Did you know that your version of Internet Explorer is out of date?
To get the best possible experience using our website we recommend downloading one of the browsers below.

Internet Explorer 10, Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

If you are on a plant based diet, stop calling yourself Vegan!

Like us on Facebook:

There’s a movement hijacking the vegan one, and it’s called “plant-based”. This buzzword is getting the kind of attention Paleo misses, and is confusing just as many people. Read on, and understand why it’s important to make the distinction for the progression of animal activism.

So what is a plant-based diet?

First and foremost, it’s just that – a diet. It’s grounded in good health, with advocates opting for high volumes of fruits and vegetables, as well as nuts, seeds, and grains. It most commonly does not include meat, dairy, or eggs. Often, it can be seen getting cozy with gluten free and organic labels. People take on plant-based diets for a number of unique reasons, from illness prevention and weight loss, to saving money and having one more thing in common with Miley Cyrus.

While a plant-based meal might also be vegan, a person who eats plant-based often is not. You can eat nothing but arugula for breakfast, lunch, and dinner but if you then throw on a pair of leather shoes and head to SeaWorld, you’re not a vegan. The majority of people who eat plant-based foods also won’t necessarily eat all vegan foods. You see, many vegan favourites aren’t plant based at all. I’m sure some of the vegans with a sweet tooth (hi!) will try to convince you that a second serving of Oreo crust chocolate tofu pie originates from plants, but it doesn’t.

Plant-based is quite commonly mistaken for a gentle and more marketable way of saying vegan, but the similarities end at broccoli.  

So what is a vegan?

Well for starters, it’s not a diet (we eat lots). Unlike eating plant-based, going vegan is something you become. A total rejection of using animals extends far past the plate or grocery store. In fact, you might make three or more animal-free meal choices a day, but your clothing, cosmetics, cars, employment, and relationships are all effected by a choice to follow veganism, too. It’s rooted in peace for all sentient beings. If that means eating white bread because the only other buffet options have eggs in them, so be it.  

Vegans are not “health nuts”. We don’t avoid eating meat because it’s high in calories, just as we don’t search for pleather pants because we heard leather ones are so last season. Of course you’ll find junk food eating plant-based people, and health-food eating vegans, but that’s beyond the point.

So why should we care about whether someone calls themselves plant-based or vegan?

Remember the fateful day that a kale t-shirt wearing Beyonce was declared vegan on the news? That day was simultaneously the best and worst for Queen B appreciating vegans like myself. No, Beyonce didn’t stop buying leather shoes, and she didn’t write a song called “Run The World (Vegans)”. She had simply switched to a plant-based diet for a while, and wanted the public to know how beneficial it was for her waistline. In advocating only for plant-based diets, the ethics of veganism is ignored.

The clear distinction here is that one is a diet. If you decided to try out a Jenny Craig plan, you’d never say “I’m a Jenny Craig.” You’re not a gluten free or a paleo, you eat gluten free or are on a paleo diet. When people on a plant based diet call themselves vegans while continuing to exploit animals, it makes it possible for people to assume that all vegans are like that. We are not. It puts blinders up to some of the more horrific sides to animal exploitation that are already harder to face than a jackfruit sandwich.

Can’t we all just get along?

Sure, we can rub elbows at a Whole Foods salad bar without scraping, but truth is, someone can be doing just as much damage to animals, to the planet, and to themselves on a plant-based diet as they are on an omnivore one. Rather than advocating that people make the switch to Meatless Mondays, it’s important that vegans focus on the big, moralistic picture; it’s not right to use animals for any purpose on any day. I won’t applaud Ricky Gervais for being against hunting while he continues to eat meat. It’s hypocritical to pat the backs of people who think refraining from eating animals makes it somehow okay that we don’t question if they wear, hunt, are entertained by, or in any way use animals.

Don’t get too upset – I know that if people are comfortable with trading steaks for green smoothies, they have the capacity to care and a ton of patience. All I ask is that the plant-based people consider the next steps, and that the omnivores in my life stop assuming I’m vegan for the v-shaped cuts in my abdominals. I go boxing for those bad boys.

Eating a plant-based diet has many benefits, but switching to veganism has the ability to make a difference in more than just your own life. Maybe just take it easy on the coconut ice cream.

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments
  • daniel

    If someone eats plant-based and calls it vegan, I’m not going to get upset. They’re doing far better than the other 98%.

  • Stop. Right now: Stop. If you have any interest at all in actually eliminating (or even reducing) animal suffering, sit down and stop talking. While you are being quiet, ask yourself whether arrogant articles like this might be why many vegans of color elect to use the term plant-based instead. Ask yourself whether being snarky to people who don’t talk or think exactly as you do is the way to build the diverse and inclusive plant-powered movement nonhuman animals need us to forge.

    I’m serious: THINK. What will it take to reshape the world agriculture system and economy as well as the cultural attitudes of people toward animals? Narrow-minded diatribes against people who, in your view, are misusing a made-up word — “You can’t be in my club unless you do everything I say right away”?

    Or, would it be better to make an open-hearted effort to seize on, work with, and build upon any empathy for animals, or repugnance for animal products — “I’m so glad you refuse to to wear fur because you feel empathy for foxes and minks. Me too! I feel the same way about calves. Did you hear what happens to them on dairy farms?”

    Remember, cognitive research has proved again and again that people who make a change for one reason are eager to hear other reasons why what they have decided to do is right. So, people who have quit meat, eggs, and dairy for health reasons are our BEST prospects for learning about the ethical and environmental problems with those products… and maybe becoming animal liberationists themselves. But not if they encounter attitudes like this.

    PS. “Vegan” really is a made-up word. You don’t get to decide what it means. The meaning will be decided collectively by all of the people who consider themselves vegan. I personally would prefer that we vegans see veganism as an aspiration that we are always reaching for rather than a settled state or identity. In other words, I see “going vegan” as a lifelong effort to divest oneself from any form of animal (nonhuman or human) exploitation or dispossession. I wish everybody saw it the same way, but I’m not the word police, and neither are you.

    • could not have said it better.

    • Alison Swann

      Totally spot on. So many minority’s groups go this way when they start to gain traction in the mainstream.

    • Angel Cleary

      I was under the impression that all words were made up? No? Gravity is also a made up word. Should we all collectively decide what it means?

    • veggiegrrrl

      veg·an
      ˈvēɡən/
      noun
      noun: vegan; plural noun: vegans
      a person who does not eat or use animal products.

