discursive essay on veganism

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The Discursive Construction of Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism is becoming increasingly common in the Western world, yet little has been written on how the practice is discursively constructed. This represents a gap in the systematic understanding of the motivations, ideas and issues of the vegetarian community, especially because vegetarian discourse both seeks to explain the deviant practice to meat-eaters and simultaneously rationalize the practice to vegetarians. By focusing on how the three main motivations behind vegetarianism - animal welfare, health and the environment - are presented, this essay explores the discursive construction of vegetarianism from a social problems perspective. It reveals that although vegetarians have succeeded in making meat eating a social problem, the majority of the vegetarian arguments do not in fact support or necessitate an all-out ban on animal products. Instead, they provide a useful explanation for the now growing flexitarian movement, and the rise in ethical, health-oriented and ecologically conscious consumers.

Related Papers

Iris Publishers LLC

iris publishers

Food is and always has been a serious issue for public health, agriculture, the environment, and ethics. First, a brief sketch of the history of the philosophical vegetarianism is offered. This overview will allow several contemporary concerns about agricultural systems, resultant environmental harms, threats to public health, food insecurity, and dietary choices to be historically contextualized and interrelated. The conceptual map presented more or less

Human eating habits are widely distinguished between Vegetarianism and Non-Vegetarianism, where former presumes themselves to be holding no moral risk toward nature and animals as they do not eat animal meats. However, if we examine it closely and thoroughly, every eating habits hold some or other moral risk. My paper is an attempt to unfold different arguments made in support and against the moral concern of Vegetarianism. Although it is impalpable to answer ‘What is morally good to eat?’, our discourse helps to bring forth different arguments to understand the moral concern of our eating habits.

Sociologia Ruralis

Carol Morris

Karyn Pilgrim

The ethical food movement signals a significant transformation of cultural consciousness in its recognition of the intimate politics of what we eat and what kind of socio-political systems we sustain. The recent resurgence of economic localization exemplifies a grass roots attempt to undermine the hegemony of transnational corporations and build ecologically and economically sustainable communities. Social justice plays a key role in the guiding philosophies of these movements, and yet, while many ecocritical discourses examine the uncomfortable relationship of anthropocentricism and sustainability, some contemporary texts of the ethical food movement evidence a reluctant embrace of omnivorous eating, while simultaneously indicating a gendered, if ironic, machismo at odds with the principles of ethical eating. An analysis of the rhetoric of three popular nonfiction books that construct a similar narrative of the story of meat—Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Susan Bourette’s Meat, a Love Story, and Scott Gold’s The Shameless Carnivore—reveals an attempt by these authors to naturalize what is essentially an economic and lifestyle activity. Working within a vegetarian ecofeminist framework, though recognizing that multiple compelling philosophical positions exist for considering the ethics of meat eating, this paper intends to argue, not that “ethical” and “omnivorous” are contradictory terms, but rather that a moral ambivalence prevails in these texts despite these authors’ claims to the contrary. In elucidating these authors’ reactions to their own participation in “the omnivore’s dilemma” this paper pinpoints those areas where a resistance to a deeper examination of human-nonhuman relations is in operation.

The Law & Ethics of Human Rights

Dr. Daniel Mishori

This Article contemplates the environmental argument in favor of vegetarianism or veganism, while reviewing its historical development and relevance to the current environmental debate. Today there is an apparent synergy between ecological ethics and animal rights discourse; nevertheless, this presents an inherent paradox. Whereas the moral, environmental and health arguments advocating for vegetarianism and veganism seem to reinforce one another, conflicts may also arise between them. Under certain conditions, the environmental stance may lead to different and perhaps even contradictory attitudes about the raising of livestock and the permissibility of animal-based food. Therefore, this Article first addresses the affinities and conflicts between both versions of non-anthropocentric ethics: biocentrism (individual animals’ rights and welfare) and ecocentrism (intrinsic value of nature and ecosystems). It then examines the historical development and creeds of environmental vegetaria...

Philip Devine

Jonny Alden

This paper discusses Peter Singer's strict ethical vegetarianism. I argue that utilitarianism does not provide sufficient grounds for vegetarianism to be presented as an ethical obligation. I argue that the boycott style of vegetarianism advocated by Singer is not an effective means of reducing the suffering experienced by animals and, finally, demonstrate that the proper application of the principle of utility to our dietary choices requires the consumption of both ethically sourced meats and roadkill.

Juliana Abonizio

In everyday situations, the experience of being a vegetarian or a vegan occurs within a process of conflict and practices of negotiation involving decisions, refusals, consumption acts, and proximity and distance between people in their relationships, mainly including the family. Many dilemmas result from the inconsistency between theory and difficult practices to be obeyed. To understand how this phenomenon, the chapter uses the interviews with vegetarians considering different alimentary restrictions and data obtained from observation in virtual groups of vegan activists. We have conducted the research between 2015 and 2017 as part of a larger project entitled: The Social Place of Animals in Contemporaneity.

Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities

Swayamdipta Das

Robert Lawton

This dissertation focuses upon a group of vegetarians which are members of an English-speaking, online atheist community, an investigation of their Weltanschauug (worldview) for meat-avoidance, and the subsequent discourse analysis undertaken for this study. One aim of this study is achieved by an ‘online ethnography’ that discusses the views of atheist-vegetarians towards the question; “Is there a link between atheism/vegetarianism?”. This method understands that analysing text can overcome context and time constraints in consideration of transcendent perspectives such as worldviews. Furthermore, a consideration of atheist and vegetarian literature is explored to complement the nature of the ethnography; ‘Atheist-vegetarianism’, human and animal relationships, and the cultural politics of meat were chosen. This work highlights the role of speciesism within theistic/atheist and vegetarian discourse, and the construction of morality through sources of science, rationality and consumption ideals. Furthermore, this work hopes to highlight the subtle hegemonic ways in which contemporary meat consumption is maintained, not only by traditional consumption rituals, but by a non-exclusive list of economic, anthropocentric, nutritional, and philosophical paradigms. If we use Heidegger’s school of postmodernist thought to treat meat-free lifestyles as autonomous worldviews, we can similarly compare these perceptions with wider socio-political/economic ‘meat practices’ which maintain meat consumption in order for atheist-vegetarianism to potentially provide a new form of moral theory. This ‘moral theory’, akin to Carole Adams’ (1990) feminist-vegetarian writings, would provide a new look at how moral vegetarianism could highlight the presupposition that religious discourse holds over the consumption of meat, and of man’s anthropocentrism towards animals.

RELATED PAPERS

Proceedings

michele di natale

Jose Villalta

Journal of Building Engineering

Manuel Duarte Pinheiro

Diwakar Kumar

Hasanuddin Journal of Sociology

heru subrata

Applied Catalysis B: Environmental

Nuray AYTEN

AGASTYA: JURNAL SEJARAH DAN PEMBELAJARANNYA

Mochammad Nginwanun

Journal of Nursing Management

Claudio Giovanni Cortese

Masum Billah

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Molecular Biology Research Communications

Santanu Banerjee

Animal Behaviour

Karen McComb

Journal of Visual Languages & Computing

Holger Giese

Nur Hidayatun

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Raina Chawla

Indonesian Journal of Science and Technology

Manisha Patel

Andrea Silenzi

Shadia Elsayed

Advances in Hematology

mehmet ruşen erkurt

Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Information and Communication Technology

Efstathios J Boviatsis

American Journal of Geographic Information System

Emmanuel Geroge Udo

Birat Journal of Health Sciences

bikash shrestha

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• First Online: 25 May 2018

Cite this chapter

• Emelia Quinn 6 &
• Benjamin Westwood 7  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Animals and Literature ((PSAAL))

953 Accesses

The conclusion recounts, in brief, the main aims of the collection: to establish veganism as a more complicated form of identity than is often supposed, to explore the intellectual resonances of its inconsistencies and complications, and to trace the ripples of the contemporary vegan moment across the humanities. By way of closing, Quinn and Westwood draw out three further questions raised by the essays, namely: its openness to painful or “wounding” knowledge, veganism’s performative nature, and the relation between vegan subjectivity and academic inquiry.

• Witness's Failure
• Vegan Identity
• Animal Cruelty
• Critical Animal Studies

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

See, for example, José Esteban Muñoz , Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity, (New York, 2009), Lauren Berlant , Cruel Optimism (Durham, 2011), and Michael Snediker, Queer Optimism: Lyric Personhood and Other Felicitous Persuasions (Minneapolis, 2009).

Gary Steiner, Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism (New York, 2013), p. 63.

J. M. Coetzee. The Lives of Animals (Princeton, 2001), p. 69.

Cora Diamond, “The Difficulty of Reality and the Difficulty of Philosophy,” Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 2, no.1 (2009): 22.

Sara Salih, “Vegans on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown” The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: From the Margins to the Centre, eds. Nik Taylor and Richard Twine (Abingdon, 2014), p. 55.

Ibid., p. 60.

Works Cited

Berlant, Lauren. 2011. Cruel Optimism . Durham: Duke University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Coetzee, J. M. 2001. The Lives of Animals . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar  

Diamond, Cora. 2009. The Difficulty of Reality and the Difficulty of Philosophy. Partial Answers: Journal of Literature and the History of Ideas 2 (1): 1–26.

Muñoz, José Esteban. 2009. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity . New York: New York University Press.

Salih, Sara. 2014. Vegans on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown. In The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: From the Margins to the Centre , ed. Nik Taylor and Richard Twine, 52–68. Abingdon: Routledge.

Snediker, Michael. 2009. Queer Optimism: Lyric Personhood and Other Felicitous Persuasions . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Steiner, Gary. 2013. Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism . New York: Columbia University Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Emelia Quinn

Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Benjamin Westwood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Quinn, E., Westwood, B. (2018). Conclusion. In: Quinn, E., Westwood, B. (eds) Thinking Veganism in Literature and Culture. Palgrave Studies in Animals and Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73380-7_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73380-7_12

Published : 25 May 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-73379-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-73380-7

eBook Packages : Literature, Cultural and Media Studies Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

8 Veganism and Plant-Based Eating: Analysis of Interplay Between Discursive Strategies and Lifestyle Political Consumerism

Piia Jallinoja, Tampere University, Finland

Markus Vinnari, Tampere University, Finland

Mari Niva, University of Helsinki, Finland

• Published: 08 August 2018
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

In recent years, there has been an increased mobilization around veganism and plant-based diets. This chapter analyzes this mobilization, the evolution of the images and practices of vegan eating, and associated kinds of political consumerism. The chapter demonstrates how vegan eating takes place as an assemblage of several actors and platforms, such as consciousness-raising campaigns, vegan bloggers, pledges and festivals, and new vegan foods marketed as “cool” and suitable for everyone. The concepts of boycott and buycott are too narrow to adequately describe veganism as political consumerism. Instead, discursive and lifestyle political consumerism and their interplay characterize the current building of new images and communities. The internet and social media have a central role in shaping the cultural contents of the “veggie trend.” Moreover, vegan eating is not always inspired by other-oriented motives but also by self-regarding motives, such as health, pleasure, and distinction.

In recent years, veganism and different forms of plant-based diets have undergone a significant change in terms of media attention, consumer interest, commercial opportunities, and food products available in developed economies. Veganism has turned from a poorly known vegetarian submovement into a way of life praised by some of the world’s top celebrities, businesspeople, and politicians ( Doyle, 2016 ; Joy & Tuider, 2016 ). Veganism is a rather strict lifestyle where animal-derived products are avoided as much as possible in all areas of life. This lifestyle has now evolved into a popular and flexible way of following a plant-based diet. Hence, in addition to veganism, various diets where meat, fish, dairy, and egg consumption are reduced, but not abandoned, are also currently celebrated as part of more sustainable ways of eating.

It is precisely this variation that characterizes the phenomenon at hand and plays a role in the ways in which contemporary political consumerism enters people’s lives. The following discussion analyses both veganism and more “middle-ground” forms of plant-based eating. The latter includes followers of various solutions, such as vegetarians, who more or less consistently follow a meat-free diet, and flexitarians, who do not avoid meat altogether.

The chapter analyses the evolution of the images and practices of veganism and examines what kind of political consumerism and consumption veganism, vegetarianism, and other forms of plant-based eating more broadly constitute. 1 The discussion offers a conceptualization of veganism and plant-based eating not only as political consumerism ( Stolle & Micheletti, 2013 ) but also as part of a contemporary celebration of consumer choice ( Guthman, 2008 ), alternative hedonism ( Soper, 2008 ), and cross-national food communities ( Bildtgård, 2008 ) enabled by social media connectivity ( van Dijk & Poell, 2013 ). The first section discusses cultural positions and meanings of meat- and plant-based eating in Western societies and the adverse effects of meat consumption in order to understand the forms that veganism and plant-based eating currently take. Thereafter, the chapter analyses the contemporary mobilization around veganism and plant-based diets and the ways in which they are presented and promoted by various actors and in various spaces. This analysis demonstrates how these manifestations resonate with the four forms of political consumerism: boycotting, buycotting, discursive political consumerism, and lifestyle political consumerism ( Carvalho de Rezende, 2014 ; Stolle & Micheletti, 2013 ) and, in particular, the intersection between discursive and lifestyle political consumerism. Due to the fact that veganism and plant-based choices may and do often have other, nonpolitical, self-regarding, and practical motivations, the discussion includes the demarcation between political and nonpolitical veganism and plant-based eating. In the concluding section, some ideas for further research on plant-based diets and political consumerism are discussed.

The focus is on Europe and North America, where veganism and plant-based eating as political consumerism prevails most significantly. In Western societies, food-related consumer choices and political consumerism are located within a nexus of various actors, interests, media publicity, policy initiatives, marketing by food industries and grocery stores, and food cultures as well as activities and messages by food-related nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) ( Jallinoja, Niva, & Latvala, 2016 ). The private realm of food-related choices is deeply integrated with public spaces, such as social media and conventional media. Moreover, the contemporary image of veganism and the increased media publicity around it has occurred as a result of several historical developments, such as the history of vegetarian eating in Western societies. In its current form, the roots of veganism may be tracked down to the “countercuisine” and “back to the land” lifestyles of the late 1960s ( Belasco, 1989 ; Kauffman, 2018 ; Johnston & Baumann, 2015 ) as well as green consumerism of the 1980s ( Gabriel & Lang, 2006 ). The following sections tie the current situation with these historical and cultural underpinnings.

The Challenged Cultural Position of Meat Eating

Currently the cultural position of meat is ambivalent. Meat is at the same time praised as a core component of a proper meal and criticized for its adverse effects on the environment, human health, and animals. As to the cultural significance of meat in Western societies, meat has long been socially highly prized ( Fiddes, 1991 ; Freeman, 2014 ); taken as a token of progress, prosperity, and health ( Bakker & Dagevos, 2012 ); and associated with masculinity and strength ( Twigg, 1983 ). For instance, meat holds a focal role in a “proper” meal, exemplified by rituals such as the “head of the family” slicing the meat at the Sunday dinner table. Meat holds symbolic value that can be even more important than its nutritional value ( Fiddes, 1991 ). The same cultural spirit is also exemplified by meat-praising discourses on television shows by celebrity chefs, which tend to strengthen the value of meat as an archaic element of society and as a masculine food ( Buscemi, 2016 ). Joy (2010) has suggested that current meat-eating patterns are rooted in a belief system in which meat eating is seen as the “natural” thing to do with no need for reflection. At the same time, the relation to meat is codified by taboos—for example, not all meat is considered edible ( Douglas, 1966/1985 ; Sage, 2014 ).

In agricultural societies, meat consumption was very low for most people ( Smil, 2002 ). For some time now in Western societies, meat has been a product available for everyone, instead of holding the previous status as a luxury product ( Fiddes, 1991 ). This process, which has been termed a “meatification of human diet” ( Sage, 2014 ), is shown by the increasing consumption of meat during recent decades ( Allievi, Vinnari, & Luukkanen, 2015 ; de Boer, Helms, & Aiking, 2006 ; Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2017 ). However, consumption of poultry, in particular, has increased, whereas that of beef is declining, as shown by Finnish consumption statistics from the 1970s onwards ( Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2017 ) and for Europe since the 1990s ( European Environment Agency, 2016 ).

The high value associated with meat has been reflected in the mostly negative and suspicious public perceptions of followers of veganism and plant-based diets. In the United States in the nineteenth century, it was believed that vegetarianism might make one go insane, become emaciated, or die ( Iacobbo & Iacobbo, 2004 ). Negative images of vegetarians as ascetics, weaklings, self-depriving neurotics, food cranks, and freaks prevailed in the early twentieth century ( Iacobbo & Iacobbo, 2004 ). Analyses of newspaper reporting on veganism in the United Kingdom in 2000–2005 ( Lundahl & Henkel, 2017 ) and in 2007 ( Cole & Morgan, 2011 ) show several negative stereotypes of vegans as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, and hostile extremists. In France, until recently, vegans were regarded as “ascetics who belong to cults and live almost exclusively on soy burgers and sprouts” ( Véron, 2016 , p. 290). Similar attitudes have been revealed in television series positioning vegetarians as killjoys ( Grant & MacKenzie-Dale, 2016 ) and marginalized and potentially amusing characters, although more positive characters, such as Lisa on The Simpsons , have been portrayed, too ( Freeman, 2014 ).

Besides this positive cultural image of meat, the adverse effects of the production and consumption of animal-derived foods have been increasingly reported in academic research and in the media. First, animal-derived food has been shown to place a heavy burden on the environment. For example, the carbon footprint of beef and sheep, the land use of raising beef ( de Vries & de Boer, 2010 ; Nijdam, Rood, & Westhoek, 2012 ) and the global-warming impact of beef are high ( de Vries & de Boer, 2010 ). Moreover, although the water footprint of any animal product is larger than that of crop products, the average water footprint per calorie is especially high for beef ( Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012 ). Second, high consumption of red and processed meat has been associated with increased risk of chronic diseases, such as cancer ( Kromhout et al., 2016 ; Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, 2012 ; World Cancer Research Fund, 2013 ). Third, in recent years several food scandals, such as foot-and-mouth disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and dioxin in milk, eggs, and meat, have shaken consumers’ confidence in the healthiness and reliability of animal-derived products ( Villareal Herrera, 2017 ). Fourth, the meat and dairy industries have been strongly criticized for the suffering caused to production animals ( Singer, 1975 ; Vinnari & Vinnari, 2014 ).This criticism has intensified in the current mode of human-animal relationships: some animals (pets) are treated with great affection, while others live in highly industrial production systems ( Herzog, 2010 ).

Due to these negative effects, plant-based eating has been proposed as one solution, for example in nutrition recommendations in the Nordic countries ( Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, 2012 ). Furthermore, the idea of ecological public health emphasizes that reduction of meat consumption benefits both the environment and public health ( Springmann et al., 2016 ). Vegetable-based meals on average have lower greenhouse gas emissions and lower overall environmental impact compared to animal-derived foods ( van Dooren et al., 2014 ; Virtanen et al., 2011 ) and smaller water footprints ( Mekonnen & Hoekstra, 2012 ). In addition, legumes, such as beans and lentils, as well as seeds and nuts, have several positive health effects ( Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, 2012 ; World Cancer Research Fund, 2013 ).

