I have quite a few friends and acquaintances who are vegetarian. I’ve talked with them, of course, about why it doesn’t make sense to give up some animal products and not others. And about the horrible suffering involved in egg and dairy production. Some are making the effort to move toward veganism, and some are almost there. But, sometimes, when I talk to vegetarians about this issue, they are sort of stunned. They thought they had already done something very significant in giving up meat, chicken and fish. They thought they had done enough, and finding out otherwise takes some adjustment in thinking.
I understand that and the fact is, they have done something significant and meaningful by going vegetarian. So why is it that they sometimes get nothing but grief from vegans?
Attacks by vegans against vegetarians are harmful in a couple of ways. First, they disaffect the very people who are most likely to be open to our message—that is, those who have already made changes in their lifestyle in response to an ethical imperative. Ninety seven percent of Americans eat meat and most don’t give it a second thought. In our culture and our society, to be vegetarian is a remarkable and rare statement about animal suffering and use. To say that vegetarians are no better or more “moral” than omnivores is a whole lot more alienating than encouraging.
In addition, some activists build their criticism of vegetarians on unsubstantiated claims. They insist that vegetarians cause more suffering to animals because they replace meat with dairy and eggs. What we know from the scientific literature about vegetarian diets shows this to be false. First, if lacto-ovo vegetarians were consuming more dairy than omnivores, we would expect them to consistently have a higher calcium intake, and they don’t.
Second, studies comparing vegetarians to omnivores suggest that vegetarians have lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, less heart disease, less type 2 diabetes, and less colon cancer. If vegetarians are consuming more dairy and eggs, it would have to follow that eating more of these foods improves health. To say that vegetarians simply replace meat with dairy and eggs is exactly the same as saying that dairy and eggs are good for you. That doesn’t strike me as especially good activism. And it’s obviously not very good science.
We have to assume from the scientific literature that vegetarians eat fewer animal foods and more plant foods than omnivores. That means that they decrease the number of animals bred and killed for food. Their diet has a positive impact in reducing suffering.
That doesn’t mean I’m satisfied when someone goes vegetarian. I’m as frustrated as any other activist when vegetarians will not take the next step. And we have a lot of educating to do in order to help people understand that it doesn’t make sense—from either a rights or a welfare position—to distinguish animal flesh from other animal products. But the fact is that many people—including some who do know about that distinction—go vegetarian first. Donald Watson, who coined the word “vegan” in 1944, had this to say about the subject in a 2002 interview (posted on VeganMeans)
To vegetarians, I would say, accept, as, if you’re honest you must, that vegetarianism, whilst being a necessary stepping-stone, between meat eating and veganism, is only a stepping stone. We all use this stepping stone, I’ve not met a vegan who didn’t approach the movement by that route. There may be vegans I’ve never known, over the last sixty years, who made the change all in one leap, but I’m sure that, being a realist, I accept that vegetarianism is a necessary staging-post in the evolution of humane dietetics.
I don’t agree with the perspective that vegetarianism is a necessary stepping stone. There are lots of ways to approach veganism. And there are, in fact, any number of vegans who simply jumped in and went vegan overnight. But the point is that vegetarianism is a useful transition for some people.
We need to educate meat eaters about the need to take the first step and vegetarians about the need to take the next step. That’s not going to be achieved by being hyper-judgmental towards others who care about animals. And it’s definitely not achieved by promoting misinformation that promotes false health benefits for dairy foods and eggs.
I think the reason that so many people get "stuck" in vegetarianism is because most, if not all, of the mainstream "animal rights" groups present the idea of vegetarianism as a means to an end without any explanation.
I believe the idea is that people will learn for themselves and make "the transition," but what about those who don't? Why are even even asking people to make an in-between stop at vegetarianism, when as you pointed out, there are people who go vegan right away?
Tell people first to go vegan. Then it's up to them to decide whether they go vegan immediately, or take a more transitional approach. It's bewildering that any group who supposedly supports the vegan cause and claims to be animal rights, would even consider asking people to "go vegetarian."
I think having two terms just perplexes people even further. We should be using one universal term- vegan. That's what we mean, right? Why try to trick people?
