Dairy cows on the way to slaughter.
Animal rights activists promote veganism as the foundation of an ethical lifestyle. As long as we are using animals in any way, we are usually promoting animal suffering and always promoting the idea that animals are our property—here for our use.
But while vegan lifestyle is the ideal, it remains well outside of mainstream culture. It’s tough for many people to even contemplate. Some refuse to consider veganism at all; others feel the need to approach it in a stepwise fashion. And often, the first step is a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.
Surprising as it might seem, some animal rights activists argue that a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet actually harms animals more than it helps them. They point out that vegetarian diets draw a distinction between animal flesh and animal products—dairy and eggs. That’s truly a problem, because that distinction is entirely false. The animals used for dairy and egg production suffer every bit as much as animals raised for their meat. In fact, they probably suffer more, and over a longer period of time. And, in the end, they are shipped off to slaughterhouses.
But still—vegetarians consume fewer animal products, which means that fewer animals suffer, right? Well, lately, that idea has come under attack. Some activists suggest that vegetarians end up replacing the meat on their menu with more dairy foods and eggs. If that’s true, then vegetarians eat the same amount of animal food that they always did—maybe even more; it’s just different animal food.
But while that belief is popular among some vegan activists, it isn’t true. If vegetarians were replacing animal flesh with more dairy products, for example, they would have higher calcium intakes than meat eaters. However, almost all of the recent studies show that calcium intake among vegetarians is about the same as in omnivores or a little bit lower.
Interestingly, the handful of studies from the 1950s through the 1970s do show calcium intake to be much higher among vegetarians. This suggests that earlier vegetarians were replacing meat with dairy foods, which isn’t surprising. In the 1950s, people had few alternatives to meat. Today, with so many meat substitutes on the market, it’s easy to plan meatless meals that don’t use other animal products.
And since some studies show that vegetarians have lower calcium intakes than their meat eating peers, it looks like vegetarians are seeking more healthful or more ethical alternatives to animal foods. In fact, most of what we know from scientific studies of vegetarians suggests that they consume more plant foods and fewer animal foods than omnivores.
Because vegetarian diets make that distinction between animal flesh and animal products, there is always the danger that many will view vegetarianism as the endpoint, rather than as a stepping stone toward vegan diet and lifestyle. For that reason, vegan activists need to educate, support and gently encourage the people in their lives who are already vegetarian. Telling them that their diet is not a meaningful change and is no more humane than that of a meat eater is counter-productive. Based on the scientific research, it is also wrong.
You might also enjoy these:
| Check out my blog The Vegan Dietitian to learn more about vegan diet and lifestyle! |
Comments
Hello, Virginia.
I would like to move from vegetarian (which I've been for 20 odd years) to vegan, but I have an companion pet (dog) so feel that I cannot truly be vegan -- yet I don't feel I "use" him or "own" him. I consider myself to be his caretaker and I love him dearly. In fact, he is a big part of the reason I've developed greater empathy for other sentinent creatures and no longer have have the stomach for eggs or dairy if any animal suffering is involved. (And I've been truly shocked to learn that even "free range" may not be a guarantee of discomfort-free treatment.)
What do I call myself if in all other respects I live a vegan lifestyle and will I contribute to animal welfare despite having a purebred dog whom I adopted from an ethical breeder 6 years ago? (Of course now because of greater knowledge, I would choose to adopt a pet from a rescue organization.) Thanks for any guidance or help you can offer. I also recently started reading your blog.
You vegans are a cult. This is the U.S.A. You ought to be able to eat what you like and if you want to be a vegan that's your business but the rest of us like eating a balanced diet that includes meat, fish, poultry, dairy and vegetables. The vegans I know look really unhealthy and they seemed to all be depressed.
Elaine, if you adopt a vegan lifestyle, I hope you will call yourself a vegan, whether you have a purebred dog or not! The fact that you got your dog from a breeder doesn't affect the decisions you are making now for animals. And I can assure you that I don't feel that I "own" or "use" my companion animals either. It's great that you've been a committed vegetarian for so long, and even better that you are thinking about taking the next step. I hope you'll go for it! Please check back here or on my blog if you need help.
And Marcy--well, what can I say? Thanks for stopping by ;)
I try very hard to congratulate anyone for making THE FIRST STEP towards a compassionate lifestyle. Being vegetarian just can't be "enough" - There are too many other abuses - like eggs, leather, circus animals, wildlife, etc. to just settle for "vegetarian". Thankfully, most advocates I know coax gently to tell of all the issues...
Marcy, a "cult" wishes to silence discussion and question. Surely the myths surrounding our exploitation of animals falls into this "brainwashing". And it may be uncomfortable on the way to having things exposed - But hearing you say that killing innocent sentient beings is an untouchable topic, scares me to no end!
