Why Is There a Stigma Against Veganism?

The concept of veganism is not new. People have been sustaining meatless diets for years, whether it be for cultural reasons, religious reasons, because of resource availability or personal preference. The rise of veganism, particularly in the Western world, as an active dietary choice one can make has led to controversy. With more people on social media platforms such as Instagram posting about their vegan diets, YouTubers making videos on vegan recipes and fast-food chains making meat-substitute burgers, it can be argued that veganism has become more popular and even mainstream. Such large-scale popularity brings forth those who disagree with the premise of veganism and harbor a negative attitude towards it. This raises the question of why is there such a stigma against veganism? Is it legitimate and warranted? And if not, what can be done to destigmatize it?

Perhaps a starting point would be to take into consideration the ethics of veganism as it becomes more popular through social media advocation. Lukas Jasiunas from Faunalytics, a nonprofit animal rights organization, published an article titled “Veganism, Stigma, and You” which describes one of the reasons for such a stigma may be “at least partially explained by the communal food hypothesis – the importance of our need to share food with friends and family. When given a pro-vegan message, the strongest emotion evoked in the omnivorous respondents was found to be discomfort. When asked to consider the animals’ perspective, guilt and discomfort significantly affected information processing in the non-vegan survey participants.” With the studies reviewed in this report, the author comes to the conclusion that the negativity towards vegans may be a projection of one’s own guilt with the idea that vegans actively chose to not eat meat, for the sake of animal protection or otherwise, whilst they, the non-vegan, did not. Does that make non-vegans bad people? Not at all. A New York Times article by Jane E. Brody, the Personal Health columnist for the NYT since 1976, titled “Good Vegan, Bad Vegan” touches on the idea of the ethics and morality behind veganism as well. Brody states “please understand: I do not endorse inhumane treatment of farm animals or wanton pollution of the environment with animal wastes and misused antibiotics and pesticides. Agricultural research has long shown better ways to assure the nation of an adequate food supply if only regulators would force commercial operations to adopt them.” While Jasiunas provides a possible reasoning for the stigma against veganism, Brody somewhat reinforces the idea that animal cruelty is a cause for concern but also proposed a solution to that issue in the form of implementation of better agricultural methods that lessen both animal cruelty and environmental damage; this may ease the feeling of guilt when confronted by the thought of actively making the decision of eating a poorly treated animal as discussed by Jasiunas. Furthermore, Brody continues on in the New York Times article to propose the idea of a mixed palette consisting of both plant-based and meat-based food to lessen the negative effects of eating meat whilst also reaping its benefits. If meat was sourced more ethically and at a lower rate, perhaps the general public against veganism would have less of a “guilty conscience” upon consuming meat and meat-related products which would, in theory, lessen the negativity towards veganism and their perceived “righteousness.”

Such extremist takes on veganism can perhaps be attributed to “militant” activism. It’s quite easy for the public to dismiss vegans as “crazy, self-righteous social justice warriors that don’t need to be taken seriously” (Constantinou). Perhaps this is because of the perception of veganism being a radical concept simply because it is different from the norm in Western societies. There have been non-violent demonstrations in support of veganism such as “vegan protestors storming a Melbourne steakhouse shouting anti-meat slogans in the dining area” in 2018 as well as violent demonstrations in which “animal activists decide to vandalize, intimidate, and harass…[which] only exacerbates the problem” (Paytas). The main problem with pro-vegan activism is that it “will only foster the already prevalent anti-vegan sentiment” that exists because of meat-eating being the norm in such cultures. The concept of “cognitive dissonance” is demonstrated in this situation; “a person holds two incompatible views and acts on of them. In this case, your affection for animals might just start to clash with the idea that it’s OK to eat them…[therefore] it’s quite normal to blame these feelings on something else entirely” (Gorvett). This concept relates back to and supports the results of the studies described in the Faunalytics article mentioning the discomfort non-vegans felt when confronted with a pro-vegan message. This pre-installed negative perception, conscious or subconscious, of vegans, means that activism supporting veganism is received with much more hostility which, as a result, worsens the opinion of non-vegans, who feel as if they are being forced, have of vegans. However, “calling them [vegans] humorless or militant, sanctimonious or annoying or all hypocrites – all of these terms are just smokescreens for what it is that people really feel, which is fear” (Reynolds). Activism is activism; people fight for change in regards to their beliefs pertaining a certain social justice issue.  In Constantinou’s Impact publication, Dr. Paytas, a researcher in moral philosophy at ACU’s Institute for Religion and Critical Inquiry, is quoted for his belief that it may be more effective to be “somewhat more tolerant of people who consume animal products…and not be too fanatical about insisting on a purely vegan life” as there are alternate methods of reducing animal suffering. That is not to say that there is inherently nothing wrong with pro-vegan activism, when done in a proper manner, but rather the pre-existing bias against veganism may require a different approach to encouraging pro-vegan diets.