Thanks so much for your reasoned, evidence-based analysis, Ginny. Having done advocacy for several decades, I have known countless people (that I've dealt with and others who have reported to me) who said, "Oh, I could never be vegan," and thus dismiss the idea of making any change what-so-ever.
It is important, IMO, always to approach people where they are, not where we are. How can we be successful if we aren't understanding? We receive plenty of feedback like: "I saw some of this info online and tried some vegan food, but after you handed me this and I read it in class, I am so much more motivated again. I like that you don't make it an all-or-nothing approach."
http://tinyurl.com/yzu5rhz
I don't think to take the position of ethical veganism as a moral baseline for advocacy is equivalent to an all-or-nothing approach.
You can work with people where they are and be accepting and non-condescending towards them while still sticking with the baseline of ethical veganism. I do it all the time. In fact, people have often told me that they like the fact that I don't make them feel uncomfortable about it.
The key is finding out how you can agree with people and avoid disagreements in an effort for them to be less defensive and come to logical realizations on their own.
Just because you are advocating ethical veganism, doesn't mean that you have to judge people or demoralize them for not making the vegan step right away. Like I said previously, people are likely going to transition on their own. We can promote ethical veganism while applauding them for taking small steps in the right direction.
I'm just saying our focus should remain on the goal, which is ethical veganism. I've never found it necessary to set our goal with someone for anything less than that.
It doesn't mean you are constantly jumping down their throats until they become vegans, it just means that they are aware that ethical veganism is really the only solution because that is the clear and concise message you consistently project. They will choose how they get there.
Okay, but I wasn’t actually talking about vegetarian education. I was talking about how we react to people who are already vegetarian and who often have no idea that there is a better choice. Or who perhaps just don’t see themselves as able to go vegan overnight. I don’t believe in alienating these people and insisting that, if they don’t go vegan right now, this instant, whatever they are doing is worthless. I don't think that you do that, Ed, but I sure see a lot of comments elsewhere from people who do. And I definitely object to the use of misinformation in an attempt to make vegetarians look bad. For the reasons I outlined in my post, it's ridiculous and it's harmful to insist that vegetarians replace all the meat in their diets with other animal foods.
I don’t know of any animal rights groups that promote vegetarian diet. I have starter guides on my desk from VO, MFA, COK, FOA, PETA, even HSUS, and they all promote vegan diet. There are different reasons that people use the word “vegetarian” on their vegan materials—to make consumers more comfortable about looking at the materials or perhaps to work toward redefining the word vegetarian to mean a diet that includes only plant foods. That seems like a reasonable approach to me, but I don't actually know that it is the best way. Until we have some actual research on how these messages work, no one knows for a fact about what the best approach is (although lots of people will insist that they do:). So we can disagree on what might be best approaches, but I think we should be open minded enough to realize that there is probably more than one way to educate and that we shouldn’t be so quick to criticize those who approach things differently from how we might do it.
And hey Ed, you aren’t disagreeing with Donald Watson, are you? 😉
Thanks, Ellen, for your comments. And yes, decades of nutrition counseling and vegan education have taught me, too, about the wisdom of meeting people where they are–even though sometimes it is so hard to do!
You don't specify to what specific incidents you are referring when you say "Attacks by vegans against vegetarians" but I'm going to assume these attacks aren't really attacks at all. If they're anything like the exchanges I've had with you, they're nothing more than disagreements–critically needed disagreements when individuals who claim to fight selflessly for the interests of animals also hold a diet inclusive of animal products as the starting default.
Ginny,
I agree with most of what you're saying. I think we need valid research that indicates what methods of education are most effective. Right now, I'm just picking the one that makes the most logical sense to me.
I think using faulty, or downright false arguments to lure people in is also unacceptable and misleading.
The issue I have with the groups you mentioned is that they use the word "vegetarian" because they believe it's more acceptable. I am not convinced, especially nowadays, that the term "vegan" is any less acceptable that "vegetarian."
I agree that if we're going to use the word, we should push for it to mean vegan. The fact is, right now most people don't view it that way. In my opinion, whenever someone says "vegetarian" it should mean vegan, but there's a lot of work to be done to change that.