The debate is not only necessary - But long overdue!
Who says a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle is always about the animals? I've been vegetarian (little lacto, very little ovo) for half my life, with three years of veganism in the middle, and it's about my health and then the health of the planet for me. I know I'm in the minority of the vegetarian world and I was in the ultimate minority in the vegan world. Other vegans actually accused of not being a "real" vegan even though I neither ate nor used any animal products because it wasn't about the animals for me! The extremist, almost militant, attitude of many vegans turns people off to vegetarian/veganism. We're all on the same side, no matter what our motivations, and it's totally counterproductive to criticize others living the same way.
I think as vegans we need to lend a hand to vegetarians and encourage them to eliminate animal products from their lives. I personally feel an assertive approach is the quickest and most effective way to convince them to change. I only wish someone would have woken me up sooner when I was still consuming dairy and eggs.
@Kunsthure
Veganism is about animal rights, plain and simple. When you say you're only doing it for health, I assume you're only referring to your diet? You can be a dietary vegan, but if you are not taking the political position to remove animal exploitation from your life completely, then you're not vegan.
@Marcy
I think you're a little misguided ;)
Marcy's comment is one of sheer ignorance.
She says "This is the U.S.A. You ought to be able to eat what you like...". Go right ahead Marcy. No one is forcing you to eat a certain way. The article is talking about ovo-lacto vegetarian diets and how they affect animals. So if you have a meaningful comment on that subject, I'd like to read it. I don't understand people like Marcy who condone animal cruelty by living with their heads in the sand. And I think it's sad that people like Marcy try to degrade others by claiming how patriotic they are. How pathetic!
Great article Ginny! I think when someone like Marcy says that what you eat is your own business and what I eat is mine, they fail to take into account that when you partake in destroying OUR planet and eating OUR friends, we're gonna make it OUR business.
And about unhealthy- and depressed-looking vegans, I can think of a number of flesh-eaters that are unhealthy- and depressed-looking too. It's funny how some flesh-eaters don't like to look in the mirror. That's why it's a good thing that we're around!
Great article Ginny! I think when someone like Marcy says that what you eat is your own business and what I eat is mine, they fail to take into account that when you partake in destroying OUR planet and eating OUR friends, we're gonna make it OUR business.
And about unhealthy- and depressed-looking vegans, I can think of a number of flesh-eaters that are unhealthy- and depressed-looking too. It's funny how some flesh-eaters don't like to look in the mirror. That's why it's a good thing that we're around!
Thank you, Virginia, for your helpful response. I will stay in touch and continue to read your writing here and on your blog.
What I'm hearing from vegans is that even eggs from hens, cheese from goats and wool from sheep that are treated kindly and with respect are not permitted in the vegan lifestyle (e.g., animals are raised and cared from by a small-scale, local farmer using organic, sustainable practices; when the animals pass away they are not consumed).
@Ed @Bea Your comments are also helping my understanding of the true vegan lifestyle. Thank you. I appreciate your direct, honest respectful approach. It works for me :-).
Hi Virginia. I hope to weigh in on this on a couple of different levels a bit later when I have some time, but was wondering off the bat if you have links or citations for those studies?
If we are talking about pre-vegan situations, then it would certainly seem to be the case that a non-dairy meat eater is preferably in terms of nonhuman animal interests to dairy-using vegetarians. It depends of amounts of animal produce of course - however, the Vegetarian Society of Britain say the most common vegetarian diet is the one containing both dairy products and eggs. Perhaps vegetarianism should be regarded as one possible pre-vegan state and not necessarily the "best" one?
Thanks everyone for great comments.
Kunsthure, I guess if you truly were neither eating nor using animal products, you would technically be a vegan, but the term really was developed to describe people who take a stance against animal exploitation. In the history of veganism, it's never really been about health or anything else.
Roger, yes I agree that L-O vegetarianism is one (hopefully)pre-vegan state, but definitely not the best one for the reasons I noted. However, I do think most people who are taking steps to decrease animal product use are likely to gravitate toward something that has a name and an identity, so they end up as vegetarians. We really need some larger identity, I think, for people who are moving toward vegan diet in all different ways, for ethical reasons.
Mylene, there have been 41 studies published between 1954 and 2009 that looked at calcium intake of vegetarians. They are all in the medical database (pub med) and easily found by doing a search of keywords vegetarian and calcium. I do have the results of all of them in front of me in chart form because they are part of a text book I'm currently working on, but I'm not at liberty to share that right now. I don't mean to be unhelpful--just really don't feel like typing up those citations!
Perhaps rather than struggle to apply a one-word label to myself, I will say I'm in transition from vegetarian to vegan because of my concerns about inhumane animal treatment. I'll refer them here and to the sites you've recommended in one of your previous articles to further explain what, how and why.
