research topics about veganism

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 12 September 2019

The effects of plant-based diets on the body and the brain: a systematic review

• Evelyn Medawar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5011-8275 1 , 2 , 3 ,
• Sebastian Huhn 4 ,
• Arno Villringer 1 , 2 , 3 &
• A. Veronica Witte 1  

Translational Psychiatry volume  9 , Article number:  226 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

306k Accesses

184 Citations

1432 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Human behaviour
• Molecular neuroscience
• Psychiatric disorders

Western societies notice an increasing interest in plant-based eating patterns such as vegetarian and vegan, yet potential effects on the body and brain are a matter of debate. Therefore, we systematically reviewed existing human interventional studies on putative effects of a plant-based diet on the metabolism and cognition, and what is known about the underlying mechanisms. Using the search terms “plant-based OR vegan OR vegetarian AND diet AND intervention” in PubMed filtered for clinical trials in humans retrieved 205 studies out of which 27, plus an additional search extending the selection to another five studies, were eligible for inclusion based on three independent ratings. We found robust evidence for short- to moderate-term beneficial effects of plant-based diets versus conventional diets (duration ≤ 24 months) on weight status, energy metabolism and systemic inflammation in healthy participants, obese and type-2 diabetes patients. Initial experimental studies proposed novel microbiome-related pathways, by which plant-based diets modulate the gut microbiome towards a favorable diversity of bacteria species, yet a functional “bottom up” signaling of plant-based diet-induced microbial changes remains highly speculative. In addition, little is known, based on interventional studies about cognitive effects linked to plant-based diets. Thus, a causal impact of plant-based diets on cognitive functions, mental and neurological health and respective underlying mechanisms has yet to be demonstrated. In sum, the increasing interest for plant-based diets raises the opportunity for developing novel preventive and therapeutic strategies against obesity, eating disorders and related comorbidities. Still, putative effects of plant-based diets on brain health and cognitive functions as well as the underlying mechanisms remain largely unexplored and new studies need to address these questions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Associations of dietary patterns with brain health from behavioral, neuroimaging, biochemical and genetic analyses

Ruohan Zhang, Bei Zhang, … Wei Cheng

Role of diet and its effects on the gut microbiome in the pathophysiology of mental disorders

J. Horn, D. E. Mayer, … E. A. Mayer

What makes a plant-based diet? a review of current concepts and proposal for a standardized plant-based dietary intervention checklist

Maximilian Andreas Storz

Introduction

Western societies notice an increasing interest in plant-based eating patterns such as avoiding meat or fish or fully excluding animal products (vegetarian or vegan, see Fig.  1 ). In 2015, around 0.4−3.4% US adults, 1−2% British adults, and 5−10% of German adults were reported to eat largely plant-based diets 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , due to various reasons (reviewed in ref. 5 ). Likewise, the number of scientific publications on PubMed (Fig.  2 ) and the public popularity as depicted by Google Trends (Fig.  3 ) underscore the increased interest in plant-based diets. This increasing awareness calls for a better scientific understanding of how plant-based diets affect human health, in particular with regard to potentially relevant effects on mental health and cognitive functions.

From left to right: including all food items (omnivore), including all except for meat (pesco-vegetarian) or meat and fish (ovo-lacto-vegetarian) to including only plant-based items (vegan)

Frequency of publications on PubMed including the search terms “vegan” (in light green), vegetarian (in orange) and plant-based (dark green)—accessed on 19 April 2019

Note indicates technical improvements implemented by Google Trends. Data source: Google Trends . Search performed on 18 April 2019

A potential effect of plant-based diets on mortality rate remains controversial: large epidemiological studies like the Adventist studies ( n  = 22,000−96,000) show a link between plant-based diets, lower all-cause mortality and cardiovascular diseases 6 , 7 , while other studies like the EPIC-Oxford study and the “45 and Up Study” ( n  = 64,000−267,000) show none 8 , 9 . Yet, many, but not all, epidemiological and interventional human studies in the last decades have suggested that plant-based diets exert beneficial health effects with regard to obesity-related metabolic dysfunction, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic low-grade inflammation (e.g. refs. 6 , 7 , 10 , 11 , for reviews, see refs. 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ). However, while a putative link between such metabolic alterations and brain health through pathways which might include diet-related neurotransmitter precursors, inflammatory pathways and the gut microbiome 19 becomes increasingly recognized, the notion that plant-based diets exert influence on mental health and cognitive functions appears less documented and controversial 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 . We therefore systematically reviewed the current evidence based on available controlled interventional trials, regarded as the gold standard to assess causality, on potential effects of plant-based diets on (a) metabolic factors including the microbiome and (b) neurological or psychiatric health and brain functions. In addition, we aimed to evaluate potential underlying mechanisms and related implications for cognition.

We performed a systematic PubMed search with the following search terms “plant-based OR vegan OR vegetarian AND diet AND intervention” with the filter “clinical trial” and “humans”, preregistered at PROSPERO (CRD42018111856; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=111856 ) (Suppl. Fig.  1 ). PubMed was used as search engine because it was esteemed to yield the majority of relevant human clinical trials from a medical perspective. Exclusion criteria were insufficient design quality (such as lack of a control group), interventions without a plant-based or vegetarian or vegan diet condition, intervention with multiple factors (such as exercise and diet), and the exclusive report of main outcomes of no interest, such as dietary compliance, nutrient intake (such as vitamins or fiber intake), or nonmetabolic (i.e., not concerning glucose metabolism, lipid profile, gastrointestinal hormones or inflammatory markers) or non-neurological/psychiatric disease outcomes (e.g. cancer, caries).

Studies were independently rated for eligibility into the systematic review by three authors based on reading the abstract and, if needed, methods or other parts of the publication. If opinions differed, a consensus was reached through discussion of the individual study. This yielded 27 eligible out of 205 publications; see Table  1 for details. To increase the search radius for studies dealing with microbial and neurological/psychiatric outcomes, we deleted the search term “intervention”, which increased the number of studies by around one third, and checked for studies with “microbiome/microbiota”, “mental”, “cognitive/cognition” or “psychological/psychology” in the resulting records. Through this, we retrieved another five studies included in Table  1 . Further related studies were reviewed based on additional nonsystematic literature search.

Section I: Effects of plant-based diets on body and brain outcomes

Results based on interventional studies on metabolism, microbiota and brain function.

Overall, the vast majority of studies included in this systematic review reported a short-term beneficial effect of plant-based dietary interventions (study duration 3−24 months) on weight status, glucose, insulin and/or plasma lipids and inflammatory markers, whereas studies investigating whether plant-based diets affect microbial or neurological/psychiatric disease status and other brain functions were scarce and rather inconclusive (Table  1 ).

More specifically, 19 out of 32 studies dealing with T2DM and/or obese subjects and seven out of 32 dealing with healthy subjects observed a more pronounced weight loss and metabolic improvements, such as lowering of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c)—a long-term marker for glucose levels—decreased serum levels of low-density (LDL) and high-density lipoproteins (HDL) and total cholesterol (TC), after a plant-based diet compared to an omnivore diet. This is largely in line with recent meta-analyses indicating beneficial metabolic changes after a plant-based diet 25 , 26 , 27 .

For example, Lee et al. found a significantly larger reduction of HbA1c and lower waist circumference after vegan compared to conventional dieting 28 . Jenkins et al. found a disease-attenuating effect in hyperlipidemic patients after 6 months adopting a low-carbohydrate plant-based diet compared to a high-carbohydrate lacto-ovo-vegetarian diet 29 , 30 . However, lower energy intake in the vegan dieters might have contributed to these effects. Yet, while a plant-based diet per se might lead to lower caloric intake, other studies observed nonsignificant trends toward higher effect sizes on metabolic parameters after a vegan diet, even when caloric intake was comparable: two studies in T2DM patients 31 , 32 compared calorie-unrestricted vegan or vegetarian to calorie-restricted conventional diets over periods of 6 months and 1.5 years, respectively, in moderate sample sizes ( n  ~ 75−99) with similar caloric intake achieved in both diet groups. Both studies indicated stronger effects of plant-based diets on disease status, such as reduced medication, improved weight status and increased glucose/insulin sensitivity, proposing a diabetes-preventive potential of plant-based diets. Further, a five-arm study comparing four types of plant-based diets (vegan, vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian, semi-vegetarian) to an omnivore diet (total n  = 63) in obese participants found the most pronounced effect on weight loss for a vegan diet (−7.5 ± 4.5% of total body weight) 33 . Here, inflammation markers conceptualized as the dietary inflammatory index were also found to be lower in vegan, vegetarian and pesco-vegetarian compared to semi-vegetarian overweight to obese dieters 33 .

Intriguingly, these results 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 cohesively suggest that although caloric intake was similar across groups, participants who had followed a vegan diet showed higher weight loss and improved metabolic status.

As a limitation, all of the reviewed intervention studies were carried out in moderate sample sizes and over a period of less than 2 years, disregarding that long-term success of dietary interventions stabilizes after 2−5 years only 34 . Future studies with larger sample sizes and tight control of dietary intake need to confirm these results.

Through our systematic review we retrieved only one study that added the gut microbiome as novel outcome for clinical trials investigating the effects of animal-based diets compared to plant-based diets. While the sample size was relatively low ( n  = 10, cross-over within subject design), it showed that changing animal- to plant based diet changed gut microbial activity towards a trade-off between carbohydrate and protein fermentation processes within only 5 days 35 . This is in line with another controlled-feeding study where microbial composition changes already occurred 24 h after changing diet (not exclusively plant-based) 36 . However, future studies incorporating larger sample sizes and a uniform analysis approach of microbial features need to further confirm the hypothesis that a plant-based diet ameliorates microbial diversity and health-related bacteria species.

Considering neurological or psychiatric diseases and brain functions, the systematic review yielded in six clinical trials of diverse clinical groups, i.e. migraine, multiple sclerosis, fibromyalgia and rheumatoid arthritis. Here, mild to moderate improvement, e.g. measured by antibody levels, symptom improvement or pain frequency, was reported in five out of six studies, sometimes accompanied by weight loss 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 (Table  1 ). However, given the pilot character of these studies, indicated by small sample sizes ( n  = 32−66), lack of randomization 37 , or that the plant-based diet was additionally free of gluten 40 , the evidence is largely anecdotal. One study in moderately obese women showed no effects on psychological outcomes 41 , two studies with obese and nonobese healthy adults indicated improvements in anxiety, stress and depressive symptom scores 23 , 24 . Taken together, the current evidence based on interventional trials regarding improvements of cognitive and emotional markers and in disease treatment for central nervous system disorders such as multiple sclerosis or fibromyalgia remains considerably fragmentary for plant-based diets.

Among observational studies, a recent large cross-sectional study showed a higher occurrence of depressive symptoms for vegetarian dieters compared to nonvegetarians 20 . Conversely, another observational study with a sample of about 80% women found a beneficial association between a vegan diet and mood disturbance 24 .

Overall, the relationship between mental health (i.e. depression) and restrictive eating patterns has been the focus of recent research 20 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 42 ; however, causal relationships remain uninvestigated due to the observational design.

Underlying mechanisms linking macronutrient intake to metabolic processes

On the one hand, nutrient sources as well as their intake ratios considerably differ between plant-based and omnivore diets (Suppl. Table  1 ), and on the other hand, dietary micro- and macromolecules as well as their metabolic substrates affect a diversity of physiological functions, pointing to complex interdependencies. Thus, it seems difficult to nail down the proposed beneficial effects of a plant-based diet on metabolic status to one specific component or characteristic, and it seems unlikely that the usually low amount of calories in plant-based diets could explain all observed effects. Rather, plant-based diets might act through multiple pathways, including better glycemic control 43 , lower inflammatory activity 44 and altered neurotransmitter metabolism via dietary intake 45 or intestinal activity 46 (Fig.  4 ).

BMI body-mass-index, HbA1c hemoglobin A1c, LDL-cholesterol low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, Trp tryptophan, Tyr tyrosine. Images from commons.wikimedia.org , “Brain human sagittal section” by Lynch 2006 and “Complete GI tract” by Häggström 2008, “Anatomy Figure Vector Clipart” by http://moziru.com

On the macronutrient level, plant-based diets feature different types of fatty acids (mono- and poly-unsaturated versus saturated and trans) and sugars (complex and unrefined versus simple and refined), which might both be important players for mediating beneficial health effects 18 . On the micronutrient level, the EPIC-Oxford study provided the largest sample of vegan dieters worldwide ( n (vegan) = 2396, n (total) = 65,429) and showed on the one hand lower intake of saturated fatty acids (SFA), retinol, vitamin B12 and D, calcium, zinc and protein, and on the other hand higher intake of fiber, magnesium, iron, folic acid, vitamin B1, C and E in vegan compared to omnivore dieters 47 . Other studies confirmed the variance of nutrient intake across dietary groups, i.e. omnivores, vegetarians and vegans, showing the occurrence of critical nutrients for each group 48 , 49 . Not only the amount of SFA but also its source and profile might be important factors regulating metabolic control (reviewed in ref. 14 ), for example through contributing to systemic hyperlipidemia and subsequent cardiovascular risk. Recently, it has been shown in a 4-week intervention trial that short-term dietary changes favoring a diet high in animal-based protein may lead to an increased risk for cardiovascular derangements mediated by higher levels of trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), which is a metabolite of gut bacteria-driven metabolic pathways 50 .

Secondly, high fiber intake from legumes, grains, vegetables and fruits is a prominent feature of plant-based diets (Table  1 ), which could induce beneficial metabolic processes like upregulated carbohydrate fermentation and downregulated protein fermentation 35 , improved gut hormonal-driven appetite regulation 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , and might prevent chronic diseases such as obesity and T2DM by slowing down digestion and improving lipid control 56 . A comprehensive review including evidence from 185 prospective studies and 58 clinical trials concluded that risk reduction for a myriad of diseases (incl. CVD, T2DM, stroke incidence) was greatest for daily fiber intake between 25 and 29 g 57 . Precise evidence for underlying mechanisms is missing; however, more recently it has been suggested that high fiber intake induces changes on the microbial level leading to lower long-term weight gain 58 , a mechanism discussed below.

The reason for lower systemic inflammation in plant-based dieters could be due to the abundance of antiinflammatory molecule intake and/or avoidance of proinflammatory animal-derived molecules. Assessing systemic inflammation is particularly relevant for medical conditions such as obesity, where it has been proposed to increase the risk for cardiovascular disease 59 , 60 . In addition, higher C-reactive protein (CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels have been linked with measures of brain microstructure, such as microstructural integrity and white matter lesions 61 , 62 , 63 and higher risk of dementia 64 , and recent studies point out that a diet-related low inflammatory index might also directly affect healthy brain ageing 65 , 66 .

Interventional studies that focus on plant- versus meat-based proteins or micronutrients and potential effects on the body and brain are lacking. A meta-analysis including seven RCTs and one cross-sectional studies on physical performance and dietary habits concluded that a vegetarian diet did not adversely influence physical performance compared to an omnivore diet 67 . An epidemiological study by Song et al. 11 estimated that statistically replacing 3% of animal protein, especially from red meat or eggs, with plant protein would significantly improve mortality rates. This beneficial effect might however not be explained by the protein source itself, but possibly by detrimental components found in meat (e.g. heme-iron or nitrosamines, antibiotics, see below).

Some studies further hypothesized that health benefits observed in a plant-based diet stem from higher levels of fruits and vegetables providing phytochemicals or vitamin C that might boost immune function and eventually prevent certain types of cancer 68 , 69 , 70 . A meta-analysis on the effect of phytochemical intake concluded a beneficial effect on CVD, cancer, overweight, body composition, glucose tolerance, digestion and mental health 71 . Looking further on the impact of micronutrients and single dietary compounds, there is room for speculation that molecules, that are commonly avoided in plant-based diets, might affect metabolic status and overall health, such as opioid-peptides derived from casein 72 , pre- and probiotics 73 , 74 , carry-over antibiotics found in animal products 75 , 76 or food-related carcinogenic toxins, such as dioxin found in eggs or nitrosamines found in red and processed meat 77 , 78 . Although conclusive evidence is missing, these findings propose indirect beneficial effects on health deriving from plant-based compared to animal-based foods, with a potential role for nonprotein substances in mediating those effects 18 . While data regarding chemical contaminant levels (such as crop pesticides, herbicides or heavy metals) in different food items are fragmentary only, certain potentially harmful compounds may be more (or less) frequently consumed in plant-based diets compared to more animal-based diets 79 . Whether these differences lead to systematic health effects need to be explored.

Taken together, the reviewed studies indicating effects of plant-based diets through macro- and micronutrient intake reveal both the potential of single ingredients or food groups (low SFA, high fiber) and the immense complexity of diet-related mechanisms for metabolic health. As proposed by several authors, benefits on health related to diet can probably not be viewed in isolation for the intake (or nonintake) of specific foods, but rather by additive or even synergistic effects between them (reviewed in refs. 12 , 80 ). Even if it remains a challenging task to design long-term RCTs that control macro- and micronutrient levels across dietary intervention groups, technological advancements such as more fine-tuned diagnostic measurements and automated self-monitoring tools, e.g. automatic food recognition systems 81 and urine-related measures of dietary intake 82 , could help to push the field forward.

Nutrients of particular interest in plant-based diets

As described above, plant-based diets have been shown to convey nutritional benefits 48 , 49 , in particular increased fiber, beta carotene, vitamin K and C, folate, magnesium, and potassium intake and an improved dietary health index 83 . However, a major criticism of plant-based diets is the risk of nutrient deficiencies for specific micronutrients, especially vitamin B12, a mainly animal-derived nutrient, which is missing entirely in vegan diets unless supplemented or provided in B12-fortified products, and which seems detrimental for neurological and cognitive health when intake is low. In the EPIC-Oxford study about 50% of the vegan dieters showed serum levels indicating vitamin B12 deficiency 84 . Along other risk factors such as age 85 , diet, and plant-based diets in particular, seem to be the main risk factor for vitamin B12 deficiency (reviewed in ref. 86 ), and therefore supplementing vitamin B12 for these risk groups is highly recommended 87 . Vitamin B12 is a crucial component involved in early brain development, in maintaining normal central nervous system function 88 and suggested to be neuroprotective, particularly for memory performance and hippocampal microstructure 89 . One hypothesis is that high levels of homocysteine, that is associated with vitamin B12 deficiency, might be harmful to the body. Vitamin B12 is the essential cofactor required for the conversion of homocysteine into nonharmful components and serves as a cofactor in different enzymatic reactions. A person suffering from vitamin B12 insufficiency accumulates homocysteine, lastly promoting the formation of plaques in arteries and thereby increasing atherothrombotic risk 90 , possibly facilitating symptoms in patients of Alzheimer’s disease 91 . A meta-analysis found that vitamin B12 deficiency was associated with stroke, Alzheimer’s disease, vascular dementia, Parkinson’s disease and in even lower concentrations with cognitive impairment 92 , supporting the claim of its high potential for disease prevention when avoided or treated 93 . Further investigations and longitudinal studies are needed, possibly measuring holotranscobalamin (the active form of vitamin B12) as a more specific and sensitive marker for vitamin B12 status 94 , to examine in how far nonsupplementing vegan dieters could be at risk for cardiovascular and cognitive impairment.

Similar health dangers can stem from iron deficiency, another commonly assumed risk for plant-based dieters and other risk groups such as young women. A meta-analysis on 24 studies proposes that although serum ferritin levels were lower in vegetarians on average, it is recommended to sustain an optimal ferritin level (neither too low nor too high), calling for well-monitored supplementation strategies 95 . Iron deficiency is not only dependent on iron intake as such but also on complimentary dietary factors influencing its bioavailability (discussed in ref. 95 ). The picture remains complex: on the one hand iron deficiency may lead to detrimental health effects, such as impairments in early brain development and cognitive functions in adults and in children carried by iron-deficient mothers 96 and a possible role for iron overload in the brain on cognitive impairment on the other hand 97 . One study showed that attention, memory and learning were impaired in iron-deficient compared to iron-sufficient women, which could be restored after a 4-month oral iron supplementation ( n  = 118) 98 . Iron deficiency-related impairments could be attributed to anemia as an underlying cause, possibly leading to fatigue, or an undersupply of blood to the brain or alterations in neurobiological and neuronal systems 99 provoking impaired cognitive functioning.

This leads to the general recommendation to monitor health status by frequent blood tests, to consult a dietician to live healthily on a plant-based diet and to consider supplements to avoid nutrient deficiencies or nutrient-overdose-related toxicity. All in all, organizations such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 100 and the German Nutrition Society do not judge iron as a major risk factor for plant-based dieters 101 .

Section II: Effects of diet on the gut microbiome

The link between diet and microbial diversity.

Another putative mechanistic pathway of how plant-based diets can affect health may involve the gut microbiome which has increasingly received scientific and popular interest, lastly not only through initiatives such as the Human Microbiome Project 102 . A common measure for characterizing the gut community is enterotyping, which is a way to stratify individuals according to their gut bacterial diversity, by calculating the ratio between bacterial genera, such as Prevotella and Bacteroides 103 . While interventional controlled trials are still scarce, this ratio has been shown to be conclusive for differentiating plant-based from animal-based microbial profiles 36 . Specifically, in a sample of 98 individuals, Wu et al. 36 found that a diet high in protein and animal fats was related to more Bacteroides, whereas a diet high in carbohydrates, representing a plant-based one, was associated with more Prevotella. Moreover, the authors showed that a change in diet to high-fat/low-fiber or to low-fat/high-fiber in ten individuals elicited a change in gut microbial enterotype with a time delay of 24 h only and remained stable over 10 days, however not being able to switch completely to another enterotype 36 . Another strictly controlled 30-day cross-over interventional study showed that a change in diet to either an exclusively animal-based or plant-based diet promoted gut microbiota diversity and genetic expression to change within 5 days 35 . Particularly, in response to adopting an animal-based diet, microbial diversity increased rapidly, even overshadowing individual microbial gene expression. Beyond large shifts in overall diet, already modest dietary modifications such as the daily consumption of 43 g of walnuts, were able to promote probiotic- and butyric acid-producing bacterial species in two RCTs, after 3 and 8 weeks respectively 104 , 105 , highlighting the high adaptability of the gut microbiome to dietary components. The Prevotella to Bacteroides ratio (P/B) has been shown to be involved in the success of dietary interventions targeting weight loss, with larger weight loss in high P/B compared to low P/B in a 6-month whole-grain diet compared to a conventional diet 106 . Only recently, other microbial communities, such as the salivary microbiome, have been shown to be different between omnivores and vegan dieters 107 , opening new avenues for research on adaptable mechanisms related to dietary intake.

A continuum in microbial diversity dependent on diet

Plant-based diets are supposed to be linked to a specific microbial profile, with a vegan profile being most different from an omnivore, but not always different from a vegetarian profile (reviewed in ref. 15 ). Some specifically vegan gut microbial characteristics have also been found in a small sample of six obese subjects after 1 month following a vegetarian diet, namely less pathobionts, more protective bacterial species improving lipid metabolism and a reduced level of intestinal inflammation 108 . Investigating long-term dietary patterns a study found a dose-dependent effect for altered gut microbiota in vegetarians and vegans compared to omnivores depending on the quantity of animal products 109 . The authors showed that gut microbial profiles of plant-based diets feature the same total number but lower counts of Bacteroides, Bifidobacterium, E. coli and Enterobacteriaceae compared to omnivores, with the biggest difference to vegans. Still today it remains unclear, what this shift in bacterial composition means in functional terms, prompting the field to develop more functional analyses.

In a 30-day intervention study, David et al. found that fermentation processes linked to fat and carbohydrate decomposition were related to the abundance of certain microbial species 35 . They found a strong correlation between fiber intake and Prevotella abundance in the microbial gut. More recently, Prevotella has been associated with plant-based diets 110 that are comparable to low-fat/high-fiber diets 111 and might be linked to the increased synthesis of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) 112 . SCFAs are discussed as putative signaling molecules between the gut microbiome and the receptors, i.e. free fatty acid receptor 2 (FFA2) 51 , found in host cells across different tissues 113 and could therefore be one potential mechanism of microbiome−host communication.

The underlying mechanisms of nutrient decomposition by Prevotella and whether abundant Prevotella populations in the gut are beneficial for overall health remain unknown. Yet it seems possible that an increased fiber intake and therefore higher Prevotella abundance such as associated with plant-based diets is beneficial for regulating glycemic control and keeping inflammatory processes within normal levels, possibly due to reduced appetite and lower energy intake mediated by a higher fiber content 114 . Moreover, it has been brought forward that the microbiome might influence bodily homeostatic control, suggesting a role for the gut microbiota in whole-body control mechanisms on the systemic level. Novel strategies aim to develop gut-microbiota-based therapies to improve bodily states, e.g. glycemic control 115 , based on inducing microbial changes and thereby eliciting higher-level changes in homeostasis. While highly speculative, such strategies could in theory also exert changes on the brain level, which will be discussed next in the light of a bi-directional feedback between the gut and the brain.

Effects on cognition and behavior linking diet and cognition via the microbiome−gut−brain axis

While the number of interventional studies focusing on cognitive and mental health outcomes after adopting plant-based diets overall is very limited (see Section I above), one underlying mechanism of how plant-based diets may affect mood could involve signaling pathways on the microbiome−gut−brain axis 116 , 117 , 118 , 119 . A recent 4-week intervention RCT showed that probiotic administration compared to placebo and no intervention modulated brain activity during emotional decision-making and emotional recognition tasks 117 . In chronic depression it has been proposed that immunoglobulin A and M antibodies are synthesized by the host in response to gut commensals and are linked to depressive symptoms 120 . Whether the identified gram-negative bacteria might also play a role in plant-based diets remains to be explored. A meta-analysis on five studies concluded that probiotics may mediate an alleviating effect on depression symptomatic 121 —however, sample sizes remained rather small ( n  < 100) and no long-term effects were tested (up to 8 weeks).

Currently, several studies aim to identify microbial profiles in relation to disease and how microbial data can be used on a multimodal way to improve functional resolution, e.g. characterizing microbial profiles of individuals suffering from type-1 diabetes 122 . Yet, evidence for specific effects of diet on cognitive functions and behavior through changes in the microbiome remains scarce. A recent study indicated the possibility that our food choices determine the quantity and quality of neurotransmitter-precursor levels that we ingest, which in turn might influence behavior, as shown by lower fairness during a money-redistribution task, called the ultimatum game, after a high-carbohydrate/protein ratio breakfast than after a low-ratio breakfast 123 . Strang et al. found that precursor forms of serotonin and dopamine, measured in blood serum, predicted behavior in this task, and precursor concentrations were dependent on the nutrient profile of the consumed meal before the task. Also on a cross-sectional level tryptophan metabolites from fecal samples have been associated with amygdala-reward network functional connectivity 124 . On top of the dietary composition per se, the microbiota largely contributes to neurotransmitter precursor concentrations; thus, in addition to measuring neurotransmitter precursors in the serum, metabolomics on fecal samples would be helpful to further understand the functional role of the gut microbiota in neurotransmitter biosynthesis and regulation 125 .

Indicating the relevance of gut microbiota for cognition, a first human study assessing cognitive tests and brain imaging could distinguish obese from nonobese individuals using a microbial profile 126 . The authors found a specific microbiotic profile, particularly defined by Actinobacteria phylum abundance, that was associated with microstructural properties in the hypothalamus and in the caudate nucleus. Further, a preclinical study tested whether probiotics could enhance cognitive function in healthy subjects, showing small effects on improved memory performance and reduced stress levels 127 .

A recent study could show that microbial composition influences cerebral amyloidogenesis in a mouse model for Alzheimer’s disease 128 . Health status of the donor mouse seemingly mattered: fecal transplants from transgenic mice had a larger impact on amyloid beta proliferation in the brain compared to wild-type feces. Translational interpretations to humans should be done with caution if at all—yet the results remain elucidative for showing a link between the gut microbiome and brain metabolism.

The evidence for effects of strictly plant-based diets on cognition is very limited. For other plant-based diets such as the Mediterranean diet or DASH diet, there are more available studies that indicate protective effects on cardiovascular and brain health in the aging population (reviewed in refs. 129 , 130 ). Several attempts have been made to clarify potential underlying mechanisms, for example using supplementary plant polyphenols, fish/fish-oil consumption or whole dietary pattern change in RCTs 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , yet results are not always equivocal and large-scale intervention studies have yet to be completed.

