-Matt Ball
originally published 6/10/02; updated 8/17/07

It seems inevitable that, at one point or another, the majority of vegetarian advocates are struck by the inspiration of focusing on "the health argument." They feel that we can avoid confrontation and controversy, while reaching everyone, by just appealing to people’s self-interest.

What Weight Does The Health Argument Carry?

The advocates of the health argument believe that Americans are obsessed with health, especially as the Baby Boomers approach retirement. They point to the booming health-food industry, nutrition supplement sales, and all the popular diets.

Probably the main health concern for Americans (at least as related directly to diet) is their weight. Yet this obsession with being thin has not lead to any significant change for the better. As reported in a 2006 U.S. Department of Health and Human services summary, "During 1995--2005, obesity prevalence increased significantly (p<0.01) in all states.” Also (with additional statistics from the Feb. 2002 Scientific American):

Percent of adults who were overweight in:
1980: 33%
2005 : 60.5%

Percent who were obese in:
1980: 15%
2005 : 23.9%

Number of states where obesity rates was greater than 15% in:
1991: 4
2005: 50 (lowest rate was 17.4%)

Obesity-related disabilities and mortality are also rising rapidly. Given that many organizations and government agencies (with significantly greater prestige and resources than vegetarian groups) are dedicated to promoting better health for U.S. citizens, it does not appear that health arguments are carrying (or shedding) a lot of weight in this country.* It is true that the “health food” industry is experiencing a boom, but it appears that it is easy to get someone to eat an additional something else (soy, red wine, dark chocolate), but it is infinitely more difficult to get people to give up something (even something for which there is a substitute, like chicken for red meat).

This is borne out by the statistics of specific consumption. After decades of mainstream calls for healthier eating, as well as stories about contamination, per-capita consumption has not decreased significantly for any animal type -- including "red meat. The exception isveal, where the concern is ethical. After decades of the health argument by both animal advocates and the "cut back on red meat" mainstream establishment, the average number of animals eaten per person each year in the U.S. is at its all-time high -- again, except for veal, where the argument behind the decline is ethical.

Per Capita Consumption, lbs

ERS Agricultural Outlook / December 2005

From Where Do The Health Arguments Come?

Yet many (if not most) veg advocates assume the superiority of their diet. Given the relatively isolated nature of vegetarians, it is somewhat understandable that some want to believe only the best about their beliefs. It is common that minorities, in creating their unifying mythology, selectively read supporting ideas, exaggerate some results while ignoring others, and misrepresent some facts.

Where Can The Health Arguments Lead?

It is well known (and widely advocated) in the U.S. that one can improve their health by maintaining a healthy weight and eating less cholesterol and saturated fat. To the extent that some (especially those who are older and/or have experienced health problems) are concerned with their health, this understanding of nutrition inclines them to eat chicken and fish. In combination with the decrease in the price of chicken (once a luxury item: “a chicken in every pot!”), the health arguments have aided the absolutely staggering increase in the number of chickens (and fish) killed for food every year during the past few decades. The worst of it, though, is that while one can argue that eating less meat (to a point) can improve health, one cannot honestly argue that an animal-free diet is inherently healthier than a well-planned omnivorous diet.

Ignoring the increase in the slaughter of chicken/fish and per-capita animal consumption, is there any other evidence as to the success of focusing on the health argument?

Even if most people who hear pro-vegetarian health arguments ignore them or choose to eat more chickens and fishes instead of cows and pigs, it might be expected that true vegetarianism (as opposed to self-proclaimed yet animal-eating “vegetarians”) would be gaining some ground. Is this true, in our society allegedly obsessed with weight and health, being bombarded with anti-cholesterol and anti-fat messages, and host to a number of health-pushing vegetarian groups? As of ten years ago, the percentage of the U.S. population who were vegetarian had hardly changed in many decades. Having noted this failure to grow, Donna Maurer concluded in her dissertation (1997) about the vegetarian movement in North America, “the strategies that vegetarian groups enact to promote ‘healthy diets’ for each individual’s personal benefit inhibit people from adopting a collective vegetarian identity based on moral concern regarding human/animal relationships; without commitment to this moral concern, ‘being a vegetarian’ is a lifestyle vulnerable to changing personal and cultural tastes.”

Are There Any Upsides to The Health Arguments?

For those concerned with reducing suffering, it is important to realize that the people most likely to actually eat fewer animals because of the health arguments are often those with health problems so serious that they are nearly forced to change. For the most part, these are older people who have already spent their entire lifetime eating animals. Thus, the “payoff” of any reduction in eating animals is relatively small, compared to a younger person who changes.

This is not to say that these people’s vegetarianism is not a positive thing. With our limited resources and the enormity of the task at hand, however, we can't pursue every tactic that has had some success. Rather, we must maximize the amount of good we do per hour worked and dollar donated. Outreach to younger audiences (who, as discussed here, are relatively more open to new things, and have a lifetime of eating ahead of them) is the area with the greatest potential payoff and where we should focus our efforts.

In the promotion of animal liberation, each individual’s example and actions as a spokesperson are at least as important as the economic impact their individual choices have. Promoting a “plant-based” diet for health reasons feeds our society’s focus on selfishness by implying that animal suffering is not worthy of people’s concern. It delays the time when we, as a society, will come to terms with our treatment of animals.

Conclusions: Effectively Promoting The Health Argument

Be honest with yourself.

