research on veganism

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

Student information
Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Your diet is one of the first places to start if you’re looking to manage your health and weight. Focusing on whole foods from plant sources can reduce body weight, blood pressure and risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes — and it can make your environmental impact more sustainable.

But how do we embrace plants in our diets if we’re so accustomed to including meat and dairy as primary nutrition sources?

We spoke with Dr. Reshma Shah, a physician, plant-based eating advocate, co-author of “Nourish: The Definitive Plant-Based Nutrition Guide for Families” and Stanford Healthy Living instructor, about simple ways to incorporate more plants into your diet and the benefits this can provide for both you and the planet.

Focus on whole, minimally processed foods.

People use many different terms to describe a plant-based diet, including vegetarian, lacto-ovo vegetarian, pescatarian, and flexitarian to name a few. The most restrictive is veganism, which excludes all animal products, including meat, eggs and dairy.

While there are health benefits to adopting a vegan diet, highly processed foods with little to no nutritional value, like Oreos or French fries, could still be a legitimate part of a vegan diet.

In contrast, a whole-foods, plant-based (WFPB) diet:

Emphasizes whole, minimally processed foods
Limits or avoids animal products
Focuses on plant nutrients from vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, seeds and nuts
Limits refined foods like added sugar, white flour and processed oils

Recommendations from organizations including the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, World Health Organization, American Diabetes Association and American Cancer Society tout the benefits of plant-based whole foods and caution against high amounts of red and processed meats, saturated fats, highly refined foods and added sugar.

The vast majority of what nutritional experts are saying reflects the mantra made famous by Michael Pollen in his book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” — eat food, mostly plants, not too much .

Eating a plant-based diet helps the environment.

According to a report by the U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization, “The meat industry has a marked impact on a general global scale on water, soils, extinction of plants and animals, and consumption of natural resources, and it has a strong impact on global warming.”

The meat and dairy industries alone use one third of the Earth’s fresh water , with a single quarter-pound hamburger patty requiring 460 gallons of water — the equivalent of almost 30 showers — to produce.

Reducing your meat and dairy consumption, even by a little, can have big impacts. If everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would have the same environmental impact as taking 7.6 million cars off the road.

Plant-based diets prevent animal cruelty.

Ninety-four percent of Americans agree that animals raised for food deserve to be free from abuse and cruelty , yet 99% of those animals are raised in factory farms, many suffering unspeakable conditions .

If you would like to lessen your meat and dairy consumption due to animal welfare concerns but aren’t ready to eliminate all animal products from your diet, then you can start by taking small steps, like going meatless one day a week or switching to soy, almond or oat milk. Shah admits that initially she was not ready to give up animal products entirely.

“I think it is a process and recommend that people go at the pace that feels comfortable for them.”

Plant-based diets include all nutrients — even protein.

According to the American Dietetic Association, “appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, and for athletes.”

Shah says that there are a few key nutrients that strict vegans and vegetarians should keep in mind, including B12, iron, calcium, iodine, omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D, but all of these can be obtained through plant-based foods, including fortified plant-based milks, fresh fruits and vegetables or supplemental vitamins, if needed.

“I think the number one concern for people is that they won’t be able to get enough protein eating a plant-based diet. I also think that people widely overestimate the amount of protein they need.”

All plant foods contain the nine essential amino acids required to make up the proteins you need, and many vegetarian foods like soy, beans, nuts, seeds and non-dairy milk products have comparable amounts of protein to animal foods.

“Ninety-seven percent of Americans meet their daily protein requirements, but only 4% of Americans meet their daily fiber requirements . I’ve never treated a patient for protein deficiency. If you eat a wide variety of foods and eat enough calories, protein should not be a concern.”

Savor the flavor of plant-based foods.

Adopting a plant-based diet does not mean subsisting on boring, tasteless food. Shah enjoys incorporating flavorful, varied dishes from around the world, including Ethiopia, Thailand and her native India.

To get started on your plant-forward journey:

Start small: Start with adding a “Meatless Monday” to your meal plan and investigate one simple and delicious recipe to try each week. Once you have identified a few favorites, you can add them to your rotation and maybe go meatless one or two days a week. You can learn a few easy techniques to incorporate in many dishes, like roasting vegetables or blending quick and easy soups.
Change your plate proportions: Instead of giving up your meat-based protein completely, try to reduce the space it takes on your plate. Instead of a quarter-pound sirloin steak or a full serving of roasted chicken, try a vegetable-heavy stir-fry with a few slices of beef or a salad with chicken. Once your palate and mindset have adjusted to the smaller quantity of meat, try replacing it occasionally with plant-based proteins like tofu, seitan or beans.
Be prepared when dining out: If possible, try to examine the restaurant menu ahead of your meal, so you’ll arrive with a plan of what you can eat. Ask for the vegan options and don’t be afraid to request substitutions or omissions for your dish. Fortunately, with more people choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, many restaurants now provide tasty, meat-free options to their customers.
Share a dish: Bring a dish to share at a party or potluck; this will lessen your worries about food options. Let your host know ahead of time that you are planning on bringing a dish or, if that is not possible, be upfront and find out if any modifications can be made to accommodate your preferences. Often a simple solution can be found with a little advanced planning.
Accommodate family members: It can be tricky when one family member is ready to commit to a new diet and lifestyle while others are not. Shah recommends approaching this situation compassionately and allowing for flexibility, if possible. Hopefully your family will be willing to support you even if they are not ready to make the same commitments. Communication is key, and Shah says that the conversation is over the minute someone feels judged, so try to look for points of compromise to reach an amicable solution.
Feeling satisfied: A diet of nothing but lettuce and vegetables will leave you feeling hungry and unfulfilled. Be sure to bulk up your meals with filling, fiber-rich whole grains, plant-based proteins and healthy fats. Plant-based meat substitutes like Beyond Beef, seitan and veggie burgers can also be a satisfying choice when you are craving your favorite meat-based comfort food.

Remember that small, consistent changes can add up to big benefits for your health and the planet. Treat yourself and others with compassion as you embrace this new lifestyle, and take time to enjoy the different flavors and textures you discover in your journey.

“It is a really delicious, healthful, sustainable and compassionate way of eating. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Just start simply, do what feels comfortable for you and your family, and don’t forget to celebrate the joy of eating and connection around food.”

Dr. Reshma Shah will be teaching a plant-based online cooking class with Healthy Living this summer on Tuesday, July 13, from 4:00 – 5:30 p.m.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518108/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024
https://www.portland.gov/water/water-efficiency-programs/save-water-home
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/activity-watercontent.php
https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/reducing-your-footprint/)
https://www.aspca.org/about-us/press-releases/aspca-research-shows-americans-overwhelmingly-support-investigations-expose
https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/8040053 0/pdf/0102/usualintaketables2001-02.pdf

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Open access
Published: 22 April 2020

Prevalence and psychopathology of vegetarians and vegans – Results from a representative survey in Germany

Georgios Paslakis 1 , 2 ,
Candice Richardson 1 ,
Mariel Nöhre 3 ,
Elmar Brähler 4 , 6 ,
Christina Holzapfel 5 ,
Anja Hilbert 6 &
Martina de Zwaan 3

Scientific Reports volume 10 , Article number: 6840 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

22k Accesses

57 Citations

56 Altmetric

Metrics details

Health care
Medical research

An Author Correction to this article was published on 10 November 2020

This article has been updated

The aim of the study was to investigate the prevalence of, and attitudes toward, vegetarianism and veganism. We also assessed the association between vegetarianism/veganism and eating disorder, depressive, and somatic symptoms. A cross-sectional questionnaire survey in adults in Germany that was representative in terms of age, gender, and educational level was carried out. Data from 2449 adults (53.5% females) were included. Mean age was 49.6 (SD 17.1) years. A total of 5.4% of participants reported following a vegetarian or vegan diet. While the majority of participants agreed that vegetarian diets are healthy and harmless (56.1%), only 34.8% believed this to be true of vegan diets. The majority of participants also believed that a vegetarian (58.7%) or vegan (74.7%) diet can lead to nutritional deficiency. Female gender, younger age, higher education, lower body mass index (BMI), and higher depressive and eating disorder symptoms were found to be associated with vegetarianism/veganism. We did not find increased physical complaints in the group of vegetarians/vegans. Our results point toward a moderate prevalence of vegetarianism/veganism among the general population. Our findings suggest that health care professionals should keep eating disorder pathology, affective status in mind when dealing with individuals who choose a vegetarian/vegan dietary pattern.

Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

Gut microbiome remodeling and metabolomic profile improves in response to protein pacing with intermittent fasting versus continuous caloric restriction

Adults who microdose psychedelics report health related motivations and lower levels of anxiety and depression compared to non-microdosers

Introduction.

To date research about vegetarianism and veganism is still young even though plant-based nutrition seems to have gained increasing popularity and represents a growing social movement 1 . Vegetarianism is a generic term that encompasses a variety of dietary patterns that each involves, to some extent, the avoidance of meat 2 . While omnivores consume all types of animal products 3 , true vegetarians are defined as those who do not eat any meat, poultry, or fish 4 . Vegetarians may be further sub-classified based on the inclusion of eggs (ovo-vegetarians), diary (lacto-vegetarians), fish (pesco-vegetarians), poultry (pollo-vegetarians), or a combination of these foods in their diet 2 , 5 , 6 . Finally, vegans are those who refrain from eating any animal products, including meat, fish, dairy, eggs, and other animal-derived foods 3 . Individuals may adopt a vegetarian diet for a variety of reasons which may be ethical, moral, religious, environmental, health-related, or concerns about animal welfare 7 . The majority of recent studies suggest that ethical concerns are the most common motivation for adopting a vegetarian diet, followed by health considerations 3 , 5 , 8 . While health vegetarians avoid meat in order to derive the perceived health benefits of a vegetarian diet or to lose weight, ethical vegetarians avoid meat for animal welfare reasons 9 . The aim of the present study was to investigate the prevalence of, and attitudes toward, vegetarianism and veganism in a representative sample of the general adult population in Germany.

The prevalence of vegetarianism varies around the world with recent polls indicating that approximately 5% of Americans 10 , 8% of Canadians 11 , and 4.3% of Germans 6 follow a vegetarian diet. However, the highest proportion of vegetarians are found in India, where they comprise 30% of the population 12 , 13 . Veganism is less common with the prevalence reported to be about 2% in the United States 10 and less than 1% in Germany 14 . In several studies, education and income were found to be inversely associated with meat consumption 14 , 15 , 16 . Subsequent research conducted within Central European countries also indicates that vegetarians tend to be more educated and affluent than omnivores 14 , 17 . Allès et al . 18 confirmed that vegetarians tend to be more educated than omnivores, but also found out that vegans tend to have lower educational attainment. Additionally, women are far more likely to be vegetarian than men 8 ; even among non-vegetarians, women have been found to eat considerably less meat than men 1 , 14 , 19 , 20 .

Although strict and unbalanced dietary restrictions can pose a risk of micronutrient deficiencies 2 , it is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are nutritionally adequate and may be beneficial for health 21 . A comprehensive meta-analysis of 80 studies provides evidence for the link between a vegetarian diet and a lowered risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and certain types of cancer 22 . Vegetarianism has also been associated with reduced risk of hypertension, diverticular disease, degenerative arthritis, and metabolic syndrome in other studies 4 , 23 . Also, the use of vegetarian and vegan diets is often associated with other health behaviors including non-smoking and regular physical activity 1 . Additionally, studies conducted in Western countries have consistently shown that vegetarians have a lower BMI compared to their non-vegetarian counterparts, with vegans having the lowest BMI 24 , 25 , 26 .

There is mixed evidence as to whether vegetarianism is associated with more positive or negative mental health 27 . Although vegetarians have reported more positive mood in some studies 28 , 29 , they have described more psychological symptoms associated with anxiety and depression in others 30 , 31 . Similarly, while some studies 32 , 33 , 34 have found a higher risk of depression among vegetarians, others 5 , 28 show no significant difference between vegetarians and omnivores. Furthermore, adolescent vegetarians were more likely to be depressed 35 and have contemplated suicide 36 when compared to adolescent omnivores. Adherence to a vegetarian diet has been hypothesized to be a factor in the development and maintenance of disordered eating 5 as the restrictive nature of the diet may be used as a socially acceptable way to refrain from eating specific foods 3 . The majority of studies 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 suggest that vegetarians exhibit greater levels of disordered eating than omnivores; however, two recent studies suggest that this may not always be the case 40 , 41 . Indeed, in one study by Timko et al . 5 , semi-vegetarians, defined as those who exclude red meat from their diet, were found to have the highest level of eating pathology, while true vegetarians and vegans appeared healthiest in regards to eating and body weight. Thus, it is important to understand attitudes toward plant-based diets and the potential association with eating disorder, depressive, and somatic symptoms, as these findings, in conjunction with those from additional longitudinal studies, can lead to the development of more specific guidelines for healthcare professionals to monitor patients that follow these types of diets.

While the primary aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of, and attitudes toward, vegetarianism and veganism, we also assessed the association between vegetarianism/veganism and eating disorder symptoms, depressive symptoms, and the presence of somatic symptoms. We expected that consistent with previous studies, vegetarians/vegans would display a higher burden of eating disorder and general psychopathology.

