Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

On ‘Plant-Based’

aliciakennedy.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 210 posts

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#51

Post by pcthrowaway »

dataflow wrote: post #43
scaredginger wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I have never heard of the Vegan Society before; I suspect most people you interact with haven't either, even including those who are vegan due to ethical concerns. Could you explain why a random person should see this particular organization as having authority to define what the term means versus, say, their dictionary or Wikipedia? e.g., did this organization perhaps invent the word "vegan" originally? (I don't kno…

They created the word vegan, for one.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#52

Post by dataflow »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #38
dataflow wrote: post #25

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…

> Someone who is vegan won't purchase animal products. Consumption is besides the point

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.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#53

Post by [deleted] »

edent wrote: post #31
dmitriid wrote: post #22

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.

[deleted]

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#54

Post by dmitriid »

edent wrote: post #50
OJFord wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you accept that Buffalo Wings contain no actual buffalo, right? 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 f…

> But you accept that Buffalo Wings contain no actual buffalo, right?

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.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#55

Post by catach »

ummonk wrote: post #11
catach wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#56

Post by OJFord »

edent wrote: post #50
OJFord wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But you accept that Buffalo Wings contain no actual buffalo, right? 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 f…

Honestly, I don't know what 'buffalo wings' are, I'm only aware of the phrase from American film.

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.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#57

Post by dataflow »

pcthrowaway wrote: post #51
dataflow wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard of the Vegan Society before; I suspect most people you interact with haven't either, even including those who are vegan due to ethical concerns. Could you explain why a random person should see this particular organization as having authority to define what the term means versus, say, their dictionary or Wikipedia? e.g., did this organization perhaps invent the word "vegan" originally? (I don't kno…

They created the word vegan, for one.

Fascinating, thanks. For anyone following: https://gentleworld.org/the-full-journey-excerpts-from-the-v...

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#58

Post by namdnay »

onion2k wrote: post #40
namdnay wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a tomato picked by a trained monkey would be plant-based but not vegan? What about canned tomatoes picked by quasi-slaves on some mafia farm in calabria? Would they not be vegan then?

If you're OK with eating food picked by slaves, quasi- or otherwise, then you have more to think about than veganism.

my question was more on how this is tracked/labelled. if something is sold in the UK with the vegan logo, does that mean it is also free from human exploitation?

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#59

Post by mytailorisrich »

namdnay wrote: post #3
hobbitstan wrote: post #2

‘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…

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

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.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#60

Post by mytailorisrich »

kazinator wrote: post #35

> Same with “plant-based cookie”—does that mean no animal butter, but yes to eggs? 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, stal…

"Plant-based" does not imply uniquely made of plants as per the dictionnary definition of 'based'. That's an issue with the term, which is fuzzy and aimed at marketing.
Post reply on HN