Is Vegetarianism a Useful Gateway to Veganism?

I have quite a few friends and acquaintances who are vegetarian. I’ve talked with them, of course, about why it doesn’t make sense to give up some animal products and not others. And about the horrible suffering involved in egg and dairy production. Some are making the effort to move toward veganism, and some are almost there. But, sometimes, when I talk to vegetarians about this issue, they are sort of stunned. They thought they had already done something very significant in giving up meat, chicken and fish. They thought they had done enough, and finding out otherwise takes some adjustment in thinking.


I understand that and the fact is, they have done something significant and meaningful by going vegetarian. So why is it that they sometimes get nothing but grief from vegans?

Attacks by vegans against vegetarians are harmful in a couple of ways. First, they disaffect the very people who are most likely to be open to our message—that is, those who have already made changes in their lifestyle in response to an ethical imperative. Ninety seven percent of Americans eat meat and most don’t give it a second thought. In our culture and our society, to be vegetarian is a remarkable and rare statement about animal suffering and use. To say that vegetarians are no better or more “moral” than omnivores is a whole lot more alienating than encouraging. 

In addition, some activists build their criticism of vegetarians on unsubstantiated claims. They insist that vegetarians cause more suffering to animals because they replace meat with dairy and eggs. What we know from the scientific literature about vegetarian diets shows this to be false. First, if lacto-ovo vegetarians were consuming more dairy than omnivores, we would expect them to consistently have a higher calcium intake, and they don’t.

Second, studies comparing vegetarians to omnivores suggest that vegetarians have lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, less heart disease, less type 2 diabetes, and less colon cancer. If vegetarians are consuming more dairy and eggs, it would have to follow that eating more of these foods improves health. To say that vegetarians simply replace meat with dairy and eggs is exactly the same as saying that dairy and eggs are good for you. That doesn’t strike me as especially good activism. And it’s obviously not very good science.

We have to assume from the scientific literature that vegetarians eat fewer animal foods and more plant foods than omnivores. That means that they decrease the number of animals bred and killed for food. Their diet has a positive impact in reducing suffering.

That doesn’t mean I’m satisfied when someone goes vegetarian. I’m as frustrated as any other activist when vegetarians will not take the next step. And we have a lot of educating to do in order to help people understand that it doesn’t make sense—from either a rights or a welfare position—to distinguish animal flesh from other animal products. But the fact is that many people—including some who do know about that distinction—go vegetarian first. Donald Watson, who coined the word "vegan" in 1944, had this to say about the subject in a 2002 interview (posted on VeganMeans)

To vegetarians, I would say, accept, as, if you're honest you must, that vegetarianism, whilst being a necessary stepping-stone, between meat eating and veganism, is only a stepping stone. We all use this stepping stone, I've not met a vegan who didn't approach the movement by that route. There may be vegans I've never known, over the last sixty years, who made the change all in one leap, but I'm sure that, being a realist, I accept that vegetarianism is a necessary staging-post in the evolution of humane dietetics.

I don’t agree with the perspective that vegetarianism is a necessary stepping stone. There are lots of ways to approach veganism. And there are, in fact, any number of vegans who simply jumped in and went vegan overnight. But the point is that vegetarianism is a useful transition for some people.

We need to educate meat eaters about the need to take the first step and vegetarians about the need to take the next step. That’s not going to be achieved by being hyper-judgmental towards others who care about animals. And it’s definitely not achieved by promoting misinformation that promotes false health benefits for dairy foods and eggs.

No Need for Vegans to Give Up Fat, Gluten, Soy or Cooked Foods

When I order a vegan meal on a plane, it invariably comes with fat-free salad dressing. This annoys me more than I can say. It’s not just because I think fat-free salad dressing is basically inedible (which it is IMHO), but because somehow, vegan diets have become synonymous with low-fat eating. That’s not good for vegans or for the animals we want to help.

Given the fact that vegan eating is well outside the mainstream and very different from the way most Americans eat, it’s not surprising that many people view it as difficult and restrictive. (Most people view any dietary change as difficult and restrictive.) Making vegan diets as accessible as possible is an important part of activism.

