The problem of promoting vegetarianism-Why vegetarians are going back to eating meat.

Why vegetarianism isn’t working.

The following article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/8884326/Vegetarians-now-showing-their-softer-side.html#disqus_thread cites “The number of vegetarians has dipped and plateaued over the past decade, partly because successful animal welfare campaigns have turned veggies back to meat.”



As we can see from the rise in articles like this, more and more vegetarians are going back to consuming meat, rather than becoming vegan. The attitude towards vegetarianism and animals themselves is pretty bleak, clearly the author of this particular article does not take them seriously. And is it any wonder? Spending time and resources promoting vegetarianism is not helping the animals. Indeed it seems it is damaging for animal advocates to do so. The message of rights for animals (not to be used as property) is being lost.

Firstly, the position of vegetarianism is an illogical one. It singles out and abstains from just one kind of animal use (flesh). This suggests that this use is morally worse or more “cruel” than all other ways of using animals. This is inaccurate; ALL animals in the dairy and egg industries are slaughtered and get eaten just as “meat animals” do. It could be argued that animals used for eggs and dairy in fact suffer more than those killed for meat (of course a lot of vegetarians are unaware of this). To just boycott meat but to continue to consume eggs, dairy, honey etc, is as silly as just boycotting dairy but continuing to consume meat, eggs and honey. It doesn’t make sense as a rational or moral matter. One of the problems with single issue campaigns (SICs).

When you single out just one animal use as “worse” or “more cruel” than all other animal uses, it has the effect of normalising other said uses. It sends the message that “meat is bad because it’s cruel, but we can take milk and eggs from animals kindly”. Most vegetarians believe they are doing a great deal to help animals and boycotting the worst forms of harm, unaware they are funding the slaughter of male veal calves, the gassing of male chicks, and the slaughter of “spent” cows and hens. In fact often vegetarians increase their consumption of eggs and dairy because they have not been educated about plant-based nutrition. Instead of decreasing demand, this serves to trade one type of animal exploitation for another. Essentially, to promote vegetarianism is to promote animal exploitation. 

Secondly, as it is “cruelty” that is emphasised (most often in the form of factory farming), most misunderstand the moral issue to be about the treatment of the animals, rather than their actual use. So, when presented with welfare reforms that promise to make the production of animal foods “less cruel”, they are assured that animal use isn’t cruel anymore and go back to consuming meat.

We of course know that welfare reforms only exist for two reasons: 1) To appease the public and make them feel more comfortable about consuming animal products (thereby increasing demand) 2) To improve production efficiency for the producer (to increase profits).  In reality it is not about helping the animals who are suffering now, for the reforms are usually insignificant and can take years to come into effect, often with loopholes making the legislation pretty meaningless.

Furthermore welfare regulation does nothing to promote the abolition of animal use (quite the opposite), so should absolutely not be promoted by animal advocates. It misses the fundamental point of what is wrong with the situation: sentient beings as property.

This is why, for any animal “rights” group, it is just so important to promote veganism as the moral baseline. We need to make it clear to the public that animals matter morally because they are sentient non-human persons who deserve the right not to be slaves. They have their own inherent moral value. We should reject discrimination against them (speciesism), just as we reject other forms of discrimination against humans-allowing us to be morally consistent with the values we already hold as a society. That is, if we were to put humans in the situations that non-human animals endure, we would find this abhorrent. Animals suffer just as much, their lives being as important to them as ours are to us. We have neither the need nor the justification to exploit them.

Respecting their needs and interests requires challenging their status as our property. We must stop confusing the public by sending mixed messages. The lives of animals matter, tell them why. We need to boycott all forms of exploitation, not just one or two. Anything less is ineffective and counterproductive in helping non-human animals. Not to mention hypocritical.

We have to stop being afraid of saying the word “vegan”, making it out as if it is something extreme when it is the very least we should be doing-and is in fact the only thing that makes sense. We must be honest in telling the public that veganism is the only morally justifiable position if you take the lives of non-human-animals seriously.  It is the only effective method of decreasing demand and eventually ending animal exploitation. If people want to take the interim step of going vegetarian first on their way to vegan, let them make that decision themselves. We should not be promoting vegetarianism as a valid position.

It is essential to promote a clear, logical, morally valid and consistent message. This means unequivocal veganism.

"The most "humane" animal products come from animals who are tortured. And all are killed. If animals matter morally to you, please go vegan."
"Speciesism is a form of discrimination-like sexism, racism, homophobia-& all discrimination=violence. Please reject all violence."
Quotes by Gary L. Francione www.abolitionistapproach.com