Vegetarianism and Veganism in Western Societies

In Europe, there are records of vegetarianism from antiquity onwards. Many of the arguments used in the modern defense of plant-based eating were in some form present already in antiquity, examples being kinship to animals, abstinence from excessive consumption, and even animal rights ( Walters & Portmess, 1999 ). It seems that these arguments, however, were replaced by new ones or reformulated in medieval times. As Julia Twigg (1983) notes, medieval and modern forms of vegetarianism differ from each other. In medieval times, vegetarianism occurred in the contexts of virtuous religion, of the patterning of fast and feast days and of a straightforward denial of the flesh, whereas in modern societies, it is very much a product of individualisation. Twigg (1983) suggests that modern vegetarianism has traditionally had four major foci: health, animal welfare, ecology, and spirituality—the first two being mentioned most often. Studies from the 1990s and 2000s reveal that moral aspects were most frequently stated as motivations for plant-based diets, whereas health was the second most frequently stated motivation and the environment and religious reasons were the least often provided motivations ( Ruby, 2012 ). A more recent study among German vegans showed that the greatest reason for becoming vegan were reports on factory farming, the second being climate protection and the third health concerns ( Kerschke-Risch, 2015 ).

Ideas reflecting modern vegetarianism first emerged in the West in the late eighteenth century ( Iacobbo & Iacobbo, 2004 ; Twigg, 1983 ). The first vegetarian societies were founded in the United Kingdom in 1847 and in the United States in 1850. The beginning of veganism has often been associated with the founding of the first vegan society in 1944, when a group of Vegetarian Society members in the United Kingdom coined a new word—“vegan”—and formed a separate organization, the Vegan Society. The cornerstone of the argument of the new society concerned the cruelty caused by all kinds of farming using animals and the belief that vegetarianism was not enough to alleviate this suffering ( Leneman, 1999 ). Later vegan societies were founded in other countries, for example in the United States in 1960 (American Vegan Society), in Sweden in 1976 (Veganföreningen i Sverige), and in Finland in 1993 (Vegan Society of Finland). Besides vegetarian and vegan societies, campaigns raising consumer awareness of the conditions in the meat, poultry, dairy, and fur industries and increasing consumer competence in vegetarian eating have been promoted by animal rights and animal welfare organizations ( Micheletti & Stolle, 2010 ). In Finland for example, in the 1990s, the vegan movement was a part of the “fourth wave” of environmental protest, characterized by ecocentrism and postmaterialistic values, and concretized in attacks on fur farms and the liberation of animals there ( Konttinen, 1999 ).

Vegans exclude more foods from their diet than vegetarians, as the target is to avoid all animal products. Veganism, however, is not necessarily merely a dietary solution: besides food choices, vegans can be concerned with animal-derived products in all arenas of consumption, from medicine and cosmetics to clothing and building materials ( Greenebaum, 2012 ; Meindertsma, 2008 ), and veganism can promote a philosophical worldview emphasising a more egalitarian relationship between human and nonhuman animals ( Francione, 2010 ). There are multiple subgroups of vegans, as some eat vegan food for environmental reasons (environmental veganism), some for ethical reasons (ethical veganism), and some for health reasons (health-based veganism). In practice, in modern societies, it is impossible to totally avoid all animal-derived products in all areas of life, and for many vegan identity is fluid and flexible ( Stephens Griffin, 2017 ).

In addition, there are various groups of “specialized vegetarians” and “occasional vegetarians” ( Micheletti & Stolle, 2010 ), such as lacto-vegetarians, lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and pesco-lacto-ovo-vegetarians. Recently, with the increased interest in plant-based eating, various flexible and compromise solutions for reducing meat consumption have been presented ( Twine, 2014 ), such as flexitarianism and its commercialized variation “Eat Vegan Before 6 p.m.” ( Bittman, 2013 ) and “Meatless/Meat Free Monday” ( Morris, 2018 ; Singer, 2017 ). The most recent addition to the solutions promoted is reducetarianism, which aims to be an inclusive category ranging from vegans to those reducing meat consumption by 20 percent, for example ( Kateman, 2017 ). This diversification of plant-based eating is interesting in its own right, as it resonates with the overall individualism and high value placed on free consumer choices in Western cultures and provides commercial opportunities for the food industry and various lifestyle and nutrition coaches.

The numbers of vegans and vegetarians have been investigated in several countries, but comparing them is difficult due to the large variety of plant-based diets described above and inconsistent adherence to them. It might sometimes be difficult even for the practitioners to determine if they qualify as vegans or vegetarians. Another challenge arises from the differences between self-reporting and classification with Food Frequency Questionnaires ( Vinnari et al., 2008 ). Finally, survey data are not always representative of populations.

Nevertheless, previous studies have suggested that the proportion of followers of plant-based diets has remained rather low in Western societies (Table 8.1 ). The current low prevalences of vegan and vegetarian eating are consistent with the low level of protein intake from vegetables and legumes and consumption of plant-protein products. In 2012 among Finnish men between the ages of twenty-five and sixty-four, only 2 percent of the protein intake was from vegetables and 3 percent from legumes and nuts, and among women the figures were 2 percent and 4 percent, respectively ( Helldán et al., 2013 ). In 2013, 6 percent of Finns ate beans; 4 percent ate soya chunks, textured soya protein, or soya sausages; and 3 percent ate tofu at least once a week ( Jallinoja, Niva, & Latvala, 2016 ).

Results from Sweden ( ARS, 2017 ) suggest that among the young vegetarian diets are more common than among older respondents. In Finland, the proportion of vegetarians was highest among adolescent girls already in 1999 ( Parviainen et al., 2017 )—right after the wave of animal rights activism of the late 1990s ( Konttinen, 1999 ). In 2014, 10.8 percent of women aged fifteen to twenty-four reported that they are vegetarians ( Helldán & Helakorpi, 2015 ). Moreover, in Finland the analysis of food frequency questionnaires shows that women, those with a high level of education, and those living in single households follow vegetarian diets more than other respondents ( Vinnari et al., 2008 ). Similar results have been reported from the United States ( Sabaté, Ratzin-Turner, & Brown, 2001 ).

Although thus far the proportion of vegetarians and vegans in Western populations has remained low, there are indications suggesting growing interest in vegan eating. Worldwide sales of nondairy milk alternatives more than doubled between 2009 and 2015 ( Whipp, 2016 ). In the United States, the sales of plant-based foods grew by 8.1 percent between August 2016 and August 2017, whereas the sales of all foods declined 0.2 percent ( Simon, 2017 ). In Finland, major grocery retailer Kesko reported that sales of plant-based milk increased by 47 percent during one year, while sales of hummus and falafel products increased by 305 percent ( Kesko, 2017 ). In Sweden, the proportion of nonvegetarians with increased interest in vegetarian food has increased from 26 percent in 2009 ( ARS, 2015 ) to 47 percent in 2017 ( ARS, 2017 ).

The Components of the Vegan Mobilization

It has been estimated that a significant change from negative to positive images of veganism has happened during the past decade and in some countries during the past two to five years, as veganism has gone from an unknown vegetarian submovement to a publicly celebrated way of life ( Cole & Morgan, 2011 ; Joy & Tuider, 2016 ). It is noteworthy that during this period it has been especially veganism and plant-based eating, not vegetarianism, that have been at the focus of media publicity and consumer interest. For instance, between 2010 and 2011, reporting on veganism in the Daily Mail changed, focusing more with celebrity vegans in a positive way ( Lundahl, 2017 ). In the United Kingdom, according to the Vegan Society, a significant change occurred in 2013: there was an increase in the number of people signing the online pledge to go vegan for a week or a month, a rise in footfall at VegfestUK (a festival dedicated to presenting vegan food, products, and lifestyle) from previous years, and the national and international press was covering veganism more often and more positively than in the past ( de Boo, 2014 ). Moreover, Forbes.com in the United States named high-end vegan dining the top food trend of 2013. A similar “veggie trend” has been reported in France, where vegan products form an expanding market and the number of vegan cookbooks and blogs has significantly increased ( Véron, 2016 ).

This section presents in more detail the building blocks of this change and analyses how veganism and plant-based eating are shaped as an assemblage of various actors and their interactions. The cases presented below show that, in the current mobilization of veganism, it is not only a question of raising consciousness about the negative effects of meat consumption. Additionally, changing the images of both animal-derived and vegan foods, increasing competences in vegan cooking and shopping, and building and strengthening communities and connectivity have a focal role in the mobilization of veganism. The role of social media is central. It is important to explore this nexus of various platforms and actors, since the possibilities of consumers to become “agents of sustainable change” depend on the environment where consumer choices are made ( Bakker & Dagevos, 2012 ). In particular, the cases below illustrate how various actors have used discursive strategies to strengthen their arguments and bring their cause to the public sphere, but also that vegan options easily available to consumers to “buycott” are gaining increasing popularity.

First, consciousness-raising campaigns by animal rights activists in several European countries as well as the United States, Australia, and Mexico have targeted the meat and dairy industries, aiming to transform their “happy meat” image. Activists have filmed at animal production facilities, showing poor living conditions and maltreatment of animals, and distributed these videos on the internet ( Véron, 2016 ; Vinnari & Laine, 2017 ). Antibranding campaigns by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) against Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King (“Kentucky Fried Cruelty” and “Murder King”) ( Seijts & Sider, 2006 ) have had similar aims. A similar example from Finland using “scare” and “shame” tactics is an outdoor poster campaign by the Finnish animal protection organization Animalia in 2005 illustrating the cruelty to farm animals caused by overefficient methods in livestock farming ( Kuoppamäki, 2008 ). Another example is The Meatrix (2003), a short computer animation inspired by the movie The Matrix , criticizing industrial agricultural practices. By 2008, over twenty million people had watched the online video ( Wolfe, 2009 ). These campaigns, using well-known brands as message boards, resemble culture jamming ( Stolle & Micheletti, 2013 ).

Besides these NGOs and activists, a central group of actors in contemporary consciousness-raising are commercial production and entertainment companies. Documentaries such as Cowspiracy (2014, updated version, executively produced by Leonardo DiCaprio on Netflix 2015), Food, Inc. (2008), and Forks over Knives (2011) have frequently been mentioned as turning points in life when “going vegan.” These documentaries comment on environmental, health, and animal welfare issues related to the meat and dairy industries in an entertaining fashion by using individual testimonies, science-based evidence, and emotional rhetoric. They may be categorized as spectacular environmentalism, as they are “designed through visual means, to get our attention and pique our environmental imaginaries in ways that work to get us to feel, to connect and to ‘do’ ” ( Goodman et al., 2016 , p. 681). Central here is the utilization of social media in marketing and distribution via Netflix, a streaming platform providing video-on-demand online, and YouTube. Both are popular, especially among the young, and enable easy access to almost the same products globally and hence enable the formation of global food communities around the new images of factory farming and the vegan lifestyle. Furthermore, Netflix documentaries are not merely located on its online platform but are utilized in building awareness and communities independent of Netflix, such as on social media platforms and at showings of the documentaries at local animal rights events.

Second, social media, vegan food bloggers, and vloggers have been central mobilizers in cultivating a new image of veganism and plant-based eating as part of a desirable lifestyle, building new competences in plant-based cooking and extending the consumer communities interested in vegan food. The popularity and mainstreaming of these actors is exemplified by Saveur magazine, which awarded a vegan food blog the Best Food Blog Award in 2013 ( Priestley, Lingo, & Royal, 2016 ). The following year, as well, several of Saveur ’s finalists for best cooking blogs specialized in meat-free recipes ( Johnston & Baumann, 2015 ). In Finland in the spring of 2017, the vegan food blog Chocochili was second on the “Top 10 food blogs list” ( Cision, 2017 ). On YouTube, several vegan vloggers are relatively popular, such as Cheap Lazy Vegan , with 431,000 subscribers, and Hot For Food , with 406,000 subscribers (April 2018). In Finland, one of the most popular vloggers, with 358,000 subscribers, is mmiisas cooking vegetarian food (April 2018).

Véron (2016) suggests that in France vegan food bloggers have had an important role in building the new vegan community that thus far had been scattered. Vegan food bloggers have updated the image of a vegan lifestyle; contributed to building a sense of belonging and shared identity; and provided support, practical tips, and information. These blogs have been transgressions against the traditional paradigm of meat-based cooking, and many recipes have revisited traditional French recipes based on meat and dairy products.

Many blogs also spread vegan recipes and ideology to readers not committed to a vegan lifestyle, and some vegan bloggers have explicitly aimed to reach society beyond the vegan readers ( Véron, 2016 ). This widening sphere of vegan eating is easier with the new image and discourse of flexible plant-based eating. For example, the writers of the American vegan food blog Thug Kitchen associated veganism with self-oriented interests relating to health, wellbeing, lifestyle, and personal choice, as well as relaxed and flexible cooking, instead of discussing politically charged issues of veganism such as animal cruelty and environmentalism ( Priestley, Lingo, & Royal, 2016 ). The writers even distanced themselves from the word “vegan” and instead referred to “plant-based recipes” ( Priestley, Lingo, & Royal, 2016 ).

Third, vegan pledges, organized by vegan and animal rights organizations (e.g., PETA, the Vegan Society in the United Kingdom, and the Vegan Society of Finland) have encouraged consumers to try vegan eating for a certain period of time; provided peer support and platforms for community building; increased competence in vegan cooking, shopping and lifestyle; and reshaped the public image of veganism. Some cities, such as Ghent in Belgium, San Francisco, and Baltimore, have declared certain days of the week meat-free ( Sage, 2014 ). In Norway the army introduced a “Meat Free Monday” programme in garrison canteens ( Saul, 2013 ). Celebrities such as Al Gore, Ellen DeGeneres, Oprah Winfrey, Beyoncé, Jay-Z, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jennifer Lopez, and Lewis Hamilton, who have taken a pledge or otherwise gone vegan, have gained visibility in the media ( Doyle, 2016 ; Lundahl, 2017 ) and some, such as Beyoncé, have themselves reported their vegan experiences on social media. In Finland, the January Vegan Pledge, organized annually since 2014, has listed celebrity participants on its web page

An interesting example of such a pledge in Finland is the Meatless October ( Lihaton lokakuu ) that was first organized in 2013 by two journalists and media personalities, Riku Rantala and Tuomas Milonoff. What makes it a poignant example of the rise of veganism is that even though one organizer was a vegetarian, the other was not. This represented a break from the marginalized circles of vegans, presenting the meatless pledge as “cool” and suitable not only for stereotypical, puritan vegetarians but also for larger numbers of consumers than would otherwise have been possible at that time. All in all, Meatless October has been a carefully planned project featuring social media connectivity on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram; a cookbook; events; and Meatless October recipes from the food industry. Here too, the discursive strategies of the pledges and related media publicity promote plant-based eating and its lifestyle as relaxed, trendy, and suitable for everyone.

Fourth, both consumer interest in and the “buycott” potential of plant-based eating are dependent on supply and attractive marketing of new plant-based products and vegan meals at restaurants and fast-food chains ( Jallinoja, Niva, & Latvala, 2016 ; Niva, Vainio, & Jallinoja, 2017 ). Central to product development are the substitutes for meat, dairy, and egg products, such as plant-based Beyond Meat burgers and Just Mayo mayonnaise. Not only analogue products as such but also their marketing as “cool” and suitable for a youthful, ethical lifestyle and identity are important here ( Banaji & Buckingham, 2009 ), suggesting that building a new image of vegan products and their consumers is a central discursive strategy here. Many brands, like Swedish Oatly, which produces dairy substitutes ( Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017 ), and Oumph!, which produces meat substitutes, use trendy images and slogans. Oumph! has distanced itself from the word “vegan” and instead refers to “epic veggie eating” ( Lidell, 2017 ). Likewise, Oatly products are advertised as “totally cool for both vegans and non-vegans” and the marketing draws from several discourses: animal rights, global warming, local produce, and healthiness ( Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017 ). As with the pledges and bloggers, the aim is to widen the group of potential consumers of vegan products outside the strict vegan communities.

Moreover, Oatly has a Facebook page, a Twitter account, and a YouTube channel that “offer an opportunity not only to market to, but also to interact with, the consumers” ( Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017 , p. 10). Hence, social media plays a significant role: both food industry and consumer groups promote new products and help consumers to find vegan food. It seems that consumers of these products are their eaters and advocates at the same time and also participate in social media communities promoting the new image of vegan eating. For example, in Facebook groups like “Pulled Oats Radar” and “Vegan Helsinki,” consumers help each other to find new products and restaurants as well as report their eating experiences.

Finally, vegan fairs and festivals, organised in many cases by vegan activists, have been mushrooming in many countries. For example, www.vegan.com/festivals lists 81 events in the United States and 57 elsewhere. Examples in Europe are VegFestUK, held since 2002 in Bristol and since 2013 in London; Veganes Sommerfest in Berlin since 2008; Vegomässan in Sweden since 2008; VegFest in Tampere, Finland, since 2007; and Vegemessut in Helsinki, Finland, since 2017. During the 2010s, they epitomize many characteristics of the current rise of veganism by bringing together the components presented above. At festivals, likeminded people gather and are taught new cooking skills. Discursive strategies are used to reconfigure the image of veganism into a versatile, flexible lifestyle and pleasurable cooking and eating instead of mainly a question of animal rights. For example, at the Vegemessut in Helsinki in 2017, the speakers, who were not all vegans, included representatives of animal rights organizations, a vegan food blogger preparing seitan, a nutrition scientist, celebrity chefs cooking vegan meals, a well-known musician participating in the January vegan pledge, a vegan athlete, and representatives of vegan food companies.

Together these activities and actors have changed the image of veganism and factory farming; increased consumers’ opportunities to buy, cook, and eat affordable and tasty vegan food; and helped to build communities and identities. What has been characteristic of the recent rise of veganism and plant-based eating is its presentation as an inclusive movement, allowing various levels of involvement and philosophical engagement. However, despite the contemporary movement and mobilization around veganism, animal-derived foods still have by far a larger market share compared to plant-derived ones, suggesting that “going vegan” has not thus far become a mass phenomenon.

Plant-Based Eating, Veganism, Discursive Strategies, and Lifestyle Politics

How can veganism and plant-based eating be conceptualised as political consumerism? This section begins with the perspective of the four forms of political consumerism identified previously—boycotting, buycotting, lifestyle, and discursive strategies ( Stolle & Micheletti, 2013 )—and moves on to analyse what is particular in veganism and plant-based eating as political consumerism.

Some scholars in political consumption studies have identified features of all four forms of political consumerism in veganism and plant-based eating. For instance, Micheletti and Stolle (2012 , p. 106) note that vegetarians buy vegetarian or vegan products (buycott) and reject meat products (boycott), engage in discourses on vegetarianism/veganism, and try to change their lifestyles. In a similar vein, Carvalho de Rezende (2014) studied vegetarianism as a form of political consumerism and noted that it is a “boycott practice of which consumption is just one moment” ( Carvalho de Rezende, 2014 , p. 395) but also a “lifestyle political practice” ( Carvalho de Rezende, 2014 , p. 396), since it requires multiple changes in daily life, adopting new habits, breaking norms related to proper eating, and confronting existing social structures.

