Distinction between Plant Based and Vegan

[silva]

I have experienced this division after joining a plant based group on facebook, I had hoped it was just the adversity that facebook creates, but it seems it's a growing trend- eating plant based for health and having contempt for vegans who care more about ethics than avoiding processed foods.
Yes, I'm glad more people are avoiding animal products, but I still feel____?

It’s Called ‘Plant-Based,’ Look It Up - The New York Times

www.nytimes.com

 

[Nekodaiden]

That's actually a fair article. Two relevant quotes that stick out to me :

Thomas Colin Campbell, the Cornell University biochemist who claims responsibility for coining the term plant-based, said he came up with the phrase to help present his research on diet to skeptical colleagues at the National Institutes of Health in 1980.

“I wanted to emphasize that my work and ideas were coming totally from science and not any sort of ethical or philosophical consideration,” he said.
Mr. Campbell now advocates a “whole food plant-based diet,” which he termed to draw a distinction between more nutritious whole plants and processed food products such as veggie burgers. He said he’s noticed the term catch on since the release of the 2016 edition of his book “The China Study,” which summarized his findings from a survey of 6,500 Chinese people on their eating and other lifestyle habits. The study’s results suggested that following a plant-based diet may help reduce the risk of certain cancers and diseases.

“The Game Changers,” a documentary released on Netflix in 2019 about plant-based diets and athletic performance, has both broadened the appeal of plant-based diets and drawn criticism for some of its health claims.

According to Joseph Pace, a producer and writer on the film, the vegan and vegetarian movements carry connotations of New Agey-types or PETA activists, which don’t always resonate with male viewers.

...or some female viewers.

There are, unfortunately, several popular/well known vegans on youtube (and even here) that push the mantra that a motive (animal welfare) that guides the action (abstinence) is the primary or even only consideration that matters in taking on the 'vegan' label. However, the person who coined the term 'vegan' actually did define it (despite what the lying UK Vegan Society says) as one of dietary exclusion as it's first and only rule. I think he was wise in doing this because it makes it very simple to understand what being a vegan is. Once people have taken this step, they can, as their conscience dictates, further restrict as they see fit. However, it is not likely they would have ever taken extra steps had they not taken the first dietary step.

Also, people can smell when someone is trying to draw attention to themselves or grandstanding/virtue signaling on a moral basis, and unless they already see the person doing so as some sort of leader whom they intend to follow, they tend to dislike it. This isn't to minimize that going vegan/plant based has moral implications (good ones), but not everyone is going to be convinced on these reasons to take the initial action. Some, clouded by philosophical or religious reasons, may never be convinced on such grounds.

 

[Mischief]

I have experienced this division after joining a plant based group on facebook, I had hoped it was just the adversity that facebook creates, but it seems it's a growing trend- eating plant based for health and having contempt for vegans who care more about ethics than avoiding processed foods.
Yes, I'm glad more people are avoiding animal products, but I still feel____?

It’s Called ‘Plant-Based,’ Look It Up - The New York Times

www.nytimes.com

Yeah, I just had an argument about that with someone on the other (not veg*n) board I frequent.

Someone had started a thread asking for ideas for a dish she could serve to vegan guests at a big party she is going to be hosting. This other woman jumped in to announce that she "eats mostly vegan" (she eats fish), that no one has the right to expect "special" food (the host is doing this on her own initiative, not because anyone made any requests), and that she doesn't understand why anyone who doesn't want to eat "the real thing" would ever want to eat "fake" meat, milk, etc.

I told her that vegans don't eat animals or animal products for ethical reasons, not because they don't like the taste, that many people find familiar food comforting, and that eating meat substitutes doesn't make anyone an iota less vegan.

I also pointed out that plant milks and meat substitutes have been used in a number of cultures for more than a thousand years longer than the term "vegan" has been, and that her disdain was both misplaced and culturally ignorant.

Then someone else jumped in and asserted that veganism is purely a dietary choice and has nothing to do with non-dietary animal products, animals generally, or their treatment. I cited both the Vegan Society's definition and some dictionary definitions.

Then they both shut up.

 

[silva]

What worries me is the dilution of the term vegan, and the animosity towards those who avoid animal products, testing or use, based on ethics that doesn't meet their whole food, health food definition. I've found it worse than any thing I come across from omnis
Some plant based eaters, born from the docs like Game Changers and What the Health, have far more hate of the release of vegan fast food and prefer people eat "the real thing".
Honestly, in real life this has been fleeting - the ones that had a Eureka! moment had it pass, but while it lasted, I'd been critiqued and taunted. The vegan diet condemned as only caring about animals-from those who shunned meat for produce, at least temporarily

 

[nobody]

Some plant based eaters, born from the docs like Game Changers and What the Health, have far more hate of the release of vegan fast food and prefer people eat "the real thing".

Game Changers is actually really pro fake animal products and promotes them in almost every scene in the movie and has them in every meal on the meal plan:

Meal Plan | The Game Changers

gamechangersmovie.com

 

[nobody]

However, the person who coined the term 'vegan' actually did define it (despite what the lying UK Vegan Society says) as one of dietary exclusion as it's first and only rule. I think he was wise in doing this because it makes it very simple to understand what being a vegan is.

