I want to bring up something that’s come up in a few conversations I’ve had over the past few days in progressive spaces. I am a vegan, and I would say that I make that choice “for all the reasons.” Obviously, animal cruelty is a factor, but also animal agriculture’s disastrous climate change effects and how the industry exploits and harms marginalised people as well here’s an excellent recap of some of these issues (video).

Then I would say I am vegan for my health. However, I don’t separate out the animal or environmental or human rights reasons for my choice or put one more important than the others because I see them as inextricably linked (for example, the effects of climate change disproportionately affect marginalised groups). I have found that veganism gets a unique kind of criticism in progressive spaces. Much of the criticism is not against individual vegans or groups, but often to delegitimize the entire movement. And these arguments are made using the language of social justice. Of course, when arguers cannot make factual arguments, I find that they move to one or both of two other points.





1) Veganism is inherently ableist, and therefore an illegitimate justice movement.

2) Veganism is inherently classist (often this includes a racial component as well), and therefore an illegitimate movement.



Now, to be fair, there are a lot of shitty vegans and shitty vegan groups. I’m not going to say that we’re a perfect movement (what is?). I think PETA is gross and weird. But I don’t think I should have to apologise for them any more than I should have to apologise for Valerie Solanas when I am in feminist conversations. Feminism throughout its history has had a lot of shitty phases, almost too many to list here and I would support people from marginalised groups who would choose not to identify as feminist because of this problematic history. What doesn’t happen is that these people who won’t identify as feminist don’t use the problematic elements of feminism to argue that “there should be no movement to dismantle patriarchy at all.” The only people who would make that argument are reactionaries who would find any reason to invalidate the movement. Anti-vegans however, do argue that veganism’s problematic elements should delegitimize the movement entirely. Have affluent whites become the “face” of veganism? Probably. But doesn’t that happen to most justice movements to some extent? I can assure you that in vegan spaces there is constant debate about this and real efforts to elevate a diversity of voices. I find that leftists do however make the argument that “because there are shitty vegans and vegan groups, veganism is a bad movement and "people should not be vegan/vegans are assholes/vegans told me to die/vegans are cr*zy.” It’s a unique criticism that I don’t see applied across the board.

To address the above points: Ableism

I think this accusation stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of veganism. If we can use the definition from the Vegan Society, “Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.”



I have gotten a lot of flack about this definition recently because apparently no one had ever heard it and have been accused of “making it up to deflect criticism” (the Vegan Society was founded several decades before I was born, but okay). While this definition does not call out disabilities specifically, the section about being “as far as possible and practicable” is relevant to disabilities. So if you need animal products in your diet because you have an illness or you’re in ED recovery, but you can eliminate animal products from your clothing and cosmetics? You’re a vegan. If you can’t breastfeed your child and need to feed them formula with animal-derived vitamin D supplementation, you’re still vegan. That’s why it’s worded this way.

Since veganism is an ethical system that sometimes gets conflated with a diet, you can make strides to align your behaviour with this moral system without necessarily eliminating all animal products from your diet and still be considered vegan. This definition is important because it differentiates veganism from something like abuse or ED, like those stories you hear about parents who starve their children under the guise of “veganism.” In those cases, they are disavowed by vegans in alignment with the above definition. Many people who follow a plant-based diet will not choose the label vegan because it indicates an ethical system which they do not adhere to.

Usually, when I bring this up, I get gaslighted (“I’ve never heard that before, therefore it’s invalid”) or called ableist because the definition doesn’t address any specific disability. I have been told that no justice movement can or should define themselves (WTF) and I have been called elitist for even knowing this definition, something on a non-profit’s publicly available web page.

People with invisible disabilities have told me that thinking about their food choices or changing them would be detrimental to their mental health or aggravate their mental illness. While I am sensitive to that as someone with ADHD, I don’t know where we would draw the line when adhering to any ethical system based on this definition of ableism. If an MRA came into a feminist space and claimed, “I have generalised anxiety and challenging and changing my role in a patriarchal culture gives me PANIC ATTACKS! SAYING I SHOULD BE FEMINIST IS ABLEIST!” there’s no way we would accept that discourse, nor should we. Or should we? If that’s an excuse to call veganism ableist, does it apply to all justice movements?



Second point: Classism

So, naturally, the above definition of veganism covers some classist issues. If you need food from a food pantry and have to accept food with animal products, refusal is not “possible or practicable” and therefore taking that food is consistent with veganism.

I am also told that a vegan diet is more expensive than a non-vegan diet. This is true if you feel you need expensive meat imitations or small batch almond milk ice cream. But any food that isn’t propped up with massive agriculture subsidies will be more expensive than one that is. This claim is decreasing in credibility as studies increase.



I eat rice, beans, corn, bread, bananas, oatmeal, jam, POTATOES OBVIOUSLY, leafy greens with lemon juice and olive oil and things like that. Mostly whole staple foods or as close to it as possible. And there are many resources for eating a plant based on a budget just a Google search away. Certainly, clothing without animal products are cheaper, and the own-brand line of household cleaners at my local supermarket (a nationwide chain) are cruelty-free, and they are also the most affordable option.



