Vegetarianism/Veganism

[Chindie]

Quote

A person’s social identity is derived from the groups they belongs to – the football team they support, the political party they vote for and, in many cases, the foods they do or do not eat, says Dr Voyer. A positive social identity plays a large part in who we are and gives us a sense of belonging to a group of people. “Deriving a positive identity from the groups you belong to is critical for your wellbeing,” Dr Voyer says. “What we know about social identity is that you define yourself against another group.” So, if you’re a vegan you’ll reinforce your identity as a member of the vegan community (the “in-group”) both by following this diet and lifestyle and by defining yourself as “different” from those who do not (members of the “out-group”). The same goes for omnivores.

What’s more, says Dr Voyer, is that whichever camp you fall into, vegan or meat-eater, once this has been integrated into your social identity, discriminating against the out-group helps reaffirm your sense of belonging in the in-group and therefore your sense of identity. This could certainly go some way to explaining why some UK carnivores appear to revel in ribbing their non-meat eating counterparts. A person’s rationale for adopting a vegan lifestyle also tends to affect how accepting others are of their decision. In fact, when their veganism is a result of allergies or other health reasons, they often escape criticism entirely, unlike those who cite animal welfare concerns. This is because depending on the motivation behind your veganism you may either challenge or pose no threat to social norms, says Dr Voyer.  

Ifyour motivation for being a vegan is animal welfare, you may be seen to be implicitly or explicitly criticising how members of society who adhere to cultural norms (which in the UK predominantly comprises meat eaters) treat animals. Innocently wandering into Greggs and ordering a vegan sausage roll could leave the customer in the queue behind you about to gobble up a steak bake feeling personally judged and criticised without a word being exchanged between you.

“From a social identity point of view as soon as you start challenging the norm it elicits a strong reaction from people who disagree with you…that’s when you cultivate that antagonism,” Dr Voyer says. ”You are making an individual preference that has implications for the social norms [regarding] how we should treat animals, how we should eat, food in schools…you are challenging the norm and implying perhaps that you have made a shift that other people should consider.” When a vegan’s preferences are guided by what Dr Voyer calls “idiosyncratic” preferences such as lactose intolerance, there is no judgement – real or imagined – to be perceived.

Something odd about the animosity directed toward Greggs and McDonald’s this week is that neither removed any of their meat-based options from the menu to make way for the new veggie alternatives. Again, though, the issue goes deeper than just what’s written on the menu. “The time period we’re living in is characterised by the fact that we are looking for stable aspects in our environment. For some, the idea that a minority – which is what vegan people are – could significantly shift the norm is disturbing,” Dr Voyer says.

“Deep down it’s a matter of ‘Why are you making me feel that your norm…should be imposed on me?’ It’s really about feeling threatened. “People have a tendency to feel questioned even when they are not being questioned,” he adds. Food author and presenter Stefan Gates agrees that many meat eaters fear that their lifestyle is under threat and likens tensions in the UK surrounding veganism to the issue of gun control in the US. “It’s a case of, ‘You’ll take this ham sandwich out of my cold, dead hand’”, says Gates, who will appear on a new “ethical reality” series, Travel with a Goat, later this month. “Food isn’t just fuel, it’s a whole reflection of life and how you view your position in it.”

Gates doesn’t believe the world will ever go fully vegan or even vegetarian but he is adamant that everybody needs to cut down on their consumption for the good of the planet. He also rejects the concept of the “militant” vegan, branding it a “carnivore construct”. He says: “I’m sure there are some around but I haven’t come across them.” Is there hope for a future in which meat eaters and vegans can dine peacefully side by side, each free to enjoy their respective sausage roll without fear of reprisal? Dr Voyer believes this is possible, pointing to what’s known in the social sciences as the contact hypothesis. This is the theory that social contact between different groups can help to reduce prejudice. Perhaps then the suspicion and fear surrounding veganism in the UK will ebb away in time as veganism becomes increasingly normalised. After all, regardless of what Piers Morgan may believe, as Dr Voyer says: “Vegan people are just normal people.”

Why do people hate vegans?