The overall findings of this paragraph add to the evidence that microbial diversity may be associated with brain health, although underlying mechanisms and candidate signaling molecules remain unknown.

Based on this systematic review of randomized clinical trials, there is an overall robust support for beneficial effects of a plant-based diet on metabolic measures in health and disease. However, the evidence for cognitive and mental effects of a plant-based diet is still inconclusive. Also, it is not clear whether putative effects are due to the diet per se, certain nutrients of the diet (or the avoidance of certain animal-based nutrients) or other factors associated with vegetarian/vegan diets. Evolving concepts argue that emotional distress and mental illnesses are linked to the role of microbiota in neurological function and can be potentially treated via microbial intervention strategies 19 . Moreover, it has been claimed that certain diseases, such as obesity, are caused by a specific microbial composition 138 , and that a balanced gut microbiome is related to healthy ageing 111 . In this light, it seems possible that a plant-based diet is able to influence brain function by still unclear underlying mechanisms of an altered microbial status and systemic metabolic alterations. However, to our knowledge there are no studies linking plant-based diets and cognitive abilities on a neural level, which are urgently needed, due to the hidden potential as a dietary therapeutic tool. Also, further studies are needed to disentangle motivational beliefs on a psychological level that lead to a change in diet from causal effects on the body and the brain mediated e.g., by metabolic alterations or a change in the gut microbiome.

GOV.UK. National Diet and Nutrition Survey: headline results from years 1, 2 and 3 (combined) of the rolling programme 2008/09–2010/11. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-headline-results-from-years-1-2-and-3-combined-of-the-rolling-programme-200809-201011 (2012).

V. E. B. U. Deutschland & Joy, S. Anzahl der Veganer und Vegetarier in Deutschland. Stand 31 , 2016 (2015).

Mensink, G., Barbosa, C. L. & Brettschneider, A.-K. Verbreitung der vegetarischen Ernährungsweise in Deutschland 1 , (2016).

The Vegetarian Resource Group. How many adults in the U.S. are vegetarian and vegan? http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/Polls/2016_adults_veg.htm (2016).

Rosenfeld, D. L. & Burrow, A. L. Vegetarian on purpose: understanding the motivations of plant-based dieters. Appetite 116 , 456–463 (2017).

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Orlich, M. J. et al. Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in Adventist Health Study 2. JAMA Intern. Med. 173 , 1230–1238 (2013).

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Le, L. T. & Sabaté, J. Beyond meatless, the health effects of vegan diets: findings from the Adventist cohorts. Nutrients 6 , 2131–2147 (2014).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mihrshahi, S. et al. Vegetarian diet and all-cause mortality: evidence from a large population-based Australian cohort-the 45 and up study. Prev. Med. 97 , 1–7 (2017).

Key, T. J. et al. Mortality in British vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 , 1613S–1619S (2009).

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fung, T. T. et al. Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause and cause-specific mortalitytwo cohort studies. Ann. Intern. Med. 153 , 289–298 (2010).

Song, M. et al. Association of animal and plant protein intake with all-cause and cause-specific mortality. JAMA Intern. Med. 176 , 1453–1463 (2016).

Hu, F. B. Plant-based foods and prevention of cardiovascular disease: an overview. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78 , 544S–551S (2003).

Tonstad, S., Butler, T., Yan, R. & Fraser, G. E. Type of vegetarian diet, body weight, and prevalence of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 32 , 791–796 (2009).

McEvoy, C. T., Temple, N. & Woodside, J. V. Vegetarian diets, low-meat diets and health: a review. Public Health Nutr. 15 , 2287–2294 (2012).

Glick-Bauer, M. & Yeh, M.-C. The health advantage of a vegan diet: exploring the gut microbiota connection. Nutrients 6 , 4822–4838 (2014).

Appleby, P. N. & Key, T. J. The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 75 , 287–293 (2016).

Eichelmann, F., Schwingshackl, L., Fedirko, V. & Aleksandrova, K. Effect of plant‐based diets on obesity‐related inflammatory profiles: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of intervention trials. Obes. Rev. 17 , 1067–1079 (2016).

McMacken, M. & Shah, S. A plant-based diet for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes. J. Geriatr. Cardiol. 14 , 342 (2017).

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Rogers, G. B. et al. From gut dysbiosis to altered brain function and mental illness: mechanisms and pathways. Mol. Psychiatry 21 , 738–748 (2016).

Hibbeln, J. R., Northstone, K., Evans, J. & Golding, J. Vegetarian diets and depressive symptoms among men. J. Affect Disord. 225 , 13–17 (2018).

Forestell, C. A. & Nezlek, J. B. Vegetarianism, depression, and the five factor model of personality. Ecol. Food Nutr. 57 , 246–259 (2018).

Matta, J. et al. Depressive symptoms and vegetarian diets: results from the constances cohort. Nutrients 10 , 1695 (2018).

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Agarwal, U. et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a nutrition intervention program in a multiethnic adult population in the corporate setting reduces depression and anxiety and improves quality of life: the GEICO study. Am. J. Health Promot. 29 , 245–254 (2015).

Beezhold, B., Radnitz, C., Rinne, A. & DiMatteo, J. Vegans report less stress and anxiety than omnivores. Nutr. Neurosci. 18 , 289–296 (2015).

Barnard, N. D., Levin, S. M. & Yokoyama, Y. A systematic review and meta-analysis of changes in body weight in clinical trials of vegetarian diets. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 115 , 954–969 (2015).

Huang, R.-Y., Huang, C.-C., Hu, F. B. & Chavarro, J. E. Vegetarian diets and weight reduction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 31 , 109–116 (2016).

Benatar, J. R. & Stewart, R. A. H. Cardiometabolic risk factors in vegans: a meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS ONE 13 , e0209086 (2018).

Lee, Y.-M. et al. Effect of a brown rice based vegan diet and conventional diabetic diet on glycemic control of patients with type 2 diabetes: a 12-week randomized clinical trial. PLoS ONE 11 , e0155918 (2016).

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Jenkins, D. J. A. et al. Effect of a 6-month vegan low-carbohydrate (‘Eco-Atkins’) diet on cardiovascular risk factors and body weight in hyperlipidaemic adults: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 4 , e003505 (2014).

Jenkins, D. J. A. et al. The effect of a plant-based low-carbohydrate (“Eco-Atkins”) diet on body weight and blood lipid concentrations in hyperlipidemic subjects. Arch. Intern. Med. 169 , 1046–1054 (2009).

Barnard, N. D. et al. A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736H (2009).

Kahleova, H., Hill M. & Pelikánova, T. Vegetarian vs. conventional diabetic diet—a 1-year follow-up. Cor Vasa 56 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvasa.2013.12.004 (2016).

Article   Google Scholar  

Turner-McGrievy, G. M., Davidson, C. R., Wingard, E. E., Wilcox, S. & Frongillo, E. A. Comparative effectiveness of plant-based diets for weight loss: a randomized controlled trial of five different diets. Nutrition 31 , 350–358 (2015).

Wing, R. R. & Phelan, S. Long-term weight loss maintenance. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 82 , 222S–225S (2005).

David, L. A. et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature 505 , 559–563 (2014).

Wu, G. D. et al. Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science (80-) 334 , 105–108 (2011).

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kaartinen, K. et al. Vegan diet alleviates fibromyalgia symptoms. Scand. J. Rheumatol. 29 , 308–313 (2000).

Yadav, V. et al. Low-fat, plant-based diet in multiple sclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. Mult. Scler. Relat. Disord. 9 , 80–90 (2016).

Rauma, A. L., Nenonen, M., Helve, T. & Hänninen, O. Effect of a strict vegan diet on energy and nutrient intakes by Finnish rheumatoid patients. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 47 , 747–749 (1993).

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Elkan, A.-C. et al. Gluten-free vegan diet induces decreased LDL and oxidized LDL levels and raised atheroprotective natural antibodies against phosphorylcholine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized study. Arthritis Res. Ther. 10 , R34 (2008).

Karlsson, J. et al. Predictors and effects of long-term dieting on mental well-being and weight loss in obese women. Appetite 23 , 15–26 (1994).

Beezhold, B. L. & Johnston, C. S. Restriction of meat, fish, and poultry in omnivores improves mood: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Nutr. J. 11 , 9 (2012).

Yokoyama, Y., Barnard, N. D., Levin, S. M. & Watanabe, M. Vegetarian diets and glycemic control in diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc. Diagn. Ther. 4 , 373–382 (2014).

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sutliffe, J. T., Wilson, L. D., de Heer, H. D., Foster, R. L. & Carnot, M. J. C-reactive protein response to a vegan lifestyle intervention. Complement Ther. Med. 23 , 32–37 (2015).

Strasser, B., Gostner, J. M. & Fuchs, D. Mood, food, and cognition: role of tryptophan and serotonin. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 19 , 55–61 (2016).

O’Mahony, S. M., Clarke, G., Borre, Y. E., Dinan, T. G. & Cryan, J. F. Serotonin, tryptophan metabolism and the brain-gut-microbiome axis. Behav. Brain Res. 277 , 32–48 (2015).

Article   PubMed   CAS   Google Scholar  

Davey, G. K. et al. EPIC–Oxford: lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33 883 meat-eaters and 31 546 non meat-eaters in the UK. Public Health Nutr. 6 , 259–268 (2003).

Schüpbach, R., Wegmüller, R., Berguerand, C., Bui, M. & Herter-Aeberli, I. Micronutrient status and intake in omnivores, vegetarians and vegans in Switzerland. Eur. J. Nutr. 56 , 283–293 (2017).

Clarys, P. et al. Comparison of nutritional quality of the vegan, vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and omnivorous diet. Nutrients 6 , 1318–1332 (2014).

Park, J. E., Miller, M., Rhyne, J., Wang, Z. & Hazen, S. L. Differential effect of short-term popular diets on TMAO and other cardio-metabolic risk markers. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 29 , 513–517 (2019).

Psichas, A. et al. The short chain fatty acid propionate stimulates GLP-1 and PYY secretion via free fatty acid receptor 2 in rodents. Int J. Obes. 39 , 424 (2015).

Lin, H. V. et al. Butyrate and propionate protect against diet-induced obesity and regulate gut hormones via free fatty acid receptor 3-independent mechanisms. PLoS ONE 7 , e35240 (2012).

Canfora, E. E., Jocken, J. W. & Blaak, E. E. Short-chain fatty acids in control of body weight and insulin sensitivity. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 11 , 577 (2015).

Guo, Y. et al. Physiological evidence for the involvement of peptide YY in the regulation of energy homeostasis in humans. Obesity 14 , 1562–1570 (2006).

Holzer, P., Reichmann, F. & Farzi, A. Neuropeptide Y, peptide YY and pancreatic polypeptide in the gut–brain axis. Neuropeptides 46 , 261–274 (2012).

Kendall, C. W. C., Esfahani, A. & Jenkins, D. J. A. The link between dietary fibre and human health. Food Hydrocoll. 24 , 42–48 (2010).

Reynolds, A. et al. Carbohydrate quality and human health: a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet . https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31809-9 (2019).

Menni, C. et al. Gut microbiome diversity and high-fibre intake are related to lower long-term weight gain. Int. J. Obes. 41 , 1099 (2017).

Van Gaal, L. F., Mertens, I. L. & Christophe, E. Mechanisms linking obesity with cardiovascular disease. Nature 444 , 875 (2006).

Ferreira, C. M. et al. The central role of the gut microbiota in chronic inflammatory diseases. J. Immunol. Res. 2014 , https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/689492 (2014).

Wersching, H. et al. Serum C-reactive protein is linked to cerebral microstructural integrity and cognitive function. Neurology 74 , 1022–1029 (2010).

Gu, Y. et al. Circulating inflammatory biomarkers in relation to brain structural measurements in a non-demented elderly population. Brain Behav. Immun. 65 , 150–160 (2017).

Lampe, L. et al. Visceral obesity relates to deep white matter hyperintensities via inflammation. Ann. Neurol. 85 , 194–203 (2018).

Google Scholar  

Schmidt, R. et al. Early inflammation and dementia: a 25‐year follow‐up of the Honolulu‐Asia Aging Study. Ann. Neurol. 52 , 168–174 (2002).

Rosano, C., Marsland, A. L. & Gianaros, P. J. Maintaining brain health by monitoring inflammatory processes: a mechanism to promote successful aging. Aging Dis. 3 , 16 (2012).

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Tangney, C. C. et al. Relation of DASH-and Mediterranean-like dietary patterns to cognitive decline in older persons. Neurology 83 , 1410–1416 (2014).

Craddock, J. C., Probst, Y. & Peoples, G. Vegetarian nutrition—comparing physical performance of omnivorous and vegetarian athletes. J. Nutr. Intermed. Metab. 4 , 19 (2016).

Liu, R. H. Health benefits of fruit and vegetables are from additive and synergistic combinations of phytochemicals. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78 , 517S–520S (2003).

Boffetta, P. et al. Fruit and vegetable intake and overall cancer risk in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC). J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 102 , 529–537 (2010).

Reczek, C. R. & Chandel, N. S. Revisiting vitamin C and cancer. Science (80-) 350 , 1317–1318 (2015).

Probst, Y. C., Guan, V. X. & Kent, K. Dietary phytochemical intake from foods and health outcomes: a systematic review protocol and preliminary scoping. BMJ Open 7 , e013337 (2017).

Hartmann, R. & Meisel, H. Food-derived peptides with biological activity: from research to food applications. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 18 , 163–169 (2007).

Tillisch, K. et al. Consumption of fermented milk product with probiotic modulates brain activity. Gastroenterology 144 , 1394–1401 (2013).

Gibson, G. R. et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on thedefinition and scope of prebiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 14 , 491 (2017).

Nisha, A. R. Antibiotic residues-a global health hazard. Vet. World 1 , 375–377 (2008).

Wang, H. et al. Antibiotic residues in meat, milk and aquatic products in Shanghai and human exposure assessment. Food Control 80 , 217–225 (2017).

Bertazzi, P. A. et al. Health effects of dioxin exposure: a 20-year mortality study. Am. J. Epidemiol. 153 , 1031–1044 (2001).

Bouvard, V. et al. Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat. Lancet Oncol. 16 , 1599–1600 (2015).

Van Audenhaege, M. et al. Impact of food consumption habits on the pesticide dietary intake: comparison between a French vegetarian and the general population. Food Addit. Contam . 26 , 1372–1388 (2009).

Jacobs, D. R. & Tapsell, L. C. Food synergy: the key to a healthy diet. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 72 , 200–206 (2013).

Kawano, Y. & Yanai, K. Foodcam: a real-time food recognition system on a smartphone. Multimed. Tools Appl. 74 , 5263–5287 (2015).

Garcia-Perez, I. et al. Objective assessment of dietary patterns by use of metabolic phenotyping: a randomised, controlled, crossover trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 5 , 184–195 (2017).

Turner-McGrievy, G. M. et al. Changes in nutrient intake and dietary quality among participants with type 2 diabetes following a low-fat vegan diet or a conventional diabetes diet for 22 weeks. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 108 , 1636–1645 (2008).

Gilsing, A. M. J. et al. Serum concentrations of vitamin B12 and folate in British male omnivores, vegetarians and vegans: results from a cross-sectional analysis of the EPIC-Oxford cohort study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 64 , 933–939 (2010).

Allen, L. H. How common is vitamin B-12 deficiency? Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 , 693S–696S (2008).

Pawlak, R., Parrott, S. J., Raj, S., Cullum-Dugan, D. & Lucus, D. How prevalent is vitamin B12 deficiency among vegetarians? Nutr. Rev. 71 , 110–117 (2013).

Rizzo, G. et al. Vitamin B12 among vegetarians: status, assessment and supplementation. Nutrients 8 , 767 (2016).

Article   PubMed Central   CAS   Google Scholar  

Stabler, S. P. Vitamin B12 deficiency. N. Engl. J. Med . 368 , 149–160 (2013).

Köbe, T. et al. Vitamin B-12 concentration, memory performance, and hippocampal structure in patients with mild cognitive impairment, 2. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 103 , 1045–1054 (2016).

Ganguly, P. & Alam, S. F. Role of homocysteine in the development of cardiovascular disease. Nutr. J. 14 , 6 (2015).

McCaddon, A., Regland, B., Hudson, P. & Davies, G. Functional vitamin B12 deficiency and Alzheimer disease. Neurology 58 , 1395–1399 (2002).

Moore, E. et al. Cognitive impairment and vitamin B12: a review. Int. Psychogeriatr. 24 , 541–556 (2012).

Spence, J. D. Metabolic vitamin B12 deficiency: a missed opportunity to prevent dementia and stroke. Nutr. Res. 36 , 109–116 (2016).

Nexo, E. & Hoffmann-Lücke, E. Holotranscobalamin, a marker of vitamin B-12 status: analytical aspects and clinical utility. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 94 , 359S–365S (2011).

Haider, L. M., Schwingshackl, L., Hoffmann, G. & Ekmekcioglu, C. The effect of vegetarian diets on iron status in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58 , 1359–1374 (2018).

Lozoff, B. & Georgieff, M. K. et al. Iron deficiency and brain development. Semin. Pediatr. Neurol. 13 , 158–165 (2006).

Ayton, S. et al. Brain iron is associated with accelerated cognitive decline in people with Alzheimer pathology. Mol. Psychiatry 1 , https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-019-0375-7 (2019).

Murray-Kolb, L. E. & Beard, J. L. Iron treatment normalizes cognitive functioning in young women. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 85 , 778–787 (2007).

Beard, J. Iron deficiency alters brain development and functioning. J. Nutr. 133 , 1468S–1472S (2003).

Melina, V., Craig, W. & Levin, S. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: vegetarian diets. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 116 , 1970–1980 (2016).

Richter, M. et al. For the German Nutrition Society (DGE)(2016) Vegan diet. Position of the German Nutrition Society (DGE). Ernaehrungsumschau 63 , 92–102 (2016).

Peterson, J. et al. The NIH human microbiome project. Genome Res. 19 , 2317–2323 (2009).

Arumugam, M. et al. Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome. Nature 473 , 174–180 (2013).

Bamberger, C. et al. A walnut-enriched diet affects gut microbiome in healthy Caucasian subjects: a randomized, controlled trial. Nutrients 10 , 244 (2018).

Holscher, H. D. et al. Walnut consumption alters the gastrointestinal microbiota, microbially derived secondary bile acids, and health markers in healthy adults: a randomized controlled trial. J. Nutr. 148 , 861–867 (2018).

Hjorth, M. F. et al. Pre-treatment microbial Prevotella-to-Bacteroides ratio, determines body fat loss success during a 6-month randomized controlled diet intervention. Int J. Obes. 42 , 580 (2018).

Hansen, T. H. et al. Impact of a vegan diet on the human salivary microbiota. Sci. Rep. 8 , 5847 (2018).

Kim, M., Hwang, S., Park, E. & Bae, J. Strict vegetarian diet improves the risk factors associated with metabolic diseases by modulating gut microbiota and reducing intestinal inflammation. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 5 , 765–775 (2013).

Zimmer, J. et al. A vegan or vegetarian diet substantially alters the human colonic faecal microbiota. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 66 , 53–60 (2012).

De Filippis, F., Pellegrini, N., Laghi, L., Gobbetti, M. & Ercolini, D. Unusual sub-genus associations of faecal Prevotella and Bacteroides with specific dietary patterns. Microbiome 4 , 57 (2016).

Kumar, M., Babaei, P., Ji, B. & Nielsen, J. Human gut microbiota and healthy aging: Recent developments and future prospective. Nutr. Health Aging 4 , 3–16 (2016).

Wu, G. D. et al. Comparative metabolomics in vegans and omnivores reveal constraints on diet-dependent gut microbiota metabolite production. Gut 65 , 63–72 (2014).

Morrison, D. J. & Preston, T. Formation of short chain fatty acids by the gut microbiota and their impact on human metabolism. Gut Microbes 7 , 189–200 (2016).

Wanders, A. J. et al. Effects of dietary fibre on subjective appetite, energy intake and body weight: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Obes. Rev. 12 , 724–739 (2011).

Brunkwall, L. & Orho-Melander, M. The gut microbiome as a target for prevention and treatment of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes: from current human evidence to future possibilities. Diabetologia 60 , 943–951 (2017).

Lach, G., Schellekens, H., Dinan, T. G. & Cryan, J. F. Anxiety, depression, and the microbiome: a role for gut peptides. Neurotherapeutics 15 , 36–59 (2018).

Bagga, D. et al. Influence of 4-week multi-strain probiotic administration on resting-state functional connectivity in healthy volunteers. Eur. J. Nutr. 58 , 1821–1827 (2018).

Foster, J. A. & Neufeld, K.-A. M. Gut–brain axis: how the microbiome influences anxiety and depression. Trends Neurosci. 36 , 305–312 (2013).

Saulnier, D. M. et al. The intestinal microbiome, probiotics and prebiotics in neurogastroenterology. Gut Microbes 4 , 17–27 (2013).

Maes, M., Kubera, M., Leunis, J.-C. & Berk, M. Increased IgA and IgM responses against gut commensals in chronic depression: further evidence for increased bacterial translocation or leaky gut. J. Affect Disord. 141 , 55–62 (2012).

Huang, R., Wang, K. & Hu, J. Effect of probiotics on depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrients 8 , 483 (2016).

Heintz-Buschart, A. et al. Integrated multi-omics of the human gut microbiome in a case study of familial type 1 diabetes. Nat. Microbiol. 2 , 16180 (2016).

Strang, S. et al. Impact of nutrition on social decision making. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 114 , 6510–6514 (2017).

Osadchiy, V. et al. Correlation of tryptophan metabolites with connectivity of extended central reward network in healthy subjects. PLoS ONE 13 , e0201772 (2018).

Franzosa, E. A. et al. Sequencing and beyond: integrating molecular’omics’ for microbial community profiling. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13 , 360–372 (2015).

Fernandez-Real, J.-M. et al. Gut microbiota interacts with brain microstructure and function. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 100 , 4505–4513 (2015).

Allen, A. P. et al. Bifidobacterium longum 1714 as a translational psychobiotic: modulation of stress, electrophysiology and neurocognition in healthy volunteers. Transl. Psychiatry 6 , e939 (2016).

Harach, T. et al. Reduction of Abeta amyloid pathology in APPPS1 transgenic mice in the absence of gut microbiota. Sci. Rep. 7 , 41802 (2017).

Huhn, S., Masouleh, S. K., Stumvoll, M., Villringer, A. & Witte, A. V. Components of a Mediterranean diet and their impact on cognitive functions in aging. Front Aging Neurosci 7 , 132 (2015).

Larsson, S. C., Wallin, A. & Wolk, A. Dietary approaches to stop hypertension diet and incidence of stroke: results from 2 prospective cohorts. Stroke 47 , 986–990 (2016).

van de Rest, O. et al. Effect of fish oil on cognitive performance in older subjects: a randomized, controlled trial. Neurology 71 , 430–438 (2008).

Witte, A. V. et al. Long-chain omega-3 fatty acids improve brain function and structure in older adults. Cereb. Cortex 24 , 3059–3068 (2013).

Witte, A. V., Kerti, L., Margulies, D. S. & Flöel, A. Effects of resveratrol on memory performance, hippocampal functional connectivity, and glucose metabolism in healthy older adults. J. Neurosci. 34 , 7862–7870 (2014).

Brickman, A. M. et al. Enhancing dentate gyrus function with dietary flavanols improves cognition in older adults. Nat. Neurosci. 17 , 1798 (2014).

Martínez-González, M. A. et al. Benefits of the Mediterranean diet: insights from the PREDIMED study. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 58 , 50–60 (2015).

Huhn, S. et al. Effects of resveratrol on memory performance, hippocampus connectivity and microstructure in older adults—a randomized controlled trial. Neuroimage (2018).

Rosenberg, A. et al. Multidomain lifestyle intervention benefits a large elderly population at risk for cognitive decline and dementia regardless of baseline characteristics: The FINGER trial. Alzheimer’s. Dement. 14 , 263–270 (2018).

Turnbaugh, P. J. Microbes and diet-induced obesity: fast, cheap, and out of control. Cell Host Microbe 21 , 278–281 (2017).

Turner-Mc Grievy, G. M., Barnard, N. D. & Scialli, A. R. A two-year randomized weight loss trial comparing a vegan diet to a more moderate low-fat diet*. Obesity 15 , 2276–2281 (2007).

Burke, L. E. et al. A randomized clinical trial of a standard versus vegetarian diet for weight loss: the impact of treatment preference. Int. J. Obes. 32 , 166–176 (2008).

Barnard, N. D. et al. A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 89 , 1588S–1596S (2009).

Marniemi, J., Seppänen, A. & Hakala, P. Long-term effects on lipid metabolism of weight reduction on lactovegetarian and mixed diet. Int. J. Obes. 14 , 113–125 (1990).

Acharya, S. D., Brooks, M. M., Evans, R. W., Linkov, F. & Burke, L. E. Weight loss is more important than the diet type in improving adiponectin levels among overweight/obese adults. J. Am. Coll. Nutr. 32 , 264–271 (2013).

Wright, N., Wilson, L., Smith, M., Duncan, B. & McHugh, P. The BROAD study: A randomised controlled trial using a whole food plant-based diet in the community for obesity, ischaemic heart disease or diabetes. Nutr. Diabetes 7 , e256 (2017).

Turner-McGrievy, G. M., Davidson, C. R., Wingard, E. E. & Billings, D. L. Low glycemic index vegan or low-calorie weight loss diets for women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized controlled feasibility study. Nutr. Res. 34 , 552–558 (2014).

Kahleova, H. et al. Vegetarian diet improves insulin resistance and oxidative stress markers more than conventional diet in subjects with Type 2 diabetes. Diabet. Med 28 , 549–559 (2011).

Ferdowsian, H. R. et al. A multicomponent intervention reduces body weight and cardiovascular risk at a GEICO corporate site. Am. J. Heal. Promot 24 , 384–387 (2010).

Mishra, S. et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a plant-based nutrition program to reduce body weight and cardiovascular risk in the corporate setting: the GEICO study. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 67 , 718 (2013).

Agarwal, U. et al. A multicenter randomized controlled trial of a nutrition intervention program in a multiethnic adult population in the corporate setting reduces depression and anxiety and improves quality of life: the GEICO study. Am. J. Heal. Promot 29 , 245–254 (2015).

Kahleova, H., Dort, S., Holubkov, R. & Barnard, N. A plant-based high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet in overweight individuals in a 16-week randomized clinical trial: the role of carbohydrates. Nutrients 10 , 1302 (2018).

Barnard, N., Scialli, A. R., Bertron, P., Hurlock, D. & Edmonds, K. Acceptability of a therapeutic low-fat, vegan diet in premenopausal women. J. Nutr. Educ. 32 , 314–319 (2000).

Gardner, C. D. et al. The effect of a plant-based diet on plasma lipids in hypercholesterolemic adults: a randomized trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 142 , 733 (2005).

Macknin, M. et al. Plant-based, no-added-fat or American Heart Association diets: impact on cardiovascular risk in obese children with hypercholesterolemia and their parents. J. Pediatr. 166 , 953–959 (2015).

Sciarrone, S. E. et al. Biochemical and neurohormonal responses to the introduction of a lacto-ovovegetarian diet. J. Hypertens. 11 , 849–860 (1993).

Alleman, R. J., Harvey, I. C., Farney, T. M. & Bloomer, R. J. Both a traditional and modified Daniel Fast improve the cardio-metabolic profile in men and women. Lipids Health Dis. 12 , 114 (2013).

Neacsu, M., Fyfe, C., Horgan, G. & Johnstone, A. M. Appetite control and biomarkers of satiety with vegetarian (soy) and meat-based high-protein diets for weight loss in obese men: a randomized crossover trial–. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 100 , 548–558 (2014).

Koebnick, C. et al. Double-blind, randomized feedback control fails to improve the hypocholesterolemic effect of a plant-based low-fat diet in patients with moderately elevated total cholesterol levels. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 58 , 1402 (2004).

