the joke "How do you know if someone is a vegan? Don't worry, they will tell you."
Ah yes. The non-natural form of "vegetables that taste like pork hamburger". Funnily how you never see meat producst disguised or sold as replicas of non-meat products.
But more fundamentally, I'm not sure what you're getting at. If "giving foods a different flavor or texture" were a totally new idea that vegetarians came up with, so what? Are you allergic to vegetables, but constantly being tricked into eating vegan food? What is the problem here?
It definitely isn't. Their new idea is get on a high horse about plant-based foods, but then going out of their ways to pretend it's meat.
Most of them don't. These are attempts by the manufacturers to sell vegan foods to meat-eaters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dog#Etymology
Although 'hotdog' is familiar, in my experience, at a UK barbecue you'll likely be offered 'sausages and burgers' not 'hotdogs and hamburgers'. Not to say you can't or wouldn't put a sausage in one of those finger rolls, or a stick of baguette, just that probably nobody would say 'hotdog' during the process.
'Catsup', I had to look up, was a widely used term in America for a while, now usurped by (the familiar) 'ketchup'.
In brief, your examples are not contradicting, since they don't really fall in my sphere of experience or usage.
Perhaps though, there's an idea here that you in the US are more comfortable or accustomed to it; so it's natural on packaged products' marketing material, which is then used selling these things worldwide. Maybe.
The one thing I do see that seems to be "disguising" food is some "Vegan Mac & Cheese" where it tastes good but it tastes nothing like cheese. I would rather know what's actually in it.
You’re much less likely to see this sort of thing in actual vegan restaurants.
Planta Burger is (was?, this was pre-pandemic and we no longer have an office downtown) absolutely a wholly vegan QSR based around burger-like sandwiches and they were busy mostly feeding people who weren’t vegan themselves but really liked the food because it was damned good.
First, it suggests a preparation that is reminiscent of a food that people enjoyed before they stopped eating animal products. This means that the spices and texture will be similar. That's an indication for both vegetarians and non-vegetarians to expect a texture, condiment, and spice experience.
Second, it's not about disguising foods as other things; it's about combining foods. Falafel isn't fake meat, but it's ground chickpea (or fava bean in some cases) flour. Meatballs aren't somehow lesser because it's ground meat, no? As such, the thought of ground beans or other combinations into patties isn't somehow any more deceptive or disguised as ground meat. We transform food in all sorts of novel ways - that doesn't mean it's disguised because it is a substitute for other purposes.
Third, while vegans eat a lot of vegetables and mushrooms and beans, most people don't want every meal to be that. We crave variety in general, and a lot of plated vegetable plates are out of place at a barbecue or restaurant. So, it helps when things look in place.
Unless falafel does mean that, in which case, I will happily shut up.
Thanks for the answer anyways!
Something that is literally only made from plant products is food that both vegetarians and (most) vegans would be comfortable eating, in the absence of any other dietary restrictions.
'Fried jackfruit with sticky barbecue sauce' might be nice; 'plant-based buffalo wings' is completely unappetising.
Also, the problem with milk is not necessarily CO2 but CH4.
For vegans it certainly is the case. Vegans don't eat food that comes from animals. Milk is one such product. So vegans will definitely use milk alternatives.
Also if you spill some somewhere your house doesn't smell like rotting bodily fluids (ok, probably getting a little extreme here but who likes the smell of rotting milk?)
Only downsides to plant milks, is they are harder to steam for lattes, they don't make cheese like we expect from animal milk (tho this has changed a lot and we're just about there now with some amazing brands), and they do have a unique flavor profile that is sometimes desired (for stuff like homemade egg nog for example).
Some people do drink almond milk of course, also meat eaters btw.
I'd imagine Almond milk is a miniscule part of a Vegan's diet compared to how much meat someone would eat anyway.
This argument really annoys me because it seems like you're trying to discredit vegans and justify the act of eating meat to yourself.
