“Do not unjustly eat fish the water has given up, and do not

      desire as food the flesh of slaughtered animals,

Or the white milk of mothers who intended its pure draught for

      their young, not for noble ladies.

And do not grieve the unsuspecting birds by taking their eggs;

      for injustice is the worst of crimes.

And spare the honey which the bees get industriously

      from the flowers of fragrant plants;

For they did not store it that it might belong to others, nor did

      They gather it for bounty and gifts.

I washed my hands of all this; and wish that I had perceived

      my way before my hair went gray.”

~ Al-Maʿarri (970 AD-1057)

Thank you for checking out my resource compilation. My goal here is to help you learn something new or to help current vegans share information themselves. Is there incorrect/outdated information here? Do you have resources that you think should be here? Please contact me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/late_cretaceous

Starting resources:

🌱 = food guides

Suggested watching:

Suggested reading:

  • The Joyful Vegan: How to Stay Vegan in a World That Wants You to Eat Meat, Dairy, and Eggs by Colleen Patrick-Goudreau
  • How Not to Die by Michael Greger
  • The Food Revolution by John Robbins
  • The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan
  • Out of Sight: An Undercover Investigator's Fight for Animal Rights and Her Own Survival by Gail A. Eisnitz
  • Sub-Human by Emma Hakansson
  • Beasts of Burden: Animal and Disability Liberation by Sunaura Taylor
  • Beyond Nature: Animal Liberation, Marxism, and Critical Theory by Marco Maurizi
  • Veganarchism: Philosophy, Praxis, Self-criticism by Joseph Parampathu
  • Unconditional Anti-Oppression: The Rise of Anti-Speciesism in the Anarchist Movement by A.Blitz Molotov
  • Veganism Through the Lens of Decolonization by Venita Januarie
  • The Political Left and the Overlooked Power of Veganism: Toward a Marxist-Animal Liberationist Framework for Ecological Revolution by Emilia A Leese
  • Dear Leftist Critics of Veganism by John Tallent

Suggested creators:

👩‍⚕️= licensed doctor

👩‍🍳 = food content

📢 = activist

Nutrition

Part 1: nutrients

To preface, the “vegans have nutritional deficiencies,” argument is ultimately a red herring. The best way to determine the healthiness of a particular diet and/or lifestyle is to look at overall health outcomes among different groups, like the ones I provide in ‘Part 6: vegan, vegetarian health outcomes’

Most people do not monitor and/or regulate their exact intake of micronutrients when they are on an omnivorous diet. It's clear that more people should monitor and regulate their intake of calories and micronutrients, regardless of their dietary choices.

The moment veganism, and to a lesser extent vegetarianism, is brought up, many people will start talking about deficiencies. The potential for deficiencies, something that can occur on any diet, are not an argument in favor of omnivorous diets. Especially seeing as non-vegans are routinely severely lacking in intakes of fiber, vitamin C, magnesium, B vitamins and even B12 (especially among older populations), as we see in the resources I provide below.

I'd posit that this, besides concern trolling, is just a distraction, and every time vegans engage with it, they are giving validity to an invalid argument, namely that a vegan diet is in principle lacking.

———

B12 is found in: nutritional yeast, fortified plant milks, seaweed (nori, wakame, kombu), concentrated algae supplements, synthesized methylcobalamin

B12 is made by bacteria in soil and the guts of animals, and free-range livestock ingest the B12 as they graze and peck the ground. But most livestock are not free-range, and pesticides and antibiotics widely used on farms kill the B12-producing bugs. The result is that most B12 supplements, 90% according to one source, are fed to livestock, not people.

‘Do carnivores need Vitamin B12 supplements?’ https://baltimorepostexaminer.com/carnivores-need-vitamin-b12-supplements/2013/10/30

So there’s a choice here between taking a B12 supplement yourself and eating fortified foods, or eating an animal that has been given the supplement. It is also worth noting that a significant number of non-vegans are B12 deficient (https://ajcn.nutrition.org/action/doSearch?type=quicksearch&text1=b12+deficiency&field1=AllField) for a number of reasons, especially older people. Among vegans the figure is only about 10%. Perhaps the cherry on top is that supplemental sources of B12 appear to raise B12 levels more than B12 from meat.

‘Plasma vitamin B-12 concentrations relate to intake source in the Framingham Offspring Study’ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523070168 

Suggested reading on B12 and veganism: https://www.drmcdougall.com/education/information/vitamin-b12-deficiency-the-meat-eaters-last-stand/ and https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-cannot-get-enough-b12 

Calcium is found in: soybeans (tofu, tempeh, soy milk, edamame), fortified plant milks, chia seeds, almonds, dried figs, white beans, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds (whole, tahini), broccoli and broccoli rabe, kale, mustard and collard greens, sweet potatoes, oranges, squash, etc.

Zinc is found in: oats, beans, lentils, soybeans (tofu, tempeh, soy milk, edamame), buckwheat, whole grain pasta, wild rice, squash seeds, quinoa, hemp seeds, chia seeds, flax seeds, cashews, mushrooms, avocados, etc.

Iron is found in: blackstrap molasses, oats, lentils, squash seeds, soybeans (tofu, tempeh, soy milk, edamame), dark chocolate, cumin, turmeric, etc.

Heme-iron by itself has a higher absorption than non-heme iron, but if you eat vitamin C and A in the same day you've eaten non-heme iron, the absorption of non-heme iron is actually better than heme-iron. So for example, eating beans, oranges and carrots on the same day gives you adequate non-heme iron. The human body can regulate the absorption of non-heme iron whereas it cannot regulate the absorption of heme-iron efficiently. If you eat a steak, the heme-iron floods your system compared to the non-heme iron you'd get from lentils, for example. This is bad, because heme-iron is known to be carcinogenic.

Suggested reading on iron and veganism: https://veganhealth.org/iron/ and https://yourveganfallacyis.com/en/vegans-cannot-get-enough-iron

ALA is found in: ground flaxseed, chia seeds, walnuts, hemp hearts, olive oil, avocado oil, etc.

According to a study done by the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition, the conversion of the plant- based omega-3 ALA to the long-chain EPA and DHA may be increased in vegans who do not eat fish. The study notes that, despite having significantly lower intakes of EPA and DHA (associated with fish consumption), blood levels of EPA and DHA in vegans were approximately the same as regular fish eaters.

‘Dietary intake and status of n–3 polyunsaturated fatty acids in a population of fish-eating and non-fish-eating meat-eaters, vegetarians, and vegans and the precursor-product ratio of α-linolenic acid to long-chain n–3 polyunsaturated fatty acids: results from the EPIC-Norfolk cohort’ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652312911X?via%3Dihub 

This suggests that the body can adapt to a higher conversion rate when only ALA is consumed for a long time. This is why I am not as concerned about omega-3s. Additionally, most experts / health organisations recommend at least 250mg of DHA + EPA per day, which can be achieved from 2.55g of ALA, taking a 9.8% total conversion rate. This is not difficult to achieve (14g of chia seeds OR 11g of flax seeds OR 28g of walnuts).

‘Can adults adequately convert ??-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) to eicosapentaenoic acid (20:5n-3) and docosahexaenoic acid (22:6n-3)?’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/13646587

As a vegan, you can take several steps to ensure that you are getting enough essential fatty acids based on recommendations from public health authorities. The main thing is to ensure that your daily diet includes a really rich source of ALA, because that's the only fatty acid that the human body can't make on its own. Some experts suggest that it is a good idea to aim for a higher daily intake, or to take a DHA + EPA supplement, which are made with concentrated algae oil.

Suggested reading on DHA and veganism: https://www.mygenefood.com/blog/the-vegan-omega-3-problem/ and https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/omega-3-fat

Choline is found in: soybeans (tofu, tempeh, soy milk, edamame), cruciferous vegetables, legumes, quinoa, peanuts, peanut butter, red potatoes, banana, green peas, dates, walnuts, etc.

Consuming dietary choline from animal products can actually lead to health problems. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study looking at egg consumption and found that TMAO, a byproduct of dietary choline, can lead to greater risk for heart attack, stroke, and death. But the authors pointed out that a vegetarian or high-fiber diet can reduce choline intake and modulate the risk for heart disease.

‘Intestinal Microbial Metabolism of Phosphatidylcholine and Cardiovascular Risk’ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3701945 

A study in the journal Circulation also linked choline to increased risk of heart disease. But the authors found that participants who followed a vegan or vegetarian diet were protected against the harmful effects of choline. In addition, plant foods can be good sources of betaine, a compound that can stand in for choline as a methyl donor.

‘Gut Microbe-Generated TMAO from Dietary Choline Is Prothrombotic in Subjects’ https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.025338 

Suggested reading on choline and veganism: https://www.pcrm.org/news/blog/clearing-choline-confusion and https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/news/statement-media-reports-about-choline-and-vegan-diets 

Protein is found in:

The animals you eat only have EAAs because they eat plant matter. All cells produce the non-EAAs in their cytoplasm, but only plants produce the 9 EAAs, and that occurs in their intracellular organelles called plastids; green plastids contain chlorophyll, and that's where photosynthesis occurs. Only plants contain plastids. Thus, all animals ultimately get their EAAs from plants. As long as you are consuming a sufficient quantity of plant protein daily, you will get all of the EAAs required for health and survival, regardless of the protein source. There are no, "incomplete proteins," in the plant kingdom, since none are missing any EAAs. There are only two truly incomplete proteins, and they are both animal proteins: collagen and gelatin. They are missing the EAA tryptophan.

In her influential book, 'Diet for a Small Planet,' author Frances Moore Lappé argued that vegetarians and especially vegans needed to combine different plant proteins in the same meal, like rice and beans, to form "complete proteins," meaning a full spectrum of the 9 essential amino acids in the “right” proportions, similar to animal proteins. She based this on the idea that most plant foods were "incomplete," meaning they lacked one or more essential amino acids in significant amounts.

Her assumption was that, "you must "complement" proteins (combine them) at each meal to avoid amino acid deficiencies." This concept took hold widely and persistently, even appearing in textbooks, diet guides, and health class curricula. Despite good intentions, it was not supported by human physiology or more complete protein metabolism science.

In 1981, in the revised edition of the same book, Lappé explicitly rejected her earlier claim: "In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, one had to be very clever about combining specific plant foods in the same meal." Instead, she acknowledged what scientists had already come to understand; the body draws from an amino acid pool in the bloodstream and doesn't require all amino acids to be present simultaneously in one meal; eating a variety of plant foods throughout the day provides more than enough amino acids for nearly all people, even athletes.

Today, it’s well-established that a varied, whole-food plant-based diet supplies all essential amino acids without the need for protein combining at meals. Your body doesn't need all essential amino acids in one meal, it maintains an amino acid pool that collects and balances amino acids from different foods you eat throughout the day. Some plant foods are low (not absent) in one or more amino acids (e.g., lysine in grains or methionine in legumes). But again, this doesn't mean they're "incomplete," just lower in some amino acids, and easily balanced over the day by eating diverse plant foods. As long as you eat a variety of plant foods and enough total protein for your activity level and body weight, your body makes and uses all the amino acids it needs.

‘High-Protein Plant-Based Diet Versus a Protein-Matched Omnivorous Diet to Support Resistance Training Adaptations: A Comparison Between Habitual Vegans and Omnivores’ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-021-01434-9 

"A high-protein (~ 1.6 g kg−1 day−1), exclusively plant-based diet (plant-based whole foods + soy protein isolate supplementation) is not different than a protein-matched mixed diet (mixed whole foods + whey protein supplementation) in supporting muscle strength and mass accrual, suggesting that protein source does not affect resistance training-induced adaptations in untrained young men consuming adequate amounts of protein."

‘Meals Containing Equivalent Total Protein from Foods Providing Complete, Complementary, or Incomplete Essential Amino Acid Profiles do not Differentially Affect 24-h Skeletal Muscle Protein Synthesis in Healthy, Middle-Aged Women’ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022316624010770?fbclid=IwY2xjawHIKxdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHf2EimL5eZ9seUBUqBvZVcqP30UsjreRubUEf32v_jrHaAAmKIXzIb41JQ_aem_gWA38Ks7PZf1Dg9WlEQO_A 

> "Isonitrogenous meals containing a moderate serving of total protein from foods providing complete, complementary, or incomplete essential amino acid profiles do not differentially stimulate muscle protein synthesis after a meal and daily."

In a body building sense, people prefer to promote animal protein because of the anabolic advantage. That is, you get more protein and saturated fat and therefore see measurable growth much quicker. On the flip side, what these people often overlook is that plant protein is healthier; it's from a safer source, has the accompanying micronutrients and fiber and it’s much harder to overload yourself on it [in relative contrast to animal proteins' effect on kidney health].

So if your goal is simply quick muscle growth, yeah, animal protein is fine. If your goal is long-term health and a far less chance of developing or exacerbating health issues in your life, plant protein is optimal. Both routes will obviously require you to be consistent in your workouts, but much like steroids, animal protein will get you to a certain point faster. Also like steroids, animal protein and the saturated fat that accompanies it, increases your chances of succumbing to colorectal cancer and heart disease (cardiovascular diseases in general) which are two of the leading causes of death worldwide for obvious reasons.

Vitamin D is found in: fortified plant milks and fruit juice, sunshine, mushrooms, synthesized vitamin D supplements

Suggested reading on vitamin D and veganism: https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/vitamin-d-0 and https://vegnews.com/vitamin-d-vegan-diet 

Iodine is found in: seaweed (nori, wakame, kombu), iodized salt, fortified plant milks

Vitamin A is found in: vegetables and fruits whose edible flesh is orange (carrots and other root vegetables, dried apricots, squash and melons), dark leafy greens, bell peppers, fortified plant milks, etc.

Suggested reading on vitamin A and veganism: https://viva.org.uk/health/vitamin-a-beta-carotene 

Vitamin K2 is found in: natto, tempeh, sauerkraut, kombucha, or consuming more vitamin K1

Your body can convert some vitamin K1 to K2. The MK-4 side chain can be created thanks to bacteria in your body. According to the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data, the average total daily vitamin K intake from food is 138 µg for men and 122 µg for women. It therefore appears that getting enough vitamin K isn’t an issue for many adults in the U.S. The scientific consensus has been that either type of vitamin K is adequate, especially regarding blood clotting activity.

‘Vitamin K—Fact Sheet for Health Professionals’ https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminK-HealthProfessional 

Suggested reading on vitamin K2 and veganism: https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-k/ and https://www.theveganreview.com/vitamin-k-importance-plant-based-diet-best-vitamin-k2-foods-vegan-sources/ 

Selenium is found in: brazil nuts, whole grain pastas and breads, mushrooms, sunflower seeds, soybeans (tofu, tempeh, soy milk, edamame), oats, barley, lentils, etc.

Magnesium is found in: wholegrain rice, oats, Brazil nuts, almonds, cashew nuts, hazelnuts, walnuts, pecans, pistachios, peanuts and peanut butter, pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, spinach, dark chocolate, soybeans (tofu, tempeh, soy milk, edamame), etc.

Suggested reading on magnesium and veganism: https://www.thymetogovegannutritionservices.com/magnesium-sources-for-vegans/ and https://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2024issue3/2024_issue3_thinking_about_magnesium.php 

Carnitine is not considered an essential amino acid; it is classified as a "conditionally essential" nutrient, meaning the body can usually produce enough of it. It's synthesized in the liver and kidneys.

Taurine is under the same classification as carnitine for the same reasons.

Carnosine is not considered an essential amino acid because it is a dipeptide, meaning it is made up of two amino acids (beta-alanine and histidine), and while histidine is considered essential, beta-alanine is not; therefore, the body can synthesize carnosine from readily available components and does not need to be obtained directly from the diet.

Creatine is not an essential amino acid because the body produces it naturally in the liver and kidneys. It's a derivative of other amino acids, and is made from arginine, glycine, and methionine.

Part 2: supplements and fortification

Fortification is a widespread practice within all food systems, not just vegan diets. For instance, many non-vegan foods like bread, cereals, and milk are fortified with essential nutrients such as iron, calcium, vitamin D and multiple other vitamins, showcasing that supplementation is common across all diets. Nobody bats an eye when non-vegans take colostrum, marine collagen, fish oil, vitamin D, vitamin K, B complex, vitamin C, ZMA, CoQ10, creatine, Lactaid, Metamucil, whey isolates, electrolytes, etc etc. Given that the supplement industry is worth billions, most supplements are made with animal products and animal derivatives, and vegans make up ~3% of the global population, we're not the ones emptying the shelves.

'The Polypharma Study: Association Between Diet and Amount of Prescription Drugs Among Seniors' https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/15598276211048812?journalCode=ajla& 

> "Results suggest that a vegan diet reduces the number of pills by 58% compared to non-vegetarian** (IRR=.42 [95% CI: .25-.70]), even after adjusting for covariates. Increases in age, body mass index (BMI), and presence of disease suggest an increased number of pills taken. A vegan diet showed the lowest amount of pills in this sample. Body mass index also had a significant positive association with the number of pills."

Both farmed animals and their feed often receive additives to meet nutritional standards. Nutrients like omega-3, vitamin B12 and vitamin D are frequently supplemented in animal feed, enabling livestock to produce nutrient-rich products. Thus, when consuming animal products, individuals are often unknowingly reliant on the same fortification processes that they criticize in plant-based diets.

Moreover, the idea that vegans are alone in their supplementation is misleading. Many individuals, regardless of dietary preference, take supplements to improve their health. This includes non-vegans who might use fish oil or whey isolates, while a vegan simply opts for an algae-based and pea equivalent, respectively. Criticizing vegans for taking supplements while ignoring the same practice in non-vegans demonstrates a double standard.

Drifting further from this argument, it is crucial to consider the ethical implications of diet. Supplying one's body with necessary nutrients through supplements eliminates the need for animal exploitation or harm. This not only promotes health but also aligns with a commitment to reducing animal suffering, environmental degradation, and antibiotic resistance. Ultimately, the fact that vegans may rely on supplements does not undermine the ethical or health benefits of a plant-based diet. It simply reflects and reiterates the commitment to both personal health and the welfare of animals.

Part 3: misconceptions (soy, carbohydrates, cholesterol, “anti-nutrients,” early human diet)

Soy decreases cancer risk while the estrogen in dairy, especially when concentrated in things like cheese and butter, had some doctors so concerned that they sued the FDA for failing to put breast cancer warning labels on them: ‘We’re Suing the FDA: Cheese and Breast Cancer’ https://www.youtube.com/live/2XEox82C4x0 

The main source of animal-derived estrogens (60–70%) in the human diet is milk and dairy products. All milk (whether from cows, goats, humans, or porpoises) naturally contains small amounts of various hormones, including estrogen and progesterone. Because hormones like estrogen are fat-soluble, the level of hormones is higher in whole milk than in skim milk.

‘Hormones in Dairy Foods and Their Impact on Public Health - A Narrative Review Article’ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4524299/ 

'Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis' https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(09)00966-2/pdf

'Soybean isoflavone exposure does not have feminizing effects on men: a critical examination of the clinical evidence' https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(10)00368-7/pdf

For a humorous takedown of the idea of soy producing feminising effects, Hbomb has a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8dfiDeJeDU 

———

Cholesterol consumption is often misunderstood in the context of human nutrition. While it's true that cholesterol plays a role in the production of certain hormones and is used in the brain, the body is fully capable of synthesizing all the cholesterol it needs from a variety of carbohydrates and fats, particularly if these fats are unsaturated. This means it's unnecessary to ingest dietary cholesterol directly from animal sources.

There are several types of plasma lipoproteins, including low-density lipoprotein (LDL), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL). In the case of high LDL cholesterol, it's not only associated with cardiovascular disease, the mechanisms are clear; ApoB particles get lodged in the lumen, cause stenosis (clogging) that causes angina, exertion intolerance, and MI when plaques rupture. Lowering the ApoB particle count has been proven to slow down this process. Sure, there are other factors, but their contributions are less clear and we're talking about cholesterol.

When it comes to lowering your cholesterol levels, it’s not dietary cholesterol we should worry about. Instead, two types of unhealthy fats, saturated fat and trans fat, are the culprits behind elevated LDL cholesterol. It just so happens that many of the foods high in dietary cholesterol [animal products] also contain these unhealthy fats.

The prevailing medical link between lipoproteins and cardiovascular diseases is called the lipid hypothesis, and it is the most agreed-upon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis#Consensus. The general dietary advice is quite simple. Avoid eating saturated fats and trans fats. Don't smoke. Lose weight. You know, the basics. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/prevention-and-treatment-of-high-cholesterol-hyperlipidemia 

Think of it like this:

1. Smoking is *not guaranteed* to cause lung cancer, but there is *overwhelming evidence* that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer.

2. Sun exposure is *not guaranteed* to cause skin cancer, but there is *overwhelming evidence* that sun exposure increases your risk of skin cancer.

