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

101–110 of 210 posts

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#101

Post by aradox66 »

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…

Fungus foods are absolutely considered "plant-based" in the way this term is used. It just means "not-animal". Spirulina, chlorella, blue-algae would also definitely qualify.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#102

Post by rsynnott »

wlll wrote: post #87
scaredginger wrote: post #12

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…

I’m mid 40s, live in the uk and was a vegetarian for a year in the 90s. Vegetarian for me always meant something like “not eating meat”. Milk and eggs were seen by me and I believe the general consciousness as ok for the most part. I’d disagree that vegetarian has “come to mean” lacto-ovo, unless you’re talking about a time before the late 80s, or a different scene than the uk.

They are; ‘vegetarian’ in UK English used to mean approximately what ‘vegan’ does today, but it was at least a century ago.

AIUI, today in India it normally means lacto-vegetarian, so there’s definitely a regional component too.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#103

Post by roumenguha »

lmm wrote: post #9

For people who want to reduce meat consumption for environmentalist reasons, being strictly vegan would sometimes do more harm than good (e.g. almond "milk" involves more CO2 emissions than milk). So the concept of a meal that doesn't include large amounts of meat, without necessarily being vegan, is a valuable one.

More fun factoids:

https://imgur.com/a/d9m4VWU

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#104

Post by drewg123 »

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 offering, and making it more difficult for people to eat vegan. That, in turn, reduces the number of vegans and hurts everybody.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#105

Post by bubsie »

Mistletoe wrote: post #67
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…

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...

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#106

Post by blincoln »

koolhead17 wrote: post #23
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.

Why can it not be simple vegetarian?

Vegetarians typically eat a lot of food that isn't plant-based, and that vegans won't eat. Eggs, dairy, honey, etc.

Something that is literally only made from plant products is food that both vegetarians and (most) vegans would be comfortable eating, in the absence of any other dietary restrictions.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#107

Post by oblak »

lambdaba wrote: post #99
oblak wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I grew up in eastern Europe. Yes, meat was more expensive 30 years ago. These days, thanks to endless subsidies, meat is way cheaper than quality vegetables and most nuts.

And yet, people choose not to eat it. Earth shattering, I know. Damn, some people really get pissed off when you make the "wrong" choice of not eating meat.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#108

Post by rsynnott »

lmm wrote: post #9

For people who want to reduce meat consumption for environmentalist reasons, being strictly vegan would sometimes do more harm than good (e.g. almond "milk" involves more CO2 emissions than milk). So the concept of a meal that doesn't include large amounts of meat, without necessarily being vegan, is a valuable one.

You’re thinking of _water_ usage, not CO2, there. Though, even then the numbers are… dubious, and this factoid usually relies on comparing the worst-case for almonds (California, basically) with the best case for cows (un-irrigated pasture, little supplemental feed).

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#109

Post by atomack »

Mistletoe wrote: post #67
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…

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...

Here's an article citing research published this year that disputes the idea that our large brain was directly a result of access to extra protein from hunting meat:

"They concluded that the evidence for increased carnivory in our ancestors is merely an effect of increased sampling of the archaeological record at certain time intervals starting around two million years ago, meaning that there is no strong relationship between eating more meat and the evolution of larger brains in our ancestors."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/fourt...

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#110

Post by nine_k »

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…

Indeed, "animal-free" could look more cool. It also is more strict, and may get you sued.

Say, crepes with fruit jam are definitely plant-based, but they may not be animal-free: the jam may contain bits of gelatin, and the easiest way to make nice-looking crepes is to fry them on lard.

Post reply on HN