it seems like Impossible X complained first and Impossible food is saying that they want it declared that they are not infringing on Impossible X's trademarks.
IOW: little guy complained first and big guy is asking for relief that they are not doing anything wrong.
Is there more to the story?
He should have definitely included that information in this blog post though. It's more than a little misleading.
So it's not like the trademark holder is looking for a fight. The law essentially forces their hand.
I'm not a lawyer and I'm not reading this closely as I'd need to in order to be more authoritative, but it seems like most of their trademarks are for non-food-related sectors. "Pharmaceutical Products" is the only one that looks close to "food" in the trademarks I'm seeing on their page. Not sure how you get from that to "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information", but would love to hear from someone who would know!
Unless there are more I'm missed, Impossible X's closest trademark covers nutritional supplements. They are arguing that allowing Impossible Foods to have a trademark on the following would cause confusion: "Providing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information; providing an online computer database to consumers eaturing information about recipes, ingredients and cooking information". I don't really see any overlap.
isn't the public interest primarily in having a consistent definition of "impossible?" One which has been clearly meme'd into our culture already?
Could you share the letter you sent to them? It might help us understand all of this better.
> ...That this Court declare that Impossible X’s trademark registrations in Registration
Nos. 5376208, 5387588, and 5620625 be cancelled...
It's the sort of lawsuit that I would expect ImpossibleHQ to put against Impossible Foods, obviously not vice versa.
It seems so clearly a rip off of the logo, that it's the kind of lawsuit that I want to invest in. Like -- I want to help fund a lawsuit against Impossible foods for millions that they ripped off the logo/trademark illegally.
Is there any past examples of investment/crowdfunding for a lawsuit, where the investors earn returns if a lawsuit succeeds?
This feels like an interesting opportunity for grassroots crowdfunding/investment for a David vs Goliath situation.
While I agree it is far too similar, it is also not at all unlikely that Impossible Foods designed their logo in a vacuum. Bold, non-serif logo fonts are certainly extremely popular as of the last 10+ years.
I have doubts.
Their logos aren't very similar, given the design space of today's black on white/white on black uppercase sans-serif logos.
In fact only the strike through IMPOSSIBLE logo (https://trademarks.justia.com/871/16/impossible-87116503.htm...) appears to have any features that could be called creative or distinctive. That is owned by Impossible LLC, as opposed to Impossible Foods Inc.
If Impossible Foods used such a logo anywhere, I couldn't find it.
: The Impossible Foods' logos in question actually have some subtle serifs, while Impossible's font is sans-serif.
Sounds like you're describing litigation funding (a fairly established market). You'd probably want to back it by insurance to cover the investors and party bringing the action against adverse costs exposure.
Litigation funding is often provided by insurers anyway as a result, as they can put up the cash, and cover the risk of costs via their insurance.
If a witness or person in custody of physical evidence can do so, you have a similar problem.
1. This is one reason why match-fixing in boxing is such a big thing (and it's apparently a lot more common than most people think, especially at the lower levels).
Impossible Foods primary arguments are:
- They use the mark IMPOSSIBLE with services relating to recipes, food ingredients, and cooking information, and Impossible X does not.
- Impossible X has challenged their right to use the trademark in that manner, and so they want the courts to decide with finality who has what rights.
- Since Impossible X has not asserted their rights to the mark in this manner in many years, and have not pursued any business in that area, Impossible Foods wants any trade marks in relation to food to be considered abandoned (incidentally, this is why big companies pursue trademark claims so aggressively).
- They also want to be awarded costs (not a likely outcome, but always good to throw in).
My dry reading of this gives the impression that they're likely to prevail. If you don't protect your trademark, especially against such a high profile company and let it run for years unchallenged, you risk losing it. This is to prevent people from submarining a lawsuit by allowing a company to build massive value in a mark you own rights to, only to snatch it away from them and hold it for ransom.
You should spread this over more outlets, I think it's already being flagged here...
Speaking of investors: Have you thought about making some of the celebrity voices who own a piece of the pie aware of what Impossible Foods is doing?
