Uncategorized

The Vegan-Friendly Diet Explained

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

A constant theme of vegan critics is that a vegan diet is unsafe – it lacks appropriate nutrition, is dangerous for children, causes mental health disorders etc. It simply is not what humans evolved to eat.

Is this true?

Well, we take a different tack to thinking about this. First, no diet is vegan – only human beings can be vegan. Veganism is a moral philosophy about being fair to other animals when we can do that. Whatever we eat is a consequence of making fair choices when we have the freedom to choose. Therefore we think of diets as being vegan-friendly if the food is sourced in a manner consistent with vegan ethics.

Second, veganism does not expect that people eat only plants come what may. Instead, a vegan-friendly diet is one that conforms to the ethics of veganism to the extent possible and practicable for anyone in their particular circumstances.

As we’ve explained before, the ethics of veganism encourage us to make fairer choices when we can. This means that we should give the similar interests of other animals equal consideration (fairness) and be consistent in doing so (justice). In simple terms, this means much the same as how we’d apply these principles to other people. Veganism proposes that whenever possible, animals should not be owned, regarded as commodities and/or a mere means nor treated cruelly. That is really why vegans don’t buy animal products when alternatives exist.

When it comes to diet, the proposition is that we have healthy and nutritious alternatives in the form of a huge variety of plants. Most people already eat some foods derived from plants, for example fruit, vegetables, grains, seeds, bread, sugar, wine, etc. But because meat and dairy come from farmed animals and those animals are owned, regarded as commodities and often treated cruelly, vegans don’t buy such products. They replace meat and dairy in their diet with plant alternatives.

But what if it isn’t possible to find suitable alternatives? What if someone’s genetic disposition causes a poor metabolic response to plant-based foods? There are situations in which some people can’t thrive on a plant-based diet. What to do?

The answer is simple. Veganism is an ethical stance, but as we said above it does NOT propose that people have to eat plants regardless of negative consequences or personal circumstances. When people cannot obtain or make use of suitable alternatives to animal foods, then they can and should include animal products in their diet. We have a duty to look after ourselves first and foremost.

In such situations, a vegan-friendly diet may indeed include animal foods. There is nothing wrong with that nor is it something to fear. Humans DID evolve to eat meat – we are omnivores. So while it is true that the evidence shows we can be healthy and thrive on a plants-only diet, we are equally as able to eat a mixed diet when necessary. It is the case that people can be healthy and thrive on a mixed, omnivore diet.

In fact, the diets of ancient hunter/gatherers were effectively vegan-friendly. That is because the people of those times ate what they could from their environment and in many cases they did so with some care to not destroy that environment. The animals they ate as part of their hunting lifestyles were free and able to live life on their own terms, subject to natural constraints.

In the end, a vegan-friendly diet is whatever diet will ensure your health and well-being in your circumstances while being guided by vegan ethics. Whatever the source of that food. People guided by vegan ethics will make genuine and conscionable choices whenever possible to avoid supporting unfair treatment of other animals – usually by eating a wholly plant-based diet – but their duty to their own well-being should always come first.

The truth is that you simply cannot have an appropriate vegan-friendly diet which lacks important nutrients or compromises your health. If someone’s diet isn’t nutritious, regardless of whether or not it’s vegan-friendly, that’s on them. Not the ethics of veganism.

Veganism is Justice for Animals

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

Here at JustUs Too we advocate for fairness and justice for animals. Importantly, we endorse veganism because it’s the only general term and overall conceptualisation of the wish to be fair to other animals we know of. We believe that “veganism” – regarded as the idea we can and should strive to be fair to other animals – is a rational, effective and workable ethical framework. No-one has to be a vegan but everyone can be guided by these principles.

What is Veganism?

The UK Vegan Society defines veganism as both a philosophy and a lifestyle. You may be most familiar with it as a super strict diet. However, veganism really asks that we do what we can, when we can, to be fair to other animals and prevent injustices to them from our choices. We could sum this up as:

“Veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can.”

Why veganism?

Veganism is important today because of the outsized and often unfair effects we have on other species. Veganism is about minimizing these negative effects as much as we can and hopefully making a fairer world for them.

If we think other animals are worth respecting for themselves and not only for what they can do for us, then vegan ethical principles can guide us in how to do that, especially when it comes to our everyday choices.

What can I do?

The answer is deceptively simple. Whatever you can or are willing to do that aligns with vegan ethical principles. These principles are pretty much exactly the same as those we adopt when wanting to be fair to other people, where “fairness” means taking into account the interests of others to live a good life.

That’s why people who identify as vegans don’t buy animal products. They believe that modern animal farming is inherently unfair to the animals and when we have alternatives – such as plant-based foods – we can make fairer choices.

Anyone can be guided by these principles – you don’t have to be a vegan to do that. In everyday terms, think about whether or not the products and services you buy and support contribute to treating other animals unfairly. If so, look for alternatives that minimize or eliminate this unfairness. What you do is up to you. If you are genuine in your wish to treat other animals fairly and compassionately, you’ll do what seems best.

