In my experience in shops in the UK at least, there will always be a little “vegan” logo stuck on the packet as well
If the term has a chance of avoiding the treadmill I suspect it'd be due to the awkwardness of identifying as such. "Vegan" can apply to both food and the people who consume just that food, but I don't see people calling themselves "plant-based" anytime soon. The tribal aspect of the context is potentially greatly diminished by removing that explicit identity.
I've never really thought about it, but I assumed 'plant-based' was for products like cream that would have dairy and non-dairy alternative.
Saying 'vegan' might imply it's only for vegans where plant based just means 'non-dairy' and might be billed as more inclusive.
I'm not too concerned about it also possibly including eggs, as I always check for vegan icon or read ingredients.
Honey, on the other hand, I don't understand a moral objection to, but also who cares if somebody doesn't want to eat honey?
Maybe honey is extreme, but watch a youtube video of them shredding male live chicks that won't lay eggs so aren't useful is the closest thing to hell i've ever seen.
Hens will lay eggs. That's what they do naturally and if those eggs are not fertilised they will rot and decay.
In veganism you cannot eat those eggs no matter how pampered the hens are.
That's obviously a personal decision, which I respect, but it should also be understandable that many people find this extreme (and not eating honey even more extreme).
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.
That's a (lazy) strawman.
If you want to make a constructive reply I will gladly engage with it.
If you look up the actual definition of veganism - it's all about not wanting to cause unnecessary suffering and destruction [0]
We live in a time where we don't need meat anymore to survive. Yes there are still regions of humans who need to hunt and farm animals as it's their only means of survival.
But I'm talking about us living in the western world who rely mostly on factory animal farms to provide meat and dairy. There are numerous studies that clearly show feeding the world with animal meat is not sustainable [1]
So what is extreme about not wanting to cause animal suffering and not wanting to support a food system that contributes heavily to biosphere destruction?
Where is the (lazy) strawman?
Again - genuine question.
[0] https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
[1] Just one of those studies: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-06-01-new-estimates-environme... Many more from the UN and other universities.
I understood your comment as saying that veganism is seen as an extreme act.
But veganism is far from that. Veganism isn't dogmatic. It's pragmatic as per the official definition.
E.g. if you are on a hike and you get lost and have to survive by hunting, even though you usually don't eat animals - you could still call yourself vegan - because you need to hunt to survive.
Or something simpler - if you have your own chickens and eat their eggs and you don't intend to slaughter the chickens later on- I'd class that as vegan, because you're not harming the chickens.
But I agree with you - people who promote veganism as a dogmatic philosophy can be seen as extreme.
You cannot make your own definition of 'veganism' as you go, that makes any discussion impossible even without your strawman argument.
What you describe here is not veganism (no animal products at all, including things like honey), it's a common flavour of vegetarianism (no killing of animals).
In the definition of 'veganism' you quoted from the Vegan Society, there is 'exploitation'. Veganism sees eating eggs or honey as exploitation no matter how well treated the animals are, which is why it is off-limits. That same goes with wearing wool, for instance.
There are vegans who have rescue chickens (from factory farms) and they do eat their eggs. The rescue chickens are given a happy life where they can roam freely in a garden.
It's a different matter when it comes to milk - which is intended for the baby cow.
Same with honey - it's actually being eaten by bees and you can't replace it with sugar water, as it has fewer nutrients for the bees.
Edit: When it comes to wool, there are vegans who still wear their wool or leather items from their pre-vegan days. You wouldn't simply throw them away - you just don't buy new wool or leather products.
Keyword here is pragmatism.
If people don't even know and understand terms and philosophies/ideologies then there is nothing that can be discussed.
In any case, best wishes for the new year.
As with many other communities - the vegan community is not homogeneous. Like I said before - yes there are some people within this community who are dogmatic, but that doesn't mean veganism is dogmatic.
The core principle of veganism is not wanting to harm non-human sentient beings and generally not wanting to destroy our biosphere.
So if someone strives to live by those principles, but still has to use products that contain animal products, e.g. if you need to take medication that contains gelatin or similar and there are no alternatives then it's OK - it's not dogmatic.
Further down this article there are various other examples: https://veganfta.com/2022/11/23/practicable-veganism/
Or here is another article talking about this: https://veganstrategist.org/2017/09/13/beware-vegan-dogma/ - this person wrote a book called "How to Create a Vegan World: a Pragmatic Approach".
The goals is to get rid of animal factory farming and the destruction of our biosphere. Dogmatism isn't going to get us there.
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.
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 tell other people they are immoral, because that probably won’t get me very far in convincing them.
Not sure if anyone else has had any thoughts like this, I’d be interested to hear how they reconciled this in their own minds, it’s still unresolved for me personally.
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 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)
I have met several vegans, and they are not condescending, arrogant etc.. To me, they are the good people who cares about environment, climate, and morals. So, imo vegans who are condescending, arrogants, self-righteous hippes represent minority of populations. People are just making a broad generalizations, which is not a good idea.
That being said I agree with you, many people associate vegans with condescending ... But, this applies every other matter like climate change, slavery. In fact my neighbor views climate activists as condesending, arrogant and self-righteous hippes. Those neighbor thinks climate activists doesn't deserve to light up their house because electricity consumes fossil fuels ....
Lastly, dairy and meat industry have put so much money, vegans will definitely look bad in TV, social media etc.. In fact, my uncle think all vegans are malnourished.
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.
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.
Market it as plant-based all you want but mention if it’s vegan or not somewhere, even on your website.