This asshole is why people hate vegans

Anthony Dagher–known to his 932 Twitter followers as @7AnthonyDagher7–is one of veganism’s worst enemies. In case you missed it, Dagher spent a few minutes over the weekend lambasting a fellow vegan who’d purchased some non-vegan ice cream for a distressed child. He’s spent the hours and days since replying to his critics with the blind, facile zeal of a college sophomore.

Like many young vegans, Dagher has fallen into the trap of self-righteousness. He’s why people always ask other vegans, “Why do you care more about cows and chickens than about starving children?” He’s developed sympathy for animals and left humans to fend for themselves.

I understand the temptation, of course. Humans have come to dominate most other species on this planet–certainly those we use for food, anyway. I understand the impulse to protect those who can’t protect themselves from our inhumane practices. The thinking goes something like: humans can fend for themselves, so animals are more deserving of our care.

To me, however, veganism isn’t about prioritizing one species over another. In fact, it’s about showing that all species are equal. An abused man, woman, or child deserves just as much compassion as an abused pig, goat, or fish.

In this particular instance, a woman was buying ice cream for a crying child–someone who was clearly in need of compassion. Would it have been better to purchase vegan ice cream for the kid? In an ideal world, sure–especially if the child weren’t distressed and the woman had the luxury of being choosy. But in the heat of the moment, she made the right decision. And Dagher didn’t.

What’s behind the vegan trend? Could it be…Instagram?

I’ve been vegetarian/vegan for a big chunk of my life. Sure, I’ve gone through periods where I’ve eaten meat, but those have felt more the exception than the rule.

In other words, unlike golf or embroidery or a dozen other things I’ve taken up in spurts over the years, being vegan (or at least vegetarian) feels like a fairly stable part of me, of who I am.

Now, I’m not entirely stupid. I understand that veganism is on-trend these days–the fact that Gordon Ramsay (!!!) has announced plans to go vegan makes that plain as day. Knowing that the trend might fade sooner or later doesn’t worry me. Hell, I’m just happy that more folks are giving veganism a shot. When they do, companies change their offerings to meet demand, and even if those offerings get scaled back, incremental progress has been made.

But there’s an intriguing piece in last week’s Independent that suggests veganism might have some staying power. And it has everything to do with food blogging on Instagram:

So how did veganism go from a mocked subculture to a mainstream lifestyle choice?

According to Google trends, searches for “veganism” have been rising steadily since 2012 in a similar trajectory to “Instagram”.

While the photo-sharing app was launched exclusively on iOS in 2010, it became more widely-used in 2012 when a version for Android devices was released.

Now, with more than 800 million users, it’s practically everyone’s favourite social media platform.

Could it be that Instagram is responsible for veganism’s PR overhaul, in which it has transformed from a kooky diet to an aesthetically-pleasing cacophony of “earth bowls” and “green goddess” smoothies?

“The vegan community are incredibly active online,” explains Beth Trundle, head of food at marketing agency Social Chain.

This is likely because their dietary choices are driven by their fundamental beliefs, she explains, which can boost their social media activity as they are keen to share their passion for veganism with the world.

Is that proof of causality–proof that Instagram gave rise to the current popularity of veganism? No, but it’s an interesting theory. And a pretty interesting read.

Study: If America went vegan, we could feed the entire nation and 350 million more

Another study has shown that going vegan isn’t just good for animals, it’s good for the planet–and for our fellow human beings. The Independent reports:

Of the 327 million people living in America, over 41 million will experience hunger at some point during the year, says the US Department of Agriculture.

However, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, switching to a plant-based lifestyle would allow the nation to feed all 327 million Americans – plus roughly 350 million more.

The new report analysed the potential of US farmland currently dedicated to raising cattle, pigs, and chickens – and the results may surprise some.

According to the research, if this land was used to cultivate plants instead of animals for slaughter, the land and US farmers could feed double the number of people they do now.

If you can handle science writing, here’s a link to the PNAS’ full report. Not sure if you’re up for that today? Check out the abstract:


Food loss is widely recognized as undermining food security and environmental sustainability. However, consumption of resource-intensive food items instead of more efficient, equally nutritious alternatives can also be considered as an effective food loss. Here we define and quantify these opportunity food losses as the food loss associated with consuming resource-intensive animal-based items instead of plant-based alternatives which are nutritionally comparable, e.g., in terms of protein content. We consider replacements that minimize cropland use for each of the main US animal-based food categories. We find that although the characteristic conventional retail-to-consumer food losses are ≈30% for plant and animal products, the opportunity food losses of beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs are 96%, 90%, 75%, 50%, and 40%, respectively. This arises because plant-based replacement diets can produce 20-fold and twofold more nutritionally similar food per cropland than beef and eggs, the most and least resource-intensive animal categories, respectively. Although conventional and opportunity food losses are both targets for improvement, the high opportunity food losses highlight the large potential savings beyond conventionally defined food losses. Concurrently replacing all animal-based items in the US diet with plant-based alternatives will add enough food to feed, in full, 350 million additional people, well above the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food waste. These results highlight the importance of dietary shifts to improving food availability and security.

