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

111–120 of 210 posts

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#111

Post by blacksmith_tb »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #88
mytailorisrich wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

This. I interpret "plant-based" as "plants are the majority of the mass of the product."

Sure, though it still feels a little sneaky, clearly the majority of a cookie that contains eggs and butter is still wheat... It reminds me a little more of packaging that proclaims that a box of table salt is "fat-free!" or a box of sugar is "gluten-free!" - well, yes, I'd hope so, since you'd have to go out of your way to add those in...

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#112

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

bubsie wrote: post #105
Mistletoe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you implying humans evolved to only eat plants? Every documentary and paper on early humans I see points to otherwise, and that our large brain was directly a result of access to extra protein from hunting meat. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2008/04/eating-meat-l...

It's obvious that we ate meat as early humans, but the article and theory that meat evolved our brains is just that, a theory. There's also been theories that fire and cooking is more associated with brain development since we're able to absorb more nutrients from meat and tubers that we forged. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-fire-makes...

Hypothesis - not theory

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#113

Post by steve_adams_86 »

lambdaba wrote: post #95
vel0city wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are heaps of people who thrive strictly on plants who aren’t bloated or struggling to digest their food or get calories in.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#114

Post by DigiDigiorno »

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…

Does Germany not have an ingredient list on food products? Unfortunately it's usual full of things we didn't evolve to eat, but that's the place to look

Also, while actual plants are pretty great, the "plant based" products aren't imo. I find that they are very processed. They aren't throwing the "plant based" label on the salad mix. Every now and then it's put on something that was already plant-based prior to the fad, like falafel, but that's not the norm. The label in itself is tantamount to non-meats "other than what we humans evolved to eat"

Chimpanzee's still eat meat as part of their diet, they don't eat highly processed soy topped with thickener laden vegetable oils.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#115

Post by FeistySkink »

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

Some cow milk producers label cow milk as plant-based. What exactly is it supposed to mean?

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#116

Post by californical »

drewg123 wrote: post #104
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…

If you're not buying it because of the case where they're scared to label something which is vegan as such, then you're part of the problem and you're hurting veganism. What matters is reducing climate impact, reducing animal cruelty, and the health benefits. What doesn't matter is your feelings about labels. By boycotting such products, you're reducing their market, potentially causing them to drop their plant based…

Why would they be scared to label it if it’s actually vegan? I can understand someone who feels morally about something not wanting to take a chance on something that the producer isn’t willing to back with a proper label

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#117

Post by nine_k »

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…

I don't know how similar to humans are baboons. They are exactly the kind of omnivores [1] which savanna-inhabiting proto-humans are often described to be. They also hunt in organized groups, sometimes pretty large.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baboon#Habitat_and_prey

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#118

Post by lopis »

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…

Plant-based never meant the same as vegan, unless you're only talking about food. Plant-based is rarely used outside of food.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#119

Post by tshaddox »

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…

The quote you used says “food based on plants was the default.” Seems pretty deliberately worded to not claim that most humans never ate meat.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#120

Post by nradov »

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…

For much of pre-history it seems our diet may have been largely carnivorous.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247

Post reply on HN