However, as the examples in the previous section suggest, the notions of boycotting and buycotting are too narrow as such to adequately describe the contemporary rise of veganism and plant-based eating. In fact, Guthman (2008) goes so far as to suggest that boycotting and buycotting represent the forms of collective action of yesteryear and that the actors involved in contemporary food activism use more contemporary methods. Indeed, more than boycotting or buycotting, the modes of alternative consumption more broadly, and even anticonsumption, have for a long time been tied to the vegan lifestyle (e.g., Konttinen, 1999 ). Guthman (2008) further suggests that contemporary food activism intersects with neoliberal rationalities such as consumer choice, localism, entrepreneurialism, and self-improvement—consumer choice being the most central organizing theme. Others have stressed that the discursive turn in political consumerism indicates “how political activism is emerging in the current age of globalization, Internet communication, a more open and fragmented media environment, individualization and enhanced consumer choice” ( Stolle & Micheletti, 2013 , p. 202). The following sections analyse in more detail this mode of alternative consumption that is tied both to the celebration of consumer choice and individual hedonism and to communities enhanced by social media.

Consequently, although veganism and plant-based eating can be conceptualized as boycotting and buycotting, this chapter contends that it is political consumerism in the forms of discursive strategies and lifestyle, as well as their interplay, that most poignantly characterizes the current rise of veganism.

Discussion of the building blocks of the vegan mobilization in the previous sections offers several examples of discursive strategies, from consciousness-raising campaigns of animal rights activists to vegan pledges recruiting consumers and celebrities to try vegan eating. These discursive strategies may be roughly categorized into two groups.

The first group would include those aiming to transform the image of the meat, poultry, fishing, and dairy industries and their products by revealing the cruelties of, and environmental problems caused by, these industries. These activities would thus count as a discursive strategy of political consumerism but also as emancipatory politics ( Giddens, 1991 )—where the emancipatory aim is extended to farm animals and fish. This type of argument is in line with the utilitarian perspective, which claims that evaluations of well-being should be extended not only to humans but to sentient nonhuman animals ( Singer, 1975 ).

Others, such as food bloggers and consumers posting pictures of their vegan meals on Instagram, concentrate on the aesthetics of vegan food. They use another kind of discursive strategy, namely reimagining veganism and plant-based eating as a “cool,” trendy, desirable, and even normalized and mainstream lifestyle and vegan food as delicious. However, the demarcation between these two types of discursive strategies is blurry, as they are often used simultaneously. Even the animal rights movement has started to apply methods close to the new discursive strategies of political consumerism, instead of merely employing the previous strategies of infiltrating farms and releasing video material filmed there ( Lundbom, 2016 ). And increasingly they use messages about the importance of veganism for one’s health and fitness ( Micheletti & Stolle, 2010 ).

The analysis of discursive strategies has already suggested a connection with lifestyle and lifestyle political consumerism. Many vegans themselves highlight that veganism is a lifestyle—not a diet—as it concerns all areas of life ( Greenebaum, 2012 ). In previous studies, too, vegetarianism and veganism have been termed “alternative lifestyles” and lifestyle movements actively promoting a lifestyle as a means for social change ( Haenfler, Johnson, & Jones, 2012 ). In the new discursive strategies presented in this chapter, the focus is on a lifestyle and self-image that simultaneously promote hedonism, self-care, and consciousness of the adverse effects of the meat and dairy industries.

A closer look at the concept of lifestyle in contemporary societies suggests that lifestyle is “a more or less integrated set of practices which an individual embraces … because they give material to a particular narrative of self-identity” ( Giddens, 1991 , p. 81) and, hence, lifestyle-related decisions are about how to act but also about whom to be ( Giddens, 1991 ). In analyses relating to political consumerism, lifestyle politics has been defined as using one’s private life to take responsibility for the allocation of common values and resources ( Stolle & Micheletti, 2013 ) and as the ways in which people are made to reflect on their lives and their life narratives because of wider political and social processes ( Spaargaren & Oosterveer, 2010 ). For Giddens (1991 , p. 214), lifestyle politics refers to “political issues which flow from processes of self-actualisation in post-traditional contexts,” where globalising processes and self-realisation are mutually interdependent.

What seems to have happened, in addition to the emergence of veganism as an all-encompassing, strict lifestyle concentrating on anticonsumerism and criticism of factory farming, is that another lifestyle with more blurry boundaries is being promoted and built. In the latter constellation, lifestyle is increasingly and more openly about self-identity and related habitus and aesthetics.

Here, it is vital to note the importance of the internet and especially social media—not only in the increased mobilization around veganism but in everyday social practices and the shaping of cultural content ( van Dijk, 2012 ; van Dijk & Poell, 2013 ). All the cases presented in the previous section indicate the significance of social media in the rise of veganism and animal rights activism during the 2000s and 2010s. This observation is all the more central given that surveys have shown that veganism and vegetarianism are more common among the young ( ARS, 2017 ). In many cases related to social media and conventional media, celebrities and media personalities play a role in the change of veganism from a marginalized lifestyle into “eco-chic” consumption ( Lundahl, 2017 ). Stolle & Micheletti (2013) , too, note the importance of the internet in encouraging the growth of discursive political consumerism. They further note that “the Internet is the infrastructure or architecture for individualized responsibility-taking” and that it enables choice editing, choice architecture, and new kinds of group formation ( Stolle & Micheletti, 2013 , p. 38). For example, with the rise of online communities and networks, local festivals and national Facebook groups are inspired by similar activities in other cities and countries. These are the cross-national food communities of late-modern societies enabled by social media ( Bildtgård, 2008 ).

On social media and in the food blogosphere, consumers compete for attention and followers, and potentially introduce and adopt new practices and images of eating. Various institutions, actors, and activists are confronted with the logic of social media and its platforms—programmability, popularity, connectivity, and datafication ( van Dijk & Poell, 2013 ). Hence, vegan vloggers and bloggers, too, have to adopt these techno-commercial processes of social media and the food blogosphere in particular ( Poell & van Dijk, 2015 ).

To summarize, veganism and plant-based eating are clearly spheres of lifestyle political consumerism: they incorporate a way of eating that is informed by concerns for broad political issues on a global scale and integrate these concerns within the practices of everyday life. All in all, veganism as political consumerism consists of, on the one hand, emancipatory and lifestyle-related discursive strategies and, on the other hand, lifestyle politics.

Political or Nonpolitical Consumerism?

The analysis of the components of vegan mobilization in previous sections has suggested that not all eating and promotion of vegan products is unambiguously political consumerism. Moreover, recently, as vegan eating has become fashionable in many Western cities, the aesthetic components of lifestyle politics probably increase in importance while the political component somewhat loses its edge. Here we may recognize “light-veganism” as a means of distinction by the middle class (see Guthman, 2003 ; Lundahl, 2017 ).

In these various flexitarian solutions, environmental concerns play a larger role than animal rights issues. Furthermore, among foodies flexitarianism overshadows strict vegetarianism, as maximizing food pleasures and consumer choice are more important than environmental or animal rights issues ( Johnston & Baumann, 2015 ). Moreover, in foodie discourse, humanely raised animal products serve as “a resolution between the demands of ethical responsibility and gourmet desire” ( Johnston & Baumann, 2015 , p. 139).

Plant-based eating may also be connected to healthism, especially among the middle class, where eating organic salad mix has been “in some sense performative of an elite sensibility” ( Guthman, 2003 , p. 53). Celebrities, such as Beyoncé, taking a vegan pledge may be mainly motivated by a “spiritual or physical cleanse” and health aspects and consider veganism as a short-term fix for restoring the body to its admired state ( Lundahl, 2017 , p. 218). Micheletti & Stolle (2012) , too, note that although solidarity values and concern for others are important to vegetarians, values relating to health and quality of food are even more important. They further suggest that due to these self-regarding health values, not all forms of vegetarianism can be considered lifestyle politics ( Micheletti & Stolle, 2012 ).

There is an ongoing debate over whether veganism should be political and never be detached from animal rights ( Greenebaum, 2012 ) and whether the “veggie trend” overruns the discussion of animal rights ( Véron, 2016 ). Vegan food bloggers have been criticized for aestheticizing vegan eating ( Véron, 2016 ), and many ethical vegans criticize those who follow a vegan diet for health reasons or don’t even consider those following a vegan diet for health reasons to be true vegans ( Greenebaum, 2012 ; see also Arppe, Mäkelä, & Väänänen, 2011 ). Moreover, some have raised the concern that vegan substitutes for animal-derived foods might be merely another example of the co-option of alternative movements for commercial purposes ( Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017 ). The Meat Free Monday campaign has been shown to lack materials about the suffering of animals in industrial agriculture and to instead strengthen the neoliberal food ethics of individual taste, freedom, and increased options ( Singer, 2017 ). In the United Kingdom, newspaper coverage of Meat Free Monday only occasionally commented on the adverse consequences for animals of meat production ( Morris, 2018 ). In Sweden, between 2006 and 2013, reporting on environmental problems of meat production more often suggested reformist solutions, such as reduction of consumption, instead of more radical solutions such as vegetarianism or veganism ( Benulic, 2016 ).

However, others argue that tolerating those “going vegan” for health or aesthetic reasons helps to build bridges between the justifications of veganism and the mainstream cultural ethos of meat consumption ( Greenebaum, 2012 ). Bakker and Dagevos (2012) , too, warn about juxtaposing responsible and irresponsible consumers. Hence, one could also argue for a less stringent bordering of veganism or plant-based eating as either other-regarding political consumerism or self-regarding food choices. This perspective gains support from previous research on consumer society and political consumerism.

According to Gabriel and Lang (2006) , in modern consumer societies, several diverse representations of consumers prevail concurrently. For example, consumers can be seen as choosers, communicators, and explorers for new products, experiences and fulfillment. They are identity-seekers, who build identity and boost self-esteem with goods, and hedonists who gain pleasure from the consumption of stylish, “cool” products. Finally, consumers may also be seen as rebels who consume with more style, consume less or differently, and consumer activists explicitly seeking to alter the meanings of consumption, progress and quality of life ( Gabriel & Lang, 2006 ). The current rise of veganism and plant-based eating coheres with all these representations. Moreover, in contemporary political consumerism or political activism, different strands—animal welfare/rights, health, food, ethics, fair trade—are interlinked, and these linkages are recognized by companies ( Gabriel & Lang, 2006 ). When consumers choose foods, many prefer brands that have a triple message: “a good product in its own right, has extra special connotations and by consuming it you can feel good” ( Gabriel & Lang, 2006 , p. 166).

Indeed, cultured and “clean” meat are marketed as “clean eating,” where clean refers not only to healthiness but also to moral cleanliness. Likewise, “eco-chic” refers to products that are both ecofriendly and trendy ( Lundahl, 2017 ). Many vegan products also interest consumers in buycotting or preferring “free-from” products, such as “hormone-free,” “non-GMO,” “gluten-free,” and “antibiotics-free,” which are currently marketed as generally healthy and desirable ( Sexton, 2016 ). Likewise, Oatly is marketing its vegan products as alternatives in numerous ways—sustainable, healthy, small-scale, Swedish—and hence “drawing on multiple points of difference vis-à-vis the conventional dairy industry” ( Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017 , p. 16). Consumers of Oatly products also refer to these varying alternatives ( Fuentes & Fuentes, 2017 ).

Others have noted that many consumers get pleasure from consuming differently and from committing to more socially just and environmentally benign modes of consumption ( Gabriel & Lang, 2006 ; Soper, 2008 ). Consumers may be driven by altruistic and self-interested concerns at the same time ( Bakker & Dagevos, 2012 ). Soper (2008) calls for acknowledging “alternative hedonism” as a self-interested form of altruism and as a “moral form of self-pleasuring” in which the focus is on a postconsumerist vision of the “good life,” pleasure, and self-realization ( Bakker & Dagevos, 2012 , p. 571). Moreover, human needs are never just nutritional needs or driven by some other rationally justified cause; they always hold an aesthetic or symbolic component ( Soper, 2008 ). In a similar vein, Sassatelli (2015) criticises the current scholarly discussion on political consumption for forging a master narrative that one-sidedly focuses on the responsibilities of consumers as market actors and forgets that ethical consumption choices also contain aesthetic, quality, and pleasure-seeking ideas. Sassatelli stresses that “intrinsic pleasures” are fundamental in consumption but that such pleasures are not necessarily only individual or against collective virtue. Moreover, we may look at the practices of veganism and plant-based eating in terms of what Stolle & Micheletti (2013 , p. 37) regard as contemporary political consumers’ opportunity “to craft their own ethical compass and choose very much their own fashion of participating in politics without following an organizational model or script.”

Giddens, too, has noted that people may follow modes of actions that are at variance with each other. Giddens terms these segments “lifestyle sectors,” “time-space slices” within which the sets of practices adopted are “reasonably consistent and ordered” ( Giddens, 1991 , p. 83). Following Giddens, one may think about veganism and plant-based eating as variously segmental: it would seem that veganism, at least when inspired by ethical concerns, probably represents quite a consistent and pervasive lifestyle that permeates the “time-space slices” of everyday life. But in some cases lifestyles of plant-based eating may be quite flexible, allowing for exceptions for social reasons or because of “cravings,” for instance.

It is precisely these justifications, discourses, and interpretations of veganism that have given impetus to the vegan lifestyle that until recently was marginalized with a relatively rigid boundary between plant-based foods and forbidden animal-derived foods (for the boundary, see Arppe, Mäkelä, & Väänänen, 2011 ). But, because of this mixture, veganism does not simply appear as political consumerism par excellence—concentrating on affecting the markets—but also as a movement of self-realization, identity building, healthism, and the aestheticized food of foodies.

Conclusions and Future Directions

The contemporary focus in food discourses on the hedonistic aspects of plant-based foods has begun to transform the image of veganism and plant-based eating from dull, restrictive, and marginal into fun, flexible, and pleasurable. Analysis of veganism and plant-based eating as political consumerism has shown an assemblage of interacting actors and activities that together are forming the increased mobilization and interest in plant-based eating and changing the image of veganism. As we have shown, in this process the internet and especially social media are major platforms. Social media has enabled activists to reach groups of people who otherwise would not have been easily reached ( Poell & van Dijk, 2015 ). However, social media and its algorithms are designed to produce “instant moments of togetherness” but not long-term efficacy; hence, the future challenge for political consumerism is how to raise political awareness and build durable networks ( Poell & van Dijk, 2015 ).

Consequently, future research in political consumerism must explore the formation of short-term and long-term vegan connectivity on social media and in real life as well as their potential for making eating more sustainable in the long run. The logic of social media itself and the way it changes political consumerism need to be closely analysed, such as with longitudinal data following the evolution of social media debates and conventional media. As regards survey methods, there is a need for more fine-tuned survey questions to identify the many forms and levels of engagement of veganism and plant-based eating, the length of time people have followed these diets, and their reasons for abandoning them.

Furthermore, theoretically oriented analyses should explore the ways in which new discursive strategies build lifestyle and taste-based communities in late modern societies. Studies should analyse the interplay of rational justifications of, and affective responses to, an awareness of factory farming and the prospects of climate change (see Goodman et al., 2016 ). Moreover, how does the therapeutic turn in identity politics and “it’s all about me” politics ( Furedi, 2017 ) conflict with the other-oriented goals of political consumerism and veganism in particular? These analyses might provide a more in-depth understanding of the development of veganism as a form of consumption that is often both political and nonpolitical, a tool for neoliberal self-realization and community building, and an altruistic other-regarding activity (see Soper, 2008 ). Moreover, research inspired by practice theory ( Shove, Pantzar, & Watson, 2012 ) is needed on the multiple ways that consumers and various groups of gatekeepers and stakeholders maintain and transform images and practices of meat and vegan consumption as either normal or deviant.

Finally, future studies of the kind suggested above must analyse this area in the coming years, as the contemporary fad-like characteristic of vegan eating will probably fade. Even now, veganism and plant-based eating are criticized by various stakeholders, such as the meat, poultry, and milk industries, celebrity chefs, and other actors with power in media. Will the assemblage and communities that are now supporting the rise of veganism dissolve, making it harder for political consumers to promote their cause, or will the current high tide manage to make permanent changes in the overall food scene?

The study has been funded by the Academy of Finland, grant no. 296883.

Allievi, Francesca , Vinnari, Markus , & Luukkanen, Jyrki. ( 2015 ). Meat consumption and production—analysis of efficiency, sufficiency and consistency of global trends.   Journal of Cleaner Production , 92 (1), 142–151.

Google Scholar

Arppe, Tiina , Mäkelä, Johanna , & Väänänen, Virpi. ( 2011 ). Living food diet and veganism: Individual vs collective boundaries of the forbidden.   Anthropology of Food , 50 (2), 275–297.

ARS (Animal Rights Sweden). (2014). Var tionde svensk väljer fortfarande vego . Retrieved from https://www.djurensratt.se/blogg/var-tionde-svensk-valjer-fortfarande-vego .

ARS (Animal Rights Sweden). (2015) Var tionde svenk är vegetarian . Retrieved from https://www.djurensratt.se/blogg/var-tionde-svensk-ar-vegetarian

ARS (Animal Rights Sweden). (2017). Opinionsundersökning, våren 2017 . Retrieved from https://www.djurensratt.se/sites/default/files/2017-06/vegoopinion-novus-2017.pdf .

Bakker, Erik , & Dagevos, Hans. ( 2012 ). Reducing meat consumption in today’s consumer society: Questioning the citizen-consumer gap.   Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25 (6), 877–894.

Banaji, Shakuntala , & Buckingham, David. ( 2009 ). Civic sell: Young people, the internet, and ethical consumption.   Information, Communication and Society , 12 (8), 1197–1223.

Belasco, Warren. ( 1989 ). Appetite for change: How the countercuisine took on the food industry, 1966–1988 . New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

Google Preview

Benulic, Kajsa-Stina. ( 2016 ). A beef with meat—Media and audience framings of environmentally unsustainable production and consumption . Stockholm: Södertörn University.

Bildtgård, Torbjörn. ( 2008 ). Trust in food in modern and late-modern societies.   Anthropology of Food , 47 (1), 99–128.

Bittman, Mark. ( 2013 ). Eat vegan before 6:00 . New York, NY: Clarkson Potter.

Buscemi, Francesco. ( 2016 ). The carnivorous mission of the celebrity chef. In Jodey Castricano & Rasmus R. Simonsen (Eds.), Critical perspectives on veganism (pp. 331–348). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Carvalho de Rezende, Daniel. ( 2014 ). Politics in food markets: Alternative modes of qualification and engaging.   Revista de economia e sociologia rural , 52 (2), 387–400.

Cision. (2017). Ruokablogien Top10-lista Suomessa huhtikuussa 2017 . Retrieved from http://www.cision.fi/2017/04/ruokablogien-top-10-lista-suomessa-huhtikuussa-2017/ .

Cole, Matthew , & Morgan, Kate. ( 2011 ). Vegaphobia: Derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspaper.   The British Journal of Sociology , 62 (1), 134–153.

de Boer, Joop , Helms, Martine , & Aiking, Harry. ( 2006 ). Protein consumption and sustainability: Diet diversity in EU-15.   Ecological Economics , 59 (3), 267–274.

de Boo, Jasmijn. ( 2014 ). Ripened by human determination: 70 years of The Vegan Society . Birmingham: The Vegan Society. Retrieved from https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Ripened%20by%20human%20determination.pdf .

de Vries, Marion , & de Boer, Joop. ( 2010 ). Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments.   Livestock Science , 128 (1–3), 1–11.