Truth Bomb! Is JD Garland Right that Veganism is THE Most Harmful Thing We Can Do?

~ Graeme M ~ 1 Comment

JD Garland is a Youtuber who criticises vegans and veganism, largely on the grounds that veganism is a toxic religion rather than a genuine moral philosophy. His favoured tactic is to claim that a wholly plant-based diet is far more harmful to animals than any other diet. Unfortunately he rather misrepresents veganism – it’s a moral philosophy together with supporting ethical principles which is constrained by both real world conditions and personal willingness – so his criticisms frequently address strawman arguments.

In his latest two videos, “New! Crop Deaths Proof Veganism is a Lie” parts 1 and 2 he hopes to provide yet more evidence for his claim that veganism is really BAD. The following short critique responds to his basic argument.

Garland claims that because a vegan-friendly, plants-only diet requires crops to be grown AND many animals are killed to grow these crops, such a diet is maximally harmful and worse for animals than any other diet. In particular he argues that a vegan diet requires far more crops to be grown than is the case now.

While this is the overall flavour of these videos, Garland’s main contentions here are that most crops are NOT grown for animal feed and that a vegan diet is not cruelty free, ie that vegans are also responsible for a great many animals being harmed and killed. I agree. However, this is not a knock-down argument that completely defuses the value of veganism. In fact, IF one is worried by the degree of harm to animals from cropping, vegans are doing better than most (we should bear in mind that veganism addresses all the ways we humans interact with other animals, so there is ample scope for vegan ethics to offer significant positive benefits for other species beyond the food system).

The reasoning for this conclusion – that a vegan diet is significantly less harmful to animals than a typical Western diet – is straight-forward.

First, a typical western consumer will eat between 50 and 100, possibly as many as 200 animals in a year, plus however many animals are killed as a by-product of production systems (eg chicks and hens killed in egg production, seafood by-catch, etc). On average, none of this happens for a vegan diet.

Second, as well as food derived from animals, most people also eat foods derived from plants – fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, oils, bread, french fries, cakes, pasta, breakfast cereals, juices, jams and other spreads, beer, wine, sugar, etc. Plus, the animals they eat also eat plants. This means that while a vegan-friendly diet has a cropland footprint, so too does that of the typical consumer.

For a vegan-friendly diet to be more harmful than a typical Western diet, it must have a greater cropland footprint. Most research suggests it does not. The crops grown to feed a typical consumer include that used directly for their food and that used to feed the animals they eat. On average, it seems a typical Western diet requires about 0.20-0.25 hectares per year (a more meat heavy than average diet may use even more), while a plant-based diet requires about 0.12-0.15 hectares. This means that a vegan-friendly diet requires approximately 30% less cropland.

Now we can take a look at the arguments put forward in these two new videos. I suggest that overall, the videos are inaccurate and misrepresent the research presented as evidence. They fail to demonstrate that either more cropland is required for a global plant-based diet or that a vegan diet is more harmful on average.

PART 1 (https://youtu.be/ChU9KECnEL8?si=JZEdnuQ5iagkC5DF)

  1. At 0:15. The claim being made is that the majority of crops are grown for human food and not to feed animals. This is true. BUT, a significant proportion is grown for feed – up to 20% – while some other proportion ends up as animal feed. Overall, as much as 40% of global arable land is used to feed livestock (Mottet et al 2018). This is an important point.
  2. At 1:38. Here the speaker argues that in a vegan world, there would be more crops grown than is the case now. Assuming he means by this a world with zero animal agriculture and all food derived from plants, this is likely to be untrue. What research there is suggests that less arable land would be required (as mentioned above, up to 30% less – see Peters et al (2016) “Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios” – Figure 2).
  3. At 3:30. Both speakers claim Our World in Data is a flawed source and somehow driven by evil interests. However, Our World In Data is generally regarded as a reputable source so we should feel confident their data is reasonably fair and accurate.
  4. At 5:00. The speaker claims that the OWID graph showing that 77-80% of agricultural land is used for animal farming is misleading. No, it isn’t – this is correct. So it absolutely is true that IF we eliminated animal farming, we would free up for other uses as much as 70% of land currently used for agriculture. Note that the FAO observed in Mottet et al (2018) that some proportion of existing grazing land could be converted to crops (as much as 14% of global agricultural land).
  5. At 8:00. Pretending that anyone says that rocky cliffs can be used for crops is mischievous. What people are saying, the FAO included, is that some land currently used for grazing could be used for cropping, and that’s true. Just because there is land that can’t be used to grow crops doesn’t mean we have to graze animals on it.
  6. At 9:20. The claim that ruminant grazing for meat is a benefit is somewhat irrelevant to the main argument. While “regenerative grazing” might be a good strategy for restoring degraded grasslands, this could be achieved in other ways. The example given of bison in Romania is a case in point.
  7. At 14:00. The chart from the paper “Crop harvests for direct food use insufficient to meet the UN’s food security goal” makes my point clearly, however Garland and his guest seem to misunderstand what they are looking at. As they themselves observe, the land area for feed is half that of the land area for food. In other words, as much as one-third of all arable land dedicated to food and feed is used for feed. This goes to the point I made earlier about respective cropland footprints.
  8. At 15:30. Calories/protein are useful measures for working out the area of land needed to supply food. In particular, we can observe that a hectare of cropland can deliver substantial amounts of human edible protein. This is useful if we want to work out how much land is needed to replace animals with crops.
  9. At 18:30. The FAO graph where we see that soy meal is just 5% of livestock feed intake is being used carelessly. The proportion of feed intake would be significantly greater – and more salient – if we were evaluating only arable land use for feed (which is the metric in which we are interested).
  10. At 19:15 to 21:00. What’s being avoided here is that a significant proportion of soy is used to feed livestock, with about 93% of the soy harvest supplying the feed market. While oil is a co-product of crushing soy, it is likely not the main driver of soy production as a proportion of global oilcrop.
  11. At 21:20. Here the speaker claims that soy oil consistently fetches a higher price than meal, so for comparable units of production, the oil is the better value proposition. However, if we go by commodity prices as suggested in the video, soy meal is the greater earner per hectare of harvest (80% by weight is meal and just 20% by weight is oil).