Kjeldsen-Kragh, J., Haugen, M., Førre, Ø., Laache, H. & Malt, U. F. Vegetarian diet for patients with rheumatoid arthritis: can the clinical effects be explained by the psychological characteristics of the patients? Rheumatology 33 , 569–575 (1994).

Bunner, A. E., Agarwal, U., Gonzales, J. F., Valente, F. & Barnard, N. D. Nutrition intervention for migraine: a randomized crossover trial. J. Headache Pain. 15 , 69 (2014).

Kahleova, H., Hrachovinova, T., Hill, M. & Pelikanova, T. Vegetarian diet in type 2 diabetes–improvement in quality of life, mood and eating behaviour. Diabet. Med 30 , 127–129 (2013).

Turner-McGrievy, G. M. et al. Randomization to plant-based dietary approaches leads to larger short-term improvements in Dietary Inflammatory Index scores and macronutrient intake compared with diets that contain meat. Nutr. Res. 35 , 97–106 (2015).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a scholarship (E.M.) by the German Federal Environmental Foundation and by the grants of the German Research Foundation contract grant number CRC 1052 “Obesity mechanisms” Project A1 (AV) and WI 3342/3-1 (A.V.W.).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Neurology, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany

Evelyn Medawar, Arno Villringer & A. Veronica Witte

Berlin School of Mind and Brain, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Evelyn Medawar & Arno Villringer

Charité—Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH—UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

Sebastian Huhn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

E.M., A.V. and A.V.W. designed research; E.M. conducted research; E.M., S.H. and A.V.W. analyzed data; E.M. and A.V.W. wrote the paper; E.M., A.V. and A.V.W. had primary responsibility for final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Evelyn Medawar .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Suppl. table 1, suppl. figure 1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Medawar, E., Huhn, S., Villringer, A. et al. The effects of plant-based diets on the body and the brain: a systematic review. Transl Psychiatry 9 , 226 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0552-0

Download citation

Received : 20 February 2019

Revised : 22 June 2019

Accepted : 17 July 2019

Published : 12 September 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-019-0552-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Nutrient scoring for the degs1-ffq – from food intake to nutrient intake.

• Ronja Thieleking
• Lennard Schneidewind
• Evelyn Medawar

BMC Nutrition (2023)

Environmental pressures and pesticide exposure associated with an increase in the share of plant-based foods in the diet

• Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot
• Benjamin Allès
• Julia Baudry

Scientific Reports (2023)

Animal protein intake is directly associated with serum level of pentraxin 3 in hemodialysis patients

• Fatemeh Navab
• Sahar Foshati
• Mohammad Hossein Rouhani

Integrated multiomic wastewater-based epidemiology can elucidate population-level dietary behaviour and inform public health nutrition assessments

• Devin A. Bowes
• Erin M. Driver
• Rolf U. Halden

Nature Food (2023)

Influence of the vegan, vegetarian and omnivore diet on the oral health status in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Luana Giò Azzola
• Nicolas Fankhauser
• Murali Srinivasan

Evidence-Based Dentistry (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Articles on Veganism

Displaying 1 - 20 of 150 articles.

Allergen warning: “Vegan” foods may contain milk and eggs

Silvia Dominguez , Université Laval ; Jérémie Théolier , Université Laval , and Samuel Godefroy , Université Laval

Meat and dairy industry giants hold the plant power behind many vegan brands

Benjamin Selwyn , University of Sussex

Veganuary: four surprising perks of a plant-based  diet

Jack Marley , The Conversation

Switching to plant-based diets means cleaner air – and it could save more than 200,000 lives around the world

Toon Vandyck , KU Leuven and Marco Springmann , University of Oxford

Climate labels similar to cigarette packet warnings could cut meat consumption – new research

Jack Hughes , Durham University ; Mario Weick , Durham University , and Milica Vasiljevic , Durham University

How the world might look if animals had legal rights

Steve Cooke , University of Leicester

I ‘ self-experimented ’ to compare a vegan diet with eating meat – this is what I found out

Eric Robinson , University of Liverpool

Plant-based meat sales are stagnating – our research suggests playing down its green benefits could attract more consumers

Jennifer Yule , The University of Edinburgh

Can a Buddhist eat meat? It’s complicated

Anya Daly , University of Tasmania and Sonam Thakchoe , University of Tasmania

Vegan diet has just 30% of the environmental impact of a high-meat diet, major study finds

Michael Clark , University of Oxford and Keren Papier , University of Oxford

Eggs are so expensive right now. What else can I use?

Evangeline Mantzioris , University of South Australia

Five ways to make your summer barbecue better for the environment

Sarah Bridle , University of York

The man in the monkey nut coat: how a 1940s scientist made ‘vegan wool’ from peanuts

Kersten Hall , University of Leeds

How eating a local diet can help Indonesians live healthier and more sustainable lives

Mulia Nurhasan , CGIAR System Organization and Romauli Panggabean , World Resources Institute

As veganism grows in popularity, some people are still eating meat with friends – could a ‘social omnivore’ diet work for you?

Susan Jebb , University of Oxford and Elisa Becker , University of Oxford

Veganism: why we should see it as a political movement rather than a dietary choice

Alasdair Cochrane , University of Sheffield and Mara-Daria Cojocaru , Munich School of Philosophy

Is Veganuary bad for you? A nutritionist explains why plant-based diets need proper planning

Hazel Flight , Edge Hill University

Are vegan pet diets as unhealthy as they’re claimed to be? Here’s what the evidence says

Alexandra Whittaker , University of Adelaide ; Adriana Domínguez-Oliva , Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana (México) , and Daniel Mota-Rojas

Egg shortage: a nutritionist on the best egg alternatives

Raw vegan diet may be a risk to your health – here’s why

Laura Brown , Teesside University

Related Topics

• Animal welfare
• Climate change
• Plant-based diet
• Vegetarianism

Top contributors

Director, Agri-Food Analytics Lab, Professor in Food Distribution and Policy, Dalhousie University

Lecturer in Criminology, The Open University

Associate Professor in Sociology, University of East Anglia

Professor, Food Economics, University of Guelph

Researcher, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Honorary Research Fellow, University of Manchester

Visiting Research Fellow in Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire

Laureate Professor in Nutrition and Dietetics, University of Newcastle

Professor, Dept of Food, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Guelph

Senior research associate, University of Technology Sydney

Associate Professor Sustainable Food Systems, Director of Rural Research Centre, Dalhousie University

Senior Lecturer in Science Communication, The University of Western Australia

Professor of History and Philosophy, and Deputy Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of Adelaide

Professor, Management and Organizational Studies, Huron University College, Western University

‎Former Lecturer in Nutrition and Dietetics, King's College London

Assistant Professor of Communication and Media Studies, Rowan University

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Beyond the choice of what you put in your mouth: a systematic mapping review of veganism and vegan identity.

• 1 School of Psychology, Keele University, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom
• 2 Department of Social Psychology, Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Jena, Germany

In recent years, and in the current climate crisis, the interest in veganism and sustainable diet/lifestyle has increased. This growing interest can also be seen within academia. Therefore, we set out to systematically document and organize the social psychological literature on veganism and vegan identity to identify where the field currently is, and what we need to do next. Following PRISMA guidelines we identified a data set of 26 academic papers published between 2010 and 2021. Through a thematic analysis of the data, we created four categories of study focus and content: (1) vegans as a disadvantaged/stigmatized group, (2) the role of ideology in negative attitudes toward vegans, (3) the role of moral and ethical beliefs in changing or sustaining dietary preferences, and (4) veganism as a social movement and vegan activism. Our analysis emphasizes issues with merging all non-meat eaters, reduction of veganism into dietary or lifestyle choices neglecting the politicized content and movement, lack of processes underlying emergence and endurance of veganism, and decontextualization of vegan identity. What is needed is a more fine-grained exploration that addresses the identified issues to account for the content of vegan identity. This would expand, for example, the motives literature to include and emphasize intersectionality in a vegan identity context. Specifically, to facilitate a more sustainable lifestyle, the content of social dimensions needs to be qualitatively explored.

Introduction

Veganism is described in various ways by non-vegans, often referring to what vegans do not eat. However, vegans generally refer to veganism as a political philosophy based on the rejection of the commodity status of animals ( Pedersen and Staescu, 2014 ) or as part of an environmentally sustainable ideology ( Buttny and Kinefuchi, 2020 ; Hudepohl, 2021 ). Although veganism is considered extreme by many people, veganism is gradually becoming a widespread phenomenon not only in western societies but across cultures around the world ( Forgrieve, 2018 ; Jones, 2020 ). However, among scholars, there is sparse focus on the political, collective, and social movement aspects of veganism. Understanding the wider dimensions of veganism on an ideological and collective level is important in our understanding and application of an environmentally sustainable lifestyle.

Vegan identity can be understood as a shared social identity with rejection of the product-status of animals and the intersectional justice movement against animal exploitation and speciesism as part of identity content (e.g., Tajfel and Turner, 1979 ). The social identity approach suggests that our group memberships, the social categories we perceive to be part of, make significant contributions to how we see ourselves and our worldview (e.g., Turner et al., 1987 ). Some social categories and group memberships become salient in our daily lives as we perceive our worldview through that categorization (see Vestergren et al., 2018 ). Hence, our identification as part of the social category vegans will affect our values and behaviors in all social contexts where appropriate. Consequently, vegan identity and veganism goes beyond the choice of diet (plant-based) to incorporate veganism as an identity characteristic influencing actions and values derived from norms of the social identity. However, whether veganism is part of a social identity, or a social identity in itself is likely to depend on the social context. For example, veganism can be part of social identity content, you might be an animal-rights activist and reject harm to animals in all forms which makes veganism part of your animal-rights identity. Importantly, vegan identity includes social values and norms, and should thereby be seen as more than a dietary choice or identity. What veganism includes might depend on the salient social identity, such as values and behaviors tied to feminism, environmentalism, or animal-rights. Furthermore, veganism is often expressed through actions in relation to others, and not only oneself or one's own group. For example, Judge et al. (2022) emphasize in their Social Identity Model of Vegan Activism (SIMVA) that vegan identity also includes an active component of trying to promote vegan norms to others which goes beyond the food you put in your mouth.

Individuals can have various and diversified motives for becoming vegan including health-related, environmental, animal and social justice. Hence, a definition focused solely on diet does not capture the different levels of veganism (see North et al., 2021 ). With the transformative nature of vegan identity that goes beyond the vegan diet itself, the motives become converged to political and social justice-oriented aspects of veganism, which reflects the intersectional nature of the movement. It is also important to acknowledge that social identities can develop based on a perception of shared reactions or struggle to/in a situation (e.g., Thomas and McGarty, 2009 ; Thomas et al., 2012 ). Hence, the current climate crisis could provide a context where a shared identity around the climate emerges, which contains veganism as a shared value and behavioral norm. Hence, veganism can be part of an opinion-based identity, through people defining themselves as a group based on shared opinions ( Bliuc et al., 2007 ).

In recent years, social psychologists have turned attention to the study of veganism and vegan identity. Recent theorizing has highlighted psychological similarities between human intergroup relations and human-animal relations ( Dhont and Hodson, 2014 ; Dhont et al., 2014 ; Amiot and Bastian, 2015 , 2017 ), and addressed human-animal relations in terms of intergroup interaction/relations ( Haslam and Loughnan, 2014 ; Becker et al., 2019 ; Everett et al., 2019 ; Hoffarth et al., 2019 ; Leite et al., 2019 ). Previous studies mainly focus on the role of conservatism (e.g., Hodson and Earle, 2018 ), system justification (e.g., Caviola et al., 2019 ), or social dominance orientation (e.g., Dhont and Hodson, 2014 ), in relation to meat consumption, prejudice against vegan and vegetarians, speciesism, animal welfare concerns, and support for animal rights. However, veganism has been found to be an important part of some activist identities and social movements (e.g., Stuart et al., 2013 ; Vestergren et al., 2019 ; Judge et al., 2022 ). Although personality or ideology constructs such as Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) (see e.g., Dhont et al., 2016 ; Judge and Wilson, 2019 ), and conservatism can explain some behaviors or behavioral intentions such as meat-eating or not meat-eating that are considered as related to veganism or anti-veganism, these are not sufficient to explain veganism or vegan identity itself. An identity-focused approach, as outlined above, can offer a more comprehensive explanation in relation to becoming vegan as well as sustaining the vegan identity by going beyond the facilitators of veganism-related behaviors.

We believe that a systematic mapping review is needed to summarize the findings and identify the gaps in social psychological studies of veganism and vegan identity. These gaps are of importance to identify, not only for vegan activism and movement but also for sustainable living in relation to the environment and climate crisis.

In accordance with PRISMA guidelines ( Liberati et al., 2009 ) we conducted a systematic mapping review of social psychological factors related to veganism as a diet, social movement, lifestyle, or shared social identity. To be included in this review, studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: (1) be indexed in Web of Science or PsycArticles, (2) written in English, (3) published after 2010, and (4) focused on veganism or topics related to veganism such as meat eating, speciesism, anthropocentrism, or animal right activism. The keywords used to compile the papers in our data set were “v egan, veganism, vegetarian, vegetarianism, meat, omnivores, speciesism, animal rights, animal exploitation, animal welfare, human-animal relations ”. We purposely added search terms such as vegetarian and vegetarianism for capturing social psychological studies that merged vegetarians and vegans in their sample. Initial database searches, conducted in February 2021, using these key terms in the social psychology category of databases yielded 66 articles, from which 4 duplicates were removed. Screening of titles and abstracts was conducted independently by authors to identify articles that were relevant to the scope of the review. Where the authors did not initially agree on the articles that should be discarded, conflicts were resolved via consensus. We include records that collected data from vegans; approach veganism as an environmental, social, activist, or political identity; frames vegans as an outgroup and measure anti or pro-vegan attitudes; address vegans as a subgroup of vegetarians; explain meat-eating behaviors using social psychological perspectives and approach them as behaviors committed by group members who see vegans/vegetarians as outgroup. Records were excluded if they focus on meat-eating without emphasis on veganism-related social-psychological variables and processes such as identity, ideology (e.g., SDO, RWA, conservatism, speciesism, anthropocentrism), and intergroup relations. As seen in Figure 1 , a total of 46 articles were discarded following the inclusion criteria and focus of review after abstract and full-text examination. After finalizing the first search, all included articles' reference lists were scanned. From the reference lists we included an additional 10 articles. A final data set of 26 articles were identified for analysis.

Figure 1 . Selection process of included articles.

The final data set was analyzed thematically (e.g., Attride-Stirling, 2001 ). All papers were read thoroughly and repeatedly by both authors. While reading, notes and codes in relation to veganism and vegan identity were made. The codes were then discussed and organized into clusters based on recurring meaning in relation to veganism and vegan identity. For example, rejecting the label of vegan and vegaphobia were collated with other codes in a category of stigma and stereotyping. The categories were then reviewed and discussed between the authors to develop themes of recurring meaning within the dataset.

Through thematically analyzing the papers in the dataset in relation to veganism and vegan identity four categories of social psychological research on veganism were created: (1) veganism as disadvantaged stigmatized identity ( n = 10); (2) the role of ideology in attitudes toward vegans ( n = 9); (3) the role of moral and ethical beliefs in sustaining or changing dietary preferences ( n = 10); and (4) veganism as a social movement and vegan activism ( n = 4). Some papers were included in more than one category based on their conceptual content (see Table 1 ).

Table 1 . List of reviewed studies and their features.

Vegans as a Disadvantaged and/or Stigmatized Group

Many studies on veganism or vegans within the social psychological discipline use a critical discursive framework to focus on vegans as a disadvantaged stigmatized group and seek the predictors of vegan stigma (e.g., Rothgerber, 2014 ; Bresnahan et al., 2016 ; Markowski and Roxburgh, 2019 ). For instance, through a discursive analysis that critically examined vegaphobia in the UK newspapers it was demonstrated that vegans were stigmatized and stereotyped as unrealistic sentimentalists, fanatics or extremists ( Cole and Morgan, 2011 ). Similarly, Potts and Parry (2010) focused on online comments in digital media and identified aggression toward particular vegan groups, labeled as vegansexuals (vegans who have romantic or sexual relationships with only vegan people), by heterosexual omnivore cis-men. In Potts and Parry's study, vegans were found to be stereotyped in a negative way and labeled as deviants and bigots. The authors suggest that the relationship between meat-eating and masculinity in western societies could be a potential reason for cis-men's aggressive response to refusal of the meat culture. The masculinity, or lack thereof in relation to veganism could be suggested to stem from a social identity where vegans are seen as “soft and caring” as a consequence of the identity framework of non-harm.

While some studies focus on the predictors of vegan stigma, others have focused on how vegans perceive stigmatization and the consequences of stigmatization. Bagci and Olgun (2019) examined how vegans and vegetarians in Turkey perceive stigmatization and whether social identity needs (esteem, meaning, belonging, efficacy, distinctiveness, and continuity) were associated with perceived discrimination of vegans. They showed that satisfaction of esteem and meaning needs were the most correlated variables with perceived discrimination ( Bagci and Olgun, 2019 ). Furthermore, through a discursive analysis, focusing on stigmatized vegans' problematic interaction with omnivores, it was found that vegans experienced several ideological dilemmas in relation to their different identity manifestation or performance such as veganism as choice of diet, for environmental reasons or ethical considerations ( Buttny and Kinefuchi, 2020 ). Stuart et al. (2013) demonstrated effects of vegan stigmatization in an activist group where members have multiple identities. Although most of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society members position themselves as radical activists, some of them rejected being labeled as vegan to avoid being considered as “hardcore vegan” which implies an inflexible ideological position, and the organization should keep a distance from this position. Moreover, Markowski and Roxburgh (2019) showed that stigmatization of vegans also has negative impacts for omnivores as it can inhibit dietary shifts toward veganism due to the negative label. Related to the perception of stigmatization and its consequences are the attitudes toward vegans, and especially the role that ideology plays in creating and maintaining the attitudes.

The Role of Ideology in Attitudes Toward Vegans

There are an increasing number of studies in social psychology focusing on the role of ideology-related variables such as right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), system justification, and political conservatism in human-animal relations in relation to attitudes toward vegans and vegetarians. Many of these studies argue that ideological variables that shape human-human relations, and prejudice or discrimination against human outgroups, also predict human-animal relations. Hence, they seek common ideological roots of speciesism and negative human outgroup attitudes (e.g., Dhont et al., 2014 ). Beyond the commonalities of human-human and human-animal relations, these studies position ideological variables at the core of negative attitudes toward stigmatized dietary and/or political groups such as vegans.

SDO and RWA as the most prominent right-wing ideological variables in social psychology have been tested as predictors of the speciesist attitudes. Both SDO and RWA have been found to predict negative attitudes toward vegans ( Judge and Wilson, 2019 ). However, Dhont et al. (2014 , 2016) found that SDO, more than RWA, was associated with speciesism. Moreover, they showed that both SDO and RWA were related to perceived threats against vegans and vegetarians. Perceived threat against non-meat eating groups was also found to mediate the relationships between SDO-RWA and meat consumption ( Dhont and Hodson, 2014 ). Furthermore, beliefs in human superiority mediated the relationship between SDO and meat consumption. Similarly, MacInnis and Hodson (2017) demonstrated that omnivores have high levels of prejudice against vegans, and this prejudice was much higher among those scoring high in right-wing ideologies. They also found that omnivores have more negative attitudes toward vegans who are motivated by animal rights or environmental concerns than those motivated by health concerns. Relatedly, Hoffarth et al. (2019) found that political conservatism, in addition to SDO, was associated with greater endorsement of speciesism through economic system justification. As previous studies demonstrate, ideology is a strong predictor of attitudes toward vegans. When the perspective is turned and instead focuses solely on the consumer's dietary change or adherence, the main predictors identified previously are conceptualized as moral and ethical beliefs.

The Role of Moral and Ethical Beliefs in Changing or Sustaining (Vegan) Diet

Research on changing or sustaining meat-eating and plant-based diets mainly revolve around two predictors: moral and ethical beliefs. In their study of predictors of dietary adherence, Cruwys et al. (2020) found that the most frequently occurring facilitator for sustained diet was ethical/moral concerns (51.6%). Furthermore, in relation to veganism participants described their vegan diet as an “ethical way of life” (p.7). References to “way of life” and “lifestyle” in the dataset could further indicate the perception and incorporation of social identity as a vegan, or veganism as part of identity content.

In addressing changed dietary preferences in human-animal relations studies, there is an emphasis on the participants' morality and moral beliefs. For instance, Leach et al. (2020) examined whether receiving information about animals' traits and behaviors change moral beliefs about eating meat. They found that information that animals can feel nostalgia (i.e., secondary emotion) and others' suffering (i.e., empathy) as well as animals' capacity to feel pain affected individuals' moral beliefs about harming animals. Correspondingly, Butterfield et al. (2012) found that attributing human characteristics to animals (i.e., anthropomorphism) was associated with positive attitudes toward vegans. Graça et al. (2016) showed that frequency of eating meat was strongly associated with moral disengagement of meat consumption. Moreover, individuals' moral variables such as level of empathy, moral identity, and moral emotions was related to moral disengagement of meat consumption. Similarly, Earle et al. (2019) found that increased empathy for animals mediate the relationship between visual reminders of meat's animal origins and decreased meat consumption. Hence, previous research demonstrates a strong case for the role of morality in changing to a more plant-based diet. When it comes to sustaining that dietary preference, most emphasize the role of ethical beliefs.

More than 70% of surveyed vegans consider animal rights the most important reason to being vegan ( Kalte, 2021 ). Hodson and Earle (2018) explored reasons for lapsing back to meat eating after being vegan and found that former vegans, compared to current vegans, were less likely to be motivated by social justice along with scoring higher in conservatism. Rosenfeld (2019) focused on the ethical-health dichotomy in veganism and compared dietary goal orientation in terms of dietary adherence. Rosenfeld found that animal rights motivated vegans and vegetarians displayed stronger adherence than environmentally and health motivated vegans and vegetarians. Moreover, higher disgust toward meat among animal rights motivated vegans and vegetarians was associated with their stronger adherence. The motives for sustained diet are important for wider consumer habits and thereby extends beyond what is present on the dinner table. For example, Janssen et al. (2016) showed that ethical and self-oriented vegan consumers have different attitudes toward animal agriculture. They found that vegan consumers who did not refer to ethical concerns such as animal rights motives had more positive attitudes toward animal agriculture. Even though ideology is emphasized in attitudes toward vegans and veganism, and moral and ethical beliefs demonstrated as crucial in changing and sustaining diet there are few studies that go beyond the individual level of veganism. In the next, and last, category we outline studies that include a dimension of collectivism in the form of social movements or veganism as activism.

Veganism as a Social Movement and Vegan Activism

One of the most neglected areas of social psychological studies on vegans is activism and social movement aspects of veganism. While seeking the answer to whether veganism is an individualized form of political participation Kalte (2021) showed that a majority of vegans are politically motivated. However, when focussing on social movements, veganism as activism, and collective identity processes there is very sparse research. Stuart et al. (2013) identified in their interviews with anti-Whaling activists that veganism can, but does not necessarily need to, be part of activist identity content. Thomas et al. (2019) , following the social identity approach, classified animal right activists by using latent profile analysis. They identified three animal rights activist groups: omnivores, lifestyle activists, and vegetarian radical groups. In their study, Thomas et al. (2019) demonstrated that participants who had higher vegan identification tended to be more committed to radical actions. Finally, Davis et al. (2019) argue that veganism is a social movement identity by using qualitative analysis of YouTube comments and showing that non-verifying identity feedbacks elicit negative emotional response among vegans. Through sentiment analysis with a qualitative element they demonstrate how distress is created when the content is not aligned with the perceived collective vegan identity, and how positive emotions increase when the content and collective identity are aligned.

Although previous research makes important contributions to insights about human-animal relations and attitudes toward vegans, veganism and vegan identity is not addressed comprehensively within social psychology. Consequently, based on the results from our systematic mapping review, we argue that there are several issues that need to be addressed in how vegans are viewed in the social psychological literature. These issues are mainly in relation to the identity content and context of vegans and veganism.

In our systematic mapping review we created four categories of study focus and content in relation to veganism and vegan identity: stigmatization, ideology and attitudes toward vegans, moral and ethical beliefs in changing and sustaining diet, and veganism as social movement and vegan activism. Based on the reviewed literature we argue that there are four crucial issues and gaps needed to discuss: (1) merging all non-meat eaters, (2) reduction of veganism to dietary or life-style choices neglecting the politicized content and movement, (3) lack of social psychological processes of emergence and endurance of vegan identity, and (4) decontextualization of vegan identity and lack of cultural factors.

Merging all Non-Meat Eaters

We argue that vegetarian and vegan identities are distinct identities. This argument follows theorizing by MacInnis and Hodson (2021) who found that, for example, vegans often prefer vegans over vegetarians. Further adding to the need for a distinction between vegans and vegetarians MacInnis and Hodson (2021) found that both groups had more positive experiences within their own group (and more negative with the outgroup). Furthermore, vegan identity is often politicized whereas vegetarian identity may or may not be politicized. For example, vegans are often politically active ( Stuart et al., 2013 ; Kalte, 2021 ) and radical animal rights activists are often vegan ( Stuart et al., 2013 ). Kalte (2021) found that 89% of the vegans reported political reasons for being vegan. Similarly, Cruwys et al. (2020) found that vegans often understood their dietary choices in terms of social and political contexts, were vegans (80.5%) more often than vegetarians (46.7%) emphasized moral and ethical reason for their sustained diet. Even though only a small difference, vegans (9.8%) referred to a shared identity more often than vegetarians (8.9%) ( Cruwys et al., 2020 ). Moreover, Markowski and Roxburgh (2019) demonstrated that vegetarians and omnivores often shared negative perceptions of vegans and veganism, further highlighting the need for differentiation between non-meat eaters. Hence, even though similar, there are differences between vegans and vegetarians in terms of politicized content and identification which suggests that they should be studied as distinct groups.

Human-animal relation research lacks focus on the role of shared social identity in human-animal relations and veganism. To our knowledge, there are only three studies that addressed veganism/vegetarianism with insights from the social identity approach (i.e., Thomas et al., 2019 ; Cruwys et al., 2020 ; Judge et al., 2022 ). Thomas et al. (2019) identified three profiles (ambivalent omnivores, life-style choice activists, and vegetarian radicals) who all engaged in animal welfare actions. However, the authors did not address vegan identity as a distinct identity, instead, it was conceptualized as a vegetarian lifestyle activist group or radical vegetarian profile (including both vegan and vegetarians). Cruwys et al. (2020) differentiated between vegans and vegetarians; however, their focus was on adherence to diet rather than the dimensions of such identities. Judge et al. (2022) approach veganism as an activist identity, and emphasize the action based framework for the identity.

We suggest that vegan identity, as different from vegetarian identity, should be addressed as a (disadvantaged) politicized social identity. Related to the neglect of differentiating between non-meat-eating identities, there is also a neglect of the content of vegan identity often reducing it to dietary or lifestyle choice.

Reduction of Veganism Into Dietary or Lifestyle Choices, Neglecting the Politicized Content and Movement

Veganism can be argued to be more than a lifestyle, it can be seen as a feature of a social movement standing against the exploitation of animals (including humans) and environment (e.g., Vestergren et al., 2018 , 2019 ). Through their choice of diet activists can display and perform their activist identity (e.g., Vestergren et al., 2019 ). Activist Michael Pollan emphasize how people make political acts by using their fork, and states “The wonderful thing about food is that you get three votes a day. Every one of them has the potential to change the world” ( Nourish, 2020 ). Hence, veganism, as a tool for political motives and behaviors, can be seen as a vehicle for societal change ( Kalte, 2021 ).

We acknowledged that human-animal relations are complex, precarious, and paradoxical as some animals are loved family members and others slaughtered. However, there is a need to focus on how people understand these paradoxical behaviors. For example, Leach et al. (2020) suggest that people change their moral beliefs about animals as food or friends based on information about the animal's ability. They highlight animal abilities such as feeling secondary emotions, understanding morality, capacity for empathy, forming social bonds and experiencing negative emotions as key dimensions for why participants would not consider them as food ( Leach et al., 2020 ). Interestingly the authors did not find type of diet (vegan, vegetarian, pescatarian, omnivore) to qualify for main effects in any of their studies. Consequently, regardless of diet, the moral judgements were similar throughout the data set. Hence, the decision of whether an animal is food or not was not dependent on the current diet. This could indicate that being vegan contains more than just adhering to dietary choices or animal characteristics. Therefore, vegans, as a political group who stand against animal and environmental exploitation, should be more than objects of social psychological studies.