In addition to blue-chip institutional investors, Impossible Foods’ existing individual investors include Jay Brown, Common, Kirk Cousins, Paul George, Peter Jackson, Jay-Z, Mindy Kaling, Trevor Noah, Alexis Ohanian, Kal Penn, Katy Perry, Questlove, Ruby Rose, Phil Rosenthal, Jaden Smith, Serena Williams, will.i.am and Zedd.
At a glance of the complaint it seems that Impossible X started this with complaints and legal action against mpossible Foods for infringing on their trademarks. The complaint additionally shows that Impossible X was granted their registration of IMPOSSIBLE on Jan 9th, 2018.
Note the logo: Class 041 | 025 | 12/18/2012
The registration date was in 2012, and, apart from the blank line in the middle, is identical to impossible food's logo. Both use League Gothic Font.
Now recently, Impossible brought trademark threats against Impossible Foods. What is being referenced here is like a countersuit from Impossible Foods, and their demand is specifically that they be granted the Impossible trademark in the context of "recipes, food ingredients, and cooking
The main source of conflict would be around Impossible's "Impossible Nutrition," which is trademarked. However, Impossible Foods predates that product and trademark.
So it seems like originally there was no conflict as they were in different areas- that's totally normal. However after Impossible Foods had been created, Impossible launched a line of nutrition products that create a possible conflict. Impossible then made some trademark threats against Impossible Foods, and Impossible Foods has responded with a suit asking for relief and that they be granted the Trademark in the context of food.
I'm open to the possibility that I'm reading this wrong, but I think Impossible Foods is 100% in the right here.
The logo thing is definitely dicier, but they do seem different enough that you probably wouldn't get in trouble for that.
This was from 2018 (important I think).
Another was this:
But the class is not a super overlap with impossible foods.
Here is impossible foods mark.
2013 was the filing date here.
With an english language word, the trademark protection is (generally) going to be a bit narrower (ie, specific class etc).
For what it is worth, at a 10 second glance this is not the slam dunk little vs big player thing.
And to be 100% clear I am not being an apologist for Impossible. If they are indeed bullying and the case is as clear cut as this article describes then that is ugly behavior.
You will also see a lot of outlandish claims about veganism, human diet and health and, food in general which is generally where the backlash starts.
I've seen claims like "humans have evolved to be vegan", "beef only has vitamin b12 because of b12 supplements", "if you eat properly, your body will generate it's own vitamin b12".
You'll also see dismissive, no true Scotsman, responses to issues with vegan diets like struggles to get enough b12, calcium and iodine.
I try to eat vegan, or at least vegetarian, a few days a week, mostly by eating traditionally vegetarian meals. Impossible meat is highly processed and is neither healthy nor a climate change solution.
Veganism and vegetarianism aren't synonymous with healthy, they don't even try to be. It's actually a point of annoyance among V's that "vegetarian" options at restaurants try to be "light" and healthy when you really just want a basket of fries dipped in vegan mayo. Same with the aversion to processed foods, it's nothing to do with V's at all -- that's the "whole foods" movement thing. Some V's care about the environment, some V's care about whole foods, some V's care about animal suffering. The former two probably wouldn't eat an Impossible Burger, the latter might.
I find the "worst" of vegans annoying and pedalling dangerous myths. Eating vegan while staying healthy is hard work and real health problems can occur if you don't put in that work.
Sorry, if someone makes dangerous claims like "you'll generate your own b12 after switching to a whole food diet", it is their fault if they get dog piled and memed.
There is anti-vegan prejudice on HN, I've seen it, but the real backlash is usually when the defence of the vegan philosophy gets outlandish.
There's the old vegan joke for a reason:
How do you know someone is a vegan? They'll tell you all about it...
When people make a choice they believe is the one true way to do something, it's difficult to see others not join in - after all, you feel you've made the choice because it's healthy/will save your life/save the planet/whatever, how could you just watch others harm themselves?
Just live and let live... other people don't and shouldn't care if you choose to be a vegan or not.
Not targeting you in particular... just general observations. The "as a vegan..." line is about as tired as the "as a libertarian I believe X..." line. Nobody cares what you are or believe.
That's appropriate use of the "I'm a vegan" line...
Just don't go over the top and tell people they're bad for eating a hamburger or inject your veganism into otherwise irrelevant conversation.