3. High LDL cholesterol is *not guaranteed* to cause heart disease, but there is *overwhelming evidence* that high LDL cholesterol increases your risk of heart disease.

———

The idea of anti-nutrients are mere sophistry perpetuated by exercise physiologist Loren Cordain in "The Paleo Diet" from 2001. Lectins are denatured by cooking. Phytates are anti-cancer and promote bone density. Glucosinosolates are premier cancer chemopreventive phytonutrients. Tannins are a much more diverse set of compounds.

1. There is a plethora of research showing that these "bad" anti-nutrients have potential health benefits. See below.

2. Paul Saladino and similar fake doctors can do all the "mechanistic" trickery they want when there's actual human outcome studies showing that these foods are beneficial and health promoting.

Side note, ever notice how the people spouting, "don't eat vegetables," rhetoric are always trying to sell you something? Or they're the shmucks that have bought something from these people?

3. Cooking and other methods of food preparation, like soaking, sprouting and fermenting, can reduce these compounds to virtually undetectable amounts.

4. People susceptible to stones should be aware of their oxalate intake and prepare foods appropriately, but healthy adults with no history of stones don't need to worry if consumption is in appropriate amounts (see Michael Greger's "daily dozen").

https://nutritionfacts.org/daily-dozen/

5. This is why I prefer variety and rotation over a small selection of food that is being consumed every day over and over. You may overlook something, miscalculate actual vitamin intake (like calcium from spinach), your research is lacking, or you may have a predisposition.

Really, it’s overly reductionist research that sounds good in theory but makes no sense in real life.

To reiterate, lectins are destroyed during cooking. The only lectin poisoning cases seem to originate from undercooked red kidney beans. The solution? You need to boil them for 10 minutes. If the beans aren't soft, cook them more, it’s that simple.

On the other hand, unsaturated fats might help us absorb some nutrients, but it also helps us take up heavy metals. It’s not so simple to say something is an "anti-nutrient," because we don’t consume these nutrients in isolation.

———

‘The Quarterly Review of Biology: The Importance of Dietary Carbohydrate in Human Evolution’

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26591850/ 

Key points:

1. The human brain uses up to 25% of the body's energy budget and up to 60% of blood glucose. While synthesis of glucose from other sources is possible, it is not the most efficient way, and these high glucose demands are unlikely to have been met on a low carbohydrate diet;

2. Human pregnancy and lactation place additional demands on the body's glucose budget and low maternal blood glucose levels compromise the health of both the mother and her offspring;

3. Starches would have been readily available to ancestral human populations in the form of tubers, as well as in seeds and some fruits and nuts;

4. While raw starches are often only poorly digested in humans, when cooked, they lose their crystalline structure and become far more easily digested;

5. Salivary amylase genes are usually present in many copies (average ~6) in humans, but in only 2 copies in other primates.

> “This increases the amount of salivary amylase produced and so increases the ability to digest starch. The exact date when salivary amylase genes multiplied remains uncertain, but genetic evidence suggests it was at some point in the last 1 million years. The communities of bacteria in the mouths of preagricultural humans and Neanderthals strongly resembled each other. In particular, humans and Neanderthals harbored an unusual group of Streptococcus bacteria in their mouths. These microbes had a special ability to bind to an abundant enzyme in human saliva called amylase, which frees sugars from starchy foods. The presence of the strep bacteria that consume sugar on the teeth of Neanderthals and ancient modern humans, but not chimps, shows they were eating more starchy foods, the researchers concluded.”

Chronologically from left, the molars of human ancestors got longer over millennia to suit a diet of high-carb grassy plants. Photo credits: Public domain; Don Hitchcock; Fernando Losada Rodríguez (rotated)

'700,000 years ahead of their teeth: The carbs that made us human' https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/08/250802022924.htm 

> “As early humans spread from lush African forests into grasslands, their need for ready sources of energy led them to develop a taste for grassy plants, especially grains and the starchy plant tissue hidden underground. [...] The findings suggest that the success of early humans stemmed from their ability to adapt to new environments despite their physical limitations, says Luke Fannin, a postdoctoral researcher at Dartmouth and lead author of the study.”

> “We can definitively say that hominins were quite flexible when it came to behavior and this was their advantage," Fannin says. "As anthropologists, we talk about behavioral and morphological change as evolving in lockstep. But we found that behavior could be a force of evolution in its own right, with major repercussions for the morphological and dietary trajectory of hominins.”

> “Even now, our global economy turns on a few species of grass--rice, wheat, corn, and barley," he says. "Our ancestors did something completely unexpected that changed the game for the history of species on Earth.””

‘Effects of Energy and Macronutrient Intake on Cognitive Function Through the Lifespan’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274573842_Effects_of_Energy_and_Macronutrient_Intake_on_Cognitive_Function_Through_the_Lifespan 

> “Carbs keep your brain functioning efficiently. The brain uses 20% of the total body energy burned daily. You've probably noticed on days when you've barely eaten carbs that you experience brain fog, moodiness and exhaustion. That's because the brain relies on carbohydrates as its primary source of fuel. Research shows that complex carbohydrates help the brain age healthily and improve short and long-term memory. Additionally, it's recommended that school-age children eat breakfasts high in carbohydrates to help with their cognitive function. It's important to fuel your body with healthy carbs or complex carbohydrates so your brain can perform well and for long-term energy.”

The figure (1) shown in the above link summarises putative pathways linking carbohydrate intake and mental function, including various influences that can prevent or reverse an otherwise beneficial effect. Moderate increases in blood glucose are more likely to improve mental function, especially memory. Conversely, higher glu-cose increases, especially if accompanied by poor glucose tolerance, may enhance release of cortisol during the challenging performance tests, which couldresult in relatively impaired cognition (CHO, carbohydrate; ACh, acetylcholine; 5-HT, 5-hydroxytryptamine or serotonin).

Despite all the myths you may have heard from friends, family, and the general public, and all the scare stories put out in the media by PR companies hired to write fear-mongering articles by Big Ag, going vegan is not a health concern, and it is appropriate for people of all stages of life. All nutrients come from the sun and soil, and this is how they enter into the food supply in the first place (through animals eating plants, and so on).

Part 4: animal products and our health

Carcinogenic to humans (Group 1, ultra-processed meats) – Agents in this group are known causes of cancer. Very strong, clear evidence is needed for an agent to be classified in Group 1. If the evidence from studies of cancer in humans is strong enough, the agent is automatically placed into Group 1. Otherwise, a combination of strong animal studies and mechanistic evidence in humans is needed.

International Agency for Research on Cancer

Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans

Link to PDF: https://publications.iarc.fr/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Red-Meat-And-Processed-Meat-2018 

Probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A, red meats) – Agents generally need to fulfill 2 of the following 3 requirements to be placed in Group 2A: some evidence of cancer in humans, strong animal evidence and strong mechanistic evidence.

National Toxicology Program's 15th Report on Carcinogens, “Known to be human carcinogens." Group 2A

Link to PDF: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/cancer/roc

‘Fight Erectile Dysfunction and 4 More Reasons to Go Plant-Based This Movember’ https://www.pcrm.org/news/blog/fight-erectile-dysfunction-and-4-more-reasons-go-plant-based-movember 

> “Red meat, including pork and beef, might be one of the worst foods for erectile dysfunction. The reason? Red meat is high in saturated fat, which can increase total blood cholesterol (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cardiovascular-medicine/articles/10.3389/fcvm.2022.996467/full). This excess cholesterol can build up in the arteries, leading to atherosclerosis (i.e. the clogging of arteries), poor blood flow, and eventually, heart disease—a major risk factor for erectile dysfunction. Additionally, the buildup of cholesterol in the arteries also triggers inflammation, another potential killer of healthy erections.

Conversely, in this cohort study (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7666422/) among 21,469 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, higher diet quality based on adherence to either a Mediterranean or Alternative Healthy Eating Index 2010 diet, which emphasize the consumption of vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes, and fish or other sources of long-chain (n-3) fats, as well as avoidance of red and processed meats, was found to be associated with a lower risk of developing erectile dysfunction.

Plus, a healthful plant-based diet can help unblock arteries, improving blood flow to the heart and brain, as well as to the penis. In fact, a plant-based diet is associated with reduced risk of erectile dysfunction, according to research recently published in the Journal of Urology (https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1097/JU.0000000000002009.05). Previous research (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4733263/) has found that men with the highest intakes of anthocyanins, flavones, and flavanones—compounds found in fruits such as strawberries, apples, blueberries, and citrus, lowered their risk for ED by 14% when compared to those who consumed the least.”

'Total, red and processed meat consumption and human health: an umbrella review of observational studies' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35291893/ 

> "Convincing evidence of the association between increased risk of (i) colorectal adenoma, lung cancer, CHD and stroke, (ii) colorectal adenoma, ovarian, prostate, renal and stomach cancers, CHD and stroke and (iii) colon and bladder cancer was found for excess intake of total, red and processed meat, respectively."

'Potential health hazards of eating red meat' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27597529/ 

> "The evidence-based integrated message is that it is plausible to conclude that high consumption of red meat, and especially processed meat, is associated with an increased risk of several major chronic diseases and preterm mortality. Production of red meat involves an environmental burden."

'Red meat consumption, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/ 

> "Unprocessed and processed red meat consumption are both associated with higher risk of CVD, CVD subtypes, and diabetes, with a stronger association in western settings but no sex difference. Better understanding of the mechanisms is needed to facilitate improving cardiometabolic and planetary health."

'Meat and fish intake and type 2 diabetes: Dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32302686/ 

> "Our meta-analysis has shown a linear dose-response relationship between total meat, red meat and processed meat intakes and T2D risk. In addition, a non-linear relationship of intake of processed meat with risk of T2D was detected."

'Meat Consumption as a Risk Factor for Type 2 Diabetes' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/ 

> "Meat consumption is consistently associated with diabetes risk."

'Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes: a meta-analysis' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23643053/ 

> "Our study suggests that there is a dose-response positive association between egg consumption and the risk of CVD and diabetes."

'Dairy Intake and Incidence of Common Cancers in Prospective Studies: A Narrative Review' https://www.ijdrp.org/index.php/ijdrp/article/view/365 

> "Naturally occurring hormones and compounds in dairy products may play a role in increasing the risk of breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers.”

'Meat Consumption and Cancer Risk' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2121650/ 

> “Although the association of cancer and meat intake may be partially explained by high-energy or high-fat (“westernized”) diets, of greater interest is a possible direct role of potentially carcinogenic compounds that are found in meats, including N-nitroso compounds, heterocyclic amines, or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. N-nitroso compounds are broad-acting potent carcinogens in animal models [3] and include nitrosamines, which require metabolic activation to be converted to a carcinogenic form, and nitrosamides, which do not require activation. Similarly, heterocyclic amines are classified as mutagens and animal carcinogens [4–8]. These compounds and others present in meats (salts, nitrates, nitrites, heme iron, saturated fat, estradiol) have been theorized to increase DNA synthesis and cell proliferation, increase insulin-like growth factors, affect hormone metabolism, promote free radical damage, and produce carcinogenic heterocyclic amines [9–16], all of which may promote the development of cancer.

'Meat Consumption and Depression: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11901745/ 

> "This meta-analysis, conducted on 17 longitudinal studies comprising 64,992 individuals, showed a protective association between a meat-free diet and the risk of depression. This association was consistent for cohort studies, studies with higher quality, and the most recently published studies. Subgroup analysis by population psychosocial variables supported that the relationship between a meat-free diet and depression could be influenced by psychosocial variables."

> “Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed and reported according to PRISMA guidelines through a comprehensive search in Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsychInfo databases from inception to January 2024 (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42023405426). The exposures analyzed were (1) a meat-free diet and (2) a flexitarian (low-meat) diet. The outcome was depression. The meta-analysis included twenty longitudinal observational studies. Forest plots were designed, and heterogeneity was analyzed through I2 statistic and subgroup analyses. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plots and Egger’s test.”

> “Results: The pooled overall analysis showed a protective association (HR: 0.74, 95%CI: 0.59–0.89, I2 = 53.9%) between meat-free consumption and depression, which was consistent in the group of highest-quality studies. The main sources of heterogeneity identified were study quality, study design, year and country of publication, gender inequality in the country, and adjustment for certain variables (including social variables). The association between flexitarian diet and depression (HR: 0.90, 95%CI: 0.81–0.99, I2 = 58.9%) was not consistent between subgroups.”

> “Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis show a consistent protective association between meat-free diets and depression and an inconclusive association regarding a flexitarian diet. Primary studies analyzing psychosocial variables are needed to explain these results.”

> "The current context points towards the need to reduce global meat consumption and towards a global transformation of the food system. Our results suggest the possibility that a meat-free diet could have positive consequences for mental health, protecting against depression. The abundant scientific evidence in favor of reducing meat consumption, together with our results, could encourage laws and government actions that facilitate the transition of the food system towards more local and seasonal consumption. That would lead to a reduction in exports, food waste, and the consumption of animal products, including meat.”

‘A red meat-derived glycan promotes inflammation and cancer progression’ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4299224/ 

> "Research shows that eating high amounts of red meat increases risk of colorectal cancer, possibly because it may spur inflammation. A new animal study published in The Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences now points to a sugar molecule found in red meat as one mechanism responsible. The molecule called N- glycolylneuraminic acid, or Neu5Gc for short, sticks to the ends of sugars found in red meats such as beef, pork, and lamb. Although most mammals produce Neu5Gc, humans don’t. Humans are “immunized” against Neu5Gc shortly after birth by an unusual process involving gut bacteria. As a result, when people eat foods that contain Neu5Gc, we produce antibodies that react to Neu5Gc, triggering inflammation. Previous research has detected relatively high amounts of Neu5Gc in cancerous tissue. In foods, Neu5Gc can be free or it can be bound to the ends of long sugar chains attached to proteins. The bound form is highly bioavailable, meaning it can easily be taken up into the body’s cells. Neu5Gc tends to accumulate in cells of the colon, prostate, and ovary."

> "We present an unusual mechanism for the well-known association between red meat consumption and carcinoma risk involving the nonhuman sialic acid N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc). We first evaluate the Neu5Gc content of various foods to show that red meats are particularly rich in orally bioavailable Neu5Gc and then investigate human-like Neu5Gc-deficient mice fed this form of Neu5Gc. When such mice were challenged with anti-Neu5Gc antibodies, they developed evidence of systemic inflammation. Long-term exposure to this combination resulted in a significantly higher incidence of carcinomas (five-fold increase) and an association with Neu5Gc accumulation in the tumors. Similar mechanisms may contribute to the association of red meat consumption with other diseases, such as atherosclerosis and type 2 diabetes, which are also exacerbated by inflammation.”

Part 5: fiber and carnivore diets

‘Closing America’s Fiber Intake Gap: Communication Strategies From a Food and Fiber Summit’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124841/ 

Only 5% of Americans get the proper amount of fiber. Fiber deficiency leads to countless diseases like heart disease, type 2 diabetes, diverticular disease, constipation, colon cancer and even breast cancer.

> “As part of food-focused messages, describe the potential health advantages of consuming adequate fiber. Consumers may be more motivated to increase fiber intake when they know it is associated with a personally meaningful and tangible benefit, such as assistance with weight management, heart health, or digestive health. Guidance to eat a variety of fiber-containing foods to receive a variety of benefits also may motivate, as well as a simple message about the potential health economic advantages of consuming adequate fiber from foods.

In addition, acknowledge the intestinal effects of increasing fiber intake. Traditionally, health care practitioners and nutrition communicators have advised people to slowly increase fiber to avoid or lessen side effects, such as intestinal bloating and gas. However, these effects are a normal consequence of fiber fermentation in the intestine, a process that is responsible for some of fiber’s health benefits. Assurance that having gas is a normal, short-lived effect of eating more fiber and is a signal that fiber is doing its job of providing longer-term benefits may help alleviate concern.”

‘Fiber’ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/fiber/ 

Fiber binds to bile salts, thus lowering LDL and VLDL.

> “Soluble fiber may also lower blood cholesterol by interfering with bile acid production. Cholesterol is used to make bile acids in the liver. Soluble fiber binds to bile acids in the gut and excretes them from the body. Because of this reduced amount of available bile acids, the liver will pull cholesterol from the blood to make new bile acids, thereby lowering blood cholesterol. A meta-analysis of 67 controlled trials found a modest benefit of dietary soluble fiber in lowering total and LDL cholesterol (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/216689).”

The carnivore diet is very hard on the liver, which has to work extra hard to break down animal products.

‘Association Between Protein Intake From Different Animal and Plant Origins and the Risk of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Case-Control Study’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9900076/ 

Increased intake of meat protein is associated with a higher risk of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, especially when compared to eating plant proteins.

> “In this present case-control study, we aimed to investigate a possible association between dietary protein intake and the risk of developing NAFLD. With regards to our investigation, we found an inverse association between total protein and other sources like vegetable protein, nut protein, and grain protein with the odds of NAFLD. Our findings also indicated that higher consumption of meat protein increased the probability of hepatic fat accumulation.”

There's a reason why vegans and carnivores report virtually the same subjective health benefits within the first 6 months–they're consuming more whole foods and consuming less calories. Long-term data suggests that a vegan or a plant-based Mediterranean diet is optimal for human health and longevity. There are no studies that focus on the long-term effects of the carnivore diet, because it's unsafe and using people in such a study would border on medical malpractice.

Veganism is as safe as any other diet. If you go keto and only eat cheese and steak, you're gonna have a bad time; if you go vegan and forget about protein and B vitamins, you're gonna have a bad time. Most people's problems with [veganism] are purely ideological and very rarely anything to do with science and nutrition.

Part 6: vegan, vegetarian health outcomes

The most comprehensive nutritional study in human history, The China Study (https://nutritionstudies.org/the-china-study/) was conducted over a 20-year period by researchers from Oxford and Cornell universities, in association with Chinese government scientists, and concluded that a whole-foods plant-based diet, free of animal products, is the optimum diet for human health. As well as this, it showed that all of our main diseases (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure, stroke, etc.) are caused or aggravated by the consumption of animal products, and that adopting a whole-foods plant-based diet massively lowers your risk of those diseases.

‘Association of Animal and Plant Protein Intake With All-Cause and Cause-Specific Mortality’ https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2540540 

> “Of the 131 342 participants, 85 013 were women (64.7%) and 46 329 were men (35.3%) (mean [SD] age, 49 [9] years). The median protein intake, as assessed by percentage of energy, was 14% for animal protein (5th-95th percentile, 9%-22%) and 4% for plant protein (5th-95th percentile, 2%-6%). After adjusting for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, animal protein intake was not associated with all-cause mortality (HR, 1.02 per 10% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.98-1.05; P for trend = .33) but was associated with higher cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.08 per 10% energy increment; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; P for trend = .04). Plant protein was associated with lower all-cause mortality (HR, 0.90 per 3% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.86-0.95; P for trend < .001) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.88 per 3% energy increment; 95% CI, 0.80-0.97; P for trend = .007).”

‘Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: A systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies’ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2016.1138447 

> “Eighty-six cross-sectional and 10 cohort prospective studies were included. The overall analysis among cross-sectional studies reported significant reduced levels of body mass index, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and glucose levels in vegetarians and vegans versus omnivores. With regard to prospective cohort studies, the analysis showed a significant reduced risk of incidence and/or mortality from ischemic heart disease (RR 0.75; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.82) and incidence of total cancer (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.98) but not of total cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, all-cause mortality and mortality from cancer. No significant association was evidenced when specific types of cancer were analyzed. The analysis conducted among vegans reported significant association with the risk of incidence from total cancer (RR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.95), despite being obtained only in a limited number of studies.”

'Animal- and Plant-Based Protein Sources: A Scoping Review of Human Health Outcomes and Environmental Impact' https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14235115 

> "Several prospective cohort studies, some meta-analyses, and an umbrella review of various meta-analyses have shown that the use of preferential vegetable protein sources is associated with a better prognosis in terms of major metabolic diseases and CVDs as compared with the intake of animal protein sources. At the same time, no differences were demonstrated between the two types of protein sources in terms of muscle and bone health, and there are some clinical conditions in which a vegetarian diet might increase the risk of, e.g., vitamin B12 deficiency and the related reduced functioning of one-carbon metabolism, zinc deficiency, and hypoferritinemia.”

“With a view to planetary health, it is necessary to consider the overall “environmental pressure” of food production also in nutrition claims; for this reason, a synthesis of the main environmental impact factors of the various protein sources was carried out. It can be noted that animal protein sources generally have a greater environmental impact than plant-based ones, and therefore, a comparison between the two macro-categories is more appropriate than strictly the nutritional field. Though several multidisciplinary studies have extensively analyzed the issue of sustainable nutrition, there is a lack of tools in the medical health field that allow us to apply this vision of global health also to a nutritional prescription for patients.”

