Poll of the Day > Today marks two years of veganism

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mead posted...

The overarching question is: Why would carnivores and omnivores vote to tax the food that they eat so it becomes more expensive?
The answer is they wouldn't.

Cause maybe they give a shit? Last I checked youre not the Grand Poobah of all non vegans

Giving a shit isn't translating into the majority of the population giving up meat though.
You're assuming people give a shit but the bottom line is that it's not translating into voter numbers to pass a sin tax on meat.
---

Giving a shit isn't translating into the majority of the population giving up meat though.

Again, not something that is even being suggested.

Not sure why you have to keep falling back to a strawman argument.

---

Mead posted...

Giving a shit isn't translating into the majority of the population giving up meat though.

Again, not something that is even being suggested.

Not sure why you have to keep falling back to a strawman argument.

Assuming that the majority of non vegans will vote to tax meat does not make sense. The popular vote is required in order to pass laws. That's how it works.
---

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Assuming that the majority of non vegans will vote to tax meat does not make sense. The popular vote is required in order to pass laws. That's how it works.

Many non vegans recognize the environmental cost (devastation) of meat production. Like carbon taxes that have been done in many nations.

Vegans don't have enough influence to even propose these taxes

---

Mead posted...

Cause maybe they give a shit? Last I checked youre not the Grand Poobah of all non vegans

If they gave a shit about it then by your logic they wouldn't be eating meat in the first place.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Mead posted...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/meat-could-be-the-next-tobacco-as-governments-look-to-sin-taxes-as-a-solution-to-climate-change-2019-8

seems like a step in the right direction

Absolutely.
Some of us don't agree with eating meat, so let's punish those of us who do.
That's exactly how a democracy works.

I mean, wouldnt these proposed taxes be put in place by publicly-elected officials?

Yes. But that might not be the reason people vote for them. People could vote based on other things they feel are better. If no one knows their stance on food, they may vote for them based on things like abortion, vaccines, etc., without knowing that they plan on taxing meat, as well...

Mead posted...

consumer data has shown that most of the consumer base for the beyond/impossible burgers are omnivores

I mean, that's how it's suppose to be, right? From what I hear, a lot of vegans are doing so because they don't like meat these days, I hear. And the impossible burger is suppose to be more for people who can't eat meat (or a lot of it) or want more meat free options. It seems like the impossible burger was made for omnivores for the most part. So, that's not weird...

Mead posted...

The overarching question is: Why would carnivores and omnivores vote to tax the food that they eat so it becomes more expensive?
The answer is they wouldn't.

Cause maybe they give a shit? Last I checked youre not the Grand Poobah of all non vegans

It wouldn't make sense to make the food you eat ore expensive, though. That's wasteful. Nobody likes to spending more money of stuff they buy just because... People are usually looking for deals to spend less...
---

Mead posted...

Giving a shit isn't translating into the majority of the population giving up meat though.

Again, not something that is even being suggested.

Not sure why you have to keep falling back to a strawman argument.

It kind of is, though. Taxing something like that is a way of forcing people to give it up. Like cigarettes. Making it so people can't afford it is another way of trying to force people to get rid of it. Or getting it banned.

Revelation34 posted...

Mead posted...

Cause maybe they give a shit? Last I checked youre not the Grand Poobah of all non vegans

If they gave a shit about it then by your logic they wouldn't be eating meat in the first place.

This.

Also, saying they're reducing meat consumption probably still doesn't mean they want to be taxed higher for the meat they do buy. Because, again, nobody wants to pay me for stuff just for funsies...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Mead posted...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/meat-could-be-the-next-tobacco-as-governments-look-to-sin-taxes-as-a-solution-to-climate-change-2019-8

seems like a step in the right direction

Absolutely.
Some of us don't agree with eating meat, so let's punish those of us who do.
That's exactly how a democracy works.

I mean, wouldnt these proposed taxes be put in place by publicly-elected officials?

Yes. But that might not be the reason people vote for them. People could vote based on other things they feel are better. If no one knows their stance on food, they may vote for them based on things like abortion, vaccines, etc., without knowing that they plan on taxing meat, as well...

So youre saying that it isnt democratic for lawmakers to propose any legislation unless every single person that voted for them knew their positions on every imaginable issue in advance?
---

It wouldn't make sense to make the food you eat ore expensive, though. That's wasteful. Nobody likes to spending more money of stuff they buy just because... People are usually looking for deals to spend less...

