11–20 of 210 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
‘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 pl…
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
Also, the problem with milk is not necessarily CO2 but CH4.
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.
But why doesn't the menu say "cauliflower wings" with some "V" icon or leaf icon next to it? I will never understand why parts of the vegan movement need to disguise foods as something else. Vegetables are good!
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.
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 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.