    • toomanycrayons

      “I personally would prefer that we vegans see veganism as an aspiration that we are always reaching for rather than a settled state or identity. In other words, I see “going vegan” as a lifelong effort to divest oneself from any form of animal (nonhuman or human) exploitation or dispossession.”-pattricejones

      What you are actually aspiring towards is a state which negates your own mortality. Everything dies. If you don’t eat or kill it, perhaps you’ll avoid endorsing the prospect. Ironically, eating meat is central to many other such transcendental strategies in the form of sacrificial offerings intended to mollify the gods of our inevitable fates. What you have is competing ontological postures, both defined by woo speculation. Results appear not to vary. We are all to be dispossessed of life. Hamburgers, or ethical beans…there is no way out. Why do you aspire to pretend otherwise? Veganism is just another ontological Ponzi scheme, like all the others.

      As far as divesting/cleansing yourself of guilt for simply being alive, by eating only plants, consider the work of Michael Marder on plant intelligence/sentience/being:

      “…Approaching the vegetal as a who — the modality conventionally attributed to the soul and, in modern discourses, to subjectivity — is prior to the decision on what will follow this engagement: hostility or peace. Further, the plant is a who that grows, to the point of being defined by growing activity with its own degrees of freedom, decisions on blossoming, branching out, genetic transcription, memory, and so forth. A who that grows with its environment, reacting to the minute alterations that happen there, separated from the world by the minimal barrier, which is at the same time a mediation, of the with. Our peaceful being-with-plants is unthinkable unless we let them be with their surrounds, let them grow. Letting-grow, for nothing (at least, nothing that we can reap for ourselves), is showing respect for the vegetal who. More than desistence or inaction — though desist from the seemingly never-ending exploitation of plants we must — it is a combined ethical and aesthetic stance that promotes growing, regardless of externally imposed objectives, be they pragmatic or purely decorative.”

      [http:]//philosoplant.lareviewofbooks.o…

      I love this guy’s work because, amongst other things, he exposes the existential dilemma still facing ethical plant eaters in spite of their selective blindness to the basic facts of existence vs. transcendence. Vegan aspirational ideology, to use Marder’s phrase, is purely decorative. Not so pure as was originally intended. A cow will never be Jesus. A salad will always be murder. Let’s give ethical nihilism a chance?

    • toomanycrayons

      “I personally would prefer that we vegans see veganism as an
      aspiration that we are always reaching for rather than a settled state
      or identity. In other words, I see “going vegan” as a lifelong effort to
      divest oneself from any form of animal (nonhuman or human) exploitation
      or dispossession.”-pattricejones

      What you are actually aspiring
      towards is a state which negates your own mortality. Everything dies. If
      you don’t eat or kill it, perhaps you can avoid endorsing the prospect?
      Ironically, eating meat is central to many other such transcendental
      strategies in the form of sacrificial offerings intended to mollify the
      gods of our inevitable fate. What you have is competing ontological
      postures, both defined by woo speculation. Results appear not to vary.
      We are all to be inevitably dispossessed of life. Hamburgers, or ethical
      beans…there is no way out. Why do you aspire to pretend otherwise?
      Veganism is just another ontological Ponzi scheme, like all the others.

      As far as divesting/cleansing oneself of existential guilt (original sin?) for simply being alive by
      eating only plants, consider the work of Michael Marder on plant
      intelligence/sentience/being:

      “…Approaching the vegetal as a who
      — the modality conventionally attributed to the soul and, in modern
      discourses, to subjectivity — is prior to the decision on what will
      follow this engagement: hostility or peace. Further, the plant is a who
      that grows, to the point of being defined by growing activity with its
      own degrees of freedom, decisions on blossoming, branching out, genetic
      transcription, memory, and so forth. A who that grows with its
      environment, reacting to the minute alterations that happen there,
      separated from the world by the minimal barrier, which is at the same
      time a mediation, of the with. Our peaceful being-with-plants is
      unthinkable unless we let them be with their surrounds, let them grow.
      Letting-grow, for nothing (at least, nothing that we can reap for
      ourselves), is showing respect for the vegetal who. More than desistence
      or inaction — though desist from the seemingly never-ending
      exploitation of plants we must — it is a combined ethical and aesthetic
      stance that promotes growing, regardless of externally imposed
      objectives, be they pragmatic or purely decorative.”

      I love this guy’s work because, amongst other things, he exposes the
      existential dilemma still facing ethical plant eaters in spite of their
      selective blindness to the basic facts of existence vs. transcendence.
      Vegan aspirational ideology, to use Marder’s phrase, is purely
      decorative. Not so pure as was originally intended. A cow will never be
      Jesus. A salad will always be murder. Let’s give ethical nihilism a
      chance?

      • Gina Pyon

        TF are you going on about

        • toomanycrayons

          “TF are you going on about”-Gina Pyon

          ‘Remember, cognitive research has proved again and again that people who
          make a change for one reason are eager to hear other reasons why what
          they have decided to do is right.

          …PS. “Vegan” really is a made-up word. You don’t get to decide what it
          means. The meaning will be decided collectively by all of the people who
          consider themselves vegan. I personally would prefer that we vegans see
          veganism as an aspiration that we are always reaching for rather than a
          settled state or identity.’-pattricejones

          Collective solipsism as an aspirationally normative existential narrative: see above.

          • ray

            You make no sense, stop it. No matter what you say will not change how disgusting we treat other beings on this planet and the planet itself. Period.

          • toomanycrayons

            “You make no sense, stop it. No matter what you say will not change how disgusting we treat other beings on this planet and the planet itself. Period.”-ray

            There seems to be a lot of “stop it” in vegan moralising. I suppose nutritional Caliphate ideologising demands it. I’m not saying anything about disgust, just about the origins of your ideology. There is no “Period.” Nothing stops. You’re simply suggesting that the only answer to your chosen dogma is silence. I don’t aspire to silence. If veganistic ideology “made sense” it wouldn’t be the fringe obsession it clearly is. Knowing why you are so invested in it might help with your marketing strategy, however. So far, being an aspirational/purist cult seems to be attracting only a crushing level of indifference. You have become your own period. Period.

            BTW, where is the data suggesting that suffering isn’t the point of existence? Most world religions seem to regard it as, at a minimum, instructive. The exception being, of course, the non-religion, Nihilism. Provide a viable plan for implementing Happy Pet Planet, and let’s start from there. I’ve asked elsewhere regarding replacing our slaughterhouse economies, but, the responses have largely been like Trump’s voodoo economics: Magic Actor, required. In his case, the wealth will be created by the wealth that is created. In the vegan-economics view, the replacement jobs will be created by the replacement jobs that are created. In tautologies that’s call vicious/rhetorical circularity, unless, of course, one presupposes a Magic Actor. For the religious, that Magic Actor is God. For vegans, it simply appears to be universal submission to their views.