The idea is that it gives people pause before buying meat out of habit or maybe eating less meat but more of other food thats available. And the added taxes normally go towards things that benefit society as a whole.

---

Mead posted...

It wouldn't make sense to make the food you eat ore expensive, though. That's wasteful. Nobody likes to spending more money of stuff they buy just because... People are usually looking for deals to spend less...

The idea is that it gives people pause before buying meat out of habit or maybe eating less meat but more of other food thats available. And the added taxes normally go towards things that benefit society as a whole.

Even if meat costs a little bit more people are still going to buy it.
People are still smoking and drinking soda.
It's not going to stop people from eating meat.
Most likely it's not going to be taxed though. PETA has been making noise about a meat tax recently but the majority of us don't give a shit about anything they have to say.
---

Mead posted...

The idea is that it gives people pause before buying meat out of habit or maybe eating less meat but more of other food thats available. And the added taxes normally go towards things that benefit society as a whole.

Nobody is going to pause. They'll instead bitch at the politicians until the tax itself is repealed and people go back to buying what they wanted.
---

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Even if meat costs a little bit more people are still going to buy it.
People are still smoking and drinking soda.
It's not going to stop people from eating meat.
Most likely it's not going to be taxed though.

The intent isnt to stop people from eating meat. Its to softly curb the demand for meat, which is important given the factual non-sustainability of the industry.

---

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Mead posted...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/meat-could-be-the-next-tobacco-as-governments-look-to-sin-taxes-as-a-solution-to-climate-change-2019-8

seems like a step in the right direction

Absolutely.
Some of us don't agree with eating meat, so let's punish those of us who do.
That's exactly how a democracy works.

I mean, wouldnt these proposed taxes be put in place by publicly-elected officials?

Yes. But that might not be the reason people vote for them. People could vote based on other things they feel are better. If no one knows their stance on food, they may vote for them based on things like abortion, vaccines, etc., without knowing that they plan on taxing meat, as well...

So youre saying that it isnt democratic for lawmakers to propose any legislation unless every single person that voted for them knew their positions on every imaginable issue in advance?

No. I'm saying that people have to vote for people, but don't really get to vote on the laws. Usually, you don't find a persn that stands for everything that you stand for. And by that, I mean 100%. I could vote for the person that decides not to tax meat. But if that's the only thing I agree with, I probably wouldn't.

Mead posted...

It wouldn't make sense to make the food you eat ore expensive, though. That's wasteful. Nobody likes to spending more money of stuff they buy just because... People are usually looking for deals to spend less...

The idea is that it gives people pause before buying meat out of habit or maybe eating less meat but more of other food thats available. And the added taxes normally go towards things that benefit society as a whole.

Sure. It may give pause to some. But not because they don't want to the meat. But because of the cause. I don't want my food to be more expensive. I just want to buy what I want to buy. Many people probably don't want this, either. There are plenty of people who have a budget, and buy pretty much the same stuff every week, two weeks, or month, or whatever. And this will mess that up, as well. I would rather not start shelling out tons of cash because someone else doesn't like what I eat.

And that money probably won't benefit anything, tbh. At least, not in my town. The council here doesn't care about growth. The only reason things are changing is because the council in finally changing. But the town still doesn't do much. They fix the roads every couple of months, and they're still shitty. I'd rather not have my meat taxed so somebody else can make extra money. I'd also not like my meat taxed because I want to be able to afford it.
---

Mead posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Even if meat costs a little bit more people are still going to buy it.
People are still smoking and drinking soda.
It's not going to stop people from eating meat.
Most likely it's not going to be taxed though.

The intent isnt to stop people from eating meat. Its to softly curb the demand for meat, which is important given the factual non-sustainability of the industry.

You can say that, but it's a sin tax. They are saying that eating meat is bad. And basically saying that people who do it are bad. If it really is a sin tax. It seems more likely that they want people to stop eating meat. Tax it enough so that most people can't afford it. That's what they mostly wanted to do with cigarettes. And it worked to stop some people from smoking since they can't afford to, anymore. So, why not try it with meat, too. It doesn't seem like they want to curb it. It sounds like they want to completely stop it, but it will probably only curb... until it's too expensive for some. Which they means it won't be people not eating meat because they want to, but because they can't afford it...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Mead posted...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/meat-could-be-the-next-tobacco-as-governments-look-to-sin-taxes-as-a-solution-to-climate-change-2019-8

seems like a step in the right direction

Absolutely.
Some of us don't agree with eating meat, so let's punish those of us who do.
That's exactly how a democracy works.