    That means that for 100kg of soy, just 20kg will be oil and 80kg will be the meal. I’m not sure what current prices are, but let’s say they are somewhere around $0.45USD per kg for meal and $1.10USD per kg for oil. So, for my 100kg of soy crush, I would get back $36 for the meal and $22 for the oil.

    I checked with an ag consultant about this a while back:

    “My understanding is that the money is largely in the meal, but it is worth crushing to remove the oil. The meal is a protein source for feedlots; cows, pigs and chickens. The oil finds its way into many uses (food chain, industrial etc) but it is essentially a byproduct. That is what makes it hard for canola farmers because although canola oil is a superior and preferred oil in food manufacture it’s base price is determined by the soy oil price and soy oil production fluctuates with the need for soy meal. Canola is the reverse of soy in that oil is the valuable component, and a greater % (around 40 c.f. 20% for soybeans) and the meal is essentially a byproduct.”

    It is most likely that the feed market drives soy’s presence in the oilseed market.
  12. At 22:15. Absolute conspiracy theory nuttery. A truly vegan world would NOT be a benefit to the soy industry which depends on the inexorable growth of CAFO production for its own expansion. For example, the protein from all the meat and dairy produced in the US right now could be replaced by current levels of domestic soy consumption; instead it’s largely wasted being fed to CAFO raised animals (which is why the FAO find that we feed such animals about 2-3 times more human edible protein as we get back). A vegan world would not generate more soy.

PART 2 (https://youtu.be/KUNGGEYsVoU?si=fANjPP06tmzYwmwk)

  1. At 1:20 The pie charts from the paper “Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture” is NOT saying that a vegan food system requires three times more land for grains etc in total. It’s saying that for human FOOD, those are the relative proportions of sources. The graph does not include crops currently grown for industrial use, export use or animal feed, so it says nothing at all about the total arable land area needed in the current BAU. In fact, it quite clearly says that grains and soy that are currently used for feed are redirected to food: “human-edible feeds that were previously used by livestock are routed for human consumption”.
  2. At 4:42. The speaker refers to the paper “Plant-based diets add to the wastewater phosphorus burden” and suggests that a vegan diet would lead to an increased production of fertiliser and hence there must be an increase in cropland. This is a complete misrepresentation of the paper which notes that:

    “Livestock density is a major driver of this P inefficiency and pollution due to the extra land and fertiliser P required to produce animal feed and the difficulties of recycling livestock excreta evenly back to croplands (Leip et al 2015, Withers et al 2020). Increasing global demand for animal food products has increased the demand for mined P by 28% since 1961, and 90% of the environmental P footprint for an individual UK resident is due to animal product consumption (Metson et al 2012). As such, transitioning towards a plant-based diet seems beneficial for P sustainability by reducing global P fertilizer demand and lowering eutrophication rates by reducing individual P footprints (Macdonald et al 2012, Metson et al 2012, Thaler et al 2015).”

    and

    “Although reducing animal products in diets is an effective way for UK consumers to reduce their P, and other environmental footprints (e.g. Leach et al 2016, González-García et al 2018, Vanham et al 2018), these footprints are not the only metric that must be taken into account when planning for a more sustainable food system.”
  1. At 5:30. The graph from the paper, “Essential Amino Acids: Master Regulators of Nutrition and Environmental Footprint” is also being used mischievously. In fact, the graph tells us that the land needed to produce any of the main food types is largest for beef and pork, while the smallest area is needed for most vegetable foods and especially for soybeans.
  2. At 12:50. Making up stories about governments/vegans forcing people to be vegan is a nonsense. While some fanatics might indeed advocate for this, at the end of the day any progress towards a “vegan” world would depend entirely on the willingness of the people to be moved in that direction. No government wanting to remain in power would risk losing the support of the vast majority by enforcing dietary limitations. This is just more nutty conspiracy theorising.