'Plant-based diet and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11537864/ 

> “This study adopted the concept of the plant-based diet index proposed by Satija et al. According to this concept, plant-based diet index could be divided into overall plant diet index, healthy plant diet index, and unhealthy plant diet index. The healthy plant diet index emphasizes a greater intake of healthy plant-based foods such as whole grains, vegetables, nuts, legumes, coffee and tea, whereas the unhealthy plant diet index focuses on less healthy plant-based food groups, including fruit juices, sugary drinks, refined grains, potatoes and sweets/desserts, as well as animal foods such as animal fats, dairy product eggs, fish or seafood red meat and other animal foods. Positive scoring is applied to healthy plant foods, whereas reverse scoring is applied to animal foods and less healthy plant foods. The final score for all the components is added to obtain the total PDI score. A higher PDI score indicates better dietary quality.”

> “The results of the meta-analysis of 14 articles revealed that a plant-based diet (PDI) can reduce cancer mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality and mortality risk. Adherence to a healthy plant-based diet (hPDI) was negatively correlated. An unhealthy plant-based diet (uPDI) was positively correlated with CVD mortality and mortality and had a certain correlation with cancer mortality. Sensitivity analysis showed no contradictory results. The hPDI was negatively associated with all-cause mortality, and the uPDI was positively associated with all-cause mortality.”

'Vegetarian or vegan diets and blood lipids: a meta-analysis of randomized trials' https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37226630/ 

> “The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to estimate the effect of vegetarian and vegan diets on TC, LDL-C, TG, and apoB blood levels in 30 RCTs. We found that compared with omnivorous diets, consumption of vegetarian or vegan diets was associated with reduced levels of TC, LDL-C, and apoB. These effects were similar in a range of subgroup analyses stratified by participant and study characteristics. Vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with reduced concentrations of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B—effects that were consistent across various study and participant characteristics. Plant-based diets have the potential to lessen the atherosclerotic burden from atherogenic lipoproteins and thereby reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.”

'Effect of Plant-Based Diets on Gut Microbiota: A Systematic Review of Interventional Studies' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10057430/ 

> “Various microbial metabolites have favorable health benefits. These include anti-inflammatory, immunomodulatory, systemic anti-obesogenic, antihypertensive, hypocholesterolemic, antiproliferative, and antioxidant effects. These postbiotic effects depend on the composition and substrates of the microbiota and are mainly influenced by diet. They arise from the control of gene expression, metabolism, and intestinal function. The twelve studies included in this review reported various health benefits from a range of participants.”

> “The vegan/vegetarian diets are rich in dietary fiber fermentation products and other carbohydrates that produce SCFAs. The fecal levels of these metabolites are strongly associated with fruit, vegetable, and legume intake. Thus, their levels increase dramatically in individuals who adopt a plant-based diet. Intriguingly, a diet high in fruit, legumes, and vegetables, i.e., the plant-based diet, was associated with a rise in SCFAs in our included studies. The included study also showed a negative correlation with pro-inflammatory cytokines.”

‘A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a plant-based nutrition program to reduce body weight and cardiovascular risk in the corporate setting: the GEICO study’ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3701293/ 

> “Among study completers, mean changes in body weight were −4.3 kg and −0.08 kg in the intervention and control groups, respectively (P<0.001). Total and LDL cholesterol fell 13.7 and 13.0 mg/dl in the intervention group and 1.3 and 1.7 mg/dl in the control group (P<0.001). HbA1C levels decreased 0.7 percentage point and 0.1 percentage point in the intervention and control group, respectively (P<0.01). An 18-week dietary intervention using a low-fat plant-based diet in a corporate setting improves body weight, plasma lipids, and, in individuals with diabetes, glycemic control.”

'Dietary intake of total, animal, and plant proteins and risk of all cause, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies' https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m2412 

> "32 prospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review and 31 in the meta-analysis. During the follow-up period of 3.5 to 32 years, 113 039 deaths (16 429 from cardiovascular disease and 22 303 from cancer) occurred among 715 128 participants. Intake of total protein was associated with a lower risk of all cause mortality (pooled effect size 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 0.99, I2=58.4%, P<0.001). Intake of plant protein was significantly associated with a lower risk of all cause mortality (pooled effect size 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 0.97, I2=57.5%, P=0.003) and cardiovascular disease mortality (pooled hazard ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.96, I2=63.7%, P=0.001), but not with cancer mortality. Intake of total and animal protein was not significantly associated with risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality. A dose-response analysis showed a significant inverse dose-response association between intake of plant protein and all cause mortality (P=0.05 for non-linearity). An additional 3% energy from plant proteins a day was associated with a 5% lower risk of death from all causes.”

'Plant-based animal product alternatives are healthier and more environmentally sustainable than animal products' https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833522000612 

> “This paper reviews 43 studies on the healthiness and environmental sustainability of PB-APAs compared to animal products. In terms of environmental sustainability, PB-APAs are more sustainable compared to animal products across a range of outcomes including greenhouse gas emissions, water use, land use, and other outcomes. In terms of healthiness, PB-APAs present a number of benefits, including generally favourable nutritional profiles, aiding weight loss and muscle synthesis, and catering to specific health conditions. Moreover, several studies present ways in which PB-APAs can further improve their healthiness using optimal ingredients and processing. As more conventional meat producers move into plant-based meat products, consumers and policymakers should resist naturalistic heuristics about PB-APAs and instead embrace their benefits for the environment, public health, personal health, and animals.”

'Nutrient Profiles of Vegetarian and Nonvegetarian Dietary Profiles' https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2013.06.349 

> "Many nutrient intakes varied significantly between dietary patterns. Nonvegetarians had the lowest intakes of plant proteins, fiber, beta carotene, and magnesium compared with those following vegetarian dietary patterns, and the highest intakes of saturated, trans, arachidonic, and docosahexaenoic fatty acids. The lower tails of some nutrient distributions in strict vegetarians suggested inadequate intakes by a portion of the subjects. Energy intake was similar among dietary patterns at close to 2,000 kcal/day, with the exception of semi-vegetarians, who had an intake of 1,707 kcal/day. The mean body mass index was highest in nonvegetarians (mean=28.7 [standard deviation=6.4]) and lowest in strict vegetarians (mean=24.0 [standard deviation=4.8]).”

'The association of animal and plant protein with successful ageing: A combined analysis of MEDIS and ATTICA epidemiological studies' https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980020000427 

> "Participants with high consumption of plant proteins were more likely to be male, physically active, with higher daily energy intake, higher adherence to the Mediterranean diet and higher level of SAI (P < 0·001). Participants with ‘Low animal & High plant’ and ‘High animal & High plant’ protein consumption had a 6 and 7 % higher SAI score, respectively, compared with the other participants (P < 0·001). In contrast, ‘Low animal & Low plant’ and ‘High animal & Low plant’ protein intake was negatively associated with SAI as compared to the combination of all other consumption categories (P < 0·02)."

"The consumption of a plant-based protein-rich diet seems to be a beneficial nutritional choice that should be promoted and encouraged to older people since it may benefit both individual’s health and prolong successful aging.”

Part 7: Crohn's Disease

'Recommendation of plant-based diets for inflammatory bowel disease' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6382506/ 

CD: Crohn's Disease

PBD: Plant-Based Diet

UC: Ulcerative Colitis

> "In CD, infliximab combined with PBD induced remission at a rate of 96% in 46 consecutive cases. This remission rate is excellent considering that around 30% of sufferers are primary non-responders to infliximab. PBD is effective in the maintenance of remission in CD: 100% and 90% at 1- and 2-year follow-up, respectively. This remission rate was achieved without scheduled maintenance therapy of infliximab or adalimumab. The relapse rate of initial episode patients with UC who were treated with therapy incorporating PBD was 14% at 1 year. It was 4% for educationally hospitalized patients. We now treat mild cases of UC with PBD first, not medication. PBD without medication can induce remission in about one-third of patients with mild UC. All patients ate the PBD, and none experienced an adverse effect."

'Crohn’s Disease Remission with a Plant-Based Diet: A Case Report' https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/11/6/1385 

"This case study supports the idea that food really is medicine. Not only does it show that eating a high-fiber, plant-based diet could help lead to Crohn’s disease remission, but all the ‘side effects’ are good ones, including a reduced risk for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and certain types of cancer."

Dr. Michael Greger has an article and video on adhering to a plant-based diet with Crohn's: https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/dietary-treatment-for-crohns-disease/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_T93ON2cBE 

Here are some Reddit threads on veganism for people with Crohn's Disease, and especially fiber intake. These threads are made by people with Crohn's. The normal high-fiber in plant-based diets can be important to utilize when you can, or slowly move towards, as it is usually better for digestive health:

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/94etht/veganism_and_crohns_disease_a_mini_rant/ 

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/6ia6a7/wanting_to_go_vegan_with_crohns_disease/ 

3. https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/6vtxgv/im_struggling_on_a_vegan_diet_with_crohns_i/ 

4. https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/b7wjb1/looking_for_anyone_with_crohns_and_successful/ 

5. https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/axd8a5/low_fiberresidue_diet/ 

Here are are some basic guides to vegan nutrition: https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/ajsbp7/help/eeyyzyi/?context=3 

You may also want to check out /r/PlantBasedDiet, also on Reddit, for more catered guides.

What about children on vegan diets?

'Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27886704/ 

> "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes."

About the 2025 paper update: This is a restriction in scope to facilitate detailed guidance rather than a retraction of any sort. It would constitute scientific malpractice to expect people to read the tea leaves to get to a retraction. If they had good evidence to say that a plant-based diet was unhealthy during childhood or pregnancy, they'd say so directly.

The full paper is a 16 page PDF with references to 192 peer reviewed papers dealing with the subject of benefits and concerns of plant-based diets in adults.

https://www.jandonline.org/action/showPdf?pii=S2212-2672%2825%2900042-5 (opens to PDF download)

It also contains this statement, which would make no sense if they believed a plant-based diet was inappropriate for children:

> "In addition, the Academy advocates for policies and legislation that support equitable access to more plant-based foods in a variety of settings (eg, schools, childcare nutrition programs, and federal assistance programs) and within clinical care to meet the cultural, customary eating pattern, religious,

and sustainability preferences of individuals. Promoting and facilitating healthy vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns at the population and individual levels is an important mechanism for improving several outcomes associated with cardiometabolic diseases."

One of the AUTHORS of the paper confirmed that this newer paper only included adults because they specifically formed an expert panel for adults, and children will require their own separate careful review, for which they do not currently have a panel. See their statement here: https://x.com/NanciGuestRDPhD/status/1896688227354022253 

"The Academy created an expert panel for adults for which I am a member. We conducted rigorous analyses for over 2 yrs to create the position stand.  

The Academy supports the 2016 paper for pediatrics/pregnancy until/if anothervexpert panel is created. See a dietitian for specific questions.  

The Academy uses the highest level of evidence, so now there are specific expert panels."

'The British National Health Service' http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx 

> "With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs."

'The British Nutrition Foundation' https://www.nutrition.org.uk/putting-it-into-practice/plant-based-diets/healthy-eating-for-vegetarians-and-vegans/ 

> "Well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets can be nutritious and healthy."

'Dietitians Association of Australia' https://dietitiansaustralia.org.au/health-advice/vegetarian-diet 

> "Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. With planning, those following a vegan diet can cover all their nutrient bases, but there are some extra things to consider."

'Harvard Medical School' http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/becoming-a-vegetarian 

> "Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses."

'The Nutrition Society' https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-nutrition-society/article/longterm-health-of-vegetarians-and-vegans/263822873377096A7BAC4F887D42A4CA 

> "Vegetarians, who do not eat any meat, poultry or fish, constitute a significant minority of the world's population. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians consume dairy products and/or eggs, whereas vegans do not eat any foods derived wholly or partly from animals. [...] Vegetarians have a lower prevalence of overweight and obesity and a lower risk of IHD compared with non-vegetarians from a similar background, whereas the data are equivocal for stroke. For cancer, there is some evidence that the risk for all cancer sites combined is slightly lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians, but findings for individual cancer sites are inconclusive. Vegetarians have also been found to have lower risks for diabetes, diverticular disease and eye cataract. Overall mortality is similar for vegetarians and comparable non-vegetarians, but vegetarian groups compare favourably with the general population. The long-term health of vegetarians appears to be generally good, and for some diseases and medical conditions it may be better than that of comparable omnivores."

'Nutrient Intake and Status of German Children and Adolescents Consuming Vegetarian, Vegan or Omnivore Diets: Results of the VeChi Youth Study' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8157583/ 

> "The results of the VeChi Youth Study confirms the position of several national nutrition or paediatric societies, that a vegetarian, including a vegan, diet can meet the recommended nutrient requirements in childhood and adolescence."

'Energy, Macronutrient Intake, and Anthropometrics of Vegetarian, Vegan, and Omnivorous Children (1–3 Years) in Germany (VeChi Diet Study)' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6521189/ 

> "Our results indicate that a VG and VN diet in early childhood provides comparable amounts of energy and a macronutrient pattern in accordance with recommendations and can ensure normal growth, as there were no significant differences in proxy-reported anthropometrics compared to OM children of the same age."

'Plant-Based No Added Fat or American Heart Association Diets, Impact on Cardiovascular Risk in Obese Hypercholesterolemic Children and Their Parents' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4380801/ 

> "Children on PB had nine and children on AHA had four statistically significant (P<0.05) beneficial changes from baseline (mean decreases): BMI Z-scorePB (−0.14), systolic blood pressurePB (−6.43 mm Hg), total cholesterolPB (−22.5 mg/dL), low density lipoproteinPB (−13.14 mg/dL), hsCRPPB (−2.09 mg/L), insulinPB (−5.42uU/ml), myeloperoxidasePB/AHA (−75.34/69.23 pmol/L), mid-arm circumferencePB/AHA (−2.02/−1.55 cm), weightPB/AHA (−3.05/ −1.14kg) and waist circumferenceAHA (−2.96 cm). Adults on PB and AHA had seven and two respectively statistically significant (P<0.05) beneficial changes. The significant change favoring AHA was a 1% difference in children’s waist circumference. Difficulty shopping for food for the PB was the only statistically significant acceptability barrier.”

Climate & Environment

There is a little bit of everything in this section. Land use, resource use, emissions, waste products, feed crops, soy, grass-fed systems, etc. Search different keywords to find resources on a specific topic.

The best estimate for how many wild animals die annually in crop monocultures is about 7.3 billion. Still, more than half of the global crop feeds livestock, so most of those secondary deaths can be laid at the feet of the meat industry, too. The final figure of 7.3 billion wild animals killed in crop production is derived from a 2018 study published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. According to Anthropocene, it is the most widely cited scholarship to estimate this figure (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-018-9733-8).

Conversely...

The following numbers are based on 2022 data from the FAO, except for the fish tallies: for farmed fish, the low end of the range draws on research by the Sentience Institute, while the high end is based on an analysis by Mood and Brooke. For wild-caught fish, the low end and high ends of the estimate are both based on a range provided by Mood and Brooke

1. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data 

2. https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/global-animal-farming-estimates 

3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10936281/ 

4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10951671/ 

That said, here are the best estimates of how many animals are killed EVERY DAY on a per-species basis, globally:

Chickens: 206 million/day

Farmed Fish: Between 211 million and 339 million

Wild Fish: Between 3 billion and 6 billion

Ducks: 9 million

Pigs: 4 million

Geese: 2 million

Sheep: 1.7 million

Rabbits: 1.5 million

Turkeys: 1.4 million

Goats: 1.4 million

Cows: 846,000

Pigeons & other birds: 134,000

Buffalo: 77,000

Horses: 13,000

Other animals: 13,000

In total, this means that every 24 hours, between 3.4 and 6.5 billion animals are killed for food. That comes to a lower-end estimate of 1.2 trillion animals killed every year.

———

Producing meat and dairy requires significantly more land and resources than plant-based foods. The UN reports that 1,000 kg of plant protein can be produced on just one hectare, while 10 hectares are necessary for the same amount of protein from grass-fed beef. This means that, on balance, the animal deaths associated with plant agriculture are fewer when accounting for the land required to raise animals for food. Furthermore, crop production itself does not directly cause the same level of suffering, considering the systemic cruelty present in animal farming, including branding, forced insemination, confinement and slaughter.

Simply put: more land required to feed and house billions of animals = more animals displaced and killed [compared to a plant-based diet].

The average meat eater’s diet results in up to 100 times more animal deaths than a vegan’s diet. That’s because vegans eat the same food as meat eaters, with the exception of meat, dairy, eggs, honey and any animal derivatives, which means substantially less animals are killed for our diet.

A meat eater’s diet is responsible for:

1. The animals that die directly from the animal-based foods that they eat (meat, eggs, dairy, honey)

2. The animals that die from growing and harvesting the food that those animals eat (various animal feeds such as soy, corn, grain, hay, etc)

3. The animals that die from growing and harvesting the non-animal foods in the meat eater's diet (fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, etc)

As vegans, only #3 applies to us.

And that’s just the diet. When you factor in that vegans don’t wear leather or wool, don’t use health, household or beauty supplies that contain animal products or animal derivatives and don’t use products tested on animals, that number is even lower.

If you’re a non-vegan that's genuinely concerned about crop deaths, the best thing you can do is be vegan, because most crops we grow are for livestock animals to eat. If we eliminated animal agriculture, we could feed the entire world a vegan diet using only 25% of the land we use today for agriculture, which would mean a 75% reduction in crop deaths, not to mention we wouldn’t be needlessly slaughtering 90 billion land animals a year (trillions when you count marine life).

All of this information and more is covered in this article about crop deaths and land use. The facts, data and statistics cited within it come from reputable sources such as the UN, Oxford University, Cornell University, the American Soybean Association and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): https://www.defendingveganism.com/ and https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/index.php 

‘Vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters in the UK show discrepant environmental impacts’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-023-00795-w 

> "Eating a vegan diet massively reduces the damage to the environment caused by food production, the most comprehensive analysis to date has concluded. The research showed that vegan diets resulted in 75% less climate-heating emissions, water pollution and land use than diets in which more than 100g of meat a day was eaten. Vegan diets also cut the destruction of wildlife by 66% and water use by 54%, the study found.”

———

‘The World Hunger-Food Choice Connection: A Summary’ http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/the-world-hunger-food-choice-connection-a-summary/ 

82% of the world's underfed children live in countries where staple crops like soy and corn are fed to livestock, and then sold to wealthier and developed countries in the form of meat.

‘Feed vs. Food: How Farming Animals Fuels Hunger’ https://awellfedworld.org/issues/hunger/feed-vs-food/ 

> "“Inedible to humans” is not a synonym for food waste. The process of converting “feed” to “food” through animal agriculture involves far more food loss, otherwise known as opportunity cost (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1713820115), than all the food waste that occurs in our entire agricultural system, including both production and consumption.

In reality, the myth that feed production for animal agriculture does not compete with human food security is part of a coordinated misinformation campaign by the meat industry. The truth is that the inequitable distribution of food required for farming animal products is a primary driver of global food insecurity.

It’s not simply an issue of distribution. Hoarding and waste are factors, but small in comparison to the appropriation of crops for animal farming. If we grew plant foods directly for human consumption, we would need less than a quarter of the agricultural land we use today and would cut food’s climate emissions and water pollution in half."

 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312201313_Livestock_On_our_plates_or_eating_at_our_table_A_new_analysis_of_the_feedfood_debate 

1. 14% of livestock feed is still around 3 kilograms of human-edible food per kilogram of boneless meat.

2. This 3 kg figure is a lot higher for developed/OECD countries (where I get the impression that the vast majority of people citing this figure live) - 3.9-9.4 kilograms of human-edible feed per kilogram of meat.

3. 8% of total feed is fodder crops (not included in the 14%), and we can definitely grow human-edible crops on this land instead. So that's an average of 4.9 kg of human-edible and fodder crops for a single kilogram of meat as a global average, and again significantly higher in richer countries with more industrialised animal agriculture.

3. Ditto for the 700 million hectares of pastureland that, per this paper, is convertible to arable land.

4. The human-edible feed grains are a lot more energy- and protein-dense than the inedible crop residues, grass, leaves, and so on (https://www.beefmagazine.com/feed/2016-beef-feed-compostition-table-pdf-download). So 14% of feed by mass is providing more than 14% of these animals' caloric intake.

5. We 100% can feed more people by getting rid of animal agriculture (though there are of course some concerns with food security in developing countries). For example, an additional 350 million people were fed just by repurposing US land (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1713820115), a similar figure of around 330 million more people fed on vegan diets (https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/doi/10.12952/journal.elementa.000116/112904/Carrying-capacity-of-U-S-agricultural-land-Ten), and another 4 billion people fed by directing crops directly to human feed (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015).

———

With new research based on data provided by the UN, researchers at Leiden University in the Netherlands found that the equivalent of 18 billion animals (chickens, turkeys, pigs, sheep, goats, and cows) either die or are killed without ever making it to someone’s plate.

