Similar to how some companies avoid putting the word ‘vegan’ on clearly vegan products. Even these new meat alternatives. There was a story a few years back about how half of the Girl Scout cookies are vegan but the soccer mom sellers didn’t want the logo on the product in case it reduced sales. Initially some said vegan on the box and those were crossed out to hide it!
There's actually a term for those "normal" foods that are vegan but not labelled as such - you'll often see them called "accidentally vegan" foods in the vegan community.
Strangely enough, plant-based doesn't necessarily mean vegan. Some 'plant-based' diets include eggs and dairy at times. I've yet to find a plant-based food item that wasn't vegan though, so perhaps the diet aspect needs further refining.
Understood, but that difference doesn't apply when we're talking about food specifically. I'm saying that the "vegan" label is marketing liability if you're trying to sell to the general public (and not just to the existing vegan community).
If we're talking about shoes, or cars, then the euphemism will be something like "cruelty-free". No car company is going to associate their cloth interiors with veganism. Well, maybe Subaru would :)
People often mock gluten free labeling for products that should either be obviously gluten free or are not food. But the range of gluten sensitivity does vary, and there are people who react to gluten in cosmetics (where it can be added). There are also cases where gluten is added to food where it would not be expected.
If you are gluten free because you can't tolerate gluten, that labeling is very helpful.
I get the feeling that's because gluten-free food is - for some people - medically necessary, while people with, say, allergies to some animal product e.g. eggs will usually just buy normal food and be careful not to buy anything containing egg. As a result, "vegan" food has a negative perception that "gluten free" escapes.
Gluten free does not escape a negative reputation. There are many people who follow a gluten free diet because it's somewhat of a fad, and there are many others who, as a result, don't take it seriously.
As someone who is gluten free because I can't tolerate gluten, I would add that, for those who don't have that issue, gluten free food is not always the healthiest choice. In particular, gluten free baking is tricky, and gluten free baked goods are generally much higher in sugar.
I’m undecided on this topic, but it’s an interesting test of imagination as to whether you could envisage animals before afforded the same rights as humans in the future. Certainly the direction of travel strengthens that proposition, and contemporary attitudes to slavery show just how wrong you can be simply by relying on the ethics in vogue during your lifetime.
The lengths people go to try and negate the benefits of plant-based foods is pretty impressive. A town of 5000 in Indonesia making the NYT? Bravo sir, bravo!
Considering that the Impossible Burger is not vegan (it was tested on animals), the buns and sauces it comes with are not vegan, and the burger is cooked alongside dead meat, absolutely nothing about this is aimed at vegans. It's a plant-based burger for meat eaters. I very much doubt that the man behind the lawsuit is a legit vegan as this is beyond dumb.