Recruitment

A random sample of German residents aged 14 years and older (age range 14 to 91 years) were recruited as part of a cross-sectional survey on physical and mental well-being. For the purposes of the present investigation we only assessed adults (≥18 years of age). A demographic consulting company (USUMA GmbH, Berlin, Germany) assisted with sampling and data collection. The procedure was designed to yield a nation-wide sample representative in terms of age, gender, and educational level over the fieldwork period from May to July 2018. Sociodemographic data were collected in-person by trained interviewers and participants also completed a battery of self-report questionnaires.

Data acquisition

In Germany, no directory is generally available that contains the addresses of all private households or individuals, which could be used by market research agencies as a sampling frame. The data collected by the local authorities are only available for surveys considered to be of major public interest. A group of agencies called the “Arbeitsgemeinschaft ADM-Stichproben” closes this gap by providing a sampling frame to member agencies, the so-called “ADM-Sampling-System for Face-to-Face Surveys”. This frame allows representative face-to-face samples to be drawn for all households in Germany and for all people living in those households. In addition, the main statistical data are provided on a detailed level for this population. The ADM-Sampling-System is described in detail elsewhere 42 , 43 .

The participation rate was 46.9% (2531 of 5393 persons), taking into account all refusals to participate, as well as interviews that failed to take place due to respondents’ illness or being otherwise unavailable during the fieldwork. All participants provided their written informed consent in accordance with the Helsinki declaration. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical School of the University of Leipzig.

The following sociodemographic data were assessed: gender (male and female), age (distinguished according to groups: 18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–65, >65 years), educational level (<12 and ≥12 years), monthly income (0 to <1000, 1000–2500, and ≥2500 euros per month), population size (<5000, 5000–50000, and ≥50000 residents). The BMI was calculated based on participants’ self-reported height and weight.

Dietary assessment

To assess self-reported dietary patterns, participants were asked the following question “Have you been consciously eating a vegetarian diet for at least 2 weeks?” This question has been repeated for vegan diet. It was explained to participants that vegetarian means omitting meat, but eating plants and milk products, and vegan means omitting all foods of animal origin.

Subsequently, participants were presented with a series of 11 statements about vegetarian diets. The same statements were asked for a vegan diet. Participants responded to each statement using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “totally agree” to “totally disagree”. All statements were short and simple:

A vegetarian diet is completely healthy and harmless.

A vegetarian diet can lead to a nutritional deficiency.

People who follow a vegetarian diet are seldom overweight.

Individuals who follow a vegetarian diet are more productive.

A vegetarian diet is able to prevent disease.

A vegetarian diet is good for the environment.

A vegetarian diet is less cruel to animals.

People who follow a vegetarian diet are made fun of.

A vegetarian diet is not tasty.

A vegetarian diet is expensive.

People who eat a vegetarian diet do so out of ethical motivation.

Additionally, omnivores were asked if a vegetarian or vegan diet would be a viable diet for them to pursue. All questions and statements were constructed and finally chosen from a larger pool by experienced nutritionists, physicians and psychologists.

Psychological assessment

Participants also completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) 44 , the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire 8 (EDE-Q8) 45 , and a brief form of the Giessen Subjective Complaints List (GBB-8) 46 . The PHQ-4 allows for the brief measurement of depression and anxiety based on participants’ responses to 4 items on a Likert scale ranging from “not at all” to “nearly every day”. Total scores range from 0 to 12, and correspond to no (0–2), mild (3–5), moderate (6–8), or severe (9–12) psychological distress 44 . The EDE-Q8 is an 8-item self-report questionnaire used to assess eating disorder psychopathology. Scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater psychopathology 45 . Similarly, the GBB-8 is a brief, self-report questionnaire used to assess somatic symptom strain. Total scores range from 0 to 32, while scores on the four subscales (exhaustion, gastrointestinal complaints, musculoskeletal complaints, and cardiovascular complaints) range from 0 to 8 with higher scores indicating greater symptom strain 46 .

Statistical analyses

For analysis of the dietary statements, the answers “totally agree” and “agree” were grouped together, as were “disagree” and “totally disagree”. T-Tests or Chi-square tests were performed appropriately when comparing vegetarians/vegans with omnivores. In order to examine the predictive value of the independent variables, a binary logistic regression was performed with vegetarianism and veganism as dependent variable. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05. Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was performed according to the number of independent variables in each hypothesis testing. Unweighted data were used. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.).

Participants

A total of 2531 individuals participated in the survey. Of those, 82 were excluded for being younger than 18 years. Thus, data from a total of 2449 adults were analyzed. This cohort consisted of 46.5% (1138/2449) males and 53.5% (1311/2449) females. Mean age was 49.6 (SD 17.1) years, and 40.9% (1001/2449) of participants were aged older than 55 years. Additionally, the mean BMI was 25.9 (SD 2.1) kg/m 2 . More details on socio-demographics of the cohort are shown in Table 1 .

Prevalence of self-defined vegetarianism and veganism

When participants were asked whether they have followed a conscious vegetarian diet for at least two weeks, 5.2% (126/2444) indicated yes. The non-vegetarian participants were further asked whether a vegetarian diet would be a viable diet form to pursue. Of the 2316 respondents to this question, 11.2% (259/2316) indicated yes. In a similar manner, 1.3% (31/2446) of participants reported following a strict vegan diet. The non-vegan participants were further asked whether a vegan diet would be a potential diet form to adopt, to which 5.9% (142/2414) indicated yes.

There was considerable overlap in the endorsement of vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns. Of the 133 (5.4%) participants who reported following a vegetarian and/or vegan diet, 18% (24/133) answered “yes” to both questions, 76.7% (102/133) reported following a vegetarian but not a vegan diet, and 5.3% (7/133) indicated they followed a vegan but not vegetarian diet. Given this overlap, for the present analysis, those who endorsed a vegetarian and/or vegan diet were grouped together. Thus, the prevalence of current self-defined vegetarians/vegans was 5.4% in the present sample.

Attitudes toward vegetarian and vegan diets

When participants were asked about their attitudes toward a vegetarian diet, the majority of both vegetarians/vegans and omnivores agreed that a vegetarian diet is completely healthy and harmless, good for the environment, and less cruel to animals. The majority of both groups also believed that those who eat a vegetarian diet do so out of ethical motivation, and are seldom overweight. Conversely, the majority of both groups disagreed with the notions that vegetarians are made fun of and that a vegetarian diet is not tasty. While the majority of vegetarians/vegans agreed that vegetarians are more productive and that the diet can prevent disease, only a minority of omnivores agreed with these statements. Similarly, while the majority of omnivores agreed that a vegetarian diet is expensive and can lead to nutritional deficiencies, the majority of vegetarians/vegans disagreed with these statements. Full details are displayed in Table 2 .

Similarly, when asked about their attitudes toward a vegan diet, the majority of vegetarians/vegans and omnivores, again, agreed that those who eat a vegan diet do so out of ethical motivation, are seldom overweight, and that a vegan diet is good for the environment and less cruel toward animals. However, in opposition to their attitudes toward vegetarian diets, the majority of both groups believed that a vegan diet can lead to nutritional deficiency, and that those who follow a vegan diet are made fun of. While the majority of vegetarians/vegans agreed that a vegan diet is completely healthy and harmless, can prevent disease, and that those who follow a vegan diet are more productive, the majority of omnivores disagreed with these statements. Similarly, while the majority of omnivores agreed that a vegan diet is expensive and not tasty, the majority of vegetarians/vegans disagreed with these notions. Full details are displayed in Table 3 .

Comparison between self-defined vegetarians/vegans and omnivores

Comparing vegetarians/vegans to omnivores, no differences in income distribution or population size of the community or city of origin were found. Among vegetarians/vegans, a significantly higher proportion were female (73.7% vs. 26.3%; X 2 (1) = 23.174, p < 0.001). Additionally, vegetarians/vegans were significantly younger than omnivores (M = 40.9, SD = 15.5 vs. M = 50.0, SD = 17.0; t(2442) = −6.033, p < 0.001). Finally, 51.5% of vegetarians/vegans attained 12 or more years of education compared to 21.8% of omnivores (X 2 (1) = 61.531, p < 0.001). Vegetarians/vegans also had a significantly lower BMI compared to omnivores (M = 24.0, SD = 4.7 vs. M = 26.0, SD = 5.0; t(2423) = −4.555, p < 0.001). Similarly, vegetarians/vegans had significantly higher eating disorder psychopathology in the EDE-Q8 (M = 1.3, SD = 1.4 vs. M = 1.0, SD = 1.3; t(2440) = 2.619, p = 0.009), as well as slightly, but not significantly, higher depression scores in the PHQ-4 (M = 2.0, SD = 2.3 vs. M = 1.5, SD = 2.1; t(140) = 2.327, p = 0.21) scores compared to omnivores. More details are shown in Table 4 . In terms of somatic complaints, vegetarians/vegans and omnivores did not significantly differ in their experiences of exhaustion, gastrointestinal complaints, musculoskeletal complaints, cardiovascular complaints, or overall symptom strain (Table 5 ).

A binary logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict vegetarianism/veganism based on gender, age, education, population size, income, BMI, EDE-Q8 score, and PHQ-4 score. A significant regression model was found, χ 2 (8) = 835.0, p < 0.001: gender (female), (younger) age, (higher) education, (lower) BMI, (higher) PHQ-4 score, and (higher) EDE-Q8 score were significant statistical predictors of vegetarianism/veganism (Table 6 ).

The prevalence rate of self-defined vegetarians/vegans among the general German population found in the present investigation (n = 133, 5.4%) is comparable to that reported in an earlier German representative sample, in which the prevalence was found to be between 3% and 6% 14 . The current prevalence rate is also similar to those reported in US investigations 10 . A significant minority of omnivores reported that they would consider a vegetarian (11.2%) or vegan (5.9%) diet for themselves in the future showing that some people have an interest in adopting this kind of nutrition (“prospective vegetarianism”) 20 . Omnivores were more open to becoming vegetarian than to becoming vegan. However, meat consumption is still part of the traditional and social norm in Western societies 47 .

Regarding general attitudes toward vegetarian/vegan forms of diet in the general population, we noticed that both diet forms were considered expensive. Vegetarian and vegan diets are often perceived to be expensive 48 , and have therefore been associated with lower openness to try a vegetarian diet 49 . However, when compared to meat eaters, “true” vegetarians have been shown to report lower food expenditures 50 . While a vegetarian diet was considered to be healthy by most respondents, the majority did not think the same about vegan diets. This is in line with the German Nutrition Society which clearly states that a vegan diet cannot fulfill the daily recommendation for vitamin B12 intake and that supplementation is needed in most of the persons sticking on a vegan diet. Moreover, veganism is not recommended for pregnant and lactating women 51 . Additionally, almost two-third of the respondents said that vegans are made fun of and also a slight majority of respondents agreed that vegetarians are made fun of. Most respondents stated that vegetarian/vegan diet is less often associated with overweight. Vegan diet is not considered tasty. People have more negative beliefs about veganism than vegetarianism which is in line with literature. Literature also shows that vegetarians themselves report unfavorable social experiences 52 and biases with omnivores belittling their character 20 .

We found that female gender, younger age, lower BMI, higher depression scores, and higher eating disorder-related psychopathology were significantly associated with vegetarian/vegan diets. In terms of gender differences, this is entirely in accordance with the existing literature 1 , 8 , 14 . There is an extensive literature on the association between meat and masculinity 19 showing that men view meat as a more essential part of a proper diet. Thus it is not surprising that we found a higher proportion of females to be vegetarians/vegans. Similarly, we found that vegetarians/vegans were significantly younger than omnivores, as previously documented in multiple studies conducted among adults in Germany 14 , the UK, Canada, and the U.S 18 , 24 , 53 , 54 , 55 . Our findings are also in congruence with previous research showing an association between higher education and reduced meat consumption 14 , 15 , 16 , as over half of the vegetarians/vegans in our study attained 12 or more years of education compared to 22% of omnivores. Conversely, while previous research has documented greater affluence among vegetarians 14 , 17 , we found no difference in income distribution between vegetarians/vegans and omnivores in our sample. We also found vegetarians/vegans to have a lower BMI compared to their omnivorous counterparts; which is consistent with existing literature 10 , 24 , 25 , 26 .

Limited data is available on the associations between vegetarian diet and mental health 34 . While some studies have shown no significant differences in depressive symptoms between vegetarians and omnivores 5 , 28 , our results more closely align with those that have documented higher risk for 32 , 33 , 34 and more psychological symptoms associated with depression 30 , 31 among vegetarians/vegans. The prevalence of participants who screened positive for potential cases of depression and anxiety (PHQ-4 > 6) was 5.3% in omnivores and 8.5% in vegetarians/vegans. However, we cannot make any assumptions about causality. Do more depressed individuals select to follow a vegetarian/vegan diet or does following a vegetarian/vegan diet increase the risk for developing depression? It cannot be excluded that nutritional status may affect brain processes and may influence onset and maintenance of mental disorders 34 .