‘18 billion animals a year: they die, but never end up on our plate’ https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2023/11/18-billion-animals-a-year-they-do-die-but-never-end-up-on-our-plate 

That's roughly 52.4 million tonnes of bone-free, edible meat that goes to waste each year, roughly a sixth of all meat produced globally. In developing countries, most loss was related to animal death due to disease or spoilage occurring during transport. Meanwhile, in industrialised countries like the US, most waste occurred on the consumption side: supermarkets overstocking, restaurants serving oversized portions, and households throwing out leftovers.

———

Livestock farming occupies 83% of all agricultural land and contributes to only 18% of the global food system’s calories. For every 100 calories of grain fed to animals, humans receive drastically fewer calories in return, only 3 calories from beef, for instance. This inefficient conversion highlights the unsustainable nature of animal agriculture, which not only uses vast amounts of land and resources but also generates over 1.37 billion tons of solid animal waste annually in the U.S. alone.

The management of livestock manure poses significant environmental challenges. The excess waste cannot be effectively utilized, resulting in runoff that contaminates waterways and contributes to dead zones in oceans. In fact, livestock manure is responsible for driving pollution and has been shown to contaminate groundwater in one-third of U.S. states.

Innovative agricultural practices, such as veganic farming, provide an environmentally friendly alternative. Veganic methods utilize crop rotation, cover crops, and compost to enhance soil fertility without relying on animal waste. (https://online.eou.edu/resources/article/veganic-farming-importance-of-sustainable-agriculture) This approach has been shown to increase yields significantly, by up to 45% in some studies, while supporting a more sustainable, efficient food system focused on plants.

"The Effect of Biocyclic Humus Soil on Yield and Quality Parameters of Processing Tomato" from the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine in Romania measured yields of tomato and sweet potato growing in veganic humus soil, which relies on green-manure and veganic farming methods to grow food. The result was an impressive 45% increase in yield versus conventional plots (https://journals.usamvcluj.ro/index.php/horticulture/article/view/13346/10882).

Fortunately, alternative ways of farming like this rely on very little external fertilizer inputs and are still capable of feeding the world. Transitioning to plant-based agriculture not only addresses these environmental concerns but also creates a more equitable and sustainable food supply for the future.

———

Modern agriculture, particularly for animal feed and animal pasture, is a major driver of deforestation. One-third of tropical deforestation happened in Brazil. That was 1.7 million hectares each year. The other single country where large forest areas are lost is Indonesia, it accounted for 14%. This means around half (47%) of tropical deforestation occurred in Brazil and Indonesia. Again, if we look at more recent satellite data, we find that this is still true today: annual deforestation is over 4 million hectares, with Brazil and Indonesia accounting for the majority of it. The expansion of pasture for beef production, croplands for soy and palm oil, and, increasingly, the conversion of primary forest to tree plantations for paper and pulp have been the key drivers of this. The expansion of pasture lands has also had a major impact on land use in the rest of the Americas–outside of Brazil, Latin America accounted for around one-fifth of tropical deforestation.

(https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation)

———

The journal 'Agriculture' reported in 2019 that the largest agricultural strain on land in Mexico is increasing domestic meat demand as the country continues to develop, not vegan demand for Mexican avocados in the United States. Vegans aren’t even the only people who eat Mexican avocados.

‘Does Mexico Have Enough Land to Fulfill Future Needs for the Consumption of Animal Products?’ https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/9/10/211

———

The belief that a small fraction of pesticides are used on livestock feed crops contradicts recent findings. A report, titled "Collateral Damage," released in 2022 by World Animal Protection, US and the Center for Biological Diversity, reveals that an estimated 235 million pounds of pesticides were specifically applied to feed crops for factory-farmed animals in the U.S. in 2018 alone.

A link to the full PDF can be found here: https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/new-report-more-than-200-million-pounds-of-pesticides-in-us-are-applied-to-crops-grown-to-feed-animals-on-factory-farms-2022-02-22/ 

This significant figure challenges the narrative that animal agriculture plays a minor role in pesticide usage. Given that the global market for crop protection is expected to grow, driven by an increase in meat and dairy production, the environmental impact of farming feed crops cannot be understated.

"World Animal Protection, US and the Center for Biological Diversity are calling on individuals and institutions to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy, opting for diets and menus that prioritize plant-based foods to lower impact on animals and the planet."

Moreover, the environmental and health hazards linked to pesticide use extend far beyond the fields. Pesticides seep into soil, contaminate water sources, and accumulate in the fatty tissues of animals, eventually ending up in the human food chain. Farmworkers, often from marginalized communities, bear the brunt of direct exposure, leading to a higher incidence of health issues. The environmental injustice is palpable, with pesticide manufacturing plants frequently located in or near low-income and minority communities.

It's also important to address the implication that manure and other animal by-products are the primary or most ethical fertilizers for crops. The organic agriculture movement seeks sustainable and less harmful alternatives to both synthetic chemicals /and/ animal-based fertilizers. Innovations in organic farming show promise in reducing reliance on both synthetic pesticides and animal agriculture.

The critique of a supposedly uncompassionate vegan stance ignores the broader ethics of veganism, which advocates for minimizing harm to all living beings and the environment. It is not about claiming moral superiority but about making choices that reflect a commitment to ethics, sustainability, and health. The narrative that downplays the impact of animal agriculture on pesticide use lacks foundation. The evidence suggests that a shift towards plant-based diets could significantly reduce the demand for feed crops and thus the use of harmful pesticides, contributing to a more sustainable and equitable food system. The complexity of these issues requires a nuanced understanding and an acknowledgment of the interconnectedness of our dietary choices.

———

Livestock supply chains account for 7.1 GT CO2, equivalent to 14.5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Cattle (beef, milk) are responsible for about two-thirds of that total, largely due to methane emissions resulting from rumen fermentation.

‘Livestock Don’t Contribute 14.5% of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions—The Total is Far Less Certain’ https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Animal agriculture produces 65% of the world's nitrous oxide emissions which has a global warming impact 296 times greater than carbon dioxide. Raising livestock for human consumption generates nearly 15% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, which is greater than all the transportation emissions combined. It also uses nearly 70% of agricultural land, contributing to deforestation, biodiversity loss and water pollution.

Ending our meat and dairy production could pause the increase of greenhouse gas emissions for 30 years, this study suggests. All we need to do is adapt to a plant-based food system.

‘Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century’ https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 

> "We have shown that the combined benefits of removing major global sources of CH4 and N2O, and allowing biomass to recover on the vast areas of land currently used to raise and feed livestock, would be equivalent to a sustained reduction of 25 Gt/year of CO2 emissions.

Crucially eliminating the use of animals as food technology would produce substantial negative emissions of all three major GHGs, a necessity, as even the complete replacement of fossil fuel combustion in energy production and transportation will no longer be enough to prevent warming of 1.5°C.

The transition away from animal agriculture will face many obstacles and create many challenges. Meat, dairy and eggs are a major component of global human diets and the raising of livestock is integral to rural economies worldwide, with more than a billion people making all or part of their living from animal agriculture.

Although animal products currently provide, according to the most recent data from FAOSTAT, 18% of the calories, 40% of the protein and 45% of the fat in the human food supply, *they are not necessary to feed the global population.* Existing crops could replace the calories, protein and fat from animals with a vastly reduced land, water, GHG and biodiversity impact, requiring only minor adjustments to optimize nutrition."

———

Despite using much more land and freshwater (and producing far more emissions), livestock provides just 18% of calories, globally. While roughly 24,000 people die from hunger and malnutrition every day, our society wastes massive amounts of grain, corn, soy, and fresh water to grow livestock, resources that could be directly consumed by humans. The same applies to soy. Almost 80% of global soy production goes to animal feed, while all soy milk and tofu combined use up less than 5%. The world’s cattle alone consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people, which is more than the current world population.

‘How Animal Farming Fuels Global Hunger’ https://veganhorizon.substack.com/p/how-animal-farming-fuels-global-hunger 

‘In world of wealth, 9 million people die every year from hunger, WFP Chief tells Food System Summit’ https://www.wfp.org/news/world-wealth-9-million-people-die-every-year-hunger-wfp-chief-tells-food-system-summit

‘Corn and Other Feed Grains - Feed Grains Sector at a Glance’ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/corn-and-other-feed-grains/feed-grains-sector-at-a-glance 

‘Use in Global Livestock Production—Opportunities and Constraints for Increasing Water Productivity’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019WR026995 

‘Soy’ https://wwf.panda.org/discover/our_focus/food_practice/sustainable_production/soy

https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/feeding-whole-soybeans-and-drought-or-frost-damaged-soybeans-to-beef-cattle.html 

The USDA Coexistence Fact Sheets on soybeans states:

"Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture. The second largest market for U.S. soybeans is for production of foods for human consumption, like salad oil or frying oil, which uses about 15 percent of U.S. soybeans. A distant third market for soybeans is biodiesel, using only about 5 percent of the U.S. soybean crop.”

Here's some stats from the SoyStats page from the American Soybean Association (http://soystats.com/). All data is for 2019.

Soybean product : Million metric tons produced : USD per ton : Total value

Meal : 44.9 : $336 : $15.1 billion

Oil : 11.0 : $694 : $7.6 billion

33.4 million metric tons (about 60%) of the soybean meal is used as livestock feed in the U.S., and the rest is exported, based on data from the USDA, where Wikipedia indicates it is also used as animal feed.

‘Oil Crops Yearbook’ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/oil-crops-yearbook#Soy%20and%20Soybean%20Products 

‘Soybean meal’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_meal 

Based on this data, 67% of the money made from soybeans is from the meal, indicating that this use is likely what drives production. If global meat consumption were to be reduced in a meaningful way, we can expect that soybean meal production would also drop, especially since many of the products that soybean oil is used for can easily be made with other types of oil.

‘Soybean oil’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_oil#Applications 

This is backed up by a study from the International Institute for Sustainable Development. Their report starts with the words, "The demand for soybeans is currently tied to global meat consumption and is expected to grow, fueled by Asia," and goes on to say that 85% of soybean cultivation is destined for livestock.

‘Global Market Report: Soybeans’ https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-10/ssi-global-market-report-soybean.pdf 

———

One third of all habitable land on this planet is taken up by the livestock sector and animal feed production. That’s around 38 million square kilometers, or around four times the size of the United States.

‘Statistics on Livestock Grazing on Federal Lands: FY2002 to FY2016’ https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20170828_R44932_72f6e4476960ca8f3ddf799ba21b9f3652ae11e2.pdf 

Nothing else that humans do consumes anywhere near as much space. All urban and built-up land (incl. settlements and infrastructure) and all freshwater (incl. lakes and rivers) take up less than 1% of habitable land, respectively.

The conclusion? The most efficient and only realistic way to feed a growing world population without land shortages, constant hunger crises and completely eliminating the rain forests is a large-scale shift to plant-based living.

One of the most important studies on the topic, published in 2015 in the journal, "Science and the Total Environment," created a huge dataset based on almost 40,000 farms in 119 countries and covered 40 food products that represent 90% of all that is eaten. It assessed the full impact of these foods, from farm to fork, on land use, climate change emissions, freshwater use and water pollution (eutrophication) and air pollution (acidification).

‘Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325532198_Reducing_food's_environmental_impacts_through_producers_and_consumers 

That study is worth quoting at length:

> "Although some agricultural expansion is driven by farmers growing crops for direct human consumption, livestock production, including feed production, accounts for approximately three-quarters of all agricultural land and nearly one-third of the ice-free land surface of the planet, making it the single largest anthropogenic land use type. Livestock comprise one-fifth of the total terrestrial biomass, and consume over half of directly-used human-appropriated biomass and one-third of global cereal production. Though difficult to quantify, animal product consumption by humans (human carnivory) is likely the leading cause of modern species extinctions, since it is not only the major driver of deforestation but also a principle driver of land degradation, pollution, climate change, overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas, facilitation of invasions by alien species, and loss of wild carnivores and wild herbivores.”

———

‘Which ‘milk’ is best for the environment? We compared dairy, nut, soy, hemp and grain milks’ https://theconversation.com/which-milk-is-best-for-the-environment-we-compared-dairy-nut-soy-hemp-and-grain-milks-147660 

> "It’s better to diversify the plant-based milks we use. Shifting to only one option, even if it’s the most environmentally friendly one for the time being, means the market demand may potentially become overexploited.

A 2018 study (https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Reducing-food%E2%80%99s-environmental-impacts-through-and-Poore-Nemecek/09ae8a9b67b5d1e85f4ec709f13c9bb4704211c7) estimates dairy to be around three times more greenhouse gas emission-intensive than plant-based milks. In the case of cow’s milk, its global warming potential (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652616303584?via%3Dihub), measured as kilogram of carbon dioxide equivalent per litre of milk, varies between 1.14 in Australia and New Zealand to 2.50 in Africa. Compare this to the global warming potential of plant-based milks, which, on average, is just 0.42 for almond and coconut milk and 0.75 for soy milk. What’s more, dairy generally requires nine times more land than any of the plant-based alternatives. Every litre of cow’s milk uses 8.9 square metres per year, compared to 0.8 for oat, 0.7 for soy, 0.5 for almond and 0.3 for rice milk. Water use is similarly higher for cow’s milk: 628 litres of water for every litre of dairy, compared to 371 for almond, 270 for rice, 48 for oat and 28 for soy milk."

The water used to produce milk includes water for drinking and cleaning equipment, water for growing feed, water for irrigation and water for manufacturing processes. Most dairy cattle produce milk on factory farms, or concentrated feeding lots.

———

Modern US agriculture is hugely influenced by the vision of Earl Butz, secretary of agriculture under Presidents Nixon and Ford, who championed corporate farming, encouraging farmers to plant “fencerow to fencerow” and “get big or get out." Donald Trump’s secretary of agriculture, Sonny Perdue, echoed these sentiments at the 2019 World Dairy Expo in Madison, Wisconsin, a state that lost 10% (more than 800) of its dairy farms that year. “The big get bigger and small go out,” he said. “It’s very difficult on economies of scale with the capital needs and all the environmental regulations, and everything else today, to survive milking 40, 50, 60 or even 100 cows.”

Despite a 55% nationwide decrease in dairy farms between 2002 and 2019, cow numbers have held steady and fluid milk volume has increased, a fact that illustrates a trend toward fewer farms, operating on much larger scales. The overall number of licensed operations in the U.S. has marched steadily downward since data collection began, declining by more than 55%, from 70,375 in 2003 to 31,657 in 2020.  The last three years of data show larger year-over-year declines than any other decline in the last 13 years. This recent acceleration of the decline reflects how difficult it is to operate a dairy in a low milk price environment. Since the end of 2014, dairy farmers have struggled with low prices followed by an industry-disrupting pandemic that increased milk price volatility and rendered risk management tools mostly ineffective.

Rabobank estimates that more than 46 percent of the U.S. milk supply is produced on the largest 3 percent of dairy farm operations with more than 2,500 cows. In contrast, dairy farms with fewer than 500 cows represented 86% of total farms but produced just 22% of the milk.

‘Majority of U.S. cows live on big dairies’ https://www.farmprogress.com/dairy-cattle/majority-of-u-s-cows-live-on-big-dairies 

This consolidation is driven by economic pressures and technological advancements, with remaining farms growing substantially in size to remain competitive. Let me be clear: a dairy operation driven by profits will not prioritize the well-being of cows, or even the overall quality of product; it will prioritize profits.

———

Let’s briefly look at three of the most-cited studies in this area:

‘Livestock's Long Shadow’ https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/36ade937-4641-46ed-aac4-6162717d8a7f/content (United Nations, 2006)

> “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global[, including] land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.”

‘Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock’ https://www.fao.org/4/i3437e/i3437e.pdf (United Nations, 2013)

> “With [greenhouse gas] emissions along livestock supply chains estimated at 7.1 gigatonnes CO2 per annum, representing 14.5 percent of all human-induced emissions, the livestock sector plays an important role in climate change.”

‘Emissions from Animal Agriculture—16.5% Is the New Minimum Figure’ https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/11/6276 (Richard Twine, 2021)

> “For emissions from animal agriculture, we have a potential range between 16.5 and 28.1% (…) the number may not be as low as 16.5%, which should be seen as a new minimum. Certainly, the findings presented here show that scientists, policy makers, civil society, and journalists should stop using the 14.5% figure.”

Even the most conservative of the three estimates confirms that the animal industry is a significant contributor to climate change. You're probably gonna ask, "why do the study results vary so much?" For a comprehensive assessment of emissions, the entire supply chain of the animal industry must be considered. For instance:

Methane: Different sources argue that the lower UN estimates overlooked crucial points, such as the methane emissions from ruminants, which are about 25 times more climate-damaging than CO2. Results from a 2021 study indicate that real-world methane emissions from factory farms are 39–90% higher than models like the FAO’s predict.

‘Global Methane Assessment: Benefits and Costs of Mitigating Methane Emissions’ https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-methane-assessment-benefits-and-costs-mitigating-methane-emissions 

Land use & deforestation: Another factor that plays a huge role but has not been sufficiently considered are additional emissions from land use change and deforestation, which alone account for 15-20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Since 2000, the world has lost about 10% of its tree cover. The animal industry is responsible for a staggering 70% of rainforest destruction in South America and by far the leading cause of deforestation worldwide (for pastures and feed cultivation).

‘Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: prospects for a near-term forest tipping point’ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2007.0036 

‘If the world adopted a plant-based diet, we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares’ https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets 

Criticism has also been raised that the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which authored the two UN reports above, has close connections with the meat and dairy industry, raising concerns about potential influence on their study results. Ex-officials at FAO say its leadership censored and undermined them when they highlighted how livestock methane is a major greenhouse gas. The animal industry has a powerful lobby, spending millions to block climate action and policy. The Guardian has reported how Big Meat and Big Dairy lobbyists turned out “in record numbers” at the world’s biggest climate summit in 2023, about three times as many delegates as in 2022.

‘Big meat and dairy lobbyists turn out in record numbers at Cop28’ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/09/big-meat-dairy-lobbyists-turn-out-record-numbers-cop28 

The lower UN estimate, and other, even lower ones, should be seen with a critical eye due to agribusiness lobby efforts. Note that I have also rejected unrealistically high estimates (e.g., 51%, 87%) and not even included these in the above discussion. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s foremost body that studies global warming, writes in a report called Climate Change and Land: “In addition to direct mitigation gains, decreasing meat consumption, primarily of ruminants, and reducing wastes further reduces water use, soil degradation, pressure on forests and land used for feed potentially freeing up land for mitigation.”

Download the full report: https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

———

The report from the Food Climate Research Network, "Grazed and Confused?" aims to dissect claims made by different stakeholders in the debate on grazing systems and their greenhouse gas emissions and evaluate them against the best available science, providing an authoritative and unbiased answer to the question: Is grass-fed beef good or bad for the climate?

Read the full 127 page report here for free: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused

'US grass-fed beef is as carbon intensive as industrial beef and ≈10-fold more intensive than common protein-dense alternatives' https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2404329122 

A new study published March 25th, 2025, in volume 122 of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a peer-reviewed multidisciplinary scientific journal, found that grass-fed beef has about 10 times the emissions of other proteins, ranging from 3 to 40 times when we're talking about certain plant-based options. Looking to a chart like this one from Our World in Data (https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat), we can see that plant-based proteins emit far less in comparison and some nuts are even carbon negative, and that's on a gram-per-gram basis.

Additionally, the same study found that grass-fed beef was much worse than the  industrial beef that dominates the US market, in terms of emissions. The study looked at a lot of things in great detail, including claims of sequestration by various organizations in multiple different studies, even a meta-analysis, and found that even when sequestration is occurring, it is still falling far short of offsetting the emissions from these cows.

> "We find that even under optimistic rangeland sequestration, grass-fed beef is not less carbon intensive than industrial beef and 3 to 40 times as carbon intensive as most plant and animal alternatives."

They also projected two scenarios in which either rangeland or cropland beef was replaced with an equivalent amount of protein from plant-based sources, how much land, etc. would be saved. They found that about 100 million acres in each case–or more, would be saved, along with saving hundreds of millions of metric tons of CO2 equivalent.

> "If we choose to use this cropland only to produce as much plant-based protein for human consumption as the forgone beef supplies, 270 to 520 million kg y-1, it would allow rewilding of 120 to 130 million ha [...] save annual emissions of 85 to 195 million metric ton CO2eq."

One author, Gidon Eshel, a research professor of environmental physics at Bard College, went on to say:

> "I think that there is a large portion of the population who really do wish their purchasing decisions will reflect their values, but they are being misled, essentially, by the wrong information.”

Industry marketing will reach you boasting about either local "regenerative" meat or efficient national production. This PR is designed to maintain business as usual, while the ecological and health impacts are externalized to tax payers. It's not any different than the previous decades of paid "experts" defending lead, asbestos or smoking before the inevitable consequences forced social and marketing change. Meat and dairy conglomerates hide behind a cultural shield like no other. Don't be fooled.