Veganism for All

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

I believe passionately in the idea that we should want to be as fair as we can to the rest of the animals with whom we share our world and the best way to do that is to be guided by vegan ethical principles. Yet while it seems that many, maybe even most, people often agree that animals should be treated well, most reject veganism. Why is this?

I think it is because veganism is deeply misunderstood by almost everyone, and worse, it has a terrible public image. Perhaps vegan advocacy and messaging has taken too much of an adversarial and even judgemental stance – if there is anything that will put people offside, it’s being told they are bad and they should do better.

In practice, veganism is a purely voluntary and aspirational set of ethical principles that guide us in what’s best to do when our choices affect other animals. No-one has to be vegan nor do they have to conform to any particular standard.

Of course many people do strive to completely eliminate animal products and use from their diets and lifestyle. They might identify as vegans and follow the definition of veganism to the letter as much as possible. The formal definition for veganism can be found on the UK Vegan Society’s website. But in the end, it’s up to you. We all get to make our own choices.

I’ve mentioned elsewhere on my blog that I think vegan advocacy needs a reformation and in particular that advocacy should focus on community engagement, inclusion and encouragement, rather than measuring success by the somewhat dubious metric of people “converted” to veganism. Perhaps we might see more interest from consumers if they can be shown practical ways to make a difference without feeling pressured to become something other than just themselves.

In this post, I want to propose a different way to think about the ethical philsophy that veganism represents in such a way as makes the principles accessible to anyone.

Upfront, I should point out that I do not regard veganism as merely a diet. If veganism really were just a super-strict, animal free diet, it would carry no compelling force at all. We could all just laugh at the idea and get on with things. No, there has to be something more than that – the diet can only be a consequence of whatever it is veganism stands for.

So, what does veganism stand for?

Quite simply,I believe that veganism is the idea that whenever we can, we should want to be fair to other animals and aim to prevent injustices to them from our actions. That’s it.

We could phrase this as:
“Veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can.”

But what exactly does it mean to be “fair” to other animals? Well, I think most of us can say what fairness means. At its simplest, it means to regard the interests of others equally and try to be consistent in our actions when they affect others. For example, a pig has just as much interest in being free to roam and do pig things as people like to be free to do people stuff.

Thought of like this, anyone at all can embrace veganism. All that ever comes into question is how far they are willing to go. Because vegan ethics are relevant in all the ways we treat other animals then as long as someone is being genuine in their efforts to be fair to other animals in their choices, that is veganism in action. And funnily enough, I would even be willing to agree that a carnivore dieter can be guided by veganism in this way. Unlikely, but possible.

Why should anyone want to be fair to other animals? I believe it is because of our modern context. In the distant past, our hunter/gatherer ancestors did not need to be vegan. In fact, I’d suggest they were largely vegan in practice. But things changed about 10,000 years ago and today we do not share the same fundamentally fair relationship with other animals. So, the reason we should want to be fair is that we have an enormous influence over, and effect on, the rest of nature. Just as our ancient ancestors sought to live in some balance with the rest of the animals, I believe we really should want to today.

Why Veganism Reflects Christian Ideals

~ Graeme M ~ 2 Comments

Some Christians criticise vegans and reject veganism, usually on the grounds that God gave humans dominion over the animals and approves their use for food and fibre. However veganism today is not simply a strict diet but rather it is an ethical stance about how to treat animals. So, just how far is veganism from Christian values? Let’s find out.

In Genesis, we learn that God created a world that was “very good” and He caused there to be the animals of nature and the man and woman whom He created in His own image. Adam and Eve were given dominion over nature and the animals and directed to subdue the earth. On the face of it, God seems to be saying that people can do what they like with the world, but it seems unlikely that God – whose very nature is to be just and compassionate – would want people to treat the natural world irresponsibly.

Perhaps we need to know just what the Bible says about this dominion that people have over nature. The original Hebrew word used to describe the dominion awarded to Adam and Eve is “radah”. Many writers interpret radah to mean that we should rule over nature by managing it and the animals responsibly, consistently with God’s own nature. Creation matters to God and the animals in the world are His, not ours to do with as we please. This sounds very much more likely than to interpret radah as meaning something more akin to a “treading down”, a rule by exploitative force without care or respect for those ruled.

I believe that the Bible tells us we are to be responsible managers of Creation in God’s image, not that we have a licence to exploit and harm it from our own selfish desires. As God’s own nature is to be just and compassionate, should we imagine that our duty towards animals is not the same in essence? God allows us to use animals when we must, but He expects us to do so responsibly and fairly and we are free to make the best choices.

