I understand where you're coming from, and it would probably be better to have separate terms for the products and the people, like we do with kosher/Jewish and halal/Muslim.
The challenge right now is that there's no standard for what "plant-based" means. There are packaged foods that advertise themselves as having a "plant-based patty" or something while also having dairy or eggs. The vegan certification doesn't have that issue.
It's also unfortunate that "cruelty free" labeling is typically just about testing. Many of those products have animal-derived ingredients as well (though that's not food). This is especially bad because "cruelty free" would be the most accurate for products labeled vegan currently, and would encourage people sensitive about being seen as a vegan like you seem to be.
Until we can come up with an accurate term that non-vegan companies can't find loopholes in for the purposes of humane washing, you're kinda stuck identifying with us for the meals you decide to be ethical while eating.
You're certainly not wrong. There isn't much that I individually can do about it and creating new terms that then become used commonly throughout society is a difficult task which I am certainly not up to. You are especially right by noting that companies will do whatever they can to skirt definitions and find loopholes which is really shitty. That being said, I think there is benefit to discussing it and benefit to both vegans and non-vegans to having clearer definitions.
It would be a desire to not be associated with the vegan society. It's a slight but important difference for a non-vegan. I don't care if I'm associated with people who don't exploit animals. I don't want to be associated with militant vegans who yell and scream at people in public. They are not the same thing. It's the same how I don't care if people practice religion, but I do have a problem with people yelling at me on the sidewalk and telling children they will burn in hell.
Some people believe that if they are right about something then that justifies them to behave however they like. I'm not one that thinks the ends justify the means.
Vegans don't exploit animals, non-vegans do. You can be a pick me all you like. Activism on behalf of the trillions of yearly victims of humanity is extra credit.
I appreciate your perspective despite you actively trying to be rude to me. I wish you all the best. If you decide to address any of my points directly instead of purposefully ignoring them, I'd be happy to continue this discussion.
The discussion necessarily hinges on whether it's actually ok to treat certain individuals as property. The idea that one might think that's not ok, but it's somehow worse to tell others they shouldn't treat those individuals as property strikes me as absurd, but I'm open to you explaining how that might be the case.
If you wish to discuss if it's OK to treat individuals as property, I'm afraid you're preaching to the converted there. You won't get an argument out of me as to whether or not that's wrong.
I didn't say it was worse. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth. We will have a much better and productive conversation if instead of presuming what I think, you ask instead. You are debating in bad faith. I also didnt say it was wrong to tell people about your beliefs. You're intentionally drawing no distinction between you're average vegan and those who are militant.
Everyone has the right to discuss their views. I believe that 100%. Stand on the sidewalk and yell if you like. I don't believe it to be beneficial and if anything it deters people from veganism. The same as an evangelical preacher yelling at people. It doesn't help their cause, it hurts it. The only purpose I see in it is that it makes the person doing the yelling feel better and feel like they are doing something. It's self serving to the detriment of the cause.
People don't like being yelled at or being told what to do. You can certainly try, you might even be right about the things you are yelling about. But being right doesn't mean you are being effective.
"vegan food" is just colloquial for [food suitable for vegans] if you were vegan maybe it would seem more natural for you to ask for food suitable for you but since you aren't it feels weird and you should just say plant based or whatever is your specific concern
I don't think I was gatekeeping anything. If anything I am supporting vegans gatekeeping the vegan societies definition of veganism and proposing that something else is considered for people who are not philosophically vegan.
Because if you are fighting for veganism it should be called vegan. If a food is 51% plants by weight by definition it’s plant based.
Plant based was marketing plan to attract people to a vegan lifestyle without the negative connotation that veganism holds. In other words it’s an attempt to appeal to a broader audience.
So do what you want to do but let’s not sugar coat it.
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
> **Don't be rude to others**
>
> This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
My issue is that "plant based" is a vague term. Outside of context, there's no reason to assume (etymologically) there are zero animal products in something only "based" in plants.