I've written before on this topic but wanted to expand the discussion on unnecessary restrictions in vegan diets. By unnecessary, I mean that none of these restrictions have any particular health advantage and they are likely to have some disadvantages.

A gluten-free diet is an absolute necessity for those who have celiac disease, a permanent intolerance to gluten. It used to be a very difficult diet to follow but the rise in the number of excellent gluten-free foods is changing that, which is definitely a good thing. However, this autoimmune disease affects only one percent of the population so most vegans have no reason to eliminate gluten from their diets. In fact, a recent study in the British Journal of Nutrition suggested that gluten-free diets are associated with reductions in levels of beneficial intestinal bacteria and increased levels of harmful bacteria, which can affect resistance to disease. For those who don’t have celiac disease, it may be beneficial to include some gluten in the diet.

The use of very low fat diets is also questionable. Those who eat diets low in saturated fat , but include moderate amounts of monounsaturated fat have better cholesterol profiles than people who strictly limit all fats in their diet. Some research also suggests that including some fatty foods in meals is better for maintaining weight loss over the long term. And because fat makes food taste better, using it in vegan meals makes them more attractive to nonvegans.

Likewise, gentle cooking of foods has advantages. Some of the beneficial compounds in foods like lycopene (an antioxidant in tomatoes that protects against prostate cancer) are available only when foods are cooked. The vitamin A precursor beta-carotene is more readily available from cooked foods and is also better absorbed in the presence of some fat. It does tend to be more difficult to meet calorie needs from an all raw foods diet, which makes it a poor choice for children but a good one for those who want to lose weight. Other than that, there is not much evidence for any health advantage of eating all raw foods.

The issue of soyfoods—a staple in some Asian countries for at least 1,000 years—is a complex one and I’ve written about it elsewhere (like here, here, and here) It's unfortunate that so many animal advocates have turned against soy when it is a food that makes it easier to be vegan. At the risk of sounding brag-y, my husband is kind of one of the world’s leading experts on soy and health, so I have access to a knowledgeable perspective on this topic. I eat two servings of soyfoods every day—sometimes a little more—mostly in the form of tofu and meat analogs. And based on the scientific literature, I feel comfortable doing so.

A vegan diet is a great choice for healthful eating and it is an essential choice for an ethical lifestyle. We need to make this way of eating as accessible as possible. Choosing to make a vegan diet restrictive in ways that have no health advantage and no advantage to animals doesn’t make sense.

Five Must-Read Blogs for Vegans

In preparation for World Vegan Day (today!) I’ve been looking at some of the best resources for new and aspiring vegans. I posted a list of really good free vegan starter guides on the examiner site this past week and a list of five of my favorite new cookbooks over there as well.

Continuing with that theme, here are five blogs that I love. It’s not that easy to choose. I subscribe to around 50 blogs (including a fair number from the meat and dairy industry). I don’t read them all every day, of course, but there are a few from the vegan community that I never miss. In choosing my favorites, I’m not including blogs devoted to food and recipes because there are so many great ones. And some of those are on my blog roll to the left.

Here are five vegan blogs that I highly recommend.

Vegan.com: It’s the Vegan New York Times—that is, all the vegan news that’s fit to print. Erik Marcus updates his blog as many as three or four times per day with the latest news related to veganism and animal rights. Erik is a good writer who distills big concepts into a few words, so his posts are short and to the point. He provides commentary and opinions on everything from new vegan books to the latest events on the animal agriculture front. Whether you agree with his take on the issues or not, you’ll be entertained and informed.


Digging Through The Dirt: Tracy Habenicht sifts through the misinformation in the news in order to provide a more accurate view of what is going on in the world of animal agriculture, animal rights, and the environment. She covers a lot of material in her blog—it’s not always about animal rights—but she is on top of the news as it relates to animal use and she provides great perspective. Her blog is well-written and always a quick, thought-provoking read.

The Grumpy Vegan: The nice thing about Kim Stallwood’s blog is that, if you get tired of reading about veganism, you can dip into Kim’s recommendations for “pubs what the Grumpy Vegan likes.” I don’t actually know how grumpy Kim is (I met him once and he seemed perfectly genial), but I do know that he is a smart experienced activist who has been involved in animal rights since the 1970s. (He’s a former executive director of PETA and was editor of The Animals’ Agenda.) Kim’s blog includes an assortment of posts related to animal rights, England, the aforementioned pubs, etc, all written in an amusing third person voice.