Veganism on the other hand is a modern secular idea about how people should treat other animals. Nowadays we know that many other animals are sentient beings similar to humans in many ways and they can be affected either negatively or positively by our actions. As sentient beings, animals exist for their own ends; that is, they have evolved to maximise their opportunities and to flourish within their particular ecological niche. Like human beings they have an inherent value and dignity as ends in themselves and should be regarded as such, rather than as mere means to our own ends.

Modern veganism is therefore an ethical framework that recognises the value and dignity of animal lives and guides us when evaluating all the ways our actions affect them. This ethics aims to treat animals fairly and with compassion by our choices whenever we can and to protect them from injustice at our hands. One possible practical approach is that of animals rights – we make fair choices when we seek to protect the basic rights of other animals. You can read what this means here.

So, let’s take stock.

Christians are charged with managing nature and the animals responsibly in a manner consistent with God’s own nature in whose image we are made. Given God’s essential nature is to be just and fair, we seem bound to be fair to other animals in whom there exists an inherent value and dignity, given they are the results of God’s good works and are pleasing to Him.

Veganism is a secular notion about encouraging justice in the ways people deal with other animals. At its simplest, veganism guides us to be fair to other animals because as sentient beings they have inherent value and dignity.

Ultimately, any genuine attempt to steward animals justly in accord with God’s nature seems likely to lead Christians to similar practice as secular veganism, for the simple reason both deliver on the same commitment. People should wish to treat other animals fairly and seek to protect them from injustice at our hands, whenever we can. Secularly, because they are ends in themselves just as we are and in Christ because God gave us this responsibility to His creation.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that Christians should be vegan (though I don’t think God would object). The way I see it, when Christians honour their faith and their Lord they will do works that treat animals compassionately, fairly and with justice, just as veganism guides non-Christians to treat animals compassionately, fairly and with justice. In the end, Christians and vegans are much more alike in this regard than it might appear.

Why Death is Not a Harm to Another Animal but Killing Might be Wrong

~ Graeme M ~ Leave a comment

I regard veganism as an ethical stance – that is, veganism is the idea that we include other animals within the scope of our moral concern to treat others fairly and deliver them justice when we can. On rights-based grounds, we can argue that this means we should strive not to violate their basic rights whenever possible. Many people argue this means that – as with people – animals have a right to life. I don’t agree. To see why, I want to explain why I believe death does not harm us but killing might be wrong.

There are two schools of thought about death. On the one hand, it is claimed that death cannot harm us for the simple reason that once dead, we no longer exist. On the other, death harms us by thwarting our plans for the future and robs us of our potential.

I agree with the former view – harm describes a state that only the living can experience. When we seek to prevent others being harmed, we mean that we hope for them to enjoy the good and not suffer the bad. However, that which does not exist cannot experience either the good or the bad. While the process of death can harm us, death itself cannot.

The latter stance at least does lead us in the right direction – thwarting the plans of others is not a harm to them but carries moral weight in regard to our own intentions and actions.

Does this mean that killing another is not a harm? Yes, I would say that is true. Of course the process can cause harm and this can be a wrong while someone lives, but once dead there is no-one to experience any harm. For the individual, being killed does not matter in and of itself (though how that affects the still living might).

Why then should we strive not to kill? I suggest that the reason we should not kill another is because to do so would be to thwart their plans for the future. While being dead and no longer able to achieve one’s goals is not a harm, we should know that when we kill another we are deliberately thwarting their plans and interests. This is an injustice on our part. The wrongness in killing comes not from any harm to our victim but rather from the injustice we aim to perpetrate.

Simply put, when we act to kill someone we set out with the intention of depriving them of future experiences and that is not fair. It is unfair for the same reasons we are acting unjustly any time we seek to thwart someone’s plans without good cause.

To summarise then, death is not a harm for anyone (though the process itself can be). Killing someone is wrong not because it harms them but because we act unjustly when we set out without good cause to thwart their plans for the future. This is unfair. Because veganism asks us to be fair to other animals and prevent injustice, it is wrong to kill other animals without just cause.

Note: Some animals may not have plans for the future of the kind that demand this kind of moral concern on our part (eg many invertebrates). We may have a different kind of moral concern for such animals and many other things in the world but this is not directly within the scope of veganism. Nothing prevents us respecting both kinds of concern.

Crop Deaths Revisited – Why a Vegan-Friendly Diet is Likely to be Least Harm

~ Graeme M ~ 3 Comments

(Three minute read)

Lately it seems every vegan critic wants to point to animal deaths in cropping to expose the hypocrisy of vegans. Here, I provide a brief analysis of why this is not the criticism many think it is.