What Donald Watson issue am I disagreeing with? I'm not really one to follow the words of Donald Watson religiously, as many in the animal rights movement tend to do. I think there's room for improvement and interpretation 🙂
Virginia, can you explain what this significance is? Are you speaking of a significance to the individual's psyche? Because I think you would have a hard time asserting there is any meaningful change or statement made for animals themselves by eating some animal products but not others–you acknowledge this, so what is the significance?
Also, the evidence of lower calcium intake (evidence which you have told people to find for themselves, refusing to provide your sources) is not really evidence at all. As a dietitian, I should hope you would know that not all milk and egg derivatives contain calcium or at least calcium which is easily absorbed in the body.
And even if you were to show there was a lower intake of calcium, you are implying a lower intake of animal products is a worthwhile gamble. You fail to show that a vegetarian will not consume more animal products than before.
So I have to wonder, when you help your peers to give up on veganism, why do you suggest lacto-ovo vegetarianism?
Why not
a.) Continue a discussion on why they do not think they can be vegans to dispell myths and further encourage
b.) Offer a more logically sound incremental approach like having more vegan meals instead of acknowledging the consumption of unlimited but specific animal products as "significant"? Do you have a trademark on Vegetarianism you want to protect? I don't get it.
I tend to agree Gary Francione's take on the "vegetarianism as gateway" myth (http://is.gd/4Qp8k & http://is.gd/4Qpbt). It's misleading to portray vegetarianism as anything other than a well-intentioned shuffling around of products that are the result of the exploitation of nonhuman animals. Additionally, the fact that someone becomes a vegetarian in no way guarantees that the person will ever be anything other than a vegetarian. Especially if this person is given a good ol' pat on the back and told that he or she has somehow done great good in this shuffling around of animal products.
If one is truly convinced that animal exploitation is immoral, then why should one, in effect, applaud someone's continued exploitation of animals? If I'm against child abuse and you tell me that you used to beat the crap out of your kid every single day, but now only do so Wednesday through Friday, why on earth should I applaud you for this? I should insist that you stop beating the crap out of your child altogether, no? Should I be criticized for insisting upon this? I mean, really?
I think it's sad that some vegans choose to shame other vegans for refusing to condone or applaud the exploitation of nonhuman animals. This is what's accomplished in repeatedly shaming–or worse, in vilifying–other vegans for promoting veganism as an absolute moral baseline where our use of nonhuman animals is concerned.
It’s not a matter of condoning or applauding the exploitation of non-human animals, it’s a matter of realizing that for many people vegetarianism constitute a step (and for them a necessary one) towards veganism. I don’t understand from what part of the article you deduced that anyone wants to “pat” people for engaging in animal consumption. That’s not the point, the point is not bashing down those people either. You say “it’s sad that some vegans choose to shame other vegans for refusing to condone or applaud the exploitation of nonhuman animals”. You know what’s also sad? That some vegans choose to shame other vegans for refusing to attack people that are making steps, although small and slow, in the right direction.
Second, studies comparing vegetarians to omnivores suggest that vegetarians have lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, less heart disease, less type 2 diabetes, and less colon cancer. If vegetarians are consuming more dairy and eggs, it would have to follow that eating more of these foods improves health. To say that vegetarians simply replace meat with dairy and eggs is exactly the same as saying that dairy and eggs are good for you. That doesn’t strike me as especially good activism. And it’s obviously not very good science.
That veganism is essentially an ethical issue appears to be lost on you.
As for your argument, it doesn't matter if vegetarians are healthier on average. There is still nothing inherent about vegetarianism that will cause an individual to reduce animal product consumption. That the average vegetarian will inadvertently reduce consumption give no more credence to vegetarianism as a significant step than any other lifestyle change which inadvertently reduces one's consumption of animal products.
If I find a study which says people who live in higher altitudes on average have lower animal product consumption, should we acknowledge moving to a higher climate as a significant step?
Also, where is this "scientific literature"? Why won't you provide this?
"But the fact is that many people—including some who do know about that distinction—go vegetarian first."
To draw as a conclusion that individuals are more likely to go vegan after being vegetarian is a logical fallacy. You are implying correlation is causation.
That condition A precedes condition B does not imply condition A causes condition B.
In this case, wouldn't it make sense that people who are so potentially inclined to go vegan will be more likely to be a vegetarian at some point compared to the rest of the population?
