Just curious about the future. Will you continue to make this vegan?
Why wouldn’t they?
I don’t think Huel as in the product is actually vegan as it doesn’t have the capacity to make such an ethical choice.
We have no intention of going against this in the future. Our mission is to provide nutritionally complete, convenient, affordable food, with minimum impact on the environment and animals and as this would go against our mission I would say yes
What does your comment add to the question at all, apart from the spirit of creating pointless discussions about definitions and the use of language itself to communicate?.. FYI look up the definition of vegan and you won’t need to post these absurd comments, in particular look up vegan as an adjective.
If you knew the vegans I know, then it would not surprise you. They make a very hard distinction between vegan and plant-based. Unless you are 100% vegan in all aspects in your life, then you’re plant-based. Plus there’s the point that veganism is not a diet.
When a company still makes some non-vegan products or does not promote the vegan ideology, then it angers the vegans if one of the company’s product is labelled vegan instead of plant-based.
Cor blimey guvnah! Smoke weed and chill.
I think it was a joke mate.
I was deadly serious. Vegans don’t have a sense of humour.
I know we’ve chatted about this before, and I appreciate that technical definitions of plant-based suggest only partial adherance to a vegan diet which could lead to confusion for Huel. However, we simply use the word plant-based more because it’s a little less divisive. We’ve found if we mention the word vegan online we just get far more backlash and more negative commentary.
From a totally personal perspective I find it strange referring to products as ‘vegan’, as I think of ‘vegan’ as being a person adhering to a vegan diet. A product, to me, could be described as ‘suitable for vegans’ but that’s a bit of a mouthful! Sorry, some end of the day drivel from me!
A vegan is really someone adhering to a vegan lifestyle. Technically veganism isn’t just about diet. Much as I now sound like “THAT vegan” I’m really not.
I’ve seen it a few times that using the words plant-based means it contains 90% plant ingredients and “only a healthy amount of meat”. I also recognize the issue that anyone can label a product vegan, when in actuality it is not suitable for vegans because it for example contains goat cheese. Neither of these words is regulated in any way, and there’s no punishment for misusing those words. It really must be annoying that even if a product has a sticker saying vegan or plant-based, people still need to read the list of ingredients because you simply can’t believe those stickers.
I’d be fully in favour of creating a new word, free of any ideology, that has a clear definition and is regulated by the government, and would mean something like “Does not contain any animal components or byproducts”.
I have a new word for you, though I accept it is of limited utility in this regard.
It comes from my mate Little Tim, who now self-identifies as a cragan.
For clarity, this is a derivation of the phrase “crap vegan”.
By coincidence, the latest “Vegan Food & Living” email is promoting their podcasts and there are some really interest commentaries from different people about their views between vegan vs plant based.
The one which I missed last year but just caught up on discussed this specifically.
This can be an emotive subject and there doesn’t seem to be any real consensus. Actually it reminds me of the arguments we used to have on forums in World of Warcraft as to who was a hardcore raider, or just a normal raider or a casual raider or… honesty it went on endlessly. There are no winners in this kind of game of online semantics.
Here is something interesting:
What is wrong about the “ideology” - the idea that no living being must be harmed or exploited is right in principle. Reducing the consumption of anything that promotes that is still better than living completely ignorant, that’s right, and often such attempts are not appreciated enough from “fundamentalists”. But nevertheless the idea of veganism is the only right thing, in theory, if you think longer about it.
If a company has values calling itself “vegan” is nothing wrong - actually it is the only right thing to do.
@mbs Only a Sith deals in absolutes
We all make our own moral codes and ideologies, for example, one of mine is not judging other people by my own standards and accepting that others can, will and do think differently than me.
I wear leather, wool, I eat red meat at least once a week and if I’m not on a 100%(ish) Huel food plan then I will eat a lot of fish that I catch myself.
However I still regard myself as being a conservationist and a nature lover. I don’t call myself vegan of course not although many weeks do go by when I have an entirely plant based diet (aside from one steak on a Saturday). I don’t really do dairy much anymore, certainly not milk but I don’t think I’m wrong or right, I’m just me.
Others will lean more towards a plant based lifestyle and yet others again more towards an omnivore lifestyle. I don’t think either is right or wrong, they are simply exercising free will.
Is a predator like a lion that kills a wilder beast for food “wrong”? Or is a sheep eating nothing but grazing grass and flowers “right”?
It’s a lot more nuanced than you are making out I think.
Fascinating subject though! But I’m off to bed, catch up soon.
I agree with @hunzas here. Vegan is more than diet it’s lifestyle too such as not wearing clothes made of animal leather.
Like Tim said plant-based is less divisive and the definition we use in our Sustainable Nutrition report is similar to your suggestion @rikefrejut “a diet based on foods derived from plants, including vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, fruit and meat alternatives, with very few or no animal products.”
Oh I’m totally wrong here I know that! I was just saying that’s just the way I think of it!
Yeah, that’s the biggest issue here. You get extremes in all things: vegans, politics, religion to name three. At the same time many vegans (myself included) think that using animals for any purpose is wrong, whether that be service dogs, horse riding, using primates to test the covid vaccines, wool, leather etc. It’s how we address that. I disagree with a lot of hardcore vegans I guess, because I know that while using animals and killing them in their millions remains legal, criticising people for taking “baby steps” or cutting down rather than cutting out their animal products can be counter-productive. I don’t necessarily feel that those people are trying their hardest, but I don’t try my hardest in many aspects of my life. Berating someone for not being a Level 42 vegan is pointless, even if they can play a mean bass line.
All being said, global meat production is actually rising not falling, and will continue to do so as countries get richer, and the poorer nations aspire to be more like the richer one, and now (in places like China) they are seeing the health consequences of too much meat and dairy too.
I like Huel because many of its consumers are not vegan (or even vegetarian), and for every meal someone who is not vegan consumes it means one less meat based meal is probably being consumed. And unlike the vegan meals being sold in places like McDonalds and KFC, the company isn’t reinvesting its money into killing animals and the meals are in many cases more nutritious.
I’m probably going to regret this, but…wool???
Come the summer, those sheep are sweating under an inches-thick layer of insulation! You should see them skip away, once they’ve been shorn. And, other than the very occasional and accidental nick, no sheep are harmed in the making of a wooly jumper.
I can’t see why a vegan, or anyone else, would have an issue with such a win-win arrangement. Care to elaborate?