Ginny: Would you mind supplying two of the cites that show calcium intake does not increase? I do not think that is the main issue (which is whether vegetarianism is a morally significant position), but I'd be curious to see the citations if you would not mind and particularly since you are relying on them. Thanks,
Gary
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
www.abolitionistapproach.com
"What I'm hearing from vegans is that even eggs from hens, cheese from goats and wool from sheep that are treated kindly and with respect are not permitted in the vegan lifestyle"
It's important to look beyond apparent treatment. We can make some faulty opinions on the institution of human slavery if we observe masters are not beating their slaves and giving them full meals. They are still being put in a position where their value is determined by their worth to us. I encourage you to also question the myth that "small-scale" family farms are necessarily kinder to animals.
I don't know what you mean by "letting animal die" when these animals are usually used to the point where they must be killed in order to reduce costs.
In any case, no matter how well you treat, for instance, a chicken, the fact remains they come from a hatchery where their brothers were killed. No treatment of the survivors can reverse that. w w w dot abolitionistapproach dot com
Virginia, I certainly understand that it would be bothersome to cite sources. One of the reasons I was interested in sources is that when statements of scientific fact are made, I'm always curious to see what data is backing them up. Otherwise, I'm left going on blind faith that the statements of scientific fact are more than just opinion. I did indeed do a few Pub Med searches, but many of the studies that turned up didn't draw distinctions between vegans and ovo-lacto-vegetarians, or they focused on Àsian populations. Since one of the premises of your argument is that vegetarians purportedly consume less animal products than omnivores (and therefore cause "less" suffering and should be applauded as having made meaningful ethical changes in their consumption), I think that it's fairly important to back up that statement for those who may read your article and accept everything at face value. But that's just my own opinion.
I think that regardless of whether it is, in fact, the case that vegetarians consume less animal products that it's still terribly problematic to view vegetarianism as a step closer to veganism. I hate comparing wrongs, but to illustrate what I mean, let's substitute "consuming animal products" with "beating children". Sure, beating *some* children is better than beating *all* children--but it's still beating children, right? And it probably seems no better to those who continue to be beaten. If a child-beater tells me that he or she has decided to stop beating 5-year-olds, but to continue beating other children, would refusing to tell this person that he or she was making a "meaningful change" be construed as "counterproductive" or are we just limiting such judgments to statements made about the treatment and exploitation of nonhumans, which really just leaves us with an elephant in the living room, does it not?
As the Atlanta Vegetarian Examiner, I've been shocked by the angry vegans! So many angry vegans! But then, in researching possible topics to write about, this ovo-lacto vegetarian had to rethink her ovo and lacto. I can no longer look at a glass of milk without thinking of the cow in mourning for her calf. I can no longer eat an egg without thinking of the hen getting her beak cauterized. I'm sliding the slippery slope. Vegan cheese anyone?
"I would like to move from vegetarian (which I've been for 20 odd years) to vegan, but I have an companion pet (dog) so feel that I cannot truly be vegan"
Who told you having a companion animal was not vegan?
Peggy Fenton - Atlanta Vegetarian Examiner
Is it possible these objections being the result of anger is a misperception on your part?
My response to this article
what about chickens at a personal residence? my neighbor has free chickens that do as they please. i can't see alot of harm in taking their eggs since they wouldn't hatch anyway.
Sorry to take so long in responding to comments! Gary and Mylene, I agree that whether or not LOVs consume more animal products is not the main issue here. However, I have heard many argue that LOV vegs consume just as many animal products as omnivores and I wanted to at least counter that argument. Again, it is not possible to draw this conclusion based on one or two studies; you have to look at calcium intake of LOVs and omnivores across all of the research. Especially because not every single study shows the same thing. Here are 3 of the studies I looked at: Am J Clin Nutr. 1994;59:103. NZ Med J. 1998;111:91. Publ Hlth Nutr 2003;6:259-268.
Catherine, the issue of backyard chickens is actually kind of complex & you'll hear varying opinions. If the chickens came from a hatchery, then it is likely that the males were all killed, & you have no way of knowing if this was done "humanely." But even if the chickens are rescues, when we eat their eggs, we're reinforcing the idea that it's okay to use animal products--as long as the animals don't suffer. That isn't consistent with a vegan or animal rights position. It is certainly consistent with efforts to make compassionate and humane choices, though.
I like the backyard free range chicken idea, as long as there is sufficient forage and prey for them in their environment and they're not using industrial feed (grain/soy). The best way to minimize cruelty and environmental damage is to eliminate consumption of foods and other products that depend on - or consist of - industrial monocrops. In other words, no factory farming of animals OR plants.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!