———

Animal agriculture is the biggest driver of deforestation, soil degradation, methane emissions, and biodiversity loss, yet it's nearly absent from environmental coverage. There's also many practical and interesting win-win solutions.

‘Missing Ingredients: How Agriculture and Diet Get Overlooked in Media Coverage of Climate Change’ https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/population_and_sustainability/pdfs/2025-media-landscape-analysis.pdf 

Out of 10,696 U.S. climate articles (2022-2025), only ~3% even mention meat and animal agriculture (and many of those are industry PR & greenwashing). Even fewer articles (~1%) mention dietary change, arguably the best overarching action for planetary health.

We're in a political and cultural moment with a major erosion of truth, the consolidation of wealth and power, rising authoritarianism, and escalating risks of war. Systems that profit from extraction, militarization, and control also shape which solutions are treated as serious, and which are sidelined. We can't lose our imagination and drive for the future world we want. As fascism grows, complex systemic solutions (like food system change) are replaced with culture-war and false trade-offs.

The era of tip-toeing and marginal tweaks is over. What's needed now are clear, solution-driven narratives that confront the biggest drivers head-on. Transforming to plant-rich food systems can address so many complex interconnected impacts from land and biodiversity, to health and nutrition, to economic and inequities. And while emotional connections to food are complex, I'd argue we have far more autonomy over it, especially in rich countries, than many other more covered issues.

———

'Reboot Development: The Economics of a Livable Planet' https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/099082225151536569 

> "A livable planet can be defined as one that supports environmental health, together with investments in human and physical capital, to improve lives, livelihoods, and living standards for all. All life and all economic activities depend on the balance of the planet’s natural systems comprising land, air, and water. The report is divided into three parts: the economic stakes of planetary health; the environmental impact of two defining twenty-first century trends, cities and commerce; and finally, possible solutions. In part 1, chapters 2 to 5 explore the trends of critical natural capital, focusing on topics that cover new science and economics, emphasizing interlinkages between different forms of natural capital. In part 2, chapters 6 and 7 examine the environmental impacts of two forces of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries: increasing urbanization and interconnectivity through trade. In part 3, chapters 8 and 9 discuss crosscutting policies, green jobs, and other solutions for achieving a sustainable future."

Key findings

Reboot Development: The Economics of a Livable Planet explores how the foundational

endowments of land, air, and water can continue enabling human prosperity, supporting health, food, energy, and economic opportunity. In the span of mere generations, much of the world has emerged from the shadows of poverty and hunger to an era of relative abundance. Yet, in reshaping the world for prosperity, humanity is unsettling the very foundations of that progress. The same forces that fueled economic growth—industrial

expansion, energy consumption, and unsustainable agriculture—now strain the planet’s ability to sustain it. This report argues that maintaining a livable planet is not merely a distant environmental concern but a present economic threat.

Land, air, and water underpin a livable planet. Yet today all are under threat with both

global and increasingly severe local impacts.

1. Around ninety percent of people globally live with degraded land, or polluted air, or water stress.

2. Around eighty percent of people in low-income countries live with all three environmental stressors, degraded land, polluted air, and water stress (figure MM.1).

By contrast, in high-income countries 43 percent of people are not exposed to any of

the three stressors.

The scale of impacts is so vast that humans have transitioned from being passive

beneficiaries of the planet to become the dominant force in its transformation.

1. Today humans and their livestock account for an astonishing 95 percent of total mammalian biomass (by weight) on Earth, leaving wild mammals a vanishing 5 percent (figure MM.2).

2. The Earth has transgressed six of the nine environmental thresholds, termed “Planetary Boundaries,” needed for human progress.

BOX S2.1

Recipe for a livable planet: Climate and beyond

The world’s food system requires urgent reform because it is damaging the planet and plays a major role in climate change. It significantly impacts the global environment and is responsible for deforestation and a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. The largest contributors are livestock

and net forest conversion—accounting for 25.9 and 18.4 percent of agri-food system emissions, respectively.

A World Bank report, Recipe for a Livable Planet: Achieving Net Zero Emissions in the Agrifood System, outlined actions that can address these challenges (Sutton, Lotsch, and Prasann 2024). Although that report’s primary focus was climate change mitigation, there were synergies with other environmental assets, such as soil moisture. Many of the recommended interventions—such as agroforestry, improved land management, and forest restoration—not only lower emissions, but also build agricultural resilience. These practices improve soil structure, enhance water-holding capacity, and reduce reliance on chemical inputs. By fostering healthier root systems and supporting soil biology that feeds plants naturally, they help in sustaining productivity and adapting to climate extremes—benefits that go far beyond carbon alone.

High-income countries (HICs) can lead the way, supporting low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs) by providing financial aid, transferring technology, and leading capacity-building initiatives. Other actions include adopting low-emission farming methods and

technologies, offering technical assistance for forest conservation programs that generate high-integrity carbon credits, and shifting subsidies away from high-emission food sources.

If MICs transitioned to more sustainable land use, they could cost-effectively cut one-third of global agri-food emissions. MIC emissions are higher, partly due to sheer numbers (there are many more MICs than HICs or LICs). Effective mitigation strategies include conserving, managing, and restoring

forests and ecosystems, especially in tropical areas, which could prevent 5 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually in MICs alone.

LICs can achieve sustainable economic development and greener, more competitive economies by avoiding the mistakes of richer nations and embracing climate-smart opportunities. Forest restoration can help them meet climate goals and drive development, offering a net benefit of $7–$30 for every dollar invested through ecosystem services. Agroforestry, which integrates trees into croplands, provides additional benefits such as increased land productivity, livelihood

opportunities, diversified diets, and enhanced ecosystem resilience.

———

For an in-depth exploration into the problems surrounding honey and beekeeping, watch this video, 'Why don't vegans eat honey?' by Ed Winters: https://youtu.be/clMNw_VO1xo?si=eHAb0WoaY5Y-J1Lm 

Bees produce honey primarily as a food source for their colonies. This vital resource is essential for their survival, especially during winter months when they rely on stored honey for nourishment. When humans take their honey, it deprives bees of their own food supply and instead often forces them to be fed inadequate alternatives like sugar syrups, which do not meet their nutritional needs.

Conventional beekeeping often involves practices that cause harm to bees. For instance, many beekeepers clip the wings of queen bees to prevent swarming, a natural behavior that can lead to the creation of new colonies. In some cases, colonies are destroyed at the end of the season, only to be restarted in the spring, which raises significant ethical concerns about their lives.

Intensive beekeeping has contributed to declines in wild bee populations as well. Research indicates that the presence of honeybee colonies can disrupt local ecosystems, outcompeting native bees for resources and spreading diseases. Thus, while honeybees play a role in pollination, preserving wild bee species is critical for overall ecological health.

'The Problem with Honey Bees'

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-honey-bees/ 

> “[...] while honey bee–centric businesses often support initiatives that benefit native bees, such as developing bee-friendly habitat, the financial contributions pale in comparison to what could be achieved if funds were applied to these initiatives directly. “Beekeeping companies and various non-science-based initiatives have financially benefitted from the decline of native pollinators,” Colla explains. “These resources thus were not allocated to the actual issue people are concerned about.”

‘Want to Save the Bees? Focus on Habitat, Not Honey Bees’ https://www.xerces.org/blog/want-to-save-bees-focus-on-habitat-not-honey-bees 

> “1. Native plants need native bees. Native bees coevolved with our native plants and often have behavioral adaptations that make them better pollinators than honey bees. For example, buzz-pollination, in which a bee grasps a flower and shakes the pollen loose, is a behavior at which bumble bees and other large-bodied native bees excel, and one that honey bees lack.

2. Honey bees are sub-par pollinators. The way that honey bees interact with flowers means that they sometimes contribute little or nothing to pollination. Honey bees groom their pollen and carry it in neat pollen cakes, where it’s less likely to contact the stigma of another flower and pollinate it. They are also known as “nectar robbers” of many plants, accessing their nectar in a way that means they don’t touch the pollen, often by biting a hole in the base of the flower. By contrast, many of our native bees tend to be messier, carrying pollen as dry grains, often all over their bodies where it’s more likely to pollinate the plant.

3. Hungry hives crowd out native pollinators. Introducing a single honey bee hive means 15,000 to 50,000 additional mouths to feed in an area that may already lack sufficient flowering resources. This increases competition with our native bees and raises the energy costs of foraging, which can be significant. One study calculated that over a period of three months, a single hive collects as much pollen as could support the development of 100,000 native solitary bees! (https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12263)

4. Honey bees can spread disease. Unfortunately, honey bees can spread diseases to our native bees, deformed wing virus, for example, can be passed from honey bees to bumble bees, and can also amplify and distribute diseases within a bee community.

5. Urban honey bee hive densities are often too high. There is growing evidence of negative impacts in towns and cities from the presence of honey bees. A recent study from Montreal showed that the number of species of native bees found in an area decreased when the number of honey bees went up (https://peerj.com/articles/14699/). In Britain, the London Beekeepers Association found that some parts of that city had four times as many hives as the city’s gardens and parks could support. The conservation organization Buglife recommends creating two hectares (five acres) of habitat for each hive (https://www.buglife.org.uk/blog/save-the-bees-but-which-ones/), several times the size of an average residential lot in the United States.”

> “It is absolutely true that honey bees don’t always harm native bees: when resources are plentiful, honey bees are present at low densities, and hives are well tended, the risks are smaller. Yet, with a changing climate and a growing human population, such places are increasingly rare, and the evidence is clear that honey bees can impact native bees. Beekeeping is not bee conservation. If you are thinking of getting a hive, we encourage you to consider carefully why you want to do so. Managed honey bees are domesticated livestock, and their very presence has the potential to harm native species. Fortunately, there are actions you can take that will help both honey bees and the thousands of native pollinators that call North America home.”

‘Bring Back the Pollinators’ https://www.xerces.org/bring-back-the-pollinators 

> “Grow Pollinator-Friendly Flowers. Flowers provide the nectar and pollen resources that pollinators feed on. Growing the right flowers, shrubs, and trees with overlapping bloom times will support pollinators, spring through fall. (https://www.xerces.org/publications/plant-lists)

Provide Nest Sites. It is important to support all pollinator life stages, including eggs and larvae! For bees, you can leave patches of bare ground and brush piles or install nesting blocks, and for butterflies and moths, plant caterpillar host plants. (https://www.xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/nesting-resources)

Avoid Pesticides. Pesticides, especially insecticides, are harmful to pollinators. Herbicides reduce food sources by removing flowers from the landscape. Fungicides can also have synergistic effects on bees. The good news is that there are alternatives! (https://www.xerces.org/pesticides/risks-pesticides-pollinators)

Spread the Word. Make your commitment both official and visible by signing the Pollinator Protection Pledge. You can also share information about pollinators on social media, or spread the word with a pollinator habitat sign.” (https://www.xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/pollinator-protection-pledge)

Instead of taking honey, one can support a healthier ecosystem by promoting plant-based alternatives, like maple syrup or apple "honey," that do not involve the exploitation of bees. A truly compassionate and sustainable approach acknowledges the complexities of bee life and positions animal welfare at the forefront of dietary choices.

Pass on what you've learned here with this fact sheet about honey bees in North America, which is free to download, print, and share: https://xerces.org/publications/fact-sheets/why-getting-hive-wont-save-bees 

But aren't honeybees shipped for pollinating crops?

While it’s true that many crops rely on bees for pollination, this process does not inherently involve exploitation. In natural ecosystems, plant-pollinator relationships exist symbiotically; it is the migratory beekeeping practices, where bees are transported long distances, that often lead to exploitation. A significant 2018 study highlighted that honeybees only account for about 5-15% of insect-pollinated crops in the UK, while wild bees are responsible for 85-95%.

‘The worldwide importance of honey bees as pollinators in natural habitats’ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5784195/

A. mellifera: Western Honey bee

> “We quantify for the first time, to our knowledge, that despite the global distribution and often high local abundance of A. mellifera, it is a frequent visitor to only a minority of insect-pollinated plant species (figure 2b). Even in networks where more than half of all visits are contributed by A. mellifera, approximately 16% of the plant species, on average, receive fewer than 10% of their visits from A. mellifera (see the electronic supplementary material, figure S4-2). Although individual A. mellifera colonies are known to forage extensively on only a fraction of the plant species available at any given time [60], the skewed pattern of floral visitation documented here (figure 2b) is nonetheless surprising given that A. mellifera has the greatest diet breadth of any pollinator species studied [55,56]. This result underscores the importance of maintaining robust, diverse assemblages of non-A. mellifera pollinators to provide pollination services for the majority of flowering plant species in natural habitats.”

> “From a different perspective, A. mellifera often numerically dominated a portion of the plant species in a given network. While non-A. mellifera pollinators may find such plant taxa inherently unprofitable in some cases, they may be displaced by A. mellifera via interference or exploitative competition in other cases (e.g. [61]). In instances where A. mellifera numerically dominates plant species belonging to the ‘core’ of a pollination network (i.e. the subset of locally abundant plant species that are visited by a variety of pollinator taxa [31,62]), they may exert a strong influence on co-occurring pollinators [39]. While this phenomenon has been documented in the native range of A. mellifera [39], it may be especially consequential in its introduced range, where plant species numerically dominated by A. mellifera presumably coevolved with, and supply food for, native pollinators [63]. Our results thus suggest that A. mellifera may disrupt interactions between plants and other pollinators in many areas, including localities where A. mellifera attains only modest abundance (see the electronic supplementary material, S4-3).”

Wild bees aren't shipped. Honey bees are, and vegans don't eat honey. Honey bees are an invasive species that outcompete native species and decimate their populations. This is why honey bees need to be shipped; to remedy the problem non-vegans created. Vegans aren't keeping the demand for honey bees, non-vegans are.

By adopting a plant-based diet, individuals actually support agricultural practices that are less harmful to bees and other pollinators. A move towards veganism can lead to decreased demand for honey, thereby reducing reliance on the harmful migratory practices associated with commercial beekeeping. Additionally, a shift in consumption from products that require honey bee pollination to crops that support wild pollinators aligns more closely with the ethical position of minimizing harm.

It's also worth considering that many animal agriculture practices, including dairy farming, also significantly impact bee populations since they require feed that may be pollinated by honey bees, specifically alfalfa. Therefore, eliminating animal products from our diets is a step toward lessening overall harm to pollinators and fostering a healthier ecosystem.

As you can see, many of the practices causing harm to bees are not related to veganism. The vast majority of almond and fruit production that depends on honey bees is driven by an agricultural system that prioritizes maximum yield, often neglecting sustainability. The harmful practices like the rotating of hives and the use of pesticides can be reduced by moving toward a more vegan-oriented agricultural practice that enhances ecological balance and promotes biodiversity.

Fallacies & Ethics

Part 1: fallacies

“Plants feel pain”

For the sake of argument, let's presume that plants possess independent minds and thoughts of sufficient complexity that they can deliberately communicate with the world. From this premise, a plant-based diet would still represent the most ethical choice and the path of least destruction, because every single animal life requires the consumption of many plant lives. There are a number of peer-reviewed studies explaining feed to meat conversion ratios, but here's a handy chart from NPR that shows the amount of grain, forage and grazing land required to produce a quarter-pound hamburger: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters 

Feed: 6.7lb of grain and forage.

Water: 52.8 gallons for drinking water and feed crop irrigation.

Land: 74.5 square feet for grazing and growing feed crops.

Fossil Fuel Energy: 1,036 BTUs for feed production and transport. That's enough to power a typical microwave for 18 minutes.

Therefore, if we believe plants are sentient, and our goal is to be ethical people who do the least harm to the fewest sentient beings, then we have no choice but to adopt a plant-based diet.

Now let's take this argument in a different direction. Again, let's presume plants are sentient. As sentient beings, they would want certain things from the world; sunlight, water and soil among them. Another important thing they would want is for us to eat them, go someplace else and shit out their seeds so that more plants can grow in our homemade fertilizer. That's right. If plants are sentient, we can observe by their behavior that they want for us to eat them. Now let's presume that animals are also sentient, and as sentient beings, they also want certain things from the world. By the same set of criteria, we can observe by their behavior that they do not want us to eat them.

As proof of this assertion, I offer the following two videos. The first video depicts an Alberta grain harvest. At no time does the grain cry out or try to run away. The second video depicts multiple different animals on their way to slaughter, and footage of their slaughter. In these cases, the animals demonstrate foreknowledge of their fate, fear of death and a desire to flee. I challenge you to not look away from the things I show you in these links. After all, if it's good enough for your plate, it ought to be good enough for your eyes, too.

1. Grain harvest in Alberta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHksnpDt2tg 

2. RSPCA Assured slaughterhouse: https://youtu.be/S5P5NcnqHNc?si=zFRCcZPBSmrVEJMf 

So we must draw from our hypothetical exploration of plant sentience that:

1. If plants and animals are the same, and we want to minimize the suffering of the beings who feed us, we should never eat animals.

2. If plants and animals are the same, plants behave as though they want us to eat them, while animals do not.

However, we know that from a scientific perspective plants are not sentient. As vegan abolitionist Gary Francione puts it:

"Plants do not have nervous systems, benzodiazepine receptors, or any of the characteristics that we identify with sentience. And this all makes scientific sense. Why would plants evolve the ability to be sentient when they cannot do anything in response to an act that damages them? If you touch a flame to a plant, the plant cannot run away; it stays right where it is and burns. If you touch a flame to a dog, the dog does exactly what you would do, cries in pain and tries to get away from the flame. Sentience is a characteristic that has evolved in certain beings to enable them to survive by escaping from a noxious stimulus. Sentience would serve no purpose for a plant; plants cannot “escape."”

“Veganism is for privileged people”

Plant foods are the cheapest foods on the planet, and further to this, there are vegans living on the breadline in many poverty-stricken countries across the globe. And seeing as vegans tend to be LESS well-off than their animal-eating counterparts in Western countries, with vegans tending to work low-income jobs cleaning toilets, stacking supermarket shelves or waiting tables at restaurants (or have no job at all); while the glass skyscrapers and parliamentary buildings of capital cities are filled with steak-eating non-vegans on 6/7-figure salaries, what exactly is the argument that people are trying to make here when they say, "vegans are privileged?"

Pound for pound, a plant-based diet is by far the least expensive one on the planet, given that the staple foods of the most poverty-stricken societies worldwide are rice, beans, lentils, potatoes, bread, and so forth. For much of the world, meat and animal products are a luxury item. As an example, this article from the World Food Programme USA about 9 plates of food in the world’s 'hungriest countries’ lists animal flesh in just one dish: https://wfpusa.org/news/wfp-meal-around-the-world/ 

If the non-vegan making the argument is referring to race and class when they say this, it could also be argued that it is both classist and racist to make such an excuse, because ethnic minorities and poor people do not exist as props to be used in one's argument to avoid complicity in animal exploitation. As such, it’s also a red herring, using the struggles of others to deflect accountability in the argument.

From a Western race/class perspective, it is also conforming to what’s known as the "bigotry of low expectations": that is, people making the claim that only rich and/or white people should be expected to be vegan while everyone else gets a free pass to abuse animals, subconsciously see white people, for example, as ethical and brilliant, while other groups are dumb savages who need to be babied and cannot be held accountable for their unethical behaviour.

All races and social classes possess moral agency and are accountable for oppressive and violent behaviour, and all should be expected to be vegan. Veganism isn't a first world issue, avoiding going vegan when you have the capability to do so, is. This study, which compared the cost of seven sustainable diets to the current typical diet in 150 countries, using food prices from the World Bank’s International Comparison Program, was published in The Lancet Planetary Health.

'The global and regional costs of healthy and sustainable dietary patterns: a modelling study' https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00251-5/fulltext 

> “Across the dietary patterns, the relative affordability was largest for vegetarian and vegan diets that focused on legumes and whole grains in place of animal products in current diets, and lowest for pescatarian diets that focused on fish and fruits and vegetables. Fish as a food group had one of the highest prices per calorie in the price data we used (appendix 1 p 35), which made pescatarian diets relatively costly. In comparison, grains and plant-based protein sources, such as legumes and nuts, had lower costs than vegetables and most animal products, which made the high-grain vegetarian and vegan diets relatively affordable. However, staple crops had one of the lowest costs of all foods, which made any deviation from current diets in low-income countries that are dominated by staple crops (and as a result lacking recommended quantities of many health-promoting foods) less affordable, if not complemented by reductions in food waste, socioeconomic changes, or a fuller accounting of the costs of diets.”

Figure 1: Costs of diets (US$ per day) in 2017 by dietary pattern, food group, and world regions grouped by income

'Vegan Diet and Food Costs Among Adults With Overweight: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial' https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2808910 

> “Of 3115 people screened by telephone, 244 adults with overweight met participation criteria and were randomly assigned to the vegan (n = 122; 105 [86.1%] female; 60 [49.2%] Black; 57 [46.7%] White; mean [SD] age, 52.9 [10.3] years) or control (n = 122; 106 [86.9%] female; 53 [43.4%] Black; 60 [49.2%] White; mean [SD] age, 56.7 [12.8] years) groups. The analysis included 223 (91.0%) participants who completed all aspects of the study, including the final diet records.”