Douglas, Mary. ( 1985 ). Purity and danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo . London: Ark Paperbacks. (Original work published in 1966.)

Doyle, Julie. ( 2016 ). Celebrity vegans and the lifestyle of ethical consumption.   Environmental Communication , 10 (6), 777–790.

European Environment Agency. ( 2016 ). Consumption of meat, dairy, fish and seafood . Copenhagen. Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/13.2 -development-in-consumption-of/assessment-1 .

Fiddes, Nick. ( 1991 ). Meat: A natural symbol . London: Routledge.

Francione, Gary. ( 2010 ). The animal rights debate: Abolition or regulation . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Freeman, Carrie. ( 2014 ). Lisa and Phoebe, lone vegetarian icons: At odds with television’s carnonormativity. In Deborah Macey , Kathleen Ryan , & Noah Springer (Eds.), How television shapes our worldview: Media representations of social trends and change (pp. 193–212). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Fuentes, Christian , & Fuentes, Maria. ( 2017 ). Making a market for alternatives: Marketing devices and the qualification of a vegan milk substitute.   Journal of Marketing Management 33(7–8), 529–555.

Furedi, Frank. (2017, November 1). The hidden history of identity politics. Spiked . Retrieved from http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-hidden-history-of-identity-politics/20596#.WipYJ0pl-Uk .

Gabriel, Yanis , & Lang, Tim. ( 2006 ). The unmanageable consumer . Los Angeles: Sage.

Giddens, Anthony. ( 1991 ). Modernity and self-identity . Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

Goodman, Michael , Littler, Jo , Brockington, Dan , & Boykoff, Maxwell. ( 2016 ). Spectacular environmentalism: Media, knowledge and the framing of ecological politics.   Environmental Communication , 10 (6), 677–688.

Grant, Juawana , & MacKenzie-Dale, Brittni. ( 2016 ). Lisa Simpson and Darlene Conner: Television’s favorite killjoys. In Jodey Castricano & Rasmus R. Simonsen (Eds.), Critical perspectives on veganism (pp. 307–329). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Greenebaum, Jessica. ( 2012 ). Veganism, identity and the quest for authenticity.   Food, Culture & Society , 15 (1), 129–144.

Guthman, Julie. ( 2003 ). Fast food/organic food: Reflexive tastes and the making of “yuppie chow. ” Social & Cultural Geography , 4 (1), 45–58.

Guthman, Julie. ( 2008 ). Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California.   Geoforum , 39 (3), 1171–1183.

Haenfler, Ross , Johnson, Brett , & Jones, Ellis. ( 2012 ). Lifestyle movements: Exploring the intersection of lifestyle and social movements.   Social Movement Studies , 11 (1), 1–20.

Helldán, Anni , Raulio, Susanna , Kosola, Mikko , Tapanainen, Heli , Ovaskainen, Marja-Leena , & Virtanen, Suvi. ( 2013 ). The National FINDIET 2012 Survey . Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare. Retrieved from https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/110839/THL_RAP2013_016_%26sliitteet.pdf .

Helldán, Anni , & Helakorpi, Satu. ( 2015 ). Health behaviour and health among the Finnish adult population, Spring 2014 . Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare. Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-302-447-2 .

Herzog, Hal. ( 2010 ). Some we love, some we hate, some we eat . New York, NY: HarperCollins.

HRC (Humane Research Council). (2014). Study of current and former vegetarians and vegans . Retrieved from https://faunalytics.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Faunalytics_Current-Former-Vegetarians_Full-Report.pdf .

Iacobbo, Karen , & Iacobbo, Michael. ( 2004 ). Vegetarian America: A history . Westport, CT: Praeger.

Jallinoja, Piia , Niva, Mari , & Latvala, Terhi. ( 2016 ). Future of sustainable eating? Examining the potential for expanding bean eating in a meat-eating culture.   Futures , 83 (SI), 4–14.

Johnston, Josée , & Baumann, Shyon. ( 2015 ). Foodies: Democracy and distinction in the gourmet foodscape . New York, NY: Routledge.

Joy, Melanie. ( 2010 ). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows . San Francisco: Conary Press.

Joy, Melanie , & Tuider, Jens. ( 2016 ). Foreword. In Jodey Castricano & Rasmus R. Simonsen (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Veganism (pp. v–xv). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kateman, Brian. ( 2017 ). The reducetarian solution . New York, NY: TarcherPerigee Book.

Kauffman, Jonathan. ( 2018 ). Hippie food. How back-to-the-landers, longhairs, and revolutionaries changed the way we eat . New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Kerschke-Risch, Pamela. ( 2015 ). Vegan diet: Motives, approach and duration. Initial results of a quantitative sociological study.   Ernaehrungs Umschau , 62 (6), 98–103.

Kesko. (2017, June 9). Kasvipohjaisten tuotteiden myynti kasvaa edelleen voimakkaasti—vegehylly löytyy jo 200 K-ruokakaupasta . Retrieved from https://www.kesko.fi/media/uutiset-ja-tiedotteet/uutiset/2017/kasvispohjaisten-tuotteiden-myynti-kasvaa-edelleen-voimakkaasti—vegehylly-loytyy-jo-200-k-ruokakaupasta/ .

Konttinen, Esa. ( 1999 ). Four waves of environmental protest. In Esa Konttinen , Tapio Litmanen , Matti Nieminen , & Marja Ylänen (Eds.), All shades of green: The environmentalization of Finnish society (pp. 20–46). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

Kromhout, Daan , Spaaij, Caroline , de Goede, Janette , Weggemans, Rianne , & the Committee Dutch Dietary Guidelines 2015. ( 2016 ). The 2015 Dutch food-based dietary guidelines.   European Journal of Clinical Nutrition , 70 (8), 869–878.

Kuoppamäki, Markku. (2008). Using advertising techniques for effective civic communication: Animalia posters . Retrieved from http://www2.amk.fi/digma.fi/eetu/www.amk.fi/opintojaksot/0702010/1204101708753/1204101956215/1204102189163/1204103175462.html .Cited 22.8.2017.

Leneman, Leah. ( 1999 ). No animal food: The road to veganism in Britain, 1909–1944.   Society and Animals , 7 (3), 219–228.

Lidell, Anna-Kajsa. (2017, January 28). Presentation at the Vegemessut, Helsinki . Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/vegemessut/?fref=ts .

Lundahl, Outi. ( 2017 ). From a moral consumption ethos to an apolitical consumption trend: The role of media and celebrities in structuring the rise of veganism . Vaasa: University of Vaasa.

Lundahl, Outi , & Henkel, Alexander. ( 2017 ). Celebrities in the co-optation of veganism. In Outi Lundahl (Ed.), From a moral consumption ethos to an apolitical consumption trend: The role of media and celebrities in structuring the rise of veganism (pp. 174–204). Vaasa: University of Vaasa.

Lundbom, Pia. ( 2016 ). For the sake of animals: The changing political style and cultural othering of the Finnish animal rights movement . Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä.

Meindertsma, Christien. ( 2008 ). PIG 05049 . Rotterdam: Flocks.

Mekonnen, Mesfin , & Hoekstra, Arjen. ( 2012 ). A global assessment of the water footprint of farm animal products.   Ecosystems , 15 (3), 401–415.

Micheletti, Michele , & Stolle, Dietlind. ( 2012 ). Sustainable citizenship and the new politics of consumption.   The Annals of the American Academy , 644 (1), 88–120.

Micheletti, Michele , & Stolle, Dietlind. ( 2010 ). Vegetarianism—A lifestyle politics. In Michele Micheletti , and Andrew McFarland (Eds.), Creative participation: Responsibility-taking in the political worlds (pp. 125–145). New York, NY: Routledge.

Morris, Carol. (2018). “ Taking the politics out of broccoli”: Debating (de)meatification in UK national and regional newspaper coverage of the Meat Free Mondays Campaign.   Sociologia Ruralis , 58 (2), 433–452.

Natural Resources Institute Finland. (2017). Balance sheet for food commodities 2016, preliminary, 2015 final figures . Retrieved from http://stat.luke.fi/en/balance%20sheet%20for%20food%20commodities .

Nijdam, Durk , Rood, Trudy , & Westhoek, Henk. ( 2012 ). The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes.   Food Policy , 37 (6), 760–770.

Niva, Mari , Vainio, Annukka , & Jallinoja, Piia. ( 2017 ). Barriers to increasing plant protein consumption in Western populations. In Francois Mariotti (Ed.), Vegetarian and plant-based diets in health and disease prevention (pp. 157–174). London: Academic Press, Elsevier.

Nordic Nutrition Recommendations, Part 1. Summary, Principles and Use . ( 2012 ). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.

Parviainen, Heli , Elorinne, Anna-Liisa , Väisänen, Pertti , & Rimpelä, Arja. ( 2016 ). Consumption of special diets among adolescents from 1999 to 2013: A population-based study in Finland.   International Journal of Consumer Studies , 41 (2), 216–224.

Poell, Thomas , & van Dijk, José . ( 2015 ) Social media and activist communication. In Chris Atton (Ed.), The Routledge companion to alternative and community media (pp. 527–537). London: Routledge.

Priestley, Alexis , Lingo, Sarah , & Royal, Peter. ( 2016 ). “The worst offense here is the misrepresentation”: Thug Kitchen and contemporary vegan discourse. In Jodey Castricano & Rasmus R. Simonsen (Eds.), Critical perspectives on veganism (pp. 349–371). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Richardson, Nicola , Shepherd, Richard , & Elliman, Nicola. ( 1994 ). Meat consumption, definition of meat and trust in information sources in the UK population and members of The Vegetarian Society.   Ecology of Food and Nutrition , 33 (1–2), 1–13.

Ruby, Matthew. ( 2012 ). Vegetarianism: A blossoming field of study.   Appetite , 58 (1), 141–150.

Sabaté, Joan , Ratzin-Turner, Rosemary , & Brown, Jack. ( 2001 ). Vegetarian diets: Description and trends. In Joan Sabaté (Ed.), Vegetarian nutrition (pp. 3–18). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Sage, Colin. ( 2014 ). Making and un-making meat: Cultural boundaries, environmental thresholds and dietary transgressions. In Michael Goodman & Colin Sage (Eds.), Food transgressions: Making sense of contemporary food politics (pp. 181–203). London: Routledge.

Sassatelli, Roberta. ( 2015 ). Consumer culture, sustainability and a new vision of consumer sovereignty.   Sociologia Ruralis , 55 (4), 483–496.

Saul, Heather. (2013, November 20). Norwegian army placed on strict vegetarian diet. Independent . Retrieved from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/norwegian-army-placed-on-strict-vegetarian-diet-8951722.html .

Seijts, Gerald , & Sider, Michael. ( 2006 ). PETA’s “Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc” Campaign. Case Study.   Richard Ivey School of Business , 903C45.

Sexton, Alexandra. ( 2016 ). Alternative proteins and the (non)stuff of “meat. ” Gastronomica: The Journal of Critical Food Studies , 16 (3), 66–78.

Shove, Elizabeth , Pantzar, Mika , & Watson, Matt. ( 2012 ). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes . London: Sage.

Simon, Michele. (2017, December 29). Plant based foods sales experience 8.1 percent growth over past year . Cision. Retrieved from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/09/prweb14683840.htm .

Singer, Peter. ( 1975 ). Animal liberation . New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Singer, Ross. ( 2017 ). Neoliberal backgrounding, the Meatless Monday campaign, and the rhetorical intersections of food, nature, and cultural identity.   Communication, Culture & Critique , 10 (2), 344–364.

Smil, Vaclav. ( 2002 ). Eating meat: Evolution, patterns, and consequences.   Population and Development Review , 28 (4), 599–639.

Soper, Kate. ( 2008 ). Alternative hedonism, cultural theory and the role of aesthetic revisioning.   Cultural Studies , 22 (5), 567–587.

Spaargaren, Gert , & Oosterveer, Peter. ( 2010 ). Citizen-consumers as agents of change in globalizing modernity: The case of sustainable consumption.   Sustainability , 2 (7), 1887–1908.

Springmann, Marco , Godfraya, H. Charles , Raynera, Mike , & Scarborough, Peter. ( 2016 ). Analysis and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary change.   Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 113 (15), 4146–4151.

Stephens Griffin, Nathan. ( 2017 ). Understanding veganism: Biography and identity . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Stolle, Dietlind , & Micheletti, Michele. ( 2013 ). Political consumerism: Global responsibility in action . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Twigg, Julia. ( 1983 ). Vegetarianism and the meanings of meat. In Anne Murcott (Ed.), The sociology of food and eating: Essays on the sociological significance of food (pp. 18–31). Aldershot: Gower.

Twine, Richard. ( 2014 ). Vegan killjoy at the table—Contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices.   Societies , 4 , 623–639.

Van Dijk, José . ( 2012 ). Facebook and the engineering of connectivity: A multi-layered approach to social media platforms.   Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies , 19 (2), 141–155.

van Dijk, José , & Poell, Thomas. ( 2013 ). Understanding social media logic.   Media and Communication 1(1), 2–14.

van Dooren Corné, Marinussen Mari , Blonk, Hans , Aiking, Harry , & Vellinga, Pier. ( 2014 ). Exploring dietary guidelines based on ecological and nutritional values: A comparison of six dietary patterns.   Food Policy , 44 , 36–46.

The Vegan Society. (2016). Find out how many vegans are in Great Britain . Retrieved from https://www.vegansociety.com/whats-new/news/find-out-how-many-vegans-are-great-britain .

Véron, Ophélie. ( 2016 ). From seitan bourguignon to tofu blanquette: Popularizing veganism in france with food blogs. In Jodey Castricano & Rasmus R. Simonsen (Eds.), Critical perspectives on veganism (pp. 287–305). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Villareal Herrera, Georgina. ( 2017 ). Sustainable dairy . Wageningen: Wageningen University.

Vinnari, Eija , & Laine, Matias. ( 2017 ). The moral mechanism of counter accounts: The case of industrial animal production.   Accounting, Organizations and Society 57, 1–17.

Vinnari, Markus , Montonen, Jukka , Härkänen, Tommi , & Männistö, Satu. ( 2008 ). Identifying vegetarians and their food consumption according to self-identification and operationalised definition in Finland.   Public Health Nutrition , 12 (4), 481–488.

Vinnari, Markus , and Vinnari, Eija. ( 2014 ). A framework for sustainability transition: The case of plant-based diets.   Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 27 (3), 369–396.

Virtanen, Yrjö , Kurppa, Sirpa , Saarinen, Merja , Katajajuuri, Juha-Matti , Usva, Kirsi , Mäenpää, Ilmo , Mäkelä, Johanna , Grönroos, Juha , & Nissinen, Ari. ( 2011 ). Carbon footprint of food—Approaches from national input–output statistics and a LCA of a food portion.   Journal Cleaner Production , 19 (16), 1849–1856.

Walters, Kerry , & Portmess, Lisa. ( 1999 ). Ethical vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer . Albany: State University of New York Press.

Whipp, Lindsay. (2016, July 15). Big business identifies appetite for plant-based milk. Financial Times . Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/content/7df72c04-491a-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab .

Wolfe, Dylan. ( 2009 ). The video rhizome: Taking technology seriously in The Meatrix . Environmental Communication , 3 (3), 317–334.

World Cancer Research Fund. (2013). Food, nutrition and physical activity, and the prevention of cancer: A global perspective . Retrieved from http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/expert_report/ .

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• International
• Schools directory
• Resources Jobs Schools directory News Search

Write A Discursive Essay: Is Veganism A Good Life Style Choice? (9-14 years)

Subject: English

Age range: 11-14

Resource type: Lesson (complete)

Last updated

17 August 2022

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

This resource sets out how to write a well-balanced argument or discursive essay, on the topic of… ‘Is Veganism A Good Life Style Choice?’ This resource enables the pupil to examine the points for and against veganism, read a model essay and then to write their own discursive essay on this title.

The student should structure their writing, putting forward a point of view, backing it up with convincing evidence, building up a relevant counter argument and knocking it down, as well as, putting forward their own comments and opinions.

The student will learn vital essay writing skills that will assist their studies in other areas of the curriculum. There are a number of titles to choose from in this discursive essay writing series.

Click the link below, to view a comprehensive resource, which teaches exactly how to write a discursive essay:

https://www.tes.com/teaching-resource/preparing-to-write-a-balanced-argument-9-14-years-11380280

By working through these resources, the student will grow in confidence and will learn to enjoy writing. The packs are also a useful resource for teachers and save hours of time when preparing lessons or homework tasks.

www.guineapigeducationshop.com

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource:

Essays About Veganism: Top 5 Examples and 10 Prompts

Veganism is on the rise. See below for our great examples of essays about veganism and helpful writing prompts to get started. 

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from animal-based foods and products. The movement originated from the philosophies against using animals as commodities and for capitalist gains. Now a booming industry, veganism promises better health benefits, a more humane world for animals, and an effective solution to global warming. 

Here is our round-up of essays examples about veganism:

1. A Brief History of Veganism by Claire Suddath

2. animal testing on plant-based ingredients divides vegan community by jill ettinger, 3. as vegan activism grows, politicians aim to protect agri-business, restaurateurs by alexia renard, 4. bezos, gates back fake meat and dairy made from fungus as next big alt-protein by bob woods, 5. going vegan: can switching to a plant-based diet really save the planet by sarah marsh, 1. health pros and cons of veganism, 2. veganism vs. vegetarianism, 3. the vegan society, 4. making a vegan diet plan, 5. profitability of vegan restaurants, 6. public personalities who are vegan, 7. the rise of different vegan products, 8. is vegan better for athletes, 9. vegans in your community, 10. most popular vegan activists.

“Veganism is an extreme form of vegetarianism, and though the term was coined in 1944, the concept of flesh-avoidance can be traced back to ancient Indian and eastern Mediterranean societies.”

Suddath maps out the historical roots of veganism and the global routes of its influences. She also laid down its evolution in various countries where vegan food choices became more flexible in considering animal-derived products critical to health. 

“Along with eschewing animal products at mealtime, vegans don’t support other practices that harm animals, including animal testing. But it’s a process rampant in both the food and drug industries.”

Ettinger follows the case of two vegan-founded startups that ironically conducts animal testing to evaluate the safety of their vegan ingredients for human consumption. The essay brings to light the conflicts between the need to launch more vegan products and ensuring the safety of consumers through FDA-required animal tests. 

“Indeed, at a time when the supply of vegan products is increasing, activists sometimes fear the reduction of veganism to a depoliticized way of life that has been taken over by the food industry.”

The author reflects on a series of recent vegan and animal rights activist movements and implies disappointment over the government’s response to protect public safety rather than support the protests’ cause. The essay differentiates the many ways one promotes and fights for veganism and animal rights but emphasizes the effectiveness of collective action in shaping better societies. 

“Beyond fungus, Nature’s Fynd also is representative of the food sustainability movement, whose mission is to reduce the carbon footprint of global food systems, which generate 34% of greenhouse emissions linked to climate change.”

