Thank goodness! I have been getting despondent of so called Vegans being almost anti human in their desire to push Veganism onto everyone. Those choosing a plant based diet for health reasons are not considered Vegans and therefore are separated out and called out cruelly. I’ve been trying to find a space like this that sees anyone who is trying to move away from a diet containing meat for whatever reason, as not just an ally but someone who is compassionate towards themself - realising the need to look after their own bodies - and compassionate towards others, including all living beings we share this earth with. Totally agree with this post and a breath of fresh air for me, having been a Vegan for over 40 years, to find such compassion and inclusivity towards others. I welcome anyone who chooses even to reduced their meat in take and to think about products they use and their impact on the environment. Looking forward to read through other articles in your library as well. Thank you for this. At last, a safe space for me.
Thanks for writing this editorial piece, Michael. It stimulates a lot of thought, and hopefully, it will foster constructive conversation. My views differ from yours in one central point – the term health should receive top billing rather than an unwitting advocate.
The term vegan is stuck in how it was initially applied and understood – it hasn’t evolved during the past 80 years since its inception in 1944 by British animal rights advocate Donald Watson. That’s a problem.
The term may have been developed in 1944, but eating a plant-based diet didn’t begin on that date. Evidence suggests people have chosen plant-based diets for as long as 2,000 years. Somehow, in a post-WWII environment, the term veganism only related to animal rights when it became adopted into its charter as a non-profit organization. The Green movement essentially adopted this term in the 1970s and 1980s, including environmental issues under an umbrella definition. Oddly, this brought increased political scrutiny to the idea of veganism when militant organizations went too far in promoting “green” issues that didn’t have much to do with real vegan concerns. This move created an impression that labeled vegans as too militant...or too left...we became "tree huggers."
Unfortunately, veganism never included the idea of health in its charter—it was always about animals and the environment, and those arguments never gained widespread acceptance on the political or cultural front. Of course, there were no ultra-processed foods during the 1940s, widespread distribution factors to be concerned with, or even corporate farming techniques that are so harmful to animals, the environment, and people’s health.
I agree with some of your editorial comments. This sentence makes the most sense, “A united front, regardless of individual reasons, is far more powerful than a divided one.” I completely agree – this is true in family matters, politics, sports, etc. Most of the remainder of your opinions go on to separate the concept of veganism into the three categories most of us are familiar with: environment, health, and animal rights...with the latter remaining at the forefront and the other reasons becoming a tag-along in the vegan movement. Here’s how you elected to place me (and others), “Health-focused eaters often become unwitting advocates.” Sorry, but I don’t consider myself an unwitting advocate.
I know the idea of veganism began with animal rights. And I know one of the written core principles of the Vegan Society is based on compassion for all living things. In my view, this places an umbrella over everything, meaning health is at the forefront of every idea veganism stands for - health for the planet and all living sentient beings. A health focus is not merely an unwitting advocate – it is the driving force behind everything vegan, plant-based, or whatever name emerges in the future.
The ideas of veganism cannot prosper or realize widespread acceptance that fosters lasting change with anything other than a complete focus on health. That means it is time for the Vegan Society to evolve its charter and begin acting with more unity and inclusion.
Thank goodness! I have been getting despondent of so called Vegans being almost anti human in their desire to push Veganism onto everyone. Those choosing a plant based diet for health reasons are not considered Vegans and therefore are separated out and called out cruelly. I’ve been trying to find a space like this that sees anyone who is trying to move away from a diet containing meat for whatever reason, as not just an ally but someone who is compassionate towards themself - realising the need to look after their own bodies - and compassionate towards others, including all living beings we share this earth with. Totally agree with this post and a breath of fresh air for me, having been a Vegan for over 40 years, to find such compassion and inclusivity towards others. I welcome anyone who chooses even to reduced their meat in take and to think about products they use and their impact on the environment. Looking forward to read through other articles in your library as well. Thank you for this. At last, a safe space for me.
Thank you for your comments. And you are most welcome!
Thanks for writing this editorial piece, Michael. It stimulates a lot of thought, and hopefully, it will foster constructive conversation. My views differ from yours in one central point – the term health should receive top billing rather than an unwitting advocate.
The term vegan is stuck in how it was initially applied and understood – it hasn’t evolved during the past 80 years since its inception in 1944 by British animal rights advocate Donald Watson. That’s a problem.
The term may have been developed in 1944, but eating a plant-based diet didn’t begin on that date. Evidence suggests people have chosen plant-based diets for as long as 2,000 years. Somehow, in a post-WWII environment, the term veganism only related to animal rights when it became adopted into its charter as a non-profit organization. The Green movement essentially adopted this term in the 1970s and 1980s, including environmental issues under an umbrella definition. Oddly, this brought increased political scrutiny to the idea of veganism when militant organizations went too far in promoting “green” issues that didn’t have much to do with real vegan concerns. This move created an impression that labeled vegans as too militant...or too left...we became "tree huggers."
Unfortunately, veganism never included the idea of health in its charter—it was always about animals and the environment, and those arguments never gained widespread acceptance on the political or cultural front. Of course, there were no ultra-processed foods during the 1940s, widespread distribution factors to be concerned with, or even corporate farming techniques that are so harmful to animals, the environment, and people’s health.
I agree with some of your editorial comments. This sentence makes the most sense, “A united front, regardless of individual reasons, is far more powerful than a divided one.” I completely agree – this is true in family matters, politics, sports, etc. Most of the remainder of your opinions go on to separate the concept of veganism into the three categories most of us are familiar with: environment, health, and animal rights...with the latter remaining at the forefront and the other reasons becoming a tag-along in the vegan movement. Here’s how you elected to place me (and others), “Health-focused eaters often become unwitting advocates.” Sorry, but I don’t consider myself an unwitting advocate.
I know the idea of veganism began with animal rights. And I know one of the written core principles of the Vegan Society is based on compassion for all living things. In my view, this places an umbrella over everything, meaning health is at the forefront of every idea veganism stands for - health for the planet and all living sentient beings. A health focus is not merely an unwitting advocate – it is the driving force behind everything vegan, plant-based, or whatever name emerges in the future.
The ideas of veganism cannot prosper or realize widespread acceptance that fosters lasting change with anything other than a complete focus on health. That means it is time for the Vegan Society to evolve its charter and begin acting with more unity and inclusion.
Thank you for the insightful response to the article. Indeed, veganism needs to evolve. Change is inevitable, and we must all adapt to progress.