Furthermore, there are plenty of individuals like me who were vegetarian before being vegan because they were miseducated. I've actually be quite frustrated at my sources of education when I was a lacto-ovo vegetarian for being so dishonest with me! I would have happily gone straight to veganism if I had the correct information.
Secondly, I don't have any problem with people being vegetarian intermittently as they accomodate themselves to removing all animal products (going vegan), but what about the people who take different incremental steps? Why is vegetarianism the one that gets a name, and the one we defend as the one way to incrementally go vegan?
What if its easier for an individual to remove dairy from his/her diet than meat? Should we treat them as the average person and tell them to adopt a diet which allows them to eat as much cheese as their heart desires? This is why I strongly reject your wagering defense of lo-veg based on mean data.
"But the point is that vegetarianism is a useful transition for some people. "
I agree. However, the emphasis is on "some." If people fail to go vegan, you'll find they cling to vegetarianism without our help because they have developed a moral imperative to do something about their own inconsistency. So I wonder why we should help people to fail or why we should dishonestly attribute this decision as morally significant outside of the benefit to one's psyche or the like.
Adam, no one here is holding a “diet inclusive of animal products as the starting default.” This was not a post about “vegetarian education.” I don’t promote vegetarianism as a gateway to veganism. I was talking very specifically about how we talk about people who have not yet taken all steps to a vegan lifestyle (and perhaps didn’t even know that it was important to do so). I suggested that pointing out to these people that they are no more moral than a meat eater might not be in the best interest of advocacy for animals. And making claims that vegetarians eat more dairy and therefore cause more harm to animals than meat eaters is also not in the best interest of animals since it suggests that eating dairy foods is healthy.
When I first thought of going vegetarian, I didn't even know what veganism wss. I requested starter guides from PETA, Vegan Outreach, and Compassion over Killing. I watched "Meet Your Meat" and I became a vegetarian and transitioned to veganism. I needed to learn about the egg and dairy industry and when I did, I had no other choice but veganism. ALL of the literature I received discussed veganism. NONE of them said eggs and cheese were ok but it still took me a few months to make all the changes in my life.
I am so glad that no one gave me a hard time while I was learning and transitioning. Had I been exposed to the in-fighting that I see now, even vegans vs. vegans, I still would have become vegan but I don't think I would have been active in the movement. There is so much negativity and insulting that goes on and why? Why can't there be debate about different perspectives without the insults and disrespect?
Do I think vegetarianism is enough? Of course not because cruelty is still involved. Do I think it's better than being an omnivore? YES! Not all vegetarians eat MORE eggs and dairy and what about the lives that are being saved? The pigs, the fish, any of the lives? Don't they matter? Why is it such a black and white, save all or save none issue?
I also don't know any vegans who went vegan in one step. It is a learning process for many and vegetarianism is an important step for most people. We have to learn to walk before we run but we don't get angry at those who are walking because they haven't yet learned to run.
When I was at the Farm Sanctuary Walk, a woman was looking at the bumper stickers that said "Vegan" and she asked whether they had any that said vegetarian. The Farm Sanctuary worker smiled at her and said, "No, because we know that eventually everyone will go vegan." It was friendly, it was respectful, it was a good answer – one that didn't insult the customer but also gave her something to think about.
I am a very PROUD vegan and I credit all the groups that sent me literature, literature that I THOUGHT was going to teach me how to be a vegetarian but in fact, taught me about veganism.
Without the step, some people might feel overwhelmed and not choose veganism ever. Isn't it better to have people get there slower but still get there?
Thank you Ginny, for a very fair and needed article.