            Thanks for reminding me of this topic, btw. Always a treat to deal with illusions of perfection, even in its aspirational form.

          • toomanycrayons

            “You make no sense, stop it. No matter what you say will not change how disgusting we treat other beings on this planet and the planet itself. Period.”-ray

            [‘ray’ is no longer sky blue, so, perhaps he’s “pending” like this original response, absent the definitional link? There appears to be no debating the Francione/Peter Pan bots. Period. Where’s the fun in that? Clearly, ethical Narcissist grazers have fewer breaks between feeds than those eating nutritionally dense agony burgers. Enjoy your viciously/rhetorically circular cud, ‘ray.;’]

            Your notion that life on this planet can’t/shouldn’t be disgusting is absurd. This is a pointless, spinning abattoir. Your sense that life should be anything pleasant is just maudlin wishful thinking. The mercy you advocate for others merely blunts your own horror by seeking to impose a fatuous sense of group-huggy purpose.

            What you’re (all) engaged in is called a reification fallacy. Typing “period” basically suggests your moral dream world is actually something concrete. Pathetic.

            “Reification (also known as: abstraction, concretism, fallacy of misplaced concreteness, hypostatization, pathetic fallacy [form of])

            Definition: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity — when an idea is treated as if had a real existence.”

    • Gina Pyon

      This is the perfect response.

  • stewart lands

    Patricejones makes a very good point in the final paragraph of her comment. That the author (Lampert) has her “snark” on indicates that she is exceedingly confident in her position that mainstream Veganism has identified the best manner of approaching the priorities of reduced animal death, suffering and exploitation and may therefore broach no challenges. In fact, many who use the term “plant-based” do so because they recognize that mainstream Veganism is flawed in at least two regards: 1) it fails to consider that many vegetable food items are as damaging to animal life (think “wild” animals of the sort displaced to perish of starvation wherever crop fields are established) as is meat, or at least much more damaging than friendlier vegetable options, and 2) it rejects all meat consumption on “moral” grounds, even though a significant portion of the human dietary need may be taken sustainably from wild fish and game sources with less damage to life and environmental healthy than any form of plant agriculture. In short, the closed-minded approach taken by “meanstream” veganism hinders rather than accelerates progress toward its stated objectives.

    • Josh

      To your comment: “even though a significant portion of the human dietary need may be taken
      sustainably from wild fish and game sources with less damage to life
      and environmental health than possible with any form of plant
      agriculture.”

      This is simply not true with the current global population. The oceans’ wild fisheries are already pushed to their limit and much of global fish demand is already met with farmed fish. Wild fish are certainly *not* in a position to sustainably replace any of what now comes from plant agriculture.

      And when it comes to land animals (“wild game”) this is even more true. Only a very small fraction of the world’s current meat demand is met with wild animals, and any significant increase in hunting above current levels would start pushing species towards extinction.

      • stewart lands

        Hello, Josh. I have not suggesting that wild fish and game can feed all, or even begin to replace plant agriculture. I am simply pointing out that wild fish and game is capable of feeding many, and with less animal death and less environmental impact than is possible with agriculture of any sort. Sound conservation measures need not apply to the entire human population. We do not criticize commuting by bicycle instead of motor vehicle simply because it is not practical for all.

        Hunters in the state of Tennessee alone consume over 500,000 squirrels each year. That is a fair number of meals. Add to this the millions of wild fish, turkey, geese, elk, deer, pronghorn, etc consumed in the US and it becomes apparent that wild fish and game can provide hundreds of millions of meals to rural Americans while at the same time minimizing environmental impact and animal death.

        It is true that such opportunity does not exist in every part of the world, and the reason for this is usually development. Where wildlife habitat is converted into homes, highways and broccoli fields, all such wildlife is destroyed. Those nations that have failed to protect their wild lands from development must now rely entirely on agriculture–exotic monocultures serving no species besides man. As development continues, wildlife will be exterminated and fewer opportunities will exist to take our meals from unaltered systems. Ironically, there will be those who applaud the demise of hunting and who will stand, hands on hips, gazing across barren bean fields wondering where all of the wildlife went. And they will probably blame hunters.

  • Tobias Leenaert

    I’m sorry, but i believe this is really a very unproductive attitude to take. How small do you want to make the vegan club? How many more people do you want to exclude? What if i tell YOU (author) you should stop calling yourself vegan if you don’t meet my even *more* stringent criteria?
    Do we want to be a group of ten people? If more people call themselves vegan, demand grows, supply grows, and it becomes easier for everyone to care about animals.
    Let’s stop excluding people from our club. Please!

    • toomanycrayons

      “I’m sorry, but i believe this is really a very unproductive attitude to take. How small do you want to make the vegan club? How many more people do you want to exclude? What if i tell YOU (author) you should stop calling yourself vegan if you don’t meet my even *more* stringent criteria?

      Do we want to be a group of ten people? If more people call themselves vegan, demand grows, supply grows, and it becomes easier for everyone to care about animals.

      Let’s stop excluding people from our club. Please!”-Tobias Leenaert

      Some guy named “ray” brought this thread back to life and then left. Period. I noticed your post, and was struck first by the parallels to the Christian normative myth. Christ and/or God had 12 guys, no women. Francione, Lampert, and Peter Pan, Tinkerbell all posit inner circle qualification fetishes, too. “If you truly believe, Wendy?” Their job is to audit the innies and outies. The Olympics, ISIS, GOP, Clinton Foundation? Same thing. It’s what “WE” do.

      By extending inedible sentience to animals, Francione, in particular, is simply attempting to side step the existential problem of special (spiritual) status for humans. The problem is death. If vegans can make the pixie dust of inviolate sentience stand, there would appear to be some sort of purpose in living until you die, naturally…of ethically-friendly diseases not caused your own actions: deserved.

      Sorry, they can’t make it work logically without The Outside/Magical Actor. Veganism is simply vicious/rhetorical circularity. It fails to become “virtuous” circularity by not positing infinite knowledge in an external being. Why should we care about animal suffering? Because we suffer and can imagine ourselves in their place is not an answer, just another circular argument. Because not eating meat would make the world a better place, or else, what?

      Can we really turn the world over to people who think eating honey is raping bees? Sure we can. I don’t see that it would make any difference at all. Will we, ever? Nope.

  • I’ve been vegetarian my whole life and vegan for the past 4 years, but I’ve stopped using the term vegan. I can’t stand being associated with the high-and-mighty, no-compromise activist vegans like the author of this article. Congratulations – you win.