Summary:

To find out if more animals are killed for a typical vegan-friendly diet versus a typical omnivore’s diet, we are only interested in the number of animals killed on the area of land needed to grow crops to replace animal food in the omnivore diet (because animals killed to grow the crops we all eat is a shared cost). It turns out just one tenth of a hectare is required. Few useful estimates of the animals killed to grow crops can be found. One of the highest estimates came from Mike Archer in 2011 when he claimed 100 animals are killed per hectare per year. This means a vegan-friendly diet might cause about 10 animals to be killed each year to replace animals in someone’s diet. The average omnivore causes about 50-100 animals to be killed directly and some number of others as part of that process. On average then, a vegan-friendly diet is the least harm option.

*******************************************************

The Full Story:

First, a little background. Veganism is not just a diet but rather the idea that we should include other animals within the scope of our moral concern to treat others fairly and deliver them justice whenever we can. While many people believe that veganism is about doing the least harm or even no harm to animals. I would say it is not specifically trying to do that. It’s about doing what we can to be fair to other animals when possible. And sometimes, we have to harm other animals just like we sometimes must with other people. For example, very few people would say that we should not kill mosquitoes to protect people from malaria or that we should not cull wild populations when necessary. By the same token we can kill pests in agriculture when necessary so as to defend our food.

But let’s cut to the chase. Are more animals killed for someone to eat a vegan-friendly, plants-only diet than for someone to eat an omnivore diet? The answer is hard to untangle because no-one knows for sure. There just is not much empirical research. We do know that few large animals are killed incidentally in croplands from activities like harvesting and tilling. Many more are killed by farmers controlling pests, but here the evidence is very sketchy.

What studies have been done of animal mortality in croplands don’t find that many animals are killed in crop cultivation. Indeed, it’s relatively uncommon to find peer-reviewed research documenting such an outcome. Tellingly, a wheat farmer in the UK once blogged about this very problem, hoping to document the deaths of many animals in a year’s worth of production. He failed to record even one (ignoring invertebrates, though we will come to that concern).

It turns out that estimates of cropland mortality vary. This problem was originally noted in a famous paper by Steven Davis back in 2003. He found that just 15 animals per hectare are killed on US croplands. Later still, Professor Mike Archer from the University of New South Wales claimed up to 100 animals are killed per hectare in Australian wheat fields (this was later claimed to be an exaggeration and revised to just 1.27 animals per hectare). And a blogger called Farming Truth once argued that as many as 117 animals die per hectare in the US.

But raw numbers may be misleading. When we think about this problem, we can be confident that most people are eating a variety of foods of both plant and animal origin. People directly eat grains, seeds, nuts, fruits and vegetables as well as derived foods such as bread, buns, cakes, French fries, sugar, wine, beer, herbs and spices and so on.

So, very nearly all of us are eating plants. The animals killed to grow those plants is a shared cost. While Jack the vegan eats plants and as a result animals are killed to grow this food, Jill the omnivore does the same. If we want to find out if Jack overall causes more animals to be harmed, we only need to work out how many animals are killed for the plants needed to replace animals in his diet and compare that to how many animals are killed for Jill to eat animals in her diet.

Most estimates suggest Jill will eat somewhere around 50-100 animals per year, but it could be much higher (perhaps 200). This is because fish and other sea food (eg prawns) are animals too. And don’t forget, we could also include as part of her toll on other animals the pests (such as feral dogs, pigs and deer) killed by animal farmers and the by-catch and incidental deaths (eg macerated chicks) killed in the production of animal foods. Lastly, many of the animals people eat are raised in concentrated animal feed operations which are fed from crops often grown for that purpose. Farmers kill pests in all situations, whether when growing crops for human food, for animal feed, or raising animals for food.

Jack on the other hand needs about one tenth of a hectare of land to produce the plant food that could replace animals in his diet. Even when we use the highest estimate of 100 animals killed per hectare in croplands made by Mike Archer (and since shown to be an exaggeration), we find Jack will cause just 10 animals to be killed for his food.

It seems very likely that on average, Jack’s diet is the least harmful.

Wait, you say, what about all the invertebrates killed in crop farming? Well, this is an open question because we just don’t know enough. Many farmed animals are found in mixed systems that also grow crops, farmed animals kill other small animals by walking on them, farmers treat ruminants for lice/fleas and other parasites, and small animals are killed to grow feed for farmed animals, including growing and harvesting of hay and silage. Certainly, the numbers of such animals killed might be considerable. However, I think we don’t need to know this for sure because both kinds of diet demand the use of croplands. The question really is, do we use more cropland for a vegan-friendly diet or for a typical diet?

Well, luckily there has been research into this question. On average, the cropland footprint in the US for a plant-based diet is about 0.17 hectares per year (see, for example, Peters et al, 2016 – Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios), while that of a typical Western-style diet is around 0.34 hectares per year. Whatever the number of animals killed on croplands, the plant-based diet will cause fewer overall.