A legitimate argument against veganism concerns health and the fact that a plant-based diet is not enough to properly sustain a person nor is it synonymous with a healthy diet. Brody claims that “a vegan who consumes no animal products can be just as unhealthy living on inappropriately selected plant foods as an omnivore who dines heavily on burgers and chicken nuggets.” Moreover, a standalone vegan diet, devoid of any animal products, can lead to many deficiencies such as protein deficiencies or vitamin B-12 deficiencies. For those with strict vegan diets, such deficiencies can be avoided with protein from beans and grains and vitamin B-12 supplements. This comes back to the idea that it is just as easy to have an unhealthy vegan diet as it is to have an unhealthy non-vegan diet. That being said, compared to a heavily meat-based diet, plant-based diets can be much healthier when healthful plant foods are incorporated into said diet. A 2017 study published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology by a team from Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health explored the relationship between plant-based diets and the risk of developing coronary heart disease by dividing participants into those with healthful plant-based diets and those with unhealthful plant-based diets in which “any of the diets could have included various amounts of animal products.” The results showed that participants of the former group were less likely to develop heart disease and the study concluded that “’ even a slightly lower intake of animal foods combined with a higher intake of healthy plant foods’ was associated with a lower risk of developing heart disease” (Brody). This shows that veganism does not have to be viewed as an extreme, that people can incorporate a plant-based diet into their pre-existing diet without completely cutting meat or any animal-related products out. In fact, “there is no justification for the amount of meat we eat in western society. The resources that go into humanely rearing and butchering an animal should make its flesh a borderline-unattainable luxury” (Reynolds). There exists a middle-ground between non-vegans and vegans in order to fulfill a well-balanced and healthy diet that is good for humans, animals and the environment alike; however, this middle ground cannot coexist with the stigma against vegans, the otherness created by a culture that is used to a primarily meat-based diet.

Why is it that this sense of otherness is so visibly prominent in today’s time? The addition of media and large corporations inserting themselves into appealing to vegans may add to the fire. Fast-food chains such as Burger King have their “Impossible Burger,” a plant-based patty made with the intention of tasting like beef despite being made primarily of soybean. Beyond Meat, a Los Angeles-based company also produced a plant-based burger simulating the texture and taste of minced beef and hit a valuation of $3.4 billion. Large conglomerates like Nestle and Kellogg’s as well as supermarkets and restaurant chains have stepped foot into the fake-meat market. “A Tesco advert showcasing vegan produce met protests from the National Farmers Union who claimed it “demonized” meat….Ultimately, the vegan wars are not really about veganism at all, but about how individual freedom is coming into conflict with a personal and environmental health crisis.” (Reynolds). This brings veganism into a more political light, concerning social justice in the form of individual freedom as well as the involvement of large corporations in the name of capitalism. The popularity of veganism brings it into a much wider and more critical audience. It is entirely possible that those who criticize vegans haven’t encountered someone who is vegan personally. Rather, they have been exposed or even overexposed to this concept through endless social media posts about vegan diets, trends of people on the Internet trying vegan challenges, or, on a larger scale, corporations exploiting the popularization of an otherwise normal dietary practice common in various countries beyond the west. That is not to say that restaurants should not have vegan options on their menus. Such accommodating measures do help to draw in crowds and customers, but at the same time, it draws in critics. When something becomes a trend, it gives people room to criticize it, make fun of it, and blindly shun it without really knowing anything about it. It raises the question of whether people truly care about veganism as the main point of controversy or if the issue is much larger–a question of individualization, choice and the attachment to things that are familiar rather than being open to new experiences and practices. The solution would be educating the public on the benefits of veganism or a plant-based diet rather than forcing it onto them. This solution, however, is idealistic more than anything. It’s in the hands of non-vegans or those who do not know about veganism in general, to be open to the idea of learning about it, and if not adopt it, be tolerant of it. The unfortunate byproduct may be that vegan activists may not be able to exercise the same vigor that activists for other causes do. Such a solution call for mutual understanding and respect.