Our results allude to an association between choosing to subsist upon a diet excluding meat and displaying symptoms of disordered eating. The difference in EDE-Q8 scores remained even after adjusting for gender and age which are known to influence eating disorder symptoms. This result is in accordance to the majority of previous similar studies 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , even though the overall scores in the present sample were close to scores found in the general German population 45 . In terms of the potential link between vegetarianism and the development of eating disorders, evidence from three retrospective chart reviews 56 , 57 , 58 show that approximately half of all patients diagnosed with anorexia nervosa report adhering to a vegetarian diet. Others have emphasized that this might represent a more orthorexic behavior with a fixation on health-conscious eating 59 . Furthermore, two-thirds of individuals with history of an eating disorder reported that their vegetarianism was related to the eating disorder as it allowed them to restrict caloric intake and increase feelings of control; however, the majority of these individuals also indicated that they adopted a vegetarian diet after the onset of their eating disorder 60 . Thus, vegetarianism may be a symptom of the disorder or a maintaining factor, rather than linked to its causal development 3 . As far as the clinical implications of our findings are concerned, our findings imply that health care professionals should keep the association between eating disorder psychopathology and vegetarian/vegan forms of diet in mind when dealing with individuals who choose this form of diet; especially in younger women. Similarly, affective status should be considered in the same group in question.

We did not find differences with regard to physical complaints between the groups of vegetarians/vegans and omnivores. Thus, although self-reported symptoms cannot be accounted for factual differences in health status between the two groups under investigation, we conclude that vegetarians did not differ in complaints of (somatoform) symptoms compared to the general omnivore population. In one German study vegetarians reported a better current health status than omnivores 14 . This finding is in contrast to another previous German investigation showing an increased prevalence for somatoform disorders in vegetarians 34 . Michalak et al . 34 found evidence for elevated prevalence rates in vegetarians not only for somatoform syndromes but also for depressive disorders, anxiety disorders as well as for eating disorders. This is the only study that did not rely on self-report but used clinical diagnoses of mental disorders as assessed with standardized diagnostic interviews and that controlled for socio-demographic characteristics. For depressive, anxiety and somatoform disorders the adoption of a vegetarian diet followed the onset of mental disorders and the authors hypothesized that a mental disorder increases the likelihood of choosing a vegetarian diet probably with the goal to positively influence the course of the disease.

There are some limitations to consider. The response rate was relatively low (46.9%), which is, however, common in general population research. The current use of vegetarian and vegan diets was self-reported, and it is known from previous studies that self-identified vegetarians do not necessarily completely abstain from meat 6 , 19 . Furthermore, we define “vegetarian/vegan” as a person who sticks to that diet for at least two weeks, which means, that this definition is rather lenient. Therefore, also short-term vegetarians/vegans might be within the survey. We did not assess the motivation for following a vegetarian or vegan diet. A further limitation lies in the lack of assessment of objective measures (e.g., BMI) and the reliance on self-reports. Additionally, considering that this was a cross-sectional study, and that the vegetarian/vegan group was mostly young females, it may be that young females are more prone to having an eating disorder regardless of the diet they follow. Thus, vegetarianism/veganism may be a symptom or maintaining factor of the disorder rather than linked to its causal development. Due to the cross-sectional design in this study, no conclusions can be made regarding the causality of the association between diet and the examined individual differences. In contrast, the strengths of our study are the inclusion of a large representative sample of the German population and the use of standardized questionnaires to assess depressive, eating disorder, and somatic symptoms.

Taken together, the prevalence of current and self-defined vegetarianism and veganism in the present research was 5.4% which is comparable to other German and international studies. People’s attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans still point toward some biases. Finally, the present survey showed that there are not only differences between self-defined vegetarians and omnivores in socio-demographics, but also in levels of eating-related symptoms and potential cases of depression and anxiety.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Change history

10 november 2020.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Cramer, H. et al . Characteristics of Americans Choosing Vegetarian and Vegan Diets for Health Reasons. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 49 , 561–567.e1 (2017).

PubMed Google Scholar

Yeh, M.-C., Glick-Bauer, M. & Wechsler, S. Chapter 19 - Fruit and vegetable consumption in the United States: Patterns, barriers and federal nutrition assistance programs. in Fruits, Vegetables, and Herbs (eds. Watson, R. R. & Preedy, V. R.) 411–422, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-802972-5.00019-6 (Academic Press, 2016).

Heiss, S., Hormes, J. M. & Alix Timko, C. 4 - Vegetarianism and Eating Disorders. in Vegetarian and Plant-Based Diets in Health and Disease Prevention (ed. Mariotti, F.) 51–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803968-7.00004-6 (Academic Press, 2017).

Appleby, P. N. & Key, T. J. The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 75 , 287–293 (2015).

Timko, C. A., Hormes, J. M. & Chubski, J. Will the real vegetarian please stand up? An investigation of dietary restraint and eating disorder symptoms in vegetarians versus non-vegetarians. Appetite 58 , 982–990 (2012).

Mensink, G., Barbosa, C. L. & Brettschneider, A.-K. Prevalence of persons following a vegetarian diet in Germany. J. Heal. Monit. 1 , 2–14 (2016).

Google Scholar

Borude, S. Which Is a Good Diet—Veg or Non-veg? Faith-Based Vegetarianism for Protection From Obesity—a Myth or Actuality? Obes. Surg. 29 , 1276–1280 (2019).

Hoffman, S. R., Stallings, S. F., Bessinger, R. C. & Brooks, G. T. Differences between health and ethical vegetarians. Strength of conviction, nutrition knowledge, dietary restriction, and duration of adherence . Appetite 65 , 139–144 (2013).

Fox, N. & Ward, K. J. You are what you eat? Vegetarianism, health and identity. Soc. Sci. Med. 66 , 2585–2595 (2008).

Le, L. T. & Sabate, J. Beyond meatless, the health effects of vegan diets: findings from the Adventist cohorts. Nutrients 6 , 2131–2147 (2014).

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ruby, M. B., Heine, S. J., Kamble, S., Cheng, T. K. & Waddar, M. Compassion and contamination. Cultural differences in vegetarianism. Appetite 71 , 340–348 (2013).

Agrawal, S., Millett, C. J., Dhillon, P. K., Subramanian, S. V. & Ebrahim, S. Type of vegetarian diet, obesity and diabetes in adult Indian population. Nutr. J. 13 , 89 (2014).

Shridhar, K. et al . Nutritional profile of Indian vegetarian diets – the Indian Migration Study (IMS). Nutr. J. 13 , 55 (2014).

Pfeiler, T. M. & Egloff, B. Examining the “Veggie” personality: Results from a representative German sample. Appetite 120 , 246–255 (2018).

Gossard, M. H. & York, R. Social Structural Influences on Meat Consumption. Hum. Ecol. Rev. 10 , 1–9 (2003).

Rimal, A. P. Factors affecting meat preferences among American consumers. Fam. Econ. Nutr. Rev. 14 , 36–43 (2002).

Gilsing, A. M. J. et al . The Netherlands Cohort Study – Meat Investigation Cohort; a population-based cohort over-represented with vegetarians, pescetarians and low meat consumers. Nutr. J. 12 , 156 (2013).

Allès, B. et al . Comparison of Sociodemographic and Nutritional Characteristics between Self-Reported Vegetarians, Vegans, and Meat-Eaters from the NutriNet-Santé Study. Nutrients 9 , 1023 (2017).

PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ruby, M. B. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite 58 , 141–150 (2012).

Rosenfeld, D. L. The psychology of vegetarianism: Recent advances and future directions. Appetite 131 , 125–138 (2018).

Craig, W. & Mangels, A. R. Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian Diets. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 109 , 1266–1282 (2009).

CAS Google Scholar

McEvoy, C. T., Temple, N. & Woodside, J. V. Vegetarian diets, low-meat diets and health: a review. Public Health Nutr. 15 , 2287–2294 (2012).

Melina, V., Craig, W. & Levin, S. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 116 , 1970–1980 (2016).

Davey, G. K. et al . EPIC–Oxford:lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33 883 meat-eaters and 31 546 non meat-eaters in the UK. Public Health Nutr. 6 , 259–268 (2003).

Key, T. J. et al . Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: Detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 70 , 516S–524S (1999).

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Tonstad, S., Butler, T., Yan, R. & Fraser, G. E. Type of Vegetarian Diet, Body Weight, and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 32 , 791 (2009).

Lavallee, K., Zhang, X. C., Michalak, J., Schneider, S. & Margraf, J. Vegetarian diet and mental health: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses in culturally diverse samples. J. Affect. Disord. 248 , 147–154 (2019).

Beezhold, B., Radnitz, C., Rinne, A. & DiMatteo, J. Vegans report less stress and anxiety than omnivores. Nutr. Neurosci. 18 , 289–296 (2015).

Beezhold, B. L., Johnston, C. S. & Daigle, D. R. Vegetarian diets are associated with healthy mood states: a cross-sectional study in Seventh Day Adventist adults. Nutr. J. 9 , 26 (2010).

Baines, S., Powers, J. & Brown, W. J. How does the health and well-being of young Australian vegetarian and semi-vegetarian women compare with non-vegetarians? Public Health Nutr. 10 , 436–442 (2007).

Burkert, N. T., Muckenhuber, J., Großschädl, F., Rásky, É. & Freidl, W. Nutrition and Health – The Association between Eating Behavior and Various Health Parameters: A Matched Sample Study. PLoS One 9 , e88278 (2014).

ADS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Forestell, C. A. & Nezlek, J. B. Vegetarianism, depression, and the five factor model of personality. Ecol. Food Nutr. 57 , 246–259 (2018).

Hibbeln, J. R., Northstone, K., Evans, J. & Golding, J. Vegetarian diets and depressive symptoms among men. J. Affect. Disord. 225 , 13–17 (2018).

Michalak, J., Zhang, X. C. & Jacobi, F. Vegetarian diet and mental disorders: results from a representative community survey. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 9 , 67 (2012).

Larsson, C. L., Klock, K. S., Nordrehaug Åstrøm, A., Haugejorden, O. & Johansson, G. Lifestyle-related characteristics of young low-meat consumers and omnivores in Sweden and Norway. J. Adolesc. Heal. 31 , 190–198 (2002).

Perry, C. L., McGuire, M. T., Neumark-Sztainer, D. & Story, M. Characteristics of vegetarian adolescents in a multiethnic urban population. J. Adolesc. Heal. 29 , 406–416 (2001).

Klopp, S. A., Heiss, C. J. & Smith, H. S. Self-reported vegetarianism may be a marker for college women at risk for disordered eating. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 103 , 745–747 (2003).

Sieke, E., Carlson, J., Lock, J., Timko, C. A. & Peebles, R. Drivers of Disordered Eating in University Students Reporting Vegetarian Diets. J. Adolesc. Heal. 52 , S38–S39 (2013).

Trautmann, J., Rau, S. I., Wilson, M. A. & Walters, C. Vegetarian students in their first year of college: are they at risk for restrictive or disordered eating behaviors? Coll. Stud. J. 42 , 340 (2008).

Forestell, C. A., Spaeth, A. M. & Kane, S. A. To eat or not to eat red meat. A closer look at the relationship between restrained eating and vegetarianism in college females. Appetite 58 , 319–325 (2012).

Heiss, S., Coffino, J. A. & Hormes, J. M. Eating and health behaviors in vegans compared to omnivores: Dispelling common myths. Appetite 118 , 129–135 (2017).

ADM sampling system. The ADM Sampling System - the reference system for representative studies in Germany.

Paslakis, G. et al . Assessment of Use and Preferences Regarding Internet-Based Health Care Delivery: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 21 , e12416–e12416 (2019).

Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W. & Löwe, B. An Ultra-Brief Screening Scale for Anxiety and Depression: The PHQ–4. Psychosomatics 50 , 613–621 (2009).

Kliem, S. et al . The eating disorder examination‐questionnaire 8: A brief measure of eating disorder psychopathology (EDE‐Q8). Int. J. Eat. Disord. 49 , 613–616 (2016).

Kliem, S. et al . Brief assessment of subjective health complaints: Development, validation and population norms of a brief form of the Giessen Subjective Complaints List (GBB-8). J. Psychosom. Res. 95 , 33–43 (2017).

Monteiro, C. A., Pfeiler, T. M., Patterson, M. D. & Milburn, M. A. The Carnism Inventory: Measuring the ideology of eating animals. Appetite 113 , 51–62 (2017).

Bryant, J. C. We Can’t Keep Meating Like This: Attitudes towards Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability vol. 11 (2019).

Rosenfeld, D. L. & Tomiyama, A. J. Taste and health concerns trump anticipated stigma as barriers to vegetarianism. Appetite 144 , 104469 (2020).

Lusk, J. L. & Norwood, F. B. Some vegetarians spend less money on food, others don’t. Ecol. Econ. 130 , 232–242 (2016).

Richter, M. & Breidenassel, C. Vegane Ernährung – gesundheitliche Vorteile und Risiken. Public Heal . Forum 24 , 186–188 (2016).

Rosenfeld, D. L. & Burrow, A. L. The unified model of vegetarian identity: A conceptual framework for understanding plant-based food choices. Appetite 112 , 78–95 (2017).

Rizzo, N. S., Jaceldo-Siegl, K., Sabate, J. & Fraser, G. E. Nutrient profiles of vegetarian and nonvegetarian dietary patterns. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 113 , 1610–1619 (2013).