I honestly do not care if people eat meat, but I do care when those people try and use mental gymnastic s to tell me (without any scientific evidence) that what I'm doing is somewhat worse.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/biogenic-carbon-cycle-a...
If methane from cattle was truly something to be concerned about, surely we'd be seeing an increase in the same carbon isotope as that in cattle methane in the atmosphere, except that's not what's happening.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00312-2
Not all sources of CO2 are concerning, and neither are all sources of methane.
No it doesn’t.
https://imgur.com/a/d9m4VWU
To be clear, there is also a distinction between 'plant-based' and 'vegan' in that the latter has ethical implications. If making a product caused animal suffering, but that product wasn't made from any animal products, then I'd argue it would be plant-based and not vegan.
As someone who has these ethical concerns, these distinctions are important to me, even if they're not to most people.
Did you know when you buy gasoline at the pump you're supporting a market which buys missiles for Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g
Needless to say, the idea that you are "supporting" something by voluntary exchange (how do you know that they aren't supporting you?) is a relatively recent development, and is of course completely unworkable. It's just another form of retail therapy.
> Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
https://www.vegansociety.com/about-us/further-information/ke...
Vegan absolutely refers to an ethical stance. One of the reasons plant-based is useful to distinguish from vegan when applied to people and their diets is that plant-based people may be doing it for health or religion or trendiness. Vegans are doing it for the animals (while health, the environment, religion, etc. may also play roles).
Someone who is vegan won't purchase animal products. Consumption is besides the point, though technically it means they don't consume animal products also. Some people consume animal products if they don't purchase them, for example, if they dumpster dived or took home food a buffet was about to toss. This is sometimes called "freeganism" (which is also used to mean other things), and references that it's likely more ethical to consume food that would otherwise be wasted (even if it would include animal products) than to purchase food, because it has environmental implications
Sure, but I "animal product" refers to composition of the item, not the animal pain induced in the process? At least I've never heard of anyone suggesting lettuce or tomatoes (say) can be non-vegan depending on whether an animal tilled the field in pain.
For example, sugar might be bleached through a process that involves bone char (but isn't always), coconuts from thailand are often harvested by enslaved monkeys who are forced to climb trees at penalty of pain or death, coffee and chocolate that isn't marked as fair trade is often harvested by child slaves. Some vegans might boycott entire companies like Nestle because of their exploitative practices.
If I go to a restaurant, I don't typically inquire about the status of the coconut milk, but I might only purchase cruelty-free coconut milk at home, or check for a fair trade symbol or status on the food empowerment project (https://foodispower.org/) before purchasing chocolate.
Still, I prefer the term vegan over plant-based because the latter seems convoluted and corporate, as opposed to just "meatless" or even "food" (and marking the non plant based products instead).
Next time you've been out at a restaurant, after you leave ask yourself if you can remember any of the other patrons and what they ordered. Unless something out of the ordinary happened the answer will be no. Everyone else is the same. No one thinks about you, judges you, or even really notices that you exist.
I don't mean that in a mean way; the simple fact is that everyone has enough going on in their life that they don't need to spend time and energy wondering about why someone else ordered the vegan option.
Yesterday I was at a BBQ restaurant. Some of the other patrons (sitting at the same table as me!) had a chicken-fried steak, another had a half-rack of ribs and green beans. Someone the next table over had some brisket and okra. The table on the other side had a tower of onion rings. Remembering these things isn't really taxing at all. Now, I truly don't care about these things, other than that I do like to somewhat remember what my friends do and do not like to eat so I know what to suggest or potentially cook them when they come over for dinner.
I do somewhat agree though, if it's on the menu order what you want. If someone judges you immensely because you got the vegan chili, that's their issue.
I think the reason people have begun to distance themselves from labels like vegan is that they’re associated with an ideology that is ethically inconsistent. Instead of examining every product and its complete role in society, economics, and in ecosystems, a short-hand is used which may have a lot of unintended consequences.