Vegans, and the motives for veganism, can be organized under three types: health (e.g., Radnitz et al., 2015 ; Cramer et al., 2017 ), animal rights (e.g., Greenebaum, 2012 ), and environment (e.g., Janssen et al., 2016 ). Greenebaum (2012) uses the terms “ethical” vegans and “environmental” vegans to differentiate between animal-rights and environmental vegans. The division of vegans is based upon the behaviors and attitudes they might hold. For example, environmental vegans might prefer second-hand leather over PVC, whereas ethical vegans might condone the use of soy ( Greenebaum, 2012 ). Hence, the content of the shared identity, and thereby legitimate action, can vary between different types of vegans. In the case of health vegans, the dietary choices are assumed to be more related to self-interest rather than a shared political identity. The division into these types of vegans in previous literature mainly consists of asking participants about their main motive for veganism. However, by doing so there is a risk of neglecting similarities and overlaps. For example, when the question targeted main motive, Kalte (2021) found that 71% stated animal welfare and only 12% environment as their main reason for being vegan. However, when asking for important factors of their veganism (without having to choose only one) 78% stated that environmental concerns was an important factor for their veganism (see also Janssen et al., 2016 ).

Consequently, previous research can be seen as reductionist in terms of identity content as veganism is often referred to in the context of animal-human relations. However, reduction of animal products has been emphasized as an important element in fighting the climate crisis ( Peta, 2015 ). Therefore, there is a need to be more inclusive in the theorizing around veganism and go beyond the animal related foundation to explore vegan identity and all its dimensions. Addressing the social and political dimensions of the identity content includes going beyond treating veganism as an individual choice where the shared ideological, moral, or ethical content of the identity becomes shadowed by the more practical individual choice of diet or lifestyle. A few previous studies have identified consumption choices as content of a salient social identity (e.g., Stuart et al., 2013 ; Vestergren et al., 2018 , 2019 ). Vegan identity might be included in both animal rights and environmental rights activist identity and the intersectionality of these needs addressing. To our knowledge, no studies have yet sought to explore the distinction or inclusion of these two dimensions in relation to a wider vegan identity. Examining vegans' construal of what it means to be vegan, by exploring similarities and differences between animal rights vegans and environmental vegans and discussing the intersectionality between animal-environmental dimensions/identities is needed.

Kurz et al. (2020) argue that vegan identity can be seen as a moralized-minority-practice identity (MMP) and thereby has further implications in terms of accepted or normative behaviors. In comparing newspaper accounts of meat-eaters and vegans, Cole and Morgan (2011) found that vegans were portrayed in a derogatory manner, described as hostile extremists, ascetics, fad, and oversensitive, and were ridiculed for promoting something that was portrayed as impossible to sustain. Several additional studies have emphasized stigmatization toward vegans ( Potts and Parry, 2010 ; Wright, 2015 ; MacInnis and Hodson, 2017 ; Markowski and Roxburgh, 2019 ) and strategies to cope with the stereotypical attributes ( Buttny and Kinefuchi, 2020 ; Schwartz, 2020 ). For example, Israeli vegans adopted strategies to de-stigmatize veganism such as adhering to masculine features by posting pictures reflecting strength and muscles, reporting male behaviors such as barbequing, or ridiculing left-wing ideology to compensate for their veganism and navigate different identities ( Schwartz, 2020 ). Similarly, Buttny and Kinefuchi (2020) suggests that vegans might use the term “plant-based” instead of vegan to avoid the negative stigma and highlight the ideological dilemma vegans face in terms of when and how to communicate their beliefs and attitudes. By developing strategies to deal with the ideological dilemma vegans acknowledge that their identity is stigmatized and goes against the normative mainstream culture ( Buttny and Kinefuchi, 2020 ). Moreover, prejudice against vegans has been demonstrated to be stronger when ideological dimensions are involved. For example, prejudice views of being vegan for moral and ethical reasons, in relation to animal rights and environment, were higher than toward people who were vegan for health reasons ( MacInnis and Hodson, 2017 ). To sum up, in relation to previous research it is suggested that reducing veganism to an individual lifestyle or dietary choice neglects the underlying social, ideological, and political dimensions of the identity. In addressing the content of the shared identity, it is also important to address the processes of emergence and endurance of the identity.

Processes of Emergence and Endurance of a Vegan Identity

Social psychological studies of veganism and vegan identity have mostly overlooked addressing factors underlying the process of becoming vegan. In general, contemporary research emphasizes questions in relation to single variables predicting justifying eating meat (or not), and why some people endorse speciesism more than others ( Dhont and Hodson, 2014 ; Hoffarth et al., 2019 ; Leach et al., 2020 ). We propose that veganism can be part of a politicized social identity, as well as it can emerge through intragroup interaction with other vegans or activists (see also Drury and Reicher, 2000 ; Vestergren et al., 2019 ). In a study of environmental activists, Vestergren et al. (2019) found that some participants became vegan through their participation in collective action. The participants explained this change because of change in the way they viewed themselves and their social world, specifically, the change in consumption was related to a change in perceived intergroup and intragroup relations ( Vestergren et al., 2019 ). Similarly, Cherry (2015) found that participants in the punk movement changed their diet to become vegan. The shift in diet was suggested to emerge through a shift in identity, lifestyle, emerged through intragroup interaction. The reconstruction of the identity was related to moral and ethical issues and what the punk movement stood for. Therefore, the emergence of veganism was related to a reconstruction of identity content. Social psychological research should explore the reasoning behind becoming vegan and factors motivating the change in behavior and beliefs. Hence, research needs to explore what the processes of emerging vegan identity are, ingroup norms of movements where veganism is common, types of identity processes involved and more specifically, how people navigate the status quo and politicized vegan identity.

In addition to the lack of accounts of social psychological processes of emergence, there is also a lack of detailed processes of endurance of vegan identity. Previous studies demonstrate that different motives of being vegan affects whether the diet is sustained or not (e.g., Moore et al., 2015 ; Cruwys et al., 2020 ). However, these studies mainly focus on a general concept such as morality. In addition to the moral and ethical animal-rights factor affecting endurance, other political dimensions have been identified that should be addressed and explored on a deeper level along with the meaning of morality and ethical motives of sustained diet. For example, the connection between diet and ideology was demonstrated in relation to sustained diet ( Hodson and Earle, 2018 ). Hodson and Earle (2018) found that conservative vegans relapsed (resume meat consumption) at higher rates than vegans who held a more liberal ideology ( Hodson and Earle, 2018 ). As previous research has identified that different motives to veganism affect adherence, these need to be explored further to identify what it is more specifically about the various motives. We argue that being motivated by ideological or ethical reasons also contains a dimension of social identity and group membership that reasons related to individual health do not. Perceiving to be part of a social group, sharing a social identity, also brings with it expected support and social networks.

The importance of shared identity and social support has been identified in relation to sustained veganism. However, in most studies, the factors used to explain sustained diet excludes the social dimension, or if included (e.g., Hodson and Earle, 2018 ; Cruwys et al., 2020 ) there is no further theorizing what it is about the social that facilitates endurance. For example, Cruwys et al., (2020) found that participants who identified with their dietary group also were more likely to sustain their diet. Similarly, Hodson and Earle (2018) found that their participants who lapsed back from veganism to meat-eating lacked social support in relation to their veganism. However, none of the studies go beyond the variable to try to explain what it is about the social that facilitates adherence to veganism. We argue that intragroup relations/interaction can facilitate the endurance of identity content, in this case actions and beliefs related to veganism (see Vestergren et al., 2018 ). Related to the social dimension is identity performance, if you are in a social space where you can perform your identity content, for example eating vegan or discuss legitimate behaviors with like-minded, you get to enact your identity which could further facilitate the endurance (see Vignoles et al., 2006 , 2011 ; Klein et al., 2007 ). Previous studies have emphasized the importance of social networks, to exchange knowledge and resources, for endurance of environmental identity ( Kennedy, 2011 ; Vestergren et al., 2018 ). Similar to Cherry (2006 , 2015) , we argue that veganism can be a social identity, and for this identity to endure the social relations informing it needs to be sustained. However, there is a lack of research exploring what it is specifically about these social networks, why and how they facilitate a sustained vegan identity or lifestyle. Hence, we need an account of what it is about the perceived social interaction that facilitates a vegan identity to be sustained. In addressing the social interaction that vegan identity emerges and endures, it is also crucial to include the cultural context that the interactions occurred.

Decontextualization

The fourth identified gap in the existing literature relates to decontextualization of the human-animal relations, and related intergroup behaviors such as animal liberation movements or veganism. If human-animal relations should be addressed as an intergroup relation (see Amiot and Bastian, 2015 ), then we should not neglect the effect of cultural contexts in intergroup relations (see bimodal relationships; Klein et al., 2007 ). Shared social identity provides definitions of possible conduct and enables people to act collectively in normative ways according to ingroup norms (see Drury and Reicher, 2000 ). However, it is important to acknowledge that enactment of ingroup norms also takes place in intergroup contexts where ingroups and outgroups might have different values and perceptions of these norms. These intergroup contexts are often created by the dynamic actions of other groups such as political and religious authorities, anti-vegans, meat-eaters, or third parties. In other words, there is no universal or singular performance for vegan identity across cultures, the performance will depend on the structures of the social interactive and cultural context they are placed in.

Previous research on psychological change through participation in social movements have identified both intergroup and intragroup as crucial for psychological changes to emerge and endure (e.g., Vestergren et al., 2018 , 2019 ). Accordingly, we believe that interaction and cultural beliefs may deeply affect the factors that motivate people to become vegan, stay vegan, and how vegan and animal liberation movements escalate in specific intergroup contexts. For instance, one in ten people in Sweden identifies as vegetarian or vegan ( Molloy, 2014 ). In 2018 two percent (~202,400) of Sweden's population (2018: 10.12 million) reported being vegan ( Statista, 2020a ). This was a decrease compared to four percent in 2015. Contrary to Sweden, other countries have seen a large increase in veganism. In the UK, the vegan population grew from 150,000 in 2014 to over 600,000 in 2018 ( Statista., 2020b ). Moreover, the UK launched more vegan products than any nation ( Mintel, 2019 ). Culturally, other countries face even more complex dimensions of veganism than Sweden and the UK. For example, being Muslim may add an even more complex relationship with veganism and vegan identity. Meat consumption, through sacrifice, is one of the five main religious duties of Muslims. Hence, for many Muslims there is a need to navigate their vegan and Muslim identity. Nevertheless, the vegan movement is increasing in some Muslim countries too, such as Turkey ( Rasmussen, 2017 ) and vegans are finding strategies to cope with complexities such as veganism and Eid. Hence, vegan identity, just like other shared social identities, are affected by social locations and positions and require various social identity performances across different times, cultures, and contexts (see Drury et al., 2012 ). Moreover, political meta-factors such as political openness ( Saavedra and Drury, 2019 ), trust ( van Stekelenburg and Klandermans, 2018 ), procedural justice ( Gerber et al., 2018 ), presence of violent repression ( Ayanian et al., 2021 ), political regime type ( Regan and Henderson, 2002 ) have important impacts on diversity of social movements, in turn, emergence, endurance, change and performance of shared social identity across cultures. We suggest that underlying factors of politicized vegan identity formation and performance might have different cultural patterns although the main ideological and ethical reasons might be the same. Alongside the processes of emergence and endurance of vegan identity, we argue that there is a need to focus on the intersectionality of vegan identity, not only in terms of ideology and politics, but also in terms of culture and context.

Our aim with this paper was to gather and compare the studies of veganism and vegan identity. Through a systematic mapping review of the literature on veganism and vegan identity within the social psychological field of research we identified a data set of 26 papers published between 2010 and 2021. This review is not intended to gather and outline all studies on veganism and vegan identity, as there are studies within different disciplines such as sociology and nutrition. This review constitutes a comprehensive account of social psychological studies identified using general key terms related to veganism. Through analyzing the papers thematically, we created four categories of study focus and content: stigmatization of vegans, role of ideology in negative attitudes toward vegans, role of moral and ethical beliefs in changing or sustaining veganism, and veganism as a social movement and vegan activism, and conclude that there are four main gaps in the literature that needs addressing in future studies: merging all non-meat eaters, reduction of veganism to dietary choices or lifestyle, lack of processes underlying emergence and endurance of veganism, and decontextualization of vegan identity. We argue that filling these gaps are fundamental on several levels. Firstly, in addressing the climate crisis and fighting it we need to focus on both individual and collective solutions. Providing research of for example sustainable living (incl. diet) would be facilitated by understanding the wider identity content and context to facilitate individual and collective action. Secondly, in an increasingly “unhealthy” world there is a need to focus on more healthy living in terms of individual diets. Dietary recommendations and research should include processes of emergence and endurance of such diets, and how the importance of a social dimension needs to be included. Thirdly, identities are not stable, they vary depending on the social context and are influenced by the intersectionality of other identities. These elements, variability and intersectionality, need to be further explored to advance not only theorizing around shared identities but also in terms of fighting prejudice, climate crisis, inequalities. Finally, throughout our systematic mapping review, as well as our own theorization (and recent literature e.g., Judge et al., 2022 ) there is still an elephant present in the room. The importance of understanding veganism in a social and political perspective is clear, as well as the relation to a minoritised, politicized, opinion-based identity. However, what still is not clear, and needs to be addressed further, is whether vegan identity is the framework for a shared identity or part of the identity content in related social identities (e.g., climate change activist identity). Only by including these elements can theories, structures, and policies become inclusive and general beyond the individualized core to facilitate for the much needed social and behavioral changes addressed by the International Panel of Climate Change 2022.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

Both authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Amiot, C. E., and Bastian, B. (2015). Toward a psychology of human–animal relations. Psychol. Bull. 141, 6–47. doi: 10.1037/a0038147

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Amiot, C. E., and Bastian, B. (2017). Solidarity with animals: assessing a relevant dimension of social identification with animals. PLoS One 12, e0168184. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168184

Attride-Stirling, J. (2001). Thematic networks: an analytical tool for qualitative research. Qual. Res. 1, 385–405. doi: 10.1177/146879410100100307

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ayanian, A. H., Tausch, N., Acar, Y. G., Chayinska, M., Cheung, W.-Y., and Lukyanova, Y. (2021). Resistance in repressive contexts: a comprehensive test of psychological predictors. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 120, 912–939. doi: 10.1037/pspi0000285

Bagci, S., and Olgun, S. (2019). A social identity needs perspective to veg * nism: associations between perceived discrimination and well-being among Veg * ns in Turkey. Appetite 143, 104441. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104441

Becker, J. C., Radke, H. R. M., and Kutlaca, M. (2019). Stopping wolves in the wild and legitimizing meat consumption: effects of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance on animal-related behaviors. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 22, 804–817. doi: 10.1177/1368430218824409

Bliuc, A., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K., and Muntele, D. (2007). Opinion-based group membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 37, 19–32. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.334

Bresnahan, M., Zhuang, J., and Zhu, X. (2016). Why is the vegan line in the dining hall always the shortest? Understanding vegan stigma. Stigma Health , 1, 3–15. doi: 10.1037/sah0000011

Butterfield, M. E., Hill, S. E., and Lord, C. G. (2012). Mangy mutt or furry friend? Anthropomorphism promotes animal welfare. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48, 957–960. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.010

Buttny, R., and Kinefuchi, E. (2020). Vegans' problem stories: negotiating vegan identity in dealing with omnivores. Discourse Soc. 31, 565–583. doi: 10.1177/0957926520939689

Caviola, L., Everett, J., and Faber, N. S. (2019). The moral standing of animals: towards a psychology of speciesism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116, 1011–1029. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000182

Cherry, E. (2006). Veganism as a cultural movement: a relational approach. Soc. Mov. Stud. 5, 155–170. doi: 10.1080/14742830600807543

Cherry, E. (2015). I was a teenage vegan: motivation and maintenance of lifestyle movements. Sociol. Inq. 85, 55–74. doi: 10.1111/soin.12061

Cole, M., and Morgan, K. (2011). Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers. Br. J. Sociol. 62, 134–153. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2010.01348.x

Cramer, H., Kessler, C. S., Sundberg, T., Leach, M. J., Schumann, D., Adams, J., et al. (2017). Characteristics of Americans choosing vegetarian and vegan diets for health reasons. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav . 49, 561–567.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2017.04.011

Cruwys, T., Norwood, R., Chachay, V. S., Ntontis, E., and Sheffield, J. (2020). “An important part of who I am”: the predictors of dietary adherence among weight-loss, vegetarian, vegan, paleo, and gluten-free dietary groups. Nutrients 12, 970. doi: 10.3390/nu12040970

Davis, J. L., Love, T. P., and Fares, P. (2019). Collective social identity: synthesizing identity theory and social identity theory using digital data. Soc. Psychol. Q. 82, 254–273. doi: 10.1177/0190272519851025

Dhont, K., and Hodson, G. (2014). Why do right-wing adherents engage in more animal exploitation and meat consumption? Pers. Individ. Dif. 64, 12–17. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.002

Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Costello, K., and MacInnis, C. C. (2014). Social dominance orientation connects prejudicial human–human and human–animal relations. Pers. Individ. Dif. 61–62, 105–108. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.020

Dhont, K., Hodson, G., and Leite, A. C. (2016). Common ideological roots of speciesism and generalized ethnic prejudice: the social dominance human-animal relations model (SD-HARM). Eur. J. Pers. 30, 507–522. doi: 10.1002/per.2069

Drury, J., and Reicher, S. (2000). Collective action and psychological change: the emergence of new social identities. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 39, 579–604. doi: 10.1348/014466600164642

Drury, J., Reicher, S., and Stott, C. (2012). “The psychology of collective action: crowds and change,” in Culture and Social Change: Transforming Society Through Power of Ideas , eds Wagoner, B., Jensen, E., and Oldmeadow, J., (Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing), 19–38.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Earle, M., Hodson, G., Dhont, K., and MacInnis, C. (2019). Eating with our eyes (closed): effects of visually associating animals with meat on antivegan/vegetarian attitudes and meat consumption willingness. Group Process Intergr. Relat. 22, 818–835. doi: 10.1177/1368430219861848

Everett, J. A. C., Caviola, L., Savulescu, J., and Faber, N. S. (2019). Speciesisim, generalized prejudice, and perceptions of prejudiced others. Group Process Intergr. Relat. 22, 785–803. doi: 10.1177/1368430218816962

Forgrieve, J. (2018). The growing acceptance of veganism. Forbes . Available online at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetforgrieve/2018/11/02/picturing-a-kindler-gentler-world-vegan-month/?sh=5255983a2f2b (accessed July 22, 2021).

Gerber, M. M., González, R., Carvacho, H., Jiménez-Moya, G., Moya, C., and Jackson, J. (2018). On the justification of intergroup violence: the roles of procedural justice, police legitimacy, and group identity in attitudes toward violence among indigenous people. Psychol. Violence 8, 379–389. doi: 10.1037/vio0000177

Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., and Oliveira, A. (2016). Situating moral disengagement: motivated reasoning in meat consumption and substitution. Pers. Individ. Dif. 90, 353–364. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.042

Greenebaum, J. (2012). Veganism, identity and the quest for autheticity. Food Cult Soc. 15. doi: 10.2752/175174412X13190510222101

Haslam, N., and Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and Infrahumanization. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 399–423. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045

Hodson, G., and Earle, M. (2018). Conservatism predicts lapses from vegetarian/vegan diets to meat consumption (through lower social justice concerns and social support). Appetite 120, 75–81. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.027

Hoffarth, M. R., Azevedo, F., and Jost, J. T. (2019). Political conservatism and the exploitation of nonhuman animals: an application of system justification theory. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 22, 858–878. doi: 10.1177/1368430219843183

Hudepohl, D. (2021). Why going vegan is one of the best things you can do for the environment. Forks Over Knives . Available online at: https://www.forksoverknives.com/wellness/vegan-diet-helps-environmental-sustainability/ (accessed August 04, 2021).

Google Scholar

Janssen, M., Busch, C., Rödiger, M., and Hamm, U. (2016). Motives of consumers following a vegan diet and their attitudes towards animal agriculture. Appetite 105, 643–651. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.039

Jones, L. (2020). Veganism: why are vegan diets on the rise? BBC News . Available online at: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-44488051 (accessed August 04, 2021).

Judge, M., Fernando, J., and Begeny, C. (2022). Dietary behaviour as a form of collective action: a social identity model of vegan activism. Appetite 168, 105730. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105730

Judge, M., and Wilson, M. S. (2019). A dual-process motivational model of attitudes towards vegetarians and vegans. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 169–178. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2386

Kalte, D. (2021). Political veganism: an empirical analysis of vegans' motives, aims, and political engagement. Polit. Stud . doi: 10.1177/0032321720930179

Kennedy, E. (2011). Rethinking ecological citizenship: the role of neighbourhood networks in cultural change. Env. Polit. 20, 843–860. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2011.617169

Klein, O., Spears, R., and Reicher, s. (2007). Social identity performance: extending the strategic side of SIDE. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 11, 1–18. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294588

Kurz, T., Prosser, A., Rabinovich, A., and O'Neill, S. (2020). Could vegans and lycra cyclists be bad for the planet? Theorizing the role of moralized minority practice identities in processes of societal-level change. J. Soc. Issues 76, 86–100. doi: 10.1111/josi.12366

Leach, S., Sutton, R. M., Dhont, K., and Douglas, K. M. (2020). When is it wrong to eat animals? The relevance of different animal traits and behaviors. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 51, 113–123. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2718

Leite, A. C., Dhont, K., and Hodson, G. (2019). Longitudinal effects of human supremacy beliefs and vegetarianism threat on moral exclusion (vs. inclusion) of animals. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 49, 179–189. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2497

Liberati, A., Altman, D., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 339, b2700. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700

MacInnis, C., and Hodson, G. (2017). It ain't easy eating greens: evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 20, 721–744. doi: 10.1177/1368430215618253

MacInnis, C., and Hodson, G. (2021). Tensions within and between vegans and vegetarians: meat-free motivations matter. Appetite 164, 105246. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2021.105246

Markowski, K. L., and Roxburgh, S. (2019). “If I became a vegan, my family and friends would hate me:” Anticipating vegan stigma as a barrier to plant-based diets. Appetite 135, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040

Mintel (2019). # Veganunary: UK overtakes Germany as world's leader for vegan food launches . Available online at: https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/veganuary-uk-overtakes-germany-as-worlds-leader-for-vegan-food-launches (accessed August 04, 2021).

Molloy, A. (2014). One in ten Swedes is vegetarian or vegan, according to study. Independent . Available online at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/one-ten-swedes-vegetarian-or-vegan-according-study-9212176.html (accessed August 04, 2021).

Moore, W. J., McGrievy, M. E., and Turner-McGrievy, G. M. (2015). Dietary adherence and acceptability of five different diets, including vegan and vegetarian diets, for weight loss: The New DIETs study. Eat. Behav. 19, 33–38. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2015.06.011

North, M., Kothe, E., Klas, A., and Ling, M. (2021). How to define “Vegan”: an explanatory study of definition preferences among omnivores, vegetarians, and vegans. Food Qual. Prefer. 93, 104246. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104246

Nourish. (2020). Vote with your fork . Available online at: https://www.nourishlife.org/2011/03/vote-with-your-fork/ (accessed September 12, 2021).

Pedersen, H., and Staescu, V. (2014). Conclusion: future directions for critical animal studies, in The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: From the Margins to Centre , eds Taylor, N., and Twine, R., (New York: Routledge). 262–276

Peta (2015). 16 facts that show how going vegan helps stop climate change (accessed November 2, 2021).

Potts, A., and Parry, J. (2010). Vegan sexuality: challenging heteronormative masculinity through meat-free sex. Fem. Psychol. 20, 53–72. doi: 10.1177/0959353509351181

Radnitz, C., Beezhold, B., and DiMatteo, J. (2015). Investigation of lifestyle choices of individuals following a vegan diet for health and ethical reasons. Appetite 90, 31–36. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.026

Rasmussen, E. K. (2017). Vegan Movement is Just Getting Started in Turkey. Hurriyet Daily News . Available online at: https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/vegan-movement-is-just-getting-started-in-turkey-110700 (accessed August 05, 2021).

Regan, P., and Henderson, E. (2002). Democracy, threats and political repression in developing countries: are democracy internally less violent? Third World Q. 23, 119–136. doi: 10.1080/01436590220108207

Rosenfeld, D. L. (2019). Why some choose the vegetarian option: are all ethical motivations the same? Motiv. Emot. 43, 403–411. doi: 10.1007/s11031-018-9747-6

Rothgerber, H. (2014). Evaluation of ingroup disloyalty within a multi-group context. Soc. Psychol. 45, 382–390. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000196

Saavedra, P., and Drury, J. (2019). Including political context in the psychological analysis of collective action: development and validation of a measurement scale for subjective political openness. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 7, 665–694. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v7i2.1030

Schwartz, R. H. (2020). Vegan Revolution: Saving our World, Revitalizing Judaism . London: Lantern Publishing and Media.

Statista. (2020a). Are you Vegetarian or Vegan? Available online at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/684820/survey-on-vegetarianism-and-veganism-in-sweden/ (accessed August 05, 2021).

Statista. (2020b). Numbers of Vegans in Great Britain From 2014 to 2018 . Available online at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1062104/number-of-vegans-in-great-britain/ (accessed August 05, 2021).

Stuart, A., Thomas, E., Donaghue, N., and Russell, A. (2013). ‘We may be pirates, but we are not protesters': identity in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Polit. Psychol. 34, 753–777. doi: 10.1111/pops.12016

Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations . Austin, W. G., and Worchel, S., editors. (Monterey, CA: Brooks, Cole Pub), p. 33–47.

Thomas, E., and McGarty, C. (2009). The role of efficacy and moral outrage norms in creating the potential for international development activism through group-based interaction. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 48, 115–134. doi: 10.1348/014466608X313774

Thomas, E. F., Bury, S. M., Louis, W. R., Amiot, C. E., Molenberghs, P., Crane, M. F., et al. (2019). Vegetarian, vegan, activist, radical: using latent profile analysis to examine different forms of support for animal welfare. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 22, 836–857. doi: 10.1177/1368430218824407

Thomas, E. F., Mavor, K. I., and McGarty, C. (2012). Social identities can facilitate and encapsulate action relevant constructs. Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 15, 75–88. doi: 10.1177/1368430211413619

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., and Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford/New York: Blackwell.

van Stekelenburg, J., and Klandermans, B. (2018). In politics we trust…or not? Trusting and distrusting demonstrators compared. Polit. Psychol. 39, 775–792. doi: 10.1111/pops.12464

Vestergren, S., Drury, J., and Chiriac, E. H. (2018). How collective action produces psychological change and how that change endures over time: a case study of an environmental campaign. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 57, 855–877. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12270

Vestergren, S., Drury, J., and Chiriac, E. H. (2019). How participation in collective action changes relationships, behaviors, and beliefs: an interview study of the role of inter- and intragroup process. J. Soc. Polit. Psychol. 7, 76–99. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v7i1.903

Vignoles, V. L., Regalia, C., Manzi, C., Golledge, J., and Scabini, E. (2006). Beyond self-esteem: influence of multiple motives on identity construction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 90, 308–333. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.308

Vignoles, V. L., Schwartz, S. J., and Luyckx, K. (2011). “Introduction: toward an integrative view of identity,” in Handbook of Identity Theory and Research , eds Schwartz, S. J., Luyckx, K., and Vignoles, V. L., (Springer), 1–27. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_1

Wright, L. (2015). The Vegan Studies Project: Food, Animals, and Gender in the Age of Terror . University of Georgia Press.