Bedford, J. L. & Barr, S. I. Diets and selected lifestyle practices of self-defined adult vegetarians from a population-based sample suggest they are more ‘health conscious’. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2 , 4 (2005).

Sobiecki, J. G., Appleby, P. N., Bradbury, K. E. & Key, T. J. High compliance with dietary recommendations in a cohort of meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians, and vegans: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford study. Nutr. Res. 36 , 464–477 (2016).

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hadigan, C. M. et al . Assessment of macronutrient and micronutrient intake in women with anorexia nervosa. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 28 , 284–292 (2000).

Kadambari, R., Cowers, S. & Crisp, A. Some correlates of vegetarianism in anorexia nervosa. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 5 , 539–544 (1986).

O’Connor, M. A., Touyz, S. W., Dunn, S. M. & Beumont, P. J. V. Vegetarianism in anorexia nervosa? A review of 116 consecutive cases. Med. J. Aust. 147 , 540–542 (1987).

Barthels, F., Meyer, F. & Pietrowsky, R. Orthorexic and restrained eating behaviour in vegans, vegetarians, and individuals on a diet. Eat. Weight Disord. - Stud. Anorexia, Bulim. Obes. 23 , 159–166 (2018).

Bardone-Cone, A. M. et al . The Inter-Relationships between Vegetarianism and Eating Disorders among Females. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 112 , 1247–1252 (2012).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada

Georgios Paslakis & Candice Richardson

Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Georgios Paslakis

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Mariel Nöhre & Martina de Zwaan

Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Mainz, Mainz, Germany

Elmar Brähler

Institute for Nutritional Medicine, Else Kroener-Fresenius-Centre for Nutritional Medicine, School of Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

Christina Holzapfel

Integrated Research and Treatment Center AdiposityDiseases, Behavioral Medicine Research Unit, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany

Elmar Brähler & Anja Hilbert

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.P. and M.d.Z. designed the study. G.P. and C.R. conducted the statistical analyses. M.N., E.B., C.H., and A.H. participated in instrument selection and development of the questions on veganism and vegetarianism. The first draft was written by C.R. All authors reviewed the manuscript and accepted the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina de Zwaan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Paslakis, G., Richardson, C., Nöhre, M. et al. Prevalence and psychopathology of vegetarians and vegans – Results from a representative survey in Germany. Sci Rep 10 , 6840 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63910-y

Download citation

Received : 01 March 2020

Accepted : 08 April 2020

Published : 22 April 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63910-y

Share this article

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

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines . If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Vegan diet can benefit both health and the environment

There is strong evidence that a plant-based diet is the optimal diet for living a long and healthy life, according to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health nutrition expert Walter Willett .

In a January 7, 2019 interview on the NPR show “1A,” Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, said that it’s not necessary to be 100% vegan in order to reap the benefits of a plant-based diet, which has been linked with lower risk of type 2 diabetes , heart disease , and overall mortality. Diets with modest amounts of dairy and fish, and even some poultry and meat, can also be healthy, as long as people steer clear of refined starches and sugar and focus on vegetables , fruits , nuts , seeds, and whole grains.

Willett also said that veganism is good for the planet. That’s because cattle grazing generates massive amounts of methane and carbon dioxide, both of which are potent greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change .

“I think if we really care about the world our children and grandchildren will inherit, we do need to shift toward [a vegan diet],” said Willett. “And the good news is that it’s not just our planet that will be more healthy, but we will be more healthy as well.”

Listen to the 1A interview: Planting A Seed: The Vegan Diet in 2019

Healthy plant-based diet linked with substantially lower type 2 diabetes risk ( Harvard Chan School release )

Vegetarian Recipes for a Healthy Eating Plate ( The Nutrition Source )

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
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans

Affiliation.

1 Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health,University of Oxford,Richard Doll Building,Old Road Campus,Roosevelt Drive,Oxford OX3 7LF,UK.
PMID: 26707634
DOI: 10.1017/S0029665115004334

Vegetarians, who do not eat any meat, poultry or fish, constitute a significant minority of the world's population. Lacto-ovo-vegetarians consume dairy products and/or eggs, whereas vegans do not eat any foods derived wholly or partly from animals. Concerns over the health, environmental and economic consequences of a diet rich in meat and other animal products have focussed attention on those who exclude some or all of these foods from their diet. There has been extensive research into the nutritional adequacy of vegetarian diets, but less is known about the long-term health of vegetarians and vegans. We summarise the main findings from large cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies in western countries with a high proportion of vegetarian participants. Vegetarians have a lower prevalence of overweight and obesity and a lower risk of IHD compared with non-vegetarians from a similar background, whereas the data are equivocal for stroke. For cancer, there is some evidence that the risk for all cancer sites combined is slightly lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians, but findings for individual cancer sites are inconclusive. Vegetarians have also been found to have lower risks for diabetes, diverticular disease and eye cataract. Overall mortality is similar for vegetarians and comparable non-vegetarians, but vegetarian groups compare favourably with the general population. The long-term health of vegetarians appears to be generally good, and for some diseases and medical conditions it may be better than that of comparable omnivores. Much more research is needed, particularly on the long-term health of vegans.

Keywords: AHS-2 Adventist Health Study-2; EPIC-Oxford; European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford; Morbidity; Mortality; Vegan; Vegetarian.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Grants and funding.

16491/CRUK_/Cancer Research UK/United Kingdom
MR/M012190/1/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

Cambridge University Press
Ovid Technologies, Inc.
MedlinePlus Health Information
Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

> Journals
> Proceedings of the Nutrition Society
> Volume 75 Issue 3
> The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans

Article contents

Prospective studies of vegetarians, obesity and weight gain, cardiovascular disease, fracture risk and bone health, other diseases and conditions, all-cause mortality and life expectancy, conclusions, the long-term health of vegetarians and vegans.

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 December 2015

Vegetarians are defined as people who do not eat any meat, poultry or fish. They may be sub-classified as lacto-ovo-vegetarians who eat dairy products and/or eggs and vegans who do not eat any animal products.

The prevalence of vegetarianism (the practice of following a vegetarian diet) varies widely around the globe. India has the highest proportion of vegetarians of any country with about 30 % of the population following a vegetarian diet ( Reference Agrawal, Millett and Dhillon 1 , Reference Shridhar, Dhillon and Bowen 2 ) . Elsewhere, vegetarianism is considerably less common, with less than 10 % of the population following a vegetarian diet ( 3 ) . For example, it has been estimated that vegetarians and vegans represent 5 and 2 %, respectively, of the US population ( Reference Le and Sabaté 4 ) . These figures indicate that vegetarians represent a sizeable minority of the global population, and with calls for a worldwide reduction in consumption of animal products ( Reference McMichael, Powles and Butler 5 ) , their long-term health is a matter of considerable interest.

Many studies have assessed the nutritional adequacy of vegetarian diets. Overall, these have shown that a well-planned vegetarian or vegan diet can supply all the nutrients required for good health ( Reference Craig and Mangels 6 ) . However, some concern remains over the possibility of low intakes of some nutrients such as vitamin B 12 , vitamin D, calcium and n -3 fatty acids in poorly selected and/or unfortified vegetarian or vegan diets ( Reference Pawlak, Lester and Babatunde 7 , Reference Tucker 8 ) ; in particular, vitamin B 12 status has been widely observed to be relatively low in vegetarians and especially in vegans, and this is associated with relatively high plasma homocysteine ( Reference Obersby, Chappell and Dunnett 9 ) .

Many studies have assessed health-related factors such as BMI, plasma cholesterol concentrations and blood pressure in vegetarians, but relatively few studies have been of sufficient magnitude and duration to examine the long-term health of vegetarians and vegans. In this overview, we concentrate our attention on the findings of prospective cohort studies with a high proportion of vegetarian participants, extending and updating those described in a previous review by the authors ( Reference Key, Appleby and Rosell 10 ) . The present paper is based on the material presented at a conference and is not a full systematic review of the topic. A further caveat is that, because vegetarian diets are defined by the foods that they exclude, the foods included in vegetarian diets can vary substantially and therefore the associations observed may differ between studies; in particular, all the prospective studies we discuss were conducted in western countries, therefore the conclusions in this review may not apply to vegetarians in non-western countries.

Table 1 summarises eight prospective studies with a high percentage of vegetarian participants (at least 29 % each), the results from which will form the basis of this review. The studies include a total of nearly 280 000 participants, including over 100 000 vegetarians (although there is slight overlap between some of the studies conducted within the same country). Most of the studies were designed with the aim of recruiting a high proportion of vegetarian participants, along with non-vegetarians drawn from the same population. For example, the three North American studies are drawn from members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, a Christian denomination with a high proportion of vegetarian adherents ( Reference Snowdon 11 – Reference Butler, Fraser and Beeson 13 ) . In contrast, the five European studies were all drawn from free-living populations, although recruitment was deliberately targeted at vegetarians and the health-conscious, with the assistance of vegetarian organisations and health-related publications and establishments ( Reference Burr and Sweetnam 14 – Reference Cade, Burley and Greenwood 18 ) . In all these studies the non-vegetarians were recruited with the aim of providing a reasonable comparison group, in that they were drawn from the same population and had a similar socio-economic status to that of the vegetarians, thus reducing the likelihood that any health differences observed would be due to non-dietary rather than dietary factors.

Table 1. Prospective studies with a high percentage of vegetarian participants

EPIC, European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.

* To nearest 1000.

More than one billion adults worldwide are overweight and at least 300 million of these are obese ( Reference Smyth and Heron 19 ) . Studies of western vegetarians have consistently shown that vegetarians have a lower BMI than otherwise comparable non-vegetarians, with differences typically in the region of 1–2 kg/m 2 across all adult age groups, vegans generally having the lowest BMI ( Reference Davey, Spencer and Appleby 17 , Reference Key, Fraser and Thorogood 20 , Reference Tonstad, Butler and Yan 21 ) . These differences are reflected in a lower prevalence of obesity among western vegetarians ( Reference Key and Davey 22 , Reference Newby, Tucker and Wolk 23 ) , and lower weight gain in vegetarians and vegans during adulthood ( Reference Rosell, Appleby and Spencer 24 , Reference Japas, Knutsen and Dehom 25 ) . Obesity is a major cause of morbidity/mortality, so these findings might be expected to result in a reduced risk of obesity-related diseases and conditions in vegetarians. Some studies have also suggested a role for vegetarian and vegan diets in weight management ( Reference Turner-McGrievy, Barnard and Scialli 26 – Reference Mishra, Xu and Agarwal 28 ) . The consistent findings of low BMI in western vegetarians may not apply in non-western populations; for example there was no difference in mean BMI between vegetarians and non-vegetarians in the Indian Migration Study of 7000 participants, 33 % of whom were vegetarians ( Reference Agrawal, Millett and Dhillon 1 ) .

The risk of type 2 diabetes is very strongly linked to obesity. Diabetes rates have now reached epidemic proportions according to the WHO, mirroring the rapid rise in the prevalence of obesity worldwide ( Reference Smyth and Heron 19 ) . It would be expected that, due to their relatively low BMI, western vegetarians would have a lower risk of diabetes than comparable non-vegetarians. Using data from the Adventist Health Study-2 (AHS-2) cohort, Tonstad and colleagues showed a lower risk of self-reported diabetes in semi-vegetarians, lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared with non-vegetarians, risks in the vegetarian groups being approximately half those of the non-vegetarians overall, after adjusting for BMI ( Reference Tonstad, Stewart and Oda 29 ) . These findings have led some authors to propose a role for vegetarian and vegan diets in the management of type 2 diabetes ( Reference Barnard, Katcher and Jenkins 30 ) , but more research is needed, ideally with diabetes cases identified through medical records, and further examination of whether the possible lower risk of diabetes in vegetarians is entirely due to their lower BMI. More data are also needed from non-western populations: in a cross-sectional study of Taiwanese Buddhists, Chiu and colleagues found the prevalence of diabetes in vegetarians to be lower than those of non-vegetarians ( Reference Chiu, Huang and Chiu 31 ) , whereas in the Indian Migration Study there was no difference in the prevalence of diabetes between vegetarians and non-vegetarians ( Reference Shridhar, Dhillon and Bowen 32 ) .

Risk factors: plasma cholesterol, hypertension and blood pressure

Plasma total cholesterol is lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians, primarily due to a reduction in LDL cholesterol, with little difference in HDL cholesterol ( Reference Thorogood, Carter and Benfield 33 , Reference Bradbury, Crowe and Appleby 34 ) . This difference in plasma cholesterol is likely to be large due to differences in fat intake, since meat is a rich source of SFA whereas some plant foods such as vegetable oils, nuts and seeds are rich sources of PUFA. In 1987, Thorogood et al . concluded that the differences in cholesterol concentration suggested that the incidence of CHD may be 24 % lower in lifelong British vegetarians and 57 % lower in lifelong vegans than in meat eaters ( Reference Thorogood, Carter and Benfield 33 ) .