Vegetarian for me always meant something like “not eating meat”. Milk and eggs were seen by me and I believe the general consciousness as ok for the most part.
I’d disagree that vegetarian has “come to mean” lacto-ovo, unless you’re talking about a time before the late 80s, or a different scene than the uk.
AIUI, today in India it normally means lacto-vegetarian, so there’s definitely a regional component too.
The other thing I don't like is that "plant-based" always sounds like marketing. Especially here in Germany where companies have started to use the English term, even though we have plenty of normal German terms. It sounds like a brand or a fad.
And then there’s the amusing observation that cows are entirely plant-based.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-l...
Creatures eat what they can. Some purely carnivorous species have been around way longer than us, and yet, the stars did not align just the right way for them.
We know for sure we have evolved to be omnivores. This can easily be determined based on e.g. our teeth and the length of our digestive system.
That's the meat of the argument for me.
And yet, people choose not to eat it. Earth shattering, I know. Damn, some people really get pissed off when you make the "wrong" choice of not eating meat.
I could also hunt or spearfish like I used to. Meat is easy to get. There’s no need for it though.
Meat is amazing if you’re starving because it contains a lot of stuff a hungry person needs. Kale is not going to do the same things for you. However, it’s unlikely anyone on here is starving. Meat has rapidly diminishing returns as you stop starving and have a more stable diet of plants. Eventually eating meat becomes harmful, but eating plants does not.
There's also been theories that fire and cooking is more associated with brain development since we're able to absorb more nutrients from meat and tubers that we forged.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes...
"They concluded that the evidence for increased carnivory in our ancestors is merely an effect of increased sampling of the archaeological record at certain time intervals starting around two million years ago, meaning that there is no strong relationship between eating more meat and the evolution of larger brains in our ancestors."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/fourt...
It seems more helpful to view meat eating simply as diversification. Our plant based diets would have supported large brains, and they still do. There’s no clear reason to believe that eating other animals enlarged our brains.
Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat.
We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved to eat meat. We've been eating meat for many millennia. I'll agree, not at the ratio that's common in the normal US diet these days, but its disingenuous to suggest that plants were the sole default of food, and it is only a modern thing to eat meat.
Some people have different dietary needs. I haven't found a way to get sufficient protein without animal products that doesn't leave me with digestive issues. Even just using broccoli and greens, along with oatmeal ended up being unpleasant. And this is just for normal fda levels of protein, not adding muscle mass after an injury or illness levels of protein.
I think that's a silly argument anyway, if we're discussing health. Professionals do plenty of stuff that is awful for them to get performance gains. Steroids, exercise routines that are very punishing on the body long-term (plenty of power lifters who can barely even walk after retirement and they aren't that old), etc.. I am not sure you can say it's good for you if professionals do it... maybe good for short term performance, but not "good for you."
It's actually easier to get protein if you like legumes (including tofu and peas, not sure if these are technical legumes), gluten, and/or nuts. All of these have amazing nutrients, are really cheap, and easy to digest for most people. If they aren't for you that's ok - some people can't digest meat either.
Not saying you don't need to take some supplements as a vegan. You probably do, at least b12 and maybe omegas, but you're getting those from "supplements" anyway from meat (it is just fed to the animals first).
I run, dive, lift weights, and rock climb without any issues. If I did it competitively I could easily supplement with plant proteins. Virtually anyone I know who eats meat and trains hard has also supplemented with whey or something similar. There doesn’t appear to be a meaningful difference when eating plants.
I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely preposterous take. Are you suggesting that the ~80 million vegans and ~1.5 billion vegetarians worldwide are dealing with constant bloating and digestive issues? In fact I'd make the case that a _far_ greater number of people deal with poor digestion due to under-consumption of plants- leading to low intake of dietary fiber- than vice versa.