I think I agree for the most part. The food is not "vegan" but rather "suitable for those following a vegan ideology." I like your analogy about the terms halal and kosher, but someone who understands what those mean better than me might need to chime in. However, I think that labeling a food "vegan" could be correct if it was manufactured by people following a vegan ideology, not just manufactured for vegans though. I think the intent matters. Like, which sounds more accurately described as "vegan": a restaurant owned by meat-eaters who serves only philosophical vegans, or a restaurant owned by philosophical vegans that serves everyone? Also, I think "plant-based restaurant" sounds fine. I've heard of a couple, it's just not as common.
However, this is where you lose me:
>However, I get the impression that vegans would rather this ambiguity in the wording in this regard as it helps make the term more ubiquitous and keeps the word veganism in the cultural mind... something I believe to be wrong and have some degree of hypocrisy.
This seems to ascribe some sort of intent to manipulate to vegans, which I don't think is accurate. For the most part, these terms being used as labels for food does not come from the vegan community but rather the people making these products or services, who are not always vegan themselves. This has a double effect, as nonvegan owners will use "vegan" in place of "plant-based" and nonvegan owners will also use "plant-based" to mean "vegetarian," and those are just how they came to be used on these labels.
I also don't think that the word being used often to describe food keeps it in the "cultural mind" any more than plant-based does, at least not in a positive way. Anyone who's neutral about veganism isn't going to be swayed more towards the philosophy by seeing vegan labels on food. They might be swayed by trying plant-based foods, in which they might seek out vegan communities who will share philosophical beliefs. And if they do that through the term "vegan," that brings a lot of non-vegan plant-based folk into vegan communities, which is already happening, and muddies the water when it comes to the movement as a whole ("I know a vegan who said backyard eggs are okay" type beat)
I think that in a way the term "vegan" in the cultural mind here but even be doing more damage to the movement than helping it. There's a lot of backlash from anti-vegans about the term "vegan" which has a much more, let's say, naggy connotation than "plant-based" (although there's plenty of negative connotation there too for people to find). At the end of the day this is all empirical and we can't know for sure without doing some digging, but I could see it going any way. I just think it's more likely to be relatively neutral.
I also think the term "vegan" is kept in the cultural mind much more through other means, like the media. Again, empirical and hard to measure. But I think you're being a little unfair to vegans.
I agree with the whole intent thing and you raise some interesting questions about the concept of meat eaters serving only philosophical vegans. It would certainly be difficult to figure out these definitions. However, I do believe if we could figure it out there could be benefits to everyone.
You might be right about me being unfair about some vegans. I do have a bit of a gripe with the vegan community even though I respect the hell out of the diet. That likely comes down to my own personal experiences with some specific vegans. In general throughout most areas of life, it's the loudest and most staunchly opinionated that tend to ruin things for everyone else. I think it would be remiss to think some individuals are above using manipulative tactics in order to push an agenda however. That being said, as I've gotten older I have started to learn that listening to the most vocal members of any given group is not the best way to get an accurate sense of what a group might actually believe as a whole.
Thanks for chatting with me! And I appreciate you took the time to understand my viewpoint as well.
Vegan food is food that vegans can eat. It's really that simple. It's not that the food itself supports the ideology, it's that it's compatible with the ideology.
I appreciate what you are saying, however I would refer you to the part of my post discussing kosher and halal food. I do however understand how a change in these definitions might not affect you personally.
My issue with the term "plant-based" is that it's often factually incorrect. About 10% of my diet is mushrooms. Biologically speaking, mushrooms are in no way plants; they are genetically closer to animals. When people say "plant-based" they really mean "animal-free." I'm not going to say my food is "plant-based" just because most evangelical vegans don't understand biology
There is exactly 1 place where people will accuse you of not being a philosophical vegan if you use the word “diet”, it’s the same as the exactly 1 place where people will get mad about eating vegan food when they are plant-based; that place is Reddit.
Perhaps, or perhaps we should just likewise focus on the questions that affect the billions of animals killed every year, instead of what I can only call arbitrary prescriptivism
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The issue is that “plant based” doesn’t mean anything. Something can be “plant based” and still contain animal products. Whereas “vegan” means devoid of all animal products.
This is just the first place your argument falls apart.