...except for animals, right?
This is a prime example of the dissonance that comes from having carnism as a dominant ideology for dietary preference.
Making a conscious decision to go against biology and select a different dietary preference is indeed an ideology (unless there is a real medical reason you cannot eat something, such as allergies).
First, nobody said anything about eating only meat as a diet. I'd wager zero people do that - you would quickly develop vitamin deficiencies and ultimately fall ill and die.
Secondly, you've moved the goal posts to vegetarianism, which is not veganism.
Third, just because a vegetarian diet can be sustainable (in the sense you won't fall ill) doesn't mean it's the natural diet for a human. It's not... Your teeth and many other parts of your human body tell us differently.
Fourth, there are several cultures on this planet that strongly favor vegetarianism, but none are strictly vegan and few are strictly vegetarian. As already pointed out, vegans often have to take supplements to remain healthy. That's biology telling you that diet isn't natural.
Lastly, deciding to be a vegan because you believe current agriculture practices are harmful to the environment is a choice based off your beliefs and therefore is an ideology. That was the original assertion.
Veganism is a subset of vegetarianism. I'm trying to be flexible with my position to allow for good discussion - being either vegetarian or vegan is typically healthier and objectively better for the environment .
Recognizing that humans are omnivores also means that by definition we can sustain ourselves solely by plant or animal matter . Your statement of "Making a conscious decision to go against biology [...]" is plainly inaccurate, as we are quite capable of living healthy lives without meat.
There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that animal agriculture is harmful to the environment . In fact, it is the second largest contributor of green house gasses.
I get the sense that there is some frustration coming through in your thoughts. Please keep in mind this is exactly how cognitive dissonance expresses itself. Take a breath, check out some of the citations below, and try to think about this data with an objective approach.
I am genuinely curious to know why you say that. The other poster didn't say anything about not eathing fruit and vegetables etc. They said:
=> Making a conscious decision to go against biology and select a different dietary preference is indeed an ideology (unless there is a real medical reason you cannot eat something, such as allergies).
I can't see where in that comment the OP said or implied that it "goes against our biology" to eat fruit and veg etc. It's clear to me that what they said goes "against biology" is not eating any meat. That is what characterises the vegan diet: the absence of meat and animal products, not the presence of fruit and vegetables.
So why did you say that eating fruit etc doesn't go against biology? Who said it does?
Did the OP change their comment between the time you replied to it and the time I read your comments?
Let me know if you have any other questions!
Edit - actually, sorry, but please don't. I remember interacting with you on previous topics about vegetarianism, and your comment history and name are indicative of some biases and dissonance that you're unwilling to overcome. Even some of your submissions are heavily biased, dated, and subsequently refuted . The evidence supporting my position is plain and well-documented in my other comments. Cheers.
Please continue to review the citations I provided, particularly the one from NIH. For an ethical approach, I recommend Peter Singer's "Why vegan?" and "Animal Liberation" should be sufficient. Nothing you've provided has refuted the ethical side of things, either.
You don't realise to what extent you come across as snotty, clueless and hypocritical, do you?
So i'll address that one. The product is 98% soy with coconut, and sunflower oil to help it cook. Not particularly climate-intensive, soy is a valuable crop to rotate for the soil ecology in a country that produces so much corn to feed your dinner cows.
It runs $2.50 - $3.50 / pint in grocery stores, but I make it at home for under $0.20.
If it bothers you, let Impossible Meat know: https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/requests/new
Neither you nor impossible foods speak for the vegan movement. Most of my vegan friends do not eat this fake garbage nor would they ever make foolish claims like this.
I have nothing against the group 1, but the prejudice you see, is because of group 2, I can say to you using rough napkin calculations that something like 95% of people I met in group two were total toxic assholes. Some examples of people I personally met:
1. Guy in school, kept telling me, CONSTANTLY, that I was eating corpses and whatnot, it was very annoying.
2. Another guy in school, told me I was evil because I ate meat, proceeded to rummage through my backpack and kick my belongings like if they were soccer balls (even screaming "goal" after he made my bible go between two chairs).