Jack Norris, RD: When I have a question about vegan nutrition, I have a very short list of (three) people to whom I go. Jack is one of them. Wow—he knows a lot about vegan diets! He doesn’t post very often to his blog, but if you want to know everything that is going on in the world of vegan nutrition, you really do need to subscribe to it.

Animal Righter Mat Thomas provides long thoughtful posts two or three times a month on a wide variety of issues related to animal rights and welfare. He’s a good writer with in depth knowledge of his topics. A nice feature of this blog is that many of the posts have a “What You Can Do” section relating the topic to activism. He always provides interesting perspective based on his considerable experience as an animal activist.

Vegan Issues in the News: Meeting Nutrient Needs and Growth of Vegan Kids

It’s just not possible for dietitians to be knowledgeable about every single aspect of nutrition. If you put me in charge of a dialysis unit, I’m sure all the patients would be dead in no time at all. Although I took a few clinical nutrition courses in school, I learned—and promptly forgot—just enough to pass my RD exam.

So, I wouldn’t take a job as a hospital dietitian and I wouldn’t agree to do an interview on any aspect of clinical nutrition. Unfortunately, when it comes to vegan (and vegetarian) diets, journalists often end up interviewing health professionals who don’t have expertise in this particular area. It often results in misinformation and sometimes exaggerates the potential pitfalls of vegan diets.

In this article in the Springfield, Missouri News-Leader, a dietitian suggested that vegetarians can be at risk for not getting enough protein, vitamin B12, calcium, zinc, iron, and vitamin D. The symptoms that could result from this were frightening indeed and included osteoporosis, muscle wasting and tongue deformities. (I have to say—the tongue deformity thing was new to me.)

Some points in response to that article, particularly in regard to vegan diets:

It’s true that vegans need to pay attention to vitamin B12. But I’ve written before about why I think vegans could actually have an advantage over omnivores regarding this nutrient, especially as they age.

Vegans have higher iron needs than meat-eaters, but they do not have higher rates of iron-deficiency anemia. And vegans have a distinct advantage over those vegetarians who consume dairy products since dairy is devoid of iron and interferes with its absorption.

Lacto-ovo vegetarians, vegans and meat eaters all get vitamin D in exactly the same ways—from sun exposure or fortified foods. (Milk is not a natural source of vitamin D; it’s fortified with it.)

There is a little bit of a learning curve regarding calcium for vegans, but it is certainly not difficult to get enough. There is no disadvantage to getting calcium from plant foods or fortified foods and there may be some advantages.

Vegans have slightly higher protein requirements than omnivores but those needs are met with ease. When people eat a variety of plant foods and get enough calories, protein deficiency is pretty unlikely.

Zinc is a tricky issue. There is so much we don’t know about this nutrient as it relates to marginal deficiencies. It’s found in nuts, seeds, legumes and whole grains, but I’m increasingly inclined to recommend that vegans supplement with zinc just to be on the safe side. I’m fairly cautious about these issues, though, and we absolutely do not see overt zinc deficiency in the vegan population.

Finally, the News-Leader article stated rather emphatically that vegan children will grow more slowly than omnivores and that growth will be in the “low-normal” category. That seems like an over-statement to me. Given the lack of good data on this issue, I don't think we can predict the growth of vegan children one way or the other. There are a few studies showing that vegan children grow more gradually than meat-eaters, but that they attain similar heights by puberty. These are older studies, however. It would be more instructive to look at growth in today’s vegan kids, given the much greater availability of good nutrition information for vegans as well as the increased availability of protein- and calorie-rich vegan foods.

But there is a more important question. Is more gradual growth a sign that vegan diets are inferior? We can look to the growth of infants in omnivore families for some answers. While breastfeeding is the gold standard for infant feeding, breast fed infants grow more slowly than those who are fed formula. This tells us that the faster growth of bottle fed babies is not normal and is most likely not ideal. So, if it turns out that omnivore kids grow faster than vegans, who is to say that this is advantageous?