The essay features a company that produces alternative meat products and has the backing of Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Al Gore. The essay divulges the company’s investments and plans to expand in the vegan market while providing a picture of the burgeoning alternative foods sector. 

“Experts say changing the way we eat is necessary for the future of the planet but that government policy is needed alongside this. If politicians are serious about wanting dietary changes, they also need to incentivise it, scientists and writers add.”

The article conveys the insights and recommendations of environmental and agriculture experts on how to turn more individuals into vegans. The experts emphasize the need for a whole-of-society approach in shifting more diets to vegan instead of putting the onus for change on an individual. 

10 Writing Prompts on Essays About Veganism

Here is our round-up of the best prompts to create interesting essays about veganism: 

While veganism has been a top choice for those desiring to lose weight and have a healthier lifestyle, some studies have also shown its detrimental effects on health due to deficiencies in specific vitamins. First, find out what existing research and experts say about this. Then, lay down the advantages and disadvantages of going vegan, explain each, and wrap up your essay with your insights.

Differentiate veganism from vegetarianism. Tackle the foods vegans and vegetarians consume and do not consume and cite the different effects they have on your health and the environment. You may also expand this prompt to discuss the other dietary choices that spawned from veganism. 

The Vegan Society is a UK-based non-profit organization aimed at educating the public on the ways of veganism and promoting this as a way of life to as many people. Expound on its history, key organizational pillars, and recent and future campaigns. You may also broaden this prompt by listing down vegan organizations around the world. Then discuss each one’s objectives and campaigns. 

Write down the healthiest foods you recommend your readers to include in a vegan diet plan. Contrary to myths, vegan foods can be very flavorful depending on how they are cooked and prepared. You may expand this prompt to add recommendations for the most flavorful spices and sauces to take any vegan recipe a notch higher. 

Vegan restaurants were originally a niche market. But with the rise of vegan food products and several multinational firms’ foray into the market, the momentum for vegan restaurants was launched into an upward trajectory—research on how profitable vegan restaurants are against restos offering meat on the menu. You may also recommend innovative business strategies for a starting vegan restaurant to thrive and stay competitive in the market. 

From J.Lo to Bill Gates, there is an increasing number of famous personalities who are riding the vegan trend with good reason. So first, list a few celebrities, influencers, and public figures who are known advocates of veganism. Then, research and write about stories that compelled them to change their dietary preference.

The market for vegan-based non-food products is rising, from makeup to leather bags and clothes. First, create a list of vegan brands that are growing in popularity. Then, research the materials they use and the processes they employ to preserve the vegan principles. This may prompt may also turn into a list of the best gift ideas for vegans.

Many believe that a high-protein diet is a must for athletes. However, several athletes have dispelled the myth that vegan diets lack the protein levels for rigorous training and demanding competition. First, delve deeper into the vegan foods that serve as meat alternatives regarding protein intake. Then, cite other health benefits a vegan diet can offer to athletes. You may also add research on what vegan athletes say about how a vegan diet gives them energy. 

Interview people in your community who are vegan. Write about how they made the decision and how they transitioned to this lifestyle. What were the initial challenges in their journey, and how did they overcome these? Also, ask them for tips they would recommend to those who are struggling to uphold their veganism.

Make a list of the most popular vegan activists. You may narrow your list to personalities in digital media who are speaking loud and proud about their lifestyle choice and trying to inspire others to convert. Narrate the ways they have made and are making an impact in their communities. 

To enhance your essay, read our guide explaining what is persuasive writing . 

If you’d like to learn more, check out our guide on how to write an argumentative essay .

Yna Lim is a communications specialist currently focused on policy advocacy. In her eight years of writing, she has been exposed to a variety of topics, including cryptocurrency, web hosting, agriculture, marketing, intellectual property, data privacy and international trade. A former journalist in one of the top business papers in the Philippines, Yna is currently pursuing her master's degree in economics and business.

View all posts

JavaScript seems to be disabled in your browser. For the best experience on our site, be sure to turn on Javascript in your browser.

• My Wish List

Your Basket

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

• British Museum Books
• World of Art
• Art Essentials
• The Illustrators
• The Big Book series
• If I had a… series
• Advertising & Business
• Ancient History & Archaeology
• Architecture & Landscape Design
• Biography & Literature
• Craft, Practical Arts & Hobbies
• Fashion & Jewelry
• General History
• Mythology, Philosophy & Religion
• Natural History & Science
• Photography
• Popular Culture
• Author Interviews
• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Authors  
• About Us  

Should we all be vegan?

Veganism is more than an individual diet – it’s an ethical and ecological choice in a global context. But what does it actually mean — and what would a plant-based planet look like? 'Should We All Be Vegan?' explores the ins and outs of a vegan future.

Image: An elderly lady winnowing quinoa in the traditional way, by pouring quinoa on to the ground from a plate (Stefan Jeremiah/REX/Shutterstock)

Food trends come and go, but veganism – eating and living without animal products – is a lot more than a passing fad. It’s a choice that has steadily been gaining adherents for decades, before exploding in popularity inthe last few years. As concerns for personal health, animal welfare, and environmental sustainability coalesce, more and more people are turning to plant-based living.

In the U.K., 7% of people now define themselves as vegan. Sign-ups for the one-month vegan campaign “Veganuary” almost doubled in 2019, while orders of meat-free food have nearly quadrupled. In the United States, there was a 600% increase in people identifying as vegan between 2014 and 2017, while in India, which has a long history of religious and cultural norms that avoid meat, more than a quarter of the population now have a vegan diet.

Even in China, known for its meat-based cuisine, new government guidelines have encouraged the country’s 1.3 billion people to reduce their meat consumption by at least 50%. In Hong Kong, 22% of the population already practices some form of plant-based lifestyle.

Image: Chilean purse seine fishing (C. Ortiz Rojas/NOAA)

So is veganism the future? Is a plant-based planet the path to personal and environmental health? Certainly, veganism is much more than an individual diet. Though people practice and define it differently, plant-based living exists in a global ethical and ecological framework, which is as much about planetary sustainability as it is about avoiding animal cruelty or exploitation for human gain.

The environmental arguments for veganism are substantial: with industrial or “factory” farming now the norm, the raising and rearing of animals contributes at least 14% of human-made greenhouse gases. On top of these emissions, industrial farming also goes hand in hand with deforestation to create new agriculture and grazing land, particularly in South America, where the worldwide demand for beef has made the clearing of rainforests to raise cattle profitable. By removing trees that transform carbon into oxygen, deforestation further contributes to global warming.

In terms of calorie input and output, animals are also highly inefficient as a food source. Beef from feedlots, for example, takes up to 5.5 kilograms of grain (more than 18,000 calories) and almost 70,000 litres of water – plus energy and human labour – to produce just half a kilogram of beef, which offers just 1,137 calories for humans to eat.

Image: EMB protest in Brussels, Belgium - 23 Jan 2017 (Stephanie Lecocq/EPA/REX/Shutterstock)

A move towards widespread veganism would radically reshape our planetary landscape, and with it our sustainability: In 2016, an Oxford study estimated that the adoption of a vegan diet planet wide would cut emissions connected to food production by 70%. Since food production are second only to the energy sector, this would likely have a significant positive effect on global warming and climate change. Researchers on the future of food have found that the economic benefit from a dietary shift away animal products could be as high as $570 billion.

But these changes would require a major economic revolution for countries, such as New Zealand, which rely primarily on animal exports – including wool, beef, dairy, lamb, and fish. Entire industries would collapse, taking jobs down with them. In the United States, the livestock industry employs 1.6 million people. In the United Kingdom, it’s 315,000.

There’d be another economic loser in a vegan world: the pharmaceutical industry. Today, more than 80% of global antibiotics production is used on livestock. If there were no more animals to treat, it would be a disaster for pharmaceutical profits — but a potential savior to our global health. As vegan advocates and medical experts alike warn: the widespread overuse of antibiotics in the food chain means more and more bacteria are becoming resistant to the drugs — which means more and more people are suffering – and dying – from diseases we can no longer treat.

Image: St Clair algae. NASA

And with plant-based living also reducing cases of heart disease and diabetes, some research suggests that global veganism could result in 8.1 million fewer avoidable deaths per year, with savings of up to $1000 billion in health care costs and lost work days.

But beyond these ecological and economic arguments, veganism also poses cultural questions. Food is not only a source of nutrition but also of communal activity, celebration, and symbolism. Many religious and cultural festivals centre around specific food, and in particular meat, such as turkey at Thanksgiving or Christmas, and a lamb shank on a Seder plate for Passover.

Such traditions might well evolve, and perhaps even quicker than we might imagine — just look at the rapid changes in smoking and drinking habits over just one generation in the U.K. But what about cultures around the globe where animal-intense diets are a climate necessity, and an essential part of community practice over centuries, or even millennia? Cultures such as the Inuit in Arctic and sub-Arctic Inuit, which eat seals, walrus, birds, eggs, and a wide variety of fish. Or the Maasai in Eastern Africa, whose traditional diet consists of the milk, blood, and meat of the cattle they raise.

Just as veganism has wider ramifications on society, the hunting, raising, and eating of animals has an integral role for these cultures and their communities. What happens, not only economically but also culturally if the Maasai and Inuit need to import other food, or if their practices cease to exist? Will they or can they
be replaced? Is it possible to maintain an identity if such a fundamental shift occurs?

All things considered, an all vegan planet holds much promise. Scaled up, plant-centric living would almost certainly be more sustainable and healthy at both a human and a planetary level. But humans are not only physical creatures. We are social and cultural and psychological and culinary, and in imagining a vegan planet, we must not underestimate the frameworks of identity and belonging that surround what we eat. A plant-based planet would likely do wonders for our climate and our collective health, but it may be in incremental – rather than absolute – changes that we are able to retain the diversity that is also who we are.

Words by Eliza Apperly

Should We All Be Vegan? (The Big Idea)

Is gender fluid (the big idea), will ai replace us (the big idea).

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Veganism, Moral Motivation and False Consciousness

Susana pickett.

School of History, Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Despite the strength of arguments for veganism in the animal rights literature, alongside environmental and other anthropocentric concerns posed by industrialised animal agriculture, veganism remains only a minority standpoint. In this paper, I explore the moral motivational problem of veganism from the perspectives of moral psychology and political false consciousness. I argue that a novel interpretation of the post-Marxist notion of political false consciousness may help to make sense of the widespread refusal to shift towards veganism. Specifically, the notion of false consciousness fills some explanatory gaps left by the moral psychological notion of akrasia , often understood to refer to a weakness of will. Central to my approach is the idea that animal exploitation is largely systemic and the assumption that moral motivation is inseparable from moral thinking. In this light, the primary obstacle to the adoption of veganism arises not so much from a failure to put genuine beliefs into action, but rather in a shared, distorted way of thinking about animals. Thus, common unreflective objections to veganism may be said to be manifestations of false consciousness.

Introduction

Why does the case for veganism often fail to convince? Insofar as it does sway opinion, why then does it fail to motivate large-scale social change? Whilst moral disagreements are inevitable, the core case for veganism from the animal rights perspective – complemented as it is by environmental, social justice, and global health considerations – is robust. 1 Considering this jointly with commonly held moral principles, one might reasonably expect the percentage of vegans to be much higher, at least in economically developed societies. On the other hand, apathy towards veganism prevails, and common objections to veganism often rest on rationalisations (Piazza 2015 , p. 114). In this paper, I suggest that a failure to accept the moral status of animals as required by veganism may itself constitute a failure of moral motivation (hereinafter referred to as motivation). Central to this position is the premise that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable, and thus thinking does not necessarily precede motivation. If this is the case, then common excuses presented against veganism express failures of motivation rather than intent, by which I mean the motivation to think of animals as being recipients of moral consideration in a manner that conflicts with our social habits and received opinion.

To narrow the scope of my opening questions, I examine the motivational problem from two radically opposing perspectives; namely akrasia and false consciousness. Akrasia – often known as ‘weakness of the will’ – is a failure of practical reasoning whereby individuals act knowingly and willingly against their better judgement. This idea has already been developed by Aaltola ( 2016 ) to explain the widespread reluctance to adopt veganism. Marxian false consciousness, by contrast, is traditionally understood as the social consciousness of an exploited class. It leads individuals to act – not fully knowingly or willingly, and thus not akratically – under a dominant ideology. This ideology may run contrary to one’s best interests, but I argue that it can also taint one’s conception of the ‘greater’ good. I understand false as applying to groups of individuals beyond social class, and argue that it is false consciousness, rather than akrasia, that is more likely to be a persistent condition that dampens motivation. As such, false consciousness may have greater explanatory power than akrasia for the widespread refusal to shift towards veganism.

This paper is divided into three sections. First, I offer a brief overview of the motivational difficulties associated with veganism, specifically the role of willpower and typically presented rationalisations. Second, I give an overview of akrasia and the structure of akratic action. Furthermore, I consider social factors which impact upon our moral thinking, serving to highlight that moral thinking is not reducible to syllogistic-style reasoning. Shortcomings of the application of akrasia lead on to the final section on false consciousness, wherein I explore the persistency of dominant ideologies and their impact upon moral thinking and motivation.

The Vegan Motivational Problem

Moral motivation is typically conceived as the phenomenon of being motivated to do what one judges to be the right thing to do. Naturally, moral reasons can conflict with one’s self-interest and other reasons. In the animal ethics literature, care ethicists, including Luke ( 1992 ), are critical of the mainstream, rationalist approach exemplified by Singer ( 2015 ) and Regan ( 2004 ). The rationalist approach tends to put forward arguments for veganism and vegetarianism without tackling the motivational question of why some people may be convinced by their arguments but fail to put their beliefs into action. By contrast, care ethicists consider humans to have an innate sense of empathy towards animals, which is the basis of moral motivation, but such empathy needs to be cultivated. A problem with this approach is that most people carry on eating animals despite being empathetic to their suffering. Indeed, it is not unusual for carnivores to feel guilt and avoid imagining a slaughtered cow when eating a hamburger (Greenebaum 2012 , p. 316). Hence, it is pertinent to ask why veganism poses such motivational difficulties, considering that the public possesses some moral regard for animals as well as varying degrees of empathy for animals.

Bona Fide Challenges

While some aspects of veganism, such as health and environmental considerations, may be motivated by human self-interest, other dimensions conflict not only with narrow self-interest but also with prudential self-interest. As such, they constitute bona fide reasons to act or side against veganism. ‘Go vegan’ approaches present veganism as being easy, yet some challenges merit attention. These include financial sacrifice, social alienation, and conflict. However, I argue that taste (flavour) is not a bona fide reason.

First, veganism may sometimes involve financial sacrifice. This is because vegan substitutes often cost more (Mills 2019 , p. 17). However, this does not apply to a large part of the population who has access to and can afford plant-based foods. Second, veganism involves alienation. Food is communal in family and social situations, and a vegan at the table can be seen as a threat (Twine 2014 , p. 632). Worse still, vegans often experience exclusion and disapproval (Bresnahan et al. 2016 , p. 13) and such forms of discrimination as ‘vegaphobia’ can arise (Horta 2018 , p. 359). Third, veganism involves moral conflict, not only because of how vegans are perceived but also because of how they perceive others. Raimond Gaita states that vegans who provocatively shout, ‘meat is murder’ exhibit a pathological gap between what they profess and how they act, in that ‘they don’t act as though they live among murderers’ (Gaita 2016 , pp. 22–23). This insight is powerful, even when applied to less polarising claims such as ‘meat involves unnecessary suffering’. From the perspective of some vegans, it can be soul-draining to inhabit a world that celebrates animal consumption and forces ‘question upon question from non-vegan interlocutors’ (Reid 2017 , p. 39), and vegans are often asked to justify their standpoint and then subsequently criticised for being ‘preachy’ (Cole and Morgan 2011 , p. 149). Fourth, radical factions can create tension with other individuals who do not live up to the expectations of the ‘hegemonic vegan frame’, a phrase coined by Wrenn ( 2019 ) to describe highly bureaucratised veganism (often referred to as the ‘vegan police’). There are indeed many ‘veganisms’ (Jones 2016 , p. 24). Hence, vegans may face opposition, not only from non-vegans but also from other vegans.

Finally, Kazez ( 2018 ) argues that food taste is not necessarily trivial. For example, persistently unpalatable food could affect one’s wellbeing. However, I disagree that this constitutes a bona fide argument against veganism, because it is based on a hypothetical consideration that assumes too much since not all vegan food tastes disgusting to most people. As Singer notes, it is not as if animal flesh is uniformly delicious and vegetarian food is uniformly awful (Singer 1980 , p. 333). Given this logic, one can reasonably object on the basis that taste is typically trivial when compared with what Rowlands ( 2013 , p. 6) refers to as an animal’s ‘vital interests’. What is one to make, then, of those seemingly incapable of going vegan owing to their craving for meat? For instance, Eugene Mills recounts how he gave up after trying to be vegan for three days. His cravings for hamburgers became so powerful that he became distracted from the pursuit of important projects (Mills 2019 , p. 19). It is not clear, though, that he deemed veganism to be an important long-term project.

Excepting taste, the aforementioned challenges can constitute bona fide, prima facie reasons for not embracing veganism. When coupled with the realisation that one’s lifestyle choices may have little positive impact globally (this is the phenomenon of ‘causal inefficacy’ which I discuss in more detail later), and after considering the disconnect between consumption, production, and killing, these reasons can become powerful. As a result, it may require substantial willpower to become a vegan against one’s cultural traditions. There are cases, however, where veganism does not require willpower. For example, where veganism is second nature (Lumsden 2017 , p. 221); or one finds joy rather than sacrifice in veganism (Aaltola 2015 , p. 42). In general, though, the act of becoming a vegan does require some degree of willpower.

Willpower in Deliberation

One may object on the grounds that, if animals have no moral status, as Hsiao ( 2015 , p. 284) proposes, then the moral motivational question of veganism does not arise. However, I disagree that this is necessarily the case. It appears to me that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable in the same way that reason and feeling cannot be fully separated, any more than form and content can. Indeed, without motivation, moral thinking would not be possible, for what else would motivate the thinking insofar as moral thinking is not purely theoretical? Hence, when I speak about moral motivation, albeit broadly conceived, I also include the motivation to deliberate about moral matters, including those concerning animals. According to this view, which I refer to as the ‘motivational unity thesis’, motivation is not always something that takes place at the end of a practical deliberation as to whether it is right or wrong to act (this is the narrow conception of motivation). Motivation is also needed to see certain others as worthy of moral deliberation in the first place.

The idea that animals have no moral worth is not commonplace, but the notion that animals are of lesser worth is central to the orthodoxy of animal welfare, a commonly held view which justifies animal suffering according to their utility to humans. This view has been said to explain ‘some of the apparently schizophrenic attitudes to animals that occur in Britain and elsewhere’ (Garner 2013 , p. 80). Regardless of whether one believes that animals are of lesser, or indeed no moral worth (or whether one has ever considered any of this in terms of moral worth), the motivation to think things through with moral seriousness fails when we conclude that we have a right to eat or kill an animal merely because, for example, it is traditional, natural, or simply because the animal was raised on a local farm or one with higher welfare standards than some other farms.