> “Mean (95% CI) total food costs per day decreased in the vegan group by approximately 16%, compared with no significant change in the control group. The difference between the groups was significant. The biggest savings were on meat and dairy. These savings outweighed the increased spending on vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, meat alternatives, and dairy alternatives.”

Figure: Changes in Total Food Costs in the Vegan and Control Group From Baseline to Week 16

Table: Changes in Economic Costs From Specific Food Groups at Baseline and Week 16 in the Control and Vegan Groups

‘Cost and affordability of plant-based diets: global evidence from 2000 to 2025’ https://www.academia.edu/3067-1345/3/1/10.20935/AcadNutr8137

PBD = plant-based diet

3.1. Evidence that plant-based diets reduce food costs

> "Controlled interventional trials and real-world observational data consistently demonstrate that PBDs, particularly those emphasizing whole and minimally processed foods, are associated with lower daily food expenditures than omnivorous diets across multiple geographic contexts. The methods and results of these studies can be found in Table 1."

Table 1: Summary of studies examining cost of plant-based diets compared to omnivorous diets

> "Randomized controlled trials provide direct experimental evidence supporting cost advantages to following a PBD. A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial by Kahleova et al. (2023) investigated food costs associated with adopting a low-fat vegan diet among overweight adults in the United States. Mean total food costs per day decreased in the vegan group by approximately 16% from baseline to Week 16, resulting in a statistically significant between-group difference (treatment effect: −USD 0.90, 95% CI: −USD 1.73 to −USD 0.07, p = 0.03). This reduction was attributed to decreased spending on meat and dairy products, which offset increased spending on vegetables, fruits, legumes, and whole grain. Additional controlled research reinforces these findings across different patient populations and dietary protocols. Campbell et al. (2024) conducted a non-randomized crossover trial comparing therapeutic diets in individuals with insulin-treated type 2 diabetes. They found that a whole-food PBD resulted in lower food costs than both the baseline omnivorous diet and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. The whole-food PBD cost an average of USD 9.78/d (95% CI: USD 7.97, USD 11.59), compared to USD 15.72/d (95% CI: USD 13.91, USD 17.53) for the baseline diet and USD 12.74/d (95% CI: USD 11.23, USD 14.25) for the DASHdiet. The whole-food PBD diet was significantly less costly than the baseline diet, with a mean difference of USD 5.94/d (95% CI: USD 3.82, USD 8.07; p < 0.05). The authors suggest that the savings may be driven by the avoidance of meat, poultry, and fish due to their high cost per serving.

> "Observational studies conducted across diverse geographic and cultural contexts corroborate the experimental findings. In Germany, the cross-sectional VeChi Youth Study included 6- to 18 year-old participants and found that a vegetarian diet was the most cost-effective dietary pattern. Median total daily food costs were highest for vegans (EUR 4.79/day), followed by omnivores (EUR 4.75/day), and lowest for vegetarians (EUR 4.37/day). Total daily food costs differed significantly between groups (p = 0.0036), although the difference between the vegan and omnivore groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.6521). Similar patterns emerge in Southern European populations. In Portugal, Pais et al. (2022) found that consumers following PBDs reported lower food expenditures for both at-home and away-from-home consumption than omnivorous consumers.”

To summarize: vegan food isn't strictly faux meats and other vegan substitutes; think more dry goods like rice, beans, pulses, whole grains, pastas, granola, nuts and seeds. Fresh in-season fruits and vegetables. Canned foods like unsalted vegetables, chilli, bean blends and soups. Proteins like TVP (often called soy curls or soy chunks), seitan, tempeh and tofu. All of these are especially cheap in the international aisle in grocery stores or Asian markets. Shopping at bulk stores also saves lots of money if that's a concern for you. Fresh produce lasts a long time when you know how to store it properly, or when you freeze it, which makes it more cost effective as well.

There's also frozen fruits and veggies like blueberries, strawberries, pineapple, peaches, broccoli, bok choy, corn, spinach, green peas, edamame. The most "processed," and "expensive" things I get are usually protein bars and powders for when I'm lazy, dairy-free yogurts and other vegan foods like ice creams and hors d'oeuvres. Even soy milk is the same price as cows milk, with an identical nutritional profile.

Granted, if you want to be healthy as a vegan, you need to learn how to cook. Learn how to prepare different cuisines, try different ingredients, find some weeknight staple dinners. I think non-vegans think veganism is expensive because of the way they eat. They think you'd need to eat the equivalent in meat/cheese substitutes that they eat in meat and cheese.  When most of your meals are 2/3s meat and dairy and eggs, that's all you know.  Eat some rice and beans and veggies, you'll see that they're the cheapest foods out there.

“Those animals wouldn't exist if we didn't eat and use them”

Beware the "hero" who creates a problem just so they can solve it. Creating a problem and then solving it, particularly if it benefits the problem-creator, is a malicious and calculated act of oppression, not a display of genuine altruism.

We could justify just about anything if we hold the notion that existing merely to be subjugated is a privilege. This "argument" is jokingly referred to as ‘Schrödinger’s cattle’, i.e. on the one hand, the animals will overpopulate if everyone goes vegan, while on the other hand they will go extinct. It's funny seeing how anti-vegans can't seem to agree on what would happen.

Humor aside though, we could also justify dog fighting by that logic, seeing as those dogs are bred for that and wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the dog fighting industry. A child who is abused and exploited by their parents would not exist if it weren’t for their parents, does this mean we should forgive what their parents do to that child and say, “He/she wouldn’t have existed without you, so you’ve done nothing wrong?" Of course not.

With regards to extinction, there would not be anything morally wrong with a species created by humans no longer being bred as commodities. Domesticated animals are essentially a human invention, it’s nothing like the extinction of wild species (in any case, in a vegan world, it’s likely that the few thousands or so remaining domesticated farmed animals in existence would be living in sanctuaries, rather than be erased completely).

Generally, when people use the "extinction" argument, it’s because they are concerned about the extinction of burgers, pizza, ice cream and so on, rather than the extinction of livestock. That said, if species extinction is a genuine concern for you, you should know that the livestock sector is a leading driver of species extinction and habitat loss. (https://www.colorado.edu/ecenter/2022/03/15/it-may-be-uncomfortable-we-need-talk-about-it-animal-agriculture-industry-and-zero-waste)

The idea of the world just magically turning vegan overnight and all the farmed animals being left to roam free is a nonsensical scenario. The world going vegan is a gradual process, by which the number of people boycotting animal products would increase slowly over time, thus meaning that farmed animals were bred less and less to meet demand. The number of farmed animals walking this planet right now is directly relative to the number of people buying animal products. More people eating meat/dairy = more farmed animals. More vegans = fewer farmed animals.

Simply put, if we shift away from animal agriculture, the demand for these animals declines, leading to a natural reduction in their population over time, no need for mass culling. Furthermore, most farmed animals exist due to human intervention, and by ceasing their breeding, we provide an opportunity for wild species to recover and thrive.

“Small local farms are okay. They treat their animals better”

It's a rather bizarre state of mind, isn't it? i.e. Folks that have a, "concern with how they are treated," which is to say that they're worried that the rights of each of these individuals be respected, but who at the same time do not acknowledge his or her right not to be frivolously used and killed, which would seem to be a much greater violation than the mere mistreatment over which their concern was initially expressed. In other words, how can anyone justify needlessly and forcibly taking the life of a sentient individual (or pay others to do so for them) when they can't justify abusing him or her?

Your position, if I understand correctly, is that if you kill in a way that you feel is respectful, and if you raise an animal in a respectful way, then you're justified and moral in taking that individual's life. The thing is, there's a glaring error of reasoning right in the center of that position. What I mean by this is that when you acknowledge suffering is (or can be) occurring, and when you take explicit actions to show respect to a particular being, you're explicitly asserting the idea that there's a mind present in the individual; without a mind, how could they have an experience of suffering or receive respect, after all? So, by deciding to support "respectfully killed" or "non CAFO" or "free-range" or "suffering free" packaging/actions, you're explicitly expressing concern for the welfare of the individual beings that receive this special treatment.

As I'm sure you can see, there's some fairly clear cognitive dissonance involved between empathizing with the plight of a particular living creature so much that one would take the actions intended to ensure they had a "happy" life, actions which cost extra time and money and effort, but at the same time having that empathy fall just short of the idea that it's wrong to take the life of this individual to begin with.

That is the faulty reasoning in play. It's a conclusion that doesn't make sense, and doesn't follow from its premises. If the being has an intrinsic right not to suffer, then they must necessarily have an intrinsic right not to be needlessly enslaved and killed since enslavement and killing is a much greater violation of rights than inflicting suffering. So, if we agree that the individual does have the right to be treated respectfully, then we must also agree that such a non-required taking of life is a fundamental violation of respect for those rights, and all for no better reason than a desire to satisfy a sense of taste, community traditions, or habits.

Of course, it is admirable that people care so deeply about these animals that they take deliberate steps to reduce their suffering (e.g. by purchasing "free-range" eggs or "suffering free" meat). However, because they choose not to acknowledge the right of those same animals to live out their natural lives, and because enslaving and slaughtering them is a much greater violation than mistreatment, people who use animals “ethically” are laboring under an irreconcilable contradiction.

The problem is not buzz-wordy "factory farming," and, "industrial agriculture," which are just mass symptoms of the widespread societal objectification of animals; the belief that they're resources, transportation, food, entertainment, objects for research, decorations, props and a myriad other "purposes" humans objectified them into. Animals don't need billions of self-deceiving welfarists and utilitarians with their calculators out. They need vegans: people who have a stance against this injustice at its core and reject their commodity status for any purpose.

Imagine a self-proclaimed humanitarian donating to children's hospitals, while objectifying and exploiting children for their organs and slave labor. "They're better off when I donate, I help them even more than those who do not exploit children!" Sounds disgusting, right? That's because it is, in both cases. Victims don't need your cheap virtue-signaling and self-exonerating lip service. They want to be free from oppression. Billions of people funding these offset programs still means a world where animals are considered objects and resources and are treated as such.

“Veganism is anti-Indigenous”

Just because some action is culturally established doesn’t mean that action is morally permissible. In some cultures, human honor killings, female genital mutilation, cannibalism, child marriage and stoning ‘apostates,’ has been culturally established, for example. But we shouldn’t think this type of exploitation and violence is morally acceptable just because it’s been culturally established. Vegans lack the power to forcibly change anyone’s culture. All vegans can do is make their case and appeal to one’s conscience. I don’t think a vegan’s core stance against using animals should change depending on who the audience is. I believe respecting Indigenous peoples involves being forthright, and not pandering to them as if they were children who are emotionally incapable of understanding reasoned arguments.

This rhetoric is just a way for faux woke "leftists" to continue participating in unnecessary systematic exploitation and violence while feeling smug about it, and at the same time get social points from all of the other completely hypocritical non-vegan "leftists" for using Indigenous people as rhetorical bludgeons to displace personal accountability. They are too willfully ignorant to understand that what they are doing is racist: infantilizing entire groups of people, seeing them as simple savages that could never understand morality. You will criticize rape, female genital mutilation, the patriarchy, child marriage, etc etc which are all cultural, but it's only when you criticize the barbaric and unnecessary behavior they participate in, the use of animals, that it becomes colonialism. How convenient.

If you went back 200 years and said that slavery was wrong, slave owners would have said that their way of life depended on it, and it can't be wrong treating these “lesser beings” as objects. If you would have asked a viking, they would have said their way of life has depended on raping, pillaging and burning for untold generations, and would have scoffed at the suggestion that it was wrong. If you asked the colonizers who committed genocides against Indigenous nations, they would have laughed at the idea that they were wrong, and that their good Christian culture could never survive the presence of these barbarians on this land, so they were totally in the right to massacre them all. This doesn't make it right. If your culture relies on unnecessary brutality toward others, it needs to be terminated. No matter who you are. Look at it from the victims perspective, not the perpetrators’.

And, let's be honest. Rainforest destruction for livestock feed crops and cattle pasture is forcing Indigenous tribes to become homeless.

‘The Silent Cry of the Forest: How Deforestation Impacts Indigenous Communities’ https://earth.org/the-silent-cry-of-the-forest-how-deforestation-impacts-indigenous-communities/

“1. Amazon Rainforest and Indigenous Peoples

Many indigenous groups, including the Yanomami, Kayapo, and Ashaninka, consider the Amazon forests home. Their traditional lands are under severe threat from deforestation. The Yanomami people, for instance, are subject to illegal gold mining that devastates their forests.

Illegal groups of miners destroyed around 200 hectares of forest (approximately 200 football fields) in the first quarter of 2021 alone. Children in the Yanomami region suffer disproportionately high mortality due to various diseases including malaria and malnutrition. 570 children have died from preventable causes since 2018. This awful disaster can be directly attributed to the widespread malnutrition caused by the lack of food. Water pollution and environmental degradation caused by the mines, as well as often violent interactions with the invaders, only make their situation worse.

Between 2019 and 2021, deforestation rose considerably by 195%; between 2013 and 2021, deforestation in these regions was responsible for the emission of around 96 million metric tonnes of CO2.

2. Penan Tribe in Borneo, Malaysia

Deforestation for palm oil and timber plantations has negatively harmed the Penan tribe of Borneo’s rainforests in Malaysia. The woodlands are important to the Penan for their cultural practices, sustenance, and shelter. They no longer have access to their traditional resources due to deforestation, which causes food poverty and a loss of cultural identity. About 10% of Borneo has become covered in industrial-scale monoculture plantations. The concentration of logging roads found on Borneo is high compared to international standards.

3. Gond Tribes of Chhattisgarh, India

The tribes’ primary concern is that high security in mining areas will make it difficult for women to enter the forest. Many people also take fuel wood from the forest, as cooking gas is expensive, in addition to minor forest produce. Adivasis in Khodgaon were concerned that the widespread cutting down of trees would make it harder for women to forage for food and other necessities like mushrooms, mahua (Madhuca longifolia) blossoms, tendu leaves (Diospyros melanoxylon), and medicinal herbs.”

Rainforests are consistently being cleared for meat production; every second, an acre of rainforest is cleared, partly for grass fed beef, but mainly to grow soy to feed livestock around the globe.

‘How an American meat broker is fueling Amazon deforestation’ https://apnews.com/article/brazil-china-amazon-deforestation-beef-climate-trade-2a7a9a4310b6abca727dabb596e2e84d#

“Veganism is a cult”

Vegans are probably some of the least dogmatic individuals out there being that most of us came from a family and culture where animal commodification was completely normalized and socially enforced. Yet, we still managed to break out of that mindset after critical reflection. Veganism is a spectrum of ideas with rich internal debate. The only line between vegan and non-vegan that is broadly enforced is best summarized in the definition we're all familiar with, the one from the organization that first coined the term:

> "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."

It's one rule: avoid the use of animals or animal products. The reasons for why this is, why we should follow this rule, or in what ways following this rule is actualized by vegans is highly subjective and often debated even within the vegan community. If we use the simple definition of dogmatic, “inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true,” does that apply to the beliefs we came to after said reflection? Perhaps. Is it any different from someone being repulsed by child molesters or dog fighters? Is everyone who holds a strong ethical belief therefore dogmatic? If so, why is this a pejorative?

I take issue with people who describe veganism as some overarching ideology that subsumes other philosophical, cultural, or political positions a person might have. I similarly take issue with veganism being described as a cult. I can understand that, to a non-vegan, veganism might look dogmatic; similarly to how a person on the extreme political right might not recognize the difference between the positions of Joe Biden and Joseph Stalin.

My experience in the vegan community has shown me that vegans are more of a permeable collective of individuals that orbit around a rough conception of animal rights, rather than a cohesive intellectual unit. I think this is a good thing as well. Diversity of ideas and backgrounds add strength to any movement, but that has to be tempered by a more-or-less shared understanding of what the movement entails. I think vegans are successful in this in some ways and need to work on it in other ways.

tl;dr having one rule is not absolute dogma.

“Animals kill other animals”

The question of whether it's "right" or "wrong" to kill is always a moral question, but morality does not exist in a vacuum; by definition, it always has context. For example, it's regarding each "type" (if you will) of an individual in the scenario. When we look at animals, there is a very different context involved. They are not subject to anything like the same conditions as ourselves, and live in a completely different context. For example, the wild animal you mention is an obligate carnivore, and will literally sicken (and possibly die) without eating animals, but even that condition does not affect our judgment of his or her actions. After all, it's not like the lion can be reasoned with in the same way that a human can, and it's not as though the lion can (or would) justify his actions to others. As such, the lion's actions cannot be judged to be "right" or "wrong" from a moral perspective. By contrast, when we consider the lion's prey, it's not so much a matter of whether its context changes the value of its life (which would seem to be something that remains constant in any particular case), but rather is a matter of how its context changes our (meaning "humans") responsibility to that life.

Humans are moral agents, non-human animals are moral patients. A moral agent (human being) is a person who has the ability to distinguish between right and wrong and can be held accountable for their actions. Moral patients (non-human animals) are those who have the ability to feel but are not capable of formulating ethical principles and acting in accordance with them; they are beings towards whom moral agents have moral obligations. Therefore, appealing to animal behaviour means abandoning one's own moral responsibility. In other words, what creatures that are not moral agents do does not determine how those who are moral agents should act.

Many things happen in nature: non-human animals kill each other for territory, males force females to mate, males will kill the young of the females they want to mate with, young birds die of hunger because their parents feed the stronger ones, females abandon the young they perceive as weaker, non-human animals cannibalize each other. Does this mean that humans should do the same? Obviously not. We do not justify injustice towards people by saying that, "this happens in nature." No one says, "lions rape their females, so humans can too." No one justifies slavery among humans by saying that some insects parasitise mammals. We do not consider such actions acceptable for humans because we understand that morality cannot be based on mimicking wild animals.

Why then, when it comes to the exploitation of animals, do you try to justify it with the, "laws of nature?" This argument does not even theoretically apply to most forms of exploitation that arise from a mentality that views animals as a resource for profit. It only serves as a cover for any use of animals, regardless of the purpose. What does the behaviour of predators have to do with people using skin, down, feathers and fur? And what does it have to do with animals being exploited in circuses, dolphinariums or zoos? And what does it have to do with laboratory experiments or using animals for labour or accessories? Obviously, nothing.

Veganism is the principle according to which a human should live without exploiting animals. It is not limited to a plant-based diet or any other practice, these are only the applications of this principle. It is about rejecting the entire premise of "might makes right" logic, where a human being considers themselves the master and animals a resource; slaves. Thus, attempting to justify exploitation with the argument that, "animals eat animals," is not only an oversimplification, but also distracts from the essence: we have no moral right to use animals. Veganism removes the veil from the false idea that animals exist for us. This idea is the root of all exploitation: it makes bon-human animals invisible as individuals and reduces them to the role of objects.

The phrase, "animals eat animals," is an attempt to legitimize human domination and shift responsibility onto, "nature." But we know that nature =/= moral and just. Behind this logic lies the same belief: animals exist not for themselves, but for us. This logic is not new: once upon a time, slave owners said that some people exist to serve others; today, non-vegans say that animals exist to serve humans. In both cases, it is about objectification and deprivation of the other's subjective experience. This is the logic of the oppressor: to objectify, exploit, and humiliate.

To argue that, "animals eat other animals," is a way of perpetuating a system of oppression. It shifts the focus from human responsibility to the supposed, "natural order."  But the, "natural order," has never been a criterion for justice. We do not copy nature when it comes to injustice among humans. We do not justify oppression, slavery or violence by saying, "that's how it is in nature." Why, then, do you try to justify the exploitation of animals with the same argument?

“I need meat to survive”

[see ‘Nutrition’ section]

We know that there are no essential nutrients in animal products that can't be obtained elsewhere, and there is a plethora of evidence that demonstrates humans can thrive on a plant-based diet rich in whole foods like fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains and legumes. A well planned, varied plant-based diet gives the human body everything it needs to thrive. There are lots of anecdotes around, but as far as I'm aware, not a single peer reviewed paper makes the claim that even one patient required animal products to thrive.

You will not find any true and thoroughly composed, trialed, tested and researched information on cancer, heart disease, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, or kidney/liver/appendix issues that will not at some point indicate saturated fat and protein from meat, eggs and dairy as un-ignorable risk factors.

“Humans are omnivores”

[see ‘Nutrition’ section]

Granted, our bodies are capable of digesting the bodies of other animals,we're omnivores after all, but this capability does not make it a necessity. When evaluating what to eat based on what advantages it gives us, I think you've left a few things out of your analysis that would seem to suggest the reverse conclusion.

