On ‘Plant-Based’
aliciakennedy.news
aliciakennedy.news
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.
0: I mean, I'm sure some people are, but is anyone doing it non-fraudulently?
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.
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.
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.
Market 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.
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).
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ricin is "plant-based," as is cyanide.
Apparently, Eucalyptus is quite toxic, but smells a bit like cinnamon.
Koalas are tough little dropbears.
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.
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.
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://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.