Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaycebasques | Hacker News Reader

As a vegan myself this is very unfortunate because we are already easy targets and subject to a lot of prejudice. Impossible Meat bullying a small company might unleash a backlash of anti-vegan sentiment that can take on a life of its own. Make no mistake it has been there all along. Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes. But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement like veganism you really need to make sure your PR is impeccable because your actions have broad-reaching effects beyond your business.

And to be 100% clear I am not being an apologist for Impossible. If they are indeed bullying and the case is as clear cut as this article describes then that is ugly behavior.

View on HN

> Go back to other discussions about veganism here on HN and you will see the common anti-vegan memes.

You will also see a lot of outlandish claims about veganism, human diet and health and, food in general which is generally where the backlash starts.

I've seen claims like "humans have evolved to be vegan", "beef only has vitamin b12 because of b12 supplements", "if you eat properly, your body will generate it's own vitamin b12".

You'll also see dismissive, no true Scotsman, responses to issues with vegan diets like struggles to get enough b12, calcium and iodine.

I try to eat vegan, or at least vegetarian, a few days a week, mostly by eating traditionally vegetarian meals. Impossible meat is highly processed and is neither healthy nor a climate change solution.

Judging any group by its worst members isn't the most charitable regardless of the group. You end up not really making an argument outside of "I found a ridiculous person in this group" which like, yeah, true. But when you imply that they're somehow representative or to be taken seriously you end up just exposing your prejudices and/or ignorance. Dogpiling a person who thinks you can photosynthesize b12 is fine -- they're nuts. But if that person sours your opinion of V's then you clearly already had issues with them.

Veganism and vegetarianism aren't synonymous with healthy, they don't even try to be. It's actually a point of annoyance among V's that "vegetarian" options at restaurants try to be "light" and healthy when you really just want a basket of fries dipped in vegan mayo. Same with the aversion to processed foods, it's nothing to do with V's at all -- that's the "whole foods" movement thing. Some V's care about the environment, some V's care about whole foods, some V's care about animal suffering. The former two probably wouldn't eat an Impossible Burger, the latter might.

I'm not sure you are replying to. I have vegan and vegetarian friends and family; I certainly don't judge vegans according to its worst members.

I find the "worst" of vegans annoying and pedalling dangerous myths. Eating vegan while staying healthy is hard work and real health problems can occur if you don't put in that work.

I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but I think it's taking it too far to say that this is "generally where the backlash starts", because that implies that it's our fault / we caused it. There are a lot of vested interests that have purely selfish motives for attacking veganism and would do it regardless of any outlandish claims on the part of vegans.

> I agree that some vegans also make outlandish claims but I think it's taking it too far to say that this is "generally where the backlash starts", because that implies that it's our fault / we caused it.

Sorry, if someone makes dangerous claims like "you'll generate your own b12 after switching to a whole food diet", it is their fault if they get dog piled and memed.

There is anti-vegan prejudice on HN, I've seen it, but the real backlash is usually when the defence of the vegan philosophy gets outlandish.

There's the old vegan joke for a reason:

   How do you know someone is a vegan? They'll tell you all about it...

I think vegans get a bad rep because too often they feel the need to convert others to veganism too. Vegans aren't alone here, super devote religious people do this too, the guy in your office that just got into standing desks does it too, etc...

When people make a choice they believe is the one true way to do something, it's difficult to see others not join in - after all, you feel you've made the choice because it's healthy/will save your life/save the planet/whatever, how could you just watch others harm themselves?

Just live and let live... other people don't and shouldn't care if you choose to be a vegan or not.

Not targeting you in particular... just general observations. The "as a vegan..." line is about as tired as the "as a libertarian I believe X..." line. Nobody cares what you are or believe.

If you're hanging out with someone, it's almost impossible for it not to come up that you're vegan, since a large amount of places to eat have no vegan-friendly foods. You either have to bring up that you can't eat somewhere (since it has nothing you can eat) or not eat at all (prompting questions about that).

Good point. I guess the only time someone should care about your dietary preference is if you're having a dinner party or going out to eat.

That's appropriate use of the "I'm a vegan" line...

Just don't go over the top and tell people they're bad for eating a hamburger or inject your veganism into otherwise irrelevant conversation.

> Just live and let live.

...except for animals, right?

This is a prime example of the dissonance that comes from having carnism as a dominant ideology for dietary preference.

Eating what biology intended you to eat is not an ideology.

Making a conscious decision to go against biology and select a different dietary preference is indeed an ideology (unless there is a real medical reason you cannot eat something, such as allergies).

There is nothing about eating fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes that goes against our biology. The American Dietetics Association recognizes a vegetarian diet as appropriate for all stages of life [0]. Meat is not a requirement to live a healthy life, and can - in some cases and excess - detriment overall health. Additionally, current animal agricultural practices are harmful to the environment.

0. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

That's quite a straw man you've weaved there.

First, nobody said anything about eating only meat as a diet. I'd wager zero people do that - you would quickly develop vitamin deficiencies and ultimately fall ill and die.

Secondly, you've moved the goal posts to vegetarianism, which is not veganism.