3. Chick I met in college, she asked me to become vegan, I told her I wouldn't and that I would keep eating bacon, her reaction was literally hit my head with her purse.
4. Various activist groups that did some insanely dumb shit where I live, one for example went to a research laboratory and freed all the animals, they took the cute animals (like beagles) home, and released the rest, without any notion if it was good idea or not to do so (several animals weren't native, and some were in the lab because they were being treated with experimental treatments for infectious diseases).
5. Random vegan I met online, dunno who that person is, I explained I have to eat meat due to a health condition, person then proceeded to tell me I should just die instead, that it was better for the planet for all people that need to eat meat to just die.
I mean whats the point of asking these? Being vegan doesn't mean you have to eat healthy food 24x7. They are normal human being following ethics. And there is no rule that tells vegan should abstain processed foods.
You (very probably) made a choice to be a certain way, here. So, the "judice" part is correct, and people should perhaps be nicer, but this doesn't feel like the right word.
No disrespect but what does being black have to do with the usage of the word prejudice? Because the parent you responded to used it correctly.
It's use is not exclusive to racism. To exclude other uses is ironically prejudiced.
It frequently carries a cultural component such that the law sees fit to treat it like other arguably immutable identity type things, which seems correct to me. Though, it is complicated.
Ok, I was kinda sorta with you until the second time you decided on the ‘flexibility of words’ defense… honestly, if you’d just gone with:
“using a charged term like prejudice to describe disagreement (even when distastefully communicated) over lifestyle choices dilutes the word, and minimizes what it means to someone who experiences true prejudice every day”
or something like that, I think you’d have gotten your point across without the downvotes and discussion.
But maybe that’s not what you meant, and maybe there would still be discussion because what I said ain’t necessarily true - it just sounds hard to argue with.
Last I checked, I can't trade these hacker news points for cash and prizes. :)
I was going off a dictionary definition along these lines:
> preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience
But I totally get that prejudice has connotations here that make it inappropriate for me as a white man to use
Did the judicial system stop dismissing cases with prejudice?
Isn't any sort of negatively biased opinion prejudice, regardless of what it's against be it gender, race, dietary choices, religion or anything else?
What I was saying is a little bit closer to - "Prejudice" connotes "identity" type issues, and I don't think 'veganism' is like that.
(Once again -- CONNOTES -- for all the dictionary lovers out there)
Racial discrimination does not own the term prejudice.
I get that they want the brand, but that they apparently haven’t even attempted to buy it is pretty telling.
Barring that type of one common word trademark would prevent some of those or make it cheaper to defend.
For instance backcountry online suing things like coffee shops called backcountry nitro coffee; outdoor safety clinics called backcountry babes that taught avalanche safety for women; and many more.
One word Generic terms in any field should explicitly not be trade-marketable.
It looks like ImpossibleHQ's trademarks had nothing to do with food until 2016 when they filed a trademark in the nutrition space
Impossible Foods was started before 2016, so it would seem to have priority in the food space.
The case received international press attention following Microsoft's perceived heavy-handed approach to a 12th grade student's part-time web design business and the subsequent support that Rowe received from the online community. A settlement was eventually reached, with Rowe granting ownership of the domain to Microsoft in exchange for an Xbox and additional compensation.
I'm interested in seeing Impossible Food's complaint. Anyone with PACER access want to download them and share/contribute them to courtlistener?
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29256118.
It's like when talking with someone who is very disciplined about exercise. Many will say something like "wow you're so lucky to have such good genes" to deflect from the fact that they're just not willing to put in that level of work.
And I say that as someone who is not vegan, and is pretty lax with exercise.
The problem on polarized issues is rarely "one side knows they have no good points and are just trying to avoid that the other side does". Really this mindset would be part of the preachyness problem in the first place, the idea that the only reason people don't like this side is they know this side is right so why aren't they just admitting it!
> Why confront real issues when you can make a bacon joke and say "oh, I could never give up cheese"?
I agree with this but probably in a different meaning than you meant. It's not by default "I don't want to deal with the consequences of their valid stance so I'll deflect until it goes away" it's a "I really don't want to deal with the religious guy handing out bibles when I'm just going to the café for a coffee, I'll just joke with him I couldn't live without <choice of sin here> every night instead of risking dealing with a surprise preachy interaction again". The interaction gave no hint of who actually had or knew they didn't have the right stance about religion.