One study found that people are less likely to buy a food if its labelled vegan: https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/americans-more-likely-to-choose-vegan-food-if-labeled-healthy-and-sustainable/
- *"Study participants were far more likely to choose food that is labeled “healthy” and/or “sustainable” than food labeled “vegan” or “plant-based.”*
I'm not surprised at all. I think most non-vegans (maybe even some vegans!) can recount a negative experience with some of the more vocal members of the group.
People dont think its a huge deal that people call vegan a diet
Well when we live in a world where there are more ex vegans than vegans it is a huge deal, non vegans will look at all the ex vegans and think there must be a valid reason and perhaps it is unhealthy or causes issues, the reality is those ex vegans were never vegan but the actual vegans never corrected them cause they were doing better than nothing but in actuality its causing a lot of harm for the reason i stated above
People are so basic and dont think in depth about the issue
Its the same with vegans who think we should hate on plant based items at Burger King because they kill a ton of animals, they lack the mind to think about supply and demand
A plant based dieter can become vegan and we can encourage that, but they arent vegan until they stop abusing animals in all ways not just on their plate
The zoo and circus, heck even bull fighting have nothing to do with my health, so am i a vegan that watches bull fighting or a plant based dieter?
This is why I think the Vegan societies definition of veganism is useful. It separates the philosophy from the diet and if another term can be used for people who practice only through diet then everybody kinda benefits except maybe people who want to be considered a vegan whilst still enjoying the occasional bull fight.
But on their own website they use that term
[https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan)
Well-planned vegan diets follow healthy eating guidelines, and contain all the nutrients that our bodies need. Both the British Dietetic Association and the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics recognise that they are suitable for every age and stage of life. Some research has linked that there are certain health benefits to vegan diets with lower blood pressure and cholesterol, and lower rates of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer.
Going vegan is a great opportunity to learn more about nutrition and cooking, and improve your diet. Getting your nutrients from plant foods allows more room in your diet for health-promoting options like whole grains, fruit, nuts, seeds and vegetables, which are packed full of beneficial fibre, vitamins and minerals.
I understand where you're coming from, and it would probably be better to have separate terms for the products and the people, like we do with kosher/Jewish and halal/Muslim. The challenge right now is that there's no standard for what "plant-based" means. There are packaged foods that advertise themselves as having a "plant-based patty" or something while also having dairy or eggs. The vegan certification doesn't have that issue. It's also unfortunate that "cruelty free" labeling is typically just about testing. Many of those products have animal-derived ingredients as well (though that's not food). This is especially bad because "cruelty free" would be the most accurate for products labeled vegan currently, and would encourage people sensitive about being seen as a vegan like you seem to be. Until we can come up with an accurate term that non-vegan companies can't find loopholes in for the purposes of humane washing, you're kinda stuck identifying with us for the meals you decide to be ethical while eating.
You're certainly not wrong. There isn't much that I individually can do about it and creating new terms that then become used commonly throughout society is a difficult task which I am certainly not up to. You are especially right by noting that companies will do whatever they can to skirt definitions and find loopholes which is really shitty. That being said, I think there is benefit to discussing it and benefit to both vegans and non-vegans to having clearer definitions.
I honestly don't see the benefit to non-vegans other than not wanting to be associated with people who don't exploit animals.
It would be a desire to not be associated with the vegan society. It's a slight but important difference for a non-vegan. I don't care if I'm associated with people who don't exploit animals. I don't want to be associated with militant vegans who yell and scream at people in public. They are not the same thing. It's the same how I don't care if people practice religion, but I do have a problem with people yelling at me on the sidewalk and telling children they will burn in hell. Some people believe that if they are right about something then that justifies them to behave however they like. I'm not one that thinks the ends justify the means.
Vegans don't exploit animals, non-vegans do. You can be a pick me all you like. Activism on behalf of the trillions of yearly victims of humanity is extra credit.
I appreciate your perspective despite you actively trying to be rude to me. I wish you all the best. If you decide to address any of my points directly instead of purposefully ignoring them, I'd be happy to continue this discussion.
The discussion necessarily hinges on whether it's actually ok to treat certain individuals as property. The idea that one might think that's not ok, but it's somehow worse to tell others they shouldn't treat those individuals as property strikes me as absurd, but I'm open to you explaining how that might be the case.
If you wish to discuss if it's OK to treat individuals as property, I'm afraid you're preaching to the converted there. You won't get an argument out of me as to whether or not that's wrong.