Also we did not "evolve to eat plants as an option." We evolved from primarily frugivorous apes, so plants were the starting point and the default. And some of the key changes to our biology were to support the consumption of additional plants, not just meat. Relatively large molars, a long GI tract, and enzymes for the digestion of starches.
We are biologically omnivorous, no one should deny that, but to suggest that we evolved primarily as meat eaters is a bit absurd.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baboon#Habitat_and_prey
We didn't eat plants by default, we ate a mixture of plants and meats and other animal-derived products since we lived in caves.
I think you're going to have to back that up with a citation.
For most of history, ordinary people could afford only plant based food. Meat was occasional. Industrial meat production in the West changed the economics of that.
Vegans are not the only people who care about our unsustainable practices. We all should. We could start by properly accounting for the externalities, ecological footprint, worker exploitation, and yes, the built-in cruelty to animals. I think the OP's suggestion to label animal parts is a step in the right direction.
Most of history predates the idea of money.
Of course humans were eating meat in prehistory, and more than once agriculture began. But we make art of the ideal and aspirational more than of the everyday.
A vegan will only eat plant-based food (and so “plant-based” and “vegan” are often used interchangeably to describe a food) but someone who follows a plant-based diet might buy leather goods (and is therefore not vegan).
A good example of this nuance is the Impossible Burger. The Impossible Burger is plant-based but not vegan because it was tested on animals.
1. https://www.greenmatters.com/p/does-impossible-foods-test-on...
AFAIK, the main qualifier is "does not consume animal products." Impossible meat does not have animal products in it and is not currently being tested on animals. Similarly, most medicine is animal tested, yet I've never heard someone claim that medicine isn't vegan.
Say, crepes with fruit jam are definitely plant-based, but they may not be animal-free: the jam may contain bits of gelatin, and the easiest way to make nice-looking crepes is to fry them on lard.
One common analogy is how when someone says “don’t think of X”, it’s hard to not think of X.
Also, while actual plants are pretty great, the "plant based" products aren't imo. I find that they are very processed. They aren't throwing the "plant based" label on the salad mix. Every now and then it's put on something that was already plant-based prior to the fad, like falafel, but that's not the norm. The label in itself is tantamount to non-meats "other than what we humans evolved to eat"
Chimpanzee's still eat meat as part of their diet, they don't eat highly processed soy topped with thickener laden vegetable oils.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNIoKmMq6cs - Anthropologist Debunks the Paleo Diet
My canine teeth tell a different story. Meat was eaten when it was available. Certainly they also ate berries and what not as cavemen. However, it wasn't like grug, or medieval grug, went out of their way to eat 3 square meals consisting of mostly vegetables. Grains, probably. But vegetables were often times as much of a luxury as meat.
"Beyond meat" etc are all poisons as far as I am concerned. To turn vegetables into a meat-like substitute requires some seance with dark magic. Their entire marketing gimmick is to compare it to Tofu. Tofu is minimally processed. Beyond meat and things like it are typically processed more than your average bag of potato chips.
An egg isn't the fruit of a plant; of course it's not plant-based if it contains eggs.
Everyone should be irked, regardless of their political alignment in the area of food, if they are told that something with eggs is plant-based. It is a mistake or misrepresentation.
Plant-based can only possibly mean that it's made from leaves, stalks, fruits, nuts, seeds, bark, roots or any other part of a plant.
If it contains mushrooms, yeasts or fungi, it's not plant-based; those are not plants. However, I would be generous in that if some plant comes with certain naturally occurring bacteria or fungi, then something made with that plant can still be plant-based. If the plant material is fermented, confirming bacteria or moulds, let's say it can be plant-based anyway. Insects have to be removed, though.
And yet food companies are adding minimal amounts of peanut oil or sesame flour to products, specifically so they don't have to guarantee that they are free of those allergens.
Ricin is "plant-based," as is cyanide.
Apparently, Eucalyptus is quite toxic, but smells a bit like cinnamon.