    • veggiegrrrl

      i’ve been vegetarian since 1976 (not a typo), vegan since 1999. the word “vegan” implies compassion for animals (inc. fish, etc) outside of diet. we don’t wear leather, fur, use cosmetics with animal ingredients, etc… there is a distinction.

      • Ghost Face

        thank you. it’s actually that simple.

  • Naomi Murphy

    I am sorry but when an aisle in the supermarket is now dedicated to ‘gluten free’ but vegan cheese is hidden behind the dairy cheese ……….Calling it ‘plant based’ will get a following (and more realestate at the supermarket) alot quicker because frankly ‘vegan’ conjures up people just like the writer of the article. I don’t care what you call it as long as people do it. One choice leads to another and when you start reading about ‘plant based’ diets you will enviably come across articles in how we humans abuse animals in all forms. Voila you have created a ‘v’ word person

    • Christine

      Yes, Naomi…I agree where you wrote, “frankly ‘vegan’ conjures up people just like the writer of the article.”

      I wonder what Eva Lampert (the author of this post) would make of the fact that being condescending towards “plant based” eaters will have the exact opposite effect of what she claims to want, which is more “pure vegans” like herself.

      Being condescending does not make people want to be like you or join “your club”. Why not be inviting instead?

  • Regina Lemoine

    The word “diet” does not exclusively mean a weight loss regimen, as you seem to imply. “Diet” is defined as “the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats.” So, yes, a person who is vegan eats a plant-based diet that excludes all animal-derived products. Any food(s) that a person habitually eats is his or her diet. You eat a vegan diet.

    Also, if you live in a first world country and you think that because you’re vegan you don’t infringe upon the rights of animals or cause them harm, you’re out of touch with reality. Millions of small animals like frogs, mice, voles, rabbits, etc., etc., are killed in the agricultural production of “vegan” foods. Insects are killed by the millions, even by organic farmers. Just because you won’t eat a chicken nugget that doesn’t mean you don’t also have animal blood on your hands. Is a chicken worth more than a bee or a mouse? You say, “it’s not right to use animals for any purpose on any day.” But it’s okay if they just happened to get in the way of the threshing machine, right? As long as I don’t actually EAT the mouse, I’m vegan, right?? I’m not saying go out and eat the chicken–and yes, I understand that animal agriculture not only harms the animals that are being raised for food, but other animals as well–just pointing out the logical fallacy inherent in this kind of argument.

    While being vegan is a worthy goal, it isn’t the be-all, end-all of morality. It’s not the standard by which all other things should be judged; there is no such thing as a “pure” diet. Distinctions between your way of eating and that of a person who eats a “plant-based” diet comes down to semantics and nothing more. I’d encourage you to stop patting yourself on the back long enough to do as @@pattricejones:disqus says. THINK. It would also be nice if vegans like you extended your kindness and compassion to human animals.

    • Bobbi

      Enlightening and beautiful response.

    • StrangerThingsHappen

      The point is intention. Veganism isn’t about perfection. It’s about doing as little harm as possible.

      “Veganism is a 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.”

  • John Edmundson

    One nasty article!

    It would have been more honest if Eva had simply written, “I really want to be a cult leader!”

  • Vegan, plant based – it’s the end result that counts: living violent free.

  • non12stepworks

    This author typifies the people who give plant-based living a bad name. Childish, rigid, sanctimonious, and generally obnoxious.

    • Ghost Face

      This comment is rigid and obnoxious. Author has a point.

    • StrangerThingsHappen

      It’s “plant-based living” that confuses the meaning of ‘veganism’.

      “Veganism is a 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.”

  • Tobias Leenaert

    I felt I needed to write a response…

    The title, and especially the exclamation mark, made me almost physically unwell (I’m only exaggerating a little bit here). As far as titles go, it kind of says it all. Probably the author has the best intentions (though they may be unpure, like with all of us), but this way of thinking and communicating is so unproductive and so damaging, I just don’t know where to start.

    The author believes that the health vegans – which obviously she doesn’t want to call vegans but rather plant-based people or something) are “hijacking” the vegan movement. She wants to kind of forbid health vegans to call themselves vegan. Apart from the fact that telling people not to use a word is kind of annoying and nasty, it is also very unproductive to ostracize health vegans from “our club”.

    I’ve written much more on this, but just very briefly: demand for vegan products, whatever the motivation behind that demand, will increase the choice in vegan products. Vegan eating thus becomes easier, our dependence on animal products decreases, and it becomes way easier to care about ethics when people feel they don’t have much to loose anymore. The health vegans are actually among the people who are the easiest to target with an ethical message. Indeed, many ethical vegans (I dislike the term) started out as health vegans.

    At the risk of overanalyzing, here’s an explanation for the kind of exclusive behavior and communication that we read in said article. This is from a psychology textbook. I’ll leave it to you to see if it can somehow apply. Keep in mind the “ethical vegans” vs. “health vegans” dichtotomy when you read it.

    “People like to be seen in terms of identities important to them. Being seen in terms of other identities, especially erroneous ones, can evoke “categorization threat“. We also do not like it when another group is so similar to ours, because it undermines the very essence of what our group is that makes us different and special. In other words we tend to be most sensitive when the other group actually is similar to our own (…). Groups that are too similar to our own can therefore threaten the unique identity of the group: “distinctiveness threat“. Some have even argued that having a distinctive group identity is even more fundamental than avoiding a negative one.”*

    Sound familiar?

    I had this thought: in the end, I might get so disappointed with vegans and veganism, that I (a vegan for the animals), would refrain from using it altogether (some people say I should, as I do some unvegan things!). But the problem is, then the only people using the word vegan will be the more fundamentalist ones, and we’d have to start all over again with a new word. So I guess I’m not ready to give up on the word yet, and rather be one more person who uses it in a rational, compassionate, positive and inclusive way. Want to join me?

  • Christine

    “Eating a plant-based diet has many benefits, but switching to veganism has the ability to make a difference in more than just your own life”.

    However, eating a plant-based diet DOES make a difference in more than your own life. I agree that it’s less difference that what a “pure vegan” makes, but it still does make a difference.

    If you’re truly interested in persuading others to make the switch to veganism, rather than criticize people for what you see that you don’t like, if you’d instead offer support & encouragement for what they’re doing that you do like, you’ll most likely have much better results.

    And so will the animals.

