A measured response to Anti-Vegans.

Browsing online, I see a lot of confusion, in both activists, and the opposition. I often see both sides, throwing out things that they think, or feel, rather than addressing the core logic of the propositions put forward. Whether this is because of a lack of interest in philosophy, or the data surrounding the topic... People are often led into  denial ether by their own misunderstanding and misconceptions, or by less than effective activists in the public sphere.

In response to this, I have decided to create my own write up  response, to the most common arguments against veganism. I encourage both activists, and meat eaters alike, to read, share, and discuss these topics with their peers. Feel free to share this write up with anyone you wish.






HEALTH.

The first subject to get out of the way, is health. Many people are understandably concerned about their well-being, when it comes to veganism. Is it healthy to go animal product free? What about protein? What about iron?

The first resource I would point readers to, is the academy of nutrition and dietetics. The ADA is the single largest nutrition organization in the world, comprised of over 100,000 practitioners. They have put forward a statement, that vegan diets are nutritionally adequate for all stages of life. This statement is comprised of 117 different references about each nutrient, and might as well be a meta analysis of the nutritional adequacy of veganism.

https://www.eatrightpro.org/-/media/eatrightpro-files/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diet.pdf 

Tools like cronometer, can also be useful in making sure you are supplying yourself with adequate nutrition.

https://cronometer.com/

(What if I have a disease, like diabetes? Isn't a vegan diet, too high in carbs for me?)

Not at all! In fact, in studies where the standard diabetes diet was put up against a whole foods, vegan diet.....The vegan diet proved to be substantially more effective in treatment than conventional means.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16873779/

The conclusion stating : Conclusions: Both a low-fat vegan diet and a diet based on ADA guidelines improved glycemic and lipid control in type 2 diabetic patients. These improvements were greater with a low-fat vegan diet. 

(What if I still want to avoid carbs, for whatever reason, am I able to do so?)

Of course. The great thing about veganism, is it is highly adaptable to all different dietary styles. You can even do vegan keto! Check out the food network, and their list of vegan keto recipes, and google to find more yourself.

https://www.foodnetwork.ca/healthy-eating/photos/vegan-keto-dinner-recipes/#!Cauliflower-Steaks-with-Lemon-Salsa-Verde-vegan-keto

( The health effects of veganism are overblown, and animal products are not bad for you. You are just biased!)

It might interest you to know, just HOW bad animal products really are for you. People have busy lives, and the mainstream media, does not always report on important health findings. Eating animal products increases your risk for the following.

Heart disease
Diabetes
Cancer
Hypertension
Obesity

and others.

Don't believe me? Check out the science.

NUTRIENTS OF CONCERN
Heme-iron.

The first nutrient of concern I would point you to is Heme-Iron. Heme-iron, is a type of iron, that is only found in animal products. Plants contain "non heme iron", and appears not to carry the same risk as it's heme counterpart.

In fact, Heme iron can increase heart disease risk by 57%!

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140423170903.htm

Quote: The study found that heme iron consumption increased the risk for coronary heart disease by 57 percent, while no association was found between nonheme iron, which is in plant and other non-meat sources, and coronary heart disease.

Heme iron also has a strong link to cancer of the oesophagus and stomach. A  population-based case-control  study on 66 countries, found a strong link between unprocessed red, and white meats.....and a significant increased risk of both cancer.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/

Another found NINE different ways Heme-iron and nitrates increase all cause mortality.

https://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957

A small reduction was seen replacing red meat with white....However. As we just found, Heme-iron, which is present in white meat, independently increases risk of heart disease. So in essence, it becomes a question of whether you would like to be shot or hung. (Cancer or heart disease risk increase)

CHOLESTEROL.

I have see quite a lot of confusion in the public, regarding cholesterol. Some say it's the worst thing ever, others say it is vital for health. Rather than sit here and go through these theories, I think it best to just stick to the science.

So what does it say?

The worst thing you can do when reading cholesterol studies, is not calculating cholesterol at baseline. There are industry funded studies, that will feed people with elevated cholesterol, more cholesterol.....and see no increase. What gives?

Where the confusion sits, is how cholesterol enters into the body. Cholesterol "works" on a bell-curve. Meaning, the higher your cholesterol is already, the less added effects you will see from even more added cholesterol. Think of your cholesterol receptors like a cup under a tap. Once you fill the cup, you can not fit any more water in the cup. Everyone has a baseline cholesterol, and a "cut off" point, where it will no longer rise. If the study does not calculate cholesterol at baseline.....It becomes a useless study. Industry will do this, in attempt to "blur" the data, and confuse the lay-man. You can read more about this relationship here, in a meta-analysis on the subject.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549.6029&rep=rep1&type=pdf

So the question you are probably thinking: How do I know what cholesterol is "normal"? What is a "healthy baseline cholesterol"?

