|
There are 66 pages in the Main namespace
- In developing countries, almost 5 million children under the age of five die of malnutrition-related causes every year and another 800 million are unable to lead a normal life because of chronic hunger. (UN FAO Hunger Facts, 2014) [1]
- “Between now and 2050, the global population is projected to rise from about 7 billion to 9.2 billion, demanding a 60 percent increase in global food production.” (UN FAO Hunger Facts, 2014) [2]
With the commodification of animals being so pervasive, it's easy to see why you might believe that you can't make a difference. Here we show that you are already making a difference, for better or worse, and that you can make a difference for the better.
Consider this: if you have adopted this objection to veganism and animal rights, it would seem that you have implicitly and subtly acknowledged that there is a difference to be made.
People are becoming increasingly concerned about the welfare of animals used for food. This concern is spawned by undercover videos, social-media postings, documentary movies, and reporting by the press.
Some people hope to act on that concern by buying products that bear one of the humane-certification labels or that brandish some other designation, such as
cage free, free-range, grass fed, or organic, thinking that such purchases cause little or no harm to the individuals whose flesh and secretions have been packaged for sale.
First, we explain why—even if specific humane claims are true—using animals for food is still not humane. Because using animals for food is still not humane, it's not necessary to show that the humane-sounding labels and certifications are misleading. But we do so anyway just so there can be no doubt. We also reveal that cruel practices are systemic to the process of using animals for food.
After the evidence is presented, it's easy to conclude that these labels have little to do with the well-being of the animals but are designed to at once assuage our guilt and compel us to spend more.
Once you decide to go vegan, you will undoubtedly spend some mental cycles pondering the best way to go about making this happen. There are so many ways to go about it—and the process is so personal—that it's virtually impossible to lay out a strict blueprint that will work for everyone.
Instead, we provide you with some general tips that we hope you will find helpful in your transition. Beginning vegans have used all sorts of strategies to get started. We can share with you some hopefully useful information from our own experiences and those that have been shared with us.
A good general rule is to proceed as rapidly as you can but not so fast you feel overwhelmed and give up. Keep in mind that once the transition has been made, your new ways of eating and purchasing will become second nature.
Those objecting to veganism often bring up one or more in a series of related complaints: that a vegan diet is not natural, that humans are omnivores and can digest meat, or that canine teeth and front-facing eyes are indications we are predators and not prey. These protests are adequately dismissed with the first point below, which explains why they are not pertinent to the validity of veganism and therefore cannot diminish the case for veganism. Although no further exploration of these claims is necessary once their lack of pertinence is demonstrated, we expound on these claims in case you're interested. It turns out that even if the objections were pertinent, they'd be nevertheless weak.
The conversion of the WordPress site to a Wiki platform is coming along at a rapid pace. I've been working in a newly staged development environment so that my antics would not be disruptive. A good deal of progress has been made and I wanted to report that here, as well as what's around the bend.
This piece addresses several related objections to veganism and animal rights that center around religion. These objections seek to justify eating animals based on scripture and theology, enlisting several questionable or misconstrued ideas—that we have dominion over animals, that animals were put here for us to eat, and that scripture condones eating them.
Here we assume the perspective of the Christian religion, as Christianity is the predominant religion in the countries of most of our readers. See the last talking point for Christian, Jewish, and Muslim initiatives supporting veganism and vegetarianism.
Related Article: In reply to: Humans have souls; animals do not.
The original idea behind outlines as implemented on justiceforanimals.org, was that they could be a good way to study and commit information to memory. The nodes could be structured in such a way that each parent would be an implied question with the answers in the child notes. This is a little abstract, so an example is provided below.
Over time, I started moving away from this idea in an effort to streamline content creation and have the outline associated with an article echo the structure of the article, diminishing its utility as a study mechanism.
This objection is one that vegans and animal rights activists hear a lot. It is often expressed something like this: "There are so many problems in the world and so much human suffering, we should focus on these pressing human concerns rather than spend our time and energy on animals. Maybe after we make real progress on human problems, we can then help the animals."
Some have objected to veganism on the grounds that there are no true or pure vegans by virtue of the widespread inclusion of animal-derived products in many everyday items. This complaint, at best, reveals a lack of understanding about the definition and essence of veganism. At worst, it is an attempt to apply standards to veganism that would not be applied to any other cause or movement.
This objection to animal rights and veganism is made by those who are not aware of the implications of eating animals or by those who are aware but are unwilling to change. It is often accompanied by a statement such as, "I respect your right to be vegan; you should respect my right to not be vegan."
This objection is usually an implicit admonition to back off.
The question of whether any nutrients necessary for good health can only be obtained from the animal kingdom is an important one. Here's why: One of the main ideas of veganism is that it’s wrong to cause unnecessary harm to animals. If a certain nutrient necessary for good health could only be sourced from animals, some suffering might be deemed necessary, depending on the nature of the nutrient.
For veganism to be valid, it is not necessary to show that a vegan diet is beneficial, only that it's adequate for good health. Showing that a vegan diet has benefits does lend credence to the viability of a vegan diet, however, so we do a bit of that here.
Even if a future discovery, however unlikely, finds there is an animal product we need to be healthy, veganism would still be relevant because we would still be ethically obliged to consume only the animal product needed—and only in the smallest amount needed obtained in the least harmful manner.