[Davkaus]

It's actually fairly eye opening becoming vegan as a straight, white British, vaguely middle-class man.

It's obviously nothing compared to the hostility that people face every day even now for being gay or no being white...but it's vaguely uncomfortable being part of a 'minority'  and hearing all sorts of uninformed nonsense directed at me. Especially after all of these years of being on the winning team. 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Davkaus

[mottaloo]

Only a minor comment here but I've just tried qourn 'chicken' nuggets. The taste and texture is pretty much identical to the maccie d ones.

[tonyh29]

Just now, mottaloo said:

Only a minor comment here but I've just tried qourn 'chicken' nuggets. The taste and texture is pretty much identical to the maccie d ones.

that's cause the McD's  ones also don't contain any chicken

 

[Stevo985]

4 minutes ago, mottaloo said:

Only a minor comment here but I've just tried qourn 'chicken' nuggets. The taste and texture is pretty much identical to the maccie d ones.

Said this earlier in the thread, they are incredible.

I would bet good money that if you gave a plate of them to any meat eater they wouldn't realise they weren't eating chicken.

[mottaloo]

13 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Said this earlier in the thread, they are incredible.

I would bet good money that if you gave a plate of them to any meat eater they wouldn't realise they weren't eating chicken.

Absolutely. I mean, the texture of the filling was the same. I then thought that perhaps the flavour of the nugget comes from the coating/batter, but if so I'm cool with that. 

According to myfitnesspal app, 11 (I was hungry, ok !) quorn nuggets is 355 cals, whereas 11 chicken ones are over 500.

It's made me want to use meat substitutes in meal and recipe prepping now.

It literally is food for thought.

Edited January 8, 2019 by mottaloo

[Mark Albrighton]

No vegan sausage rolls in the Greggs I was in earlier today, was given a standard meat sausage roll for free by way of an apology, completely unprompted. 

Cheers Greggs 

Edited January 8, 2019 by Shropshire Lad

[Xela]

18 minutes ago, Shropshire Lad said:

No vegan sausage rolls in the Greggs I was in earlier today, was given a standard meat sausage roll for free by way of an apology, completely unprompted. 

Cheers Greggs 

I purchased them all in an 'outrage' and threw them in the bin! 

 

[mottaloo]

21 minutes ago, Xela said:

I purchased them all in an 'outrage' and threw them in the bin! 

 

If only there was a vegan gammon, i'd say your reaction would be totally that !

[theboyangel]

5 hours ago, Chindie said:

Why do people hate vegans?

Dr Voyer eh? You’ve got to watch him  

[peterms]

An argument against veganism.

Quote

I think you’ll find it’s a little bit more complicated than that…

 

[Stevo985]

28 minutes ago, peterms said:

An argument against veganism.

 

I’m not sure it’s a very good one, but I haven’t had chance to read it fully I only skimmed it.  His bit on the environment seems very flawed for a start. 

Will read it properly tomorrow though. Thanks for posting

Edited January 8, 2019 by Stevo985

[El Zen]

Genuine question, out of my of ignorance more than anything. 

Is there any debate at all whether or not eating fungi is permissable in a vegan diet? 

Probably not, but aren’t they arguably more similar to animals than they are to plants? 

[Chindie]

57 minutes ago, Michelsen said:

Genuine question, out of my of ignorance more than anything. 

Is there any debate at all whether or not eating fungi is permissable in a vegan diet? 

Probably not, but aren’t they arguably more similar to animals than they are to plants? 

I'd imagine the argument for fungi would be that, while on a genetic level they are closer to animals than plants, on a more generic level they're more plant than animal insofar as they don't appear to be sentient etc.

Effectively vegans wouldn't have an issue with eating beef if lumps of beef just grew on the ground, rather than being a bit of something with a brain. 

[StefanAVFC]

@Stevo985 you sold me out in the TTPYOBS thread!

[Stevo985]

8 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

@Stevo985 you sold me out in the TTPYOBS thread!

Ha! I wasn't trying to sell you out, I was trying to stop BOF being so mean about flexitarians when you said you were going to try it!

I'm all for it

 

[Stevo985]

9 hours ago, Michelsen said:

Genuine question, out of my of ignorance more than anything. 