We are all in agreement at the base level. Veganism is our "moral baseline" as some like to call it. This is what we deem as being right for ourselves. Ultimately, all we have control over is ourselves. So the question that we are debating is not the moral correctness of veganism vs vegatarianism. We all agree vegan is the way to go. What we are debating is how do we present ourselves to the world. What words do we use, what things do we point to? What do we choose to say and what, if anything, do we choose not to say? Basically we are debating how should we view our "audience"? Is it ok to really listen to and respect someone in our audience and their choices and support them even if they are doing something we don't agree with? What if they are a meat eater for example? I say yes, supporting such a person is ok and even desireable. Even if its a vegetarian or meat eater. There is a subtle thing to miss here though. By saying this, I am not supporting meat eating, I am saying its ok to support a meat eater. This is not the same. Its a subtle difference that when misunderstood becomes the downfall of humanity. In fact, it is this misunderstanding that caused people to justify eating meat in the first place. Misunderstanding this key concept causes us to think to ourselves "How could I ever support such a person who is causing such horror?" Ah, but it is not them that causes the horror. It their deeply ingrained history, culture, beliefs and habits that causes the horrors. And overcoming these formidable obstacles requires support. When we make this fundamental mistake in our view of others our innate compassion gets shut down. It leads to an act of "othering". It leads to our reducing someone to being something fundamentally different than ourselves rather than recognizing that they are just like us.
Supporting someone in their vegetarianism, animal welfarism, or even meat eating lifestyle does not equal supporting it as a final solution, nor does it even mean we're supporting these things at all. We are supporting people not actions. If we believed in those things as final solutions, we would not be vegans ourselves. And just because we are supporting and respecting a person's decision of not choosing veganism this does not prevent us from talking of or promoting veganism or even of vigorously yelling to the rafters with signs and blaring horns that veganism is the way to go. Its simply a recognition of another person's own inner struggles, obstacles and barriers to change. Things we've all had to overcome ourselves.
No one is saying that vegetarianism MUST lead to veganism. No one knows this to be true. Just like no one knows if ONLY talking about veganism will lead to more veganism. What some do seem to be saying is, show compassion for another's struggle, even if that includes vegetarianism or meat eating. Yes animal agriculture is awful and causes unimaginable horrors. But at least consider the POSSIBILITY that by refusing to acknowledge and support another's vegetarianism, you might actually be causing greater harm to those animals in the long run by turning this person off to our cause. Again, not saying this is true because how could anyone know? Just saying why not allow yourself to consider it as a possibility?
Okay, a long response to these comments.
Ed, I do understand your concern with using the word “vegetarian” when we want people to actually go “vegan.” I just think it’s important (and I think you are basically agreeing with me here) to accept that we don’t truly know which approach is better. The groups using the word “vegetarian” are doing so as part of a strategy to bring people to veganism. Who is to say that it won’t, in fact, turn out to be the most successful strategy? What sounds logical is great, but a quick dip into the literature on the psychology of learning and behavior change shows that logic does not always prevail!
And to continue on that theme, addressing Adam’s claim that we should pursue the more logically sound incremental approach “of having more vegan meals”—Um, who says that it more “logically sound?” I’m a public health educator and so I’m far more interested in what seems like a logical progression to the actual consumer; that is, what will actually get her moving toward change. Because that’s what good educators do. We don’t say “These are the steps you have to take to reach your goal. They make sense to me and so they'll work for you.” Instead, we explore the options with consumers regarding the steps that seem most likely to get them to their goal. For some people, giving up whole categories of food is more straightforward and easier and less confusing. I can’t say that’s the best approach for everyone—but it is for some people. And to refuse to be open-minded about the fact that there is more than one approach to good vegan education is to risk losing people who might have made the change.
The rest of your comments, Adam, don’t have anything to do with my post. I was not advocating a vegetarian diet at all let alone because it’s healthier! I was using that point to show why it is absolutely inconsistent and incorrect to say that vegetarians don’t decrease their intake of animal foods.
Mylene, I have, of course, heard the child beater analogy many times. It’s an analogy that I think doesn’t work for a couple of reasons. First, when people stop eating meat and replace it with plant foods, the actual number of animals who are being abused declines. And that matters to me. Every animal saved from a life of slavery is a small victory.
Yes, of course it is always wrong to beat a child and always wrong to eat animal foods. But when people live in a culture that condones and encourages a certain behavior and they are raised to think that behavior is perfectly fine, then any imperfect step away from that is an improvement. More importantly, from a completely practical standpoint, we should react in a way that gets that person to keep moving away from the behavior, not in a way that alienates him. And I get emails nearly every day from vegetarians or wannabe vegans who feel alienated by the vegan community. I think that might suggest that there is something wrong with our advocacy.
Finally, Rhea and ERock, thank you for your thoughtful comments 🙂