Overall, the negativity towards veganism seems to stem from its foreignness and deviation from Western culture in which, as a result of abundant resources, meat and meat production is quick and readily available. People become uncomfortable in the face of an alternative decision, that would in theory be the “morally right” decision, in regards to diet and animal consumption. The involvement of social media and the food industry adopting vegan-friendly options has brought more attention to the practice and that attention, coupled with its deviance from the “norms,” paints it in a more harsh and critical light. It opens the floor to criticism and dismissal towards something that can otherwise be good for people, animals and the environment. If those with heavy biases, especially in the Western society, were open to the idea of plant-based diets rather than fully converting to veganism, meals would be much healthier, varied and perhaps even exciting. A similar positive outcome can occur if said people were more tolerant of vegans even if they do not adopt veganism. None of this, however, can happen if people are not willing to overcome their pre-existing negative biases.

————————-

Post-Essay Reflection

My essay was mostly targeted towards non-vegans with the stigma against vegans with the overall conclusion that such negativity towards vegans is not warranted and that people need to be more tolerant. I kept my tone fairly formal but did attempt to have a more relaxed conversational format in which I considered and alluded to both sides of the argument throughout the essay. I decided to split my essay into paragraphs outlining various reasons as to why such stigmatization exists including ethical reasons, militant vegan advocates, and the involvement of large companies taking the opportunity to capitalize on a practice popularized through social media. By explaining these reasons, I hoped to allow the audience to understand or face the flaw in their negative perception of vegans. I also gave credit to those who argue about the nutritional deficits of a fully non-meat diet but point them towards the fact that having a healthy plant-based diet, fully vegan with supplements or otherwise, is more beneficial for their health than a heavily meat-based one. Ultimately, my goal of the essay was not to place blame on non-vegans who think poorly of vegans, but rather to critique the stigma around veganism and explore the reasoning behind the negativity around the diet in order to counter it and encourage non-vegans to be more tolerant of vegans instead of harboring, for the most part, baseless hatred towards them.

In writing this essay, I learned a lot about synthesis and how to take quotes or ideas from various sources to compare and contrast them in order to formulate my own ideas and come to a reasonable conclusion; I can say that I’ve gotten much better at putting my own thoughts into my writing rather than just explaining what the sources had to say. The research for my sources was mainly done through Gale’s One File and then branching out to different genres such as blogs and newsletters, often using links within said newsletters to reach more sources. My drafting process was fairly simple; I had a basic outline in my head and wrote it, bringing a new source into each new paragraph and bringing back previously mentioned sources to draw connections. The peer-review prior to my draft was helpful in narrowing down my main topic and audience and the one-on-one conference was helpful in that I received direct feedback on my essay which led me to expand on certain topics as well as reorganize some paragraphs to better fit the flow in my final draft.

Works Cited

Brody, Jane E. “Good Vegan, Bad Vegan.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Oct. 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/well/eat/good-vegan-bad-vegan.html?searchResultPosition=1

Constantinou, Menios. “Why the rise in militant vegan activism is likely hurting the cause.” Impact, ACU, 2018, https://www.impact.acu.edu.au/lifestyle/why-the-rise-in-militant-vegan-activism-is-likely-hurting-the-cause

Gorvett, Zaria. “The hidden biases that drive anti-vegan hatred.” BBC, 4 Feb. 2020, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200203-the-hidden-biases-that-drive-anti-vegan-hatred

Jasiunas, Lukas. “Veganism, Stigma, and You.” Faunalytics, 12 Aug. 2020, https://faunalytics.org/veganism-stigma-and-you/ . 

Paytas, Tyler. “Vegan activists using direct action should rethink their approach.” ABC News,7 Jul 2018, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-08/vegans-turning-aussies-off-veganism/9944244

Reynolds, George. “Why Do People Hate Vegans?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Oct. 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/oct/25/why-do-people-hate-vegans.