  • Michelle

    I think all the comments below say a lot for what this author is doing for the reputation of vegans who share these elitist attitudes. Luckily I know many who not only have a true passion for all living creatures, but also compassion for humans. They share their incredibly important message in a much less pretentious way and I know that they would not appreciate being aligned with this viewpoint. Isn’t the whole point to reach out to others, like myself who are very new to this way of life, and encourage us, rather than alienate us with condescending articles? How does that help the animals, the climate, or your point of view? The last sentence was as unnecessary as was the entire article.

    • Christine

      It’s ironic that one of the basic tenets of veganism is showing compassion for all living beings, but for so many “elitist vegans” this seems to fly out the window when it comes to showing compassion towards humans.

      I was glad to read that you know others who can counteract the condescending and pretentious vegans, Michelle. 🙂

  • Christina Smith

    So. Annoying. As the mom of a seven year old who has a piece of candied salmon from our local fishermen a couple times a year, she struggles with what “category” of person she falls into as a result. Does my daughter have enough ahead of her with struggles of belonging, issues of eating disorders in young women, and living under labels for the rest of her life? How about you say “plant based diet” or “vegan diet”. You don’t need to add a descriptive to a person. Sounds like everyone finds this piece a step backwards for animals and the people who don’t like to eat them.

    • bcalvillo

      Your ‘local fisherman’ kills fish which you benefit from. Just stop being a contributor to murder.

    • veggiegrrrl

      your “word” is omnivore. like most humans on earth. vegans don’t eat fish or any other animal based ingredient.

    • Ghost Face

      Omnivore works well. Fish are animals too.

  • If this article excludes “plant-based” people from veganism, and as a result several decide to say “fuk it” and eat a burger, that cow’s horrific torture and slaughter is now directly linked to YOUR hands. And indirect killing of animals isn’t vegan.

    • Andreja Knego

      I decided to go vegan 12 years ago (and I still am), I didn’t know any vegan, I just read some books! I had SERIOUS intention to stop contributing to animal exploitation and killing! If I had seen some stupid vegan at the time and because of that person decided not to go vegan and continued to eat pork chops, well, that wouldn’t have classified me as a person with serious intentions, would it?
      Veganism is about animals, not other vegans, I don’t care about other vegans, like I hadn’t cared about how other meat eaters behaved when I was one!

      • Good for you. Now if only the other hundreds of millions of people who see veganism as a group of blabbering elitist extremists would see it that way.

      • veggiegrrrl

        indeed. veganism is about animals.

    • strat6911

      This had to be the dumbest comment posted. If you go eat a burger, that’s your contribution to murder. You paid, through several middlemen, to torture, abuse, and finally murder, an innocent creature. A vegan stops contributing to the exploitation of animals, for the animals. I didn’t stop eating meat for my health, for my waistline, or because I don’t like the taste. I miss fish and bacon. I gave it all up because of how we treat animals, and how we’re destroying the environment with animal agriculture. If you’re plant-based and feel excluded, then change your world, don’t expect the world to change for you.

      • I really don’t know how what you just said counteracts anything I wrote. Did you reply to the right comment?

        • strat6911

          You wrote, “If this article excludes “plant-based” people from veganism, and as a result several decide to say “fuk it” and eat a burger, that cow’s horrific torture and slaughter is now directly linked to YOUR hands.” Total bullshit. If you say “Fuk it” and go eat a burger, it’s because you are a selfish, pathetic, coldhearted, and unfeeling cunt. Own your own actions, don’t blame others because YOU aren’t standing up for those who can’t speak for themselves. That’s how I contradict (that’s the word you were looking for) what you wrote.

          • That’s like saying “the person who convinced this heroine addict to do drugs isn’t at fault, only the addict is!” no, if you turn people off of veganism with your behavior, blood is on YOUR hands.

            Yes, blood is ALSO on the hands of the non-vegan too, I never once said it wasn’t, so i don’t even know what your issue is.

            And no, I was looking for Counteract, not “contradict”

            You seem to just be getting offended for the mere fact of getting offended. That is just annoying. We are not even in disagreement here, you just NEED to find something to bitch about.

          • Ghost Face

            No one said to eat a hamburger. Author simply says what vegan means. Get over it.

    • StrangerThingsHappen

      Ridiculous. Anyone following a plant-based diet wouldn’t be doing it just because they want to be able to call themselves ‘vegan’. They would have their own motivation – health and/or environment and/or the beginnings of greater compassion. Reading an article like this wouldn’t somehow cause them to change back to meat-eating and, even if it somehow did, they would have done that anyway at some point, since they clearly have no real motivation.

  • Brooke

    I agree with this. Particularly when people say “I’m a vegan but..” all they mean is they follow a plantbased diet and have zero concern for AR but condemn those of us who are actually vegan for being “too strict”.

  • bcalvillo

    The rights of animals won’t be accomplished by eating more tofu. Plant eaters – take action to advance a vegan world beyond eating plants. Be vegan!

  • kate

    I hate when vegans have this sort of ignorant mentality. There are different types of vegans, just as there are different types of vegetarians, omnivores, etc. There are a myriad of legitimate reasons for going vegan.

  • Hari Iyer

    Plant based diet and vegan lifestyle are not the same.
    All points in the article are valid.
    But really, does it need to be said?
    Let’s get people to cut out meat/eggs/dairy. The rest can follow

    Animal byproducts are in everything. Literally everything. Even your bicycle tires. If you ride a bicycle by your own logic you aren’t vegan. They’re only so widespread because of the meat industry though. Just like leather, it’s left over after slaughter so it’s used in the place of synthetic materials which cost extra to produce. If they didn’t sell it they would burn it (CO2 emissions) and then produce your synthetic pleather in a factory to address the same market. What does more harm? On a vegan principle I still use leather for that reason. Can you argue with that logic?

    End meat and end the rest. It’s not complicated.

    • Ghost Face

      It would be better to not support the leather industry. The CO2 emissions is almost a different issue, but a valid one nonetheless.

  • Joan Kennedy

    Please bear in mind that just as there is more to veganism than diet, there is also more to food ethics than animal rights. There is the reduction of your carbon footprint, there’s giving a break to whichever watershed would have been receiving the manure of the chickens and hogs and cattle that aren’t being raised for you. There’s the health of everyone you cook vegan food for, and everyone within your sphere of influence. There’s not overtaxing your health care system and disability payment system with all your preventable chronic conditions. There’s healing your own heart and getting off the transplant list, as a man in South Bend recently did, saving not only yourself but the patient who gets the heart you would’ve needed. There’s the ethic of eating simply and wasting less so there will be more food to go around, an ethical countermeasure to global food shortage. Applying ethical principles to your food choices impacts not just the animals in the food industry, but everyone and everything on Earth. The best animal rights vegans would not dream of bogarting the “ethical vegan” label all for themselves.