> It's like when talking with someone who is very disciplined about exercise. Many will say something like "wow you're so lucky to have such good genes" to deflect from the fact that they're just not willing to put in that level of work.
In some situations like this example they probably know they aren't doing the right thing, in others (as given in the example above) that's not the case. That some topics are so is not evidence one way or another about another topic being so. The only common theme is that it was uncomfortable for the person deflecting, not the reason it was uncomfortable.
So, I think the "vegans that are complained about" are nearly always the folks who don't much take this into account.
Approaching how we life our lives primarily from an ethical lens can lead to all sorts of uncomfortable or strange conclusions, however.
If I had some time-travel-y way to bet my entire life savings against this prediction, I would.*
(*yeah, someone's going to get persnickety here. As long as humans are around, I believe some are going to eat meat.)
So maybe we can qualify that by saying "one day, no human will eat meat harvested from unethical or otherwise ecologically destructive livestock-farming practices."
Let's consider other "preachy" sources to see if this argument holds weight.
Consider replacing "vegans" in this sentence with morally motivated religious evangelists of any kind, or morally motivated pro-/anti-abortion activists, or morally motivated homophobes, or MS/Apple/GNU fanboys/girls.
So no, it's not that people think the preachy group might have some kind of point, it's the preachiness, smugness, and righteous superiority itself that is the problem. The idea that this one group with such a narrow focus has discovered the one true superior way is what's the problem. It's counterproductive to whatever goals the group claims to represent. Moral guilt tripping is a lazy way to shortcut arguments.
I personally think your diet should be based on nutrition, with morals and the environment following a close second.
I get why foie gras is problematic, but I don't see the problem in a leg of lamb.
These humans live fairly happy lives and were bred (cloned) to be harvested for the organs. Would you oppose the real world implementation of this system? The people could even not find out what happens to them, they could be gassed during the transit.
It really stems down to whether you think it's okay to kill living beings. I don't care too much for life forms smaller than 1cm and that's one of my biases, but I don't think it's okay to kill living beings larger than 1cm.
You could say that we are humans and those are non-human animals, therefore it's okay. I'm not a fan of this line of thinking because that is how caste systems work in societies that exploit different groups of people. They're of a lower caste so it's okay to treat them like dirt. They're of a different skin color so it's okay to treat them bad. It's okay to kill them.
If we discovered aliens, what would have to be different about them to make it not okay to raise them to be killed for our tastebud enjoyment? The ability to do calculus? Plenty of people can't do calculus. The ability to speak? We're still trying to learn how certain whales communicate or how crows seem to have a memory for previous bad actors /abusers in studies. We don't eat handicapped people nor people with severe mental problems. If it's not okay to farm humans, what about our predecessors? We have a common ancestor with other life forms on earth, so where do we draw the line? Bipedalism?
However I don't think there's a clear line to be drawn. Why do most people object to eating dog or cat while they have no problem with pork? Pigs are about as intelligent as dogs (and can also learn to recognize individual humans).
Extrapolating that line of thought there is also no fundamental difference between eating plants and animals, but most people argue that it's morally wrong to kill animals for meat but ok to eat plants.
Cognitive dissonance, plain and simple. This was explained in the Wikipedia article I linked above.
I don't find this a super compelling reason not to eat meat because humans being a separate class than other animals is essentially a precondition to arguing that eating meat is immoral since plenty of other animals also eat meat. Applying a higher moral standard to humans compared to other animals is only reasonable if there is some sort of intrinsic intellectual capacity that we have but they lack. Once you open that door, there are still arguments to be made that eating meat is immoral, but the issue is much less clear cut, and I don't think it requires cognitive dissonance to come down on the other side.
In short, I think killing another living being that experiences suffering is wrong.
There needs to be at least a base agreement on some ethics before diving into an ethical debate, and if you don't see a problem with needlessly killing animals, then this exchange will be worthless.
Extend the reasoning of how we know it's wrong to raise and kill a human for our own consumption to animals, and we arrive at veganism. Please see my second citation in the parent comment for a better overview.