The main diet-related determinants of hypertension are high salt intake, obesity and excess alcohol consumption ( 35 ) . Western vegetarians have a lower average BMI than non-vegetarians, but do not necessarily have low intakes of salt and alcohol. Data from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition-Oxford (EPIC-Oxford) study showed significant differences in age-adjusted prevalence of self-reported hypertension across four diet groups (meat eaters, fish eaters, vegetarians and vegans) with the lowest prevalence in the vegans and the highest prevalence in the meat eaters, although these differences were attenuated by further adjustment for BMI; differences in measured systolic blood pressure between the diet groups were moderate and were non-significant after adjustment for BMI ( Reference Appleby, Davey and Key 36 ) . In AHS-2, an analysis of data from 500 white members of the cohort found lower mean systolic and diastolic blood pressure in lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared with omnivores, these differences translating into significantly lower risks for hypertension, effects that were only partly explained by differences in BMI between the diet groups ( Reference Pettersen, Anousheh and Fan 37 ) . Vegetarians in the Indian Migration Study also had lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure than non-vegetarians, but the differences were very small (<1 mm Hg) and only statistically significant for diastolic blood pressure ( Reference Shridhar, Dhillon and Bowen 32 ) . Overall the data show small differences in blood pressure and the prevalence of hypertension between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, but are inconclusive as to whether these small differences are partly or wholly attributable to differences in BMI.

Ischaemic heart disease

IHD is the most common cause of death globally, being responsible for more than 8 million deaths worldwide in 2013 ( 38 ) . Risks for both fatal and non-fatal IHD appear to be lower in vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians. A collaborative re-analysis in 1999 of data from five prospective studies (the first five studies listed in Table 1 ) showed that IHD mortality was 24 % lower (95 % CI 6, 38) in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians ( Reference Key, Fraser and Thorogood 20 ) .

More recently, analyses in EPIC-Oxford included non-fatal as well as fatal end points and the risk of hospitalization or death from IHD was 32 % (95 % CI 19, 42) lower in vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians ( Reference Crowe, Appleby and Travis 39 ) . Thus there is strong evidence that the risk of IHD is lower in vegetarians than in comparable non-vegetarians, and the data suggest that much of this difference may be due to the lower LDL cholesterol of vegetarians, together with their lower BMI and slightly lower systolic blood pressure.

Stroke (cerebrovascular disease) is the second most common cause of death globally, being responsible for more than 6 million deaths worldwide in 2013 ( 38 ) . A collaborative re-analysis in 1999 of data from five prospective studies (the first five studies listed in Table 1 ) showed that stroke mortality did not differ significantly between vegetarians and non-vegetarians (the death rate ratio in vegetarians v . non-vegetarians was 0·93; 95 % CI 0·74, 1·17) ( Reference Key, Fraser and Thorogood 20 ) . In a subsequent analysis of data from the EPIC-Oxford study, cerebrovascular disease mortality also did not differ significantly between dietary groups (relative risk in vegetarians compared with meat eaters 1·11; 95 % CI 0·76, 1·62) ( Reference Key, Appleby and Spencer 40 ) . More research is needed, in particular to examine risks of sub-types of stroke and to determine whether dietary factors such as a low intake of vitamin B 12 in vegetarians might have an adverse impact on risk of stroke.

A collaborative analysis of data from the first five studies listed in Table 1 , published in 1999, found no significant difference in death rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians for cancers of the stomach, colorectum, lung, breast or prostate ( Reference Key, Fraser and Thorogood 20 ) . This analysis did not examine overall cancer mortality, but a subsequent analysis of mortality in AHS-2 found no significant difference in overall cancer mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians ( Reference Orlich, Singh and Sabaté 41 ) .

For cancer incidence, information on site-specific cancer incidence comes from a pooled analysis of nearly 5000 incidence cancers using data from the EPIC-Oxford and Oxford Vegetarian studies ( Reference Key, Appleby and Crowe 42 ) . In this analysis, the non-vegetarians were subdivided into meat eaters and fish eaters (who ate fish but not meat) and incidence rates compared across the three diet groups. Significant heterogeneity of risk between the diet groups were found for the following cancers: stomach cancer, with lower risk in vegetarians (relative risk and 95 % CI compared with meat eaters 0·37, 0·19, 0·69); colorectal cancer, with lower risk in fish eaters (0·66, 0·48, 0·92) but not in vegetarians; cancers of the lymphatic and hematopoietic tissues, with lower risk in vegetarians (0·64, 0·49, 0·84), largely due to a significantly lower risk of multiple myeloma in vegetarians (0·23, 0·09, 0·59). There were no significant differences in incidence rates for other common cancers sites including the breast and prostate. Overall cancer incidence rates were significantly lower in both fish eaters (relative risk and 95 % CI compared with meat eaters 0·88, 0·80, 0·97) and in vegetarians (0·88, 0·82, 0·95). When the vegetarians were subdivided into lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans, risks for all cancers combined relative to meat eaters were statistically significant (0·89, 0·83, 0·96 for lacto-ovo-vegetarians and 0·81, 0·66, 0·98 for vegans). Further adjustment for BMI made little difference to the relative risks, and the associations remained statistically significant.

Analyses of the incidence of cancer in relation to diet group have also been reported for AHS-2 ( Reference Tantamango-Bartley, Jaceldo-Siegl and Fan 43 , Reference Orlich, Singh and Sabaté 44 ) . Colorectal cancer incidence was compared across five diet groups; the lowest risk was found among fish eaters (described as pesco-vegetarians in the study), with an adjusted relative risk for all colorectal cancers of 0·57 (95 % CI 0·40, 0·82) compared with non-vegetarians ( Reference Orlich, Singh and Sabaté 44 ) . Risks were non-significantly lower than in non-vegetarians for semi-vegetarians (who ate meat at least once per month but not more than once per week), lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans (relative risks and 95 % CI 0·92, 0·62, 1·37; 0·82, 0·65, 1·02; and 0·84, 0·59, 1·19, respectively). When the vegetarian groups, including the fish eaters, were combined, the relative risk compared with the non-vegetarians was 0·78 (95 % CI 0·64, 0·95) ( Reference Orlich, Singh and Sabaté 44 ) . For all cancers combined, the incidence in comparison with non-vegetarians was 0·98 (95 % CI 0·82, 1·17) for semi-vegetarians, 0·88 (95 % CI 0·77, 1·01) for fish eaters, 0·93 (95 % CI 0·85, 1·02) for lacto-vegetarians and 0·84 (95 % CI 0·72, 0·99) for vegans, with a significantly lower risk for all vegetarian groups combined (relative risk and 95 % CI 0·92, 0·85, 0·99) ( Reference Tantamango-Bartley, Jaceldo-Siegl and Fan 43 ) .

Breast cancer incidence was also compared across four diet groups in the UK Women's Cohort study: red meat eaters, poultry eaters (who did not eat red meat), fish eaters (who did not eat meat) and vegetarians ( Reference Cade, Taylor and Burley 45 ) . In pre-menopausal women there were no differences in risk between the diet groups. In postmenopausal women fish eaters but not vegetarians had lower risks compared with meat eaters (relative risks and 95 % CI 0·60, 0·38, 0·96; and 0·85, 0·58, 1·25, respectively).

In summary, there is some evidence that the risk for cancer at all sites combined is slightly lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians, and that people who eat fish but not meat may have a lower risk of colorectal cancer, but the findings for other individual cancer sites are inconclusive.

The role of diet in bone health is complex. It has been suggested that vegetarians, and especially vegans, may be at greater risk of low bone mineral density and fracture than non-vegetarians ( Reference Tucker 8 ) . Data from the EPIC-Oxford study showed no differences in self-reported incident fractures between meat eaters, fish eaters and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, but vegans had a 30 % (95 % CI 2, 66) higher risk of fracture compared with meat eaters ( Reference Appleby, Roddam and Allen 46 ) . Among subjects consuming at least 525 mg/d calcium (an amount equal to the UK estimated average requirement) there was no difference in fracture risk between the diet groups, suggesting that the low calcium intakes of many vegans (below the estimated average requirement in almost half of the vegans, compared with less than 6 % below the estimated average requirement in each of the other diet groups) was responsible for the raised risk. In the Adventist studies, risks of self-reported wrist fractures in older women (AHS) ( Reference Thorpe, Knutsen and Beeson 47 ) and hip fractures in men and women (AHS-2) ( Reference Lousuebsakul-Matthews, Thorpe and Knutsen 48 ) were both higher in those who never ate meat than in those who ate meat frequently; there was also evidence suggesting a protective effect of protein, whether of plant or animal origin ( Reference Thorpe, Knutsen and Beeson 47 ) .

A meta-analysis of nine studies found that bone mineral density was 4 % (95 % CI 2, 7) lower in vegetarians than in omnivores at both the femoral neck and the lumbar spine, with a greater difference at the lumbar spine in vegans (6 % lower bone mineral density than omnivores) than in lacto-ovo-vegetarians (2 % lower than omnivores) ( Reference Ho-Pham, Nguyen and Nguyen 49 ) ; a subsequent study of 210 postmenopausal women in Vietnam found no difference in femoral bone mineral density between vegans and omnivores ( Reference Ho-Pham, Vu and Lai 50 ) . More research is needed on bone mineral density in vegetarians, in particular to provide better understanding of the relative importance of dietary factors and body composition.

Analyses of the risks for several other diseases and conditions have been reported from EPIC-Oxford. The risk of diverticular disease of the colon was 31 % (95 % CI 14, 45) lower in vegetarians compared with meat eaters ( Reference Crowe, Appleby and Allen 51 ) ; when the vegetarians were subdivided into lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans the latter group had a 72 % (95 % CI 26, 90) lower risk of diverticular disease compared with meat eaters. This study also found a strong inverse association between dietary fibre intake and diverticular disease risk, but both associations remained statistically significant after mutual adjustment. Other analyses in EPIC-Oxford showed that vegetarians (including vegans) were at lower risk of eye cataract compared with meat eaters (relative risk 0·74, 95 % CI 0·63, 0·86), with a progressive reduction in risk from high (at least 100 g/d) to low (<50 g/d) intake meat eaters, fish eaters, lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans ( Reference Appleby, Allen and Key 52 ) . Vegetarians in the EPIC-Oxford study also had a 31 % (95 % CI 2, 52) lower risk of kidney stones compared with participants consuming a high meat diet ( Reference Turney, Appleby and Reynard 53 ) .

Analyses from AHS showed that high meat consumption was associated with a higher prevalence of degenerative arthritis and soft tissue disorders ( Reference Hailu, Knutsen and Fraser 54 ) ; compared with non-meat eaters, multivariate OR for the condition in occasional (<1 x/week) and regular (≥1 x/week) meat eaters were 1·31 (95 % CI 1·21, 1·43) and 1·49 (1·31, 1·70) in women, and 1·19 (1·05, 1·34) and 1·43 (1·20, 1·70) in men. A cross-sectional analysis of 773 participants in AHS-2 found that vegetarians had a significantly lower risk of having metabolic syndrome compared with non-vegetarians (OR 0·44, 95 % CI 0·30, 0·64) ( Reference Rizzo, Sabaté and Jaceldo-Siegl 55 ) . In the same study, prevalence of self-reported hyperthyroidism was significantly lower in each of fish eaters, lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared with omnivores (OR and 95 % CI 0·74, 0·56, 1·00; 0·65, 0·53, 0·81; and 0·49, 0·33, 0·72, respectively) ( Reference Tonstad, Nathan and Oda 56 ) .

In the pooled analysis of mortality in five prospective studies in 1999, the death rate ratio in vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians, based on a total of 8330 deaths, was 0·95 (95 % CI 0·82, 1·11) ( Reference Key, Fraser and Thorogood 20 ) . However, the death rate ratios for vegetarians compared with non-vegetarians varied between studies from 0·80 to 1·17, and the test for heterogeneity between studies was highly significant ( P < 0·0001). When the diet groups were subdivided, all-cause mortality was significantly lower in occasional meat eaters (death rate ratio and 95 % CI 0·84, 0·77, 0·90), fish eaters (0·82, 0·77, 0·96), and lacto-ovo-vegetarians (0·84, 0·74, 0·96), but not in vegans (1·00, 0·70, 1·44) compared with regular meat eaters (defined as those eating meat at least once per week) ( Reference Key, Fraser and Thorogood 20 ) . Subsequent analyses of mortality data from the EPIC-Oxford and AHS-2 studies, based on 1513 and 2570 deaths, respectively, produced contrasting results. In EPIC-Oxford, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians (death rate ratio and 95 % CI 1·05, 0·93, 1·19) ( Reference Key, Appleby and Spencer 40 ) . When the non-vegetarians in this study were subdivided as meat eaters and fish eaters (who ate fish but not meat) the death rate ratios compared with meat eaters were 0·89 (95 % CI 0·75, 1·05) in fish eaters and 1·03 (95 % CI 0·90, 1·16) in vegetarians. Analyses in both AHS and AHS-2 have shown lower mortality in vegetarians and semi-vegetarians combined than in non-vegetarians ( Reference Fraser and Shavlik 57 , Reference Orlich, Singh and Sabaté 41 ) ; in AHS-2, death rate ratios in semi-vegetarians, fish eaters, lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans compared with non-vegetarians were 0·92 (95 % CI 0·75, 1·13), 0·81 (0·69, 0·94), 0·91 (0·82, 1·00), and 0·85 (0·73, 1·01), respectively ( Reference Orlich, Singh and Sabaté 41 ) .