Keywords: vegan, veganism, identity, activism, social movement

Citation: Vestergren S and Uysal MS (2022) Beyond the Choice of What You Put in Your Mouth: A Systematic Mapping Review of Veganism and Vegan Identity. Front. Psychol. 13:848434. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.848434

Received: 04 January 2022; Accepted: 17 May 2022; Published: 10 June 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Vestergren and Uysal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Mete Sefa Uysal, mete.uysal@uni-jena.de

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Thinking Veganism in Literature and Culture pp 1–24 Cite as

Introduction: Thinking Through Veganism

• Emelia Quinn 6 &
• Benjamin Westwood 7  
• First Online: 25 May 2018

1471 Accesses

1 Citations

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Animals and Literature ((PSAAL))

This introduction outlines the social, environmental, and intellectual contexts shaping the emergence of vegan theory. It establishes an understanding of veganism’s messy, contradictory aspects, which runs counter to contemporary conceptualizations of it as a faddish diet or punitive set of proscriptions. Quinn and Westwood argue that veganism is situated between two opposing, but necessary poles: utopianism and insufficiency, aligned respectively with the work of Carol J. Adams and Jacques Derrida. The importance of these coordinates derives from their opposition: veganism as a confluence of utopian impulses, and the acknowledgement of their inevitable insufficiency. This introduction shows how thinking through veganism—as a heuristic lens and topic in its own right—opens out onto a wide variety of issues and questions explored in the following essays.

• vegetarianismVegetarianism
• Critical Animal Studies (CAS)
• Absent Referent
• Ethical Veganism

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Oxford English Dictionary , 3rd ed., s.v. “vegan, n.2 and adj.2. ”

See Robert McKay’s essay in this collection.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “Around the Performative: Periperformative Vicinities in Nineteenth-Century Narrative,” Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity (Durham, 2003), pp. 71–72.

See Richard Twine’s essay on the “intersectional disgust ” that he suggests has divorced the question of the animal from mainstream feminism (“Intersectional disgust ? Animals and (eco)feminism ,” Feminism & Psychology 20, no.3 (2010): 397–406). While we are reluctant to conflate homosexual oppression with the oppression of animals, we do not shy away from the recognition of important analogies that allow us to theorize human social and political structures in relation to the nonhuman. As Twine concludes “It would be a shame if disgust were to get in the way of conversation” (p. 402).

As made clear by Carol J. Adams in Sexual Politics of Meat  (London, 2015) and Annie Potts, “Exploring Vegansexuality: An Embodied Ethics of Intimacy” William Lynn: Ethics and Politics of Sustainability. 9 March 2008. http://www.williamlynn.net/exploring-vegansexuality-an-embodied-ethics-of-intimacy/

See, for example, José Esteban Muñoz , Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity (New York, 2009) and Judith Halberstam , The Queer Art of Failure (Durham, 2011).

See Sara Salih’s essay in this collection.

J. M. Coetzee, The Lives of Animals (Princeton, 2001), p. 67.

See, for example, Martha Nussbaum, Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (Princeton, 2004). Nussbaum condemns disgust as reliant on fears that are “typically unreasonable, embodying magical ideas of contamination, and impossible aspirations to purity, immortality, and nonanimality, that are just not in line with human life as we know it” (p. 23).

Matthew Calarco, “Deconstruction is not vegetarianism: Humanism, subjectivity, and animal ethics,” Continental Philosophy Review 37, no. 2 (2004): 194.

Ibid., pp. 195, emphasis added.

United Nations, “World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050” UN.org , 29 July 2015. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

United Nations Environmental Programme, “Assessing the Environ-mental Impacts of Consumption and Production” UNEP.org , 2010. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1262xPA-PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf ; London Economic, “Vegan Food Sales up by 1500% in Past Year” The London Economic, November 2016. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/food-drink/vegan-food-sales-up-by-1500-in-past-year/01/11/ ; Vegan Life, “Veganism Booms By 350%” VeganLife Magazine, 18 May 2016. http://www.veganlifemag.com/veganism-booms/

The UK National Health Service supports this, stating on its website that a well-planned vegan diet will provide all the nutrients the body needs. NHS, “The vegan diet,” nhs.uk. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx

Michael P. Branch and Scott Slovic, The ISLE Reader (Athens, 2003), p. xvi.

See, for example, Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin , Postcolonial Ecocriticism (Abingdon, 2010), Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan, Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Durham, 1995), and Val Plumwood , Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (London, 1993).

For more on Deep Ecology, see George Session, Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (Boston, 1995).

Robert C. Jones, “Veganisms,” in Critical Perspectives on Veganism, eds. Jodey Castricano and Rasmus R. Simsonsen (London, 2016), pp. 15–39.

Kara Jesella, “Vegans exhibiting an ever wilder side for their cause,” nytimes.com , The New York Times, 27 March 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/arts/27iht-vegan.1.11463224.html

Best et al., “Introducing Critical Animal Studies,” Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5, no.1 (2007).

Taylor and Twine, “Introduction. Locating the ‘Critical’ in Critical Animal Studies,” in The Rise of Critical Animal Studies, eds. Nik Taylor and Richard Twine (Abingdon, 2014), p. 2.

Ibid., p. 6.

Ibid., p. 12.

Pederson and Stanescu, “Future Directions for Critical Animal Studies,” in Critical Animal Studies, p. 262.

Wright, The Vegan Studies Project: Food, Animals, and Gender in the Age of Terror (Athens and London, 2015), p. 7.

Joshua Schuster, “The Vegan and the Sovereign,” in Critical Perspectives, pp. 216, 210.

Anat Pick, “Turning to Animals Between Love and Law,” New Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics 76 (2012): 65–85.

For more comprehensive surveys of the development of animal studies, see Linda Kalof (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies (Oxford, 2017); Garry Marvin and Susan McHugh (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Human-Animal Studies (Abingdon, 2014); Derek Ryan, Animal Theory: A Critical Introduction (Edinburgh, 2015); and Kari Weil , Thinking Animals: Why Animal Studies Now? (New York, 2012).

The French edition was published in 1999, with an extended version released in 2006. The work itself is based largely on the text of a series of lectures given by Derrida at the 1997 Cerisy-la-Salle conference on “The Autobiographical Animal.”

Derrida, “‘Eating well’, or the Calculation of the Subject,” in Points… : Interviews, 1974–1994 , ed. Elisabeth Weber, trans. Peggy Kamuf (Stanford, 1995), p. 280.

Derrida, The Animal That Therefore I Am , ed. Marie-Louise Mallet, trans. David Wills (New York, 2008), p. 111.

Ibid., p. 28.

Adams, Sexual Politics of Meat , pp. xix; emphasis original.

Ibid., p. 63.

Ibid., p. 21.

Erica Fudge, Animal (London, 2002), p. 45.

Derrida, “Eating Well, ” p. 282.

Calarco, “Deconstruction is not vegetarianism,” p. 198.

Ibid., p. 194.

Gary Steiner, Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism (New York, 2013), p. 63.

Works Cited

Adams, Carol J. 2015—1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat . London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Google Scholar  

Best, Steve, Anthony J. Nocella, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer. 2007. Introducing Critical Animal Studies. Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5 (1): 4–5.

Branch, Michael P., and Scott Slovic. 2003. Introduction: Surveying the Emergence of Ecocriticism. In The ISLE Reader: Ecocriticism, 1993–2003 , ed. Michael P. Branch and Scott Slovic. Athens/London: University of Georgia Press.

Breeze Harper, A. 2010. Sistah Vegan. Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society . New York: Lantern Books.

Calarco, Matthew. 2004. Deconstruction Is Not Vegetarianism: Humanism, Subjectivity, and Animal Ethics. Continental Philosophy Review 37 (2): 175–201.

Article   Google Scholar  

Castricano, Jodey, and Rasmus R. Simonsen. 2016. Critical Perspectives on Veganism . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Coetzee, J. M. 2001. The Lives of Animals . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Derrida, Jacques. 1995. ‘Eating Well’, or the Calculation of the Subject. In Points…: Interviews, 1974–1994 , ed. Elisabeth Weber, trans. Peggy Kamuf, 255–287. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

———. 2008. The Animal That Therefore I Am . New York: Fordham University Press.

Fiddes, Nick. 1991. Meat: A Natural Symbol . London: Routledge.

Fudge, Erica. 2002. Animal . London: Reaktion.

Ghosh, Amitav. 2016. The Great Derangement. Climate Change and the Unthinkable . Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Halberstam, Judith. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure . Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Huggan, Graham, and Helen Tiffin. 2010. Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals, Environment . Abingdon: Routledge.

Jesella, Kara. 2008. Vegans Exhibiting an Ever Wilder Side for Their Cause. The New York Times , 27 March. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/arts/27iht-vegan.1.11463224.html

Jones, Robert C. 2016. Veganisms. In Critical Perspectives on Veganism , ed. Jodey Castricano and Rasmus R. Simonsen, 15–39. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kalof, Linda, ed. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

London Economic. 2016. Vegan Food Sales Up by 1500% in Past Year. The London Economic , November. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/food-drink/vegan-food-sales-up-by-1500-in-past-year/01/11/

Marvin, Garry, and Susan McHugh, eds. 2014. Routledge Handbook of Human-Animal Studies . Abingdon: Routledge.

Muñoz, José Esteban. 2009. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity . New York: New York University Press.

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2004. Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pederson, Helena, and Vasile Stanescu. 2014. Conclusion: Future Directions for Critical Animal Studies. In The Rise of Critical Animal Studies , ed. Nik Taylor and Richard Twine, 262–276. Abingdon: Routledge.

Pick, Anat. 2012. Turning to Animals Between Love and Law. New Formations 76: 68–85.

Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature . London: Routledge.

Preece, Rod. 2008. Sins of the Flesh . Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Ryan, Derek. 2015. Animal Theory: A Critical Introduction . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Schuster, Joshua. 2016. The Vegan and the Sovereign. In Critical Perspectives on Veganism , ed. Jodey Castricano and Rasmus R. Simonsen, 203–223. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 2003. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity . Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Spencer, Colin. 1993. The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism . London: Fourth Estate.

Steiner, Gary. 2013. Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism . New York: Columbia University Press.

Stuart, Tristram. 2006. The Bloodless Revolution: Radical Vegetarians and the Discovery of India . London: HarperPress.

Taylor, Nik, and Richard Twine. 2014. The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: From the Margins to the Centre . Abingdon: Routledge.

Twine, Richard. 2010. Intersectional Disgust? Animals and (Eco)feminism. Feminism & Psychology 20 (3): 397–406.

United Nations. 2015. World Population Projected to Reach 9.6 Billion by 2050. UN.org , 29 July. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

United Nations Environment Programme. 2010. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production. UNEP.org , June. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1262xPA-PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf

Vegan Life. 2016. Veganism Booms by 350%. VeganLife Magazine , 18 May. https://www.veganlifemag.com/veganism-booms/

Vegan Society. 2017. Definition of Vegnism. VeganSociety.com . https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

Weil, Kari. 2012. Thinking Animals: Why Animal Studies Now? New York: Columbia University Press.

Wright, Laura. 2015. The Vegan Studies Project. Food, Animals, and Gender in the Age of Terror . Athens/London: University of Georgia Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Emelia Quinn

Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Benjamin Westwood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Quinn, E., Westwood, B. (2018). Introduction: Thinking Through Veganism. In: Quinn, E., Westwood, B. (eds) Thinking Veganism in Literature and Culture. Palgrave Studies in Animals and Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73380-7_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73380-7_1

Published : 25 May 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-73379-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-73380-7

eBook Packages : Literature, Cultural and Media Studies Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

85 Vegetarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

For a vegetarianism essay, research paper, or speech, check out the titles our team has provided for you below.

📍 Great Research Questions about Vegetarianism

🏆 best vegetarianism essay topics & examples, 📌 interesting topics for essays on vegetarianism, 👍 good vegetarian essay topics.

• What are the key types of vegetarians?
• How do you get animal proteins as a vegetarian?
• Why do some people hate vegetarians?
• What are the ecological benefits of vegetarianism?
• Is a vegan diet affordable for the middle class?
• What are the health benefits of eating meat?
• Are there any unsolvable issues regarding a vegan diet?
• What is the best vegetarian food?
• How do you deal with the risk factors of a vegetarian diet?
• What are some myths about veganism?
• Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating While meat is a rich source of essential minerals and vitamins, it also results in many adverse effects to the human body.
• Vegetarianism Health Benefits It is going to be argued that; Being a vegetarian is good for health since it leads to the prevention of obesity and overweight, developing strong bones, prevention of heart disease, having cancer protection, having […]
• Why You Should Not Be a Vegetarian To conclude the above, it is important to note that vegetarianism refers to a form of food culture in which the individual eschews animal products.
• Vegan vs. Vegetarian Diets: Impacts on Health However, vegetarians have the option of consuming animal products like eggs and milk, but this option is not available to vegans; vegetarians tend to avoid the intake of all the animal proteins.
• Vegetarianism Relation with Health and Religion These are the vegans, the lacto vegetarians, and the Lacto-ovo vegetarians. Apart from the explained contributions to health, vegetarian diets are also instrumental in checking blood pressure, aiding digestion, removal of body toxins and betterment […]
• Benefits of Vegetarianism Cancer is one of the leading causes of death worldwide and in spite of enormous research efforts and many treatment options, there is still no guaranteed cure for the disease.anou and Svenson assert that in […]
• Vegetarianism and Its Causes The first cause to discuss is connected with economic reasons or the inability to include meat in everyday diet. Many vegetarians share the opinion that a meat-based diet is a sign of inhumanity.
• Target Market for the “Be Fine Vegan Skin Care” To be competitive in the market and realize profits from the sale of the product “Be Fine Vegan Skin Care” in a competitive market, marketing executives analyze and design a market plan that is strategically […]
• Moral Status of Animals: Vegetarianism and Veganism The significance of acknowledging the concept of sentience in this context is the fact that vegetarians and vegans accept the idea that animals are like humans when they feel something.
• Consumer Behavior Theory: Vegetarianism If this philosophy is extrapolated to the vegetarianism trend analysis, the theory of reasoned action suggests that the rise in the number of vegetarians stems from people’s tendency to associate vegetarianism with good health.
• Worldwide Vegan Dairies: Digital Marketing Of particular importance is the promotion of vegan cheese in Australia, where information technology is also developed and the culture of a vegetarian lifestyle is flourishing.
• The Impact of Vegan and Vegetarian Diets on Diabetes Vegetarian diets are popular for a variety of reasons; according to the National Health Interview Survey in the United States, about 2% of the population reported following a vegetarian dietary pattern for health reasons in […]
• Harmfulness of Vegetarianism: The False Health Claim According to the article “How vegetarianism is bad for you and the environment”, “Plant-based sources tend to be low in saturated fat, a component of the brain and a macronutrient vital for human health”..
• Health 2 Go: Vegan Waffles for Everyone All fruits and berries are purchased daily from local suppliers and stored in a contaminant-free unit of the Health 2 Go.
• City’s Finest as a Vegan Ethical Shoe Brand The brand is focused on authenticity and transparency, producing the shoes locally and sourcing recycled and reclaimed materials that combine the principles of veganism and sustainability.
• Vegetarian Consumer Behaviour Raphaely states that the advances in agriculture created a threat to the environment, and it is important to study this situation in an in-depth manner.
• Vegetarian and Non Vegetarian Healthier Diet The first and foremost is that a vegetarian diet is one of the best weapons that can be used against overweight and obesity.
• Vegetarian Women and Prevention of Iron Depletion and Anemia Most of the body’s iron exists in hemoglobin, a quarter of the rest exists as metabolized iron-ferritin in the liver and the rest is found in the muscle tissue and selected enzymes.
• Soul Food: The Origin and Reasons of Vegetarianism This paper explores the origin, the performance of this practice, the solutions this practice offers to the challenges the Indian culture faces, and how vegetarianism reflects the values of the people.
• Ecological Benefits of a Vegetarian Diet The final level of the food sequence is carried out by organisms that help in the decomposition of the primary; secondary; and tertiary organisms back to the food flow by acting as nutrients and manure […]
• Vegetarian or Meat Eaters Contrary to the belief that meat is a great source of proteins, the quality of the protein in meat products is considered to be very poor since there is lack of proper combination of amino […]
• The Vegetarian Burger – A Product Review The burger also comes with significant nutrient components of Sodium and potassium.The total carbohydrate of the burger amounts to 6g which is 2% of the whole production unit.
• Vegetarian Diet and Proper Amount of Vitamins Issue This difference was accounted for by 14% lower zinc levels in the vegetarian diet and 21% less efficient absorption of zinc while eating it.
• Vegan Hot Dogs: Product Marketing The market for vegan hot dogs is a constantly growing market because the younger layer of the population is becoming more adherent to non-meat or vegan food sources.
• The Vegan Dog Kit Company’s Business Plan According to statistics, the number of vegetarianism in the United States is on the rise: as of 2018, five percent of the population adheres to a meatless diet, with half of them practicing veganism. Evidently, […]
• Pro-Vegetarianism to Save the Earth While most people agree that population growth is closely connected to the emission of greenhouse gases, which are harmful to the environment, as they lead to global warming, a rare individual believes that he or […]
• Can Vegetarian Diets Be Healthy? The analysis of the effectiveness of such a nutritional principle for the body can confirm, or, on the contrary, refute the theory about the advantages of vegetarianism and its beneficial effect on body functions.
• Vegetarianism Among Chinese Customers This paper explores the reasons for the rise of vegetarianism among the Chinese. A cross-section of Chinese consumers is also motivated to abstain from meat products because of concerns about the infringement of animal rights.
• “Quit Meat” Vegetarian Diet: Pros and Cons Although many dieticians think that meat is an essential nutrient, the reality is that it is inappropriate to eat animals because it is unhealthy and unethical.
• Vegan Parents’ Influence on Their Children’s Diet The first reason why a vegan diet should not be imposed on children is that every parent should pay close attention to the needs of their toddlers.
• Vegetarian Diet: Pros and Cons On the contrary, the study A Comparison of Some of the Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Vegetarian and Omnivorous Turkish Females by Karabudak, Kiziltan, and Cigerim portrayed that vegetarians had higher risks of hyperhomocysteinaemia and lower […]
• Positive Reasons and Outcomes of Becoming Vegan Being vegan signifies a philosophy and manner of living that aims at excluding, as much as achievable, any kind of exploitation of, and cruelty against, animals for meat, clothing and other uses while promoting and […]
• Herb’aVors Vegan Drive-Thru Product Business Model As a result, the wide public will be able to receive the brand-new service with the excellent health promotion characteristics and traditional cultural implications of fast-food. The breakthrough of the offered concept is the vegan-based […]
• Vegetarian Groups by Motivation To understand the reasons underpinning the popularity of this movement, it is important to distinguish the triggers that make people turn into vegetarians.
• Vegetarianism and Health The doctors claim that vegetarian diets pose a threat to the health of women since they inflict menstrual disruption as well as infertility.
• Vegetarian Diet as a Health-Conscious Lifestyle Making a transition from omnivore to vegetarian lifestyle, besides the impact on the person’s health, people consider the public opinion and the community’s reaction on their decision.
• Vegetarian or carnivorous diet However, a diet rich in meat and animal products has been found to have severe detrimental effects to people’s health. A well balanced diet that incorporates both meat and vegetables is essential.
• Today’s Society Should Move toward Adopting Vegetarian Diet: Arguments For While it is hard for many people to reduce the necessity of eat meat-based products and to increase the use of vegetables and other vegetarian products, however, there is a necessity “to reconsider the increasing […]
• Vegetarianism Is Good For Many Reasons For Health, Ethics, And Religious
• Understanding What Vegetarianism Is and Its Dietary Limitations
• A History of Vegetarianism: Moral and Philosophy
• Vegetarianism and the Other Weight Problem
• The Environmental Necessity of Vegetarianism
• The Misusage Of The Vegetarianism In Teenage Females With Eating Disorders
• Determinants of Vegetarianism and Meat Consumption Frequency in Ireland
• The Dietary Concept of Vegetarianism and the Nutritional Intake
• Vegetarianism Is The Human Conception For Man ‘s Own Advantage
• Why Vegetarianism Is Good For You And The Planet
• Vegetarianism: The Key to a Health-Conscious, Ecological America
• The Significance of Cow Protection and Vegetarianism in Hinduism
• Relative Moral Superiority And Proselytizing Vegetarianism
• Determinants of Vegetarianism and Partial Vegetarianism in the United Kingdom
• An Analysis of the Three Important Aspects of Vegetarianism
• Negative Stereotypes of Vegetarianism
• Vegetarianism Versus Eating Meat
• The Effects Of Vegetarianism On Health And Environment
• A Description of Vegetarianism as a Way of Life For Many People For Centuries
• History And Philosophy Of Vegetarianism
• Vegetarianism – To Meat Or Not To Meat
• Arguments in Favor and Against Vegetarianism
• American Vegetarianism How It Became a Subculture
• The Benefits of Vegetarianism and Its Main Features
• The Health and Economic Benefits of Vegetarianism
• The Main Benefits of Vegetarianism and Its Importance
• Some Economic Benefits and Costs of Vegetarianism
• Why Vegetarianism Is Good For Many Reasons For Life
• The Hidden Politics of Vegetarianism Caste and the Hindu Canteen
• An Analysis of Vegetarianism as the Best Way To Save Animals Lives and Help the Environment
• Vegetarianism: Fighting the Addiction to Meat
• The Earliest Record of Vegetarianism in Ancient History
• Vegetarianism Is The Modern Diet Plan
• An Analysis of the Moral and Religious Reasons of Vegetarianism and Its Health Benefits
• Benefits Of Veganism And Vegetarianism
• Animal Rights Is A Cause For Vegetarianism
• Vegetarianism vs Veganism
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 27). 85 Vegetarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/vegetarianism-essay-topics/

"85 Vegetarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 27 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/vegetarianism-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '85 Vegetarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 27 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "85 Vegetarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/vegetarianism-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "85 Vegetarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/vegetarianism-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "85 Vegetarianism Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/vegetarianism-essay-topics/.

• Cruelty to Animals Titles
• Humanism Research Ideas
• Animal Testing Topics
• Veganism Essay Ideas
• Meat Research Ideas
• Diet Essay Topics
• Hinduism Topics
• Dietary Supplements Questions
• Fast Food Essay Titles
• Anorexia Essay Ideas
• Food Essay Ideas
• Malnutrition Titles
• Obesity Ideas
• Metabolic Disorders Questions
• Vitamins Research Topics

• Consumer Goods & FMCG ›
• Food & Nutrition

Veganism and vegetarianism worldwide - statistics & facts

The global market for vegan and plant-based products, milk substitutes, key insights.

Detailed statistics

Global plant-based food market size 2020-2030

Value of the worldwide vegan food market 2023-2024

Market share of meat and meat alternative products worldwide 2025-2040

Editor’s Picks Current statistics on this topic

Current statistics on this topic.

Plant-based Food

Global plant-based meat market share by region 2020

Global revenue of Beyond Meat, Inc. by sales channel 2017-2022

Volume of meat substitutes worldwide 2018-2028

Related topics

Recommended.

• Veganism and vegetarianism in Canada
• Veganism and vegetarianism in the U.S.
• Veganism and vegetarianism in the UK
• Veganism and vegetarianism in Germany

Recommended statistics

• Premium Statistic Value of the worldwide vegan food market 2023-2024
• Premium Statistic Market share of meat and meat alternative products worldwide 2025-2040
• Premium Statistic Share of consumers who follow a meat-free diet worldwide in 2023, by select country

Value of the worldwide vegan food market from 2023 to 2024 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Composition of the meat and meat alternatives market worldwide from 2025 to 2040, by product type

Share of consumers who follow a meat-free diet worldwide in 2023, by select country

Share of consumers who follow a meat-free diet in select countries worldwide in 2023

Meat alternatives

• Premium Statistic Global meat substitutes market revenue 2018-2028
• Premium Statistic Meat substitute revenue worldwide 2023, by country
• Premium Statistic Revenue growth of meat substitutes worldwide 2019-2028
• Premium Statistic Average meat substitutes price worldwide 2018-2028
• Premium Statistic Global retail sales of plant-based meat 2022, by region
• Basic Statistic Growth rate of meat substitutes worldwide in 2022, by region

Global meat substitutes market revenue 2018-2028

Market revenue of plant-based meat worldwide from 2018 to 2028 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Meat substitute revenue worldwide 2023, by country

Worldwide meat substitute revenue in 2023, by country (in million U.S dollars)

Revenue growth of meat substitutes worldwide 2019-2028

Revenue growth of the meat substitutes market worldwide from 2019 to 2028

Average meat substitutes price worldwide 2018-2028

Average meat substitutes price worldwide from 2018 to 2028 (in U.S. dollars)

Global retail sales of plant-based meat 2022, by region

Global retail sales of plant-based meat in 2022, by region (in million U.S. dollars)

Growth rate of meat substitutes worldwide in 2022, by region

Milk alternatives

• Premium Statistic Revenue of the milk substitutes industry worldwide 2018-2028
• Premium Statistic Milk substitute revenue worldwide 2022, by country
• Premium Statistic Revenue growth of milk substitutes worldwide 2019-2028
• Basic Statistic Retail sales value of milk alternatives worldwide in 2022, by region
• Premium Statistic Average milk substitutes price worldwide 2018-2028

Revenue of the milk substitutes industry worldwide 2018-2028

Revenue of the milk substitutes market worldwide from 2018 to 2028 (in billion U.S. dollars)

Milk substitute revenue worldwide 2022, by country

Worldwide milk substitute revenue in 2022, by country (in million U.S. dollars)

Revenue growth of milk substitutes worldwide 2019-2028

Revenue growth of the milk substitutes market worldwide from 2019 to 2028

Retail sales value of milk alternatives worldwide in 2022, by region

Average milk substitutes price worldwide 2018-2028

Average milk substitutes price worldwide from 2018 to 2028 (in U.S. dollars)

Plant-based food companies

• Premium Statistic Investment capital in alternative protein sources 2016-2022, by type
• Premium Statistic Annual investment in plant-based companies worldwide 2010-2022
• Premium Statistic Plant-based food companies worldwide investment deals 2010-2022
• Premium Statistic Global revenue of Beyond Meat, Inc. by sales channel 2017-2022
• Premium Statistic Revenue of Oatly AB 2016-2022, by market

Investment capital in alternative protein sources 2016-2022, by type

Total investments in alternative protein sources worldwide from 2016 to 2022, by type (in million U.S. dollars)

Annual investment in plant-based companies worldwide 2010-2022

Annual investment in plant-based companies worldwide from 2010 to 2022

Plant-based food companies worldwide investment deals 2010-2022

Number of investment deals in plant-based food companies worldwide from 2010 to 2022

Net revenue of Beyond Meat, Inc. worldwide from 2017 to 2022, by distribution channel (in million U.S. dollars)

Revenue of Oatly AB 2016-2022, by market

Revenue of Oatly AB from 2016 to 2022, by market (in million SEK)

Vegans and vegetarians

• Premium Statistic Share of pescetarians worldwide in 2023, by select country
• Premium Statistic Share of vegetarians worldwide in 2023, by select country
• Premium Statistic Share of vegans worldwide in 2023, by select country
• Basic Statistic Number of people participating in Veganuary worldwide in 2023
• Basic Statistic Main reasons why participants tried vegan food during Veganuary 2022-2023
• Basic Statistic Share of participants who wanted to reduce animal products after Veganuary 2021-2023
• Basic Statistic Share of participants who wanted to stick with a vegan diet after Veganuary 2021-2023

Share of pescetarians worldwide in 2023, by select country

Share of pescetarians in selected countries worldwide in 2023

Share of vegetarians worldwide in 2023, by select country

Share of vegetarians in select countries worldwide in 2023

Share of vegans worldwide in 2023, by select country

Share of vegans in select countries worldwide in 2023

Number of people participating in Veganuary worldwide in 2023

Number of people who signed up for Veganuary worldwide in 2023

Main reasons why participants tried vegan food during Veganuary 2022-2023

Leading motivations that led people to take part in Veganuary worldwide in 2022 to 2023

Share of participants who wanted to reduce animal products after Veganuary 2021-2023

Intention to reduce consumption of animal products after participating in Veganuary worldwide from 2021 to 2023

Share of participants who wanted to stick with a vegan diet after Veganuary 2021-2023

Intention to continue with the vegan diet after participating in Veganuary worldwide from 2021 to 2023

Consumption

• Premium Statistic Volume of meat substitutes worldwide 2018-2028
• Premium Statistic Volume of milk substitutes worldwide 2018-2028
• Premium Statistic Per-capita consumption of meat substitutes worldwide 2018-2028
• Premium Statistic Per-capita consumption of milk substitutes worldwide 2018-2028
• Premium Statistic Sales volume change of meat substitutes worldwide 2019-2028
• Premium Statistic Sales volume change of milk substitutes worldwide 2019-2028

Volume of the meat substitutes market worldwide from 2018 to 2028 (in million kilograms)

Volume of milk substitutes worldwide 2018-2028

Volume of the milk substitutes market worldwide from 2018 to 2028 (in billion kilograms)

Per-capita consumption of meat substitutes worldwide 2018-2028

Per-capita consumption of meat substitutes worldwide from 2018 to 2028 (in kilograms)

Per-capita consumption of milk substitutes worldwide 2018-2028

Per-capita consumption of milk substitutes worldwide from 2018 to 2028 (in kilograms)

Sales volume change of meat substitutes worldwide 2019-2028

Sales volume change of meat substitutes worldwide from 2019 to 2028

Sales volume change of milk substitutes worldwide 2019-2028

Sales volume change of milk substitutes worldwide from 2019 to 2028

Further reports Get the best reports to understand your industry

Get the best reports to understand your industry.