A counterpoint to your 'raising humans for consumption' point which is equally extreme but in the opposite direction. How do you know plants do not feel suffering? After all studies show plants can sense surroundings and communicate with other plants even of other species.
Further, if we want to abstract away from a mechanistic understanding and focus purely on a reduction of suffering, then veganism should be your goal. Most crop production is simply for animal feed. Eliminating animals from our diets would dramatically decrease the amount of plants we destroy.
Isn't this another form of the Meat Paradox, though? Plants have been shown to have moment to moment awareness of their surroundings, can communicate with each other and will turn away from unfavourable conditions. How can you definitively say that plants don't feel pain?
Is it acceptable to inflict suffering on other beings to alleviate your own suffering or hunger?
I absolutely disagree. Minimizing suffering is good. Less suffering is better than more suffering. The specifics of implementing it are obviously complicated, but if you don't agree that minimizing suffering is a good thing, at least in theory, then I don't know if we have any moral common ground.
> Is it acceptable to inflict suffering on other beings to alleviate your own suffering or hunger?
I assert that I have a right to attempt to continue my existence. Given that, and the above, I think it follows necessarily that it's better to cause less suffering in that pursuit, if possible (and it is).
Also, all of this is only entertaining the possibility that plants can suffer for the purpose of discussion. I think it's entirely obvious that they cannot experience suffering.
It fails Kant's categorical imperative. Animals aren't going to believe that eating meat is wrong - and if we tried to prevent animals from eating meat, we'd kill a lot of them - not to mention it'd just be ridiculous. There's simply no way to include animals in universal law and maintain reciprocity. It's an internally inconsistent ethical philosophy, and obviously so.
That's to say - people make fun of ethical vegans for the same reason they make fun of libertarians - clear gaps in the philosophy they refuse to acknowledge.
It's not that every individual has to agree not to kill you. It's that we have to agree that punishment is appropriate for killers. Getting specific - it's incoherent to say it's immoral for humans to kill rabbits but moral for foxes to kill rabbits. To have a consistent moral philosophy, you have to either punish the foxes and try to prevent them from killing the rabbits, or you have to admit that killing rabbits isn't _really_ a problem.
Consider an infant - an infant is basically an amoral agent - it doesn't understand killing. If a infant kills somebody with a gun, we don't say "oh well, he doesn't understand killing" - we say "why the heck did that baby have a gun? Where are his parents?" We expect moral agents to prevent amoral agents from causing harm. So why aren't you trying to prevent the foxes from killing the rabbits?
It's been many years since my collegiate philosophy course that focused on ethics in society - largely using Peter Singer's works as focal points of discussion - but could you try and reframe your idea? It doesn't seem like reciprocity has much bearing on this topic.
Fortunately, that's gradually improving. And it's a good idea for people to eat less restaurant meals if they're really interested in nutrition. It's hard to claim that nutrition is one's #1 priority when one is eating 1,500 or more calories per meal and few vegetables or whole grains.
Veganism isn't automatically nutritious. It can be, just as meat diets can be -- but most meat eaters don't. Either can be nutritious with planning and education.
As you say, your diet should absolutely start with nutrition. But given that you could eat nutritiously either way, you should indeed let your ethics guide you -- which includes both animal welfare and the environment as a whole.
But in particular, it'll be very hard to claim that nutrition is top priority if you're frequently eating Big Macs and never eating vegetables or grains.
In my experience, begin to frame things as a personal choice that they made without implying judgment on others simply don't get the same response
Deflecting is a polite way of terminating a conversation that can otherwise get very ugly and end friendships and/or further entrench and radicalize the counter-party in the conversation; not a concession to the quality or lack thereof of their points. Or to put it another way, when someone suggests I try a vegan diet, my first instinct is respond in a respectful way with an understandable and relatable reason why I will not, not to hammer them in the face with the truth that I will continue to guiltlessly eat God’s creatures until the day I die and I will raise my kids the same way.