When the “expensive on the face of it” claim doesn’t work, I find people move on to “poor people don’t have time to cook!” Which could be true, but how could they ever eat healthily or a recommended diet at all then, with or without meat? Therefore is it inherently classist to be concerned with improving the health of poor people? Is that the position we are supposed to take? Is Jamie Oliver being classist when he tries to change school lunches in poor areas? I DON’T GET IT.

Personally, yesterday I put maybe $5 worth of canned beans and tomatoes into a second-hand crockpot I bought for $10 and maybe $1 worth of brown rice in a second-hand rice cooker. Now I have Tupperware meals for three days. That all took me about 10 minutes of active contact time with the ingredients. Is that a huge amount of time and money? I am privileged; I’ll admit that but how can someone feed themselves with less money or time without resorting to fast food (which in Canada would be significantly more expensive for a daily diet).

Food deserts are a popular buzzword when talking about the inherent privilege of veganism. I find they are spoken about in a causative way, like, “well, because some people live in food deserts, vegans shouldn’t be trying to convince anyone to go vegan or should always be using qualifying language to accommodate people in these socioeconomic crisis states.” Or “vegans should be aware that some people can’t have a diet without meat.” But…we are. We are aware of that. The same way we know some people can’t go vegan because of their disabilities. That’s why the Vegan Society tried to make an inclusive definition; to encourage the idea of “harm reduction” versus “perfection.”



Food deserts seem like a “trounce a vegan free” card because a) their existence is shitty and b) the only food available in food deserts contains animal products and c) vegans think that people in food deserts should go vegan(?)



I’ve never heard another vegan say that individuals in food deserts should go vegan before becoming more food secure. If I could snap my fingers and people in food deserts could have access to fresh fruit and veggies this minute, with enough time to cook it, I ABSOLUTELY WOULD BECAUSE A FOOD DESERT IS A CRISIS STATE AND I HATE THAT ANYONE HAS TO LIVE IN ONE BECAUSE WE VALUE FOOD SECURITY SO LITTLE. THAT IS SUPER SHITTY. Vegans acknowledge this, which is why we reach out to privileged people, who can make changes more easily. Then we are painted as a privileged group because that’s where we focused our efforts, and those people can afford to make the changes (regarding a Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs “affordability”)! We can’t win!

Conclusion: Okay, so these points are pretty annoying as it is because there are poor vegans and vegans with disabilities. I find that making these arguments completely erases the lived experiences of those individuals. And that’s not okay. Moreover, I find that, more often than not, it’s people who aren’t in these marginalised groups who make these arguments on behalf of those who are.

So essentially, what happens is privileged people erase the experiences of marginalised people to make a point about how a movement, which is partly motivated to cease the abuse of marginalised people, is illegitimate. And that’s where I have to jump in. Because fuck that. Fuck that white/able-bodied/middle-class saviour shit. They are saying,



“I, a non-vegan, will tell vegans what poor people and PwD can and cannot do. One of those things is veganism. Because people with disabilities and poor people literally can’t do anything. And if there are vegans with disabilities or poor vegans, I will choose to ignore their experiences to make my point. I know this. Me. Although that may sound incredibly ableist and classist on its face, I think you’ll find if you think about it, the vegans are the real ableists and classists.”



And that not okay with me. It wouldn’t be okay for me to use poor or PwD to make my points and it shouldn’t be okay when arguing against veganism either.

And even if someone is in those marginalised groups, still fuck that. People with disabilities aren’t exempt from treating other PwD as a cudgel, we all know that.

But here’s the thing. These arguments work. All the leftists nod their heads and call us the assholes and call our movement illegitimate. Or say that we should focus on “systemic factors,” like changing the food system. By demanding a different kind of food. Which is what we do. By necessity. Every goddamn day.

I don’t care about reactionary arguments against veganism because they would not use the language of social justice or so-called “identity politics” to delegitimise it. But I feel like vegans and leftists should be natural allies, particularly in this changing time of left-wing politics. But I feel like we can’t get past it until non-vegans stop using ableism and privilege as a weapon against us.

tl;dr when in arguments about veganism in progressive spaces, leftists reappropriate the language of social justice to label vegans as ableist and classist and call us even worse ableists and elitists when we provide counterarguments. If you do this, you need to stop. You need to stop using marginalised people as a cudgel against a movement which is specifically interested in the cessation of abuse against marginalised people especially if you are not in a marginalised group yourself. If you have gotten to this point and are about to fire off some righteous outrage or some ideological purity test outside of the definition of veganism given above, particularly on behalf of someone who isn’t like you, maybe stop and sit with that feeling for a moment and try to figure out why defensiveness is your immediate reaction, instead of seeing the similarities between vegans and your social movements. Is it worth it? Reactionaries love us divided. Let’s be allies, not enemies.

