In defence of the vegan project

Animal board invited review: Animal source foods in healthy, sustainable, and ethical diets - An argument against drastic limitation of livestock in the food system

Animal source foods are evolutionarily appropriate foods for humans. It is therefore remarkable that they are now presented by some as unhealthy, unsustainable, and unethical, particularly in the urban West. The benefits of consuming them are nonetheless substantial, as they offer a wide spectrum of nutrients that are needed for cell and tissue development, function, and survival. They play a role in proper physical and cognitive development of infants, children, and adolescents, and help promote maintenance of physical function with ageing. While high-red meat consumption in the West is associated with several forms of chronic disease, these associations remain uncertain in other cultural contexts or when consumption is part of wholesome diets. Besides health concerns, there is also widespread anxiety about the environmental impacts of animal source foods. Although several production methods are detrimental (intensive cropping for feed, overgrazing, deforestation, water pollution, etc.) and require substantial mitigation, damaging impacts are not intrinsic to animal husbandry. When well-managed, livestock farming contributes to ecosystem management and soil health, while delivering high-quality foodstuffs through the upcycling of resources that are otherwise non-suitable for food production, making use of marginal land and inedible materials (forage, by-products, etc.), integrating livestock and crop farming where possible has the potential to benefit plant food production through enhanced nutrient recycling, while minimising external input needs such as fertilisers and pesticides. Moreover, the impacts on land use, water wastage, and greenhouse gas emissions are highly contextual, and their estimation is often erroneous due to a reductionist use of metrics. Similarly, whether animal husbandry is ethical or not depends on practical specificities, not on the fact that animals are involved. Such discussions also need to factor in that animal husbandry plays an important role in culture, societal well-being, food security, and the provision of livelihoods. We seize this opportunity to argue for less preconceived assumptions about alleged effects of animal source foods on the health of the planet and the humans and animals involved, for less top-down planning based on isolated metrics or (Western) technocratic perspectives, and for more holistic and circumstantial approaches to the food system.

Meat as a Pharmakon: An Exploration of the Biosocial Complexities of Meat Consumption

In contemporary dietary advice, meat is depicted as a pharmakon: it is believed to either heal or poison the human body (and mind). Often, it also serves as a scapegoat for a wide range of public health issues and other societal problems. Related attitudes, practices, and beliefs pertain to a demarcated mode of thinking or episteme that is characteristic for the so-called post-domestic or industrialized societies. The latter are not only typified by an abundant yet largely concealed production of meat, but increasingly also by moral crisis and confusion about its nutritional meaning. For an improved appreciation of the ambiguous position of meat in human health and disease, as well as the concomitant scattering into different subject positions (e.g., the omnivore, flexitarian, vegetarian, vegan, permaculturalist, and carnivore position), an interdisciplinary approach is required. To this end, the current study tentatively combines food research with a selection of (post-structuralist) concepts from the humanities. The aim is to outline a historical and biosocial need for meat (as well as its rejection) and to analyze how its transformative effects have contributed to a polarized discourse on diet and well-being in academia and society at large. Excessive categorization (for instance with respect to meat's alleged naturalness, normalness, necessity, and niceness) and Manichean thinking in binary opposites are among the key factors that lead to impassioned yet often sterile debates between the advocates and adversaries of meat eating in a post-truth context.

The pitfalls of qualified moral veganism. A critique of Jan Deckers' holistic health approach to animal ethics

I critically examine Jan Deckers' position in Animal (De)liberation, where he defends two main views. The first is "qualified moral veganism": Most humans have a duty to abstain from consuming animal products, even if there are circumstances in which doing so is justified. The author argues, on the one hand, from a pan-sentientist view that attributes sentience to all elementary entities and their compounds. Thus, all living things (such as animals and plants) have a capacity for positive and negative experiences. On the other hand, he develops a consequentialist view that assigns moral agents the unconditional duty to promote their own "holistic health." This is partly constituted by the agent's "moral health," that is, her acting in a morally justified way. On Deckers' view, moral agents must care for the health of all living entities, give greater weight to the interests of organisms to which they are more closely biologically related, and respect the integrity of nature. Diets containing animal products have a very high negative health impact, because of how they affect the environment, human food security, and the well-being of nonhuman animals. In addition, even though plants are sentient, they are likely less so than animals, and their interests must be given less weight. Therefore, most humans should shift to a vegan diet. Deckers' second proposal is that a qualified ban on the consumption of animal products should be enacted. After discarding other alternative strategies, Deckers defends its feasibility relying on data obtained via a series of surveys. Though the argument partly succeeds in developing a coherent account accommodating the author's intuitions, I conclude that his ontological and normative frameworks remain too underdeveloped, his appeal to biological relatedness has implausible implications, and the methodology he uses in defence of his political position is problematic.