I mean, wouldnt these proposed taxes be put in place by publicly-elected officials?

Yes. But that might not be the reason people vote for them. People could vote based on other things they feel are better. If no one knows their stance on food, they may vote for them based on things like abortion, vaccines, etc., without knowing that they plan on taxing meat, as well...

So youre saying that it isnt democratic for lawmakers to propose any legislation unless every single person that voted for them knew their positions on every imaginable issue in advance?

No. I'm saying that people have to vote for people, but don't really get to vote on the laws. Usually, you don't find a persn that stands for everything that you stand for. And by that, I mean 100%. I could vote for the person that decides not to tax meat. But if that's the only thing I agree with, I probably wouldn't.

Lets get back to my original post.

Do you agree with Susan that a tax on meat would be undemocratic?
---

LinkPizza posted...

Mead posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Even if meat costs a little bit more people are still going to buy it.
People are still smoking and drinking soda.
It's not going to stop people from eating meat.
Most likely it's not going to be taxed though.

The intent isnt to stop people from eating meat. Its to softly curb the demand for meat, which is important given the factual non-sustainability of the industry.

You can say that, but it's a sin tax. They are saying that eating meat is bad. And basically saying that people who do it are bad. If it really is a sin tax. It seems more likely that they want people to stop eating meat. Tax it enough so that most people can't afford it. That's what they mostly wanted to do with cigarettes. And it worked to stop some people from smoking since they can't afford to, anymore. So, why not try it with meat, too. It doesn't seem like they want to curb it. It sounds like they want to completely stop it, but it will probably only curb... until it's too expensive for some. Which they means it won't be people not eating meat because they want to, but because they can't afford it...

I don't enjoy eating vegetables.
Maybe they should also be taxed extra since other people want to tax our food, simply because they don't choose to eat it.
The bottom line is that vegans not only choose not to eat meat, which is fine- but they also want to take away our right to choose our own diets as well. We do not all share the same morals and palates.
Curbing the food of the majority of people simply because you don't agree with their food choices is unfair and none of your business. It is within the law to have the right to eat meat, whether you agree with the law or not.
---

Mead posted...

It wouldn't make sense to make the food you eat ore expensive, though. That's wasteful. Nobody likes to spending more money of stuff they buy just because... People are usually looking for deals to spend less...

The idea is that it gives people pause before buying meat out of habit or maybe eating less meat but more of other food thats available. And the added taxes normally go towards things that benefit society as a whole.

Which is a ridiculous socialist proposal.

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Even if meat costs a little bit more people are still going to buy it.
People are still smoking and drinking soda.
It's not going to stop people from eating meat.
Most likely it's not going to be taxed though. PETA has been making noise about a meat tax recently but the majority of us don't give a shit about anything they have to say.

I like that you pick soda as an example instead of alcohol, which is one of the worst non-banned foodstuffs in society.

Mead posted...

The intent isnt to stop people from eating meat. Its to softly curb the demand for meat, which is important given the factual non-sustainability of the industry.

Which is factually untrue.
---

Which is a ridiculous socialist proposal.

Well yeah, I love socialism

Now go away


---

Doctor Foxx posted...

I lost a little weight switching.

This isn't something I can afford to do tbh.
I struggle to gain weight as it is. Ouch.

Socialism usually benefits the poor and the unemployed. The people who work hard are expected to support those who will not or do not work.
It's not sustainable as you can see from Venezuela's government.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Mead posted...

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/meat-could-be-the-next-tobacco-as-governments-look-to-sin-taxes-as-a-solution-to-climate-change-2019-8

seems like a step in the right direction

Absolutely.
Some of us don't agree with eating meat, so let's punish those of us who do.
That's exactly how a democracy works.

I mean, wouldnt these proposed taxes be put in place by publicly-elected officials?

Yes. But that might not be the reason people vote for them. People could vote based on other things they feel are better. If no one knows their stance on food, they may vote for them based on things like abortion, vaccines, etc., without knowing that they plan on taxing meat, as well...

So youre saying that it isnt democratic for lawmakers to propose any legislation unless every single person that voted for them knew their positions on every imaginable issue in advance?