What if someone does not eat anything that lists animal products as ingredients but does eat fake meat cooked on a shared grill with real meat or dark chocolate that does not list any animal products as ingredients but does have one of these warnings:

Read ‘May’ as ‘Likely’
To inform consumers that dark chocolate products may contain milk even if not intentionally added, many chocolate manufacturers print “advisory” messages on the label. There’s quite a variety of advisory messages, such as:

• “may contain milk”
• “may contain dairy”
• “may contain traces of milk”
• “made on equipment shared with milk”
• “processed in a plant that processes dairy”
• “manufactured in a facility that uses milk”

FDA found that milk was present in 3 out of every 4 dark chocolate products with one of these advisory statements. Some products had milk levels as high as those found in products that declared the presence of milk.

Allergic to Milk? Some Dark Chocolate Labeled as Dairy-Free May Still Contain Milk | FDA

www.fda.gov

Is that person a vegan under the Watson definition?

 

[Nekodaiden]

What if someone does not eat anything that lists animal products as ingredients but does eat fake meat cooked on a shared grill with real meat or dark chocolate that does not list any animal products as ingredients but does have one of these warnings:

Allergic to Milk? Some Dark Chocolate Labeled as Dairy-Free May Still Contain Milk | FDA

www.fda.gov

Is that person a vegan under the Watson definition?

I think that in the case of "may contain" in light of the statement you made bold, I'd say no, since it's clear that "traces" and "may" aren't really accurate labels if the FDA finding stands. I would rather say it doesn't matter, or matter much, because usually one would think it's either likely absent or present in such a small degree that it's not worthy of consideration. Except that, if small or tiny amounts are " o k " where does it stop? A packaged product may contain something like 0.5% of cheese powder, by accident of the manufacturing process, hardly a consideration in the scheme of things, but there are people that will use the implied principle and extend it to other things with larger amounts.

For me personally, I've always gone by the rule that if it's listed in the ingredients, even in small amounts, I don't purchase. This has come up frequently on several packaged items that either contain milk or cheese powder when there is simply no need for them. I just don't purchase them. Would I judge a person as "not vegan" if they did when the amounts were minuscule? Not necessarily, but I would wonder if the lax attitude extended
to other things that contained more than a minuscule amount of animal product.

 

[Gaspard]

Well you should read : Vegan News No 1. That's the first vegan magazine. And Watson was obviously in it for ethical reasons .

 

[Bob Who]

When I first read the FDA update last week, my take away was that even products that had no milk labeling, warning, or claiming to be vegan, could have milk in them. A person who lives in the US and wants to avoid even small amounts of milk, regardless of their motivation, can't trust the label information.

My personal choice was to avoid anything that read, " may contain" because I was fairly certain that it meant it did. I've worked in production settings before and while food processing equipment should be thoroughly cleaned between product runs, I can think of a lot of reasons why that wouldn't be the case.

On a side note: Does anyone know of any vegan chocolate products that are made by companies or on equipment exclusively for vegan products?

 

[shyvas]

On a side note: Does anyone know of any vegan chocolate products that are made by companies or on equipment exclusively for vegan products?

Plamil: Chocolate: Vegan, Dairy Free, Gluten Free, No Nuts, Free From

Plamil chocolate: our vegan, dairy free and gluten free chocolate is sumptuous tasting with a superfine texture that just melts in the mouth, manufactured in our 'no nuts used here' factory. 'Free from' chocolate at it's best!

www.plamilfoods.co.uk

 

[Brian W]

The original meaning of the word vegan related only to diet. We don't go around deliberately changing the definitions of other words. "Carn" in carnivore means animal flesh and "Veg" in both vegetarian and vegan means vegetables. That is all it means! If you want a word for an animal rights believer, invent your own. This distinction between vegan and plant based is unnecessary and petty.

 

[Mischief]

If Watson believed that diet alone was what mattered, then he certainly didn't create veganism. The concept of not eating flesh, eggs or milk for the good of the body and the spirit existed long before he did. All he did was to put an English name on the concept.

 

[Lou]

The original meaning of the word vegan related only to diet. We don't go around deliberately changing the definitions of other words.

Of course, we do.
But besides, its a "made up" word that describes a concept. The "new" definition was written and voted on by the members of the vegan society. These are exactly the guys who get to change the meaning. If it helps think of it as their mission statement.

 

[Lou]

When I first read the FDA update last week, my take away was that even products that had no milk labeling, warning, or claiming to be vegan, could have milk in them. A person who lives in the US and wants to avoid even small amounts of milk, regardless of their motivation, can't trust the label information.

My personal choice was to avoid anything that read, " may contain" because I was fairly certain that it meant it did. I've worked in production settings before and while food processing equipment should be thoroughly cleaned between product runs, I can think of a lot of reasons why that wouldn't be the case.

On a side note: Does anyone know of any vegan chocolate products that are made by companies or on equipment exclusively for vegan products?

