should veganism be given "protected status"?

[NewUsername]

grumbledoak said:

NewUsername said:

I think most of us can, I think some posters whilst desperately trying to prove militant vegans don’t exist have demonstrated the opposite

There have been quite a few "No True Vegan..." assertions.

I suppose because this is a forum for debate no. Some of us have dealt in facts , some emotion. I’m Sure you can separate the two.

[fatboy b]

Gary C said:

We are living beyond our natural life span anyway

so fk it, eat bacon !

^^^^^ this. One life, enjoy it.

[768]

Teddy Lop said:

Its the rest of us who need protecting from the amount of BS about their lifestyle choice vegans inflict on the world

And so the long march continues.

Oxfordshire County Council proposes providing only vegan food at meetings and events, and to put more plant-based meals on school lunch menus.

[dudleybloke]

If vegans get protected status then so should meat eaters.

[C70R]

dudleybloke said:

If vegans get protected status then so should meat eaters.

Other than the completely mental 0.001% of vegans who end up on things like This Morning, I suspect the majority wouldn't care.

[Drawweight]

I occasionally dip into YouTube and one particular couple who live in a van mention going to a vegan cafe/having a vegan breakfast/meal in every single episode.

It’s actually funny, what’s wrong with going to a cafe for something to eat without mentioning vegan every single time?

[SamR380]

Drawweight said:

I occasionally dip into YouTube and one particular couple who live in a van mention going to a vegan cafe/having a vegan breakfast/meal in every single episode.

It’s actually funny, what’s wrong with going to a cafe for something to eat without mentioning vegan every single time?

Because YouTube isn't real life and their metrics tell them that saying 'vegan' is good for revenue?

[Mr Whippy]

I’m still confused where you’re meant to get all your protein.

It’s seemingly a lot less glamorous if you’re having to eat lentils or chick peas.

Unless of course you buy pre-processed, but then is all that water use and energy use considered?
And the impact of monoculture on habitat?


I’m not just bashing for the sake of it, I just struggle to grasp how everyone moving to it for protein will be ‘better’ for nature overall.

[vikingaero]

Drawweight said:

I occasionally dip into YouTube and one particular couple who live in a van mention going to a vegan cafe/having a vegan breakfast/meal in every single episode.

It’s actually funny, what’s wrong with going to a cafe for something to eat without mentioning vegan every single time?

Lots of reasons:
- maybe they feel it is better/healthier for them
- maybe they want to attract an extra tranche of niche viewers - clickbait presentation
- maybe it makes them feel superior, as we know most vegans have to pronounce their superior beliefs
- maybe they want to promote vegan cafes - do they have a special "influencer" deal with the cafes - free brekkies for mentions

[Evanivitch]

Mr Whippy said:

I’m still confused where you’re meant to get all your protein.

If we're all trying to be pro body builders then there are plenty of vegan protein supplements.

Mr Whippy said:

It’s seemingly a lot less glamorous if you’re having to eat lentils or chick peas.

Yep, that's the only protein that exists in the vegan diet.

Mr Whippy said:

Unless of course you buy pre-processed, but then is all that water use and energy use considered?

Fundamentally not considerations for vegans, but I'd bet the "processing" is considerably less than the environmental impacts of livestock farming.

Mr Whippy said:

And the impact of monoculture on habitat?

There are certainly issues when extreme industrial practices are applied, which are somewhat the same as when similar practices are applied to livestock grazing, winter feed and feed supplements...

Mr Whippy said:

I’m not just bashing for the sake of it, I just struggle to grasp how everyone moving to it for protein will be ‘better’ for nature overall.

Some great studies out there on Google Scholar comparing environmental impacts of different protein sources.

Insects are an interesting one that has a lot of research right now and reasonably good funding, but the humble pea protein seems to be leading the charge.

[C70R]

Mr Whippy said:

I’m still confused where you’re meant to get all your protein.

It’s seemingly a lot less glamorous if you’re having to eat lentils or chick peas.

Unless of course you buy pre-processed, but then is all that water use and energy use considered?
And the impact of monoculture on habitat?


I’m not just bashing for the sake of it, I just struggle to grasp how everyone moving to it for protein will be ‘better’ for nature overall.

There are lots of ways for vegans to get protein: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/protein-for-v...

I feel like you're overthinking the motivations of the vast vast majority of vegans. Sure, some of the militant lot will bang on about veganism saving the planet. But the vast vast majority of vegans avoid meat and animal products simply because they don't want animals to be killed or mistreated just to put food on their plate.

Not all food needs to be glamourous.

[C70R]

SamR380 said:

Drawweight said:

I occasionally dip into YouTube and one particular couple who live in a van mention going to a vegan cafe/having a vegan breakfast/meal in every single episode.

It’s actually funny, what’s wrong with going to a cafe for something to eat without mentioning vegan every single time?

Because YouTube isn't real life and their metrics tell them that saying 'vegan' is good for revenue?

Indeed.

Anyone thinking that YT videos represent the average vegan (in the same way as YT videos looking for clicks don't represent the average anything/anyone) needs to take a step back.

Having said that, if people feel really strongly about animals not being killed or mistreated to put food on their plate, then what's wrong with them using their platform to tell the world that?