Mon - Fri, 9am - 6pm (EST)

Mon - Fri, 9am - 5pm (SGT)

Mon - Fri, 10:00am - 6:00pm (JST)

Mon - Fri, 9:30am - 5pm (GMT)

A collection of TED Talks (and more) on the topic of Veganism.

Talks about Veganism

A modern argument for the rights of animals

A flavorful field guide to foraging

• Bibliography
• More Referencing guides Blog Automated transliteration Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Automated transliteration
• Relevant bibliographies by topics
• Referencing guides

New study highlights the benefit of touch on mental and physical health

Through a large-scale analysis, researchers at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience have uncovered the ways in which consensual touch can benefit a person's physical and mental wellbeing.

You might recognize the comforting feeling when someone offers you a hug at the end of a stressful day or strokes your shoulder when you're feeling down. But the question remains: can touch really help you feel better, and does it matter who it's from or how they touch you? To explore these questions, researchers from the Social Brain Lab at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience and the University Hospital Essen conducted a large-scale analysis of studies exploring touch interventions.

The benefits of touch on mental and physical health

Does touch truly improve someone's wellbeing? It is an easy question to ask but more complicated to answer. Individual studies often only focus on specific instances and may contradict each other. Combining all these studies together for a large-scale analysis offers a clearer answer: yes, touch substantially improves both physical and mental wellbeing, for example via reduction of pain, anxiety, depression, and stress in adults. But in fact, those with physical or mental health problems (and therefore most in need of support) benefit even more from touch than healthy adults. "This is especially relevant considering how often touch interventions are overlooked" Packheiser, first author, adds.

"A key question of our study is to leverage the hundreds of individual studies out there to identify what type of touch works best," adds professor Keysers, director of the Social Brain Lab. "What if you don't have a friend or partner close by to hug you? Would touch from a stranger or even a machine also help? And how often? The study clearly shows that touch can indeed be optimized, but the most important factors are not necessarily those we suspect."

Interestingly, the person touching you, how they touch you, and the duration of their touch doesn't make a difference in terms of impact. A long-lasting massage by a therapist could therefore be just as effective as a quick hug offered by a friend. That is, until the frequency of the intervention is considered. The more often a touch intervention is offered, the greater the impact. A quick hug could therefore be even more impactful than a massage if it is offered more frequently.

Human or non-human touch?

The next question was whether touch intervention needs to be human at all. As it turns out, object or robot interventions can be equally effective at improving physical wellbeing. "There are lots of people in need of wellbeing improvements, perhaps because they're lonely but also because they may be inflicted by clinical conditions. These results indicate that a touch-robot, or even a simple weighted blanket has the potential to help those people," last author Frédéric Michon explains. However, the benefits of robot and object interventions are less effective for mental wellbeing. Mental health disorders like anxiety or depression might therefore require human touch after all, "perhaps suggestive of the importance for an emotional component associated with the touch," Michon point out.

While the researchers were equally curious about human-to-animal contact, studies exploring this question are still lacking. "It would be useful to see whether an animal's or pet's touch could improve wellbeing, and inversely if they also benefit from it, but unfortunately there simply aren't enough studies, or properly controlled ones, for us to draw any general conclusions on these topics," Michon clarifies.

Touch interventions across ages

When the team looked into the impact of touch on newborns, they found out that newborns also benefited significantly from touch. However, the person conducting the touch intervention was more important: the benefits of touch are higher when done by a parent instead of a healthcare worker. "This finding could be impactful," Packheiser adds. "Death rates due to premature births are high in some countries and the knowledge that a baby benefits more from the touch of their own parent offers another easily implementable form of support for the baby's health."

Due to a lack of studies, it proved difficult to draw conclusions about children and teenagers. "Large scale studies like this help us draw more general conclusions but they also help us identify where research is lacking," Michon explains. "We hope that our findings can steer future research to explore lesser-known questions. This includes animal touch, but also touch across ages, and in specific clinical settings like autistic patients, another category that has not been explored extensively."

• Alternative Medicine
• Mental Health Research
• Chronic Illness
• Mental Health
• Disorders and Syndromes
• Evidence-based medicine
• Hyperactivity
• Philosophy of mind
• Psychotherapy
• Psychiatric service dog

Story Source:

Materials provided by Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience - KNAW . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Julian Packheiser, Helena Hartmann, Kelly Fredriksen, Valeria Gazzola, Christian Keysers, Frédéric Michon. A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions . Nature Human Behaviour , 2024; DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01841-8

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• Soft, Flexible 'Skeletons' for 'Muscular' Robots
• Toothed Whale Echolocation and Jaw Muscles
• Friendly Pat On the Back: Free Throws
• How the Moon Turned Itself Inside Out
• A Welcome Hug Is Good for Your Health
• Climate Change Threatens Antarctic Meteorites
• Precise Measurement of Our Expanding Universe
• Little Research On 'Polycrisis' Humanity Faces
• Prebiotic Molecular Kitchen
• A Neurodegenerative Disease Triggered by Virus

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

Transforming the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses.

Información en español

Celebrating 75 Years! Learn More >>

• About the Director
• Advisory Boards and Groups
• Strategic Plan
• Offices and Divisions
• Careers at NIMH
• Staff Directories
• Getting to NIMH

The Importance of Lived Experience Perspectives – Insights From the IACC

Joshua A. Gordon, M.D., Ph.D., and Susan Daniels, Ph.D., HHS National Autism Coordinator and Director of the NIMH Office of National Autism Coordination

April 4, 2024

Follow the NIMH Director on

During National Autism Acceptance Month, NIMH and the NIMH Office of National Autism Coordination  celebrate the important contributions of autistic people in our families and our society, and we reaffirm our support for their acceptance, inclusion, and full participation in all aspects of community life. This April, we would like to highlight NIMH’s unique role in federal autism coordination efforts and reflect on how the lived experiences of autistic people and their families have shaped federal autism research, services, and policy.

We have the privilege of serving as the Chair and Executive Secretary of the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC)  . The IACC is a federal advisory committee established by Congress and currently authorized under the Autism CARES Act of 2019. The committee includes federal officials from agencies that support autism research and vital services for people with disabilities, as well as public members, including autistic adults, family members, advocates, researchers, and service providers from diverse communities around the country.

The IACC serves as a forum for community engagement and provides an important point of convergence and collaboration. Federal agency members and public members work together to develop and provide advice that informs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, federal agencies, Congress, and the President. This advice guides the activities of federal agencies and helps ensure that federal programs are responsive to the needs of the autism community.

Reflecting community needs

In working with the IACC, we have seen how community voices, reflecting the lived experiences of autistic people and their families, can contribute to important advances in federal autism activities. Public input on the co-occurring mental and physical health conditions often experienced by autistic individuals is one such example. These conditions can include seizure disorders, gastrointestinal problems, and disruptions in sleep. They can also include mental disorders and mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), self-injury, and suicidal ideation. Many autistic individuals also have learning disabilities or additional developmental conditions and disabilities.

For many people with autism, co-occurring conditions can contribute to lost opportunities and decreased productivity, poor health outcomes, and, in some cases, premature death. Discussions initiated by public members of the IACC, along with public comments received at IACC meetings and at an IACC-sponsored town hall  , helped to shape the research objectives on co-occurring conditions in the inaugural 2009 IACC Strategic Plan   .

The topic of co-occurring conditions remains an IACC priority today. The 2021-2023 IACC Strategic Plan   includes comprehensive recommendations for research investigating the biology underlying co-occurring conditions and autism, as well as interventions and services to address these conditions across the lifespan. Just last year, the IACC issued a Request for Information  seeking additional community input on the topic and received responses from more than 1,200 people. Themes and priorities from these responses will be included in the forthcoming IACC Strategic Plan Update , which will focus on the impact of co-occurring conditions on the physical and mental health of people on the autism spectrum. The update aims to further identify opportunities for research and services to improve well-being for autistic people.

Representing diverse experiences

Hearing from people with lived experience has shed light on additional issues important to the autism community, including wandering and elopement, the needs of transition-age youth and adults, and autism in girls and women. Autistic people and family members have also emphasized the breadth of experiences and challenges across the spectrum of ability and disability and the need for a range of personalized tools, interventions, services, and supports rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

Based on input from autistic people and families from diverse and underserved communities, the IACC has prioritized the need to increase equity and reduce disparities experienced by autistic individuals across race, ethnicity, culture, sex and gender, socioeconomic status, and geographic location, including rural and urban communities. This also includes the need for more researchers and service providers who come from diverse communities and have lived experience with autism and disability.

The 2021-2023 IACC Strategic Plan includes two cross-cutting recommendations – one on equity and disparities and one on sex and gender – to intensify focus on addressing gaps in these areas and increase equity for all autistic people. The committee also continues to support priorities to ensure that autism research and services meet the needs of individuals across the whole spectrum, including those with the highest support needs, and across the full lifespan into older adulthood. Importantly, the strategic plan emphasizes inclusion and acceptance of all autistic people and reducing barriers to their participation in every aspect of community life.

Prioritizing collaboration and inclusion

In all of this work, consideration of diverse viewpoints and experiences from across the autism community and a spirit of cooperation, collaboration, and civility have been crucial. As the autism landscape continues to evolve, collaboration between federal agencies and community members will remain a cornerstone of progress in improving the health and well-being of autistic people and their families.

Community engagement plays an important role across the broad portfolio of federal research, services, and policy activities related to disabilities, mental health, and physical health. Federal agencies gather public input through federal advisory committees; solicit public comments through formal requests for information; and engage individuals with lived experience in grant review panels, community engagement programs, and community-based participatory research. Lived experience perspectives strengthen federal programs and help ensure federal research and services address the issues most important to those whom they serve.

During Autism Acceptance Month, let us honor the contributions of autistic individuals and others with lived experience; strive to ensure that their voices, perspectives, and priorities are heard and represented in federal activities for research, services, and policy; and work toward a more inclusive society for all.

Featured Topics

Featured series.

A series of random questions answered by Harvard experts.

Explore the Gazette

Read the latest.

Herbert Chanoch Kelman, 94

Everett irwin mendelsohn, 91.

Anticipate, accommodate, empower

Exploring generative ai at harvard.

Jessica McCann

Harvard Correspondent

Leaders weigh in on where we are and what’s next

The explosion of generative AI technology over the past year and a half is raising big questions about how these tools will impact higher education. Across Harvard, members of the community have been exploring how GenAI will change the ways we teach, learn, research, and work.

As part of this effort, the Office of the Provost has convened three working groups . They will discuss questions, share innovations, and evolve guidance and community resources. They are:

• The Teaching and Learning Group , chaired by Bharat Anand , vice provost for advances in learning and the Henry R. Byers Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. This group seeks to share resources, identify emerging best practices, guide policies, and support the development of tools to address common challenges among faculty and students.
• The Research and Scholarship Group , chaired by John Shaw , vice provost for research, Harry C. Dudley Professor of Structural and Economic Geology in the Earth and Planetary Sciences Department, and professor of environmental science and engineering in the Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Science. It focuses on how to enable, and support the integrity of, scholarly activities with generative AI tools.
• T he Administration and Operations Group , chaired by Klara Jelinkova , vice president and University chief information officer. It is charged with addressing information security, data privacy, procurement, and administration and organizational efficiencies.

Klara Jelinkova, Bharat Anand, and John Shaw.

Photos by Kris Snibbe/Harvard Staff Photographer; Evgenia Eliseeva; and courtesy of John Shaw

The Gazette spoke with Anand, Shaw, and Jelinkova to understand more about the work of these groups and what’s next in generative AI at Harvard.

When generative AI tools first emerged, we saw universities respond in a variety of ways — from encouraging experimentation to prohibiting their use. What was Harvard’s overall approach?

Shaw: From the outset, Harvard has embraced the prospective benefits that GenAI offers to teaching, research, and administration across the University, while being mindful of the potential pitfalls. As a University, our mission is to help enable discovery and innovation, so we had a mandate to actively engage. We set some initial, broad policies that helped guide us, and have worked directly with groups across the institution to provide tools and resources to inspire exploration.

Jelinkova: The rapid emergence of these tools meant the University needed to react quickly, to provide both tools for innovation and experimentation and guidelines to ensure their responsible use. We rapidly built an AI Sandbox to enable faculty, students, and staff to experiment with multiple large language models in a secure environment. We also worked with external vendors to acquire enterprise licenses for a variety of tools to meet many different use cases. Through working groups, we were able to learn, aggregate and collate use cases for AI in teaching, learning, administration, and research. This coordinated, collective, and strategic approach has put Harvard ahead of many peers in higher education.

Anand: Teaching and learning are fundamentally decentralized activities. So our approach was to ask: First, how can we ensure that local experimentation by faculty and staff is enabled as much as possible; and second, how can we ensure that it’s consistent with University policies on IP, copyright, and security? We also wanted to ensure that novel emerging practices were shared across Schools, rather than remaining siloed.

What do these tools mean for faculty, in terms of the challenges they pose or the opportunities they offer? Is there anything you’re particularly excited about?

Anand: Let’s start with some salient challenges. How do we first sift through the hype that’s accompanied GenAI? How can we make it easy for faculty to use GenAI tools in their classrooms without overburdening them with yet another technology? How can one address real concerns about GenAI’s impact?

While we’re still early in this journey, many compelling opportunities — and more importantly, some systematic ways of thinking about them — are emerging. Various Harvard faculty have leaned into experimenting with LLMs in their classrooms. Our team has now interviewed over 30 colleagues across Harvard and curated short videos that capture their learnings. I encourage everyone to view these materials on the new GenAI site; they are remarkable in their depth and breadth of insight.

Here’s a sample: While LLMs are commonly used for Q&A, our faculty have creatively used them for a broader variety of tasks, such as simulating tutors that guide learning by asking questions, simulating instructional designers to provide active learning tips, and simulating student voices to predict how a class discussion might flow, thus aiding in lesson preparation. Others demonstrate how more sophisticated prompts or “prompt engineering” are often necessary to yield more sophisticated LLM responses, and how LLMs can extend well beyond text-based responses to visuals, simulations, coding, and games. And several faculty show how LLMs can help overcome subtle yet important learning frictions like skill gaps in coding, language literacy, or math.

Do these tools offer students an opportunity to support or expand upon their learning?

Anand: Yes. GenAI represents a unique area of innovation where students and faculty are working together. Many colleagues are incorporating student feedback into the GenAI portions of their curriculum or making their own GenAI tools available to students. Since GenAI is new, the pedagogical path is not yet well defined; students have an opportunity to make their voices heard, as co-creators, on what they think the future of their learning should look like.

Beyond this, we’re starting to see other learning benefits. Importantly, GenAI can reach beyond a lecture hall. Thoughtful prompt engineering can turn even publicly available GenAI tools into tutorbots that generate interactive practice problems, act as expert conversational aids for material review, or increase TA teams’ capacity. That means both that the classroom is expanding and that more of it is in students’ hands. There’s also evidence that these bots field more questions than teaching teams can normally address and can be more comfortable and accessible for some students.

Of course, we need to identify and counter harmful patterns. There is a risk, in this early and enthusiastic period, of sparking over-reliance on GenAI. Students must critically evaluate how and where they use it, given its possibility of inaccurate or inappropriate responses, and should heed the areas where their style of cognition outperforms AI. One other thing to watch out for is user divide: Some students will graduate with vastly better prompt engineering skills than others, an inequality that will only magnify in the workforce.

What are the main questions your group has been tackling?

Anand: Our group divided its work into three subgroups focused on policy, tools, and resources. We’ve helped guide initial policies to ensure safe and responsible use; begun curating resources for faculty in a One Harvard repository ; and are exploring which tools the University should invest in or develop to ensure that educators and researchers can continue to advance their work.

In the fall, we focused on supporting and guiding HUIT’s development of the AI Sandbox. The Harvard Initiative for Learning and Teaching’s annual conference , which focused exclusively on GenAI, had its highest participation in 10 years. Recently, we’ve been working with the research group to inform the development of tools that promise broad, generalizable use for faculty (e.g., tutorbots).

What has your group focused on in discussions so far about generative AI tools’ use in research?

Shaw: Our group has some incredible strength in researchers who are at the cutting edge of GenAI development and applications, but also includes voices that help us understand the real barriers to faculty and students starting to use these tools in their own research and scholarship. Working with the other teams, we have focused on supporting development and use of the GenAI sandbox, examining IP and security issues, and learning from different groups across campus how they are using these tools to innovate.

Are there key areas of focus for your group in the coming months?

Shaw: We are focused on establishing programs — such as the new GenAI Milton Fund track — to help support innovation in the application of these tools across the wide range of scholarship on our campus. We are also working with the College to develop new programs to help support students who wish to engage with faculty on GenAI-enabled projects. We aim to find ways to convene students and scholars to share their experiences and build a stronger community of practitioners across campus.

What types of administration and operations questions are your group is exploring, and what type of opportunities do you see in this space?

Jelinkova: By using the group to share learnings from across Schools and units, we can better provide technologies to meet the community’s needs while ensuring the most responsible and sustainable use of the University’s financial resources. The connections within this group also inform the guidelines that we provide; by learning how generative AI is being used in different contexts, we can develop best practices and stay alert to emerging risks. There are new tools becoming available almost every day, and many exciting experiments and pilots happening across Harvard, so it’s important to regularly review and update the guidance we provide to our community.

Can you talk a bit about what has come out of these discussions, or other exciting things to come?

Jelinkova: Because this technology is rapidly evolving, we are continually tracking the release of new tools and working with our vendors as well as open-source efforts to ensure we are best supporting the University’s needs. We’re developing more guidance and hosting information sessions on helping people to understand the AI landscape and how to choose the right tool for their task. Beyond tools, we’re also working to build connections across Harvard to support collaboration, including a recently launched AI community of practice . We are capturing valuable findings from emerging technology pilot programs in HUIT , the EVP area , and across Schools. And we are now thinking about how those findings can inform guiding principles and best practices to better support staff.

While the GenAI groups are investigating these questions, Harvard faculty and scholars are also on the forefront of research in this space. Can you talk a bit about some of the interesting research happening across the University in AI more broadly ?

Shaw: Harvard has made deep investments in the development and application of AI across our campus, in our Schools, initiatives, and institutes — such as the Kempner Institute and Harvard Data Science Initiative. In addition, there is a critical role for us to play in examining and guiding the ethics of AI applications — and our strengths in the Safra and Berkman Klein centers, as examples, can be leading voices in this area.

What would be your advice for members of our community who are interested in learning more about generative AI tools?

Anand: I’d encourage our community to view the resources available on the new Generative AI @ Harvard website , to better understand how GenAI tools might benefit you.

There’s also no substitute for experimentation with these tools to learn what works, what does not, and how to tailor them for maximal benefit for your particular needs. And of course, please know and respect University policies around copyright and security.

We’re in the early stages of this journey at Harvard, but it’s exciting.

Share this article

You might like.

Memorial Minute — Faculty of Arts and Sciences

How to ensure students with disabilities have an equal chance to succeed?

Yes, it’s exciting. Just don’t look at the sun.

Lab, telescope specialist details Harvard eclipse-viewing party, offers safety tips

Forget ‘doomers.’ Warming can be stopped, top climate scientist says

Michael Mann points to prehistoric catastrophes, modern environmental victories

Navigating Harvard with a non-apparent disability

4 students with conditions ranging from diabetes to narcolepsy describe daily challenges that may not be obvious to their classmates and professors

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content

McGregor Research Center Field Day set for May 1

Field day will feature updates on cattle research.

April 8, 2024

Texas A&M AgriLife Research will host the McGregor Research Center Field Day on May 1 with topics to cover nutrition, rebuilding the cow herd and utilizing technology in production practices.

The field day will be from 9 a.m.-3 p.m. at the center, located at 773 Ag Farm Road. There is no cost to register, but pre-registration for meal count is requested by contacting Priscilla Dowell at 254-840-2878 or [email protected] .

Lunch will be sponsored by the McGregor General Store.

Field day includes cattle talks, tour stops

The field day will feature presentations from cattle experts across Texas A&M AgriLife , including faculty from AgriLife Research, the Texas A&M Department of Animal Science and the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service .

In addition to the presentations, there will be three research tour stops where participants can learn about topics such as using smart technology on grazing replacement heifers, technology to age branding scars and developing replacement heifers in confined feeding systems.

Program agenda

Speakers and topics will include:

• McGregor Center update: Research, infrastructure, cow herd – Ryon Walker, Ph.D., AgriLife Research operations manager, McGregor Research Center.
• Rebuilding the cow herd: Making high leverage decisions – Clay Mathis, Ph.D., professor and department head, Department of Animal Science , Bryan-College Station.
• Fueling success: Optimizing nutrition in the era of record cattle prices – Jon DeClerck, Ph.D., technical cattle consultant, Purina Animal Nutrition, Bryan-College Station.
• Administrative updates – G. Cliff Lamb, Ph.D., AgriLife Research director, Bryan-College Station; Mathis; Andy Herring, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Animal Science and interim associate department head for AgriLife Extension programs, Bryan-College Station.
• Accuracy vs. estimation: Which is more expensive in your cow herd – Karl Harborth, Ph.D., AgriLife Extension livestock specialist and professor in the Department of Animal Sciences, Bryan-College Station.

The research tour stop speakers will include:

• Using technology to detect age of branding scars – Doug Tolleson, Ph.D., AgriLife Research rangeland specialist and associate professor in the Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences , Sonora.
• Using smart technology with replacement heifers grazing cool-season annuals – Bill Pinchak, Ph.D., AgriLife Research animal nutritionist and professor in the Department of Rangeland, Wildlife and Fisheries Management, Vernon; Gordon Carstens, Ph.D., AgriLife Research animal nutritionist and professor in the Department of Animal Science, Bryan-College Station, and Keara O’Reilly, Ph.D., postdoctoral research associate in the Department of Animal Science, Bryan-College Station.
• Developing replacement heifers in confined feeding systems – Reinaldo Cooke, Ph.D., Burkhart Endowed Professor for Beef Cattle Research, Department of Animal Science, Bryan-College Station.

• Resources for Press & Media
• Story Suggestion

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

What’s it like to be a teacher in america today, public k-12 teachers are stressed about their jobs and few are optimistic about the future of education; many say poverty, absenteeism and mental health are major problems at their school.

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand the views and experiences of public K-12 school teachers. The analysis in this report is based on an online survey of 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers conducted from Oct. 17 to Nov. 14, 2023. The teachers surveyed are members of RAND’s American Teacher Panel, a nationally representative panel of public K-12 school teachers recruited through MDR Education. Survey data is weighted to state and national teacher characteristics to account for differences in sampling and response to ensure they are representative of the target population.

Here are the questions used for this report , along with responses, and the survey methodology .

Low-poverty , medium-poverty and high-poverty schools are based on the percentage of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (less than 40%, 40%-59% and 60% or more, respectively).

Secondary schools include both middle schools and high schools.

All references to party affiliation include those who lean toward that party. Republicans include those who identify as Republicans and those who say they lean toward the Republican Party. Democrats include those who identify as Democrats and those who say they lean toward the Democratic Party.

Public K-12 schools in the United States face a host of challenges these days – from teacher shortages to the lingering effects of COVID-19 learning loss to political battles over curriculum .

In the midst of all this, teachers express low levels of satisfaction with their jobs. In fact, they’re much less satisfied than U.S. workers overall.

Here’s how public K-12 teachers are feeling about their jobs:

• 77% say their job is frequently stressful.
• 68% say it’s overwhelming.
• 70% say their school is understaffed.
• 52% say they would not advise a young person starting out today to become a teacher.

When it comes to how their students are doing in school, teachers are relatively downbeat about both academic performance and behavior.

Here’s how public K-12 teachers rate academic performance and behavior at their school:

• 48% say the academic performance of most students at their school is fair or poor. A third say it’s good, and only 17% describe it as excellent or very good.
• 49% say the behavior of most students at their school is fair or poor; 35% say it’s good and 13% say it’s excellent or very good.

The COVID-19 pandemic likely compounded these issues. About eight-in-ten teachers (among those who have been teaching for at least a year) say the lasting impact of the pandemic on students’ behavior, academic performance and emotional well-being has been very or somewhat negative.

Assessments of student performance and behavior differ widely by school poverty level. 1 Teachers in high-poverty schools have a much more negative outlook. But feelings of stress and dissatisfaction among teachers are fairly universal, regardless of where they teach.

Related: What Public K-12 Teachers Want Americans To Know About Teaching

As they navigate these challenges, teachers don’t feel they’re getting the support or reinforcement they need from parents.

Majorities of teachers say parents are doing too little when it comes to holding their children accountable if they misbehave in school, helping them with their schoolwork and ensuring their attendance.

Teachers in high- and medium-poverty schools are more likely than those in low-poverty schools to say parents are doing too little in each of these areas.

These findings are based on a survey of 2,531 U.S. public K-12 teachers conducted Oct. 17-Nov. 14, 2023, using the RAND American Teacher Panel. 2 The survey looks at the following aspects of teachers’ experiences:

• Teachers’ job satisfaction (Chapter 1)
• How teachers manage their workload (Chapter 2)
• Problems students are facing at public K-12 schools (Chapter 3)
• Challenges in the classroom (Chapter 4)
• Teachers’ views of parent involvement (Chapter 5)
• Teachers’ views on the state of public K-12 education (Chapter 6)

Problems students are facing

We asked teachers about some of the challenges students at their school are facing. Three problems topped the list:

• Poverty (53% say this is a major problem among students who attend their school)
• Chronic absenteeism (49%)
• Anxiety and depression (48%)

Chronic absenteeism (that is, students missing a substantial number of school days) is a particular challenge at high schools, with 61% of high school teachers saying this is a major problem where they teach. By comparison, 46% of middle school teachers and 43% of elementary school teachers say the same.

Anxiety and depression are viewed as a more serious problem at the secondary school level: 69% of high school teachers and 57% of middle school teachers say this is a major problem among their students, compared with 29% of elementary school teachers.

Fewer teachers (20%) view bullying as a major problem at their school, though the share is significantly higher among middle school teachers (34%).

A look inside the classroom

We also asked teachers how things are going in their classroom and specifically about some of the issues that may get in the way of teaching.

• 47% of teachers say students showing little or no interest in learning is a major problem in their classroom. The share rises to 58% among high school teachers.
• 33% say students being distracted by their cellphones is a major problem. This is particularly an issue for high school teachers, with 72% saying this is a major problem.
• About one-in-five teachers say students getting up and walking around when they’re not supposed to and being disrespectful toward them (21% each) are major problems. Teachers in elementary and middle schools are more likely than those in high schools to see these as challenges.

A majority of teachers (68%) say they’ve experienced verbal abuse from a student – such as being yelled at or threatened. Some 21% say this happens at least a few times a month.

Physical violence is less common. Even so, 40% of teachers say a student has been violent toward them , with 9% saying this happens at least a few times a month.

About two-thirds of teachers (66%) say that the current discipline practices at their school are very or somewhat mild. Only 2% say the discipline practices at their school are very or somewhat harsh, while 31% say they are neither harsh nor mild. Most teachers (67%) say teachers themselves don’t have enough influence in determining discipline practices at their school.