No. I'm saying that people have to vote for people, but don't really get to vote on the laws. Usually, you don't find a persn that stands for everything that you stand for. And by that, I mean 100%. I could vote for the person that decides not to tax meat. But if that's the only thing I agree with, I probably wouldn't.

Lets get back to my original post.

Do you agree with Susan that a tax on meat would be undemocratic?

I don't know. I just gave you my thoughts. So, that's what I think...
---

ChaosAzeroth posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

I lost a little weight switching.

This isn't something I can afford to do tbh.
I struggle to gain weight as it is. Ouch.

I know that feeling... Haha.
---

LinkPizza posted...

I don't know.

>_>
---

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I don't know.

>_>

What? As I said, I just gave my thoughts on what was being said. I never said whether it was or wasn't in my post, as that wasn't what i intended. I just gave my thoughts on the subject at hand.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I don't know.

>_>

What? As I said, I just gave my thoughts on what was being said. I never said whether it was or wasn't in my post, as that wasn't what i intended. I just gave my thoughts on the subject at hand.

So you're willing to share your thoughts like this but you don't want to answer a yes/no question? Or was that "I don't know" completely honest?
---

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I don't know.

>_>

What? As I said, I just gave my thoughts on what was being said. I never said whether it was or wasn't in my post, as that wasn't what i intended. I just gave my thoughts on the subject at hand.

So you're willing to share your thoughts like this but you don't want to answer a yes/no question? Or was that "I don't know" completely honest?

I honestly don't know. I never intended to answer the question of whether or not a tax on meat would be undemocratic, If I had intended to answer that question, I probably would have said whether I thought it was or not. I was just saying that we may vote for the official, but it doesn't mean we're voting on the law. Not to mention, they could lie. Maybe the person we voted for said they wouldn't tax meat. And then change their mind or "change their mind" when they get into office...
---

i have been getting an awful lot of those impossible whoppers

i would get more impossible/beyond meat stuff but there's a few issues

1. that shit isn't stocked at any store in my town

2. it's more expensive and less quantity than just spending the same amount on actual meat.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

LinkPizza posted...

I don't know.

>_>

What? As I said, I just gave my thoughts on what was being said. I never said whether it was or wasn't in my post, as that wasn't what i intended. I just gave my thoughts on the subject at hand.

So you're willing to share your thoughts like this but you don't want to answer a yes/no question? Or was that "I don't know" completely honest?

I honestly don't know. I never intended to answer the question of whether or not a tax on meat would be undemocratic, If I had intended to answer that question, I probably would have said whether I thought it was or not. I was just saying that we may vote for the official, but it doesn't mean we're voting on the law. Not to mention, they could lie. Maybe the person we voted for said they wouldn't tax meat. And then change their mind or "change their mind" when they get into office...

Fair enough.

Yeah, democracy certainly isn't a perfect system.
---

Also, I broke my seven years straight of vegetarianism upon my girlfriend's recommendation. Kind of ironic, since it's usually the other way around with most guys.

LinkPizza posted...

I honestly don't know. I never intended to answer the question of whether or not a tax on meat would be undemocratic, If I had intended to answer that question, I probably would have said whether I thought it was or not. I was just saying that we may vote for the official, but it doesn't mean we're voting on the law. Not to mention, they could lie. Maybe the person we voted for said they wouldn't tax meat. And then change their mind or "change their mind" when they get into office...

That was for Australia anyway. There will never be a meat tax in a country like America.
---

Mead posted...

Which is a ridiculous socialist proposal.

Well yeah, I love socialism

Now go away

ofc you do, because you don't work
---

miki_sauvester posted...

Also, I broke my seven years straight of vegetarianism upon my girlfriend's recommendation. Kind of ironic, since it's usually the other way around with most guys.

Ouch. I'd drop someone for that lmao

Ok so everyone mad about a meat tax: how about we just completely stop subsidizing the cost of meat? If you think a small tax on meat is bad, watch the cost explode overnight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZDsSnpYZrw" data-time="

the American government spends $38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, but only 0.04 percent of that (i.e., $17 million) each year to subsidize fruits and vegetables.

That's over a hundred dollars per American citizen subsidizing meat and dairy right now

That doesn't even count their unhealthy grain feed that's also, wow, subsidized. Or the environmental cost which is substantial and never paid by the producer

---

fox you leave my $0.99 gallons of milk alone
---

Bulbasaur posted...

fox you leave my $0.99 gallons of milk alone

I remember that picture. My best friend was ready to move there when I showed her. Haha.
---

is vanilla coke vegan?
---

Nade Duck posted...

is vanilla coke vegan?