Just cutting animal products out of your diet will not make you healthier. As pointed out above, vegans do not have better mortality rates than non-vegans.** For this reason, I believe it is imperative that advocates move beyond the veg mythology. It is entirely possible that, with proper understanding and planning, a vegan diet can be as healthy as any other. But a thorough understanding of all aspects of vegan nutrition, especially nutrients that need attention, is necessary.

Be honest with others.

A first duty of advocates is knowledge. We must be knowledgeable in order to set a good example, and to offer honest information to potential new vegans. While it feels better to say, “Go vegan and you’ll lose weight, have more energy, and never get cancer or suffer from heart disease!” this is not only untrue (and comes across as propaganda to the skeptical), but it sets up potential vegetarians for failure. People who follow a vegetarian or vegan diet to feel healthier will resume consuming animal products if they feel no improvement. Because they do not necessarily have their hearts into being vegetarian or vegan, they often will not experiment with it long enough to find a way of eating that makes them feel healthy. This can have far-reaching, negative effects, as they go on to tell others how unhealthy they felt when they were vegetarian or vegan.

Even those who are motivated for stronger reasons are likely to revert if their health suffers. Those who continue with a poorly-planned, unhealthy vegetarian diet set an example likely to turn off anyone interested. (Many veg advocates, whose information has come from self-selecting via veg groups, have little or no experience with “failed” vegetarians. Unfortunately, during our 17 years of activism, we have encountered a disheartening number of people claiming “I was a vegetarian for a while…”.)

Carefully consider the best use of your time / resources.

Given that many larger organizations and agencies have been arguing for lowering cholesterol and saturated fat for years, will your advocacy add much to common knowledge? Will it do the best to alleviate suffering, compared to other forms of advocacy? That bottom line -- reducing suffering -- must always be foremost on our mind.

Post Script 1: An Example

There is an incredibly passionate community of people committed to promoting raw foodism as the optimal, natural diet. They have their set of arguments and “scientific” studies to support their position, and are quick to attack anyone who dares to question them.

Like other diets (vegan, low-carb, ultra-low-fat, etc.), some people thrive on a raw food diet. But many fail at their attempt to “go raw,” just as is the case for other types of diets. As an outsider who knows a few "failed" raw-foodists, it is easy for me to look at the raw foodist community and say, "Hey, there is something wrong here. I think they should re-evaluate their position and advice." But it is rare for this attitude to take root inside a closed community.

The same is true of the vegetarian community. For example, there is a depressingly long list of famous ex-vegetarians who have said how their health has improved after they starting to eat meat again, including Michael Stipe (R.E.M.), Prince, Marilyn Diamond (Fit for Life), Mollie Katzen (The Moosewood Cookbook), Tracy Pollan (Mrs. Michael J. Fox), etc. Yet many animal advocates are committed to proclaiming veganism as the only healthy diet, and with the same fervor as many raw foodists.

Instead of insisting that everyone else “drink the Kool-Aid,” if we are concerned with having veganism grow, we have to recognize and accept the bad outcomes so as to be able to learn from them.

Post Script 2:

The Relationship between Consumption of Animal Products and Risk of Chronic Diseases: A Critical Review

From the Summary:

"The effects of animal products on risk of chronic diseases are an area of considerable controversy. ... [I]international correlations between per capita food consumption and disease rates are seriously confounded by other lifestyle factors associated with economic affluence. ... One of the most comprehensive correlational studies conducted within a country is the China-Oxford-Cornell study.... These correlations, although informative and valuable in many ways, cannot be used to establish causal relationships between dietary factors and disease risk. The limitations of geographical correlations were precisely stated by Drs Doll and Peto:

Trustworthy epidemiological evidence, it should be noted, always requires demonstration that a relationship holds for individuals (or perhaps small groups) within a large population as well as between large population groups. Correlation between the incidence of cancer in whole towns or whole countries and, for example, the consumption of particular items of food can, at most, provide hypotheses for investigation by other means. Attempts to separate the roles of causative and of confounding factors by statistical techniques of multiple regression analysis have been made often, but evidence obtained in this way is, at best, of only marginal value.

"Indeed, some of the correlations produced from the China-Oxford-Cornell study are peculiar and probably incorrect. For example, esophageal cancer had no clear association with smoking, and had a negative correlation with daily alcohol intake. These results are clearly contradictory to the well-established findings from studies of individuals that both smoking and alcohol use are strong risk factors for esophageal cancer. In addition, the study did not find a clear association between meat consumption and risk of heart disease or major cancers."

*The fantasy is, of course, that people just haven't tried the whole-foods vegan approach to losing weight, and if they just went vegan (or raw, or another marginal diet), they would lose weight. But the basic nature of maintaining a healthy weight -- burn as many calories as you consume -- is well known, yet obesity rates continue to rise. I believe that if so many people are unwilling to make relatively simple changes (e.g., moderate portion sizes) to avoid becoming obese and harming their health, it is naive to think that a significant portion of the current population will give up their favorite and familiar foods and follow a diet quite different from their friends and family for "health" reasons.

**Mortality rates, with confidence intervals:

Regular Meat Eaters: 1.00
Occasional Meat Eaters: .84 (.77, .90)
Fish Eaters: .82 (.77, .96)
Lacto/ovo vegetarians:.84 (.74, .96)
Vegans: 1.00 (.70, 1.44)

Subscribe to Vegan Outreach enewsletter to keep up on events