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.

JoJo is the next non-vegan ‘vegan’ celebrity

Like us on Facebook:

We won’t tell JoJo to leave (get out) – but we will recommend she stops giving news media the bait to make her a phoney vegan figurehead.

PETA was quick to promote the pop-singer as their latest vegan poster child, sharing her mere mention of veganism in an interview about her 2017 world tour. JoJo herself starts that same interview by mentioning her interest in a plant-based diet and the positive effects removing dairy had on her vocal chords and allergies. But it’s revealed that JoJo has a vegan friend, has read Russel Simmons’ “Happy Vegan,” has tweeted about vegan scones before, and has a strong enough internet connection to stream the plethora of vegan documentaries (and their own mixed messaging). But we know “interest” in the trendiest bits of veganism doesn’t make someone a vegan. Can you imagine our numbers if it did!?

Fault Magazine and TV3 didn’t forget to include her “I’m by no means a perfect vegan” bullshit, even if they kept “vegan” in their headlines for the clickbait. So when that JOJO IS VEGAN headline is at the top of the ‘vegan’ google alerts thread, just a little more confusion gets sprinkled over an already confusing “movement” that almost perversely clings to the hopes a teen idol will be the key to making the world a better place. Not the clear education and understanding of fundamental rights or the need for freedom from exploitation – that’s not catchy enough and you can’t photograph it in lingerie. And don’t worry, they made sure a little bit of “vegans think they have to be perfect” was smushed in there to keep the non-vegans pleased.

So while we do hope the accessibility of information and her own ease and enjoyment of eating plant-based can be leverage for a legitimate vegan education, we won’t be looking to JoJo for sage advice on behalf of our animal brethren anytime soon. Until she is shown the morality of refusing animal products, and considers the victims instead of the alleged “choices” we face, JoJo will be just another Ricky Gervais, Leonardo DiCaprio, or Beyonce.

You can go vegan today, without the help of a celebrity.

Photo from Fault Magzine

Like us on Facebook:
0 Comments
  • Dylan Wentworth

    Perhaps if Ecorazzi lambasts enough posers, the free celebrity endorsements will end altogether. I’d rather them be vegan posers than endorse something like the meat heavy south beach diet.

    There is value… sometimes even more value, in a brief passing mention than there is in a drawn out sermon.

  • stewart lands

    I do not know who “JoJo” is, and have a strong distaste for anyone described as a “celebrity’ since almost none of them are the truly important people in our lives. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that veganism is not the only, or even the best, approach toward saving our environment or animal lives. A study presented in the journal Elementa entitled “Carrying capacity of U.S. agricultural land: Ten diet scenarios” shows that ova-vegetarianism, ovo-lacto-vegetarianism, and even omnivores with meat-products-much-reduced will reduce the amount of land needed to feed our population. And, where land is reduced, wild habitat remains intact for wildlife, and the number of lives saved by preserving such lands rather than converting them to farmland is enormous. Before rejecting the notion out-of-hand, consider that many crop plants have parts that are inedible to humans. These inedible parts may be used to feed fish, dairy goats/cattle, chickens, etc. Rather than waste that energy, it makes sense to transfer it whenever possible into the human food chain. By doing so, we reduce the acreage needed to support our population and thereby reduce the number of wild animals that must die of starvation upon being displaced from the habitat they require. Given that a single acre of farmland typically supports hundreds, if not thousands, of vertebrate lives, this is huge. It is important to remember that veganism and environmentalism are not always in step with one another. Veganism is all about establishing equality between the rights of animals and the rights of humans–it is not necessarily about preserving the environment, human health, or even animal lives.

    • Dylan Wentworth

      What makes you think the unused part of plants is wasted? And we don’t always eat entire plants. Often, we eat just the fruit and leave the plants alive to keep bearing fruit.
      Supposing your claims were true and not studies produced by the meat, dairy and egg industries, is it better in your opinion to have horrible, treatment and conditions of countless modern day factory farm animals than to save some land that you suggest would be undeveloped wilderness it wasn’t a farm? The most biodiverse place on the planet, the Amazon rainforest is at risk from everything from cattle grazing to palm oil to mining to logging. The bigger problem is that there’s far too many humans on this little blue marble and wildlife will likely be displaced in some fashion or another if we continue to multiply at the same rate like we’re Mogwais that have been fed after midnight or exposed to sunlight or water. But I know nobody likes to hear that. That’s not a popular opinion because most people feel that have a lot to add to the gene pool.