My real point was this if you read past the first paragraph: if you care about politeness, keeping friendships and not hammering people in the face with what you actually think, you know, all the things that can further radicalize people, then deflection is the best course of action. This deflection should not be viewed as an implicit concession that somebody has a good point.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but your phrasing in the quote below seems to imply that most vegans are secretly aligned with or could be persuaded into become the radical moralists you mention earlier:
> Not all vegans share that view but often independently come very close to it or could still be swayed into a more radical world view
It's just strange to me that you're talking about radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue with your comment.
Edit: But I should also mention and acknowledge that I did read past the first paragraph in your original comment
This doesn’t mean they are secretly aligned, just that given the right circumstances, they could be persuaded to a more (again, more, not necessarily most!) radical position. Most people can, this isn’t limited to vegans nor does this apply strictly to veganism.
> It's just strange to me that you're talking about radicalizing while seemingly using radicalizing debating tactics yourself. I'm sorry if that comes off as disrespectful or rude but that's the crux of my issue with your comment.
Understandable. What it boils down to is I chose a tactic of advocating for a pretense while dropping all pretenses myself. Pretenses are inherently deceitful, but they can serve a good cause used appropriately, in this case maintaining basic social order. But by opening up my real thoughts underneath that pretense I was hoping to demonstrate why the pretense was in fact useful. Judging by the vote counter, I’ve seen it break even a few times today so that tells me it’s split down the middle how many people got that and how many people didn’t, so clearly I have room to improve too.
I will also suggest however to watch out for confirmation bias regarding your idea of a typical vegan. 4 of my close friends are vegan and we all only share that information when it's necessary (e.g. about to eat with strangers) and none of us frequently pontificate about the morals with non-vegans either online or in-person. For every vocal vegan that you see, there may be many more quiet ones.
 No pun originally intended but now that I see it I totally intend my pun... https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/1409156-fire-emblem
This comes across as harsh. Replace "many" with "some" and you'll get more people to agree with you.
There are instances of pontificating on both sides of the aisle.
TikTok blew up with "vegan teacher lady",
That caused a whole host of drama.
Anti-vegans (is that a thing?) are just as culpable though,
I wish we'd all just get along.
"They deserved it" is rarely a good look. I imagine that just about any position one can imagine has its vocal and irritating proponents, so this response seems easy to generalise in ways that you probably wouldn't want.
(Because I recognise how this post looks, it's probably worth saying that I am not a vegan. Here in Texas, I actually had someone claim to me that he was a vegan because he ate only fish … but I still think that people expend far more energy on mocking vegans than they would just ignoring the occasional over-voluble vegan.)
People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history. For instance, meat was rare in the diets of the lower class of many societies, dairy products were only part of the diet of specific populations (e.g. Western Europe, Middle East, Masai, etc.), and the diet of some cultures has been vegetarian by principle from the start (the Jains of India). There are countless non-meat based recipes across all cultures, and preparing a meal without using meat, cheese or eggs is hardly rocket science — I often do it by accident without noticing.
So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? I don't think so, but they're being marketed as if they were a great step forward to "reduce our dependence on meat" — a dependence which does not actually exist. All I see is disruptive processed-food businesses, trying to gain a market captive into their branded products thanks to the cultural Zeitgeist and it's focus on sustainability.
The fact that rice, beans, tomatoes, mushrooms, cabbages and onions are mere commodities that people can choose based on each item's quality, price, and personal tastes from any supplier, to cook with them as they please is not convenient for the processed-food business. They need people to get used to depending on their own branded products, because how else would they "substitute meat" out from their diet? This new industry is hoping to get younger environmentally-conscious generations to understand that, to be sustainable, the normal thing is to eat Beyond Meat™, or Impossible Foods™, or whatever other brand competes in the market for their attention. God forbid people eat mere stir-fried vegetables, legume stews, rice, or a myriad other dishes they could cook themselves!
The greatest value of these companies is not in their technology to make "meat-substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to assume that they depend on their brand.
And Microsoft suing MikeRoweSoft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft) reinforced my skepticism in "operating systems" and "word processors".
The legal matters of a single company are largely unrelated to the industry it operates within, and I don't think this particular data-point should have any bearing on how you think of imitation meat.
The Microsoft lawsuit made me think "microsoft is dumb, I'm glad I use linux". This lawsuit, I think reasonably, makes me think "Impossible foods might be a dumb company, might have a bad legal team etc... I'm glad I eat boca burgers instead".