Maybe. Coke says that most of its products are vegan. But a few of their beverages do contain gelatin. You could probably check their websites for the specific drinks...
---

Nade Duck posted...

is vanilla coke vegan?

Pretty sure yes, the ingredients are vegan

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe. Coke says that most of its products are vegan. But a few of their beverages do contain gelatin. You could probably check their websites for the specific drinks...

Gelatin in beverages, the fuck?

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Gelatin in beverages, the fuck?

https://www.coca-cola.ie/faq/coca-cola-drinks-suitable-for-vegans-and-vegetarians

This is all I could find. We don't have those drinks in North America.
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Gelatin in beverages, the fuck?

Sorry. I meant gelatine... But only in some stuff. Some of their drink arent vegan. Most are, though...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Sorry. I meant gelatine... But only in some stuff. Some of their drink arent vegan. Most are, though...

...You realize gelatine is gelatin yeah?

I mean I've seen it before but it's almost always with something that includes dairy as well

There's just no need for gelatin in a drink

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

LinkPizza posted...

Sorry. I meant gelatine... But only in some stuff. Some of their drink arent vegan. Most are, though...

...You realize gelatine is gelatin yeah?

I mean I've seen it before but it's almost always with something that includes dairy as well

There's just no need for gelatin in a drink

I dont know why they use it. I assume they have a reason, though. I think they use it as a stabilizer or something...
---

Foxx, my advice for you and other outspoken vegans would be to present your beliefs about veganism the way I present my Christianity.

You believe you are factually trying to prevent the unnecessary loss of animal life.

I believe I am factually trying to prevent the unnecessary loss of people to Hell.

Both goals are important to us. We both feel a sense of moral obligation.

But at the same time, I do not make it a point to explicitly harass others with my beliefs. (I'm not saying you do, either.)

Just talk with people who are willing to listen. You will find them, if you're patient. Very little people are receptive to unannounced debates about their way of life, and trying to get them to make huge changes.

Show tact, and tolerance, and expect people to do the same for you. That's how I think these issues should be handled.
---

Honest question, did you ever accidentally eat/drink something non-vegan in the last 2 years?

To clarify, I don't mean it in a way of "oh you didn't read the label and slipped up once so the two years doesn't count!". It just seems ridiculous to me to try to keep track of all the ingredients in everything, unless you're prepping basically every meal you eat from scratch. I'm positive that I would accidentally ingest something non-vegan at some point, even if I were to try it for a while.
---

As for the meat tax, I just wish there were better solutions than taxes like that, because I just really dislike taxes that are unilateral or "fair" like that.

There's no doubt that they work, that can't really be disputed. Countless studies done over various different industries and tests of implementing a tax, they all generally achieved the result they wanted... I just don't like how it gets the result.

Taxes like that just hurt poor people way more. Upper middle class and upper class may be annoyed, but won't change their lifestyle over it. They'll continue buying meat at the same rate they were before. Middle class may slow down their consumption a bit, but certainly won't stop. Poor people will be priced out and it's now something that's a "treat" for them.

So the end result is achieved - less meat being sold, increased prices to offset the loss producers would have taken, and taxes to subsidize whatever we decide should take it's place. But we got there by telling a whole class of people they could no longer have something, and I just have a fundamental problem with that. I don't have a better solution. I'm honestly not sure there is a better solution. But it doesn't mean I necessarily have to like the proposed one.
---

Dynalo posted...

Honest question, did you ever accidentally eat/drink something non-vegan in the last 2 years?

To clarify, I don't mean it in a way of "oh you didn't read the label and slipped up once so the two years doesn't count!". It just seems ridiculous to me to try to keep track of all the ingredients in everything, unless you're prepping basically every meal you eat from scratch. I'm positive that I would accidentally ingest something non-vegan at some point, even if I were to try it for a while.

Oh for sure. But that was on other people and not me. Except for a few things. I haven't knowingly ate nonvegan stuff.

I've had people fed me things that weren't vegan. I've accidentally bought a few things that weren't and gave them away after realizing my mistake. Like who expects milk in salt and vinegar potato chips? I'm still vegan even if someone fed me something with milk or eggs.

