Hacker News Reader

Comment by hobbitstan | Hacker News Reader

‘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.

View on HN

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

This strikes me as the start of a euphemism treadmill, given that the etymology of "vegan" is no more negative than "plant based".

Over time, the flavors we associate with words usually comes from the contexts in which they are used, which can easily overpower their origins.

Exactly, and I think the same context will become associated with "plant-based" if it is consistently used as a substitute for "vegan".

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?

A bit more info about bees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSYgDssQUtA

Honey and eggs are not comparable.

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).

You now can buy eggs from producers that don’t do that (at least in Europe).

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.

I guess it gets perceived as extreme-ish when it becomes an ideology constantly imposed in a combative fashion onto others.

Agree - the holier than thou attitude can be off putting.

> 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.

It was a genuine question.

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.

Replying to your edited comment...

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.

Again - veganism is pragmatic - not dogmatic.

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.

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.

In any case, best wishes for the new year.

Happy 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.

Merely having a countervailing ethics framework is extreme to most people.

Some cow milk producers label cow milk as plant-based. What exactly is it supposed to mean?

Do you have a photo of that? It’s somewhat hard to believe, and I didn’t find anything by googling.

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.

I think "vegan" also implies a lifestyle whereas you can favor plant-based food without being a full-time vegan.

> 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.

Yes, convince them to try roasted brussels sprouts or chicken fried tofu. That will change minds far quicker than preaching will.

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.

Plant-based never meant the same as vegan, unless you're only talking about food. Plant-based is rarely used outside of food.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com