> People have eaten non-meat products since the dawn of history ... So, is there really that much value in these industrial "plant-based" meat/cheese substitutes? ... The greatest value of these companies is not in their technology to make "meat-substitutes". Rather, it is in getting customers to assume that they depend on their brand.
Sure, fine. You can also substitute all of that with "We didn't use to have McDonalds. McDonalds has value by raising brand recognition. We really don't need it though because people can just go home and bake their own bread"
I don't think you're making a point specific to the meat substitute industry here, nor is it really an actionable point. We do live in a society. Companies and brand names do exist. People do have different eating habits and expectations than we did 1000 years ago. What's the point?
Yes. There are many people who strongly believe "if there is no meat, it's not a meal". The only thing that is going to change their mind is something that looks and tastes like meat for a lower price.
"Edible food-like substances" (to steal a term from Michael Pollan) have their place in a society all too obsessed with convenience and time efficiency. I don't think they should ever be a replacement for whole foods and basic staples, but they are a nice and easy way to add flavor to an otherwise bland vegan meal.
Yes, whole foods are healthier, and you can make a nutritionally balanced, delicious vegan meal out of basic grains and legumes and greens and whatnot... but it's a hell lot of work, especially because most of that stuff tastes like nothing.
For omnivores, adding meat to just about anything helps a lot with flavor, between the meat itself and the juices/fats flowing from it. But adding tofu or beans doesn't really add much flavor beyond a little bit of umami. You really have to season or sauce the hell out of every meal to make it taste good. And after a while, everything tastes kinda same-y... more nutritional yeast, more soy sauce, more curry, some generic beige protein, blah blah.
As someone who went vegan starting with whole foods yet never becoming a good enough cook, the fake stuff is in fact a really nice way to change up otherwise boring meals after a few years.
They're still made of grains and legumes and such, but the seasoning is done by Someone Else™ who's much better at it. Yeah, it's less healthy, but...
yeah, and the lower class was unhealthy and malnourished
you're vastly underestimating how much people like the taste of meat. there's a reason why countries up their meat consumption as they industrialize and get wealthier.
There's definitely less of a push for a general adoption of vegan cheese than there is for meat alternatives.
I've been vegan for 6 years now, and vegetarian many years before that, and sure, usually I just cook foods that pull from cuisines that aren't heavy on meat, eggs, and dairy. Lots of great curries and stir fries and so forth to choose from.
But sometimes you just need a stupid thing that looks vaguely burger-shaped because your family/friends/coworkers are having a BBQ event and you need to bring something they can throw on the grill because you know they're not going to think about it and you don't want to have everyone poking fun with their lame jokes when you ask them to put the stuffed pepper with rice and beans on the grill for a few minutes. Sometimes you just want to blend in because Todd from accounting is fucking annoying any time he sees you eating something in the break room that's not a ribeye steak or whatever the hell he thinks his cavemen ancestors ate. And sometimes you just want sloppy, greasy comfort food that is absolutely shitty in terms of health but tastes delicious. And sometimes you're just sick of cooking for yourself AGAIN because why the hell aren't there any vegan options at the restaurants near me and goddammit I'm just going to pull those burgers out of the freezer.
I don't think you'll find too many vegetarians and vegans for whom faux meat options are an everyday thing. It depends on what options are available around you, and maybe if you have kids who won't eat anything other than chicken nuggets and hot dogs. But for the most part...it's just nice to have them there when we want them. And to the extent we can also show people "hey, there are foods that look a lot like foods you're already used to, so Todd will also leave YOU alone!" that's great too. So there's value to these products. Sure, not as much as these "disruptive" businesses are trying to imply, but....there's still value.
A decent quality plant based cheese is closer in texture to hummus and is literally, mostly, ground up nuts - you can make it at home in your blender if you want to.
If you’re talking processed American cheese style… that game is probably lost the minute you choose to eat processed American cheese.
It is quite hard for those of us who cut our teeth on processed food, where teams of food scientists have tweaked the formula to create the most crave able version of every food. That's why these meat substitutes are quite appealing.