In the last few years there has been an increasing trend towards choosing a vegan lifestyle. That is, one that abstains from the use of any, and all animal products. Once reserved for staunch nonconformists, it is now mainstream. At every turn and every swipe of the phone screen, one is bombarded with more and more images of acai bowls, stands at farmer’s markets and lithe bodies attributing their results to the vegan lifestyle.

Predictably, many companies have tailored advertisements to portray their products as ones that are in accordance with the spirit of the vegan lifestyle, even if what they are selling is inconsistent with the core beliefs of veganism. These ads, in addition to endorsements from media personalities, have a tremendous influence on hundreds of thousands of impressionable young followers. This indoctrination from social media celebrities and online advertisements makes the idea of veganism not only attractive, but under the guise of a moral high ground, pressures many to make the switch, lest they be faced with social shaming.

Although the trend of being more conscious about food choices and their effect on the environment is commendable, one must pause to ask why veganism has become so popular, arguable trendy and if in fact, it is the most ethical choice of lifestyle as it is argued to be.

This article will address ethical veganism, which is distinct from veganism motivated by health reasons. Ethical veganism is based on the premise that all sentient beings have the same right to life. Accordingly, it is ethically wrong to kill or use any animals for human consumption or gain. A consistent vegan expands this core principle to all other life choices. It carries on to all other consumption — from clothing purchased to the use of transportation.

For example, a consistent vegan would not drive a high emission vehicle while omitting meat from their diet, as the emissions from their daily commute would eventually lead to the loss of life and suffering not only for the livestock they did not consume, but for many other animal species, including humans. A consistent vegan would be obligated to follow their food from cradle to grave to ensure no harm came to animals in the process. Moreover, he/she would have to purchase locally grown and organic foods to minimize effects of pesticides and carbon emissions. A consistent vegan would not purchase fast fashion items given that their production and distribution causes much detriment to the environment, contributes to global warming and causes human exploitation and suffering.

If veganism is a choice made based on the respect of all life and for the protection of the rights of sentient beings, there is a huge inconsistency between the core idea and the reality of its practice, especially in what is being marketed through some social media channels. The argument then cannot be whether veganism successfully eliminates suffering and harm, because it is impossible to continue existing and eliminate suffering on the rest of the world.

To achieve the level of consistency described above, one would have to disappear or become freegan (eating food that would otherwise be wasted by others) and self sustaining in all life’s needs — perhaps more difficult to achieve than a sudden disappearance. Accordingly, one logical inference is that this is near impossible if not entirely so. Eliminating harm to the environment cannot be done while one exists upon it. At the core of this issue is that such a level of consistency is not necessarily understood or attainable by most people choosing to become vegan, especially when the choice is made in order to emulate a celebrity. This reduces veganism to a trend and a poorly understood one at that.

There are inherent inconsistencies in the belief that following a vegan diet is the best way to reduce animal death and suffering. Unless locally sourced and grown without pesticides, the farming and transport of the food staples in a vegan diet contributes to global warming and causes the deaths of mammals and insects through the process of harvesting. If it is wrong to kill an animal because it has rights, how do we reconcile the deaths of animals in plant agriculture? Not only are animals accidentally killed in the production of crops, poisoned from pesticide runoff, or unable to survive because their habitat has been destroyed, they are killed intentionally as well. “Pest” animals are poisoned and shot to protect crops. What happened to their sentience, the basis of their rights?

But what of intention? Some might argue that it is the intention that matters, not the end result. It is okay to harm the animal if it is done accidentally or it is not the intended effect. Following that logic, it is not the intention of those who consume meat that the animal die either. For it is only their intention to be fed, it just so happens that you must kill animals in order to eat meat. Since meat is the intended end, not the killing of animals, it is okay to eat meat. That argument does not substantiate the choice to be a vegan, nor does it invalidate the choice to consume meat.

Why then has veganism been so popular when it is not consistent in today’s society with the basic tenants that it is based on? One explanation is that the reasons are mostly symbolic. Veganism, when considered at the surface level, should not harm animals, although indirectly it harms many. If there existed a diet that met this no harm criteria, it would at first glance, look very much like veganism. It may be difficult to accept that there are no real avenues through which to live a life that causes no harm to other sentient beings. Therefore, by focusing on what is seen and what is tangible — namely no meat in the diet and no animals directly killed by food choices, one can ignore the unseen. And this unseen harm is much greater in the aggregate and the totality of the circumstances.

It is perhaps immediate gratification that the masses are after. This marketable, shareable image of a life that ought to be, instead of one that alights with personal virtues. For such a life is not altogether possible, it does not photograph well, nor does it get many likes, shares or retweets. Therefore, the question cannot be how to live a life that does not harm animals, for it is a constant balance between harm to the outside world and harm to the self. And if it is for the protection of others’ lives that being vegan is the most ethical choice, there is an inconsistency at this core level. If the choices made are to spare animal suffering, veganism fails its proponents. Perhaps indirectly and less obviously but just as surely, it leads to animal injury, suffering, and death.

In this search for how to live a more sustainable, conscious and environmentally friendly life, one can begin by examining the issues with a critical eye, by reflecting inward instead of relying on the misguided messages of media personalities.