In the analysis of mortality data from the EPIC-Oxford study, standardised mortality ratios relative to the UK population for all causes of death were 52 % for both vegetarians and non-vegetarians ( Reference Key, Appleby and Spencer 40 ) . Low mortality relative to the general population is a common finding in prospective cohort studies owing to the ‘healthy volunteer effect’, partly as a consequence of healthy lifestyle choices such as the avoidance of tobacco ( Reference Davey, Spencer and Appleby 17 , Reference Butler, Fraser and Beeson 13 ) , but the strikingly low mortality of both vegetarians and non-vegetarians in EPIC-Oxford does suggest that the general health of both groups is good.

The amount of data available is not large, but the results so far suggest that the long-term health of vegetarians is good, and may be better than that of comparable non-vegetarians for some conditions and diseases such as obesity and IHD. Stroke mortality has not been shown to differ between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. Overall cancer rates may be slightly lower in vegetarians, but the data are inconclusive for most common individual cancers. Bone fracture rates in lacto-ovo-vegetarians may be similar to those in non-vegetarians, but more data on this are needed; fracture rates are higher in vegans if they have inadequate intakes of calcium. Vegetarians have also been found to have lower risks for diabetes, diverticular disease, eye cataract, degenerative arthritis, hyperthyroidism and the metabolic syndrome, but these findings need to be further investigated in other studies. Overall mortality is similar for vegetarians and comparable non-vegetarians, but vegetarian groups compare favourably with the general population.

More data are needed, for example on stroke and sub-types of stroke, bone health and diseases and conditions not yet studied, as well as for vegetarians and others with a low intake of animal products in non-western populations. For vegans, the current data are insufficient to draw any strong conclusions and much more research is required.

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues, past and present, at the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, the many researchers who have studied the health of vegetarians and vegans, and participants in these studies, irrespective of their dietary preferences.

Financial Support

Medical Research Council MR/M012190/1.

Conflicts of Interest

T. J. K. is a member of the Vegetarian Society and the Vegan Society.

P. N. A. and T. J. K. wrote the paper.

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

Google Scholar

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Volume 75, Issue 3
Paul N. Appleby (a1) and Timothy J. Key (a1)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665115004334

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Welcome to Veganism 101

The what & why, hello curious human, live counter.

Animal agriculture, factory farming, and the way we consume food today has a big, negative impact in the world. Just in the time you opened this website, a lot has happened. All numbers are conservative and on the lower-end.

Carbon Emitted 1

Chickens killed 2, methane emitted 3, pigs killed 4, manure produced 5, fishes killed 6, water wasted 7, cattle killed 8, antibiotics fed 9.

(1) 7.1 gigatons CO2 emissions from livestock farming globally per year. FAO
(2) 68,785,221,000 Chickens killed globally per year. FAO
(3) 70 A billion kg of methane emissions from 1 billion B cattle farming globally per year. Methane has 23 C to 36 D times the global warming potential as CO2 during the first 100-years of its emission. Time For Change A , Beef Market Central B , FAO C , EPA D
(4) 1,484,492,840 Pigs killed globally per year. FAO
(5) 335 million tons of manure (dry matter) from livestock farming in the US per year. USDA . Another estimate puts it to 116,000 lbs. per second.
(6) 97,398,330 million tons of fishes (live weight) are taken from the ocean globally per year. FAO
(7) 11,900 km 3 freshwater used globally by the livestock sector each year. (1 km 3 = 1,000 liters) FAO
(8) 302,128,113 Cows killed globally per year. FAO
(9) Almost 29 million pounds of antibiotics sold in USA for food animals. FDA

Why go vegan?

Environment

How to get started?

Some notable faces who advocate a plant-based diet., theoretical physicist, albert einstein.

"It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind."

Einstein was a proponent of vegetarianism. Doctors prescribed him a meat-free diet for his digestive problems. Toward the end of his life, he might have even been vegan. A year before he died, he wrote to his friend Hans Muehsam, “So I am living without fats, without meat, without fish, but am feeling quite well this way. It always seems to me that man was not born to be a carnivore.” [IVU.org]

Tennis athletes

Venus and serena williams.

The sisters have been on a vegan diet for about 10 years.

Venus Williams, “I started for health reasons. I was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease, and I wanted to maintain my performance on the court. Once I started I fell in love with the concept of fueling your body in the best way possible. Not only does it help me on the court, but I feel like I’m doing the right thing for me.”

In 2012, Serena Williams said she cleaned up her diet, and started eating vegan after her sister Venus was diagnosed with Sjogren’s syndrome. By February 2020, Serena launched a vegan leather fashion line that was designed to help save the planet. “I feel like a lot of things are being killed and we’re not saving the earth... We can all just do one small thing and help out.”

In December 2020, Venus launched a vegan protein brand called Happy Viking, which is inspired by her own eating habits. [LiveKindly]

Naturalist, essayist, philosopher

Henry david thoreau.

“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals”

Similar to many earlier polymaths like Pythagoras, Socrates, or Leonardo da Vinci, Thoreau tried to eat a plant-based diet whenever possible, if not all the time. If his hosts served meat, Thoreau would eat what was served. [NPR]

"I once had a sparrow alight on my shoulder for a moment while I was hoeing in a village garden, and I felt that I was more distinguished by that circumstance than I should have been by any epaulet I could have worn."

"I have found repeatedly, of late years, that I cannot fish without falling a little in self-respect. I have tried it again and again. I have skill at it, and, like many of my fellows, a certain instinct for it, which revives from time to time, but always when I have done I feel it would have been better if I had not fished. I think that I do not mistake. It is a faint intimation, yet so are the first streaks of morning." [IVU.org]

American football quarterback

Colin kaepernick.

On a vegan diet since 2015.

Kaepernick is an American civil rights activist and former football quarterback. He played six seasons for the San Francisco 49ers in the National Football League (NFL). In 2016, he knelt during the national anthem at the start of NFL games in protest of police brutality and racial inequality in the United States.

Mary Shelley

Author of Frankenstein.

Mary Shelley, the author usually credited with creating the genre of science fiction with her book Frankenstein, ate a meatless diet, and the book itself can be read as a kind of vegetarian manifesto. If you’re familiar with the Frankenstein story from one of the film versions, you’re aware that the monster is assembled from parts of corpses. In the original, though, Shelley specifies that the monster’s parts come not just from the dissecting room but from the slaughterhouse, a place she must have regarded with equal horror.

Despite the terrifying and unnatural circumstances of his creation, the monster himself is a vegetarian and lives in communion with nature the way so many Romantic intellectuals aspired to, saying, “I do not destroy the lamb and the kid to glut my appetite; acorns and berries afford me sufficient nourishment.” [Britannica]

Ariana Grande

"I love animals more than I love most people, not kidding."

Ariana Grande adopted a vegan diet in 2013 and has long been a vocal advocate for animal rights. She has several rescue animals, as well as a pet pig, and often wears vegan faux fur.

Ready to begin your vegan journey?

Let's get started.

What is Veganism?
How To Get Started

Search the site GO Please fill out this field.
Newsletters

What Does It Mean To Be Vegan?

Vegan Foods
Meat and Dairy Alternatives
Foods That Aren't Vegan
Vegan Leather
Benefits of a Vegan Diet
Risks of a Vegan Diet

Yagi Studio / Getty Images

As vegan diets become more popular, you may wonder what vegan means and how it’s different from vegetarian. The main difference is that a vegan diet excludes all animal foods and animal byproducts. Vegetarian diets don’t include meat, fish, poultry, or seafood but may include eggs, honey, milk, and dairy products.

Research has shown that both vegan and vegetarian diets can offer many health benefits, but there are drawbacks to each, too. Read on to learn about vegan diets, what you can eat, and the pros and cons.

What Foods Are Vegan?

Vegans don’t eat any foods that contain animal products. That means their diets exclude all meat, seafood, poultry , and dairy, as well as honey or foods with additives that come from animals, such as gelatin (from cows and pigs) or whey (from milk).

Vegans choose from an array of plant foods. Some vegan choices include:

Vegetable oils like olive, canola, sesame, and avocado
Grain products
Bread
Soy foods like tofu , tempeh, and edamame
Nuts and nut butter
Plant-based meat and dairy alternatives

What Are Vegan Meat and Dairy Alternatives?

Vegans and vegetarians are still a tiny percentage of the population, but their numbers have grown significantly in the past few years. The more people who eat this way, the more vegan options manufacturers add.

Health food stores usually carry a wide range of vegetarian and vegan options. Traditional grocery store chains and retailers like Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods, and even Walmart now do too.

Some vegan alternatives to traditional animal-based products include plant-based meat, milk, and dairy substitutes. Their nutritional content can vary, and some plant-based options are highly processed and may be higher in sodium, lower in protein, and higher in saturated fat than the original. If you’re concerned about nutritional content, check the label to see how they compare.

Some vegan plant-based meat and dairy alternatives include:

Meat alternatives made from mushrooms, algae, cereals, or legumes like black beans
Plant-based deli and ground meat alternatives that contain protein from soy or other beans or texturized vegetable protein (TVP)
Cheese-like products created from water and vegetable oils or fats with added vegetable protein
Plant-based milk from hemp, oat, soybeans, almonds, rice, or other plant sources. It's often fortified with nutrients vegans and vegetarians may lack, like Vitamin D

What Foods Are Not Vegan?

Foods that are not vegan are any foods made with animal products or their derivatives.

Some foods that are not vegan include:

Fish and seafood
Dairy products like cheese, yogurt, and ice cream
Prepared and prepackaged products with animal-derived ingredients

Many premade foods are not vegan despite being mostly plant-based. That’s because they use things made from animal tissues or products. Vegans may pass on bakery muffins, for example, because they contain whey or packaged noodles made with egg.

Non-vegan food ingredients of animal origin include:

Albumen, which comes from eggs
Isinglass, fish gelatin added to some alcoholic beverages during fermentation
Whey, lactose, and casein from milk
Gelatin, made from the hides, bones, and connective tissue of pigs and cows
Glycerol, which is sometimes made of animal fat
Disodium inosinate, a food additive sometimes made from meat or fish

What's Vegan Leather?

Some vegans also shun cosmetic and household products tested on animals and clothing derived from animal sources. You may have heard of vegan leather, which is faux leather not made from animal skin. It may be polyurethane or a variety of eco-friendly materials.

There’s also a soybean substitute for cashmere that some animal welfare groups call “vegetable cashmere.” The original version usually comes from goats.

Other materials vegans forgo:

Silk (made from the boiled cocoons of silkworm larvae)
Felt, which may contain fibers of animal origin
Angora, made from Angora rabbit hair
Pashmina, a type of fine cashmere made from goat hair
Mohair, which comes from goats

Vegans may instead wear clothing made of:

Organic cotton
Beech tree fiber
rPET (recycled polyester)
Coconut fiber

The Benefits of a Vegan Diet

Vegan diets come with many potential health and environmental benefits. A nutrient-dense, calorie-balanced vegan diet has the potential to help you achieve or maintain a healthy weight. A vegan diet might also lower the risk of several chronic diseases.

Reduces Risk of Chronic Disease

A 2021 review of the literature found that well-planned vegan diets could help prevent cardiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is a group of conditions that make you more likely to experience a stroke , insulin resistance, diabetes , coronary artery disease, or other life-threatening conditions.

There’s evidence that diets high in plant foods, fruits, and vegetables may also help you maintain a healthy weight.

A 2020 analysis of 19 studies found that plant-based diets (including vegan diets) helped people with certain conditions achieve a healthier weight.

Those conditions included:

Type 2 diabetes
Cardiovascular disease (or risk of it)
Rheumatoid arthritis

Researchers think the higher fiber content, lower energy intake, and different nutrient composition of plant-based diets were responsible for the risk reduction.

A 2019 study of 219 adults who were overweight or had obesity had similar results. Researchers in that study also found that eating more legumes was strongly associated with weight loss.

A 2019 analysis of nine studies that included more than 307,000 people found that plant-based eating patterns were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes. The association was even stronger when people ate more of healthful plant foods such as vegetables, legumes, whole grains, and nuts.

A 2020 study that looked at more than 416,104 people found that higher intakes of plant protein were associated with a somewhat lower risk of all causes of death, including cardiovascular disease.

Increases the Nutrients in Your Diet

Some people like to focus on what vegans leave out of their diets. But researchers have found that vegans take in plenty more of certain vitamins, minerals and nutrients than meat-eaters.

They include:

Polyunsaturated fatty acids
Alpha linoleic acid (ALA), a type of Omega-3 fatty acid

Helps The Environment

Many people choose a plant-based diet for environmental reasons. Some studies indicate that raising animals for meat, especially cows, takes a heavier toll on soil, water, and the atmosphere than cultivating grains, fruits, and vegetables.

A 2021 review of the literature found that plant-based diets are more sustainable than animal-based ones and use fewer resources such as farmland and water. The review authors found that plant foods produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions. Plant protein was much less costly to produce than animal protein in terms of resources and environmental impact.

The review found that it takes 74 times less water and eight times less land to get the same amount of protein from tofu as beef. Studies have found that making plant-based products uses fewer resources than making meat, whether you’re judging by weight, calorie, or serving size. Others have concluded that raising cattle takes up to 100 times the resources of plant-based food.

What Are The Risks of a Vegan Diet?