Koalas are tough little dropbears.
0: I mean, I'm sure some people are, but is anyone doing it non-fraudulently?
Personally, I love fake-bleeding plant based impossible burger. Tastes great. Better for the planet. I am sad that vegans have decided it’s gross and wrong.
I suspect the biggest reason companies are choosing "plant-based" (and including "vegan" somewhere less prominent, or maybe not at all) is because they want their products to appeal to both vegans and non-vegans. In fact, they may be making products that don't appeal at all to vegans despite being vegan, but would appeal to non-vegans.
First -- non-vegans -- if I see "Vegan" on something, I won't buy it unless it would only ever come that way (or would typically come that way, like a salad). If it's a "Vegan Burger", I'm assuming it's a piece of minced paper mixed with soy/plant oils and packed with enough herbs "used for grilling" to make it taste like "burnt grilled something" attempting to hide the fact that it tastes nothing like beef. If it's cheese, I assume it won't melt. It'll kind-of melt, then it'll start to harden, brown, and catch fire. If it's chicken, it's probably not vegan, but vegetarian (which are actually very good), but if it's vegan, it'll be ... wrong ... I don't know how to describe it.
I was Lacto Ovo Vegetarian for a year (for health, not puppies). I tried every single vegetarian pretend-to-be-meat product that Whole Foods and Kroger sold (in 2005). Amazingly, I found a brand of sausage that almost passed if you squinted at it just so. The vegetarian (non-vegan, I think) Morningstar Farms "plant-based" chicken was better than the frozen "real" chicken equivalents a few doors over. Everything else was inedible if it was trying to be meat. I like Black Bean burgers and Portabello Mushroom burgers, but you have to season/prepare them as that kind of product. When they tried to turn it into "something beef like", it was a disaster.
Fast forward to today where we have burgers that are "plant-based" that have the right texture, taste and even bleed. I don't know if my set is skewed or if this is normal but every Vegan I know (out of about 6) is vegan for their own moral, not health, reasons. Not one of them liked the meat-substitute products that I liked. They think eating animals is disgusting and it makes the flavor/texture gross to them. I'd imagine a plant-based burger that bleeds would have a similar impact.
So marketing to vegans with "Vegan" prominently on the label (and any required certification/testing/other necessities to ensure you don't get a class-action by accident) and there's a good chance your actual market avoids the product right along with the vegans who don't want it (unless it stops you from eating meat, you can have that crutch. :P).
And there's the last little nugget. To those that "Vegan" doesn't mean "Soy Pretending to be Meat and So Not Pulling it Off", it elicits images of judgemental people being vocal (in passive-aggressive ways) about the smell of the rare, juicy, Ribeye on the plate in front of me."Plant-based" might be "Vegan except LARD" or might be "Vegan except some ingredient with an unpronounceable name that is an animal byproduct" (gelatin/glue). It probably means the latter in most cases and that's fine for the people they're marketing to.
i think i got 2 weeks of veganism when i first tried for health, then i got how healthy and cheap one can be with some ocean fish here and there, eggs etc. some weeks of pause and then the moral part hitted pretty hard and i am going strong for +4 years now
i still carve it when i get in events that have it (i used to eat and like it a lot) but one thing i noticed is that after trying to copy or have some substitute for animal stuff, the thing just flows... the fungi and flora kingdom is pretty vast and there is a lot to-do than worrying in trying to get a fake burguer or cheese
Vegetarianism, by contrast, is exclusively a diet that excludes dead animals.
Plant-based is a diet that does not include the products that a derived from animals. Basically the diet component veganism. Though products that are produced with the help of animals (like monkeys in coconut production) is certainly not vegan, but still plant based.
It is its own category: where vegetarian to binary omnivore has become a spectrum. The author's confusion derives from trying to fit a round peg in the existing square holes.
One can eat largely salads and vegetables with occasional meat and still be plant-based.