    • kd12

      awesome reply, joan kennedy…thank you:-)

    • veggiegrrrl

      sorry, vegans DON’T wear animals on their feet. vegetarians might.

      • Joan Kennedy

        I understand that lifestyle vegans don’t wear leather. And I’m pretty sure you understand that many dietary vegans do. I also understand that some lifestyle vegans don’t acknowledge dietary vegans as being vegan. Fine, nobody has the right to tell you whom you must acknowledge. The core problem with trying to engage in a dialog with someone who makes the assertions you make: The word “vegan” does not imply the same things to everyone, so the dispute has little hope of resolution.

        Please accept my very best wishes for your compassionate animal advocacy, environmentally sound food choices, and well deserved good health.

        • Ghost Face

          Vegans should, at the very least, have vegan intentions. That is, even if they wear leather shoes, it should be their intention to stop doing so.

          • Joan Kennedy

            The bar for calling yourself vegan is “at the very least, not eating animal products.” According to Gary Francione in his blog. Trying to be pickier than Francione is like trying to be holier than the Pope.

            Eva Lampert’s essay comes close to assuming that people on plant-based diets do allow themselves to eat some animal products occasionally. That’s a fair statement for some following certain plant-based diets, but not for others. If someone is following Fuhrman or Ornish, they might have occasional meat. But for someone following Caldwell Esselstyn, no exceptions and many other restrictions besides no animal products. I don’t follow a vegan lifestyle but I do follow a vegan diet. Making exceptions wouldn’t work for me with the diet. When I set clear boundaries instead of ambiguous ones, it’s easier for me to stay on the right side of those boundaries. That’s not true of everyone, but it is true of many people who are dietary vegans. Diet impacts far, far more animal lives than all other animal uses combined. Leather use is trivial in the big picture, from the perspective of animal suffering and death; hamburgers and chicken wings are not.

          • Ghost Face

            For sure, I just know if I support leather shoes money still supports the industry in some form I don’t see it as just trivial although I do see where you’re coming from.

          • Joan Kennedy

            No need to defend your reasons for following a vegan lifestyle! My disagreement is not with those who choose to eliminate as many animal products from their lives as they can. It’s with those who assume dietary vegans don’t give a crap about animals.

            When I say “trivial,” I’m talking about numbers, and which choices do and don’t have a meaningful impact on animal slaughter and mistreatment. Stop the beef and you stop the leather. Not the other way around. If diet is as far as a person takes it, that person’s impact on animal slaughter is 99 percent as big as if they took it all the way through lifestyle restrictions.

            It’s fine with me if you don’t consider me a vegan. So as not to enrage lifestyle vegans, I don’t really identify as vegan, except to dinner hosts who would otherwise expect me to eat their desserts. But for the reasons I’ve laid out, I think dietary vegans are entitled to so identify if they want to.

          • Ghost Face

            Understood but you can’t stop the beef without stopping leather. the farm industry actually makes a lot of money from byproducts such as skinds/hides.

          • Joan Kennedy

            The ratio is 90/5/5. 90% of the value of a slaughtered steer is in the flesh, a bit less than 5% in the leather, and a bit more than 5% in the rest (The parts that make glue, gelatin, etc.) If the market for leather disappeared, the beef industry would carry on, just like it carries on when they have to raise the price of beef by 5% because of increases in the cost of feed grain. The reverse isn’t true.

          • Ghost Face

            Source of info? One article says they make about half or more of their profits from skin.

          • Joan Kennedy

            I uploaded my source (from Bloomberg News, which cites USDA data) but it’s waiting for approval.

          • Joan Kennedy

            Sorry, my source-citing post isn’t showing up on the board. There might be an algorithm that holds up new posts that contain links, so maybe staff has to check it by hand before approving it. Anyway, it’s in the queue!

          • Joan Kennedy

            Since I can’t post links, I’ll quote the relevant passage from the Bloomberg News article I’ve used as a source, which Bloomberg sourced from USDA. The Bloomberg News article is no longer on the Web, but it’s been quoted by other articles that still are.

            “A typical steer weighs from between 1300 and 1400 pounds. Its carcass yields about 850 pounds of meat, which sells wholesale for an average of $2300, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The hide sells for about $100, making it a mere 4.3 percent of the value of the animal.”

  • I enjoyed this post very much. As a plant-based nutritionist (who is also very much vegan), I totally agree with all your points here. And I’m technically plant-based despite the fact I’m vegan, because as you said, I’m a health nut. I admit it 🙂 I’m also a nutritionist and title myself as a plant-based nutritionist, but I won’t coach anyone towards any diet but a vegan diet. Yet, my goal is to help them get there, and hopefully inspire some ethical change along the way. However, as I came to a vegan diet for ethics, I also enjoy eating healthy foods. And, like you said, so many people out there eat plant-based for the trend but don’t care a thing about the ethics side. It’s actually really sad, if you ask me. However, I try to look at it this way: If more people start eating plant-based, the need for the slaughter of animals will still decrease some, even if that’s just by a little. And while you won’t see me wearing leather, buying regular beauty products, or advocating anything but a vegan diet, choices and products to people I know, I also accept the fact that as a whole, people are more open now to eating plant-based than vegan (sad, but true) due to the health benefits widely known of a plant-based diet. So for me, in my book, that’s a start and an open door I think it well overdue. I love your site by the way. Power on 🙂

  • JR

    When vegans promote toxic perfectionism, they can create an excessive fear in other vegans of making mistakes. One slipup, one admittance of not being “pure” enough, can lead to being shamed. People who fear making mistakes are often people who end up doing nothing.
    .
    Very few people are impressed with sanctimonious behavior. Very few people are drawn to a cause, or have their minds and hearts opened, by rigid dogma, or by those who declare that their own definition of veganism is THE only defensible and logical definition. I would suggest that those like the author who have annointed themselves as the chosen interpreters of what veganism is and must be, are, ironically, the worst offenders of the most basic tenets of veganism. Their elitist attitudes accomplish virtually nothing in the way of drawing new people to veganism, and to the contrary, most likely drive many potential vegans away. This is in direct opposition to the vegan mantra of doing the least harm possible to animals. When you alienate potentially large numbers of people who might otherwise have chosen to make strides toward becoming vegan, then you are perpetuating the suffering and killing of untold numbers of animals that you might otherwise have influenced those people to not harm or consume.
    .
    When (or if) you make the effort to learn about the psychology of how and why people make major changes in their lives, perhaps you’ll realize all of the opportunities you’ve missed while you were stomping around online superfluously deciding who can and cannot use the term ‘vegan’, and under what circumstances. Your wasted opportunities are in direct opposition to doing the least harm to animals by alienating untold numbers of people who might have changed their lifestyle if not for your toxic black-and-white rigidity and your judgmental behavior and words. Your elitist attitude causes you to miss one opportunity after the next to positively influence someone, and thus miss countless opportunities to help reduce suffering. Isn’t that the bottom line? The reduction of suffering? The eventual liberation of animals from exploitation and harm? We’ll never get there if we all try to be ‘vegan perfectionists’. To the contrary, such behavior violates the very goal of veganism and the animal rights movement.