This objection to animal rights and veganism is usually not from a concern for the well-being of plants but to illuminate a perceived inconsistency. If both plants and animals are sentient and have feelings, and if we abstain from eating animals for ethical reasons, then we must also abstain from eating plants.
Claims of plant sentience and intelligence make for provocative titles and seductive clickbait, but a closer consideration of the evidence renders these claims vacuous.
Perhaps the most frequently asked question to vegans is, "Where do you get your protein?" The implication is that the plant proteins from a vegan diet lack quantity, quality, or completeness.
We should be vigilant about all of our nutritional requirements, including protein. But the evidence does not justify the near-obsessive level of concern that we have regarding protein. Below, we will show that plants can easily satisfy all our protein needs and then point out that in some ways plant protein is advantageous to animal protein.
The claim that veganism would devastate the economy and cause massive unemployment seems to be one of the most concerning objections to veganism and animal rights. After all, animal agriculture is a major segment of the economies of all industrialized nations. This objection is, however, defeated by a closer examination of the topic.
This objection to animal rights and veganism posits the tenuous idea that how we treat animals should be tied to the presence or absence of a soul. The belief that animals do not have souls is used as a justification for their exploitation and mistreatment—or, at a minimum, to assert that animals deserve considerably less moral consideration than humans because of this deficiency.
There is not even a consensus across cultures or religions on whether animals have souls or even whether souls exist at all. But because the belief in a soul (and, by implication, an afterlife) is widespread, this objection is worth exploring.
Related Article: In reply to: God gave us dominion over the animals and put them here for us to eat, and the Bible condones eating them.
Some have claimed that going vegan is expensive and, for some, unaffordable. The implication is that eating a vegan diet is a luxury that only the affluent can afford.
In objecting to veganism and animal rights, some invoke a series of statements centering around the idea that eating animals and their secretions is natural. These statements often include a reference to the circle of life, apex predation, the fact that animals eat other animals, and the assertion that humans are on top of the food chain—all in an attempt to prove that the eating of animal flesh, chickens' eggs, and cow's milk by humans is as natural as the laws of physics.
Here we show that these declarations are not germane to the case for veganism. But even if they were, they are still defeated by taking a closer look at the assertions, which we do.
This article addresses several aspects of honey as it relates to veganism and animal rights, including whether honey is vegan and how we might handle the topic in conversations.
This objection to veganism seeks to invalidate veganism and animal rights by asserting that vitamin B12 is problematic for vegans and that the need for B12 supplementation proves that a vegan diet is not natural. We show that even though it is true that most nutritionists recommend vegans supplement for B12, that fact does not make a vegan diet unnatural, and neither does it invalidate veganism.
B12 is produced by microorganisms in the soil and in the intestines of animals, including our own. The amount we produce is not sufficient to prevent deficiency.[3]
B12 deficiency can be a serious issue and should not be taken lightly. While it's true that B12 can be obtained by eating animal flesh, getting adequate B12 through vegan sources is easy and inexpensive, as discussed below.
We often hear two related but opposite objections to animal rights and veganism—that if everyone went vegan, animals would either overrun the world or become extinct. Of course, animals can't both overrun the world and become extinct at the same time. Yet these complaints are sometimes voiced, oddly enough, one after the other by the same person. Neither objection has merit. In the case of species extinction, we show that eating animals is the problem, not the solution to the problem.
Occasionally we hear of someone who says they got sick, didn't feel well, or lacked energy on a vegan diet. While this is the opposite of what most new vegans experience, it's heard enough to warrant a response.
More often than not, these kinds of assertions are made without a professional diagnosis. And without a diagnosis, it's hard to say the cause of this for any one individual.
Nevertheless, we examine some possibilities and try to shed a little light on the topic, offering the following points gleaned from firsthand reports, personal experience, and those qualified to weigh in.
Of all the objections to veganism and animal rights, perhaps this is the easiest to counter. The response need not be accompanied by research and citations—the application of reason combined with only the most general knowledge of history will suffice.
This objection is usually an impulsive reaction raised without forethought. Once the objection is answered, it is rare that the person objecting wishes to continue with the topic, as they quickly see their position as indefensible.
This objection to animal rights and veganism maintains that we are doing farmed animals a favor by giving them life and protecting them from natural predators and the elements.
Furthermore, it says they should be grateful that we magnanimously allow them to become food on our plates so that their lives are not meaningless.
- Because grazing doesn't involve harvested crops, it is sometimes presented as a solution to the severe inefficiency of livestock in converting their feed, which is plant-base, into meat. (On average, it takes 24 calories of plant feed to produce one calorie of meat, dairy, or eggs.[4])
- In a Ted Talk in 2013, Alan Savory presented his view that regenerative grazing and holistic management is a way to reverse climate change and desertification. The talk went viral with 2.7 million views.[5]
- Choline is an essential nutrient, important for brain health and a number of other physiological functions.[6] It is sometimes referred to as a form of vitamin B4, but B4 is no longer considered a vitamin.
- Although choline is readily available in plant foods.[7], the fact that choline is most highly concentrated in animal-derived foods such as eggs and meat[8] has led to claims that vegans are at risk of becoming deficient in choline.
| 
