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

151–160 of 210 posts

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#151

Post by chc »

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.

Even just in terms of actual meaning, "vegan" implies more than "plant-based." There are products that are unquestionably plant-based, but many vegans don't consider them to be in line with vegan ethics. For example, palm oil is literally from a plant and could be vegan, but in practice, the process of getting palm oil usually involves unnecessarily killing and maiming local primates, so many vegans do not consider it to be vegan.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#152

Post by weakfortress »

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…

> plant based was the default

My canine teeth tell a different story. Meat was eaten when it was available. Certainly they also ate berries and what not as cavemen. However, it wasn't like grug, or medieval grug, went out of their way to eat 3 square meals consisting of mostly vegetables. Grains, probably. But vegetables were often times as much of a luxury as meat.

"Beyond meat" etc are all poisons as far as I am concerned. To turn vegetables into a meat-like substitute requires some seance with dark magic. Their entire marketing gimmick is to compare it to Tofu. Tofu is minimally processed. Beyond meat and things like it are typically processed more than your average bag of potato chips.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#153

Post by hombre_fatal »

sudden_dystopia wrote: post #131
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe so, but protein is a different story. How many professional athletes are true vegans for extended periods outside of Tom Brady, who is kind of psycho to begin with.

That doesn’t say anything though since there are so few vegans to begin with. Protein is also trivial to supplement.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#154

Post by weakfortress »

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…

> a lot of early vegan meat alternatives were ghastly

I think most people dislike vegan food because vegans eat it. Not because of the food. Vegans have done a number on their appearance to the public. Most people seem to have the same experience: how do you know someone is a vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you! (and chastise you for wanting to eat a steak)

When I was in college every holiday, like clockwork, a brigade of vegans would descend on campus and hand out flyers explaining how problematic it was eating meat. You do that enough times and people just avoid anything associated with you out of spite.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#155

Post by chc »

dmitriid wrote: post #22
edent wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do meat eaters disguise things as burgers, sausages, and nuggets?

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.

Those are not the natural forms of any animal's meat any more than they are the natural forms of vegetables. What you actually seem to be saying is "How dare vegetarians prepare their food in similar ways to how I do?"

The idea that vegans are being sneaky with their foods is kind of funny considering the usual reputation of vegans is best captured in the joke "How do you know if someone is a vegan? Don't worry, they will tell you."

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#156

Post by ebiester »

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!

There are a few reasons.

First, it suggests a preparation that is reminiscent of a food that people enjoyed before they stopped eating animal products. This means that the spices and texture will be similar. That's an indication for both vegetarians and non-vegetarians to expect a texture, condiment, and spice experience.

Second, it's not about disguising foods as other things; it's about combining foods. Falafel isn't fake meat, but it's ground chickpea (or fava bean in some cases) flour. Meatballs aren't somehow lesser because it's ground meat, no? As such, the thought of ground beans or other combinations into patties isn't somehow any more deceptive or disguised as ground meat. We transform food in all sorts of novel ways - that doesn't mean it's disguised because it is a substitute for other purposes.

Third, while vegans eat a lot of vegetables and mushrooms and beans, most people don't want every meal to be that. We crave variety in general, and a lot of plated vegetable plates are out of place at a barbecue or restaurant. So, it helps when things look in place.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#157

Post by inkcapmushroom »

Accacin wrote: post #24
CivBase wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but vegan is a dirty word for some people, likely because a lot of the early vegan meat alternatives were ghastly Probably more to do with stereotypes of vegans themselves - ie. condescending, arrogant, self-righteous hippies. As a non-vegan, I think a lot of vegan food is actually really good. But as a rule of thumb I avoid vegan dishes that use substitutes for traditionally non-vegan dishes.

Being serious, but have you ever met one of these vegans? I've definitely heard about them online, but every vegan I've ever met have been nothing alike. I've often been happily surprised to find someone who I'd been chatting to was also vegan as it didn't even come up before we'd ordered food and they go for a vegan dish.

I have. Took a tour of a sustainable co-op farm one time, which had dairy goats and cows, and chickens. One person asked, "When the cows are old and you kill them for their meat, do you think they want to die?" Well of course they don't, but unfortunately these farmers don't have the spring of eternal youth so the cows are going to die at some point, might as well not let the meat go to waste. In my eyes the sustainable farmers were certainly doing a lot more than that guy to reduce the amount of suffering they put out into the world, but he had a definite smug satisfaction with his question.

(I will agree generally that vegans are mostly great people, but like any group of people in existence ever there are those no so great people among them)

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#158

Post by layer8 »

nine_k wrote: post #138
layer8 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but the non-rational parts of the brain aren’t good with negation. Reading “animal”, even when suffixed by “-free”, the brain feels it doesn’t want that thing with “animal” on it. Better give it something with “plant” on it.

Why? "Animal-free" means that animals are free, not taking part in the food.

It’s a priming effect. Once your brain sees “animal”, it associates the product or label with animals right away, before higher-level linguistic processing, an association which then has to be undone by the “-free”. That undoing is time-delayed and incomplete.

One common analogy is how when someone says “don’t think of X”, it’s hard to not think of X.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#159

Post by hombre_fatal »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #130
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.

Veganism = reduce animal suffering as much as possible. Why do you think it's extreme not wanting to cause animal death and suffering? On the other hand you could also argue that veganism attracts people who want to move away from the extremes of the animal and dairy industry, which contributes massively to our carbon footprint and biosphere destruction on top of causing unnecessary animal suffering.

Merely having a countervailing ethics framework is extreme to most people.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#160

Post by inkcapmushroom »

imw wrote: post #79
mathieuh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently became vegan, and I compare it to being straight-edge (i.e. not taking drugs). I don’t think there is a moral aspect to taking drugs, and I disagree with the way straight-edge people invent one and talk down to people who take drugs. However, I do think there is a moral aspect to using animal products when other options exist. But, I also wasn’t vegan for most of my life, so I don’t think it’s for me to te…

In my experience, what does work is to lead with joy. I've found so much new life and enjoyment in my cooking since I went vegan. Cooking delicious food and sharing it with people is sometimes the best we can do.

Yes, convince them to try roasted brussels sprouts or chicken fried tofu. That will change minds far quicker than preaching will.
Post reply on HN