Well, I have a study for that too!

Studies into the normal, physiologically healthy cholesterol levels, have found that an LDL between 50-70 mg/dl  is the cholesterol level, where heart disease does not occur. Your folks were wrong, when they told you heart disease was just part of aging. The problem is, most people don't have healthy levels of cholesterol. The average cholesterol in the west is about 130mg/dl.

Normal cholesterol levels : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15172426/

In fact, plaque growth is LINEAR, with each step over 70-75mg/dl. Meaning, the further above 70-75mg/dl you are.....the higher the risk of plaques. The more plaque....the higher the risk of a heart attack.

You can find the study for that, here: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.CIR.0000103664.47406.49.

So what increases cholesterol?

Dietary cholesterol, and saturated fat. (Here is a  meta analysis of metabolic ward studies, demonstrating the risk of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/)

How do I avoid dietary cholesterol? Avoid animal products. Plants contain 0 cholesterol. All vegan food is void of the substance.

How do I avoid saturated fat?

The highest sources of saturated fat, is animal products. Plant foods still contain these, but in much lower amounts, and they tend to be the good "long chain fatty acids". (Exceptions, include things like coconut oils, and processed vegan foods.)

In fact, it appears that some plant oils, are better than animal fats. A study done by the AHA showed that replacing saturated fats, with vegetable oil....Reduced cardiac risk by 30%. Similar to the effects of taking a statin.

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510

So it appears, even the worst sources of saturated fat in the vegan diet, pale in comparison to animal fats.

A quote I love, is from Dr. Kim A Williams, a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology and served as its president from 2015 to 2016.

"There are two types of cardiologists. Vegans, and those who haven't read the data".


HETEROCYCLIC-AMINES

Heterocyclic amines are chemicals formed when muscle meat, including beef, pork, fish, or poultry, is cooked using high-temperature methods, such as pan frying or grilling directly over an open flame. These chemicals are highly carcinogenic.

The easiest way to learn about these, is a write up from Cancer.gov.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet

Studies show, that high levels of these compounds can cause tumour and cancer growth. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2769029/


TMAO

Tmao (found in meat), or "Trimethylamine N-oxide",  is a molecule generated from choline, betaine, and carnitine via gut microbial metabolism. TMAO poses several health risk, including...

Heart disease:  https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/red-meat-tmao-and-your-heart

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/eating-red-meat-daily-triples-heart-disease-related-chemical



https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2020/02/13/12/42/is-long-term-increases-in-tmao-associated-with-higher-chd-risk


And in recent studies, it has links to cancer.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28641532/

To blow through a few more things, that are concerning to your health:

Meat and diabetes risk : https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/

Meat consumption increases risk of obesity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2697260/

Where as studies on vegans and vegetarian show the opposite. In fact, vegans are the most likely to fall in to normal or healthy BMI's

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

Quote : 

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-unit BMI difference between vegans and nonvegetarians indicates a substantial potential of vegetarianism to protect against obesity. Increased conformity to vegetarian diets protected against risk of type 2 diabetes after lifestyle characteristics and BMI were taken into account. Pesco- and semi-vegetarian diets afforded intermediate protection.

If this is not enough to make you put down the steak, I question your choices.


ETHICS.


Ethics can be a hard thing to discuss for people, especially when it comes to vegans pointing out why they think meat eaters are wrong. Without diving in to meta-ethics and normative ethical theory, we can examine this a few ways.

In the previous section of this write up, I talked about healthiness of vegan diets, and the inherent risks of animal products.

Having gone through that information, and coming to the objective conclusion that not only do we NOT need animal products to be healthy.....They are killing us.

So why do continue to raise, and kill sentient animals for consumption, for products that we not only don't need....but are actively making us sick? Where does this leave us ethically?


Currently, worldwide, we kill and consume approximate 72 billion land animals a year.  All without any nutritional need. 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/animals-slaughtered-for-meat


I would posit, that this kind of mass killing, requires some kind of moral justification.


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


As far as possible and practicable, being the key words. So what the deal? Do vegans actually kill less animals through their food choices than meat eaters? Yet, again, I have a study for that.