Third, just because a vegetarian diet can be sustainable (in the sense you won't fall ill) doesn't mean it's the natural diet for a human. It's not... Your teeth and many other parts of your human body tell us differently.

Fourth, there are several cultures on this planet that strongly favor vegetarianism, but none are strictly vegan and few are strictly vegetarian. As already pointed out, vegans often have to take supplements to remain healthy. That's biology telling you that diet isn't natural.

Lastly, deciding to be a vegan because you believe current agriculture practices are harmful to the environment is a choice based off your beliefs and therefore is an ideology. That was the original assertion.

You seem to be conflating carnism for the carnivore diet. Info on what carnism is can be found here [0]. There's a lot of good stuff in that article, I think! Unfortunately, there are people who are indulging in a pure carnivore diet. You're right that it's patently unhealthy, and frankly it's a little weird.

Veganism is a subset of vegetarianism. I'm trying to be flexible with my position to allow for good discussion - being either vegetarian or vegan is typically healthier and objectively better for the environment [4].

Recognizing that humans are omnivores also means that by definition we can sustain ourselves solely by plant or animal matter [1]. Your statement of "Making a conscious decision to go against biology [...]" is plainly inaccurate, as we are quite capable of living healthy lives without meat.

There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that animal agriculture is harmful to the environment [2][3]. In fact, it is the second largest contributor of green house gasses.

I get the sense that there is some frustration coming through in your thoughts. Please keep in mind this is exactly how cognitive dissonance expresses itself. Take a breath, check out some of the citations below, and try to think about this data with an objective approach.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnism

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

2. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.11034

3. https://climatenexus.org/climate-issues/food/animal-agricult...

4. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/

> There is nothing about eating fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes that goes against our biology.

I am genuinely curious to know why you say that. The other poster didn't say anything about not eathing fruit and vegetables etc. They said:

=> Making a conscious decision to go against biology and select a different dietary preference is indeed an ideology (unless there is a real medical reason you cannot eat something, such as allergies).

I can't see where in that comment the OP said or implied that it "goes against our biology" to eat fruit and veg etc. It's clear to me that what they said goes "against biology" is not eating any meat. That is what characterises the vegan diet: the absence of meat and animal products, not the presence of fruit and vegetables.

So why did you say that eating fruit etc doesn't go against biology? Who said it does?

Did the OP change their comment between the time you replied to it and the time I read your comments?

Again, as omnivores, there is nothing about a plant-based diet that goes against our biology [0].

Let me know if you have any other questions!

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnivore

Edit - actually, sorry, but please don't. I remember interacting with you on previous topics about vegetarianism, and your comment history and name are indicative of some biases and dissonance that you're unwilling to overcome. Even some of your submissions are heavily biased, dated, and subsequently refuted [1][2]. The evidence supporting my position is plain and well-documented in my other comments. Cheers.

1. https://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-the...

2. https://theconversation.com/vegetarians-cause-environmental-...

You seem to not understand Omnivores survive on both meat and vegetation - not exclusively one or the other. We have names for the ones that survive solely on one or the other...

I'm aware of the differences between herbivorous, carnivorous, and omnivorous. However, you seem to be unwilling to accept that you don't need animal flesh to live a healthy life. Nothing of what you've provided has refuted that.

Please continue to review the citations I provided, particularly the one from NIH. For an ethical approach, I recommend Peter Singer's "Why vegan?" and "Animal Liberation" should be sufficient. Nothing you've provided has refuted the ethical side of things, either.

> Even some of your submissions are heavily biased, dated, and subsequently refuted [1][2]. The evidence supporting my position is plain and well-documented in my other comments. Cheers.

You don't realise to what extent you come across as snotty, clueless and hypocritical, do you?

Your only argument about nutrition was regarding B12, for which the questionably trademarked product has 130% DV. Then you broaden your conclusion to somehow not addressing climate change?

So i'll address that one. The product is 98% soy with coconut, and sunflower oil to help it cook. Not particularly climate-intensive, soy is a valuable crop to rotate for the soil ecology in a country that produces so much corn to feed your dinner cows.

Just stepping in to mention that kombucha has enough B12 even for people who have an autoimmune disorder that interferes with absorbing B12.

It runs $2.50 - $3.50 / pint in grocery stores, but I make it at home for under $0.20.

As someone who eats a primarily vegan diet I find the vegan community to be insufferably toxic. I'm not talking about individuals but the community itself is just one big dick measuring contest about who is 'more vegan' and suffers more due to their devotion. I don't fault others for seeing how gross the community can be.

As another vegan, diet should have no bearing on this. It's a big company bullying a smaller one just because they can. The immorality of that doesn't depend on what you eat.

If it bothers you, let Impossible Meat know: https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

> But when you're one of the leading brands of a minority movement like veganism

Neither you nor impossible foods speak for the vegan movement. Most of my vegan friends do not eat this fake garbage nor would they ever make foolish claims like this.

Point taken that I and Impossible do not speak for the vegan movement. I think I could prove my point with a theoretical bet, however. Ask X amount of people from the overall general population to name the top 3 vegan brands, and I would take the wager that Impossible is in that top 3. Therefore they would be significantly identified with veganism at large.