Also, veganism is not specifically concerned with every kind of animal. Sure people can take it that way, but realistically we are most concerned with sentient animals. Many invertebrates just may not be sentient in the ways that count. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the harm to invertebrate species or to the environment and biosphere, but those are different concerns. Concern for the fair treatment of sentient beings can co-exist with more general concerns about other matters, just as concern for human rights abuses doesn’t mean we can’t also worry about pollution of the oceans.

In the end it seems likely that a typical vegan-friendly diet is best if we want to reduce harms to other animals and be fairer to the sentient animals we farm.

That said, someone can certainly make choices that do even better if least harm is their only metric. For example, a carnivore dieter who takes considerable care to source their food from ethical and sustainable sources and thus can be confident that they have caused the deaths of just a handful of large animals in a year is on solid ground. On a rights-based stance that doesn’t necessarily fly but for many people, least harm as a principle carries weight.

Of course, what you choose to do is up to you.

Veganism As An Animal Rights Matter

~ Graeme M ~ 3 Comments

I have argued that veganism is the idea that we have moral concern for other sentient species. I would summarise this as saying that veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and encourages us to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can.

We already do this in regard to other people and one notable way that we frame this is via human rights. Human rights recognise the inherent value of each person, regardless of background, where we live, what we look like, what we think or what we believe. They are based on principles of dignity, equality and mutual respect, which are shared across cultures, religions and philosophies. They are about being treated fairly, treating others fairly and having the ability to make genuine choices in our daily lives.

While there are any number of moral theories that set out to provide reasons for treating other animals well, I take the view that a rights-based approach can work as well as any. So, on the grounds I presented above, I suggest that veganism aims to treat other animals fairly by endorsing the principle that we behave as though other animals have the same basic rights as other people, whenever we can.

These basic rights for animals are the rights to be free and not property, in control of their own lives, and not to be treated cruelly. While the UK Vegan Society (which invented the concept of veganism) does describe veganism as a meat free diet, the history of the Society shows that ending unfair animal use and harm was a significant – if not the main – priority. We can therefore derive the current Vegan Society definition for veganism from the rights-based position I advocate.

Note that I am not saying that other species have rights, but rather that when we behave as though they have these rights, we are more likely to make choices that respect them and consequently be fairer in the ways our actions affect them.

By way of example, if we agree that it is not fair to own animals, to treat them as an object of production, to limit their ability to pursue their life on their own terms and to treat them cruelly, we would choose not to buy products from intensive animal farming operations. Alternatively, if we believe we must consume animal products, we should prefer to buy from those enterprises that violate these rights the least (and thereby are fairer in their treatment of the animals concerned).

A Brief History Of Veganism

~ Graeme M ~ 6 Comments

(Image from UK Vegan Society website)

(Three minute read)

Humans have been working out morality for most of our existence, though with the focus squarely on our own species. Having moral regard for other animals on the other hand is a more recent phenomenon, perhaps as recent as the past several thousand years.

Ever since the emergence of agriculture and stable societies, there have been people we would loosely describe as vegetarians. For example, some ancient Greek philosophers held that other animals deserve our moral consideration when working out what’s best to do when our actions affect them. The Jains in India have believed – for several thousands of years – in the principle of non-violence, including all living things within their scope.

More recently, the Vegetarian Society was formed in Britain in 1847 as a natural follow on from a growing interest in the kinder treatment of other animals. The Vegetarian Society promoted a meat-free diet for its members. Even today, the Society claims to be “UK’s original and leading voice for the vegetarian and vegan movement… driven by their convictions and hungry for change”.

In the late 1940s, some members of the Vegetarian Society sought to go further and promoted the idea of dairy-free, egg-free vegetarianism. Donald Watson and several others formed a sub-group which promoted a “vegan” diet. The term “vegan” was formed from the first and last letters of “vegetarian”. The first newsletter appeared in 1945 and the Vegan Society came into being.

The Vegan Society’s main aim was for members to avoid any animal products as food, but it also encouraged members to avoid the use of “animal commodities”. However, while its original meaning largely referred to diet, the idea for veganism came from an underlying motivation to treat other animals better. That is, veganism embraced the moral belief that humans should free animals from human use and ill-treatment and restore a fairer relationship with them.

Watson himself was vegan on compassionate and health grounds, believing as he did that a vegan-friendly, plant-based diet was best for human health and animal well-being. While he had a vision for what veganism might mean, he didn’t remain with the Vegan Society very long. By 1949 Watson had no further active involvement in the Society.

At the November 1948 General Meeting, Leslie J Cross was elected to the committee. Cross was an animal emancipationist, which today we would think of as an animal rights advocate. He believed that the Vegan Society should be more vocal in support of animal emancipation, ie animal rights and liberation. Cross introduced a new Constitution in 1950 and proposed a new definition for Veganism focused on ending the “exploitation of animals by man”.

Over the next decade or so, the definition of veganism changed between focusing on diet and being more concerned with the emancipation of animals (animal “rights”). By 1962 it had settled on something quite similar to the definition today, stating that veganism is a “…way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom…”.