Behavioral issues and mental health challenges

In addition to their teaching duties, a majority of teachers (58%) say they have to address behavioral issues in their classroom every day. About three-in-ten teachers (28%) say they have to help students with mental health challenges daily.

In each of these areas, elementary and middle school teachers are more likely than those at the high school level to say they do these things on a daily basis.

And teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely than those in medium- and low-poverty schools to say they deal with these issues each day.

Cellphone policies and enforcement

Most teachers (82%) say their school or district has policies regarding cellphone use in the classroom.

Of those, 56% say these policies are at least somewhat easy to enforce, 30% say they’re difficult to enforce, and 14% say they’re neither easy nor difficult to enforce.

Experiences with cellphone policies vary widely across school levels. High school teachers (60%) are much more likely than middle school (30%) and elementary school teachers (12%) to say the policies are difficult to enforce (among those who say their school or district has a cellphone policy).

How teachers are experiencing their jobs

Thinking about the various aspects of their jobs, teachers are most satisfied with their relationship with other teachers at their school (71% are extremely or very satisfied).

They’re least satisfied with how much they’re paid – only 15% are extremely or very satisfied with their pay, while 51% are not too or not at all satisfied.

Among teachers who don’t plan to retire or stop working this year, 29% say it’s at least somewhat likely they will look for a new job in the 2023-24 school year. Within that group, 40% say they would look for a job outside of education, 29% say they’d seek a non-teaching job in education, and only 18% say they’d look for a teaching job at another public K-12 school.

Do teachers find their work fulfilling and enjoyable?

Overall, 56% of teachers say they find their job to be fulfilling extremely often or often; 53% say their job is enjoyable. These are significantly lower than the shares who say their job is frequently stressful (77%) or overwhelming (68%).

Positive experiences are more common among newer teachers. Two-thirds of those who’ve been teaching less than six years say their work is fulfilling extremely often or often, and 62% of this group says their work is frequently enjoyable.

Teachers with longer tenures are somewhat less likely to feel this way. For example, 48% of those who’ve been teaching for six to 10 years say their work is frequently enjoyable.

Balancing the workload

Most teachers (84%) say there’s not enough time during their regular work hours to do tasks like grading, lesson planning, paperwork and answering work emails.

Among those who feel this way, 81% say simply having too much work is a major reason.

Many also point to having to spend time helping students outside the classroom, performing non-teaching duties like lunch duty, and covering other teachers’ classrooms as at least minor reasons they don’t have enough time to get all their work done.

A majority of teachers (54%) say it’s very or somewhat difficult for them to balance work and their personal life. About one-in-four (26%) say it’s very or somewhat easy for them to balance these things, and 20% say it’s neither easy nor difficult.

Among teachers, women are more likely than men to say work-life balance is difficult for them (57% vs. 43%). Women teachers are also more likely to say they often find their job stressful or overwhelming.

How teachers view the education system

A large majority of teachers (82%) say the overall state of public K-12 education has gotten worse in the past five years.

And very few are optimistic about the next five years: Only 20% of teachers say public K-12 education will be a lot or somewhat better five years from now. A narrow majority (53%) say it will be worse.

Among teachers who think things have gotten worse in recent years, majorities say the current political climate (60%) and the lasting effects of the COVID-19 pandemic (57%) are major reasons. A sizable share (46%) also point to changes in the availability of funding and resources.

Related:  About half of Americans say public K-12 education is going in the wrong direction

Which political party do teachers trust more to deal with educational challenges?

On balance, more teachers say they trust the Democratic Party than say they trust the Republican Party to do a better job handling key issues facing the K-12 education system. But three-in-ten or more across the following issues say they don’t trust either party:

• Shaping school curriculum (42% say they trust neither party)
• Ensuring teachers have adequate pay and benefits (35%)
• Making schools safer (35%)
• Ensuring adequate funding for schools (33%)
• Ensuring all students have equal access to high-quality K-12 education (31%)

A majority of public K-12 teachers (58%) identify or lean toward the Democratic Party. This is higher than the share among the general public (47%).

• Poverty levels are based on the percentage of students in the school who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. ↩
• For details, refer to the Methodology section of the report. ↩
• Urban, suburban and rural schools are based on the location of the school as reported by the National Center for Education Statistics (rural includes town). Definitions match those used by the U.S. Census Bureau. ↩

Social Trends Monthly Newsletter

Sign up to to receive a monthly digest of the Center's latest research on the attitudes and behaviors of Americans in key realms of daily life

Report Materials

Table of contents, ‘back to school’ means anytime from late july to after labor day, depending on where in the u.s. you live, among many u.s. children, reading for fun has become less common, federal data shows, most european students learn english in school, for u.s. teens today, summer means more schooling and less leisure time than in the past, about one-in-six u.s. teachers work second jobs – and not just in the summer, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Veganism, Moral Motivation and False Consciousness

Susana pickett.

School of History, Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Despite the strength of arguments for veganism in the animal rights literature, alongside environmental and other anthropocentric concerns posed by industrialised animal agriculture, veganism remains only a minority standpoint. In this paper, I explore the moral motivational problem of veganism from the perspectives of moral psychology and political false consciousness. I argue that a novel interpretation of the post-Marxist notion of political false consciousness may help to make sense of the widespread refusal to shift towards veganism. Specifically, the notion of false consciousness fills some explanatory gaps left by the moral psychological notion of akrasia , often understood to refer to a weakness of will. Central to my approach is the idea that animal exploitation is largely systemic and the assumption that moral motivation is inseparable from moral thinking. In this light, the primary obstacle to the adoption of veganism arises not so much from a failure to put genuine beliefs into action, but rather in a shared, distorted way of thinking about animals. Thus, common unreflective objections to veganism may be said to be manifestations of false consciousness.

Introduction

Why does the case for veganism often fail to convince? Insofar as it does sway opinion, why then does it fail to motivate large-scale social change? Whilst moral disagreements are inevitable, the core case for veganism from the animal rights perspective – complemented as it is by environmental, social justice, and global health considerations – is robust. 1 Considering this jointly with commonly held moral principles, one might reasonably expect the percentage of vegans to be much higher, at least in economically developed societies. On the other hand, apathy towards veganism prevails, and common objections to veganism often rest on rationalisations (Piazza 2015 , p. 114). In this paper, I suggest that a failure to accept the moral status of animals as required by veganism may itself constitute a failure of moral motivation (hereinafter referred to as motivation). Central to this position is the premise that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable, and thus thinking does not necessarily precede motivation. If this is the case, then common excuses presented against veganism express failures of motivation rather than intent, by which I mean the motivation to think of animals as being recipients of moral consideration in a manner that conflicts with our social habits and received opinion.

To narrow the scope of my opening questions, I examine the motivational problem from two radically opposing perspectives; namely akrasia and false consciousness. Akrasia – often known as ‘weakness of the will’ – is a failure of practical reasoning whereby individuals act knowingly and willingly against their better judgement. This idea has already been developed by Aaltola ( 2016 ) to explain the widespread reluctance to adopt veganism. Marxian false consciousness, by contrast, is traditionally understood as the social consciousness of an exploited class. It leads individuals to act – not fully knowingly or willingly, and thus not akratically – under a dominant ideology. This ideology may run contrary to one’s best interests, but I argue that it can also taint one’s conception of the ‘greater’ good. I understand false as applying to groups of individuals beyond social class, and argue that it is false consciousness, rather than akrasia, that is more likely to be a persistent condition that dampens motivation. As such, false consciousness may have greater explanatory power than akrasia for the widespread refusal to shift towards veganism.

This paper is divided into three sections. First, I offer a brief overview of the motivational difficulties associated with veganism, specifically the role of willpower and typically presented rationalisations. Second, I give an overview of akrasia and the structure of akratic action. Furthermore, I consider social factors which impact upon our moral thinking, serving to highlight that moral thinking is not reducible to syllogistic-style reasoning. Shortcomings of the application of akrasia lead on to the final section on false consciousness, wherein I explore the persistency of dominant ideologies and their impact upon moral thinking and motivation.

The Vegan Motivational Problem

Moral motivation is typically conceived as the phenomenon of being motivated to do what one judges to be the right thing to do. Naturally, moral reasons can conflict with one’s self-interest and other reasons. In the animal ethics literature, care ethicists, including Luke ( 1992 ), are critical of the mainstream, rationalist approach exemplified by Singer ( 2015 ) and Regan ( 2004 ). The rationalist approach tends to put forward arguments for veganism and vegetarianism without tackling the motivational question of why some people may be convinced by their arguments but fail to put their beliefs into action. By contrast, care ethicists consider humans to have an innate sense of empathy towards animals, which is the basis of moral motivation, but such empathy needs to be cultivated. A problem with this approach is that most people carry on eating animals despite being empathetic to their suffering. Indeed, it is not unusual for carnivores to feel guilt and avoid imagining a slaughtered cow when eating a hamburger (Greenebaum 2012 , p. 316). Hence, it is pertinent to ask why veganism poses such motivational difficulties, considering that the public possesses some moral regard for animals as well as varying degrees of empathy for animals.

Bona Fide Challenges

While some aspects of veganism, such as health and environmental considerations, may be motivated by human self-interest, other dimensions conflict not only with narrow self-interest but also with prudential self-interest. As such, they constitute bona fide reasons to act or side against veganism. ‘Go vegan’ approaches present veganism as being easy, yet some challenges merit attention. These include financial sacrifice, social alienation, and conflict. However, I argue that taste (flavour) is not a bona fide reason.

First, veganism may sometimes involve financial sacrifice. This is because vegan substitutes often cost more (Mills 2019 , p. 17). However, this does not apply to a large part of the population who has access to and can afford plant-based foods. Second, veganism involves alienation. Food is communal in family and social situations, and a vegan at the table can be seen as a threat (Twine 2014 , p. 632). Worse still, vegans often experience exclusion and disapproval (Bresnahan et al. 2016 , p. 13) and such forms of discrimination as ‘vegaphobia’ can arise (Horta 2018 , p. 359). Third, veganism involves moral conflict, not only because of how vegans are perceived but also because of how they perceive others. Raimond Gaita states that vegans who provocatively shout, ‘meat is murder’ exhibit a pathological gap between what they profess and how they act, in that ‘they don’t act as though they live among murderers’ (Gaita 2016 , pp. 22–23). This insight is powerful, even when applied to less polarising claims such as ‘meat involves unnecessary suffering’. From the perspective of some vegans, it can be soul-draining to inhabit a world that celebrates animal consumption and forces ‘question upon question from non-vegan interlocutors’ (Reid 2017 , p. 39), and vegans are often asked to justify their standpoint and then subsequently criticised for being ‘preachy’ (Cole and Morgan 2011 , p. 149). Fourth, radical factions can create tension with other individuals who do not live up to the expectations of the ‘hegemonic vegan frame’, a phrase coined by Wrenn ( 2019 ) to describe highly bureaucratised veganism (often referred to as the ‘vegan police’). There are indeed many ‘veganisms’ (Jones 2016 , p. 24). Hence, vegans may face opposition, not only from non-vegans but also from other vegans.

Finally, Kazez ( 2018 ) argues that food taste is not necessarily trivial. For example, persistently unpalatable food could affect one’s wellbeing. However, I disagree that this constitutes a bona fide argument against veganism, because it is based on a hypothetical consideration that assumes too much since not all vegan food tastes disgusting to most people. As Singer notes, it is not as if animal flesh is uniformly delicious and vegetarian food is uniformly awful (Singer 1980 , p. 333). Given this logic, one can reasonably object on the basis that taste is typically trivial when compared with what Rowlands ( 2013 , p. 6) refers to as an animal’s ‘vital interests’. What is one to make, then, of those seemingly incapable of going vegan owing to their craving for meat? For instance, Eugene Mills recounts how he gave up after trying to be vegan for three days. His cravings for hamburgers became so powerful that he became distracted from the pursuit of important projects (Mills 2019 , p. 19). It is not clear, though, that he deemed veganism to be an important long-term project.

Excepting taste, the aforementioned challenges can constitute bona fide, prima facie reasons for not embracing veganism. When coupled with the realisation that one’s lifestyle choices may have little positive impact globally (this is the phenomenon of ‘causal inefficacy’ which I discuss in more detail later), and after considering the disconnect between consumption, production, and killing, these reasons can become powerful. As a result, it may require substantial willpower to become a vegan against one’s cultural traditions. There are cases, however, where veganism does not require willpower. For example, where veganism is second nature (Lumsden 2017 , p. 221); or one finds joy rather than sacrifice in veganism (Aaltola 2015 , p. 42). In general, though, the act of becoming a vegan does require some degree of willpower.

Willpower in Deliberation

One may object on the grounds that, if animals have no moral status, as Hsiao ( 2015 , p. 284) proposes, then the moral motivational question of veganism does not arise. However, I disagree that this is necessarily the case. It appears to me that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable in the same way that reason and feeling cannot be fully separated, any more than form and content can. Indeed, without motivation, moral thinking would not be possible, for what else would motivate the thinking insofar as moral thinking is not purely theoretical? Hence, when I speak about moral motivation, albeit broadly conceived, I also include the motivation to deliberate about moral matters, including those concerning animals. According to this view, which I refer to as the ‘motivational unity thesis’, motivation is not always something that takes place at the end of a practical deliberation as to whether it is right or wrong to act (this is the narrow conception of motivation). Motivation is also needed to see certain others as worthy of moral deliberation in the first place.

The idea that animals have no moral worth is not commonplace, but the notion that animals are of lesser worth is central to the orthodoxy of animal welfare, a commonly held view which justifies animal suffering according to their utility to humans. This view has been said to explain ‘some of the apparently schizophrenic attitudes to animals that occur in Britain and elsewhere’ (Garner 2013 , p. 80). Regardless of whether one believes that animals are of lesser, or indeed no moral worth (or whether one has ever considered any of this in terms of moral worth), the motivation to think things through with moral seriousness fails when we conclude that we have a right to eat or kill an animal merely because, for example, it is traditional, natural, or simply because the animal was raised on a local farm or one with higher welfare standards than some other farms.

More elaborate justifications against veganism can be provided, but we fail to do justice to animals as the objects of our deliberation if we conclude that safeguarding our lifestyle habits is generally a good enough reason to justify animal exploitation. This constitutes a broad motivational failure insofar as we fail to view animals as individuals who are ‘equally real’, to borrow Thomas Nagel’s phrase (Nagel 1970 , p. 14). Still, one might lodge at least two objections. First, there is no motivational failure if it is not deemed morally objectionable to use animals as commodities in industrialised societies. Second, one might concede that a motivational failure only exists if one holds the conviction that veganism is morally obligatory, yet otherwise fails (akratically) to act accordingly.

Since this paper is not an argument for veganism, I cannot respond to the first objection directly but can link it to the second objection. To clarify, I can invoke the motivational unity thesis to argue that motivational failures can take place at the level of thinking alone (including what kind of beings to include in these considerations), and not merely when it comes to putting beliefs into action. Based on this premise, the exclusion of animals from serious moral consideration is tantamount to moral nihilism and leads only to further rationalisations when probed. Therefore, in addition to the prudential ( bona fide ) reasons against veganism discussed earlier, I now turn my attention to some common rationalisations.

Two Rationalisations

Rationalisations against veganism readily occur when the issue is not thought through. Indeed, we are prone to motivated ignorance (Tam 2019 , p. 6). The objection that animals only exist to be eaten and various other defensive tactics, exhibit apathy in the face of superior evidence to the contrary. Poor argumentation is relevant to motivation because thinking requires effort, while social habits and contempt inhibit it. Many rationalisations against veganism are merely strawmen, yet more sophisticated objections permeate the animal ethics literature, namely the causal inefficacy objection and the principle of unnecessary harm. On the one hand, causal inefficacy is the idea that an individual’s veganism has no impact on the market, specifically that one’s veganism will not make a difference to overall meat consumption. On the other hand, unnecessary harm is the principle (in the current context) by which it is unjustifiable to harm animals when vegan alternatives are available—a principle that is subject to distortion. Both principles are nonetheless interesting as they serve as a double-edged sword, both for and against veganism.

The causal inefficacy objection to veganism has accrued a vast literature which has been recently summarised by Fischer ( 2020 ). It is related to the ‘free-rider’ problem of rational choice theory, although my concern here is with the role of motivation in our thinking about causal inefficacy serving effectively as a proverbial ‘get out of jail free card’. There is a parallel with global warming, whereby people manage feelings of hopelessness with expressions such as ‘what can one person do?’, often to avoid thinking about a challenging issue (Cole & Morgan 2011 , p. 156). In fact, from the existence of a global problem alone, nothing clearly and directly follows with regards to individual responsibility.

In this context, group identity can be powerful, since a group can be more impactful and offer moral support: ‘within the safe bubble of the vegan community, its practitioners are noticeably joyous’ (Twine 2014 , p. 637). Relatedly, hope plays an important role in moral thinking. Moody-Adams ( 2017 , p. 155–6) discusses the motivating power of hope, specifically how those social movements which deepened our understanding of justice and compassion were driven by those who were confident in acting on their moral convictions and hopeful of moral change. Similarly, Agnes Tam emphasises the power of “We-reasoning” as a distinctive form of communitarian rationality (Tam 2019 , p. 3). Naturally, this does not mean that one abandons self-critical thinking, but it is a potential pitfall of identity groups (Fukuyama 2018 , p. 115).

As Garner points out, the phrase ‘unnecessary harm’ is somewhat vague, a catch-all that can have political advantages in supporting a spectrum of speciesist positions depending on geographical and historical factors (Garner 2013 , p. 81). For example, animal harm is viewed as a necessary evil in support of traditional forms of hospitality and economic interests. Central to the manipulation of these principles is the conflation of difficult, often potentially intractable empirical and analytic problems with practical moral matters about how one should live. In this vein, Reid has pointed out that simply not having a fully worked out theory of veganism is not sufficient reason, in of itself, for not becoming a vegan, in the same way as not having a fully worked out theory of knowledge is not a justification for epistemic scepticism (Reid 2017 , p. 38). Indeed, veganism can be seen as a practical stance in response to animal exploitation, even though it can only ever be aspirational, for it is not possible to avoid causing harm altogether (Gruen and Jones 2016 , p. 157–158). In order to reach the vegan practical conclusion, one need not have to resolve intractable problems of causation, collective responsibility, or necessity.

I have argued, because moral thinking and motivation are not entirely separable, that distorted thinking can dampen motivation, while motivational failures may also result in morally distorted thinking. Take, for instance, the conflation of difficult empirical and philosophical matters with practical moral considerations. Next, I consider how philosophers have traditionally accounted for the breakdown of moral motivation in practical deliberation, and how this can be applied to the vegan motivational problem.

Omnivore’s Akrasia

Akrasia , sometimes referred to as a weakness of will or incontinence, is often understood to mean an intentional action contrary to one’s better judgement. It is, by definition, rather a failure of practical rationality in the shape of a motivational failure. The literature on akrasia dates back to ancient Greek philosophy and the contemporary literature in moral psychology is often technical. To be concise, I assume that akrasia is possible and follow Davidson’s ( 1980 ) definition of akrasia as an action that is free, intentional, and contrary to a full-blown practical judgement.

In doing x an agent acts incontinently if and only if: (a) the agent does x intentionally; (b) the agent believes there is an alternative action y open to him; and (c) the agent judges that, all things considered, it would be better to do y than to do x . (Davidson 1980 , p. 22)

Practical reasoning often starts with prima facie judgements, whereupon various reasons are weighted against each other until an evaluative conclusion is derived. When deliberating whether one ought to become a vegan, prima facie reasons might include animal welfare, health, or environmental concerns (notwithstanding myriad other reasons for and against veganism, including one’s psychological and social wellbeing, or how one’s actions will be perceived by others). An individual may accept good overall reasons for adopting veganism, yet fail to embrace it in practice. Indeed, this seems quite plausible. Elisa Aaltola ( 2015 ) coined the term ‘omnivore’s akrasia ’ to refer to the state arising in those who voluntarily consume animal products despite believing that they have been produced by immoral means. Could widespread akrasia , then, play a major role in preventing a significant proportion of the public from adopting veganism? I argue that, despite its explanatory power, the traditional approach is subject to two limitations.

The Limits of Traditional Akrasia

A limitation of akrasia is that moral decisions, such as the decision to go vegan, may not necessarily be the outcome of practical deliberation. On the flip side, one’s better judgement may be faulty. In explanation, ‘all things considered’, or prima facie judgements may not necessarily yield a correct moral answer, not least because we are limited as epistemic and moral beings. Some philosophers (Arpaly 2000 ; Audi 1990 ; McIntyre 2006 ) have even questioned whether akrasia is necessarily irrational. What if the better judgement itself is faulty, or if the desires which ground the ‘better judgement’ fail to represent the agent’s overall desires and interests?

I shall illustrate this with a powerful example from Bennett's reflections on Huckleberry Finn (Bennett 1974 ), so that I can then explore how this applies to veganism. In Mark Twain’s famous novel, Huck believes that, all things considered, the right thing to do is to turn his slave friend Jim in to the authorities, but he fails to do so. ‘Huck hasn’t the strength of will to do what he sincerely thinks he ought to do’ (Bennett 1974 , p. 126). He acts simply out of sympathy for Jim. This turns akrasia on its head, for Huck acts out of moral necessity (he cannot do otherwise), yet he acts against his better judgement.

Similarly, veganism may not necessarily be the direct outcome of practical deliberation. For some, the commitment to veganism may happen over and above any prima facie considerations. It may be the case that one already has an inner necessity. For example, one is moved by the visceral repugnance of the slaughter and ingestion of animals or a deep sense of compassion.

Thus, one could argue that the akrasia explanation of non-veganism involves an overly simplistic, syllogistic account of moral thinking, largely ignoring the social context. Individuals are not disembodied moral agents capable of making rational decisions independently of the social contex—there is much more at stake than merely prima facie reasons in terms of practical deliberations about what one morally ought to do. Could a more nuanced, socially informed notion of akrasia serve to overcome this limitation?

Sociopolitical Akrasia

Aaltola ( 2015 , 2016 ) takes a nuanced sociopolitical approach to omnivore’s akrasia . Like Amelie Rorty ( 1997 ), she views akrasia as a social problem, in that social forces prevent veganism by placing individuals within a continual state of akrasia wherein conscious deliberation and self-control are futile. These forces include ambiguity or conflict at the root of our institutions, habit, consumerism, and the culture of immediate reward or sensory hedonism. Significantly, the meat-eaters’ paradox, in which a societal love for certain animals such as dogs and cats is cultivated, while cows, pigs, and other animals, which are equally sentient, are mistreated and slaughtered, is entrenched within our institutions (Aaltola 2016 , p. 118).

Despite these conflictual beliefs, 2 most individuals believe that food choices are rational but overlook how these choices are grounded via emotive, cultural, or otherwise more ambiguous justifications (Aaltola 2016 , p. 117). Habit perpetuates the meat-eaters’ paradox for, although the original reason for eating meat was survival, it is no longer essential for a large part of the world’s population, so it is in some ways a mindless habit and one that is exacerbated by consumerism. Given this, asking individuals to exercise self-control is insufficient (Aaltola 2016 , p. 124). Indeed, ‘our akratic choices may take place beyond the possibility of conscious deliberation, and thereby beyond the possibility of conscious hedonism or egoism’ (Aaltola 2016 , p. 131). This results in a vicious circle wherein contempt may feed moral apathy and we may thus become apathetic to act altruistically. Therefore, Aaltola ( 2016 , p. 135) concludes that we are in a state of continual akrasia .

Whilst such application of akrasia is insightful, akrasia may not be the best explanation for the phenomenon of widespread omnivorism. Crucially, the possibility of perpetual akrasia seems absurd, especially given that akrasia is, by definition, free intentional action contrary to one’s better judgement. In the context of permanent akrasia , as described by Aaltola, individuals are not acting freely or intentionally, and their better judgement is not to become vegans. As such, they are not akratically failing to become vegans: they never set out to do so in the first place, so there is no motivational failure as the rational outcome of practical deliberation.

Similarly, akrasia may not be the best notion to incorporate mindlessness, self-deception or voluntary ignorance. The notion of akrasia struggles to accommodate the fact that not all our thinking is transparent, bona fide , or easily moulded into practical syllogisms. For instance, it has been said that, once we are accustomed to behaving in ways that have implicit normative content, we struggle to contemplate the possibility of change and may thus engage in self-deception to justify wrongful actions (Cooke 2017 , p. 9). John Searle exemplified one such deception: ‘I try not to think about animal rights because I fear I’d have to become a vegetarian if I worked it out consistently.’ (Cooke 2017 , p. 10).

Indeed, such deception is more likely to be widely shared, given that most people give similar excuses against veganism, commonly referred to as the 4Ns (the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice; Piazza et al. 2015 ). For Luke ( 1992 , p. 106), such rationalisations consume abundant social energy. However, one can object that very little thinking power is normally used, even though the passions may be inflamed. Given these limitations, one must ask whether the notion of false consciousness would fare any better in accounting for such persistent motivational gaps and largely unreflective responses to veganism or be more cohesive with the idea that animal exploitation is largely systemic.

Omnivore’s False Consciousness

False consciousness is a post-Marxian notion. Although Marx did not use the phrase ‘fase consciousness’, the notion is embedded in much of his thinking. Thus, Miller ( 1972 , p. 433) argues that a broad interpretation of the related concept of ideology, understood as applying to theories, belief-systems and practices involving the use of ideas, has great explanatory power concerning the persistency and influence of ideologies over the actions of the groups who adopt such ideologies. Crucially, if such a group is confronted by others holding incompatible ideas, ‘it has no resources to fall back upon, it can only reaffirm its original faith’ (Miller 1972 , p. 433). Alternatively, if the ideology is seen primarily as an explanatory framework, then ‘the ideology is given repeated empirical confirmation, through the selection of what is perceived’ (Miller 1972 , p. 433). When ideologies function in these ways, they can be said to involve false consciousness. If Miller is correct, and omnivorism can be shown to depend on an ideology that necessarily involves false consciousness, then this may account for the persistency of omnivorism over reasoned arguments, thus filling the gaps left by omnivore’s akrasia .

In Marxist theory, false consciousness is essentially deemed to be political in nature and refers to the social consciousness of the proletariat as an exploited class under capitalism. It is thereby related to the concept of ideological power and forms the basis of Luke’s third dimension of power, wherein the illegitimate use of power by one group over another confers the power to mislead (Lukes 2005 , p. 149). To put it simply, it is the power to control what groups think as being right, resulting in biased acceptance without question. Marx and Engels used the concept of ideology to refer to ‘the distorted beliefs intellectuals [hold] about society and the power of their own ideas. Those who produced ideologies suffered from false consciousness: they were deluded about their own beliefs.’ (Eyerman 1981 , p. 43). Given this tenet, one may be puzzled by my use of false consciousness, as it seems to shift the construct of veganism to being about people rather than about animals. How, then, is false consciousness relevant to the problem of motivation in veganism, given that animals are the exploited group in question, even to the extent that some theorists, such as Perlo ( 2002 , p.306), have likened animals to the proletariat?

The notion of false consciousness has evolved since its origins, and my intention here is to expand its application further. Marx’s concept was further developed by Gramsci, Lukacs and the early Frankfurt School, and later expanded to apply to any social class with a ‘limited form of experience in society’ (Eyerman 1981 , p. 43–44). Thus, it is not limited to Marxian class and has been more applied broadly to groups both before and after the rise of capitalism. For example, Michael Rosen ( 2016 , p. 10) sees Marxian false consciousness as a critique and the development of rationalistic understandings of a previously unformulated notion of false consciousness, beginning with Plato, for whom irrationality of the soul led to the injustices of the state; and Aristotle, for whom false consciousness is necessarily akratic . Omnivore’s false consciousness may thus be viewed as a novel development and a particular application of false consciousness 3 to a broad majority of humans who practise omnivorism in economically developed societies.