Impossible might be identified with veganism at large, but the converse is not necessarily true. I think that there are just few enough vegan brands that I'm aware of that when thinking about veganism at large, brands are not really at the top of my mind.

First, lets separate 2 groups of people: 1. People that have a vegan diet. 2. People that actively defend veganism.

I have nothing against the group 1, but the prejudice you see, is because of group 2, I can say to you using rough napkin calculations that something like 95% of people I met in group two were total toxic assholes. Some examples of people I personally met:

1. Guy in school, kept telling me, CONSTANTLY, that I was eating corpses and whatnot, it was very annoying.

2. Another guy in school, told me I was evil because I ate meat, proceeded to rummage through my backpack and kick my belongings like if they were soccer balls (even screaming "goal" after he made my bible go between two chairs).

3. Chick I met in college, she asked me to become vegan, I told her I wouldn't and that I would keep eating bacon, her reaction was literally hit my head with her purse.

4. Various activist groups that did some insanely dumb shit where I live, one for example went to a research laboratory and freed all the animals, they took the cute animals (like beagles) home, and released the rest, without any notion if it was good idea or not to do so (several animals weren't native, and some were in the lab because they were being treated with experimental treatments for infectious diseases).

5. Random vegan I met online, dunno who that person is, I explained I have to eat meat due to a health condition, person then proceeded to tell me I should just die instead, that it was better for the planet for all people that need to eat meat to just die.

Why would a vegan ever eat impossible meat? They generally abstain from processed foods.

Why do people smoke cigarettes? Why do people drink soft drinks like coca cola which is full of sugars?

I mean whats the point of asking these? Being vegan doesn't mean you have to eat healthy food 24x7. They are normal human being following ethics. And there is no rule that tells vegan should abstain processed foods.

I've seen lots of vegans eat highly processed foods like nut milks and cheeses, tofu, and even impossible and beyond meats.

Commmercial setain and tofu are highly processed foods as well, and common vegan fare…

I tried it. It tasted too much like beef.

Black person here. I don't think (though I'm not going to say I'm 100% certain) that the word "prejudice" is best here?

You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.

The word has nothing to do with whether you chose to be that way or not.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/prejudice

According to the dictionary, sure. What makes you think the "dictionary" is the end-all-be-all for how words work?

A victim complex is a common response when privileged people realize others find them insufferable.

A victim complex is a common response when anyone realizes others find them insufferable.

That’s an interesting argument when we are talking about blacks.

> Black person here.

No disrespect but what does being black have to do with the usage of the word prejudice? Because the parent you responded to used it correctly.

"Correctly" is weird, which is precisely why I tried state my point in a very non-conclusive way. Which went over like a lead balloon. :)

There's a lot of connotations to that word related to racism. I have no problem with the original commenter calling out that it may not be the best word to use.

> There's a lot of connotations to that word related to racism.

It's use is not exclusive to racism. To exclude other uses is ironically prejudiced.

“prejudice” has nothing to do with whether the prejudgement is based on an innate feature or a choice.

Isn't religion a choice? I know plenty of people who have converted and they weren't forced to convert. You can be prejudiced against someone else of a differnet religion.

Not purely. The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space, and it would be difficult to argue that it is always (or even often) something like "pure choice."

It frequently carries a cultural component such that the law sees fit to treat it like other arguably immutable identity type things, which seems correct to me. Though, it is complicated.

> The meaning of "religion" varies greatly across both time and space

Ok, I was kinda sorta with you until the second time you decided on the ‘flexibility of words’ defense… honestly, if you’d just gone with:

“using a charged term like prejudice to describe disagreement (even when distastefully communicated) over lifestyle choices dilutes the word, and minimizes what it means to someone who experiences true prejudice every day”

or something like that, I think you’d have gotten your point across without the downvotes and discussion.

But maybe that’s not what you meant, and maybe there would still be discussion because what I said ain’t necessarily true - it just sounds hard to argue with.

You say that like the downvotes and discussion are a bad thing; I'm under no illusion about how people are going to take it about half the time I bring up race.

Last I checked, I can't trade these hacker news points for cash and prizes. :)

Please don't ever stop. We need your voice here.

Thank you for the feedback. I understand your point.

I was going off a dictionary definition along these lines:

> preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

But I totally get that prejudice has connotations here that make it inappropriate for me as a white man to use

I cannot believe I am reading someone claim prejudice is a word that should not be used if you have a certain skin color.

Did the judicial system stop dismissing cases with prejudice?

Did the CIA stop terminating people "with extreme prejudice"?

Why is it inappropriate for a white man to use the word prejudice?

Isn't any sort of negatively biased opinion prejudice, regardless of what it's against be it gender, race, dietary choices, religion or anything else?

I was definitely not saying "white people shouldn't use it."

What I was saying is a little bit closer to - "Prejudice" connotes "identity" type issues, and I don't think 'veganism' is like that.

(Once again -- CONNOTES -- for all the dictionary lovers out there)

Absurd. Have you heard of "religious prejudice"? That's prejudice and based off of a choice.

Racial discrimination does not own the term prejudice.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com