Is there any debate at all whether or not eating fungi is permissable in a vegan diet? 

Probably not, but aren’t they arguably more similar to animals than they are to plants? 

 

8 hours ago, Chindie said:

I'd imagine the argument for fungi would be that, while on a genetic level they are closer to animals than plants, on a more generic level they're more plant than animal insofar as they don't appear to be sentient etc.

Effectively vegans wouldn't have an issue with eating beef if lumps of beef just grew on the ground, rather than being a bit of something with a brain. 

Yeah I think the main argument for vegans is about sentience. An animal wants to live. It feels pain and fear and can suffer.

Fungi (and plants) don't. Despite being genetically close to animals, they're still not sentient. A fungi doesn't feel pain or fear (again I imagine it goes back to there being no evolutionary reason for it to feel pain or fear). There are some theories out there that plants might feel pain but I don't think there's any actual evidence that they do (happy to be corrected) and I think the same applies to fungi.

And again it goes back to necessity. Humans need to eat something that's "living". So vegans (and vegetarians to a lesser extent) restrict it to living things that don't feel pain or suffering. 

Edited January 9, 2019 by Stevo985

[peterms]

10 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

His bit on the environment seems very flawed for a start.

On the environmental point, there's another article here

 discussing what he says is a misconception that has taken root:

Quote

Yes, eating meat affects the environment, but cows are not killing the climate

... A key claim underlying these arguments holds that globally, meat production generates more greenhouse gases than the entire transportation sector. However, this claim is demonstrably wrong, as I will show. And its persistence has led to false assumptions about the linkage between meat and climate change...

...A healthy portion of meat’s bad rap centers on the assertion that livestock is the largest source of greenhouse gases worldwide. For example, a 2009 analysis published by the Washington, D.C.-based Worldwatch Institute asserted that 51 percent of global GHG emissions come from rearing and processing livestock.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the largest sources of U.S. GHG emissions in 2016 were electricity production (28 percent of total emissions), transportation (28 percent) and industry (22 percent). All of agriculture accounted for a total of 9 percent. All of animal agriculture contributes less than half of this amount, representing 3.9 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. That’s very different from claiming livestock represents as much or more than transportation.

Why the misconception? In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization published a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which received widespread international attention. It stated that livestock produced a staggering 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The agency drew a startling conclusion: Livestock was doing more to harm the climate than all modes of transportation combined.

This latter claim was wrong, and has since been corrected by Henning Steinfeld, the report’s senior author. The problem was that FAO analysts used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analyzed transportation.

For livestock, they considered every factor associated with producing meat. This included emissions from fertilizer production, converting land from forests to pastures, growing feed, and direct emissions from animals (belching and manure) from birth to death.

However, when they looked at transportation’s carbon footprint, they ignored impacts on the climate from manufacturing vehicle materials and parts, assembling vehicles and maintaining roads, bridges and airports. Instead, they only considered the exhaust emitted by finished cars, trucks, trains and planes. As a result, the FAO’s comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock to those from transportation was greatly distorted.

Researchers have identified multiple options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the livestock sector. Red bars represent the potential range for each practice. Herrero et al, 2016, via Penn State University

I pointed out this flaw during a speech to fellow scientists in San Francisco on March 22, 2010, which led to a flood of media coverage. To its credit, the FAO immediately owned up to its error. Unfortunately, the agency’s initial claim that livestock was responsible for the lion’s share of world greenhouse gas emissions had already received wide coverage. To this day, we struggle to “unring” the bell...

 

 

There are clearly some very poor environmental practices associated with livestock farming.  The objection made by many is that environmentally sustainable farming is lumped together with unsustainable practices by some people, leading to false conclusions, and we should instead be tackling poor practice and supporting good practice rather than saying that all meat production is environmentally bad.

[StefanAVFC]

I know it's only been a few days but I'm finding it easy. Because I cook for myself, all from scratch, it's easy to just replace where I'd have meat with something else.

I made a veggie lasagne and didn't miss the meat.

[bickster]

Surely sometime soon some clever people will realise there's a way of growing beef and lamb on trees

/notserious