As I understand it, there have been healthy, thriving vegetarians and vegans for as long as there have been humans. Some were so due to moral or ethical concern, others due to resource utilization issues and others due to cultural taboos. All other factors being equal, the veg(etari)ans have thrived, and continue to do so. For some more recent historical examples of vegans, we can look at Pythagoras and the subsequent the "Pythagoreans" (as vegans were called for the following 1300 years), along with a plethora of like-minded contemporaries (e.g. Greco-Roman Vegetarians). Buddhists, Jainists, et al., have been doing grand as veg(etari)ans since around the 6th century BCE. There are many more examples, but my point in bringing this up is that veganism is clearly a viable option for humans, and has been so all along. When you add to this that the amount of animal's bodies being consumed per capita has increased dramatically in the last hundred years or so, it doesn't seem as though anything in particular is being "given up" by going back to veganism.

More to your central point, when humans consume the flesh, secretions, et al., of animals, it causes diseases in them at a much, much higher rate than it does in those who don't. These diseases consist primarily of a range of heart diseases and cancers (colorectal and breast in particular), but include a long list of fairly nasty ailments. Given the increased risk of contracting these illnesses and that consuming animals is clearly not a necessity for humans, we can only conclude that doing so is actually less health-some rather than more so. As such, isn't our greatest advantage found by not killing and eating them?

“You've never been on a farm”

You don't need to have visited a place in order to decide for yourself that what goes on there is unethical. Indeed, most of the places we call evil, we've never visited ourselves. Imagine if someone were to say your opinion on Nazi concentration camps was invalid because you had never visited one. Clearly, this argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny, especially as veganism is not anything to do with welfare (i.e. how "humanely" the animals are enslaved and murdered), but rather to do with the basic premise that it is not morally acceptable to use animals at all, regardless of how it is done.

It just so happens that many vegans are actually vegan /because/ they have either grown up on farms, worked on them or visited them, and have seen firsthand many of the horrific practices that take place there. This Facebook post (https://www.facebook.com/share/p/H8Q6QYFtx7TVXzH7/) is loaded with accounts of vegans who either come from farming backgrounds themselves or who have visited them. If anything, you'll see that by telling vegans to visit farms, all you are doing is strengthening vegans' beliefs that animal agriculture is abhorrent, by urging them to bear witness to the many horrors that take place there.

“Vegans use animal products everyday”

Child labour was used to mine the lithium for the battery in your phone. Does that mean you support child slavery? Obviously not! As humans, we are born into a world where all consumerist actions cause harm in one way or another. To say we shouldn't bother minimising our harm in one area just because we may be causing harm in other areas is a complete moral cop-out.

We live in a pre-vegan world, it’s not possible to know or eliminate all forms of systemic animal cruelty overnight, this takes time. Does that make me a hypocrite for participating in society? I think that’s rather unfair and illogical. Wherever there is a choice between vegan or non-vegan, I will always choose the vegan option, whether that be clothes, toiletries, food, cosmetics, etc. It’s not ignorant to point out the immorality within society regarding our treatment of animals, it’s necessary to do so. Only then can companies start to recognise that there is a demand for cruelty free products.

Just because I can’t get a vegan phone, or my house may have been painted with something that contains animal derivatives, doesn’t make the decision to pay someone to stab an animal in the throat for what is nothing more than a taste preference an ethical one. With regards to there being animal products in everyday items such as car tires, electronics, windows, walls, etc., we shouldn't be focusing on 2% of the problem. The 83 billion land animals and trillions of marine animals massacred every year are massacred by the meat, dairy, egg, leather, wool, and fish industries, not the car tire industry. Not the glass industry. So, let's focus on the **practicable and practical** solution: not consuming meat, dairy, egg, leather, wool, etc.

The scope of veganism is narrow: abstaining from products that contribute to the unnecessary suffering and exploitation of animals. You can follow the "no ethical consumption under capitalism" rabbit hole into existential abstraction. Surely, being a primitivist hermit, or simply dying, would be the only way to maximize "no harm" with how our political-economic institutions are set up. In practical terms, that is untenable. The scenario in which you describe vegans giving up electronics (which can be extrapolated to literally any product, including plant foods that may harm animals during cultivation) is much different than simply giving up consumables that contain animal products.

No vegans are claiming to be perfect, and no vegans are claiming that their very existence is not harmful to this planet (or at least any vegans that are, are deluded). All we're doing is offering a practical and practicable solution for a very serious issue that is currently happening: the largest act of systematic violence in history, and its resulting havoc on the planet, and indeed on other humans.

“Going vegan makes no difference”

New research from Animal Charity Evaluators gives animal advocates updated numbers for a commonly used advocacy metric: number of animals saved per person who goes plant-based.

'The Effects of Diet Choices' https://animalcharityevaluators.org/research/reports/dietary-impacts/effects-of-diet-choices/ 

The study suggests that each plant-based person spared 105 vertebrates in 2018. This includes an average of 79 wild-caught fishes, 14 farmed fishes, and 12 farmed land vertebrates (11.5 farmed birds and 0.5 farmed mammals).

There are more vegans today than 10 years ago, which was more than 10 years before that. Cultural change is slow, but it happens. When we look at history, particularly in the West, this is demonstrably true. And it is worth considering the logic of, "other people still do it, what difference does it make if I do it?" There are millions of rapes a year. One should still not rape. There are millions of murders a year. One should still not murder. Millions of people will starve this year. One should still try to save the hungry.

Cultivating personal ethics, empathy, moral strength, and resolve will allow you to live free of moral dissonance. I will not compromise what I hold as right and true, and therefore, I will be free in a way that those who close their eyes to suffering will never be. I'm also a touchstone for those on the fence. People won't be able to say, "everyone I know eats meat," because they know me. The illusion that everyone is callous to these animals collapses in the face of one person's compassion. The more vegans someone knows personally, the more it legitimizes the position, casting it as a possibility for their own life. Is it hard? Absolutely, it can be difficult.

But there is space for compassion, and it will always be worth cultivating.

Veganism and plant-based food are growing in popularity, no doubt. This change is quite literally observable if you slow down and look around. Walk into any grocery store today and count how many vegan animal-product substitutes there are. Plant milks, plant yogurts, dairy-free cheese, animal-free faux meat, vegan hors d'oeuvres. Conventional products with vegan third-party certifications. All of those products are the result of veganism, and the demand for vegan options. Large corporations are understanding that veganism can indeed be profitable.

‘Vegan Food Global Market Report 2025’ https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/vegan-food-global-market-report#:~:text=It%20will%20grow%20from%20%2424.58,(CAGR)%20of%2013.1%25

The plant-based foods market could make up to 7.7% of the global protein market by 2030, with a value of over $162 billion, up from $29.4 billion in 2020, according to a new report by Bloomberg Intelligence (BI). The report Plant-Based Foods Poised for Explosive Growth identifies growth expectations for the plant-based foods market through 2030.

1 in 20 residents of the USA are vegan. From 2013-2017, just 5% of Americans self-identified as vegan or vegetarian. Two unrelated surveys show that this number has now doubled to 10%, with 5% identifying as vegetarian and 5% identifying as vegan in January 2022. The survey featured in the linked article below has a 2% margin of error. That means that the true figure is somewhere between 8% and 12% of the U.S. population. But, even if our numbers have only gone up to 8%, that's an increase of almost 10 million people in recent years.

‘1 in 10 Americans say they don’t eat meat – a growing share of the population’ https://theconversation.com/1-in-10-americans-say-they-dont-eat-meat-a-growing-share-of-the-population-176948

“Vegans cause crop deaths”

Are you really saying that, because unfortunate consequences exist in the world, the intentional exploitation of sentient life is justified? I'm so glad we both agree that unnecessary animal deaths are morally indefensible. Crop deaths are a big issue and I have no problem taking accountability for my role in them.

But, let's use a little nuance here. Tell me, in your opinion, what's more likely to solve crop deaths? A world that commodifies and objectifies animals, or one that rejects their exploitation?

Animal products inherently require animal death and animal exploitation, right? I mean, the shrink-wrapped slab of 30% off beef at Walmart didn't just appear out of nowhere. Things like fruits and vegetables do not inherently require animal deaths. For example, you can pick blackberries in the summer without harming any animals, or grow tomatoes on a studio apartment balcony. Crop deaths are only prevalent in plant agriculture because the industrial methods of growing and harvesting are cheaper than the alternatives (hydroponic, veganic agriculture, paying workers fair wages), and they're also widely subsidized practices. Not to mention that most farmers are non-vegan; this isn't a vegan issue, it's a consequence of non-vegan behaviors.

The logical premise of the, "crop deaths," argument is that the premeditated and systematic killing of innocent individuals is justified in preventing industrial deaths. For this line of reasoning to be employed consistently, such as in a human context, one would accept positions such as it being justified to kill humans in a similar fashion to prevent them from causing industrial deaths by driving or buying consumer goods that use unethical labor, like fast fashion or smartphones.

Where agriculture currently falls short (often as the result of non-vegans predominantly working within it), there are solutions that can be continuously improved upon to allow for the nutritional needs of humans to be met with minimal harm, destruction and inefficiency (such as hydroponic, greenhouse and veganic agriculture).

Vegans advocate for veganic farming; a plant-based organic approach that goes beyond standard organic certification by excluding all animal-derived inputs and fertilizers, relying instead on time-honored, plant-based methods to enrich the soil. We can grow produce hydroponically in vertical farms and incorporate other veganic farming practices like cover crops, crop rotation and green manure. (https://online.eou.edu/resources/article/veganic-farming-importance-of-sustainable-agriculture)

Two brands that I regularly buy from that use veganic farming practices are One Degree (https://onedegreeorganics.com/) and UpVertical (https://upverticalfarms.com/). See other farmers and companies utilizing veganic farming methods here: https://goveganic.net/veganic-farm-map/ 

Here is a list of organizations and brands that Vegconomist has reported on: https://vegconomist.com/organizations-and-brands-we-have-reported-on/ 

Veganism and the animal rights movement not only make more and more people vegan (including myself a few years back) but also lead to the adoption of more welfarist measures and a general shift to be more considerate of other animals. Also known since the 60s as the, "radical flank effect.”

Part 2: ethics

Animal agriculture is the biggest source of suffering in the world. Not ONLY because...

• Farmed animals are regularly caged, tormented, ripped away from their families, mutilated, treated like worthless objects, and mercilessly killed.

• Most of them are deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living.

• Farmed animals are often tortured, violently kicked, beaten, whipped, hanged, stabbed, burned, dragged by ropes, skinned alive, buried alive, castrated without anesthesia, drowned in 'fecal soup', forced to cannibalism, boiled alive in scalding-hot water, ground up alive in a macerator, slaughtered in front of each other, suffocated in gas chambers, and hammered to death, even on "high welfare" farms (and that isn't nearly everything).

(See videos of all of these things happening: https://veganhorizon.substack.com/p/livestock-farming-is-the-greatest)

But also because nothing in the world compares to the unbelievable scale of this abhorrent industry: every 30 minutes, as many animals are killed for human consumption as people have died in the six years of the Second World War–the deadliest conflict in human history.

I highly recommend you watch Joey Carbstrong's halal slaughterhouse investigation, which made the news in multiple countries: https://youtu.be/CKfJ7BWq46A?si=DiOWF7UwMzhfhJHI 

Is what you see in that video not abuse?

Or watch an hour of pigs burn from the inside out in gas chambers: https://youtu.be/rVR7NjnMkIc?si=n0paFXzu55TKn5Sa

Or egg hens, when they're no longer profitable: https://youtu.be/w81NRCt6Z2I?si=I-sAxYJ33C-PXMaY

These hens have been selectively bred to lay 300+ eggs a year as opposed to 7 eggs a year that their wildlife counterparts, the Junglefowl, lay. Egg laying hens suffer tremendously, regardless of their environment. Constant egg playing results in nutrient deficiencies, specifically calcium, as the unnatural rate of egg laying pulls calcium from their bones. The result is unseen suffering like aches and pains, osteoporosis and, just as common, prolapsed cloacas. And finally, premature death from organ failure or deliberate culling as their human perception of usefulness degrades.

Male chicks are culled in the egg industry because they aren't profitable. Culling is usually done by one of three methods: live maceration, a carbon dioxide chamber or suffocation in industrial garbage bags.

Live maceration is the most common method for chick culling. Watch 10 minutes of male chicks being ground up alive in a macerator here: https://youtu.be/t_u0jxi_v-w?si=E6ysm5IA_W34fJpM 

Or watch raw footage from "RSPCA Assured" slaughterhouses: https://youtu.be/S5P5NcnqHNc?si=abXPaduTLbiE4zfO

Or watch pigs being bludgeoned while they scream in pain: https://youtu.be/As3vILWX6kU?si=wKLyopC1w82OSml3 

Or watch "sick" pigs being buried alive en masse: https://youtu.be/W62g6L9bHfQ?si=o7Ndtyp2C9O-n-Ez 

Or watch the entire 45 day life cycle of a broiler chicken: https://youtu.be/3KXZu65HpUA?si=I92xpafpxWPjQA2b

———

The claim that a lactating cow produces more milk than her calf can consume does not justify the practices of the dairy industry. Dairy cows, typically bred for high milk production, can give up to 75 pounds or more of milk daily, far exceeding a calf's needs. These cows are continuously, forcibly impregnated through artificial insemination and are separated from their calves shortly after birth, resulting in significant, observable stress and emotional trauma for both mother and calf. It is also important to note that because dairy cows are bred for maximum milk output, they are often exhausted and subjected to a grueling cycle of forced pregnancy and milking with minimal rest periods. They usually live only about four years in the industry, despite their natural lifespan of up to 20 years. The calves, especially males, are often killed shortly after birth or raised for veal, further highlighting the cruelty involved in this system.

Male calves are either killed at a young age and sold as veal or they are raised to about a year old and slaughtered and ground into hamburger meat. In the latter scenario calves are castrated, typically within the first few weeks of life (https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/husbandry_practices_for_rearing_dairy_steer_calves). This procedure can be done in one of three different ways: surgically, with a band, or by crushing the spermatic cord. Often the procedure is done incorrectly when the calf is young and it is first attempted, and farmers will redo the procedure when the calf is older and the stress and pain are increased.

Dairy farming is also associated with various health issues for cows, including lameness and mastitis, as a result of their breeding and exploitation. Statistical evidence indicates that up to 48.6% of dairy cows suffer from lameness in some populations (https://beef.ces.ncsu.edu/lameness-in-the-us-cattle-industry/). Estimates suggest that lameness impacts up to 26% of all dairy cattle around the world (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/veterinary-science/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.00542/full). In intensive systems of dairy production, this number climbs. In the United Kingdom, lameness likely impacts in the region of  30% of cows, while in the U.S., one 2013 study found an aforementioned 48.6% incidence of lameness in its sample population of dairy cows. There are a number of risk factors for lameness including diet, calving, use of hormones during calving, type and cleanliness of flooring, and place in the social hierarchy.

If a cow is not able to produce milk or is not producing enough milk to remain sufficiently profitable, she is slaughtered. Following her slaughter, her body is typically ground into hamburger meat. The contribution of dairy cows to the total beef output of many countries can be substantial, often surpassing the contribution of the respective national beef herd. In New Zealand, 65% of beef output by volume originates directly or indirectly from dairy cows. Beef from dairy herds (including dairy animals and cull cows) represents 20.5 to 22.7% of US beef production. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030221002204)

The argument that milk provides necessary nutrients can be refuted by numerous plant-based sources that offer equivalent or superior nutrition without the ethical dilemmas. A well-planned vegan diet can provide all the nutrients needed, including those vital for brain development. There are ample plant-based alternatives that not only satisfy dietary requirements like calcium, protein, vitamin D, omega fatty acids, etc, but also drastically reduce the suffering of animals.

———

Fish don't have vocal cords to scream, but that doesn't mean they're not in pain. A peer‑reviewed study in Scientific Reports delivers disturbing evidence: Rainbow trout, and likely many other fish species, endure up to 21.7 minutes of pain before losing consciousness during common catching and slaughter practices.

After fish are taken out of the water, their movements slow over time, and the animals eventually become still. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are unconscious. Many scientists believe that fish become still due to metabolic exhaustion but remain awake and aware. Fish pulled from the water are exposed to high levels of carbon dioxide and experience a strong, distressing urge to breathe, just as humans would if trapped underwater.

Increased carbon dioxide leads to blood acidification, causing pain, anxiety and panic. Fish release the same stress hormones known to provoke panic attacks in humans, suggesting they may experience similarly intense distress. Even slaughter methods that seem gentler than air asphyxiation, like chilling fish in ice slurry, can prolong suffering because the cold slows metabolism and delays unconsciousness.

‘Quantifying the welfare impact of air asphyxia in rainbow trout slaughter for policy and practice’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-04272-1 

The study further validates that fish's pain is not merely reflexive; their brains and stress responses show that, just like other animals, their suffering is conscious and deeply traumatizing for them.

In a study conducted by the University of Liverpool, zebrafish were given a choice of two tanks: One was barren, while the other was enriched with pleasant views of other fish and foliage. Initially, the zebrafish chose to be in the enriched tank. However, some of the fish were then injected with acid, while the barren tank was pumped full of painkillers. The fish who’d been injected with acid moved to the tank with the painkillers.

‘Reduction in activity by noxious chemical stimulation is ameliorated by immersion in analgesic drugs in zebrafish’ https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/220/8/1451/18829/Reduction-in-activity-by-noxious-chemical 

> “We have demonstrated that 5 dpf zebrafish respond to a variety of noxious chemical stimuli by reducing activity and that the behavioural response observed can be ameliorated by providing appropriate analgesia with aspirin, lidocaine and morphine at relevant doses. Similar responses have previously been reported in adult fish, which implies that larval zebrafish can be used as a model for the study of pain and nociception and, thus, they represent a direct replacement of a protected adult vertebrate. Our novel system provides a high-throughput means of testing the impact of chemical exposure and could be extrapolated to studies exploring toxicants and pharmaceuticals.”

A similar study, conducted by Sneddon in 2002, sought to test fishes’ psychological states, not just their physical reactions, when exposed to pain. This time, the subjects were rainbow trout.

‘Novel Object Test: Examining Nociception and Fear in the Rainbow Trout’ https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi 

First, Lego blocks were dropped into their tank; under normal circumstances, a trout will avoid an unfamiliar object in its presence. But the trout in this study were injected with acid, and once they were, they stopped trying to avoid the Legos—presumably, because they were distracted by their own pain. Meanwhile, a second group of trout was injected with acid and then morphine, a powerful painkiller. The trout who received the acid and the morphine behaved as they normally would have (that is, by avoiding the Legos).

Crucially, morphine does not eliminate the source of pain, just the experience of it. The trout who received the morphine weren’t in any less danger from the acid than the other trout, and yet their behavior was completely different. This disparity in behavior only makes sense if the two groups of trout were having different experiences; the difference, Sneddon’s team concluded, is that one group of fish was experiencing pain, while the other was not.

Fish have also demonstrated avoidance learning, meaning that they can remember indicators of noxious stimuli and avoid them. In one 2003 study, a light was shone into a rainbow trout’s tank ten seconds before a dip net was plunged in, frightening the fish. Over a five-day period, all thirteen fish from the study learned to flee once they saw the light, but before the net actually entered the tank.

‘Investigating fear in domestic rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, using an avoidance learning task’ https://animalbiosciences.uoguelph.ca/~rmoccia/RDM%20articles/Trout%20Fear-%20Yue,%20Moccia,%20Duncan-2004.pdf 

This, the researchers concluded, demonstrated that fish are capable of fear, and as such, that “they are sentient animals, more complex than previously thought.”

———

The non-vegans understanding of veganism, or lack thereof, is a combination of having very limited experience engaging in actual vegan philosophy or ethical philosophy in general, with some emotional motivation to believe that veganism cannot be based in reason and therefore must be similar to a religion. After all, if it is similar to a religion, then it can be dismissed as easily as a religion. But anti-speciesism and veganism are based on very basic and intuitive moral principles that most humans already hold. Consider the following:

"When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Those who wish to defend a hierarchical, inegalitarian society have often pointed out that by whatever test we choose, it simply is not true that all humans are equal. Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand. [...]"

"The appropriate response to those who claim to have found evidence of genetically-based differences in ability between the races or sexes is not to stick to the belief that the genetic explanation must be wrong, whatever evidence to the contrary may turn up: instead, we should make it quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans."

Jeremy Bentham wrote: “The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?"

"In this passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering, or more strictly, for suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness, is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language, or for higher mathematics. Bentham is not saying that those who try to mark "the insuperable line" that determines whether the interests of a being should be considered happen to have selected the wrong characteristic. The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way. It would be nonsense to say that it was not in the interests of a stone to be kicked along the road by a schoolboy. A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. Nothing that we can do to it could possibly make any difference to its welfare. A mouse, on the other hand, does have an interest in not being tormented, because it will suffer if it is."