A vegan diet isn’t automatically an improvement over your normal eating pattern. There’s limited evidence to suggest that vegan diets are healthier than other diets that include some meat or animal products. That might be because there are fewer vegan people to study, and diets vary so much from person to person.

French fries, potato chips, and coconut milk can all be vegan and enjoyable treats. Eating too much of them and leaving out unprocessed foods can mean you don't get all the nutrients you need. Some vegan meat and cheese alternatives are highly processed. They may have fat, sugar, or salt levels higher than the original.

As with any other eating plan, you will choose from a variety of foods that can enhance your health and lower your risk of weight gain and lifestyle conditions, or the opposite. Even if you eat mostly nutritious, healthy vegan foods, you may lack certain nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.

Having Low Vitamin and Mineral Levels

If you follow a vegan diet, you may need to take supplements or eat fortified foods.

A 2021 review of studies found that vegans may lack important nutrients. Vegan diets have the lowest levels of protein intake when compared to all other diets, including vegetarian ones. They can also lack enough Omega-3 fatty acids, which are more readily available from animal foods.

If you follow a vegan diet and don’t supplement, you’ll lack Vitamin B12 because your body can’t make it, and you can only get it from animal foods, supplements, and fortified foods. Your body needs it for a healthy central nervous system and to make red blood cells, among other things. Bacteria create the B12 in vegan supplements.

Vegan diets are associated with low intakes of:

Vitamin B3 (Niacin)

The 2021 review found vegan diets might cause you to lack other micronutrients, but that lack may not always lead to health problems. A 2017 study of 206 people, including 53 vegans, found that vegans who ate a well-balanced diet with supplements and fortified foods were able to meet all of their nutritional requirements.

Not Having Enough Protein

Vegan diets tend to contain the least protein of any other eating pattern. Protein is in every cell in your body. You need it to repair or replace cells. Pregnant women, children, and adolescents also need it for growth. Many health organizations recommend that you get between 10-35% of your energy intake from protein.

You can get all the protein you need from protein-rich plant sources such as legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds. Authors of a 2021 review of 20 years of nutritional data recommended plant-based eaters consume fortified foods and a wider variety of nutrient-dense plant foods.

Consuming More Processed Foods

You might think of meat and dairy alternatives when you think of protein. Or, you might be tempted to turn to pre-made microwave vegan meals or frozen treats more often than not.

If so, keep in mind that they can be highly processed and contain too much sugar or salt and too little of the good-for-you plant nutrients. That includes vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, and fiber that fills you up. And if you get too much of your intake from them, you may not get enough nutrients from other foods.

The manufacturers of highly processed plant-based products have focused on taste, texture, and palatability rather than on nutrient density. That means that these alternatives may have around the same calories as traditional meat or cheese products but less protein, zinc, B12, calcium, and potassium. They may also have more salt and fat.

In terms of nutrition, it’s better to stick to less processed foods.

A Quick Review

Both vegan and vegetarian diets exclude all beef, pork, poultry, fish, seafood, and meat products. Vegans also forgo dairy, honey, eggs, and any product of animal origin.

Vegan diets can help you stay at a healthy weight and reduce your risk of chronic disease. They also reduce the environmental impacts of food production. If you switch to a vegan diet, remember that you will likely need some supplements to replace nutrients you’ve been getting from animal sources.

Intake and adequacy of the vegan diet. A systematic review of the evidence . Clinical Nutrition . 2021;40(5):3503-3521. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2020.11.035

Orlich MJ, Chiu THT, Dhillon PK, et al. Vegetarian epidemiology: review and discussion of findings from geographically diverse cohorts . Advances in Nutrition . 2019;10:S284-S295. doi:10.1093/advances/nmy109

Alcorta A, Porta A, Tárrega A, Alvarez MD, Vaquero MP. Foods for plant-based diets: challenges and innovations . Foods . 2021;10(2):293. doi:10.3390/foods10020293

Pointke M, Pawelzik E. Plant-based alternative products: are they healthy alternatives? Micro- and macronutrients and nutritional scoring . Nutrients . 2022;14(3):601. doi:10.3390/nu14030601

American Vegan Society. Vegan is .

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CFR-Code of Federal Regulations Title 21

The Vegan Society. How to avoid buying non-vegan products .

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Vegan leather: What it is and why it belongs in your closet.

People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Wool is so yesterday. Why natural vegan fabrics are taking over .

Marrone G, Guerriero C, Palazzetti D, et al. Vegan diet health benefits in metabolic syndrome. Nutrients . 2021;13(3):817. doi:10.3390/nu13030817

National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. What is metabolic syndrome?

Tran E, Dale HF, Jensen C, Lied GA. Effects of plant-based diets on weight status: a systematic review . Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes . 2020;13:3433-3448. doi: 10.2147/DMSO.S272802

Crosby L, Rembert E, Levin S, et al. Changes in food and nutrient intake and diet quality on a low-fat vegan diet are associated with changes in body weight, body composition, and insulin sensitivity in overweight adults: a randomized clinical trial . Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics . 2022;122(10):1922-1939.e0. doi:10.1016/j.jand.2022.04.008

Qian F, Liu G, Hu FB, Bhupathiraju SN, Sun Q. Association between plant-based dietary patterns and risk of type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis . JAMA Intern Med . 2019;179(10):1335. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.2195

Huang J, Liao LM, Weinstein SJ, Sinha R, Graubard BI, Albanes D. Association between plant and animal protein intake and overall and cause-specific mortality . JAMA Intern Med . 2020;180(9):1173. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2790

Neufingerl N, Eilander A. Nutrient intake and status in adults consuming plant-based diets compared to meat-eaters: a systematic review . Nutrients . 2021;14(1):29. doi:10.3390/nu14010029

Fresán U, Martínez-González MA, Sabaté J, Bes-Rastrollo M. Global sustainability (Health, environment and monetary costs) of three dietary patterns: results from a Spanish cohort (The sun project) . BMJ Open . 2019;9(2):e021541. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021541

Soret S, Mejia A, Batech M, Jaceldo-Siegl K, Harwatt H, Sabaté J. Climate change mitigation and health effects of varied dietary patterns in real-life settings throughout North America . The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition . 2014;100:490S-495S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071589

Clune S, Crossin E, Verghese K. Systematic review of greenhouse gas emissions for different fresh food categories . Journal of Cleaner Production . 2017;140:766-783. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.082

Craig WJ, Mangels AR, Fresán U, et al. The safe and effective use of plant-based diets with guidelines for health professionals . Nutrients . 2021;13(11):4144. doi: 10.3390/nu13114144

Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers . Science . 2018;360(6392):987-992. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216

Clark M, Tilman D. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice. Environ Res Lett . 2017;12(6):064016. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa6cd5

Deckers J. Might a Vegan Diet Be Healthy, or Even Healthier? Ubiquity Press; 2016.

National Institutes of Health. Vitamin B12 .

Schüpbach R, Wegmüller R, Berguerand C, Bui M, Herter-Aeberli I. Micronutrient status and intake in omnivores, vegetarians and vegans in Switzerland . Eur J Nutr . 2017;56(1):283-293. doi:10.1007/s00394-015-1079-7

MedLine Plus. Protein in diet.

Mariotti, Gardner. Dietary protein and amino acids in vegetarian diets—a review . Nutrients . 2019;11(11):2661. doi: 10.3390/nu11112661

Tso R, Forde CG. Unintended consequences: nutritional impact and potential pitfalls of switching from animal- to plant-based foods . Nutrients . 2021;13(8):2527. doi:10.3390/nu13082527

Hever J. Plant-based diets: a physician’s guide . Perm J . 2016;20(3):15-082. doi:10.3390/nu13082527

What Does It Mean To Be Vegan versus Vegetarian? 1 of 8 Medically reviewed by Karina Tolentino, RD
The Truth About Vegan vs. Vegetarian Diets 2 of 8 Medically reviewed by Roxana Ehsani, RD
11 Things That Can Happen When You Go Vegan for a Month 3 of 8 Medically reviewed by Jonathan Purtell, RDN
Study Shows Plant-Based Diets Are Good for Heart Health—Do You Need to Go Entirely Vegan? 4 of 8 By Rebecca Jaspan, MPH, RD
Eating More Plant-Based Protein Could Help Lower Your Risk of Chronic Kidney Disease 5 of 8 By Sarah Garone
Study: Vegan Diets Aren’t Automatically ‘Healthy,’ Prioritizing Nutrients Is Key 6 of 8 By Sarah Garone
Do You Know These 20 Vegan and Vegetarian Protein Sources? 7 of 8 Medically reviewed by Barbie Cervoni, RD
Plant-Based, Nutritious, and Delicious: These Protein Powders Impressed Our RDs and Taste-Testers 8 of 8 Medically reviewed by Melissa Nieves, LND

Members' Area

Competitions
Press releases
Spokespeople
Share your story
Vegan insight panel
Plant milk market
Meat alternative market

Definition of veganism

Go vegan for animals
Go vegan for the environment
Go vegan for your health
How many animals would I save?
The honey industry
Meal planning
Take the Vegan Pledge
VeGuide App - Go Vegan the Easy Way
Become a Member
Donate Today
Leaving A Gift In Your Will
Giving in Loving Memory
Run for The Vegan Society
Walk for The Vegan Society
Collection tins
Fundraising ideas
Vegan and Thriving 77 Challenge
Volunteer Profiles
Volunteer Roles
Community Network
Join our newsletter
Our Manifesto for Veganism
Planting Value in the Food System
How We Influence Policy
COP27 Policy Briefing
Climate Crisis
Research News
Research Advisory Committee
Researcher Network
On the Pulse Webinars
Publications
Research Day 2022
About the IRN
What rights do vegans have?
Veganism in the workplace
Currently experiencing problems?
International Rights Conference 2020
Veganise your town
Discount list
Wholesale opportunities
Offer a competition
World Vegan Month
Nutrition overview
Life stages
Bone health
Vegan Supplementation
Medications
Allergen labelling
Fuelling an active lifestyle
Vegan and Thriving
Vegan shoes
Vegan tattoos
Sandwich and wrap fillings
Vegan-friendly options in UK chains
Vegan on a budget
Trademark search
Lists of vegan items in UK supermarkets
The Vegan magazine
The Vegan Pod
General FAQs
Vegan Trademark
VEG 1 Vegan Supplements
Gifts & Accessories

"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 ."

There are many ways to embrace vegan living. Yet one thing all vegans have in common is a plant-based diet avoiding all animal foods such as meat (including fish, shellfish and insects), dairy, eggs and honey - as well as avoiding animal-derived materials, products tested on animals and places that use animals for entertainment.

Some people may choose to go vegan, for some it may be because they do not believe in farmed animal practices and animal exploitation, for others it may be due to environmental concerns. Whatever the reason The Vegan Society is here to support everyone on their vegan journey.

Although the vegan diet was defined early on in The Vegan Society's beginnings in 1944, by Donald Watson and our founding members.It was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism. He suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.

The society was first registered as a charity in August 1964 but its assets were later transferred to a new charity when it also became a limited company in December 1979. The definition of veganism and the charitable objects of the society were amended and refined over the years. By winter 1988 the current definition was in use - although the phrasing has changed slightly over the years.

So what do vegans eat?

A great deal - you'll soon find a whole new world of exciting foods and flavours opening up to you. A vegan diet is richly diverse and comprises all kinds of fruits, vegetables, nuts, grains, seeds, beans and pulses - all of which can be prepared in endless combinations that will ensure you're never bored. From curry to cake, pasties to pizzas, all your favourite things can be suitable for a vegan diet if they're made with plant-based ingredients. Check out our vegan recipes for ideas.

It's not just about diet

Vegans avoid exploiting animals for any purpose, with compassion being a key reason many choose a vegan lifestyle. From accessories and clothing to makeup and bathroom items, animal products and products tested on animals are found in more places than you might expect. Fortunately nowadays there are affordable and easily-sourced alternatives to just about everything. With over 65,000 products and services registered with our Vegan Trademark alone, living a vegan lifestyle has never been easier. Browse our online shop today.

Start your vegan journey today by downloading our VeGuide app . You can also join The Vegan Society by completing our quick and simple online form. As a registered charity we rely on our members, and we are so grateful to everyone who supports us. For just £2 a month, your membership will go towards helping us to spread the word of veganism and create a world where animals are free to exist in their own right. In return you’ll receive access to over one hundred vegan discounts, our quarterly magazine, exclusive competitions and more!

Other aspects of vegan living

Currently all medicine in the UK must be tested on animals before it is deemed safe for human use, but please note: The Vegan Society DOES NOT recommend you avoid medication prescribed to you by your doctor - a vegan who is looking after themselves the best they can is an asset to the movement. What you can do is ask your GP or pharmacist to provide you, if possible, with medication that does not contain animal products such as gelatine or lactose. For more information visit the medicines website , which contains information on medicines prescribed in the UK, including ingredients lists.

Medical charities

If you're a medical charity supporter you may wish to check whether your chosen charity performs animal testing. There are many charities that don't currently conduct animal tests and many vegans prefer donating to charities that actively seek alternative methods of testing.

Entertainment

Vegans choose not to support animal exploitation in any form and so avoid visiting zoos or aquariums, or taking part in dog or horse racing. A great alternative is visiting and supporting animal sanctuaries that provide safe and loving homes for rescued animals.

