Well, apples are plants, and the adjective "vegan", when applied to foods, basically just means "plants and fungi", so, by definition, yes. Trivially yes.
But an apple isn't a very interesting case. What's more interesting is what TFA is talking about: an increase in orders of entire meals that contain no animal products from restaurants. It wasn't that long ago that it wasn't even possible to do such a thing at the vast majority of restaurants in Western countries. It may not indicate an increase in the number of people who eat mostly or only vegan food, but it certainly indicates changing attitudes about what qualifies as a proper meal.
The interesting thing is vegan/vegetarian _full meals_, which I'd guess is a much lower percentage.
If a takeaway menu picks out those options that are entirely meat free, and also free of animal fats etc. They'll label that as vegan regardless of knowing or declining if a non-vegan orders it. Maybe they just like that dish.
I quite often do order vegan dishes, Indian takeaways especially, despite remaining a meat eater overall.
Still humorous though, reminds me of the bleach drinking memes.
Depending on how strict you are, plastic isn't vegan. The crude oil used could be considered an animal byproduct, as it is possibly derived from prehistoric animals ;)
In my opinion if restaurant offers only apples as the "vegan option" i think it's correct to call it vegan food. But since i guess vegan is not well defined property of food, as it's more commonly used to describe the people practising veganism, i'd draw the line in "food served or prepared that adheres vegan principles".
Unless that apple is an animal byproduct, yes, technically it is vegan (as are all other fruits and vegetables). Realistically though, no one calls single pieces of fruits and vegetables vegan, it's more commonly used to refer to dishes
>I think it's more accurate to call food "vegan" when it's being eaten by someone who is respecting vegan principles.
So if I order and eat Thai food it is American food because I'm American, but if I was Thai it would be Thai food?
>What I mean to say is that I think "vegan food" is defined by the eater, not the makeup of the food.
By definition, it is defined by the makeup of the food
A lot of the debate under your comment is stemming from the difference between vegan people and vegan food.
In French we have three words. Vegatarien, Vegetalien, Vegan. Vegetalien means vegan but it's only used in the context of what food the person eats. While vegan was more about the lifestyle and not wearing leather/fur, etc. Although recently the term vegan is used for food more and more, it's simpler.
I don't see why all traditional dishes that don't contain animals products should suddenly be labeled vegan. They are suitable for vegan people but I don't want veganism to hijack traditional cultures.
Yes, that is the definition of vegan as a noun. As an adjective vegan is describing food using or containing no animal products
i.e. traditional dishes that don't contain animal products are technically vegan, just like all other dishes that don't contain animal products
It's absolutely not hijacking traditional culture. I'm not mandating they call that dish vegan, I'm not saying that it is an american vegan dish, I'm simply saying that there are plenty of traditional dishes that are vegan by definition. Hummus, as an example
If your family just happens to make a 4-bean salad without meat, then for you that’s omnivorous.
If I make the exact same salad, but my family growing up typically would have put bacon in it, then that same salad becomes “vegan food” because for me it’s a contrivance.
It’s a relativistic definition of what’s vegan and what’s not.
There are many, many traditional dishes that do not contain meat or even any animal products. I see no reason to suddenly label them "vegetarian" or "vegan".
But when people work hard to make a burger without any animal products then it does make some sense to call the result "vegan food" in that it was made specifically to suit vegan people.
Partially correct.
Vegan, the noun, refers to a person who does not eat or use animal products.
Vegan, the adjective, means using or containing no animal products.
>There are many, many traditional dishes that do not contain meat or even any animal products. I see no reason to suddenly label them "vegetarian" or "vegan".
They are vegan by definition
>But when people work hard to make a burger without any animal products then it does make some sense to call the result "vegan food" in that it was made specifically to suit vegan people.
Perhaps that is your modern interpretation of what "vegan" means, but it is not accurate. Hummus, for example, is a vegan dish regardless of having never contained animal products, and regardless of whether or not the person eating it is vegan.
If you call anything that isn't carnivore food as "vegan" food, then you're labelling like 90% of our food as "vegan". That's obviously ridiculous, so I think it's more accurate to call food "vegan" when it's being eaten by someone who is respecting vegan principles.
What I mean to say is that I think "vegan food" is defined by the eater, not the makeup of the food.
Edit: I would like to understand what I could have changed about my comment if you felt it did not contribute to the discussion.