    • veggiegrrrl

      it makes no sense for “omnivores” to call themselves “vegan” because they only eat meat/fish once a month or so. it dilutes the ideal of veganism, which is not killing and eating animals. at all.

    • Ghost Face

      ‘vegan perfectionist’? vegan is vegan.

  • Debra Albert

    Dang, I didn’t take it like most of you did and I am a new vegan and just though it was a little humorous. You guys would really be upset with most of the people on my vegan groups. they scare me at times they are so militant
    .

  • The Poetry Lady

    Plant based often refers to the Forks Over Knives movement in its various versions. It does not, contrary to this article, endorse eating any product that is not animal free. Some plant based diets are choices made by people doing their own program which could be anything and I am not referring to them. The Forks Over Knives program does not include guidelines for garments or products, however; despite the original purpose of the diet being health, many folks go onto choose cruelty free products in their home and on their body. It is rather inspiring. Most of the FoK doctors are involved with Physicians For Responsible Medicine which is affiliated with PETA. They do not call this a vegan diet because it does not include large amounts of fat, even from plant sources and it does not include processed food of any kind. It is only starches, fruits, veggies, legumes, some nuts and seeds. The lack of manufacturing in what they eat, not to mention the fewer pharmaceutical products that are used as a long term benefit, leads to less animal testing and pollution that of course effects all living creatures.

    The idea is less cruelty, a greener planet, healthier humans and positive changes for human and animal alike. Whether vegan or plant based, each path is nothing but another going in the right direction. Namaste to them both.

  • Choon Kwee

    Some times it is hard to draw a line. E.g. Violin and Cello bows are haired by horse mane. So should any one who listen to Symphony stopped calling themselves vegan despite their other animal loving action? If so, vegan should not go to movies (or even watch youtube) as the music very often has violin as part of the instrument – not very animal loving. Perhaps we should be a little bit more relax. Otherwise, vegans should not even step on grass as it may results in ants and bugs (animals) being killed. Afterall, it is not what is being called that is important, it is whether the heart is in the right place.

    • Dmitry

      It may hard to be perfect. Don’t some vegans eat honey “robbed from the bees”? On the other hand, is it OK to eat eggs from a rescue hen that is treated as a pet or say honey from your own hive where you take just a tiny little bit (not sure if that happens)? Everyone is entitled to their OWN opinion and the author of the article is making a VALID point – she has the RIGHT to.

      What matters is when products are labelled VEGAN we should know exactly what they are. It is a short word, better that longer “animal free” or “plant based” or like in this country (New Zealand) mostly none when shopping in a supermarket – you’d have to read all the ingredients to figure that out. Let’s all be friends and sit down at a table with VEGAN food – when we are doing this we are all VEGANS and are all in agreement. It’s highly preferable that we wear vegan clothing too (though I still keep my old leather jacket in the closet even if I don’t wear it). It is best if we all agree that we need to reduce our impact on the planet as much as possible, and some are doing it better than others.

      I’d call myself a vegan, but say I am not strict and “flexible”, though as an exception only. I ate once an omlette from the above hens. I’d sometimes have a coffee and a bueberry muffin at a road stall, without asking if it is “vegan” – I am afraid it may contain a little bit of dairy or egg, in which case I’d have to go without food. If I don’t see the ingredients, I think it’s kind of OK. If it had plainly said “contains dairy” I wouldn’t have it, and if there had been a labeled “vegan” option, I’d go for the latter.

      VEGAN is a term meaning no animal/fish derived products, but people who call themselves vegan can be different, like people who call themselves adherents of a religion are different. But thankfully veganism is not a religion, and you don’t need to go through an initiation ceremony and have some kind of a certificate – it may mean different degrees of THE SAME THING to different people. Let’s respect each other opinion (including the VALID opinion of the author if this article) even if we sometimes differ in specifics.

      • veggiegrrrl

        people who eat muffins w/eggs and milk are vegetarians, not vegans. xoxox

        • Dmitry

          There is a difference between doing something as a rule and as an occasional minor exception. If one generally avoids animal products in food and clothing for same reasons that vegans do, calling them “vegetarian” seems less suitable. Cheers.

          • Ghost Face

            Eggs and milk are the same thing as eating meat, just no actual “death” involved, although some would argue eggs are living beings.

            There are vegan alternatives for almost anything you like, including muffins and even vegan eggs made from pea protein.

          • Dmitry

            So, if they sell one, I’d go for it. Sometime ago I used to buy a veggy pie at 2 local gas stations that wasn’t labelled vegan, but seemed OK (not clearly cheesy or eggy), but perhaps not 100% vegan. Then one gas station switched to a pie full of sourcream, so I stopped buying it (the other option being a cheesy roll, i.e. not OK either), and another often won’t have any (the rest being meat), so I’d go without pies. Eventially, the second gas station, instead of the original pie, started to stock a new one clearly labelled as vegan, so that is the only pie I currently get. Being the only option, once when they ran out, I waited till they cooked a new batch.

          • StrangerThingsHappen

            There is plenty of death for the animals involved in the dairy and egg industries.

    • StrangerThingsHappen

      “Veganism is a 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.”

  • Sophia Morris

    Surely an Oreo crust chocolate pie-whatever is plant-based. It’s not animal or mineral, right?

    • Jeremy Harper

      I didn’t quite get that either, I read it twice and still don’t understand it. lol. Funny you caught that too.

  • Sarah

    I’m vegan, I own and wear several pairs of leather shoes. Some I bought before I was vegan, the others I bought second hand. I’m not sorry for wearing them, I think it would be more disrespectful to throw them away.

    This elitist bullshit is pushing people away from becoming vegan. Militant vegans have given a bad reputation to all of us, I’m almost ashamed of the label.

  • Sundown

    Well said. Could not agree more. Keep these great essays coming, Eva.