The definition ever since has largely remained true to the aim of preventing animal exploitation and cruelty. Animal rights as a concept really emerged in the 1970s, probably in response to Peter Singer’s controversial and influential book “Animal Liberation”. Singer also introduced to a wider audience the idea of “speciesism”, a term first coined in 1970 by British psychologist Richard Ryder.

Interestingly, vegan societies in other countries often varied from the UK Society by focusing primarily on a plant-based diet rather than an animal rights motivation. The American Vegan Society was founded by Jay Dinshah in 1960. This organisation focused on veganism as a plant-based diet but introduced Ahimsa as the basis for its beliefs about animal treatment. That remains the case to this day with the AVS describing veganism as a lifestyle that embraces eating only plants while integrating Ahimsa into one’s everyday life. Ahimsa is a spiritual tradition common to Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, expressing the ethical principle of not causing harm to living things.

Today, the UK Vegan Society definition is:

“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”

While the definition, meaning and practice of veganism has varied over the years, progress in the broader field of animal protection and rights consideration has similarly been evolving. Today there is a deep and comprehensive literature around animal rights and justice as well as many highly influential thinkers whose ideas have ranged across notions of care, compassion, protection and freedom from exploitation.

Given that these ideas have emerged from the kind of reasoning that gave rise to the concept of veganism, it seems reasonable today to regard veganism as the domain of moral concern for other sentient species, equivalent to the fundamental idea that we owe moral regard to the animals our actions affect. I cannot think of any way in which we could act to treat other animals with fairness and compassion that would not be consistent with veganism.

“Veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can”

Read more:

So Why Veganism?

Does Vegan Advocacy Need A Reform?

My Vegan Elevator Pitch

Does Vegan Advocacy Need A Reformation?

~ Graeme M ~ 2 Comments

(Two minute read)

I believe that veganism is the single most rational and effective strategy for conducting ethical relations with other species. To recap, I take the position that veganism is the idea that we are under a duty to act with justice and fairness towards other sentient species as far as possible. In other words, veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can. A simple way to think about this is to regard other animals as attracting the same three basic rights as do people (ie the rights to be free and not owned, to be able to live one’s own life and not to be treated cruelly). We make fair decisions for other animals whenever we seek to respect and protect those rights. This boils down to very much the same definition as that of the UK Vegan Society.

Unfortunately, this is not how veganism is generally understood nor how it is usually promoted. Instead, too much vegan advocacy is shrouded in judgement, forceful criticism and rejection of everyday feelings about the world. As well, most people think of veganism as merely a super strict diet.

As a result of this poor and fractured public image, veganism appeals to very few people. Worse, the word seems to evoke an almost irrational reaction that borders on hatred towards “vegans” (people who endorse veganism). This is incredibly sad given what I said above about the value of the idea as a rational and effective ethical framework for all of us.

Advocacy group Pax Fauna observed in recent research:

“Vegetarians and vegans, however, remain deeply unpopular. Omnivores view veg*ns more negatively than several groups which are commonly targets of prejudice, including Black people, immigrants, and atheists… Negative feelings are stronger towards vegans than vegetarians, and towards veg*ns motivated by animal suffering or environmental concerns as opposed to those motivated by health.”

How can this overwhelmingly negative attitude be turned around? Perhaps the times call for a radical reformation of the public face of veganism and associated messaging to build on the progress and gains of the recent past. Only by winning over citizens to believe that treating other animals fairly is important, indeed necessary, are we really likely to see greater progress. However, winning people over is rarely achieved by pointing out their shortcomings.

If current strategies are failing to encourage general agreement with veganism and doing little to change public attitudes, a new strategy is needed. The way I see it, far too much weight is being placed on the tactic of complete individual conversion to veganism. Too often, success is measured by the number of people becoming vegan, yet so far at least very few people do this and the vast majority reject the idea out of hand. Worse, many so-called vegans eventually abandon their veganism.

My suggestion then is to focus instead on encouraging a more positive community attitude to veganism. That is, the aim of vegan advocacy should be promoting a more positive public attitude to how we regard and treat other animals rather than converting people to veganism (with often doubtful results).

Let’s NOT measure success by individual conversion to veganism and thus strict and complete adherence to a vegan lifestyle, but rather by engagement, interest, willingness to discuss and by whether or not participants in discussions depart on good terms. In other words, success is measured by the extent to which public attitudes to veganism (justice for other animals) are positive, enquiring and supportive, even if the public remain by and large not strict vegans. The long game is important.

For now, veganism is not required by the law and all that anyone can do is make the changes in their life they are willing to make. It seems important that we celebrate even the smallest steps and encourage the slightest inquisitiveness about justice for other animals. And more than that, I hope for greater public engagement with the simple idea that we regard other animals as more than objects to be used however we like.

I expand further on this idea in my other posts below:

So Why Veganism?

Is it Time to Focus More on People and Less on Vegans?

What are “Strong” and “Weak” Veganism?