Narrow and Broad False Consciousness

So, what then is false about false consciousness? False consciousness is often portrayed in terms of one being misled about one’s true interests. However, there is a distinction arising between being blinded by one’s interests (i.e., being impetuous) and being blind to them, where false consciousness is often associated with the latter (Runciman 1969 , p. 303). The self-interest interpretation, however, omits the altruistic and moral dimensions of human thinking, whereby one may also be blind not only to others’ interests but also to their moral dimension. Traditionally, false consciousness is about group interest and social ontology, but I shall argue that it can also distort moral thinking in much the same way as it distorts non-moral thinking. The notion that Marxism is not totally abstracted from morality is not novel (e.g., Lukes 1985 ), so I will instead set the context before I explain how it bears on veganism.

Marx avoided talk about morality, not only because he hated preaching and was distrustful of the moralist per se (Popper 1995 , p. 220), but because he saw contemporary morality as being part of the bourgeois superstructure, in which class morality added an extra layer of false consciousness. The worker believes, according to Singer, that capitalist has a moral right to the profits 4 (Singer 2018 , p. 83). Although Lenin and others claimed that Marx’s theory was purely scientific, it has since been argued that Marx held a normative position, not least because of his desire to end capitalism (Cochrane 2010 , p. 95; Singer 2018 , p. 82), his hatred of servility, and his ‘desire for a better world that it is hard not to see as moral’ (Lukes 1985 , p. 3).

Central to the Marxian notion of false consciousness is the tenet that both the capitalist and proletariat are afflicted by it and, thus, that the proletariat believed, whether implicitly or explicitly, that the capitalist had a moral or legitimate right to profit. If proletarian Jim held such a belief about himself, he would also believe that the capitalist had a right to the labour of his fellow proletarians. In this world view, the proletariat is both wronged by the capitalist and unaware that they have been wronged. Similarly, capitalists had so distorted or delimited moral ideas insofar as they too failed to acknowledge the true interests of the exploited group and were unaware of their wrongdoing. In the case of animals, the public largely carries on supporting systemic practices of animal-exploitation without acknowledging the wrongs inflicted on animals in its name.

Hence, false consciousness may be understood narrowly as relating to either self or group interest or, more broadly, as including an altruistic moral dimension in the sense of limiting such a dimension. Indeed, if I am blind to my own true interests, then I may not necessarily be receptive to those of other people or those of animals. My claim is not that there is a causal link between blindness to one’s own interests and blindness to the interests of others, but rather that it is absurd to contend that false consciousness impacts only one’s self-interested thinking. Crucially, false consciousness may so taint one’s conception of the good and limit the moral self, that it has the effect of occluding the motivational difficulties of veganism. Hence, the akratic break (motivational failure) does not actually take place, at least not explicitly.

This broad interpretation of false consciousness presupposes a close link between alienation and false consciousness. As Rosen states in his discussion of Marx’s early writings on alienation as a form of life, ‘the alienated worker’s failure to recognize himself in the product of his labour and the failure of isolated individuals to recognize each other fully as fellow human beings are expressions of false consciousness that are lived and experienced before they are theorized about or reflected upon.’ (Rosen 2016 , p. 35). In this sense, the moral self is not impervious to false consciousness. This is interesting within the context of the vegan debate, as the cumulative case for veganism (i.e., the case from a wide range of perspectives) encompasses both moral and enlightened self-interested strands. If we deem both the narrow and broad sense of false consciousness to be appropriate, then this may help to explain how a substantial proportion of the general public may be somewhat blinded by the dominant animal-exploiting ideology in contrasting, yet complementary ways, so as to render the ideology quite impenetrable.

This narrow sense of false consciousness applies to the case for veganism from either anthropocentric or enlightened self-interest perspectives. Strictly, these perspectives support plant-based living as opposed to fully blown ethical veganism but are largely consistent with it. Overall, exploitative animal practices are agreed to have a detrimental impact on the environment, sustainability, and climate change (Rosi 2017 ; Sabaté & Soret 2014 ), as well as global human health (Tuso 2013 ) and that of future generations (Deckers 2011 ). Zoonotic diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have also been traced to wet markets where animals are confined within unnatural and unsanitary conditions (Singer 2020 , pp. 82–83). Despite these, and other harms to humans, the animal agricultural complex has a vested interest in continued animal exploitation. Moreover, the advertising industry and media can exercise tremendous power in perpetuating the desire to consume animal products.

There are at least two difficulties with the attribution of narrow false consciousness in these scenarios. First, the oppressor and oppressed (or exploiter and exploited) groups are not distinct, for at least some humans count as the exploited, even though they too contribute to animal exploitation through their consumption and labour. Although this complicates matters, it does not in of itself make the premise of false consciousness impossible, for (unlike Marxian social class) an individual can belong to more than one group at any one time. In this respect, animals are posited as the oppressed, yet humans are both oppressor and oppressed. In fact, the presumption of such a stark dichotomy of classes would have very little application in terms of the animal agricultural complex which lacks any clearly defined boundaries.

Second, false consciousness is supposed to affect both the exploiter and exploited alike, but it is not altogether clear why it would not be in the interest of the exploiter to exploit, particularly in terms of material self-interest. It may well be that the exploiting group is subject to false consciousness but is not necessarily deceived about its own material self-interest. After all, many people’s livelihoods depend on animal agriculture, which does not go against their immediate, material self-interest. However, the exploiter might be in denial about the consequences of their own exploitation. In Hegel’s dialectic, which influenced Marx’s thinking, the master (to his own detriment) becomes too dependent on the slave. When translated in terms of the current exploitation of animals and nature, exploiters act in such a way as though they are blind to the ultimate consequences of their actions, yet the crucial difference here lies between enlightened self-interest in the medium term and the long run, for it is the latter that false consciousness is supposed to affect.

On the other hand, in a somewhat broader sense, false consciousness acts against the case for veganism from the point of view of ethical and political perspectives such as animal rights and care ethics. These are deemed to be ‘veganism for the animals’ perspectives that constitute the core of ethical veganism, which are not defensible from the standpoint of self-interest. In this context, false consciousness might serve as a good explanatory match for two phenomena; namely the absence of moral reflection on whether one ought to become a vegan (in light of the meat-eater's paradox), and second, the poverty of thinking exemplified by the public’s common rebuttals in response to arguments for veganism.

Although not all objections or negative responses to veganism are crude, there is a widespread social malaise in the form of a prevalent moral apathy towards the exploitation of animals. This matter is political, not only from the perspective that humans exercise illegitimate power over animals but also that animals are worthy of political justice as argued, for example, in The Political Turn in Animal Ethics (Garner and O'Sullivan 2016 ). Further, it could be construed that the public’s commonplace objections to veganism are socially determined and thus often devoid of individual self-expression. The issue is also a very personal one, in the sense that moral thinking is inextricably personal, yet such thinking may at times be thwarted by sociopolitical imperatives. When deliberating on whether one ought to become a vegan, insofar as one engages in moral discourse at all, the moral problem is, and ought to be, inescapably one’s own in the sense that one cannot pass it on to someone else to resolve on one’s behalf (on this topic see Gaita 1989 , p. 128), let alone rely on the unexamined opinions of the majority. However, this is precisely what tends to happen when people confront veganism. The next step, then, is to relate common, unreflective objections to veganism to aspects of political false consciousness.

Four Features of False Consciousness

To deconstruct how thinking can be systematically distorted, I build on Miller’s account of the four dimensions of false consciousness (Miller 1972 , p. 443–444), sketching how these features may be manifested in omnivore’s false consciousness. The four interrelated features are conceptual inadequacy, isolation of phenomena, eternalisation, and reification.

First, false consciousness involves a degree of conceptual inadequacy in that it leads to fallacious reasoning . For example, generalisations based on superficial similarity, whereupon subsequent analysis can reveal them to be disparate. Conceptual inadequacy includes such common injunctions against veganism as animals being unintelligent, carnivorism natural, and vegans self-righteous. These claims expose distortion as empirical analysis – and frequently linguistic or logical analysis alone – can prove them to be fallacious.

For instance, does it follow from the premise that animals are less intelligent that we have a moral right to eat them? Does the fact that something is natural necessarily make an action or attitude morally justifiable? Are all vegans self-righteous? Even if they all are, this latter argument is effectively ad hominem and therefore invalid. Similarly, the idea that veganism is impossible because nobody can ever avoid partaking in harming animals is to misunderstand the very concept of veganism. It exhibits fallacious reasoning by misusing the concept of vagueness. Just because there are borderline cases between a child and an adult, or shades of grey, it does not necessarily follow that nobody can ever be an adult, or that nothing can be truly black. The same holds true for veganism. While nobody would seriously deny that adulthood or true blackness are possible, many are prepared to subject veganism to a reductio ad absurdum . These common examples of conceptual inadequacy are not isolated mistakes, or merely manifestations of the ignorance of specific information, but rather are fundamental ways in which thought fails. They are manifestations of how the acceptance of the moral and political legitimacy (or neutrality) of animal exploitation is deeply rooted within the collective consciousness and embedded within our social institutions.

Second, the process involves the isolation of phenomena, notably a refusal to see an instance of individual behaviour as being part of a wider social system. For example, the belief that one exercises free will in consumer choices 5 and, therefore, that one’s decision to eat animals is autonomous when one is, in actuality, making socially conditioned decisions which are influenced by the meat industry. Hence, Nibert talks of a socially engineered public consciousness, highlighting how organisations such as the ‘Center for Consumer Freedom’ exploit both the concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘consumer choice’ (Nibert 2013 , p. 266). Since others are doing the same, these attitudes are considered to be justificatory of the wider system.

Third, it involves eternalisation, whereby conventional relationships or characteristics are regarded as being permanently fixed within the nature of things. For example, in medieval Europe, society was ranked hierarchically from God down to inanimate objects. Similarly, the hierarchical belief in speciesism is effectively an extension of the belief that ‘might is right’, wherein biological omnivorism is extrapolated to entail a right to exploit animals. For Cooke, the view of the innate inferiority of animals is embedded within our social consciousness, and the moral imagination must be cultivated to break out of such self-deception (Cooke 2017 , p. 14–15). This feature of false consciousness serves as the key to perpetuating certain practices.

Let us consider an example of eternalisation, such as the common belief (in some countries) that a turkey must be the centrepiece of the Christmas dinner table, as tradition dictates, in such a way that a vegan alternative is deemed to be out of the question. In what way is this thinking distorted? How does it manifest as a form of false consciousness? One of the distortions revolves around the false belief that tradition is alone sufficient justification for engaging in a specific practice. Some traditions, such as forced marriages, are morally wrong and so tradition alone does not morally justify a practice. It constitutes a distorted form of thinking rather than a question of holding a false belief, as most individuals living in liberal societies do accept that tradition alone does not morally justify a practice. It manifests as a form of false consciousness insofar as the distortion is not politically neutral.

Like most animal agriculture, the mass confinement, fattening and slaughter of hundreds of millions of turkeys aged between 14 and 24 weeks for Christmas involves the illegitimate use of power of humans over animals. Yet, such traditions continue, not only because people enjoy certain flavours and family traditions, but also because a powerful industry lobby has a vested interest in perpetuating and normalising this form of animal exploitation. For example, in December 2019, the UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) took issue with a BBC commercial in which a cartoon turkey wearing an ‘I Love Vegans’ sweater announced ‘less of us have been gobbled this year’ (The Telegraph 2019 ). The NFU feared that the BBC was promoting a political view. What was not questioned, however, was that the farming and killing of animals may not be a politically neutral standpoint.

Finally, it involves reification. It reduces individuals to the status of mere objects of fixed properties, their individuality denied, similar to the archetypal Nazi depiction of the Jew (Miller 1972 , p. 444). Animals, too, are objectified when reduced to the status of commodities such as forms of food or modes of transportation, or even being owned as pets. As expressed by Cole and Morgan ( 2011 , p. 149), ‘ethics are simply ruled out of order by the prior to objectification and invisibilisation of nonhuman animals that speciesist material and cultural practices instantiate’. This takes place on a large scale, even when people are generally aware that animals such as the Christmas turkey are (or rather were) individuals, not mere things. Still, animals are essentially commodified, an idea that also links into Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism.

Miller’s analysis provides a framework for dissecting how common objections to veganism, and the belief systems that ground them, are distorted and thereby largely unmovable. It gives weight to the idea that these objections manifest false consciousness. As a form of political false consciousness, omnivore’s false consciousness involves distorted and limited forms of thinking that are not often scrutinised. I have only touched on a small number of common objections to veganism, although there are many others, such as those exemplified in a defensive omnivore board. 6 When one of these notions is challenged, many more excuses are proffered.

What these distorted forms of thinking lack in terms of sobriety they make up for in intuitive persuasiveness by conforming to a widely accepted worldview or way of life. According to this worldview, nonhuman animals are inferior to human animals in politically significant ways that accord the latter the moral entitlement to exploit the former. As Miller recognises, one cannot easily fight instances of false consciousness by pointing out isolated errors. Thus a broader stance is needed, yet it may not be possible to avoid false consciousness altogether (Miller 1972 , p. 444). Therefore, one might ask what makes false consciousness not only possible but also so persistent and prevalent?

The Persistency of Ideologies

The link between false consciousness and ideology is key to its persistency. Gauthier ( 1997 , p.27–28) points out that the notion of an ‘ideology’ is employed inconsistently, yet is generally regarded as a pejorative aspect of our consciousness. He sees ideology as a theoretical construct, part of the ‘deep structure of self-consciousness’, that is, the capacity to conceive oneself relative to others and therefore to act in light of this conception of oneself as a member of the human species. Although it can be the subject of reflection, it is necessarily pre-reflective. This sounds puzzling, but Gauthier sees a similarity between ideology and language in that ‘both conceal a deep structure which unconsciously affects conscious activity’ (Gauthier 1997 , p. 28). Even if one cannot think outside the boundaries of a specific language or ideology, reflection and critique are still possible, thereby enabling moral progress.

Like languages, ideologies also promote social commonality. One of the main functions of social institutions is to maintain and transmit a common ideology (Gauthier 1997 , p. 28). Hence, individuals with very different ideologies, such as vegans and non-vegans, may find communication difficult. Moreover, for Marx, an ideology was not merely false but served an intentional role both in upholding the extant social order (Rawls 2008 , p. 361) and continuing the status quo in terms of the exploitation of the proletariat. For example, hiding the act of robbery within the construct of capitalism is essential. Similarly, exploiters of animals do not want to be perceived to be exploitative, whether these agents be the state or the lawmakers protecting animal-exploiting institutions. Farmers’ associations have privileged access in terms of shaping the viewpoint of the media and in influencing agricultural policy and legislation (Benton 1993 , p. 160). For example, both the US and Australia have introduced ‘ag-gag’ laws that essentially criminalise the dissemination of information about the treatment of animals (O'Sullivan 2016 , p. 53). Moreover, the institutionalised praise of exploiters and punishment of animal liberationists is not a morally neutral position with regard to conceptions of the good that liberal states purport to do. As Schmitz says, ‘the animal question debunks the appearance of neutrality’ (Schmitz 2016 , p. 42).

If we interpret ideologies as being pre-reflective, this aids in explaining their persistency and evasiveness from rational argumentation. As Miller suggests, repeated selective perception confirms the ideology (Miller 1972 , p. 433), yet it is difficult to construct a simple verification or falsification test, as ideologies are false at the level of the whole (Miller 1972 , p. 435). As such, they are not a mere set of commonly held ideas, but rather embody attitudes, common behaviours, and practices. Thus, the ideology that dominates our relationship with animals in developed societies gives rise to a level of false consciousness. It is pre-reflective in that societies embrace omnivorism without perceiving the moral need to justify it, although it is possible to reflect on it. When the dominant ideology is challenged, rationalisations can ensue. Since an ideology is not a specific set of beliefs that can be proven to be true or false in isolation, it is very difficult to ‘prove’ that omnivorism is morally wrong, or that veganism is right in such a way that any rational moral agent could be convinced.

One might object to the premise that attributing false consciousness is arrogant, for it requires a privileged perspective in terms of intellect and education. As Polsby states, ‘the presumption that the “real” interests of a class can be assigned to them by an analyst allows the analyst to charge “false consciousness” when the class in question disagrees with the analyst’ (Polsby 1963 , p. 22–3). However, is the attribution of false consciousness necessarily arrogant? Lukes ( 2005 , p. 149–150) argues that recognising the possibility of false consciousness is neither condescending, nor inherently illiberal, or even paternalistic. He considers, for example, J.S. Mill’s analysis of the subjection of Victorian women to the rule of men (in Mill 2009 [1869], p. 25) which can be interpreted as showing how most women were subject to false consciousness in the form of voluntary servitude, as opposed to coercive power. In light of such historic examples, and the fact that gender equality is now largely undisputed, the objection from arrogance is begs a question in that it denies the possibility that anyone might ever be politically deceived. It is ad hominem insofar as it attacks the character of the analyst, not the soundness of their views. Similarly, if future generations were to embrace the cause of animal rights and veganism, the attribution of an omnivore’s false consciousness to previous generations may then not seem too paternalistic.

Some Marxists could argue that the notion of false consciousness simply does not apply here. That may well be the case if indeed false consciousness is taken literally in a Marxist context. Instead, I have argued that there is a broad reading of false consciousness according to which it can narrow the moral self precisely because the interests of animals are not perceived in such a way as to trigger the moral motivation to practice veganism. In fact, I have attempted to detach the concept from Marxist theory as far as possible, so that one does not have to embrace Marxism in order to be able to accept how such a concept (and related concepts) may command useful explanatory power where the notion of akrasia falls short. 1

If there is such a thing as omnivore’s false consciousness, it would seem to follow that animal liberation (from human oppression) requires human liberation from omnivore’s false consciousness. Broad false consciousness may need to be confronted head-on through practices that promote more reflective and altruistic thinking (Cooke 2017 ). Narrow false consciousness, on the other hand, may be tackled directly by promoting some of the benefits of plant-based living (Fetissenko 2011 ), or indirectly by creating the conditions that normalise such a lifestyle (Lumsden 2017 ), for example, by making the shift from animal to plant agriculture easier and more desirable for farmers, or through the technological development of realistic alternatives to culling animals (e.g. in vitro meat; see Milburn 2016 ). A drawback of the self-interest approach, however, is that it only favours animals contingently in those instances where enlightened human self-interest happens to be convergent with those of animals. These challenges make a global shift to veganism not only fraught but also currently inaccessible to those on the opposite side of the debate. Considering how humans have habitually exploited animals, the future for most animals looks grim. On the other hand, social movements depend on hope and persist in the belief in moral progress has been said to be a regulative concept (Moody-Adams 2017 , p. 154).

Concluding Remarks

Starting from the assumption that there is a strong case for veganism in the literature, and the hypothesis that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable, I have considered how akrasia and false consciousness are ‘conceptual pathways’ through which our practical thinking about animals is distorted. Omnivore’s akrasia leaves some important gaps, for it is delimited to free and voluntary action against one’s better judgement. As such, the phenomenon of widespread omnivorism in developed societies may be better explained in terms of omnivore’s false consciousness (but I am not thereby suggesting that animal liberationists should embrace Marxism). Where omnivore’s false consciousness arises, there is no clear or explicit motivational failure to become a vegan, precisely because there is insufficient reflection for an akratic break to take occur. Further work in the field of moral psychology is evidently needed to unravel the motivational unity thesis, a theorem upon which this paper leans heavily.

Insofar as veganism expresses an ideology, it cannot be proven either to be true or morally right through arguments alone in such a way as to persuade any rational being or otherwise fully-fledged moral agent. Veganism is, as such, not an analytic truth to be derived from abstract moral principles but rather a moral way of life. Arguably, it is also a moral requirement. Principles such as causal inefficacy and unnecessary harm can be turned against veganism via analytic rationalisations which exploit scepticism and err on the side of narrow human self-interest, rather than an altruistic stance towards animals. Despite difficult technical and analytic considerations, one can experience veganism as an inescapable imperative; as a spiritual necessity; or as a powerful political identity against the oppression of animals. As such, some animal advocates may feel utter despair and therefore struggle to comprehend how others are not similarly moved. They may experience helplessness as to why common reasons against veganism are so weak. This paper is but one expression of such puzzlement, and a first attempt to make sense through the hitherto underexplored notion of false consciousness within the field of animal ethics.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the MANCEPT ‘Just Animals? The Future of the Political Turn in Animal Ethics’ workshop in September 2019. I am especially grateful to Robert Garner, Steve Cooke, Josh Milburn and Eva Meijer for their comments and support. I am also greatly indebted to the anonymous reviewers of this journal.

Self-funded.

Declaration

The authors declares that they have no conflict of interest.

1 For a concise exposition of the cumulative case for veganism see Stephens ( 1994 ). For more recent arguments see Francione ( 2008 ), Huemer ( 2019 ) and Singer ( 2020 ).

2 There is no conflict if animals are viewed and treated only according to their purpose to humans, but it can be argued that this is how things are (the animal welfare orthodoxy), not how they ought to be.

3 False consciousness is often assumed without explanation in the Critical Animal Studies (CAS) literature (e.g., Nibert 2002 , p. 247).

4 Marx may not have thought that the proletariat held such explicit beliefs given that they had no access to the superstructure, but the relevant idea is that the proletariat was blind to their interests.

5 Vegans too can be consumerist.

6 A compilation of poor excuses against veganism such as ‘we have carnivore teeth’. For an example see https://vegansaurus.com/post/254784826/defensive-omnivore-bingo .

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Aaltola E. Politico-moral apathy and omnivore's akrasia: Views from the rationalist tradition. Politics and Animals. 2015; 1 :35–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aaltola E. The problem of akrasia: moral cultivation and socio-political resistance. In: Cavalieri Paola., editor. Philosophy and the Politics of Animal Liberation. Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arpaly N. On acting rationally against one's best judgment. Ethics. 2000; 110 (3):488–513. doi: 10.1086/233321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Audi R. Weakness of will and rational action. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 1990; 68 (3):270–281. doi: 10.1080/00048409012344301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett J. The conscience of huckleberry finn. Philosophy. 1974; 49 (188):123–134. doi: 10.1017/S0031819100048014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benton T. Natural relations: Animal rights, human rights and the environment. Verso; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bresnahan M, Zhuang J, Zhu X. Why is the vegan line in the dining hall always the shortest? understanding vegan stigma. Stigma and Health. 2016; 1 (1):3–15. doi: 10.1037/sah0000011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochrane A. An introduction to animals and political theory. Palgrave Macmillan; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M, Morgan K. Veganism contra speciesism: Beyond debate. The Brock Review. 2011; 12 (1):144–163. doi: 10.26522/br.v12i1.568. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke S. Imagined utopias: Animals rights and the moral imagination. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2017; 25 (4):e1–e18. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson D. Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deckers J. Negative “GHIs”, the right to health protection, and future generations. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2011; 8 (2):165. doi: 10.1007/s11673-011-9295-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eyerman R. False consciousness and ideology in marxist theory. Acta Sociologica. 1981; 24 (1–2):43–56. doi: 10.1177/000169938102400104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fetissenko M. Beyond morality: Developing a new rhetorical strategy for the animal rights movement. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2011; 1 (2):150–175. doi: 10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Francione G. Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. Columbia University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer B. The ethics of eating animals: Usually bad, sometimes wrong, often permissible. Routledge; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fukuyama F. Identity: Contemporary identity politics and the struggle for recognition. Profile Books; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaita R. The personal in ethics. In: Phillips DZ, Winch P, editors. Wittgenstein: Attention to particulars. Springer; 1989. pp. 124–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaita R. The philosopher's dog. Routledge Classics; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garner R. A theory of justice for animals: Animal rights in a nonideal world. Oxford University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garner R, O'Sullivan S. The Political turn in animal ethics. Rownman and Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauthier D. The social contract as ideology. In: Goodin RE, Pettit P, editors. Contemporary political philosophy: An anthology. Blackwell Publishers Ltd; 1997. pp. 27–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruen L, Jones RC. Veganism as an aspiration. In: Bramble Ben, Fischer Bob., editors. The moral complexities of eating meat. Oxford University Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenebaum, J. B. (2012). Managing impressions: “Face-Saving” strategies of vegetarians and vegans. Humanity & Society, 36 (4), 309–325.
• Horta O. Discrimination against vegans. Res Publica. 2018; 24 (3):359–373. doi: 10.1007/s11158-017-9356-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiao T. In defense of eating meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2015; 28 (2):277–291. doi: 10.1007/s10806-015-9534-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huemer M. Dialogues on ethical vegetarianism. Routledge; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilea R. Singer, wittgenstein, and morally motivating examples. Between the Species. 2017; 22 (1):1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, R. C. (2016). Veganisms. In Critical Perspectives on Veganism , eds. J Castricano, and R Simonsen, 15–39. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series.
• Kazez J. The taste question in animal ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2018; 35 (4):661–674. doi: 10.1111/japp.12278. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luke B. Justice, caring, and animal liberation. Between the Species. 1992; 8 (2):13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukes S. Marxism and morality. Oxford University Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukes S. Power: A radical view. 2. Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lumsden S. Veganism, normative change, and second nature. Environmental Philosophy. 2017; 14 (2):221–238. doi: 10.5840/envirophil201731045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre A. What is wrong with weakness of will? Journal of Philosophy. 2006; 103 (6):284–311. doi: 10.5840/jphil2006103619. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mill JS. The subjection of women. The Floating Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller D. Ideology and the problem of false consciousness. Political Studies. 1972; 20 (4):432–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1972.tb01435.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills, E. (2019). Factory Farming and Ethical Veganism. Acta Analytica , 34(4), 385–406. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12136-019-00389-x.
• Milburn J. Chewing over in vitro meat: Animal ethics, cannibalism and social progress. Res Publica. 2016; 22 (3):249–265. doi: 10.1007/s11158-016-9331-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moody-Adams MM. Moral progress and human agency. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2017; 20 (1):153–168. doi: 10.1007/s10677-016-9748-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagel T. The possibility of altruism. Clarendon Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nibert D. Animal rights/human rights: Entanglements of oppression and liberation. Rowman and Littlefield; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nibert D. Animal oppression and human violence: Domesecration, capitalism, and global conflict. Columbia University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Sullivan S. Animals and the politics of equity. In: Garner R, O'Sullivan R, editors. The political turn in animal ethics. Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perlo K. Marxism and the underdog. Society and Animals. 2002; 10 (3):303–318. doi: 10.1163/156853002320770092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piazza J, et al. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite. 2015; 91 :114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polsby NW. Community power and political theory. Yale University Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper K. The open society and its enemies. Routledge; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls, J. (2008). Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=3300540 .
• Regan T. The case for animal rights. University of California Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid A. Veganism and the analytic question. Between the Species. 2017; 20 (1):38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rorty AO. the social and political sources of akrasia. Ethics. 1997; 107 (4):644–657. doi: 10.1086/233763. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen M. On voluntary servitude: False consciousness and the theory of ideology. Polity Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosi A, et al. Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto- vegetarian, and vegan diet. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7 (1):6105. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06466-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowlands M. Animal rights: All that matters. Hodder & Stoughton Ltd; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Runciman WG. False consciousness. Philosophy. 1969; 44 (170):303–313. doi: 10.1017/S0031819100009438. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabaté J, Soret S. Sustainability of plant-based diets: Back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014; 100 (1):476S–482S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitz F. animal ethics and human institutions: Integrating animals into political theory. In: Garner R, O'Sullivan R, editors. The political turn in animal ethics. Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Marx: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1980; 9 (4):325–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Animal liberation. The Bodley Head; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Why vegan? Penguin; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephens WO. Five arguments for vegetarianism. Philosophy in the Contemporary World. 1994; 1 (4):25–39. doi: 10.5840/pcw19941424. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam A. Why moral reasoning Is insufficient for moral progress. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2019 doi: 10.1111/jopp.12187. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Telegraph (2019). BBC accused of being partial on poultry with Christmas advert featuring vegan turkeys. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/bbc-accused-partial-poultry-christmas-advert-featuring-vegan Accessed 02/02/2021
• Tuso PJ, et al. Nutritional update for physicians: Plant-based diets. The Permanente Journal. 2013; 17 (2):61–66. doi: 10.7812/tpp/12-085. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twine R. Vegan killjoys at the table—Contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices. Societies. 2014; 4 (4):623–639. doi: 10.3390/soc4040623. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrenn, C. (2019). Why I’m Giving Beyoncé’s Vegan Campaign a Chance. http://www.coreyleewrenn.com/why-im-giving-beyonces-vegan-campaign-a-chance . Accessed 21/07/2019.