      • stewart lands

        “What makes you think the unused part of plants is wasted?”

        I believe this because I smell silage every time I pass a feed lot. Made from corn stalks. Or beet pulp following sugar extraction or seed waste following oil extraction. There are many examples. What makes you suggest there are not?

        I agree with your point about overpopulation (human) and the need for awareness. But, until this develops (and even afterwards), it makes sense to maximize the number of meals generated from each acre of land in order to save the lives of those animals that depend upon them. And by no means do I extend this belief to the factory farming of livestock.

        • Dylan Wentworth

          If we didn’t have to feed and water livestock, less land and water would be needed overall and there would be significantly less greenhouse gas emissions. Oil extraction will still be needed regardless. We have run out of land for animal agriculture. To the point of clear cutting rainforest and allowing cattle to craze on public conservation lands. And until the animals give their consent to be exploited in unimaginable, horrible ways, I’m not going to support that industry.
          If you’re talking about the survival of exotic (non-native) domesticated livestock species, well they don’t belong in nature. Many of them wouldn’t last a day.

          • stewart lands

            Again, I do not disagree with your point. But it does not address the steps that I have mentioned here, which is feeding the by-product that IS available, as a result of whatever plant farming we choose to undertake with the intent of raising vegetables and then using that to feed animals. In this manner, we could grow milk, eggs, and even some meat with no additional commitment of land, thereby reducing our environmental impact and loss of life. Of course, the animals killed as a result of habitat destruction similarly do not offer their consent…

            As for native species, then that opens an entirely new realm of possibilities. Nature always grows more animals than habitat can support, and the rest perish of starvation or disease. It does no harm to animal populations to consume the excess, given that they are replaced by the very next generation. And, in taking some part of our diet in a sustainable manner from undisturbed wild lands, we preserve these lands for the multitude of creatures that we must otherwise destroy in order to establish crop fields.

          • Dylan Wentworth

            Evicting some wild animals for plant agriculture and displacing their natural habitat with crops is okay by me provided it’s not in a particularly sensitive area like the Everglades or the Amazon. While that may seem like a horrible loss for animals, I have a greater objection to the sustained inhumane treatment of animals in animal agriculture. I believe that a full year’s worth of vegetables that I consume can be produced on less land than could sustain a year’s worth of cattle or poultry. There’s always going to be something that dies. You can minimize the suffering and death by consuming a plant based diet.

            As for consuming wild animals, I don’t actually have as big of an issue with that as consuming domesticated livestock animals however there’s way too many humans on the planet for that. You left out predation and scavaging from other species in the food chain. That’s definitely not sustainable with 7 billion Earthlings and growing.

          • stewart lands

            To evict animals from the habitat they require is to kill them. They cannot simply move into the surrounding lands and co-exist with the previous inhabitants since there are not enough resources to support them. To farm, therefore, is to kill. And any land rich enough to farm is also rich enough to support many hundreds of vertebrates per acre. One can minimize suffering and death by fully utilizing every Joule of energy grown on ever acre converted. It is not a question of whether or not plant agriculture is superior to animal agriculture–it is, without a doubt. Instead, it is a question of how we may reduce animal death and environmental degradation even further by recognizing a more nuanced solution than we currently take for granted.

            As for wild fish and game, I am not suggesting that these are capable of feeding the entire earth population. I am only suggesting that, to the extent they are “sustainably” taken, they are the least destructive source of food available to us (with the exception of wild plants, of course).

France’s ban of faux-meat branding won’t stop veganism

I’ll take “mycoproteinous food tube” over a tube of dead pig any day.

Concerned about endangered animals? Stop eating them

Methods of animal conservation that support the exploitation of animals don’t exist for the animals, they exist for human profit.

What you can do if live exports disturb you

The outcry should go further than importation and should be directed at the fact that the animals in question were on their way to slaughter in the first place.