As it turns out, when measuring deaths per million calories, unsurprisingly, animal foods contribute much more death.

https://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc

Not to mention, animal farming is a major cause of deforestation, which also kills animals through displacement.

http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0262e.pdf

What about vegan farming, you ask? Would farming plants, not also require land?

Here is a good write up on the subject.

https://faunalytics.org/farming-animals-vs-farming-plants-comparison/


(A quick note on "humane slaughter": Why do it at all, if it is unnecessary and causes harm?)






The next thing I often hear people ask : "What about plants, aren't they alive too?"




This insidious argument can be addressed a few ways.

First, plants are not sentient. Plants have no brains, and lack a central nervous system. Plants react to simuli, but are not self aware, in the way animals are. Vice has an excellent interview with a biologist, explaining this in detail.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/xd74nd/we-asked-a-botanist-how-sure-science-is-that-plants-cant-feel-pain-302

If this is not enough to sway you....You should also consider we feed about 50% of the worlds crops to animals.

In fact, the US could feed 390 million more people, with the grain fed to cattle, alone.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat


We feed far more plants, to animals, in order to eat them, than we would if we ate the plants directly.
72 billion animals, is a lot more plant deaths, than 8 billion humans.

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-more-food-vegan-20180326-story.html

In fact, we have known this since the 90's.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat


As well as the aforementioned deforestation to consider.


So you can continue, to needlessly kill sentient animals, for food you do not need, while depleting resources for the rest of humanity and the planet......or you can go vegan. The choice is yours.

I also want to mention, I do not think I am "better" than meat eaters. There is this idea that vegans think they are superior. I want to assure you it is the opposite. I am vegan because I know I am NOT superior......to  you....Or the animals.


I ask you: Are your taste buds, worth more, than the life of an animal?



COMMON ARGUMENTS, AND WHY THEY ARE FALLACIOUS.





APPEAL TO NATURE FALLACY/NATURALISTIC FALLACY


One thing I often hear from both sides, is an argument surrounding state of being "natural". Whether it's meat eaters, claiming meat eating is a "natural" part of our diet, or vegans claiming it's more natural to eat from the earth.....This argument is fallacious. Many things in life are natural, including but not limited to : Arsenic, poison ivy, murder, and cyanide.

The idea that natural, equates to "good" or "justified", is a common thought among the general public, and producers alike. You will often see products labelled "all natural" and "no artificial ingredients", for this reason. Ultimately,  this is meaningless. The state of being natural, imbues no qualities to X, outside of the naturalness itself. Natural things, can be both good and bad, thus we can not make health, or moral judgments, based on the natural status of X. Common versions of this argument :"Meat is natural", "Canines-tho", "and we evolved to eat meat".

The site Logicallyfallacious.com, is a great resource for formal explanations of fallacy usage on the fly. I will be posting a link to their formal breakdowns, on each of fallacies for those who are interested. (As well as use for debates, etc)

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Nature

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Naturalistic-Fallacy



APPEAL TO TRADITION FALLACY


One of the most frustrating arguments, is the appeal to tradition or culture. I often hear "we have been eating meat for thousands of years", or " It's part of my culture to eat meat".


The problem with this reasoning, is it is not reasoning at all. It's actually the lack of a reason. The fact that someone has been done for a long time, or is part of X culture, is not a moral justification.  Slavery, was  not only around for hundreds, if not thousands of years, but also part of culture. In yulin, the slaughter of dogs, is seen as cultural.


Using this kind of reasoning, one would have to bite the bullet, that all things done for a long time or are part of culture, should be morally permissible. This leads to absurd conclusions. A full write up on this fallacy can be found here : https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Tradition



NIRVANA FALLACY/ APPEAL TO FUTILITY


Another common argument against veganism, is the "perfect world" argument. Positing that because vegans can not stop ALL animal suffering, that we are hypocrites by participation. This is fallacious for a few reasons.

To dismantle this argument, I will use the most commonly used version of this argument: The combine harvester.

Many meat eaters will claim, that vegans are just as "guilty" as them, because the production of plant foods, also cause some, or the same, amount of death.

The problem with this, is the obvious falsehood of the claim (Refer to links previous, about  the amount of animals killed per million calories, for various food sources)

As well as arguer, holding the vegan to "perfection".

The simple fact is, it is IMPOSSIBLE to kill no animals. However, this does NOT mean we should try to kill as few as possible. Which vegans do.

An equivalent form of this argument would be : Seat belts do not stop all car accident deaths, therefor seat belts are not worth having/using.

The fact that veganism does not prevent all animal death, does not mean we should not prevent as much as possible.