It's not much to read labels honestly. Once you figure out what to look for it's a quick glance. There's a lot of food that is normally vegan without being labeled as such. That said, I've bought some things labeled vegan that weren't. I do not trust the vegan label. I always read the ingredients at this point. I do cook most of my meals as well. If I go out to eat I prefer going to fully vegan places, my city has quite a few.

I know so many people with food allergies and other considerations that have developed in adulthood, if you're not reading the labels you really ought to be

Dynalo posted...

As for the meat tax, I just wish there were better solutions than taxes like that, because I just really dislike taxes that are unilateral or "fair" like that.

There's no doubt that they work, that can't really be disputed. Countless studies done over various different industries and tests of implementing a tax, they all generally achieved the result they wanted... I just don't like how it gets the result.

Taxes like that just hurt poor people way more. Upper middle class and upper class may be annoyed, but won't change their lifestyle over it. They'll continue buying meat at the same rate they were before. Middle class may slow down their consumption a bit, but certainly won't stop. Poor people will be priced out and it's now something that's a "treat" for them.

So the end result is achieved - less meat being sold, increased prices to offset the loss producers would have taken, and taxes to subsidize whatever we decide should take it's place. But we got there by telling a whole class of people they could no longer have something, and I just have a fundamental problem with that. I don't have a better solution. I'm honestly not sure there is a better solution. But it doesn't mean I necessarily have to like the proposed one.

I do agree that the burden should lie with industry and not individuals. The current way of things is untenable and a great cost is going unpaid. My only better suggestion is to go after those big ag companies but that will be hard with the money and power they possess. The subsidies must stop.

---

Doctor Foxx posted...

I'm still vegan even if someone fed me something with milk or eggs.

I feel like one (or both) of those are in basically everything. Good ol "modified milk ingredients".

Makes sense that people would accidentally (I hope) feed you something non-vegan. The amount of recipes that call for milk or eggs is astronomical and I could see people just not thinking about it.

Doctor Foxx posted...

It's not much to read labels honestly. Once you figure out what to look for it's a quick glance.

I tend to always check the nutrition label, mostly for calories and fat content, but never really make my way down to the ingredients list.
---

Dynalo posted...

I feel like one (or both) of those are in basically everything. Good ol "modified milk ingredients".

Makes sense that people would accidentally (I hope) feed you something non-vegan. The amount of recipes that call for milk or eggs is astronomical and I could see people just not thinking about it.

Fucking right it is. It's ridiculous. One of my friends has a child with a severe dairy allergy. I've helped her find options that won't cause her daughter to need an ER visit.

Vegan is at least good for people with the most common food allergies.

My mom made me a "vegan dessert" that was full of milk !!! My stomach got so upset.

Dynalo posted...

I tend to always check the nutrition label, mostly for calories and fat content, but never really make my way down to the ingredients list.

One thing to note on that part of the label is if there's any cholesterol it is not vegan, period

---

Added taxes dont stop low income people buying stuff like alcohol, cigarettes, or lottery tickets

---

You're still in Edmonton right? What would you recommend for vegan restaurants? I've only been to Copper Branch downtown, but that was pretty "fast-foody" so I feel like there have to be better options. And I'm not actually 100% sure if it was vegan or just vegetarian.

Ideally a place that has a lot more than just meat substitutes on their menu. I find that if I'm eating something that's meant to simulate meat, I can't help but compare it to meat that I would probably rather have instead. Many better things can be done with vegan dishes.
---

Dynalo posted...

You're still in Edmonton right? What would you recommend for vegan restaurants? I've only been to Copper Branch downtown, but that was pretty "fast-foody" so I feel like there have to be better options. And I'm not actually 100% sure if it was vegan or just vegetarian.

Ideally a place that has a lot more than just meat substitutes on their menu. I find that if I'm eating something that's meant to simulate meat, I can't help but compare it to meat that I would probably rather have instead. Many better things can be done with vegan dishes.

Yeah. Edmonton is the vegan capital of Canada for restaurants. Copper Branch is fully vegan. It's the first vegan fast food chain in Canada. It's right by my work so I go there sometimes.

Downtown I highly recommend Die Pie, Padmanadi, The Moth, Clever Rabbit, and my local small fave is Veggie Garden (shitty neighborhood but great cheap food). Branching out from the core check out Loma House, Good Stock, and Narayanni's has a $15 Indian vegan buffet night every Tuesday (cash only) that's worth the price.

And if you ever want to try vegan stuff with a guide I'm always down to show people vegan eats in the city

---