Even if only a small percentage of people are vegans, you only need one vegan in a group of people to pick a place that offers vegan food. Vegan food is also a safe bet for the larger group of vegetarians. That means more places want to offer some good vegan options, which in turn makes more people try vegan food, and makes it easier to be a vegan.
I’m not a vegan nor a vegetarian, but I often find myself ordering vegan dishes because they seem more healthy for myself and the environment. There are so many types of food these days where vegan is not a compromise.
Nassim Taleb makes precisely this argument about the power of stubborn minorities. Which I think is 99% great.
Though I think the medium term equilibrium is just that more establishments will need to do better than a half-ass salad for a vegan offering. Which is 100% great.
Stubborn minorities also lead to the "Tyranny of the Minority" and cause widespread anger among the silent majority of moderates who do not foist their preferences onto others. It leads to reduced freedoms all across society.
"The most intolerant wins," dynamic may explain much of it. The availability of vegan food may have grown because it is a complimentary good which lets groups that include vegans eat there. Previously, groups that included vegans either ended up in vegan restaurants, or didn't eat together at all. Other purity urges could seem to have the same property.
Your comment is correct, except that veganism is not a "purity urge", despite popular media. It probably is for some, but for most it is an ethical, health (as in, need to avoid cholesterol/dairy/etc.), or environmental concern. There's usually an external motivator.
I became mostly vegan (also known as flexitarian) because I want to reduce my meat consumption due to climate change. I now cook vegan food as much as I can while eating meat every once in a while.
Except there's a stubborn minority on the other end - people who want a meat offering. There are a good number of people who actually want to eat meat, and there are a few who don't want to go places without it. I feel like this will somewhat bound the growth of restaurants with only these options, though those with veggie alternatives can still grow. Not every one is okay with just rabbit food, though.
> Except there's a stubborn minority on the other end - people who want a meat offering.
That's a given, and vegans have an important role in the society to counterbalance it.
> There are a good number of people who actually want to eat meat, and there are a few who don't want to go places without it.
On the other hand, (I hope) the majority actually just wants to eat delicious dishes without big negative externalities.
> Not every one is okay with just rabbit food, though.
Here, I'm not sure whether you're referring to what rabbits eat (grass), what restaurants stuck in the past offer to vegans (what's left of meat menus and salads when you leave out animal products), or a prejudice toward any vegan food.
True. I'll guess (can't access the original report) that it's something like "expressly designated vegan version of main course items".
For example, this from the Guardian: ... the owner of I Am Doner, a pair of kebab shops in Leeds and Harrogate, said his vegan kebab routinely outsold chicken, halloumi and falafel. Made from seitan, a meat substitute derived from wheat gluten, the “voner” kebab sometimes outsells the lamb alternative too.
That said, wouldn't falafel be vegan? Clearly, precision is evolving here.
*adds Voner kebab to list of things to try (handy as I'm planning to be in Harrogate this autumn and Berlin next spring (the latter apparentl having a few outlets offering the stuff).
Falafel is vegan but its widely available from a variety of different vendors whereas seitan is a much rarer find.
I frigging love falafel but I were at a kebab shop that offered seitan, I'd order that (at least the first time) because I also like seitan and I can't get that at any other falafel place.
I'm surprised by the recent popularity of seitan. Obviously you don't have to avoid gluten to be vegan, but I've always had the impression gluten avoidance is adjacent to veganism. At least for vegans who cite personal health as their primary motivator.
Gluten avoidance is nothing to do with health benefits - it’s a constraint imposed by celiac disease. If you don’t have the disease, there is no reason to avoid gluten.
It depends, many places I've been you can get a falafel based meal to be made vegan, but typically they will include sauces not vegan, thus they are vegetarian meals by default. Not hard to swap the sauce to make it vegan though.
I don’t know about “typical”... the traditional sauce to put on falafel is tahini sauce which is vegan.
Some Greek places put yogurt instead of tahini which is not vegan, but I wouldn’t call that typical. I would call it a “too common aberration” and “a reason not to eat Greek falafel”.
The majority of places I have been put more than a single sauce. I've found mediterranean places love their sauces and it's something you usually get a lot of.
Falafel themselves might or might not be vegan (I've seen recipes that contain eggs, and some that don't), but it would almost certainly be served with a yogurt-based sauce.
Can't speak for every kebab shop but here it's typically served with hummus, tahini and sometimes an eggplant spread.
Edit - also the traditional way to make falafel is vegan as it originated as a fasting food for Middle Eastern Christians (traditional fasting rules dictate no animal products).
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.
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.
I think you have it backwards. Vegan food is meant to show not only is it free of meat, but that it's also free of animal ingredients that might not be shown on the menu, such as butter. An apple would be suitable for a vegan, so could be labelled (needlessly) as such. A vegan is one who eats food according to those standards.
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.
Many (but not all) dietary vegans are also holistic vegans, meaning they choose cleaning products, clothing, beauty products without animal ingredients and aren't tested on animals.
Same thing as 'vegan' imitation leather products: a vegan doesn't intend on eating their wallet or belt, but they won't buy genuine leather goods for ethical reasons. Thus, a vegan belt. For the same reason, a vegan would avoid animal fat based soaps.
Still humorous though, reminds me of the bleach drinking memes.
Considering all the different chemicals used in its manufacture, it is entirely possible that an iPhone isn't vegan.
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 ;)
So if a carnivore orders vegan food at restaurant, it stops being vegan? Well does that make sense?
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
> What I mean to say is that I think "vegan food" is defined by the eater, not 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.
That doesn't make sense. A huge amount of vegan dishes have never been made with animal products and were never designed to be made with animal products
A vegan is someone who refuses to eat any animal products.
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.
>A vegan is someone who refuses to eat any animal products
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
Vegan as an adjective is a new term, or at least its use has exploded. This has happened partly for political purposes to hijack aspects of culture, and partly for marketing purposes as a result of this.
It’s interesting, under your definition whether something is vegan depends on who is making it.
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.
"Vegan" refers to people, not food. Food is only "suitable for vegans".
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.
> "Vegan" refers to people, not food. Food is only "suitable for vegans".
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.
It sure is. I wouldn't call it a satisfying meal though. It's not particularly meaningful to anyone to say that an apple on a restaurant menu is vegan (if such a restaurant even exists)
Even if only a small percentage of people are vegans, you only need one vegan in a group of people to pick a place that offers vegan food. Vegan food is also a safe bet for the larger group of vegetarians. That means more places want to offer some good vegan options, which in turn makes more people try vegan food, and makes it easier to be a vegan.
I’m not a vegan nor a vegetarian, but I often find myself ordering vegan dishes because they seem more healthy for myself and the environment. There are so many types of food these days where vegan is not a compromise.