I absolutely don't worry about "may contain". It's just contamination. It's not going to affect your health unless you have a severe allergy. And it certainly doesn't cause any more animals to be killed.

Sure I would like to live in a world where labels don't say "may contain". But for now, I live in this one.

 

[Bob Who]

In my case it isn't a matter of health, I know it won't hurt me--I'm not allergic to milk. To me, especially if it claims to be a vegan product--it's a matter of my personal choice to buy that product over another. If lab tests would show it was contaminated--I veiw it as consumer fraud.

To be honest about it, I don't know why I actually try to avoid it, but I choose to eat an animal product- free diet, so that's what I want to do. I haven't knowingly purchased other things that I know have animal products in them, leather shoes etc, but I still have things made from leather I have a lot of old stuff, like a pair of combat boots I got new in '76...and I don't buy new clothes very often anyway. I still don't think of myself as an ethical vegan.

Shyvas,

Thanks for the Plamil link, wasn't familiar with that.

 

[shyvas]

In my case it isn't a matter of health, I know it won't hurt me--I'm not allergic to milk. To me, especially if it claims to be a vegan product--it's a matter of my personal choice to buy that product over another. If lab tests would show it was contaminated--I veiw it as consumer fraud.

To be honest about it, I don't know why I actually try to avoid it, but I choose to eat an animal product- free diet, so that's what I want to do. I haven't knowingly purchased other things that I know have animal products in them, leather shoes etc, but I still have things made from leather I have a lot of old stuff, like a pair of combat boots I got new in '76...and I don't buy new clothes very often anyway. I still don't think of myself as an ethical vegan.

Shyvas,

Thanks for the Plamil link, wasn't familiar with that.

You're welcome. Here is some useful information concerning Plamil :

Plamil Foods Ltd is a British manufacturer of vegan food products. Founded in 1965, the company sells soy milk, horchata, egg-free mayonnaise, chocolate and carob bars. ... Plamil became the first company in the UK, and one of the first in the Western world, to make soy milk widely available.
Products: Vegan goods
Founded: 1956 as the Plantmilk Society, 1965 ...
Headquarters: Folkestone, Kent, England
Founder: Leslie J. Cross, C. Arthur Ling

 

[Nekodaiden]

Of course, we do.
But besides, its a "made up" word that describes a concept. The "new" definition was written and voted on by the members of the vegan society. These are exactly the guys who get to change the meaning. If it helps think of it as their mission statement.

You either didn't watch the linked video or disbelieve the research it contains. Watson was kicked from the organisation he himself started, his title stripped from him, and the definition of vegan changed by the ursurping group in power. Then it was changed numerous times over the years. They also drove membership into the ground.

This is reflected in the OP's concern. Vegan's with animal right's focus aren't necessarily doing a bad thing. However they don't reach everyone, and they/their message can be off-putting to some. A philosophy that doesn't allow one to ride a horse, or rid oneself of a rodent problem isn't going to resonate with everyone. Hence we have "plant based" coined purely for science reasons, and people who separate themselves from vegans because of associative factors. According to Watson, all these people are actually vegan if they abstain from animal foods in their diet.

 

[nobody]

Except that, if small or tiny amounts are " o k " where does it stop?

I don't see it as small amounts being okay, I see it as contamination being okay. There is a list of ingredients and there is a list of animal products the food may contain due to shared equipment. The dividing line between these two lists is where it stops. Animal products in the "may contain" list are okay and animal products in the ingredient list are not. That's my rule about what is acceptable and what keeps me from slipping into omnivorism, not Donald Watson's rule about what is denoted by his word. He may have never even thought about shared equipment.

The Cross vegans have thought about it and they seem to be alright with contaminated food being labeled vegan if it is impossible to avoid contamination, I guess because they don't see contamination as being exploitive of animals.

The Vegan Society is not against foods labelled as vegan also carrying a ‘may contain’ warning about animal allergens.

Vegan Living | Allergen labelling | Vegan food

www.vegansociety.com

Plant based people probably don't care about contamination at all because it's irrelevant as far as health in most cases, but I just brought it up because I don't mind eating food that is contaminated due to shared equipment and apparently because of this I do not qualify as a Watson vegan, which I find interesting. It's possibly one way that Watson veganism differs from "plant based-ism".

 

[nobody]

Well you should read : Vegan News No 1. That's the first vegan magazine. And Watson was obviously in it for ethical reasons .

Correct but there was no animal exploitation language in the definition so what you ate was the only criterion determining if you were vegan or not - not your motivations or anything else. Here is a list of the definitions given for the word veganism over the years:

Vegan Society Today

vegansociety.today

 

[nobody]

This distinction between vegan and plant based is unnecessary and petty.

Per the list of definitions in the link I posted above, veganism always came with an encouragement (but not a requirement) to use alternatives to non-food animal products, such as leather. Plant based-ism never had any such encouragements. So if you want your lifestyle to have nothing whatsoever to do with animal rights, even as far as its encouragements, then you want to be plant based rather than Watson vegan.