Full write of the fallacy here:  https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Nirvana-Fallacy


THE TU-QUOQUE


A common tactic, when discussing animal ethics, is for the meat eater to accuse the vegan of participating in OTHER, ethically abhorrent behaviours. Whether this is sweat shops, or contributing to large corporations that poison the earth, etc. The problem with this argument, is that it has nothing to do with the proposition of animal rights. It's simply a distraction from the topic.

Think of it this way. Imagine you see someone littering, and you say to them, that it is bad for the environment. Would you consider the reply of :"Yea well you drive a car, and that also hurts the environment".? To be a valid response, or an excuse for them to litter?

Of course not. Whether you drive a car, has nothing to do with the effects of littering. All the litterer has done, is appeal to hypocrisy. Whether or not driving is bad for the environment, does not negate the fact that littering is bad, and should not be done. The two topics should be discussed, but not as excuses for one or the other. This can be a tricky one for vegans to notice. Be careful not to be derailed into the topic of sweatshops or the like. (But always offer to have a conversation on the topic separately, if both parties agree)

Again, full write up here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Tu-quoque


TRIBES PEOPLE THO

While not a fallacy, it is still a distraction from the topic, and worth mentioning. Many people will ask "what about tribes-people" or "people who live in the rain forest".

The simple answer to this is : Are you a tribes-person? Do you live in the rain-forest? Or do you have access to a grocery store?

It is fallacious to appeal to others in different living circumstances, when discussing the topic of YOU going vegan.


ANIMALS EAT OTHER ANIMALS, THO


This is a form of the Appeal to nature/naturalistic fallacy, but I felt it deserved a section of it's own.


Some meaters will make the claim, that because animals eat other animals, than so should they.....as after all.....They are also animals. The problem with this argument is three-fold.

Firstly, animals are not moral agents. Animals can not discuss ethics, nor conceptualize idea of "right and wrong", in the same way humans can. It is fallacious to compare yourself, presumably, a rational human, capable of moral inquiry.

Secondly, some animals are obligate carnivores, with no access to any kind of alternative. Animals hunt, and kill for survival. However, if you have access to a grocery store, you can choose from an abundance of plant foods. Combine that, with the section on health....you don't have much of an excuse, as you are not an obligate meat eater.

Thirdly: The consistency problem. The claim than humans should be able to do, whatever animals do....Opens up a floodgate of immoral actions. Some animals kill their children. Some animals rape.

Take ducks for instance. Ducks are very well known to rape. Should rape be morally permissible for humans, because hey.....ducks do it? Of course not.

Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11764-female-ducks-fight-back-against-raping-males/



EVERYTHING DIES

One, slightly less common argument I hear from non vegans, is that the animal will die anyway. Often times from a worse fate than if humans kill it. The meat eater tends to posit that a quick bullet is better than being killed by an animal, or exposure. There are a few reasons this argument is fallacious.

Firstly: You killing an animal with a gun, does not prevent a worse death. If anything, all you have done is increase the amount of animals killed.


When you kill an animal, you also take that animal out of an obligate carnivore's mouth . Necessitating that animal to go and kill another. You are not sparing anyone, but shooting an animal.

secondly, you have a consistency problem. Would we accept this reasoning for humans? Could I kill a person, and say, meh, they might have died to cancer, or some other horrible disease, therefor it is ethical? Of course not. No matter which way you slice it, you are taking a life, without consent.



CONCLUSION.


NAME THE TRAIT.


There are a lot of arguments I have heard against veganism, and not all of them here. Perhaps I will update this at a later date, as I am reminded of them. However, a good tool to assess these arguments, is something called "Name the trait", first constructed by one animal rights activist, "Isaac Brown", AKA "Ask yourself".


In essence, you must name the trait, absent in animals, that if absent in humans, would justify the mass killing of humans.


Put simply, you can not apply X reasoning to animals, but not to humans, without providing a symmetry breaker. Otherwise you run in to a double standard.


For example, if one was to say: "It's ok to kill animals, because they lack X amount of intelligence".

A reductio would be: Would it be ok to kill a human, with the intelligence of a cow, chicken, or pig? Say....The mentally disabled?


If no....


Then in order to say the axiom is valid in one scenario, but no the other, one must provide a symmetry breaker between the 2 scenarios.

Before arriving to a conclusion, of why you think it is ok to kill animals.....Perhaps consider if you would accept the same reasoning, being applied to you.

What is the specific difference, between humans and animals, that makes it ok to kill them?


Animals feel pain, just like us. They want to live, just like us.

What makes us, more deserving than them?