Want to find out more about the vegan lifestyle? Sign up to the free Vegan Pledge today. There are hundreds of thousands of vegans across the globe - with you, we're that much stronger.

Sign-up for our newsletter

Join our newsletter to receive monthly competitions, offers and information on all things vegan.

Official Communications
Science Sparks
Current Student Resources
Faculty and Staff Resources
Online Learning Resources and Support
Photography/Video
Social Media Account Request Form
UIC Social Media Guidelines and Best Practices
Experts Guide
Communicating On Campus
Sending Announcements / DDDH
UIC Social Media Directory

Radical arguments for veganism may appeal to Black populations

June 11, 2024

Black women are more likely than white men to consider animal rights, anti-racism and environmental protection as convincing reasons to embrace veganism, according to new research from the University of Illinois Chicago.

The study by UIC sociology PhD student Victoria Brockett examined how different messages from social movements resonate with people of various races and gender identities. Black women were nearly twice as likely as white men to consider adopting a vegan diet when presented with arguments based on societal change.

“The gap suggests that radical messages are much more likely to resonate with Black women,” Brockett said.

The work addresses a broader hypothesis that a person’s “social location” influences the effectiveness of these frames, as sociologists call them.

Veganism is a particularly interesting subject for testing this question, Brockett said. Although the movement was founded in the 1940s based on an ethical stance against animal mistreatment, it has since emphasized other ideals to motivate people to give up animal-based products.

Some of these more radical frames, such as ending exploitation of nonwhite workers in the meat industry and the negative environmental impacts of animal agriculture, also stem from ethics and social justice. But other, more moderate pro-vegan arguments appeal to individual motivations to improve health and lifestyle.

Brockett compared the effectiveness of these radical and moderate frames in a survey of nearly 500 people who do not identify as vegan. Each received one of four vignettes representing a different argument for going vegan: personal health, environmental benefits, anti-racism or animal rights.

Across the entire sample, the moderate approach of improving personal health was the most effective. But when segmented by race and gender, notable differences emerged in the performance of the radical arguments.

“Given their life, what they think about themselves, how they’re treated by society at large and the things that they’ve internalized about what it means to be a Black or white woman or man — that serves as a filter,” Brockett said. “So when a person receives a frame, it’s filtered through their racial and gender identity in terms of how much it’s going to resonate with them or not.”

The finding could be useful for pro-vegan organizations, which struggle against a perception that the cause is primarily embraced by white women and which face the activist’s dilemma of crafting messaging that must choose between being either pragmatic or visionary, Brockett said. But it also could inform messaging and operations for other advocacy groups.

“I think for social-movement organizations, the major takeaway is that if you’re trying to reach an audience that is already going to be in line with your radical vision, you need to take race and gender seriously within your own organizations and look at those dynamics,” Brockett said.

Rob Mitchum [email protected]

Research Briefs

advocacy , social justice , Sociology

Enter a Search Term

The meat workers who became vegan entrepreneurs.

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.

IMAGES

VEGANISM: what and why of it all
Highlights of the 2019 Study "Why People Go Vegan" : r/vegan
Vegan Basics from History to Benefits
Veganism research
The Age of Veganism: Vegan Health Statistics for 2020
How to describe Veganism?

VIDEO

My Journey to Veganism
The Impact of a Plant-Based Diet on Depression
WHAT I ATE TODAY # 12
Mike Young and his vegan journey and doing his own research about veganism!
Vegan and sick to eating meat and healing. High oxalates and bladder and digestive problems
Why You Should Go Vegan

COMMENTS

Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism: A systematic and comprehensive literature review of quantitative studies
Initially selected articles were removed based on the following: (1) research area: if their key focus was not on behavioral and psychological aspects of VEG. Thus, ... We initially started pilot coding 30 articles, considering two main research streams: veganism (Vgn) and vegetarianism (Vgt). The coding of these research streams was based on ...
The Impact of a Vegan Diet on Many Aspects of Health: The Overlooked
Abstract. Vegetarianism in any of its various forms, particularly veganism, has been increasing in popularity over the past few years, especially among the young population in the United States. While several studies have shown that a vegan diet (VD) decreases the risk of cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes ...
Vegetarian Diet: An Overview through the Perspective of Quality of Life
Veganism is a broader concept, which involves the adoption of a strict vegetarian diet, as well as the exclusion of other consumer items made from animal products, or which rely on animal exploitation, such as cosmetics and clothing items [8,9]. For didactic purposes, a strict vegetarian diet is often referred to as a vegan diet.
The effects of plant-based diets on the body and the brain: a ...
Background. Western societies notice an increasing interest in plant-based eating patterns such as avoiding meat or fish or fully excluding animal products (vegetarian or vegan, see Fig. 1).In ...
Intake and adequacy of the vegan diet. A systematic review of the
Results. Regarding macronutrients, vegan diets are lower in protein intake compared with all other diet types. Veganism is also associated with low intake of vitamins B 2, Niacin (B 3), B 12, D, iodine, zinc, calcium, potassium, selenium.Vitamin B 12 intake among vegans is significantly lower (0.24-0.49 μg, recommendations are 2.4 μg) and calcium intake in the majority of vegans was below ...
Embracing a plant-based diet
Eating a plant-based diet helps the environment. According to a report by the U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization, "The meat industry has a marked impact on a general global scale on water ...
Evidence of a vegan diet for health benefits and risks
However, more research, specifically on a vegan diet and the incidence of chronic diseases is needed. The major risk factor for both cancer and CVD is obesity. As it reaches nowadays pandemic incidence, preventive measures and treatment strategies are urgently needed (Dai et al. Citation 2020). We found that persons on a vegan diet have lower ...
Intake and adequacy of the vegan diet. A systematic review of the
Background: Vegan diets, where animal- and all their by-products are excluded from the diet, have gained popularity, especially in the last decade. However, the evaluation of this type of diet has not been well addressed in the scientific literature. This study aimed to investigate the adequacy of vegan diets in European populations and of their macro- and micronutrient intakes compared to ...
Veganism, aging and longevity: new insight into old concepts
Abstract. Purpose of review: Plant-based diets are associated with better health and longevity. Veganism is a strict form of vegetarianism, which has gained increasing attention in recent years. This review will focus on studies addressing mortality and health-span in vegans and vegetarians and discuss possible longevity-enhancing mechanisms.
Prevalence and psychopathology of vegetarians and vegans
To date research about vegetarianism and veganism is still young even though plant-based nutrition seems to have gained increasing popularity and represents a growing social movement 1 ...
Vegan diet can benefit both health and the environment
There is strong evidence that a plant-based diet is the optimal diet for living a long and healthy life, according to Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health nutrition expert Walter Willett.. In a January 7, 2019 interview on the NPR show "1A," Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, said that it's not necessary to be 100% vegan in order to reap the benefits of a plant-based ...
The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans
There has been extensive research into the nutritional adequacy of vegetarian diets, but less is known about the long-term health of vegetarians and vegans. We summarise the main findings from large cross-sectional and prospective cohort studies in western countries with a high proportion of vegetarian participants.
Research Shows Vegan Diet Leads to Nutritional Deficiencies, Health
Although the vegan diet is often promoted as being good for heart health, eliminating consumption of animal products may cause nutritional deficiencies and could lead to negative consequences, according to a comprehensive review published in the medical journal Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases.. Noting an absence of randomized controlled trial data showing long-term safety or effectiveness ...
The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans
For vegans, the current data are insufficient to draw any strong conclusions and much more research is required. Acknowledgements We thank our colleagues, past and present, at the Cancer Epidemiology Unit, the many researchers who have studied the health of vegetarians and vegans, and participants in these studies, irrespective of their dietary ...
Beyond Meatless, the Health Effects of Vegan Diets: Findings from the
The research on the health effects of vegan diets and chronic diseases have mostly derived from observational studies of Adventist and Oxford vegetarians cohorts. These studies have mainly focused on cardiovascular disease and cancer outcomes. Further research is needed in the prospective investigation of obesity, diabetes, cognition, and other ...
Vegan diet: nutritional components, implementation, and effects on
Research has shown that a vegan diet can help adults lose weight by replacing high-calorie items with low-calorie alternatives and maintaining a balance between energy intake and energy expenditure . Based on available evidence, the vegan diet should be considered a viable option for patients who are interested in preventing overweight and ...
Rethinking Veganism in the Digital Age. Innovating Methodology and
In this article, we examine the expressions of veganism on Facebook, a main social media platform worldwide, through a combination of classic qualitative social science and computational methods. ... The example of vegetarianism and veganism. Sociological Research Online 25(4): 609-625. Crossref. ISI. Google Scholar. Nielsen J (2006 ...
Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism: A
Initially selected articles were removed based on the following: (1) research area: if their key focus was not on behavioral and psychological aspects of VEG. Thus, ... We initially started pilot coding 30 articles, considering two main research streams: veganism (Vgn) and vegetarianism (Vgt). The coding of these research streams was based on ...
Veganism 101
The goal of this space is to provide research-based facts for anyone curious about veganism. Clear, brief summaries from published studies, all gathered in one easy place, separating myth from reality. Browse by any topic or search by questions on your mind. This space is a labor of love, and you can read more about my motivation to build it.
Vegan: Definition, Foods, and Benefits
Research has shown that both vegan and vegetarian diets can offer many health benefits, but there are drawbacks to each, too. Read on to learn about vegan diets, what you can eat, and the pros and ...
What would happen if everyone went vegan?
But according to new research published in the journal Climate, if we all went vegan, the world's food-related CO2 emissions may drop by 68 per cent within 15 years, The move, which the study's authors admit is hypothetical, would also provide the cut in emissions needed to limit global warming to 2ºC. However, going vegan is not the only ...
Go Vegan
Definition of veganism. "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 ...
Lifestyle changes may slow or improve Alzheimer's and dementia ...
Following a vegan diet, reducing stress, exercising and sharing feelings with others helped people slow the progression of Alzheimer's disease, a new study found.
Radical arguments for veganism may appeal to Black populations
June 11, 2024. Black women are more likely than white men to consider animal rights, anti-racism and environmental protection as convincing reasons to embrace veganism, according to new research from the University of Illinois Chicago. The study by UIC sociology PhD student Victoria Brockett examined how different messages from social movements ...
Ultra processed vegan food can increase your risk of heart death ...
Ultra-processed vegan food can increase the risk of heart death, Lancet research suggests. The study of 118,000 middle-aged and older Britons found that plant-based diets can protect the heart ...
The Meat Workers Who Became Vegan Entrepreneurs
BBC writes a story about several former animal-industry workers who have founded start-ups focusing on plant-based foods— they reference Dyson Professor Anne Toomey's scholarly work, 'Why facts don't change minds: Insights from cognitive science for the improved communication of conservation research'.
Vegan food geographies and the rise of Big Veganism
Veganism is the subject of an increasingly diverse body of social scientific research, yet it remains relatively understudied in geography. Meanwhile, contemporary cultural commentaries note how veganism has gone mainstream, with critics warning of veganism's corporate nature - expressed in the rise of what we term 'Big Veganism'.
Frozen Mushrooms Market to Reach $568.5 Million Globally by
According to the report, the global frozen mushrooms market generated $337.9 million, and is anticipated to generate $568.5 million by 2032, rising at a CAGR of 5.4% from 2023 to 2032. Download ...
Veganism, Moral Motivation and False Consciousness
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 ...

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

Focus on whole, minimally processed foods.

Eating a plant-based diet helps the environment.

Plant-based diets prevent animal cruelty.

Plant-based diets include all nutrients — even protein.

Savor the flavor of plant-based foods.

Prevalence and psychopathology of vegetarians and vegans – Results from a representative survey in Germany

Similar content being viewed by others

Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

Gut microbiome remodeling and metabolomic profile improves in response to protein pacing with intermittent fasting versus continuous caloric restriction

Adults who microdose psychedelics report health related motivations and lower levels of anxiety and depression compared to non-microdosers

Recruitment

Data acquisition

Dietary assessment

Psychological assessment

Statistical analyses

Participants

Prevalence of self-defined vegetarianism and veganism

Attitudes toward vegetarian and vegan diets

Comparison between self-defined vegetarians/vegans and omnivores

Data availability

Change history

Author information

Contributions

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Additional information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Share this article

Quick links

Vegan diet can benefit both health and the environment

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

Login Alert

Article contents

Risk factors: plasma cholesterol, hypertension and blood pressure

Ischaemic heart disease

Acknowledgements

Financial Support

Conflicts of Interest

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref .

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Welcome to Veganism 101

Carbon Emitted 1

Why go vegan?

How to get started?

Tennis athletes

Naturalist, essayist, philosopher

American football quarterback

Mary Shelley

Ariana Grande

Ready to begin your vegan journey?

What Does It Mean To Be Vegan?

What Foods Are Vegan?

What Are Vegan Meat and Dairy Alternatives?

What Foods Are Not Vegan?

What's Vegan Leather?

The Benefits of a Vegan Diet

Reduces Risk of Chronic Disease

Increases the Nutrients in Your Diet

Helps The Environment

What Are The Risks of a Vegan Diet?

Having Low Vitamin and Mineral Levels

Not Having Enough Protein

Consuming More Processed Foods

A Quick Review

Related Articles

Definition of veganism

You are here