61–70 of 210 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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…
Cashew production typically involves a great deal of suffering from the workers. Avocado and palm kernel production are contributing greatly to deforestation and major habitat loss. Yet all three of these products are considered vegan. 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 ever…
I've tended to see the term "plant-based" as synonymous with "vegan and/or vegetarian", used when there's variability or uncertainty about which of those more specific terms would apply. "Meatless" would also suffice but I think "plant-based" is used to emphasize what is present rather than absent. But I think the essay is right the term has become vaguer than that even, and my own understanding of it doesn't quite m…
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.).
One reason I dislike "plant-based" that's not in the article: it singles out plant-based food. But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Food should have labels when it includes stuff other than plants (or other than what we humans evolved to eat typically). The other thing I don't like is that "plant-based" always sounds like marketing. Especially here in Ger…
And then there’s the amusing observation that cows are entirely plant-based.
Ricin is "plant-based," as is cyanide.
One reason I dislike "plant-based" that's not in the article: it singles out plant-based food. But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Food should have labels when it includes stuff other than plants (or other than what we humans evolved to eat typically). The other thing I don't like is that "plant-based" always sounds like marketing. Especially here in Ger…
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-l...
One reason I dislike "plant-based" that's not in the article: it singles out plant-based food. But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Food should have labels when it includes stuff other than plants (or other than what we humans evolved to eat typically). The other thing I don't like is that "plant-based" always sounds like marketing. Especially here in Ger…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?