We may not know the answer to that, but we do know that vegan diets can provide everything that children need to meet nutrient needs, grow well, and attain normal heights. And if you don’t believe me, take a look at these beautiful vegan kids!

Ten Tips for Animal Activists Based on the Life of Henry Spira

In 1973, when Henry Spira was 45, two things happened that sparked his interest in animal rights. A friend gave him a cat (he had no personal relationships with animals until that time) and he met Peter Singer. It was a turning point that gave way to full-time activism on behalf of animals.

Ethics Into Action, written by Singer, is the story of Henry’s work. It reads like an inspirational tale of one activist’s life as well as a manual on how to get things done. The lessons in this book for activists are not to be missed.

Before his involvement with animal rights, Henry already had decades of experience with the Merchant Marines, the Army, union organizing, the civil rights movement, and teaching high school. His background and knowledge served him well when he began the work that came to define his life.

Henry chose his first campaign with great care. He looked for one that was extremely vulnerable and that would garner public support and media attention. His target was some rather obscure experimentation at the Museum of Natural History in which—for no earthly reason—researchers mutilated cats and examined the impacts on the cats’ sexual behavior. He spent a year gathering information about the museum’s experiments and funding, talking to scientists, and building support. The campaign itself lasted for more than a year with weekly demonstrations in front of the museum, letter writing campaigns, newspaper ads, and letters to museum benefactors asking them to withhold support.

Henry’s efforts were victorious and the experiments at the museum were ended. Looking back, the amount of effort expended to end experiments that used around 75 animals per year might make the victory seem pretty insignificant. In fact, it was historic. In more than a century of antivivisection “efforts”—which consisted largely of rhetoric about abolition—this was the first time that anyone succeeded in actually ending any animal testing. It was a tiny successful step that put Henry in a position to move onto much bigger things. And it earned him the reputation as someone who finished what he started. That fact alone was crucial to his future successes.

He established a coalition of more than 400 groups to pressure Revlon and the rest of the cosmetics industry to phase out the Draize test. The result was the establishment of the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing at John Hopkins University, another historic outcome. And it generated a new market for products that are not tested on animals.

In the late 1980s, Henry turned his attention to the farm animal industry where he was single-handedly responsible for the virtual elimination of the horrific practice of shackling and hoisting steers for kosher slaughter, and for the complete elimination of face branding of cattle coming into the United States from Mexico.

Among the many remarkable things about Henry Spira is the fact that he alone was the driving force behind most of these changes. He founded Animal Rights International, a nonprofit organization that did not have any members, and employed a staff of two or three people.

While he deplored bureaucracy, however, much of his work was actually funded by large organizations like the ASPCA and HSUS. In fact, among his other accomplishments, he was instrumental in bringing more established organizations like these—groups that reach large numbers of supporters—closer to the animal rights movement. It was one of the ways in which his work helped to narrow the gap between animal welfare and animal rights. His goal was abolition of all animal use, but he also believed in doing everything possible to reduce animal suffering in the meantime.

Henry was known as a coalition builder and a bridge builder. He worked with large organizations, scientists, marketing professionals and the media. He also worked directly with his opponents, among whom he was widely respected and even (sometimes) liked. He modeled some of his approach on his experience with the civil rights movement, noting that change came about step-by-step.

Henry died in 1998 at the age of 71, just after this book was published. He worked closely with Peter Singer in telling his story (and there is much more to it that the few campaigns I’ve mentioned here). The book ends with a list of ten key points to consider when working on behalf of animals, based on Henry’s activism.

1. Try to understand the public’s current thinking and where it could be encouraged to go tomorrow. Above all, keep in touch with reality. Activists sometimes lose their feel for what the average person in the street might think, and this impacts their ability to know what is possible right now.

2. Select a target on the basis of vulnerabilities to public opinion, the intensity of suffering, and the opportunities for change.

3. Set goals that are achievable. Bring about meaningful change one step at a time. Raising awareness is not enough. When Henry took on his first campaign, the anti-vivisection movement had no goal other than raising awareness in the hopes that this would bring about total abolition of animal experimentation. Henry noted “I want to abolish the use of animals as much as anybody else, but I say, let’s do what we can do today and then do more tomorrow.” He looked at successes as stepping stones toward bigger targets and more significant victories.