More elaborate justifications against veganism can be provided, but we fail to do justice to animals as the objects of our deliberation if we conclude that safeguarding our lifestyle habits is generally a good enough reason to justify animal exploitation. This constitutes a broad motivational failure insofar as we fail to view animals as individuals who are ‘equally real’, to borrow Thomas Nagel’s phrase (Nagel 1970 , p. 14). Still, one might lodge at least two objections. First, there is no motivational failure if it is not deemed morally objectionable to use animals as commodities in industrialised societies. Second, one might concede that a motivational failure only exists if one holds the conviction that veganism is morally obligatory, yet otherwise fails (akratically) to act accordingly.

Since this paper is not an argument for veganism, I cannot respond to the first objection directly but can link it to the second objection. To clarify, I can invoke the motivational unity thesis to argue that motivational failures can take place at the level of thinking alone (including what kind of beings to include in these considerations), and not merely when it comes to putting beliefs into action. Based on this premise, the exclusion of animals from serious moral consideration is tantamount to moral nihilism and leads only to further rationalisations when probed. Therefore, in addition to the prudential ( bona fide ) reasons against veganism discussed earlier, I now turn my attention to some common rationalisations.

Two Rationalisations

Rationalisations against veganism readily occur when the issue is not thought through. Indeed, we are prone to motivated ignorance (Tam 2019 , p. 6). The objection that animals only exist to be eaten and various other defensive tactics, exhibit apathy in the face of superior evidence to the contrary. Poor argumentation is relevant to motivation because thinking requires effort, while social habits and contempt inhibit it. Many rationalisations against veganism are merely strawmen, yet more sophisticated objections permeate the animal ethics literature, namely the causal inefficacy objection and the principle of unnecessary harm. On the one hand, causal inefficacy is the idea that an individual’s veganism has no impact on the market, specifically that one’s veganism will not make a difference to overall meat consumption. On the other hand, unnecessary harm is the principle (in the current context) by which it is unjustifiable to harm animals when vegan alternatives are available—a principle that is subject to distortion. Both principles are nonetheless interesting as they serve as a double-edged sword, both for and against veganism.

The causal inefficacy objection to veganism has accrued a vast literature which has been recently summarised by Fischer ( 2020 ). It is related to the ‘free-rider’ problem of rational choice theory, although my concern here is with the role of motivation in our thinking about causal inefficacy serving effectively as a proverbial ‘get out of jail free card’. There is a parallel with global warming, whereby people manage feelings of hopelessness with expressions such as ‘what can one person do?’, often to avoid thinking about a challenging issue (Cole & Morgan 2011 , p. 156). In fact, from the existence of a global problem alone, nothing clearly and directly follows with regards to individual responsibility.

In this context, group identity can be powerful, since a group can be more impactful and offer moral support: ‘within the safe bubble of the vegan community, its practitioners are noticeably joyous’ (Twine 2014 , p. 637). Relatedly, hope plays an important role in moral thinking. Moody-Adams ( 2017 , p. 155–6) discusses the motivating power of hope, specifically how those social movements which deepened our understanding of justice and compassion were driven by those who were confident in acting on their moral convictions and hopeful of moral change. Similarly, Agnes Tam emphasises the power of “We-reasoning” as a distinctive form of communitarian rationality (Tam 2019 , p. 3). Naturally, this does not mean that one abandons self-critical thinking, but it is a potential pitfall of identity groups (Fukuyama 2018 , p. 115).

As Garner points out, the phrase ‘unnecessary harm’ is somewhat vague, a catch-all that can have political advantages in supporting a spectrum of speciesist positions depending on geographical and historical factors (Garner 2013 , p. 81). For example, animal harm is viewed as a necessary evil in support of traditional forms of hospitality and economic interests. Central to the manipulation of these principles is the conflation of difficult, often potentially intractable empirical and analytic problems with practical moral matters about how one should live. In this vein, Reid has pointed out that simply not having a fully worked out theory of veganism is not sufficient reason, in of itself, for not becoming a vegan, in the same way as not having a fully worked out theory of knowledge is not a justification for epistemic scepticism (Reid 2017 , p. 38). Indeed, veganism can be seen as a practical stance in response to animal exploitation, even though it can only ever be aspirational, for it is not possible to avoid causing harm altogether (Gruen and Jones 2016 , p. 157–158). In order to reach the vegan practical conclusion, one need not have to resolve intractable problems of causation, collective responsibility, or necessity.

I have argued, because moral thinking and motivation are not entirely separable, that distorted thinking can dampen motivation, while motivational failures may also result in morally distorted thinking. Take, for instance, the conflation of difficult empirical and philosophical matters with practical moral considerations. Next, I consider how philosophers have traditionally accounted for the breakdown of moral motivation in practical deliberation, and how this can be applied to the vegan motivational problem.

Omnivore’s Akrasia

Akrasia , sometimes referred to as a weakness of will or incontinence, is often understood to mean an intentional action contrary to one’s better judgement. It is, by definition, rather a failure of practical rationality in the shape of a motivational failure. The literature on akrasia dates back to ancient Greek philosophy and the contemporary literature in moral psychology is often technical. To be concise, I assume that akrasia is possible and follow Davidson’s ( 1980 ) definition of akrasia as an action that is free, intentional, and contrary to a full-blown practical judgement.

In doing x an agent acts incontinently if and only if: (a) the agent does x intentionally; (b) the agent believes there is an alternative action y open to him; and (c) the agent judges that, all things considered, it would be better to do y than to do x . (Davidson 1980 , p. 22)

Practical reasoning often starts with prima facie judgements, whereupon various reasons are weighted against each other until an evaluative conclusion is derived. When deliberating whether one ought to become a vegan, prima facie reasons might include animal welfare, health, or environmental concerns (notwithstanding myriad other reasons for and against veganism, including one’s psychological and social wellbeing, or how one’s actions will be perceived by others). An individual may accept good overall reasons for adopting veganism, yet fail to embrace it in practice. Indeed, this seems quite plausible. Elisa Aaltola ( 2015 ) coined the term ‘omnivore’s akrasia ’ to refer to the state arising in those who voluntarily consume animal products despite believing that they have been produced by immoral means. Could widespread akrasia , then, play a major role in preventing a significant proportion of the public from adopting veganism? I argue that, despite its explanatory power, the traditional approach is subject to two limitations.

The Limits of Traditional Akrasia

A limitation of akrasia is that moral decisions, such as the decision to go vegan, may not necessarily be the outcome of practical deliberation. On the flip side, one’s better judgement may be faulty. In explanation, ‘all things considered’, or prima facie judgements may not necessarily yield a correct moral answer, not least because we are limited as epistemic and moral beings. Some philosophers (Arpaly 2000 ; Audi 1990 ; McIntyre 2006 ) have even questioned whether akrasia is necessarily irrational. What if the better judgement itself is faulty, or if the desires which ground the ‘better judgement’ fail to represent the agent’s overall desires and interests?

I shall illustrate this with a powerful example from Bennett's reflections on Huckleberry Finn (Bennett 1974 ), so that I can then explore how this applies to veganism. In Mark Twain’s famous novel, Huck believes that, all things considered, the right thing to do is to turn his slave friend Jim in to the authorities, but he fails to do so. ‘Huck hasn’t the strength of will to do what he sincerely thinks he ought to do’ (Bennett 1974 , p. 126). He acts simply out of sympathy for Jim. This turns akrasia on its head, for Huck acts out of moral necessity (he cannot do otherwise), yet he acts against his better judgement.

Similarly, veganism may not necessarily be the direct outcome of practical deliberation. For some, the commitment to veganism may happen over and above any prima facie considerations. It may be the case that one already has an inner necessity. For example, one is moved by the visceral repugnance of the slaughter and ingestion of animals or a deep sense of compassion.

Thus, one could argue that the akrasia explanation of non-veganism involves an overly simplistic, syllogistic account of moral thinking, largely ignoring the social context. Individuals are not disembodied moral agents capable of making rational decisions independently of the social contex—there is much more at stake than merely prima facie reasons in terms of practical deliberations about what one morally ought to do. Could a more nuanced, socially informed notion of akrasia serve to overcome this limitation?

Sociopolitical Akrasia

Aaltola ( 2015 , 2016 ) takes a nuanced sociopolitical approach to omnivore’s akrasia . Like Amelie Rorty ( 1997 ), she views akrasia as a social problem, in that social forces prevent veganism by placing individuals within a continual state of akrasia wherein conscious deliberation and self-control are futile. These forces include ambiguity or conflict at the root of our institutions, habit, consumerism, and the culture of immediate reward or sensory hedonism. Significantly, the meat-eaters’ paradox, in which a societal love for certain animals such as dogs and cats is cultivated, while cows, pigs, and other animals, which are equally sentient, are mistreated and slaughtered, is entrenched within our institutions (Aaltola 2016 , p. 118).

Despite these conflictual beliefs, 2 most individuals believe that food choices are rational but overlook how these choices are grounded via emotive, cultural, or otherwise more ambiguous justifications (Aaltola 2016 , p. 117). Habit perpetuates the meat-eaters’ paradox for, although the original reason for eating meat was survival, it is no longer essential for a large part of the world’s population, so it is in some ways a mindless habit and one that is exacerbated by consumerism. Given this, asking individuals to exercise self-control is insufficient (Aaltola 2016 , p. 124). Indeed, ‘our akratic choices may take place beyond the possibility of conscious deliberation, and thereby beyond the possibility of conscious hedonism or egoism’ (Aaltola 2016 , p. 131). This results in a vicious circle wherein contempt may feed moral apathy and we may thus become apathetic to act altruistically. Therefore, Aaltola ( 2016 , p. 135) concludes that we are in a state of continual akrasia .

Whilst such application of akrasia is insightful, akrasia may not be the best explanation for the phenomenon of widespread omnivorism. Crucially, the possibility of perpetual akrasia seems absurd, especially given that akrasia is, by definition, free intentional action contrary to one’s better judgement. In the context of permanent akrasia , as described by Aaltola, individuals are not acting freely or intentionally, and their better judgement is not to become vegans. As such, they are not akratically failing to become vegans: they never set out to do so in the first place, so there is no motivational failure as the rational outcome of practical deliberation.

Similarly, akrasia may not be the best notion to incorporate mindlessness, self-deception or voluntary ignorance. The notion of akrasia struggles to accommodate the fact that not all our thinking is transparent, bona fide , or easily moulded into practical syllogisms. For instance, it has been said that, once we are accustomed to behaving in ways that have implicit normative content, we struggle to contemplate the possibility of change and may thus engage in self-deception to justify wrongful actions (Cooke 2017 , p. 9). John Searle exemplified one such deception: ‘I try not to think about animal rights because I fear I’d have to become a vegetarian if I worked it out consistently.’ (Cooke 2017 , p. 10).

Indeed, such deception is more likely to be widely shared, given that most people give similar excuses against veganism, commonly referred to as the 4Ns (the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice; Piazza et al. 2015 ). For Luke ( 1992 , p. 106), such rationalisations consume abundant social energy. However, one can object that very little thinking power is normally used, even though the passions may be inflamed. Given these limitations, one must ask whether the notion of false consciousness would fare any better in accounting for such persistent motivational gaps and largely unreflective responses to veganism or be more cohesive with the idea that animal exploitation is largely systemic.

Omnivore’s False Consciousness

False consciousness is a post-Marxian notion. Although Marx did not use the phrase ‘fase consciousness’, the notion is embedded in much of his thinking. Thus, Miller ( 1972 , p. 433) argues that a broad interpretation of the related concept of ideology, understood as applying to theories, belief-systems and practices involving the use of ideas, has great explanatory power concerning the persistency and influence of ideologies over the actions of the groups who adopt such ideologies. Crucially, if such a group is confronted by others holding incompatible ideas, ‘it has no resources to fall back upon, it can only reaffirm its original faith’ (Miller 1972 , p. 433). Alternatively, if the ideology is seen primarily as an explanatory framework, then ‘the ideology is given repeated empirical confirmation, through the selection of what is perceived’ (Miller 1972 , p. 433). When ideologies function in these ways, they can be said to involve false consciousness. If Miller is correct, and omnivorism can be shown to depend on an ideology that necessarily involves false consciousness, then this may account for the persistency of omnivorism over reasoned arguments, thus filling the gaps left by omnivore’s akrasia .

In Marxist theory, false consciousness is essentially deemed to be political in nature and refers to the social consciousness of the proletariat as an exploited class under capitalism. It is thereby related to the concept of ideological power and forms the basis of Luke’s third dimension of power, wherein the illegitimate use of power by one group over another confers the power to mislead (Lukes 2005 , p. 149). To put it simply, it is the power to control what groups think as being right, resulting in biased acceptance without question. Marx and Engels used the concept of ideology to refer to ‘the distorted beliefs intellectuals [hold] about society and the power of their own ideas. Those who produced ideologies suffered from false consciousness: they were deluded about their own beliefs.’ (Eyerman 1981 , p. 43). Given this tenet, one may be puzzled by my use of false consciousness, as it seems to shift the construct of veganism to being about people rather than about animals. How, then, is false consciousness relevant to the problem of motivation in veganism, given that animals are the exploited group in question, even to the extent that some theorists, such as Perlo ( 2002 , p.306), have likened animals to the proletariat?

The notion of false consciousness has evolved since its origins, and my intention here is to expand its application further. Marx’s concept was further developed by Gramsci, Lukacs and the early Frankfurt School, and later expanded to apply to any social class with a ‘limited form of experience in society’ (Eyerman 1981 , p. 43–44). Thus, it is not limited to Marxian class and has been more applied broadly to groups both before and after the rise of capitalism. For example, Michael Rosen ( 2016 , p. 10) sees Marxian false consciousness as a critique and the development of rationalistic understandings of a previously unformulated notion of false consciousness, beginning with Plato, for whom irrationality of the soul led to the injustices of the state; and Aristotle, for whom false consciousness is necessarily akratic . Omnivore’s false consciousness may thus be viewed as a novel development and a particular application of false consciousness 3 to a broad majority of humans who practise omnivorism in economically developed societies.

Narrow and Broad False Consciousness

So, what then is false about false consciousness? False consciousness is often portrayed in terms of one being misled about one’s true interests. However, there is a distinction arising between being blinded by one’s interests (i.e., being impetuous) and being blind to them, where false consciousness is often associated with the latter (Runciman 1969 , p. 303). The self-interest interpretation, however, omits the altruistic and moral dimensions of human thinking, whereby one may also be blind not only to others’ interests but also to their moral dimension. Traditionally, false consciousness is about group interest and social ontology, but I shall argue that it can also distort moral thinking in much the same way as it distorts non-moral thinking. The notion that Marxism is not totally abstracted from morality is not novel (e.g., Lukes 1985 ), so I will instead set the context before I explain how it bears on veganism.

Marx avoided talk about morality, not only because he hated preaching and was distrustful of the moralist per se (Popper 1995 , p. 220), but because he saw contemporary morality as being part of the bourgeois superstructure, in which class morality added an extra layer of false consciousness. The worker believes, according to Singer, that capitalist has a moral right to the profits 4 (Singer 2018 , p. 83). Although Lenin and others claimed that Marx’s theory was purely scientific, it has since been argued that Marx held a normative position, not least because of his desire to end capitalism (Cochrane 2010 , p. 95; Singer 2018 , p. 82), his hatred of servility, and his ‘desire for a better world that it is hard not to see as moral’ (Lukes 1985 , p. 3).

Central to the Marxian notion of false consciousness is the tenet that both the capitalist and proletariat are afflicted by it and, thus, that the proletariat believed, whether implicitly or explicitly, that the capitalist had a moral or legitimate right to profit. If proletarian Jim held such a belief about himself, he would also believe that the capitalist had a right to the labour of his fellow proletarians. In this world view, the proletariat is both wronged by the capitalist and unaware that they have been wronged. Similarly, capitalists had so distorted or delimited moral ideas insofar as they too failed to acknowledge the true interests of the exploited group and were unaware of their wrongdoing. In the case of animals, the public largely carries on supporting systemic practices of animal-exploitation without acknowledging the wrongs inflicted on animals in its name.

Hence, false consciousness may be understood narrowly as relating to either self or group interest or, more broadly, as including an altruistic moral dimension in the sense of limiting such a dimension. Indeed, if I am blind to my own true interests, then I may not necessarily be receptive to those of other people or those of animals. My claim is not that there is a causal link between blindness to one’s own interests and blindness to the interests of others, but rather that it is absurd to contend that false consciousness impacts only one’s self-interested thinking. Crucially, false consciousness may so taint one’s conception of the good and limit the moral self, that it has the effect of occluding the motivational difficulties of veganism. Hence, the akratic break (motivational failure) does not actually take place, at least not explicitly.

This broad interpretation of false consciousness presupposes a close link between alienation and false consciousness. As Rosen states in his discussion of Marx’s early writings on alienation as a form of life, ‘the alienated worker’s failure to recognize himself in the product of his labour and the failure of isolated individuals to recognize each other fully as fellow human beings are expressions of false consciousness that are lived and experienced before they are theorized about or reflected upon.’ (Rosen 2016 , p. 35). In this sense, the moral self is not impervious to false consciousness. This is interesting within the context of the vegan debate, as the cumulative case for veganism (i.e., the case from a wide range of perspectives) encompasses both moral and enlightened self-interested strands. If we deem both the narrow and broad sense of false consciousness to be appropriate, then this may help to explain how a substantial proportion of the general public may be somewhat blinded by the dominant animal-exploiting ideology in contrasting, yet complementary ways, so as to render the ideology quite impenetrable.

This narrow sense of false consciousness applies to the case for veganism from either anthropocentric or enlightened self-interest perspectives. Strictly, these perspectives support plant-based living as opposed to fully blown ethical veganism but are largely consistent with it. Overall, exploitative animal practices are agreed to have a detrimental impact on the environment, sustainability, and climate change (Rosi 2017 ; Sabaté & Soret 2014 ), as well as global human health (Tuso 2013 ) and that of future generations (Deckers 2011 ). Zoonotic diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have also been traced to wet markets where animals are confined within unnatural and unsanitary conditions (Singer 2020 , pp. 82–83). Despite these, and other harms to humans, the animal agricultural complex has a vested interest in continued animal exploitation. Moreover, the advertising industry and media can exercise tremendous power in perpetuating the desire to consume animal products.

There are at least two difficulties with the attribution of narrow false consciousness in these scenarios. First, the oppressor and oppressed (or exploiter and exploited) groups are not distinct, for at least some humans count as the exploited, even though they too contribute to animal exploitation through their consumption and labour. Although this complicates matters, it does not in of itself make the premise of false consciousness impossible, for (unlike Marxian social class) an individual can belong to more than one group at any one time. In this respect, animals are posited as the oppressed, yet humans are both oppressor and oppressed. In fact, the presumption of such a stark dichotomy of classes would have very little application in terms of the animal agricultural complex which lacks any clearly defined boundaries.