  • veggiegrrrl

    there is a distinction between vegetarian and vegan. if one eats dairy/eggs (even only occasionally), that person is vegetarian. if one eats fish/meat once a year, that person is not a vegan or vegetarian, that person is an omnivore. language matters because of packaging, marketing of manufactured food and beauty products, etc…. i want the word VEGAN to have a definite meaning so when i shop, if something is labeled VEGAN, i want to know for 100% sure that is, indeed, truly, free of animal ingredients/ cruelty.

  • danil

    “Vegan” is a word coined by Donald Watson in a movement to go beyond vegetarianism in order to cut down the exploitation of animals. This is his explanation recorded during that period he started the Vegan Society “We can see quite plainly that our present civilisation is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the products of animals’ bodies”

    No matter how arrogant the above author may sound, the more people who try to call themselves vegan but still engage in non-vegan activities beyond their plates, should think about this- You are posing this as a majority who seeks convenience but still be called a vegan. You are spreading this message, as an impact from a majority among all plant based diet people, including vegans! One day, everyone is going to decide that plant based diet = vegan. It goes something like “Hey man, this leather wallet you have is exploiting the animal and is not so vegan, but you are still a vegan man, no worries man!”

  • toomanycrayons

    Clearly, what’s going on is a struggle amongst ontological diet fetishists to become the Earth’s apex moralising app. One breathlessly awaits The Universe’s decision. Hurry, the eco/bio/theological-Narcissist Extinction is at hand…

  • Glad I found this article. I’m sick and tired of people talking about veganism when they only have a plant based diet. Still, I’m all up for an animal cruelty free diet, of course.

  • J

    I knew there was a reason that even though I eat no animal products at all I didn’t want to call myself a vegan. I hate that word because you guys are soooo annoying. I was actually embarrassed to describe my diet to people until I realized I could call it a plant based diet because I didn’t want to be group with you preachy whiners.

  • Josh

    Wow! Generally, I have always been a terribly picky eater. In the past, I ate select meats; excluding most of them only due to taste (although I have never eaten veal or lamb because I found the thought disgusting). Earlier this year I started to discuss the dairy industry and eating meat with my friends. I found that the more I spoke about it, the more I realised that I had ignored my conscience for years. Throughout high school we were shown documentaries about animals that were on the wrong end of human consumption, but due to habit, convenience and taste it was always easier to ignore this. I made a decision a couple of months ago that I would make the transition to veganism. Since this decision, I have been very careful with the foods I have eaten and have been successful thus far, to my knowledge, of avoiding any foods with any animal by-products (and obviously meat). This has been extremely challenging for me. I am not close with any other person who lives a vegan lifestyle and the internet is my best resource for information. I have also transitioned to vegan friendly (not tested on animals) deodorant, toothpaste and other hygiene products.

    While I can recognise that I have many steps to go, I would have thought that someone who claims to give a flying f*ck about veganism would be happy with the steps that I have made (not to say without suggestion; that would be welcome). I feel like it is important that I give you some feedback, as I am someone who is trying my best to do the right thing and make a lot of personal changes all at once.

    “Eva will stop at nothing in the pursuit for vegan education, animal equality, and gelatine-free marshmallows” – (your profile on this website).

    Do you think this article is useful for someone like me? Do you think this article is useful for anyone who is not living a vegan lifestyle at all but is possibly considering it? I am sure that you are aware that generally in our society, unfortunately there is a stigma attached to veganism and vegans themselves. Perhaps you do not care what others think, but if you care about animal equality then I would suggest that you revise this. Points of view matter, your derogatory narrative is extremely alienating, which only feeds the naysayers. If I find this piece alienating, arrogant and elitist, then how on Earth do you think omnivores (for lack of a better word) would view it? What is your purpose here? If it is to be constructive then I would suggest you re-consider your writing style because I cannot help but feel attacked and deterred.

    Anyone considering veganism needs encouragement and education. I hope that you read this. If you are trying to make a small group even smaller, then keep writing like this. However, if you would like to be more constructive then I challenge you to compromise your ego and adopt a new tone.

  • G B

    Right on!

  • StrangerThingsHappen

    E X A C T L Y !!!!!!!
    This is exactly how I’ve been feeling for a long time now. Thanks for sharing this.

  • StrangerThingsHappen

    Thanks for reminding others of the difference – and the original point of the vegan lifestyle. I battle with this daily.
    Plant-based diets are great and all, but too many people then call themselves “vegan” while completely forgetting the suffering animals.

  • Anunnaki

    I am plant based and will remain so just not to turn into such a hangry person. Vegan comunity should be welcoming people who are plant based! We are still saving animals and the environment even though our main priority is our personal health. I personally find posts like this really dissapointing and upseting. Such radical oppinions are forcing me to distance myself from the vegan comunity and remain 100% Whole Food Plant Based!

  • TheGreatestManWhoEverLived

    I’ll call myself whatever the fuck I want to call myself. You have NO RIGHT to tell me what to call myself, you preachy CUNT

  • Gabriela

    I understand the point you are trying to make, however in a society that missuses animals for different purposes, trying to make a change by drastically reducing the abuse of animals used as food by adopting a plant-based diet is a very good change that should be congratulated and not discouraged. Yes, the leather shoes of Beyonce contradict the principle, but the animal abuse footprint for food is orders of magnitude bigger than for fashion, they are at completely different scales. Again, any change in the right direction is good, let’s not discourage it.

  • Amber Lawrence

    So who cares what people are really calling themselves when there are more lives being saved no matter which one you choose. This is the reason people get afraid at saying something because of this.

  • Natalie

    It’s articles like this which are why I will likely never call myself “vegan”. Not because I don’t care about animal cruelty or the environment or even my health but because I feel like I have to be 100% perfect to be in the vegan club. I know a vegans who are totally off animal products but they aren’t going around rubbing it in peoples faces. We need to be more encouraging and cheering people on when they attempt to eat less animal products. If we make it seem like an exclusive club that you have to be perfect to join people aren’t going to see the point. Even if someone is only just not eating meat they are still doing better than the majority of the world. The vegan movement needs more encouragement and less judgment. All making people feel like crap does is make them not like you or what you stand for.

Forbes calls another PETA misstep ‘success’

The only ‘success’ or ‘victory’ for animals is new and continuing vegans.

PIG TRIAL VERDICT: PIGS LOSE, PETA WINS

In short, the lawyers ineptly argued that pigs are not property, and then went on to argue that they are property.

The only label you need on egg cartons: exploitative

We have to recognize that the ‘free range’ campaign (and the many chicken related campaigns like it) is as frivolous as the ‘humane meat’ one.