"If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering, in so far as rough comparisons can be made, of any other being. If a being is not capable of suffering, or of experiencing enjoyment or happiness, there is nothing to be taken into account. This is why the limit of sentience (using the term as a convenient, if not strictly accurate, shorthand for the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness) is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interests of others. To mark this boundary by some characteristic like intelligence or rationality would be to mark it in an arbitrary way. Why not choose some other characteristic, like skin color?"

"The racist violates the principle of equality by giving greater weight to the interests of members of his own race, when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of another race. Similarly, the speciesist allows the interests of his own species to override the greater interests of members of other species. The pattern is the same in each case."

Peter Singer, 'Animal Liberation,' 1975

———

What's the connection between feminism and veganism?

‘The truth about being a vegan and a feminist’ https://womensmediacenter.com/fbomb/the-truth-about-being-a-vegan-and-a-feminist 

“From a feminist point of view, it’s worth noting that humans’ justification for eating meat is similar to the patriarchy’s justification for enforcing inequality. Just as men have historically seen women as vulnerable, incapable of fighting back, giving consent, or effectively communicating, and therefore considered them their property, available for exploitation in the name of profit and consumption, so do we consider animals. What’s more, it’s worth considering how female animals’ sex, namely their reproductive organs and abilities, including those that allow them to breed, lactate, and menstruate, dictate how exactly they will be oppressed.

For example, female cows are forcibly impregnated on what the meat industry literally calls a “rape rack”: they are immobilized in tiny cages in which they are artificially inseminated. Once the cows give birth, their babies are ripped from them, often only hours later, and then attached to milking machines. The milk that should have gone to their baby is painfully taken from them for human consumption. We are the only animal that takes milk meant for another baby to drink for ourselves even into adulthood. If a cow has a male calf, he is frequently deemed useless and killed in his first week of his life for veal. This process is repeated four or five more times until the cow literally cannot take it anymore, collapses, and is taken to a slaughterhouse. Unlike what many people are told, the cow is not painlessly, quickly killed; she watches as all the cows in front of her are stunned, strung up by their feet, and killed. This portrays how female animals are degraded and devalued as they wear out and age and can no longer reproduce, much like female humans.

The connection between violence done to animals in our society and its translation to other humans is often underemphasized, yet studies have shown that there are definite links between people who are violent toward animals and people who are violent toward other humans. A 2009 study concluded that towns that have slaughterhouses within them also had much higher rates of violence, including crimes like domestic violence, rape, and murder. The majority of the victims of these crimes are women. One 1998 report found that a whopping 71 percent of battered women reported that their partners also showed violence toward their animals. In 88 percent of homes in which child abuse occurs, so does animal abuse.

It makes sense that when the government does home inspections for abusive behavior, they first look at the well-being of the pets and that the FBI uses animal abuse as one of the main indicators to track the behavior of a person suspected in other crimes. These correlations suggest that feminists who are rightly insistent on dismantling the patriarchy also need to include animals in their fight. How can we pay to consume a once-living being that was raped, exploited, and slaughtered while trying to fight against rape culture, gender inequality, and often lethal violence against women? We may have been raised in a society that does not recognise all animals as sentient, feeling beings, and therefore tend to be insensitive to what we do to them, but fighting for justice must include all living groups that are oppressed. We cannot fully address and solve one problem without addressing them all and without being aware of these connections.

While the reproductive violence done to female animals is perhaps the most extreme and graphic comparison to the oppression of women, there are other ways oppression against women and animals overlap. In many ways, women are animalized and animals are feminized to justify their various oppressions. Restaurants like Hooters are the perfect showcase for how typically macho spaces blend the exploitation and diminishment of women as nothing but pieces of meat for them to ogle, objects with which they can do what they like and be served by, with the objectification of animals as meat.

The creation of industries that profit by sexualizing animals and women together are also abundant, such as Playboy bunnies and sexy animal Halloween costumes for women. Speciesism, sexism, racism, and other forms of oppression are interconnected and overlap. The idea that there could be such a thing as the humane slaughter of a living, breathing, sentient being’s body, a body that does not want to die,:is an oxymoron. So is paying to consume a raped, exploited, and slaughtered being while trying to fight against rape culture, gender inequality, and the exploitation of women. Just as feminists asked men to give up some of their privileges for cultural and social change, now so must we make sacrifices ourselves to truly live our ideals. As feminists, if we want to rid the world of this system of hierarchy, of needless violence, then shouldn’t we fully commit to it?”

———

‘Unconditional Anti-Oppression: The Rise of Anti-Speciesism in the Anarchist Movement’ https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/a-blitz-molotov-xvx-unconditional-anti-oppression-the-rise-of-anti-speciesism-in-the-anarchist

“Human supremacy and Speciesism

Human supremacy is the belief that humans are superior and therefore entitled to dominate other animals and the earth. This form of discrimination and privilege exists in the anarchist movement, and has played a key role in the perceiving of non-human animal and earth liberation as secondary movements. As any other supremacist ideology, human supremacy perpetuates discrimination, enslavement, and murder in general, and towards non-human animals in particular. It embodies an interlocking combination of oppressions which manifest in the dominating social relationship humans have towards each other, the earth and other animals. Similar to white supremacy with the discrimination of BIPOC and patriarchy with the discrimination of women and other non-men, human supremacy refuses equal consideration and opportunity for non-human animals to pursue a life free of human control.

Like racism and sexism, speciesism is irrational discrimination towards non-human animals based on species. Anti-speciesist anarchism is an anti-authoritarian challenge to human supremacy. Biocentrism or Deep Ecology is the re-distribution of power and autonomy equally to all sentient beings through the destruction of human moral elitism. Humans have generally justified their exploitation of non-humans through the categorisation of “animals” as inferior therefore rightfully subjugated. Today many vegan anarchists have replaced “animals” with “non-human animals” or simply “other animals”. This serves to distinguish non-human animals from human animals, while also recognising the shared animality of both. The word “rights” regarding non-human animals is less often used. Since “rights” in the political context imply permissions or privileges granted by the state, anti-speciesists generally feel this term is inconsistent with autonomous freedom. Anti-speciesism as a significant element and concept in the struggle for freedom is expanding as the intersectionality of all oppressions gains recognition. [ASA argues moral rights, that all animals innately have, they are not absent of moral rights but have their basic fundamental rights violated]”

“Intersecting oppressions

Intersectionality is an examination of how all forms of oppression including but not limited to race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, class, species or disability do not act independently of one another but instead, are interrelated creating a system of oppression that reflects the “intersection” of multiple forms of discrimination.

For example, capitalism utilises speciesism to commodify non-human animals, reducing them to units of production and capital. The legal property status of non-human animals can be compared to that of the enslaved Africans prior to the Civil War. Reproductive control over humans with uteruses reflects the reproductive exploitation of non-human animals. Anti-capitalists who have acknowledged the relationship between non-human animals and capitalism have seen that such a relationship is the antithesis of freedom and must be abolished. Consuming non-human animals perpetuates the capitalist and human supremacist notion that they are sources of food rather than sentient beings deserving of their natural born right to freedom as humans expect for themselves.

Communication, language and imagery contribute to the mutual reinforcement of all oppressions. Since non-human animals are viewed as inferior, their imagery and identity is used as a derogatory way of describing disliked, oppressed or uncivilised humans. For example some of the most commonly known slurs towards women & nonbinary people attack their physical appearance and involve non-human animals. In addition to degrading individual women & nonbinary people these insults marginalise entire species of nonhuman animals as well. The hatred and speciesism towards pigs is encouraged when they are used to reference officers of colonial law. In various contexts, pigs, cows, and dogs are considered dirty, unclean, ugly, unlovable beings. These serve as stereotypes that excuse and encourage their exploitation. In the eyes of a speciesist, nonhuman animals serve to metaphorically reference oppressed humans.

Some nonhuman animals are used to describe people of colour (monkey, ape, coon etc) other nonhumans are used in the same way for women (bitch, chick, cow etc). People of colour who break laws or act out their emotions are often referred to as nonhuman animals, and women and nonbinary humans who act out of their frustration or anger are often referred to as a “bitch”. The marginalisation of nonhuman animals is intimately intertwined with the oppression upon them. When examined, the mechanisms of domination, violence, and control are the same.”

‘Veganarchism: Philosophy, Praxis, Self-criticism’

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/joseph-parampathu-veganarchism-philosophy-praxis-self-criticism 

“Animal Liberation—A Primer

Total and utter liberation with no qualifiers, no restraints, and no caveats—that is our only goal. As animal liberationists we mean that we want all animals to be free from the oppression of human supremacy, of capitalism, of speciesism, of all hierarchies. Until we achieve this end we will not be settled in this matter. This is not a struggle to be fought at some future date or after some precondition is met. The struggle waits for no advance in technology or values, and it will not stand by for a convenient time. We fully believe that today we have the ability to destroy the structures which oppress all animals, including humans, and if we have the ability to do so, then we ought to do it, too.

There is no question that oppression exists today and that animals are exploited by humans each and every day. Because we are aware of the injustice that exists, we must, as free-thinking people, condemn it and fight against it. The only response to being conscious of the hierarchies of speciesism, animal subjugation, and the commodification of animal bodies is liberation. We will not stop until this liberation is achieved. We will not stop; we will not compromise; and we will not take half-measures. Liberation means the complete and utter end to these hierarchies. The false narrative of bourgeoisie logic is that animal liberation must, by definition, mean some existential loss in the stance or relative position of humans. Of course, this logic is wholly circular and comes down to nothing more than a question of chauvinist might over reasoned care. Hierarchies are oppressive in that they prevent the subjugated individuals from fully self-actualizing, and also deprive our world of the communal future that is possible. When we allow animals to self-actualize and exist with us as equal partners in the benefits of free life we all benefit from this relation. In the current system animal bodies are churned under the slaughterhouse factories of capitalism for the profit of a miniscule few at the expense of traumatized slaughterhouse workers, peasant farmers, urbanites with no other options but harmful, addictive foods, and finally all inhabitants of this world that we continue to hurtle towards an untimely death in the pursuit of profit for these few capitalists. As anticapitalists we must be liberationists. As animals we must be liberationists. As vegans we must be liberationists. As anarchists we must always be liberationists first, last, and all the way through.”

“From Class Analysis to Class Warfare – Zooicide and its Repercussions

We argue that animals must be given consideration and treated as subjective individuals with their own desires and needs including autonomy, self-actualization and independence. We argue that revolution is not a matter of resources and technology but a matter of allocation and property. As long as animals remain property, their inferiority will be manufactured to perpetuate this notion and benefit the capitalists who claim ownership of them.

Make no mistake–when a person claims that animals deserve to be treated as property, they have chosen to be not just the liberal supporter of this hierarchal system, but the bourgeoisie beneficiary of their supremacy. When we subjugate animals and perpetuate the belief that humanity is by nature superior to other animal species we profit from this hierarchy in the same way that capitalists destroy forests to profit off animal agriculture or poison waterways to offset the costs of environmental responsibility.

As long as animals remain a class in conflict with humans who demand supremacy, violence and class warfare are inevitable. We argue that no class, human or otherwise, ought to be considered second to any other, and that all components of our society require justice, not to be reserved for some future date, but at every moment, as a consequence of their existence and nothing more.

If it is inconvenient for animals to be liberated today, we ask, on behalf of every animal body crushed by the machine of capitalism: when will it be convenient? Being anti-capitalist requires understanding that some things exist outside the bounds of exchange value. How much does a life of suffering cost when it is your own life? How much of an inconvenience would you tolerate before completely subjugating someone else's existence? Without hierarchies this choice does not exist. A liberated world does not require you to choose between your own suffering and that of another.”

“De-Colonizing our Ecologies

Domination and control are the central themes of everyday eco-fascism in the capitalist environment. The language and methods of environmental destruction mirror the colonization of the empire throughout history continuing into the present. As we fight for the ecological independence of our world, we march in solidarity with decolonization efforts throughout the world.

Liberation movements fighting to remove the oppression of foreign powers act in concert with our own methods and philosophy within the Earth and animal liberation movements. In the same way that oppressed peoples fight back against dominant structures through a pluralism of direct action, protest, and effective speech, we bite back against the speciesism that subjugates animals to humans. In an interview with Earth First! Journal, Rodney Coronado, a longtime environmental activist and Pascua Yaqui warrior, described the intersection of environmental and anti-imperialist movements: “Long before contemporary environmentalism and animal rights, there were human resistance movements fighting for the same things we’re fighting for today. People being murdered for standing by the very same beliefs we say we are about in EF!” The environmental destruction these imperialists wrought was intertwined with the cultural domination they sought. As they extracted the natural resources of colonized land, they subjugated the labor of the peoples they attacked. Coronado continued, “indigenous resistors were the first anti-globalization movement, fighting the imperialist economic and social policies of European governments and the impact they had on the environment and our lives, which were really inseparable.”

Fighting back against the capitalist machine is never easy, but the movement today can learn a lot from the struggles of people who fought before us. In 1969, a group of indigenous peoples protested through a takeover of Alcatraz, an island in San Francisco famous for its prison. The indigenous group presented the American government with a proclamation demanding purchase of the land for a nominal sum, citing the American government’s own valuations in indigenous agreements. While the land was ultimately reclaimed by the American government, the protest lasted 19 months and its visibility led to direct results for Indian activism and reignited decolonization efforts. These movements provide a reminder of how activism can be used to reclaim land from the capitalist system. When maintaining the capitalist status quo becomes expensive and impractical, movements for liberation can exploit the weaknesses of capital and make a farce of its own dogma.

Chris Kortright wrote in an article Colonization and Identity about the various similar themes within colonialism. The force, dominance, and control that typify colonial relations are not dissimilar from the ecological relation that speciesists use to define human supremacy. Kortright discusses the ability of decolonization as a practice to help move communities forward towards a future that acknowledges the realities of a colonial past while removing the hierarchical systems that are necessary to allow colonialism to survive. Decolonizing spaces involves not just a decolonization of the colonized but also of the colonizer. Kortright describes the psychology and morality of the colonizer as a specific culture of domination. This is the dominant culture that vegan anarchism fights against. We seek to replace the immanence of hierarchal systems of control and subjugation with a transcendent harmony of collective progress. As we eliminate the barriers that confine animals to subjugation, we also must replace the framework of speciesism that allowed this subjugation to begin—we must eliminate the colonizer ideology and belief in false-individualism on which ecological domination is based.”

———

No matter how you slice it, veganism is "progressive" in the literal sense. To make this less hypothetical, look at how liberals vs. conservatives treated dog meat in South Korea, before finally agreeing to ban it in 2027: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat_consumption_in_South_Korea#Political_debate.  Additionally, a 2015 data collection study found that vegans are hated most by (surprise!) people who occupy the right-wing political ideology. In this study alone, vegans were hated more than any other group except drug addicts. Read the full study via PDF download here:

‘It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target’ https://sci-hub.se/10.1177/1368430215618253 

Conservative anxiety about veganism makes sense. The lifestyle’s increasing prevalence represents a shift in social mores that places more value on animal life, and conservatives, by definition, dislike change.

———

Human rights violations

Some consumers consider the welfare of animals when they buy meat, eggs or dairy, but few consider the risks and dangers for the humans working in the animal product supply chain. These people face some of the most hazardous, dirty, and dangerous working conditions, often with little or no right to insurance or healthcare, and have to accept unreliable, poorly paid shift work.

A lot of vegans care about these issues and take action to help farm workers. This vegan group is an example: https://foodispower.org

‘Child Labour in Livestock Sector: Unrecognised and Ignored’ https://globalmarch.org/news/child-labour-in-livestock-sector-unrecognised-and-ignored/ 

> “[the report] points out that livestock accounts for some 40 percent of the agricultural economy and efforts to curb child labour will require getting governments, farmer organizations and rural families directly involved in finding alternatives to practices which often reflect the need for survival. The report sustains that hazardous or potentially harmful work for children in the livestock sector has received less attention than child labour in other areas of agriculture, where much more has been done by international organizations, governments, civil society and rural families to address the problem.

The International Conference on Child Labour in Agriculture, organised by Global March Against Child Labour in July 2012, also recognised the need to tackle child labour in various neglected sub-sectors of agriculture, specifically livestock and fisheries wherein less attention has been paid in addressing the worst forms of child labour. Highlighting a serious data and knowledge gap of child labour in different agricultural sub-sectors, the Conference recommended collection of dis-aggregated data and knowledge at national and global level on child labour in the sub-sectors to guide policy and action. Given this, the FAO report is a welcome step forward in this direction.”

‘Children’s work in the livestock sector: Herding and beyond’ http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3098e/i3098e.pdf 

What activities do children undertake?

p. 21, Children’s work in the livestock sector: Herding and beyond: “According to the United States Department of Labor, cattle products are among the goods most commonly produced with child or forced labour. On their List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor (2011), cattle products are produced with child labour in Bolivia, Brazil, Chad, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Mauritania, Namibia, Paraguay, Uganda and Zambia. Leather goods are produced with child labour in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

Child labour in herding, particularly cattle herding, is the most apparent in the literature reviewed in this study. In addition, there are indications that children are active on commercial farms such as poultry farms. Child labour has also been found further down the value chain in milk processing, slaughterhouses, meat processing and leather-garment preparation. However, information on these forms of child labour is limited. Children have also been found to be involved with animal traction in farming (e.g. in Mali and central and northern regions of Malawi). Handling large animals is the domain of men in most societies, and children’s tasks in livestock handling often follow these gender lines (Bradley, 1993 in De Lange, 2009). General animal care is very common and there is widespread evidence of this kind of activity with regard to cattle and other ruminants as well as pigs and poultry.”

———

Many prisons lease inmates out for more violent and inhumane work, like poultry plants, meat processing facilities and slaughterhouses. With anti-immigration policies impacting the number of migrants available to work, agricultural industries have turned to prisons to fill the labor gap, with the added perk that incarcerated workers can’t unionize, quit or be deported. According to a 2017 report from the Heal Food Alliance, contract work for private industry accounts for about 21 percent of agricultural jobs filled by prisoners.

‘Farmers turn to prisons to fill labor needs: With immigration numbers low, the agriculture industry looks to another form of disenfranchised workers’ https://www.hcn.org/articles/agriculture-farmers-turn-to-prisons-labor-to-fill-labor-needs/ 

‘The Prison Industrial Complex and Agricultural Labor’ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZWdBH5zlKbV6K6subbGMm4nUMY3_ZZgJ/view?usp=drivesdk 

Beyond the exploitation of crop farmers, people working in animal agriculture get exploited in many of the same ways, or even worse. John Oliver did a good segment on the harsh reality for chicken farmers. Ignacio Davalos, a worker at a Smithfield-owned hog plant in Nebraska, says: "We've already gone from the line of exhaustion to the line of pain. When we're dead and buried, our bones will keep hurting."

‘Workers’ Rights Under Threat in US Meat and Poultry Plants’ https://www.hrw.org/report/2019/09/04/when-were-dead-and-buried-our-bones-will-keep-hurting/workers-rights-under-threat 

The ‘Workers’ Rights Under Threat in US Meat and Poultry Plants’ report on human rights in the meat industry concluded that animal agriculture has some of the most hazardous workplace conditions across the economy, with alarmingly high rights of injury and death. This is not just down to the nature of the work. The meat industry has consistently driven higher outputs in pursuit of ever-greater profits, with little thought for protecting the people of their industry. The result is longer operating hours, more cleaning, shorter times to complete the same job and intense pressure to meet unrealistic production targets. If workers cannot meet deadlines, or complain of horrendous conditions, they are often told they can leave.

For the report, Human Rights Watch interviewed 50 workers from 15 different meat processing plants, owned by 12 different major companies across six states. The majority of them shared experiences of injury and illness as a result of their work. Many showed scars from long-term injuries.

They found that:

1. Between January 2015 and August 2018, OSHA received 770 reports of amputations, in-patient hospitalizations, or eye loss from meat and poultry slaughterhouses.

2. Among the tens of thousands of companies that reported severe injuries to OSHA, several meat and poultry companies ranked among the highest reporters, despite having significantly smaller staff numbers than those around them.

3. Nationwide, between 2004 and 2013, more than 150 workers at meat and poultry slaughterhouses died from work-related injuries, more than one person per month

Here is one worker’s shocking testimony of a large poultry facility in Arkansas:

> “As soon as we entered we would start to tear up.… It was really strong. We felt like we were getting sick—your throat, nose. For me, I would cry. I was always crying. I also had really strong pain in my throat. Some people would get bloody noses… Almost every day it was one person or another [complaining to management]. One pregnant woman went to ask what chemicals they were using and what [they would] do to [her] child [but the company] said that it was within the permitted standards… Their solution is to say: ‘If you don’t want to stay here, go.”

‘Animal Agriculture and Human Rights in the US’ https://genv.org/animal-agriculture-and-human-rights-in-the-us/ 

———

to be continued!