Second, false consciousness is supposed to affect both the exploiter and exploited alike, but it is not altogether clear why it would not be in the interest of the exploiter to exploit, particularly in terms of material self-interest. It may well be that the exploiting group is subject to false consciousness but is not necessarily deceived about its own material self-interest. After all, many people’s livelihoods depend on animal agriculture, which does not go against their immediate, material self-interest. However, the exploiter might be in denial about the consequences of their own exploitation. In Hegel’s dialectic, which influenced Marx’s thinking, the master (to his own detriment) becomes too dependent on the slave. When translated in terms of the current exploitation of animals and nature, exploiters act in such a way as though they are blind to the ultimate consequences of their actions, yet the crucial difference here lies between enlightened self-interest in the medium term and the long run, for it is the latter that false consciousness is supposed to affect.

On the other hand, in a somewhat broader sense, false consciousness acts against the case for veganism from the point of view of ethical and political perspectives such as animal rights and care ethics. These are deemed to be ‘veganism for the animals’ perspectives that constitute the core of ethical veganism, which are not defensible from the standpoint of self-interest. In this context, false consciousness might serve as a good explanatory match for two phenomena; namely the absence of moral reflection on whether one ought to become a vegan (in light of the meat-eater's paradox), and second, the poverty of thinking exemplified by the public’s common rebuttals in response to arguments for veganism.

Although not all objections or negative responses to veganism are crude, there is a widespread social malaise in the form of a prevalent moral apathy towards the exploitation of animals. This matter is political, not only from the perspective that humans exercise illegitimate power over animals but also that animals are worthy of political justice as argued, for example, in The Political Turn in Animal Ethics (Garner and O'Sullivan 2016 ). Further, it could be construed that the public’s commonplace objections to veganism are socially determined and thus often devoid of individual self-expression. The issue is also a very personal one, in the sense that moral thinking is inextricably personal, yet such thinking may at times be thwarted by sociopolitical imperatives. When deliberating on whether one ought to become a vegan, insofar as one engages in moral discourse at all, the moral problem is, and ought to be, inescapably one’s own in the sense that one cannot pass it on to someone else to resolve on one’s behalf (on this topic see Gaita 1989 , p. 128), let alone rely on the unexamined opinions of the majority. However, this is precisely what tends to happen when people confront veganism. The next step, then, is to relate common, unreflective objections to veganism to aspects of political false consciousness.

Four Features of False Consciousness

To deconstruct how thinking can be systematically distorted, I build on Miller’s account of the four dimensions of false consciousness (Miller 1972 , p. 443–444), sketching how these features may be manifested in omnivore’s false consciousness. The four interrelated features are conceptual inadequacy, isolation of phenomena, eternalisation, and reification.

First, false consciousness involves a degree of conceptual inadequacy in that it leads to fallacious reasoning . For example, generalisations based on superficial similarity, whereupon subsequent analysis can reveal them to be disparate. Conceptual inadequacy includes such common injunctions against veganism as animals being unintelligent, carnivorism natural, and vegans self-righteous. These claims expose distortion as empirical analysis – and frequently linguistic or logical analysis alone – can prove them to be fallacious.

For instance, does it follow from the premise that animals are less intelligent that we have a moral right to eat them? Does the fact that something is natural necessarily make an action or attitude morally justifiable? Are all vegans self-righteous? Even if they all are, this latter argument is effectively ad hominem and therefore invalid. Similarly, the idea that veganism is impossible because nobody can ever avoid partaking in harming animals is to misunderstand the very concept of veganism. It exhibits fallacious reasoning by misusing the concept of vagueness. Just because there are borderline cases between a child and an adult, or shades of grey, it does not necessarily follow that nobody can ever be an adult, or that nothing can be truly black. The same holds true for veganism. While nobody would seriously deny that adulthood or true blackness are possible, many are prepared to subject veganism to a reductio ad absurdum . These common examples of conceptual inadequacy are not isolated mistakes, or merely manifestations of the ignorance of specific information, but rather are fundamental ways in which thought fails. They are manifestations of how the acceptance of the moral and political legitimacy (or neutrality) of animal exploitation is deeply rooted within the collective consciousness and embedded within our social institutions.

Second, the process involves the isolation of phenomena, notably a refusal to see an instance of individual behaviour as being part of a wider social system. For example, the belief that one exercises free will in consumer choices 5 and, therefore, that one’s decision to eat animals is autonomous when one is, in actuality, making socially conditioned decisions which are influenced by the meat industry. Hence, Nibert talks of a socially engineered public consciousness, highlighting how organisations such as the ‘Center for Consumer Freedom’ exploit both the concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘consumer choice’ (Nibert 2013 , p. 266). Since others are doing the same, these attitudes are considered to be justificatory of the wider system.

Third, it involves eternalisation, whereby conventional relationships or characteristics are regarded as being permanently fixed within the nature of things. For example, in medieval Europe, society was ranked hierarchically from God down to inanimate objects. Similarly, the hierarchical belief in speciesism is effectively an extension of the belief that ‘might is right’, wherein biological omnivorism is extrapolated to entail a right to exploit animals. For Cooke, the view of the innate inferiority of animals is embedded within our social consciousness, and the moral imagination must be cultivated to break out of such self-deception (Cooke 2017 , p. 14–15). This feature of false consciousness serves as the key to perpetuating certain practices.

Let us consider an example of eternalisation, such as the common belief (in some countries) that a turkey must be the centrepiece of the Christmas dinner table, as tradition dictates, in such a way that a vegan alternative is deemed to be out of the question. In what way is this thinking distorted? How does it manifest as a form of false consciousness? One of the distortions revolves around the false belief that tradition is alone sufficient justification for engaging in a specific practice. Some traditions, such as forced marriages, are morally wrong and so tradition alone does not morally justify a practice. It constitutes a distorted form of thinking rather than a question of holding a false belief, as most individuals living in liberal societies do accept that tradition alone does not morally justify a practice. It manifests as a form of false consciousness insofar as the distortion is not politically neutral.

Like most animal agriculture, the mass confinement, fattening and slaughter of hundreds of millions of turkeys aged between 14 and 24 weeks for Christmas involves the illegitimate use of power of humans over animals. Yet, such traditions continue, not only because people enjoy certain flavours and family traditions, but also because a powerful industry lobby has a vested interest in perpetuating and normalising this form of animal exploitation. For example, in December 2019, the UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) took issue with a BBC commercial in which a cartoon turkey wearing an ‘I Love Vegans’ sweater announced ‘less of us have been gobbled this year’ (The Telegraph 2019 ). The NFU feared that the BBC was promoting a political view. What was not questioned, however, was that the farming and killing of animals may not be a politically neutral standpoint.

Finally, it involves reification. It reduces individuals to the status of mere objects of fixed properties, their individuality denied, similar to the archetypal Nazi depiction of the Jew (Miller 1972 , p. 444). Animals, too, are objectified when reduced to the status of commodities such as forms of food or modes of transportation, or even being owned as pets. As expressed by Cole and Morgan ( 2011 , p. 149), ‘ethics are simply ruled out of order by the prior to objectification and invisibilisation of nonhuman animals that speciesist material and cultural practices instantiate’. This takes place on a large scale, even when people are generally aware that animals such as the Christmas turkey are (or rather were) individuals, not mere things. Still, animals are essentially commodified, an idea that also links into Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism.

Miller’s analysis provides a framework for dissecting how common objections to veganism, and the belief systems that ground them, are distorted and thereby largely unmovable. It gives weight to the idea that these objections manifest false consciousness. As a form of political false consciousness, omnivore’s false consciousness involves distorted and limited forms of thinking that are not often scrutinised. I have only touched on a small number of common objections to veganism, although there are many others, such as those exemplified in a defensive omnivore board. 6 When one of these notions is challenged, many more excuses are proffered.

What these distorted forms of thinking lack in terms of sobriety they make up for in intuitive persuasiveness by conforming to a widely accepted worldview or way of life. According to this worldview, nonhuman animals are inferior to human animals in politically significant ways that accord the latter the moral entitlement to exploit the former. As Miller recognises, one cannot easily fight instances of false consciousness by pointing out isolated errors. Thus a broader stance is needed, yet it may not be possible to avoid false consciousness altogether (Miller 1972 , p. 444). Therefore, one might ask what makes false consciousness not only possible but also so persistent and prevalent?

The Persistency of Ideologies

The link between false consciousness and ideology is key to its persistency. Gauthier ( 1997 , p.27–28) points out that the notion of an ‘ideology’ is employed inconsistently, yet is generally regarded as a pejorative aspect of our consciousness. He sees ideology as a theoretical construct, part of the ‘deep structure of self-consciousness’, that is, the capacity to conceive oneself relative to others and therefore to act in light of this conception of oneself as a member of the human species. Although it can be the subject of reflection, it is necessarily pre-reflective. This sounds puzzling, but Gauthier sees a similarity between ideology and language in that ‘both conceal a deep structure which unconsciously affects conscious activity’ (Gauthier 1997 , p. 28). Even if one cannot think outside the boundaries of a specific language or ideology, reflection and critique are still possible, thereby enabling moral progress.

Like languages, ideologies also promote social commonality. One of the main functions of social institutions is to maintain and transmit a common ideology (Gauthier 1997 , p. 28). Hence, individuals with very different ideologies, such as vegans and non-vegans, may find communication difficult. Moreover, for Marx, an ideology was not merely false but served an intentional role both in upholding the extant social order (Rawls 2008 , p. 361) and continuing the status quo in terms of the exploitation of the proletariat. For example, hiding the act of robbery within the construct of capitalism is essential. Similarly, exploiters of animals do not want to be perceived to be exploitative, whether these agents be the state or the lawmakers protecting animal-exploiting institutions. Farmers’ associations have privileged access in terms of shaping the viewpoint of the media and in influencing agricultural policy and legislation (Benton 1993 , p. 160). For example, both the US and Australia have introduced ‘ag-gag’ laws that essentially criminalise the dissemination of information about the treatment of animals (O'Sullivan 2016 , p. 53). Moreover, the institutionalised praise of exploiters and punishment of animal liberationists is not a morally neutral position with regard to conceptions of the good that liberal states purport to do. As Schmitz says, ‘the animal question debunks the appearance of neutrality’ (Schmitz 2016 , p. 42).

If we interpret ideologies as being pre-reflective, this aids in explaining their persistency and evasiveness from rational argumentation. As Miller suggests, repeated selective perception confirms the ideology (Miller 1972 , p. 433), yet it is difficult to construct a simple verification or falsification test, as ideologies are false at the level of the whole (Miller 1972 , p. 435). As such, they are not a mere set of commonly held ideas, but rather embody attitudes, common behaviours, and practices. Thus, the ideology that dominates our relationship with animals in developed societies gives rise to a level of false consciousness. It is pre-reflective in that societies embrace omnivorism without perceiving the moral need to justify it, although it is possible to reflect on it. When the dominant ideology is challenged, rationalisations can ensue. Since an ideology is not a specific set of beliefs that can be proven to be true or false in isolation, it is very difficult to ‘prove’ that omnivorism is morally wrong, or that veganism is right in such a way that any rational moral agent could be convinced.

One might object to the premise that attributing false consciousness is arrogant, for it requires a privileged perspective in terms of intellect and education. As Polsby states, ‘the presumption that the “real” interests of a class can be assigned to them by an analyst allows the analyst to charge “false consciousness” when the class in question disagrees with the analyst’ (Polsby 1963 , p. 22–3). However, is the attribution of false consciousness necessarily arrogant? Lukes ( 2005 , p. 149–150) argues that recognising the possibility of false consciousness is neither condescending, nor inherently illiberal, or even paternalistic. He considers, for example, J.S. Mill’s analysis of the subjection of Victorian women to the rule of men (in Mill 2009 [1869], p. 25) which can be interpreted as showing how most women were subject to false consciousness in the form of voluntary servitude, as opposed to coercive power. In light of such historic examples, and the fact that gender equality is now largely undisputed, the objection from arrogance is begs a question in that it denies the possibility that anyone might ever be politically deceived. It is ad hominem insofar as it attacks the character of the analyst, not the soundness of their views. Similarly, if future generations were to embrace the cause of animal rights and veganism, the attribution of an omnivore’s false consciousness to previous generations may then not seem too paternalistic.

Some Marxists could argue that the notion of false consciousness simply does not apply here. That may well be the case if indeed false consciousness is taken literally in a Marxist context. Instead, I have argued that there is a broad reading of false consciousness according to which it can narrow the moral self precisely because the interests of animals are not perceived in such a way as to trigger the moral motivation to practice veganism. In fact, I have attempted to detach the concept from Marxist theory as far as possible, so that one does not have to embrace Marxism in order to be able to accept how such a concept (and related concepts) may command useful explanatory power where the notion of akrasia falls short. 1

If there is such a thing as omnivore’s false consciousness, it would seem to follow that animal liberation (from human oppression) requires human liberation from omnivore’s false consciousness. Broad false consciousness may need to be confronted head-on through practices that promote more reflective and altruistic thinking (Cooke 2017 ). Narrow false consciousness, on the other hand, may be tackled directly by promoting some of the benefits of plant-based living (Fetissenko 2011 ), or indirectly by creating the conditions that normalise such a lifestyle (Lumsden 2017 ), for example, by making the shift from animal to plant agriculture easier and more desirable for farmers, or through the technological development of realistic alternatives to culling animals (e.g. in vitro meat; see Milburn 2016 ). A drawback of the self-interest approach, however, is that it only favours animals contingently in those instances where enlightened human self-interest happens to be convergent with those of animals. These challenges make a global shift to veganism not only fraught but also currently inaccessible to those on the opposite side of the debate. Considering how humans have habitually exploited animals, the future for most animals looks grim. On the other hand, social movements depend on hope and persist in the belief in moral progress has been said to be a regulative concept (Moody-Adams 2017 , p. 154).

Concluding Remarks

Starting from the assumption that there is a strong case for veganism in the literature, and the hypothesis that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable, I have considered how akrasia and false consciousness are ‘conceptual pathways’ through which our practical thinking about animals is distorted. Omnivore’s akrasia leaves some important gaps, for it is delimited to free and voluntary action against one’s better judgement. As such, the phenomenon of widespread omnivorism in developed societies may be better explained in terms of omnivore’s false consciousness (but I am not thereby suggesting that animal liberationists should embrace Marxism). Where omnivore’s false consciousness arises, there is no clear or explicit motivational failure to become a vegan, precisely because there is insufficient reflection for an akratic break to take occur. Further work in the field of moral psychology is evidently needed to unravel the motivational unity thesis, a theorem upon which this paper leans heavily.

Insofar as veganism expresses an ideology, it cannot be proven either to be true or morally right through arguments alone in such a way as to persuade any rational being or otherwise fully-fledged moral agent. Veganism is, as such, not an analytic truth to be derived from abstract moral principles but rather a moral way of life. Arguably, it is also a moral requirement. Principles such as causal inefficacy and unnecessary harm can be turned against veganism via analytic rationalisations which exploit scepticism and err on the side of narrow human self-interest, rather than an altruistic stance towards animals. Despite difficult technical and analytic considerations, one can experience veganism as an inescapable imperative; as a spiritual necessity; or as a powerful political identity against the oppression of animals. As such, some animal advocates may feel utter despair and therefore struggle to comprehend how others are not similarly moved. They may experience helplessness as to why common reasons against veganism are so weak. This paper is but one expression of such puzzlement, and a first attempt to make sense through the hitherto underexplored notion of false consciousness within the field of animal ethics.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the MANCEPT ‘Just Animals? The Future of the Political Turn in Animal Ethics’ workshop in September 2019. I am especially grateful to Robert Garner, Steve Cooke, Josh Milburn and Eva Meijer for their comments and support. I am also greatly indebted to the anonymous reviewers of this journal.

Self-funded.

Declaration

The authors declares that they have no conflict of interest.

1 For a concise exposition of the cumulative case for veganism see Stephens ( 1994 ). For more recent arguments see Francione ( 2008 ), Huemer ( 2019 ) and Singer ( 2020 ).

2 There is no conflict if animals are viewed and treated only according to their purpose to humans, but it can be argued that this is how things are (the animal welfare orthodoxy), not how they ought to be.

3 False consciousness is often assumed without explanation in the Critical Animal Studies (CAS) literature (e.g., Nibert 2002 , p. 247).

4 Marx may not have thought that the proletariat held such explicit beliefs given that they had no access to the superstructure, but the relevant idea is that the proletariat was blind to their interests.

5 Vegans too can be consumerist.

6 A compilation of poor excuses against veganism such as ‘we have carnivore teeth’. For an example see https://vegansaurus.com/post/254784826/defensive-omnivore-bingo .

