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

91–100 of 210 posts

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#91

Post by rsynnott »

captainmuon wrote: post #20

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…

It’s a new term in English, too; I assume because people found ‘vegan’ off-putting? Not really sure; it turned up about a decade ago, and as the article says is poorly defined.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#92

Post by FeistySkink »

colechristensen wrote: post #70
mytailorisrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 othe…

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

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#93

Post by oblak »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #83
beebeepka wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know this for sure, though? I don't think we do. Sounds like self-congratulatory hogwash to me. Creatures eat what they can. Some purely carnivorous species have been around way longer than us, and yet, the stars did not align just the right way for them.

> Do we know this for sure, though? I don't think we do. We know for sure we have evolved to be omnivores. This can easily be determined based on e.g. our teeth and the length of our digestive system.

Well, of course. We don't even need science to determine that humans are omnivores. Just look around - not everyone eats meat.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#94

Post by Bedon292 »

riffraff wrote: post #10
bin_bash wrote: post #8

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!

Not sure I have seen anywhere call them anything other than "Cauliflower Wings" around here. At least not recently. I have seen a bunch of places offer "Cauliflower Steak" too. May be regional though?

The one thing I do see that seems to be "disguising" food is some "Vegan Mac & Cheese" where it tastes good but it tastes nothing like cheese. I would rather know what's actually in it.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#95

Post by lambdaba »

vel0city wrote: post #71
captainmuon wrote: post #20

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…

> But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat. We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved t…

Evolved to eat plans as an option, yes, but not as a preference. It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting, and that's with modern, highly selected for plants... My bet would be we evolved to eat animal fats and protein, and that is most of the selection pressure for our big brains too. Hunting while being a rather frail primate takes brains.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#96

Post by rsynnott »

riffraff wrote: post #10
bin_bash wrote: post #8

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!

When you see ‘cauliflower wings/vegan buffalo wings’ on a menu it is typically _not_ because someone from the ‘vegan movement’, whatever that is, put it there, but because the restaurant wanted something vegan which is not alienating to its non-vegan customers.

You’re much less likely to see this sort of thing in actual vegan restaurants.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#97

Post by jfoutz »

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.

This one is funny, the history doesn't really matter, but might as well throw it out there.

Buffalo wings are named after the city Buffalo in New York State. It's that spicy buttery style of baked on sauce that got popular and spread around.

You could obviously bread and bake the sauce onto anything, I like it on potatoes. It's a funny modifier, because it's sort of the sauce, it's sort of the preparation, like you might say cajun style, but the phrase only seems to be used around wings.

Buffalo cauliflower makes sense to me, but I internalized the word differently.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#98

Post by tootie »

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

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#99

Post by lambdaba »

oblak wrote: post #93
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do we know this for sure, though? I don't think we do. We know for sure we have evolved to be omnivores. This can easily be determined based on e.g. our teeth and the length of our digestive system.

Well, of course. We don't even need science to determine that humans are omnivores. Just look around - not everyone eats meat.

Because meat is expensive, primarily. Especially from poorer backgrounds there is a culture of minimizing meat consumption and saving it for children just because of it's rarety.

That's the meat of the argument for me.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#100

Post by phphphphp »

rsynnott wrote: post #91
captainmuon wrote: post #20

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…

It’s a new term in English, too; I assume because people found ‘vegan’ off-putting? Not really sure; it turned up about a decade ago, and as the article says is poorly defined.

Veganism is a moral and ethical lifestyle choice with wide ranging implications whereas plant-based is a descriptor of the things that go into a foodstuff.

A vegan will only eat plant-based food (and so “plant-based” and “vegan” are often used interchangeably to describe a food) but someone who follows a plant-based diet might buy leather goods (and is therefore not vegan).

A good example of this nuance is the Impossible Burger. The Impossible Burger is plant-based but not vegan because it was tested on animals.

Post reply on HN