41–50 of 210 posts
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.
No it doesn’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What part of the mighty buffalo is the wing? 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe vegan has any ethical implications on its own? Especially given "ethical vegan" is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism
Wikipedia is wrong here. > 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't believe vegan has any ethical implications on its own? Especially given "ethical vegan" is a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism
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 pla…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're saying that vegan people have to use milk alternatives like almond milk. Which is certainly not the case. What a non-argument. Also, the problem with milk is not necessarily CO2 but CH4.
> 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.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 exi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of the mighty buffalo is the wing? As to why vegans do it - hotdog buns are really well designed for holding a tube of protein.
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.
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.