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Aaltola E. Politico-moral apathy and omnivore's akrasia: Views from the rationalist tradition. Politics and Animals. 2015; 1 :35–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aaltola E. The problem of akrasia: moral cultivation and socio-political resistance. In: Cavalieri Paola., editor. Philosophy and the Politics of Animal Liberation. Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arpaly N. On acting rationally against one's best judgment. Ethics. 2000; 110 (3):488–513. doi: 10.1086/233321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Audi R. Weakness of will and rational action. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 1990; 68 (3):270–281. doi: 10.1080/00048409012344301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett J. The conscience of huckleberry finn. Philosophy. 1974; 49 (188):123–134. doi: 10.1017/S0031819100048014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benton T. Natural relations: Animal rights, human rights and the environment. Verso; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bresnahan M, Zhuang J, Zhu X. Why is the vegan line in the dining hall always the shortest? understanding vegan stigma. Stigma and Health. 2016; 1 (1):3–15. doi: 10.1037/sah0000011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochrane A. An introduction to animals and political theory. Palgrave Macmillan; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M, Morgan K. Veganism contra speciesism: Beyond debate. The Brock Review. 2011; 12 (1):144–163. doi: 10.26522/br.v12i1.568. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke S. Imagined utopias: Animals rights and the moral imagination. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2017; 25 (4):e1–e18. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson D. Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deckers J. Negative “GHIs”, the right to health protection, and future generations. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2011; 8 (2):165. doi: 10.1007/s11673-011-9295-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eyerman R. False consciousness and ideology in marxist theory. Acta Sociologica. 1981; 24 (1–2):43–56. doi: 10.1177/000169938102400104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fetissenko M. Beyond morality: Developing a new rhetorical strategy for the animal rights movement. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2011; 1 (2):150–175. doi: 10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Francione G. Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. Columbia University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer B. The ethics of eating animals: Usually bad, sometimes wrong, often permissible. Routledge; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fukuyama F. Identity: Contemporary identity politics and the struggle for recognition. Profile Books; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaita R. The personal in ethics. In: Phillips DZ, Winch P, editors. Wittgenstein: Attention to particulars. Springer; 1989. pp. 124–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaita R. The philosopher's dog. Routledge Classics; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garner R. A theory of justice for animals: Animal rights in a nonideal world. Oxford University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garner R, O'Sullivan S. The Political turn in animal ethics. Rownman and Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauthier D. The social contract as ideology. In: Goodin RE, Pettit P, editors. Contemporary political philosophy: An anthology. Blackwell Publishers Ltd; 1997. pp. 27–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruen L, Jones RC. Veganism as an aspiration. In: Bramble Ben, Fischer Bob., editors. The moral complexities of eating meat. Oxford University Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenebaum, J. B. (2012). Managing impressions: “Face-Saving” strategies of vegetarians and vegans. Humanity & Society, 36 (4), 309–325.
• Horta O. Discrimination against vegans. Res Publica. 2018; 24 (3):359–373. doi: 10.1007/s11158-017-9356-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiao T. In defense of eating meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2015; 28 (2):277–291. doi: 10.1007/s10806-015-9534-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huemer M. Dialogues on ethical vegetarianism. Routledge; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilea R. Singer, wittgenstein, and morally motivating examples. Between the Species. 2017; 22 (1):1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, R. C. (2016). Veganisms. In Critical Perspectives on Veganism , eds. J Castricano, and R Simonsen, 15–39. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series.
• Kazez J. The taste question in animal ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2018; 35 (4):661–674. doi: 10.1111/japp.12278. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luke B. Justice, caring, and animal liberation. Between the Species. 1992; 8 (2):13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukes S. Marxism and morality. Oxford University Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukes S. Power: A radical view. 2. Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lumsden S. Veganism, normative change, and second nature. Environmental Philosophy. 2017; 14 (2):221–238. doi: 10.5840/envirophil201731045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre A. What is wrong with weakness of will? Journal of Philosophy. 2006; 103 (6):284–311. doi: 10.5840/jphil2006103619. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mill JS. The subjection of women. The Floating Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller D. Ideology and the problem of false consciousness. Political Studies. 1972; 20 (4):432–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1972.tb01435.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills, E. (2019). Factory Farming and Ethical Veganism. Acta Analytica , 34(4), 385–406. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12136-019-00389-x.
• Milburn J. Chewing over in vitro meat: Animal ethics, cannibalism and social progress. Res Publica. 2016; 22 (3):249–265. doi: 10.1007/s11158-016-9331-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moody-Adams MM. Moral progress and human agency. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2017; 20 (1):153–168. doi: 10.1007/s10677-016-9748-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagel T. The possibility of altruism. Clarendon Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nibert D. Animal rights/human rights: Entanglements of oppression and liberation. Rowman and Littlefield; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nibert D. Animal oppression and human violence: Domesecration, capitalism, and global conflict. Columbia University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Sullivan S. Animals and the politics of equity. In: Garner R, O'Sullivan R, editors. The political turn in animal ethics. Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perlo K. Marxism and the underdog. Society and Animals. 2002; 10 (3):303–318. doi: 10.1163/156853002320770092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piazza J, et al. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite. 2015; 91 :114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polsby NW. Community power and political theory. Yale University Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper K. The open society and its enemies. Routledge; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls, J. (2008). Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=3300540 .
• Regan T. The case for animal rights. University of California Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid A. Veganism and the analytic question. Between the Species. 2017; 20 (1):38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rorty AO. the social and political sources of akrasia. Ethics. 1997; 107 (4):644–657. doi: 10.1086/233763. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen M. On voluntary servitude: False consciousness and the theory of ideology. Polity Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosi A, et al. Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto- vegetarian, and vegan diet. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7 (1):6105. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06466-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowlands M. Animal rights: All that matters. Hodder & Stoughton Ltd; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Runciman WG. False consciousness. Philosophy. 1969; 44 (170):303–313. doi: 10.1017/S0031819100009438. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabaté J, Soret S. Sustainability of plant-based diets: Back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014; 100 (1):476S–482S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitz F. animal ethics and human institutions: Integrating animals into political theory. In: Garner R, O'Sullivan R, editors. The political turn in animal ethics. Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Marx: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1980; 9 (4):325–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Animal liberation. The Bodley Head; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Why vegan? Penguin; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephens WO. Five arguments for vegetarianism. Philosophy in the Contemporary World. 1994; 1 (4):25–39. doi: 10.5840/pcw19941424. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam A. Why moral reasoning Is insufficient for moral progress. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2019 doi: 10.1111/jopp.12187. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Telegraph (2019). BBC accused of being partial on poultry with Christmas advert featuring vegan turkeys. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/bbc-accused-partial-poultry-christmas-advert-featuring-vegan Accessed 02/02/2021
• Tuso PJ, et al. Nutritional update for physicians: Plant-based diets. The Permanente Journal. 2013; 17 (2):61–66. doi: 10.7812/tpp/12-085. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twine R. Vegan killjoys at the table—Contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices. Societies. 2014; 4 (4):623–639. doi: 10.3390/soc4040623. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrenn, C. (2019). Why I’m Giving Beyoncé’s Vegan Campaign a Chance. http://www.coreyleewrenn.com/why-im-giving-beyonces-vegan-campaign-a-chance . Accessed 21/07/2019.

Write A Discursive Essay: Is Veganism A Good Life Style Choice? (9-14 years)

Grade 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

About This Product

Write A Discursive Essay: Is Veganism A Good Lifestyle Choice? (9-14 years) is an excellent teaching resource aimed at educators for students aged 9 to 14. It outlines the methodology of structuring and composing a balanced argumentative or discursive essay on the topic 'Is Veganism A Good Lifestyle Choice?'

This dynamic tool prompts students to deliberate on contrasting views about veganism, promoting exploration of both its merits and demerits. It includes a guideline essay which provides a valuable model for them to construct their own persuasive discourse.

Critical Thinking Challenges

Purposed towards developing pupils' critical thinking abilities, this resource requires learners to engage with divergent arguments. They need to put forward their unique viewpoint along with credible evidence support. Formulating counterarguments and successfully countering these forms another vital aspect of this comprehensive exercise.

Beyond Specific Content

Apart from vegan lifestyle-specific information, including health benefits or drawbacks related with veganism, this material also serves as a significant medium for improving pupils' overall essay drafting skills. The strategies learned here would undeniably be helpful across other subjects as they progress through various academic levels.

• The workbook spans seven pages.
• It is primarily suited for Language Arts learning in grades from 4 through 9.
• The product falls under the wide Writing subcategory.

Versatile Formats

This versatile PDF-based worksheet can be effortlessly integrated into diverse educational setups - either group instruction sessions where teachers educate all students together or smaller clusters where concentrated tutoring applies. Its application also extends onto individual work like homework tasks that ensure learning beyond traditional classrooms.

In essence, Write A Discursive Essay: Is Veganism A Good Lifestyle Choice? (9-14 years) is a distinctive teaching tool that effectively merges academic improvement with active participation in critical discussions. This makes it an irresistible addition to any teacher's toolkit.

What's Included

Resource tags.

Check out these other great products

• TOP CATEGORIES
• AS and A Level
• University Degree
• International Baccalaureate
• Uncategorised
• 5 Star Essays
• Study Tools
• Study Guides
• Meet the Team
• English Language
• Writing to Argue, Persuade and Advise

Vegetarianism Good or Bad: Discursive Essay

As the young boy gazes longingly at the meaty burger poster on display in a fast food chain, a repulsed vegetarian looks on in dismay. Since the beginning of time we humans have eaten animals in order to survive, but being humans some of us have developed a conscious towards all the brutal mass murdering of animals for meat and with all of these horror stories about what is really in our humble hotdogs for example, it is no surprise that more and more people are becoming vegetarians. We now have all of these meat alternatives that claim to be better for our health, which gives the vegetarians a brownie point, but is an anti-meat lifestyle really that good for our health? Are we really giving animals a better life? Should we all change our diets?

The meat alternative. This new type of food that promises to taste just as good as meat but with much less fat making it far more healthy for us human. Sounds great? What these large corporations fail to tell consumers is what Fusarium Venenatum , or more commonly known to us as the brand Quorn, really is. This meat alternative is in fact a type fungus. It does not sound so appetizing now, does it? The CSPI (Centre for Science in the Public Interest) have made numerous attempts to sue the brand with claims such as Quorn can cause allergic reactions that in severe cases may trigger anaphylactic shock which could result in death. Although 50 cases of this have been found in the UK alone, Marlow Foods (the company that owns the Quorn brand) still deny the fact and say that the CPSI are merely lobbying for publicity.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another negative of being vegetarian is that your diet lacks certain vital vitamins and minerals unless a very wide variety of fruit, veg and dietary supplements are included which is harder than it sounds. For example, vitamin B12 is essential in any diet as it works with the folic acid in the body and converts protein, fats and carbohydrates into energy. The only vegetarian foods that contain traces of this vitamin are seaweed and something called tempeh but with the inconsistent, minute amount in each make them an insufficient form of attaining this vitamin. There are vitamin B12 injections available and these are crucial as a deficiency of this vitamin can cause fatigue, heart disease and strokes. This is just one missing vital vitamin but there are other vitamins and minerals that vegetarians are deprived of such as vitamin D, iron, zinc and copper, all very important nutrients for growing children.

It is difficult to find a good source of amino acid in plant-based diets as meat is a good source of amino acid and non-meat diets do not contain the nine vital amino acids, therefore cannot provide nearly as much. Shortage of this may produce tiredness, lack of motivation, poor performance on a whole and moodiness due to the constant changes in blood sugar levels.

Despite all the cons of being vegetarian, it is not all doom and gloom! Research shows people who do live on a no-meat basis and do it right by taking the crucial vitamins and minerals that they lack have many health benefits, such as they have stronger immune systems, live on average 15 years longer than meat eaters, are 40% less likely to die from cancer, 20% less likely to die from other diseases, you have a 15% chance of dying of a heart disease compared to the 50% chance of a regular meat eater, it is likely you will be more slim and if you diet, the weight will stay off for up to seven years longer, your body will be detoxed which promotes better health and helps you get clearer skin, your bones will last longer, you will not consume toxic chemicals and steroids that are in meats due to the animals diet and finally, you could prevent certain types of back problems or get rid of some if you already have some.

Being vegetarian not only helps you, but it also helps the environment. Eating meat is one of the largest sources of global warming, by not eating meat you help conserve natural resources. To produce just one pound of meat, approximately sixteen pounds of grain, over two thousand gallons of water and at least one gallon of fuel. This is a stupendous amount of resources for just one pound of meat. If we were to change all livestock farming to agricultural farming, there would enough arable land, enough edible grain and water that this would end world hunger.

If the meat-eating population was reduced, large amounts of rainforest would be saved daily. For the daily meat intake in the U.S. the equivalent of seven football fields of rainforest is cut down just for cattle-grazing. And for every beef burger, approximately fifty-five square feet of forest has been destroyed. This large amount of deforestation is now affecting the climate because there are not enough trees to convert the CO2 into Oxygen and the world cannot it therefore global warming is now occurring.

It seems that pro’s outdo the cons of being vegetarian, but only if it is done correctly, also some of the cons can  be solved such as vegetarians can have injections for vitamins etc. In the end, is up to you but even by reducing your meat intake slightly, you can enjoy some of the vegetarian benefits. After researching this topic, I now believe that I am going to alter my diet and be more understanding towards my vegetarian friends. I also like the idea of being able to say at the end of a meal “no animals were harmed in the making of this meal”.

Document Details

• Word Count 972
• Page Count 4
• Subject English

Related Essays

Opinion Essay - T.V Good or Bad

Animal Welfare- Meat consumption or Vegetarianism?

Love: Good or Bad

Videogames-good or bad?

All our papers are written from scratch. To ensure high quality of writing, the pages number is limited for short deadlines. If you want to order more pages, please choose longer Deadline (Urgency).

Essay writing help has this amazing ability to save a student’s evening. For example, instead of sitting at home or in a college library the whole evening through, you can buy an essay instead, which takes less than one minute, and save an evening or more. A top grade for homework will come as a pleasant bonus! Here’s what you have to do to have a new 100% custom essay written for you by an expert.

To get the online essay writing service, you have to first provide us with the details regarding your research paper. So visit the order form and tell us a paper type, academic level, subject, topic, number and names of sources, as well as the deadline. Also, don’t forget to select additional services designed to improve your online customer experience with our essay platform.

Once all the form fields are filled, submit the order form that will redirect you to a secure checkout page. See if all the order details were entered correctly and make a payment. Just as payment is through, your mission is complete. The rest is on us!

Enjoy your time, while an online essay writer will be doing your homework. When the deadline comes, you’ll get a notification that your order is complete. Log in to your Customer Area on our site and download the file with your essay. Simply enter your name on the title page on any text editor and you’re good to hand it in. If you need revisions, activate a free 14-30-day revision period. We’ll revise the work and do our best to meet your requirements this time.

Customer Reviews

Essays service custom writing company - The key to success

Quality is the most important aspect in our work! 96% Return clients; 4,8 out of 5 average quality score; strong quality assurance - double order checking and plagiarism checking.

What's the minimum time you need to complete my order?

Some faqs related to our essay writer service.

Definitely! It's not a matter of "yes you can", but a matter of "yes, you should". Chatting with professional paper writers through a one-on-one encrypted chat allows them to express their views on how the assignment should turn out and share their feedback. Be on the same page with your writer!

Customer Reviews

How do I place an order with your paper writing service?

Finished Papers

Testimonials

In the order page to write an essay for me, once you have filled up the form and submitted it, you will be automatically redirected to the payment gateway page. There you will be required to pay the entire amount for taking up the service and writing from my experts. We will ask you to pay the entire amount before the service as that gives us an assurance that you will come back to get the final draft that we write and lets us build our trust in you to write my essay for me. It also helps us to build up a mutual relationship with you while we write, as that would ease out the writing process. You are free to ask us for free revisions until you are completely satisfied with the service that we write.

Adam Dobrinich

Customer Reviews

My Custom Write-ups

Meeting deadlines.

Research papers can be complex, so best to give our essay writing service a bit more time on this one. Luckily, a longer paper means you get a bigger discount!

Finished Papers

All our papers are written from scratch. To ensure high quality of writing, the pages number is limited for short deadlines. If you want to order more pages, please choose longer Deadline (Urgency).

Gain recognition with the help of my essay writer

Generally, our writers, who will write my essay for me, have the responsibility to show their determination in writing the essay for you, but there is more they can do. They can ease your admission process for higher education and write various personal statements, cover letters, admission write-up, and many more. Brilliant drafts for your business studies course, ranging from market analysis to business proposal, can also be done by them. Be it any kind of a draft- the experts have the potential to dig in deep before writing. Doing ‘my draft’ with the utmost efficiency is what matters to us the most.

Adam Dobrinich

Courtney Lees

Customer Reviews

What Can You Help Me With?

No matter what assignment you need to get done, let it be math or English language, our essay writing service covers them all. Assignments take time, patience, and thorough in-depth knowledge. Are you worried you don't have everything it takes? Our writers will help with any kind of subject after receiving the requirements. One of the tasks we can take care of is research papers. They can take days if not weeks to complete. If you don't have the time for endless reading then contact our essay writing help online service. With EssayService stress-free academic success is a hand away. Another assignment we can take care of is a case study. Acing it requires good analytical skills. You'll need to hand pick specific information which in most cases isn't easy to find. Why waste your energy on this when they're so many exciting activities out there? Our writing help can also do your critical thinking essays. They aren't the easiest task to complete, but they're the perfect occasion to show your deep understanding of the subject through a lens of critical analysis. Hire our writer services to ace your review. Are you struggling with understanding your professors' directions when it comes to homework assignments? Hire professional writers with years of experience to earn a better grade and impress your parents. Send us the instructions, and your deadline, and you're good to go.

Can you write essays for free?

Sometimes our managers receive ambiguous questions from the site. At first, we did not know how to correctly respond to such requests, but we are progressing every day, so we have improved our support service. Our consultants will competently answer strange suggestions and recommend a different way to solve the problem.

The question of whether we can write a text for the user for free no longer surprises anyone from the team. For those who still do not know the answer, read the description of the online platform in more detail.

We love our job very much and are ready to write essays even for free. We want to help people and make their lives better, but if the team does not receive money, then their life will become very bad. Each work must be paid and specialists from the team also want to receive remuneration for their work. For our clients, we have created the most affordable prices so that a student can afford this service. But we cannot be left completely without a salary, because every author has needs for food, housing and recreation.

We hope that you will understand us and agree to such working conditions, and if not, then there are other agencies on the Internet that you can ask for such an option.

Orders of are accepted for more complex assignment types only (e.g. Dissertation, Thesis, Term paper, etc.). Special conditions are applied to such orders. That is why please kindly choose a proper type of your assignment.

Why do I have to pay upfront for you to write my essay?

I ordered a paper with a 3-day deadline. They delivered it prior to the agreed time. Offered free alterations and asked if I want them to fix something. However, everything looked perfect to me.

Finished Papers

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

We Want to Know: What’s Your No. 1 New York City Restaurant?

The Times’s critic, Pete Wells, has shared his second-annual list of the city’s best, but tell us what tops yours.

By Nikita Richardson

Nikita Richardson, an editor for New York Times Food, writes the “ Where to Eat: New York City ” newsletter.

This week, The New York Times restaurant critic, Pete Wells, has revisited his list of the 100 best restaurants in New York City, adding new places, dropping others and changing his rankings of many old favorites.

Read Pete Wells’s list of the 100 best restaurants in New York City in 2024.

We’re expecting a spirited response to his revisions — because, as the saying goes, “everyone’s a critic.” And that goes double for New Yorkers: When it comes to dining here, there aren’t just one or two sources for incredible Italian, Thai, Peruvian or Jamaican food; there are dozens or even hundreds. And not all are created equally.

With that in mind, we’re asking readers which places top their own New York City restaurant lists, and why. Is it a tiny French bistro you’ve frequented for 30 years? Or a neighborhood spot that has become part of your community? Your absolute favorite may have closed decades ago, but we’d still like to hear about it.

We’ll read every submission and contact you if we’re interested in publishing yours. We won’t publish any part of your submission without reaching out to you and hearing back. We also won’t use your contact information for any reason other than to follow up with you, nor will we share it outside our newsroom. Thanks!

Follow New York Times Cooking on Instagram , Facebook , YouTube , TikTok and Pinterest . Get regular updates from New York Times Cooking, with recipe suggestions, cooking tips and shopping advice .

Nikita Richardson is an editor in the Food section of The Times. More about Nikita Richardson

More on Food and Dining

Keep tabs on dining trends, restaurant reviews and recipes..

Flamboyant displays of fake flowers at restaurants have turned into a maximalist design movement , with one man as a chief trendsetter.

Perloo, a supremely comforting one-pot rice dish , i s a Lowcountry staple with roots in West Africa.

Some of the greatest meals pair exalted wines with foods considered humble. Exploring beyond the conventional can be joyous, like the timeless appeal  of Champagne and fried chicken.

For many Jamaicans, spice bun is a staple of Lent. But there’s nothing restrictive about this baked good , so named for its bold seasonings.

For Ecuadoreans, fanesca, a labor-intensive lenten soup  served just during the lead-up to Easter, is a staple of Holy Week festivities.

Sign up for our “ The Veggie ” newsletter to get vegetarian recipes  for weeknight cooking, packed lunches and dinner parties.

Eating in New York City

Once the pre-eminent food court in Flushing, Queens, for regional Chinese cuisines, the Golden Mall has reopened after a four-year renovation.   A new one in Manhattan  is on the horizon.

At Noksu, dinner is served below the street, a few yards from the subway turnstiles. But the room and the food seem unmoored from any particular place .

You thought Old World opulence was over ? A prolific chef gives it a new and very personal spin at Café Carmellini, Pete Wells writes.

Eyal Shani’s Port Sa’id challenges the conventional wisdom  that you can’t get good food in a restaurant with a turntable.