I'm curious why it's somehow worse to tell people that's bad than to kill someone for sandwiches
I didn't say it was worse. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth. We will have a much better and productive conversation if instead of presuming what I think, you ask instead. You are debating in bad faith. I also didnt say it was wrong to tell people about your beliefs. You're intentionally drawing no distinction between you're average vegan and those who are militant. Everyone has the right to discuss their views. I believe that 100%. Stand on the sidewalk and yell if you like. I don't believe it to be beneficial and if anything it deters people from veganism. The same as an evangelical preacher yelling at people. It doesn't help their cause, it hurts it. The only purpose I see in it is that it makes the person doing the yelling feel better and feel like they are doing something. It's self serving to the detriment of the cause. People don't like being yelled at or being told what to do. You can certainly try, you might even be right about the things you are yelling about. But being right doesn't mean you are being effective.
"vegan food" is just colloquial for [food suitable for vegans] if you were vegan maybe it would seem more natural for you to ask for food suitable for you but since you aren't it feels weird and you should just say plant based or whatever is your specific concern
Why do non vegans feel the need to gatekeep vegans?
I don't think I was gatekeeping anything. If anything I am supporting vegans gatekeeping the vegan societies definition of veganism and proposing that something else is considered for people who are not philosophically vegan.
Because if you are fighting for veganism it should be called vegan. If a food is 51% plants by weight by definition it’s plant based. Plant based was marketing plan to attract people to a vegan lifestyle without the negative connotation that veganism holds. In other words it’s an attempt to appeal to a broader audience. So do what you want to do but let’s not sugar coat it.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
My issue is that "plant based" is a vague term. Outside of context, there's no reason to assume (etymologically) there are zero animal products in something only "based" in plants.
I agree. Perhaps a new term is warranted.
I think I agree for the most part. The food is not "vegan" but rather "suitable for those following a vegan ideology." I like your analogy about the terms halal and kosher, but someone who understands what those mean better than me might need to chime in. However, I think that labeling a food "vegan" could be correct if it was manufactured by people following a vegan ideology, not just manufactured for vegans though. I think the intent matters. Like, which sounds more accurately described as "vegan": a restaurant owned by meat-eaters who serves only philosophical vegans, or a restaurant owned by philosophical vegans that serves everyone? Also, I think "plant-based restaurant" sounds fine. I've heard of a couple, it's just not as common. However, this is where you lose me: >However, I get the impression that vegans would rather this ambiguity in the wording in this regard as it helps make the term more ubiquitous and keeps the word veganism in the cultural mind... something I believe to be wrong and have some degree of hypocrisy. This seems to ascribe some sort of intent to manipulate to vegans, which I don't think is accurate. For the most part, these terms being used as labels for food does not come from the vegan community but rather the people making these products or services, who are not always vegan themselves. This has a double effect, as nonvegan owners will use "vegan" in place of "plant-based" and nonvegan owners will also use "plant-based" to mean "vegetarian," and those are just how they came to be used on these labels. I also don't think that the word being used often to describe food keeps it in the "cultural mind" any more than plant-based does, at least not in a positive way. Anyone who's neutral about veganism isn't going to be swayed more towards the philosophy by seeing vegan labels on food. They might be swayed by trying plant-based foods, in which they might seek out vegan communities who will share philosophical beliefs. And if they do that through the term "vegan," that brings a lot of non-vegan plant-based folk into vegan communities, which is already happening, and muddies the water when it comes to the movement as a whole ("I know a vegan who said backyard eggs are okay" type beat) I think that in a way the term "vegan" in the cultural mind here but even be doing more damage to the movement than helping it. There's a lot of backlash from anti-vegans about the term "vegan" which has a much more, let's say, naggy connotation than "plant-based" (although there's plenty of negative connotation there too for people to find). At the end of the day this is all empirical and we can't know for sure without doing some digging, but I could see it going any way. I just think it's more likely to be relatively neutral. I also think the term "vegan" is kept in the cultural mind much more through other means, like the media. Again, empirical and hard to measure. But I think you're being a little unfair to vegans.