I eat meat occasionally (when I can be confident about how it was sourced/reared), but I love the idea of people being proud of eating a diet that avoids killing animals.

For balance, I'm going to cook a beautiful rump steak this evening, bought from my local butcher - raised free-range and organically.

[SamR380]

My take...

Mr Whippy said:

I’m still confused where you’re meant to get all your protein.

To coin a favourite pseudo academic's phrase, it's generally accepted that a western diet has waaaay more protein in it than necessary. i.e. people could eat half as much and not affect their health at all. Wheat, oats, nuts, pulses, soya and the now widely available processed vegan foods have plenty of protein.

Mr Whippy said:

It’s seemingly a lot less glamorous if you’re having to eat lentils or chick peas.

Glamour is, of course, subjective. It doesn't particularly interest me but I understand what you mean. Top chefs are getting over themselves and a lot of good restaurants now do serve good vegan food.
Some vegans won't admit it but I don't mind saying that the food isn't as nice. Animal fats are tasty, you'll need some moral conviction to overcome that.

Mr Whippy said:

Unless of course you buy pre-processed, but then is all that water use and energy use considered?

This is a common misconception. It might be possible to find one or two niche comparisons that show in meat's favour but the vast majority of the time even 'highly processed' vegan food is much better by any measure.

Mr Whippy said:

And the impact of monoculture on habitat?

It would be much reduced, given there would be no upland grazing and the inefficient food chain of feeding soy to animals then feeding animals to us could be replaced by us eating soy and other plants. More of the earth's surface is used for feeding animals than feeding us (directly). Take out that inefficient step and we will use less land.

Mr Whippy said:

I’m not just bashing for the sake of it, I just struggle to grasp how everyone moving to it for protein will be ‘better’ for nature overall.

Thanks for engaging with an open mind. I'm fairly confident in what I'm saying but I'm open to criticism and comments if you have any.

[grumbledoak]

SamR380 said:

It would be much reduced, given there would be no upland grazing and the inefficient food chain of feeding soy to animals then feeding animals to us could be replaced by us eating soy and other plants. More of the earth's surface is used for feeding animals than feeding us (directly). Take out that inefficient step and we will use less land.

This is simply not true. Our animals mostly eat vegetation that humans cannot eat. In much of the UK they graze on land that cannot be used for crops. That type of grazing is very bio-diversity friendly.

[rampageturke]

been eating mcplants recently whenever I get the urge to have something from Ronald. They're pretty decent honestly. You could probably tell the difference from their meat burgers but it's not like the difference is bad. The vegan cheese tastes the same as their regular cheese also, it just doesn't seem to melt the same way

Edited by rampageturke on Wednesday 9th February 10:19

[SamR380]

grumbledoak said:

This is simply not true. Our animals mostly eat vegetation that humans cannot eat. In much of the UK they graze on land that cannot be used for crops. That type of grazing is very bio-diversity friendly.

Is it more friendly than if they weren't grazing at all? I guess you're not a big fan of 're-wilding'?

[grumbledoak]

SamR380 said:

Is it more friendly than if they weren't grazing at all? I guess you're not a big fan of 're-wilding'?

What criteria would you use as "more friendly"?

And don't guess my opinions. I am quite capable of typing my own in.

[Evanivitch]

grumbledoak said:

This is simply not true. Our animals mostly eat vegetation that humans cannot eat. In much of the UK they graze on land that cannot be used for crops. That type of grazing is very bio-diversity friendly.

"Our" animals? Like yours personally or the UK? Because the majority of UK consumed meat (not just UK grown meat) isn't getting the majority of it's calories from grass.

There's plenty of viable crop land that is used for pasture of livestock and horses. There's even more land that is used to sustain those pasture grazing animals through the winter with additional grass-derived products and supplementary feeds stocks.

Yes, some low-density farming can be part of sustainable agriculture and support bio-diversity. The vast majority of UK livestock farming is not done in this way.

[SamR380]

grumbledoak said:

What criteria would you use as "more friendly"?

And don't guess my opinions. I am quite capable of typing my own in.

Bio-diversity is a measure taking account of the number of species in an area. More species = more friendly. Untouched temperate landscapes tend to have complex ecosystems with each species relying on another, the fewer species there are, the less able the species are to rely on each other.

There are vast areas of the UK that have been dedicated to sheep farming for hundreds of years, for so long that people (perhaps not you) think that a landscape of sheep roaming the green fields between dry stone walls is the definition of 'nature'. Of course, there is nothing natural about having a biodiversity of:

• short grass
• sheep

Anything else not standing a chance of growing while there's a sheep around.

Cows, on the other had, I can see how they could fit in to a functional eco system. It couldn't come close to replacing the amount of meat we eat at the moment but from a purely environmental point of view the idea shouldn't be written off. Most vegans still don't like killing cows to eat them though, cows are pretty nice.

Do you farm animals? I'll stop guessing your opinions but I would like to hear some.

[98elise]

grumbledoak said:

There isn't any significant discrimination against vegans. Protected status will just be a stepping stone toward forcing their choices on everyone else.

Self doubt is a horrible feeling. And they've got it in spades.

Agreed. How are they currently being discriminated against?

They choose not to do something. Nobody is stopping them.