Monday read:”The Government Knows A Plant-Based Diet Is Best–It Should Make It Official”

This short opinion piece at Fast Company argues that plant-based diets are good–not because they reduce animal suffering, but because they cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Which is a little disappointing, but hey: whatever it takes. Here’s an excerpt:

The latest developments in the food industry show how fast the world is moving forward in countering climate change. Just this week, the global food chain giant McDonald’s announced that it is planning to cut its emissions intensity by 31%, across its supply chain, by 2030. That’s a big deal. It’s the first global restaurant company in the world to set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If McDonalds can lead on this, so should the United States.

We have an opportunity to do that this month. Unfortunately, it won’t be via the farm bill–one effective lever the U.S. government has to reduce food’s carbon footprint–which remains stalled in Congress again. It’s via the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s national dietary guidelines, which are in the process of a rewrite. We could use these guidelines to reduce food-based emissions. And while the USDA has never been a close friend of climate action (it excluded the word ‘sustainability’ from the previous National Dietary Guidelines) the department is accepting public input through March 30 for the 2020-2025 dietary guidelines.

If the U.S. wants to reduce its food-based emissions, the USDA should follow the advice of their advisers. The USDA’s own Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, made up of federally appointed health experts, recommended an increase in plant-based diets three years agobased on both nutritional and sustainability concerns. What should drive our nation’s dietary priorities must be good for both the American people and the planet–otherwise there’s no way to sustain it. And there is no question that a plant-based diet is key to sustainability and our survival.

New law could end the sale of dog meat in South Korea…

…though of course, less cuddly animals will still find themselves on the nation’s menus. Anyway, here’s the report:

The South Korean Government recently made headlines with the announcement that they would be banning the import of cruelly-poached animals, including dolphins caught in the infamous Taiji Cove. And the good news has not stopped there — the South Korean Government has set a new amendment bill that will cover animal rights!

Coexistence of Animal Rights on Earth (CARE) had been pressuring the South Korean Government to address animal welfare issues, like the dog meat trade, and garnered “countless” petition signatures from concerned citizens in support of change. CARE explainsSouth Korea’s new amendment bill as such: “The amendment bill includes a clause that gives provision to establish a policy for the protection of animal rights.”

San Francisco bans fur sales. Should we applaud now?

So, San Francisco has banned the sale of fur. The proposal sailed through the Board of Supervisors with no objections.

Anyone surprised?

San Francisco is the ultra-liberal city your Trump-loving aunt Nora brings up when she wants to describe hell on earth without actually maligning Satan’s home turf. “Eat with chopsticks? Are you kidding? I’d rather move to San Francisco.”

Outlawing fur sales is pretty much spot-on brand for San Francisco, is what I’m trying to say.

To be honest, I wonder how many places in San Francisco even sell fur nowadays. I have a hunch that I could count them on two hands. Possibly one.

I also wonder how many San Franciscans have the nerve to wear fur in public. I mean,  it’s not even that cold.

But for those few folks who refuse to give up their beloved pelts–and I’m sure there are a couple–the new law won’t pose much of a problem. Plenty of other places in California still sell fur coats.

In other words, San Francisco is patting itself on the back for passing a law that has limited impact on businesses and consumers. The minks and chinchillas and foxes it saves will no doubt be grateful.

If cows, pigs, chickens, and fish could shrug, I’m sure they would.

Tipping point: Beef lobby is worried about the threat of “fake meat”

America’s dairy industry understands the threat–or to many of us, the promise–of cruelty-free dairy alternatives like soy, coconut, and almond milk. Its lobbyists are working overtime on legislation that would regulate the use of terms like “milk” and (allegedly) prevent confusion among consumers.

Now, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association is grumbling about the growing number of cruelty-free meat alternatives, and it’s preparing to take action in capitol buildings and courtrooms. To vegans and vegetarians, that should suggest that we’ve reached a tipping point:

The association launched what could be the first salvo in a long battle against plant-based foods. Earlier this month, the association filed a 15-page petition with the U.S. Department of Agriculture calling for an official definition for the term “beef,” and more broadly, “meat.”

“While at this time alternative protein sources are not a direct threat to the beef industry, we do see improper labeling of these products as misleading,” said Lia Biondo, the association’s policy and outreach director. “Our goal is to head off the problem before it becomes a larger issue.”