vegactivist:

Firstly, exploited undocumented immigrants pick much of the crop yield for many countries, not just the U.S. and this is a huge problem. It’s interesting however, that I only ever see this discussed when veganism is being criticised. This is a criticism of capitalism, not veganism, because as you all know, you eat vegetables too. We actually feed considerably more plants to farmed animals than we ever eat ourselves and livestock take in far more calories in crop feed than they will ever give out in meat, meaning your average omnivorous diet requires significantly more crops and labour than your average vegan diet does. If we look at cows, for example, it takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef. All told, livestock eat 70% of all the grain we produce and 98% of all soy. This means most of the crops these undocumented immigrants pick goes to feed farmed animals, not humans. If the world went vegan, we would add an addition 70% to the world’s global food supply.

If you’re concerned about worker’s rights though, you may want to look into slaughterhouse workers, as they’re some of the most exploited workers in the world, doing one of the most dangerous and harmful jobs imaginable. People working in slaughterhouses are at a far higher chance of being perpetrators of domestic violence compared with the general population, which is thought to be the result of trauma, desensitisation and the normalisation of violence. They are also much more likely than average to have problems with alcohol abuse and with mental health issues like PTSD from working under extremely stressful conditions. They are usually poor immigrants with no other choice.



You claim that we care about animals but not “brown people,” but you’re all silent about the devastating impact that animal agriculture organisations have on their surrounding communities. Industrial farming facilities produce more than 400 different gases, all as a result of the amount of waste they produce, which pollutes local streams and waterways. The real concerns though are hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide. Communities around factory farms are constantly close to hydrogen sulfide, a gas that can cause flu-like symptoms, while high concentrations or exposure can lead to brain damage. Methane can lead to vision problems, heart palpitations, brain damage, trouble breathing, and, with enough exposure, death. Far from coincidentally, these facilities disproportionately effect people of colour, since counties with larger black and lationo populations are home to more factory farms.

As for Quinoa, this has been thoroughly debunked on this site several times. Vegans make up less than 1% of the population, and an even smaller number than that actually eat quinoa. So why exactly is this minuscule number of people being held responsible for the demand for quinoa of the entire western world? Are we suddenly the only ones eating it? The idea that quinoa is mainly exported for white vegans is demonstrably false. Look on any seafood menu and you’ll see that quinoa is served as often with lobster as it is with beans. Don’t get me wrong, there are huge issues with Quinoa, as there are with all staple foods, which are all increasing in price due to a variety of factors including western demand and global warming. Singling out quinoa just because vegans eat it (alongside a great many meat eaters) and using it as a criticism against an entire movement, while conveniently ignoring the massive issues caused by the mono-crops grown to feed farmed animals, is transparently self interested. Using Bolivian farmers as ammunition in your arguments against vegans is quite frankly appalling, especially since you did it with so little care, empathy and analysis that you didn’t even bother to find out where they live first. Bolivia is where most Quinoa is produced, and it is in South America, not South Africa.

As for The Science™, it’s unfortunate that you’re appealing to “science” while using a notorious PBS article which totally misrepresented the result of the original study. If you bother to actually look at the data, you’ll find that the study concluded that veganism required the least land usage on individual levels. The original study has been widely criticised by many in the scientific community due to one key assumption: “Once land has grown soy and oats and wheat to feed animals, after everyone is a vegan, it must go unused forever rather than feed humans - thus is a vegan diet less practical to feed humanity.” In other words, the study’s authors assume that the world went vegan then all the land used to support animal agriculture would go totally unused, which is never justified or explained in the study. An argument can be made that some grazing land is unsuitable for crop growing due to the massive land degradation caused by animal agriculture, but what about all that land devoted to grow soy, wheat and corn for farmed animals? Why on earth would all that land go totally unused?

This is a huge oversight, since as the study itself acknowledges, we can feed significantly more people per acre of land if the land is used to grow crops for humans, rather than as feed for farmed animals or grazing land. Just as an example, if we take a 2.5 acre piece of farmland the number of people whose food energy needs can be met by this land would be 23 people if producing cabbage, 22 for potatoes, 19 for rice, 17 for corn, 15 for wheat, 2 for chicken, and just 1 for eggs and beef. It is undeniable that by any reasonable measurement we could feed far more people using far less land if the world moved towards a vegan diet. This is why even the United Nations is advocating a global shift towards plant based eating. When we consider the massive deforestation required to create grazing land for farmed animals and to grow the crops to feed them, and that 91% of formerly forested amazon cleared since 1971 has been used for cattle grazing, the impact that this would have not only on humans but the environment and endangered species cannot be overstated.

As for the rest of you discussing allergies and disabilities, most vegans are perfectly aware that not everyone can go vegan. While a vegan diet is not inherently any more expensive than an omnivorous diet is, and soy, wheat and nuts are in no way necessary in order to remain healthy on a vegan diet, there are legitimate reasons why a person might not be able to commit to a fully vegan lifestyle. Veganism is, however, about avoiding animal exploitation as far as is practicable. If it is not within your power to avoid all animal products then that’s fine, we understand. You can still reduce your impact by consuming as few animal products as possible, you can still eat vegan to the extent you’re able to, you can still avoid leather and other animal fabrics, you can still boycott non-essential animal tested products and you can still boycott animal entertainment industries. We don’t expect everyone, in every situation to be 100% vegan, we just ask that people try their best rather than take every opportunity to attempt to discredit a movement whose entire goal is to promote the reduction of harm.

As vegans we don’t get annoyed when people genuinely can’t go vegan, we only get annoyed when people use the struggles of crop workers, quinoa farmers, disabled and poor people as little more than fodder to support an anti-vegan agenda, which I’m sorry to say happens all too often. Just because you can’t do everything, doesn’t mean you can’t do anything, and I’d be more than happy to help if any of you have a genuine interest in learning about veganism.