4. Establish credible sources of information and documentation. Never assume anything. (Henry was a meticulous researcher and record keeper.)

5. Don’t divide the world into saints and sinners. Henry said “People can change. I used to eat animals and I never considered myself a cannibal.”

6. Seek dialogue and attempt to work together to solve problems. Position issues as problems with solutions. Present realistic alternatives.

7. Be ready for confrontation if your target is unresponsive. If accepted channels don’t work, prepare an escalating public awareness campaign to place your adversary on the defensive.

8. Avoid bureaucracy.

9. Don’t assume that only legislation or legal action can solve the problem.

10. Ask yourself: “Will it work?”

Meatless Mondays Take a (Little) Step in the Right Direction

I wrote yesterday on the examiner site about Meatless Mondays in the Baltimore school system. Some email and twitter responses to that article suggested that serving up vegetarian meals in school cafeterias one day a week is not exactly progress for animal rights. For one thing, the non-meat choices are pretty cheese-laden. Some are more plant-based than others, but there is a grilled cheese option every day and lots of mozzarella sticks on the menu.

It’s true; from the standpoint of animal rights, there is no obvious gain. Baltimore kids simply trade in one animal product for another. And then, of course, they get up the next day and head to school to eat chicken nuggets.

Admittedly, I don’t embrace the Meatless Monday campaign as particularly exciting activism on behalf of animals. I wrote about it mostly because it segued nicely into some discussion about health effects of vegetarian and vegan diets for kids. And it did so within a story that has some media attention right now.

But if Meatless Mondays in the Baltimore schools don’t produce meaningful change, they are still one small step, one tiny factor in setting the stage for other new ideas. Children are learning that they can have enjoyable meals that don’t include meat. Believe it or not, this is pretty huge for many people. It can be a significant adjustment in the way they think about food even if it doesn’t exactly revolutionize the way they think about animals. And that does matter if it creates a tiny mind-opening shift that generates readiness for exploring further changes.

It’s hardly news that many perceive vegan diets as deprivation. If people can’t begin to imagine a vegan diet for themselves, they are less likely to be open to messages about animal rights or animal suffering. Anything that gives a tweak to their beliefs about what constitutes an enjoyable meal (or a nutritious diet) is a step toward a different attitude, and toward a new level of comfort with an animal rights ethic.

I don’t mean to overstate the value of Meatless Monday or to suggest that there is some predictable and guaranteed path from the Baltimore cafeterias to animal rights. The Meatless Monday campaign is not going to produce a vegan world. I know that. But it’s a little nudge in the right direction, toward a slighter newer way—for some—of thinking about food. Everything that moves us in that direction matters, even if it matters only a little bit.

Why I Love the USDA’s New Tip Sheet for Vegetarians

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has just released 10 Tips for Following a Vegetarian Diet, and you could knock me over with a feather. It’s not just that it takes a positive approach; it actually takes a vegan approach.

While the fact sheet lists some nutrients that vegetarians need to focus on, it doesn’t have any of that annoying verbiage about the need to carefully plan meals. (Vegetarians and vegans should, of course, carefully plan their meals; so should everyone else.) More importantly, there isn’t a word about animal products in the whole fact sheet, other than how to replace them.

Beans and grains are highlighted as good protein sources. And—amazingly—the only sources of calcium mentioned are soy products, leafy greens, and fortified foods. It’s really not at all like the USDA to ignore dairy, but they have essentially agreed that calcium needs can be met without these foods.

Overall, I don’t think the tip sheet is especially useful. A few ideas about how to boost iron absorption would have been more practical than a tip about asking for vegetarian choices in restaurants. The advice about meeting requirements for essential fatty acids seems pretty weak. And I’m not entirely sure why they chose to waste an entire tip on vitamin E. (Vegetarians consume between 50 and 100 percent more vitamin E than omnivores.)

So if someone wants to know more about the practical and nutritional aspects of planning vegetarian or vegan diets, this is not the fact sheet I’m going to give them. But if there are any lingering questions about whether vegan diets can be safe, this should put them to rest. You can definitely meet all of your nutrient needs without any animal foods. The USDA says so.