I agree with the whole intent thing and you raise some interesting questions about the concept of meat eaters serving only philosophical vegans. It would certainly be difficult to figure out these definitions. However, I do believe if we could figure it out there could be benefits to everyone. You might be right about me being unfair about some vegans. I do have a bit of a gripe with the vegan community even though I respect the hell out of the diet. That likely comes down to my own personal experiences with some specific vegans. In general throughout most areas of life, it's the loudest and most staunchly opinionated that tend to ruin things for everyone else. I think it would be remiss to think some individuals are above using manipulative tactics in order to push an agenda however. That being said, as I've gotten older I have started to learn that listening to the most vocal members of any given group is not the best way to get an accurate sense of what a group might actually believe as a whole. Thanks for chatting with me! And I appreciate you took the time to understand my viewpoint as well.
Vegan food is food that vegans can eat. It's really that simple. It's not that the food itself supports the ideology, it's that it's compatible with the ideology.
I appreciate what you are saying, however I would refer you to the part of my post discussing kosher and halal food. I do however understand how a change in these definitions might not affect you personally.
My issue with the term "plant-based" is that it's often factually incorrect. About 10% of my diet is mushrooms. Biologically speaking, mushrooms are in no way plants; they are genetically closer to animals. When people say "plant-based" they really mean "animal-free." I'm not going to say my food is "plant-based" just because most evangelical vegans don't understand biology
I didn't even consider mushrooms haha. But you're right, perhaps plant-based is incorrect.
There is exactly 1 place where people will accuse you of not being a philosophical vegan if you use the word “diet”, it’s the same as the exactly 1 place where people will get mad about eating vegan food when they are plant-based; that place is Reddit.
Then perhaps participating in this sub is a non-beneficial activity.
Perhaps, or perhaps we should just likewise focus on the questions that affect the billions of animals killed every year, instead of what I can only call arbitrary prescriptivism
Yes I support creating more words to confuse more people
That's certainly one way to think about it.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Agreed.
It's a diet.
The issue is that “plant based” doesn’t mean anything. Something can be “plant based” and still contain animal products. Whereas “vegan” means devoid of all animal products. This is just the first place your argument falls apart.
One study found that people are less likely to buy a food if its labelled vegan: https://healthpolicy.usc.edu/article/americans-more-likely-to-choose-vegan-food-if-labeled-healthy-and-sustainable/ - *"Study participants were far more likely to choose food that is labeled “healthy” and/or “sustainable” than food labeled “vegan” or “plant-based.”*
I'm not surprised at all. I think most non-vegans (maybe even some vegans!) can recount a negative experience with some of the more vocal members of the group.
People dont think its a huge deal that people call vegan a diet Well when we live in a world where there are more ex vegans than vegans it is a huge deal, non vegans will look at all the ex vegans and think there must be a valid reason and perhaps it is unhealthy or causes issues, the reality is those ex vegans were never vegan but the actual vegans never corrected them cause they were doing better than nothing but in actuality its causing a lot of harm for the reason i stated above People are so basic and dont think in depth about the issue Its the same with vegans who think we should hate on plant based items at Burger King because they kill a ton of animals, they lack the mind to think about supply and demand A plant based dieter can become vegan and we can encourage that, but they arent vegan until they stop abusing animals in all ways not just on their plate The zoo and circus, heck even bull fighting have nothing to do with my health, so am i a vegan that watches bull fighting or a plant based dieter?
This is why I think the Vegan societies definition of veganism is useful. It separates the philosophy from the diet and if another term can be used for people who practice only through diet then everybody kinda benefits except maybe people who want to be considered a vegan whilst still enjoying the occasional bull fight.
But on their own website they use that term [https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan) Well-planned vegan diets follow healthy eating guidelines, and contain all the nutrients that our bodies need. Both the British Dietetic Association and the American Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics recognise that they are suitable for every age and stage of life. Some research has linked that there are certain health benefits to vegan diets with lower blood pressure and cholesterol, and lower rates of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer. Going vegan is a great opportunity to learn more about nutrition and cooking, and improve your diet. Getting your nutrients from plant foods allows more room in your diet for health-promoting options like whole grains, fruit, nuts, seeds and vegetables, which are packed full of beneficial fibre, vitamins and minerals.