my vegan brain dump...and your thoughts on it

[SupaFly]

Since I’m new here, but not new to veganism, I’d like to share my thoughts on a bunch of different topics, and hopefully they can help people who are new to veganism, or maybe some of you can point out any problems with my thinking. I don’t work for any vegan-related company, I’m just a concerned global citizen (mostly concerned about animals), and I’ve spent a decent amount of time in the past 10 years researching these topics.

Philosophy: I started another post about some of my recent thinking on this topic and some of the philosophers who I think are raising important questions currently. I think the strongest argument against veganism is crop deaths, but I haven’t been convinced, and I think Andy Lamey makes the best case against that argument. Please refer to my other post for more about this.

Vitamins: I also posted on another thread about this. Unless you want to be very attentive about what foods you eat, and make sure you are getting all the micronutrients and blood tests you need, it’s easiest to just take a multivitamin each day. Same goes for non-vegans. There are two options for vegans that I know of which are an all-in-one pill. The one I use is called Complement Plus from Alpine Organics. Another one can be found at holierlife dot com.

Greens and Tofu: Leafy green veggies (like kale) are probably the most nutritious foods but also least liked. If you don’t like eating salads, best option is to buy a good blender and mix with fruit to mask the taste. You can also add in all other kinds of plants to change the taste, texture, and nutrition. If you like to cook, learn to make tofu in all kinds of ways and in all kinds of dishes. Buying a tofu-press can make things easier.

Meat, dairy, and egg substitutes: There are tons of options and brands out there. If you don’t like one, try another. The newest products gaining traction are Beyond Sausage and Just Egg. You can use Just Egg like regular liquid eggs, and even cook in the microwave very easily, and if you want the exact flavor of eggs you can add Himalayan black salt (also called Kala namuk).

Veganic food: This is food made using only plant-based cultivation techniques instead of the typical animal manure fertilizer. The only large brand I know of doing this is called One Degree Organics. They do cereals, flours, and breads. They are all delicious and probably healthier than others.

Honey and other minor ingredients: If you want to be a strict vegan, you can remove minor animal based ingredients from your diet, and also clothes and such, but if that becomes too daunting, don’t worry about it and just focus on the basic stuff like meat, dairy, and eggs. That’s where the bulk of harm comes from.

Lab meat: Slaughter-free animal products are not commercially available yet, although they may be in the next year or two. This along with more advanced plant-based substitutes may be the best chance we have for a major change in the world’s diet. Most consumers primarily care about taste, price, and convenience. I encourage everyone to recommend lab meat to others when they come to market, and in the meantime recommend plant based products from companies like Beyond Meat, Impossible Foods, Just, Gardein, and even vegan products from traditional animal based companies and restaurants.

Freegan leftovers: Most people don’t want to or can’t go dumpster diving, but food waste is a huge problem, especially since even vegan foods cause some animal harm. So try your best to eat everything you buy and encourage others to do the same. If you’re not grossed out by eating animal products, there’s nothing inherently wrong in eating something non-vegan if it will be thrown out.

Food amounts: Please don’t assume that because some food is vegan, there is no issue with eating tons of it. As stated previously, probably most, if not all foods cause some amount of harm to animals and the environment, so the less we eat the better. No need to starve ourselves, but also no need to greatly eat more than is nutritionally necessary.

Dogs: Many people start thinking more critically about their relationships with animals by virtue of having a dog or other pet in their life. If you can, it is great to foster/rescue. It is also great to feed them vegan dog food. There are tons of brands out there. Unfortunately, many of them use peas as a main ingredient, and there is currently investigations going on that show peas may cause heart issues in some breeds, especially golden retrievers. Because of this, I would recommend something not pea-based, like Natures Recipe Healthy Skin Vegetarian Recipe, which gets its protein from soybeans.

Activism: If all you want to do is be vegan or mostly vegan, that’s great. If you can foster/rescue animals and feed them vegan, that’s even better. If you can do animal activism, that’s also usually a good thing. Just do what you enjoy. I don’t think there is any conclusive proof that one type of activism is better than another. Just try to be nice and not too annoying.

Farm sanctuaries: If you like animals, I encourage everyone to become active with their local farm sanctuary. If you don’t have a farm sanctuary, try an animal shelter, although plenty of non-vegans support them already. Farm sanctuaries remind us of the good in the world. They also point us to what our collective future could look like.

If you read this far, thank you. Hopefully some people found this information helpful, and if you disagree vehemently with anything I wrote, please let me know. I enjoy learning and trying to do better.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't think crop deaths are a strong argument since they're very few and animal agriculture consumes the majority of crops anyway.

I think DEVA's multivitamin is also very popular.

I don't think adopting dogs is effective altruism due to the high cost of saving one life. Maybe it can foster some compassion for animals but if you're already vegan that would not seem to be necessary; it's better to spend that money on an effective animal charity. Of course if you just want to adopt a dog that's different, but I don't think we should consider it a cost effective means of doing good.
Now adopting a chicken or other farmed animal may be more useful, to help people see them more as pets/friends than food.

[Graeme M]

BrimstoneSalad, I would have thought crop deaths are a significant concern for veganism, if not in fact then almost certainly in the popular consideration. However, I think it is in reality a major hurdle for veganism as an ethical strategy (though I can think of ethically consistent solutions). Why do you say that crop related deaths are few and that animal ag consumes most crops?

[brimstoneSalad]

BrimstoneSalad, I would have thought crop deaths are a significant concern for veganism, if not in fact then almost certainly in the popular consideration.

People look for flippant and insincere responses to dismiss veganism. Doesn't mean they're valid.

However, I think it is in reality a major hurdle for veganism as an ethical strategy (though I can think of ethically consistent solutions).

Focusing on crop deaths at this juncture would not be very time effective. It would be like trying to control the rodent population to prevent infection from rat bites in the trenches of WWII. Maybe focus on stopping the bullets and bombs first?

Why do you say that crop related deaths are few

Because the only existing evidence suggests they are very small. Mostly due to predators eating rodents when the cover is removed, and it's not clear if there ARE actually more deaths, or if the deaths are just more concentrated around harvest (with fewer deaths in other times to make up for it).

and that animal ag consumes most crops?

Thermodynamics? You have to feed animals much more food to eat the animals than you would have to feed humans directly.

[Graeme M]

I'm not convinced, I guess. Crop deaths is a subject that is frequently referred to by those who wish to criticise veganism and if there isn't a cogent response it leads to a loss of credibility. I think you are wrong to suggest that crop deaths (which is really a euphemism for harms accruing from crop agriculture) is both insignificant and largely due to animal ag.

While many vegan activists claim that most crops are grown to feed farmed animals, this is a slight distortion of the truth. Certainly, CAFOs drive a lot of crop production and we know for example that a lot of land is cleared for soy. Soy meal as a feed source is a major contributor, but unfortunateky nearly 100% of all soy grown also services the human supply chain. At a sort of general level, we cannot claim that most of the world's soy is grown to feed animals. Most of it does end up being used by people. It's a little more complex than the simplistic vegan meme.

As well, crop related harms are substantial, ranging from impacts on local ecologies from clearing land for crops to loss of biodiversity due to monoculture crop systems, extensive harm and suffering from animal populations due to use of chemicals, and ongoing losses of species due to those same chemicals. In terms of specific deaths in crop production, and disregarding insects, there are more than the few deaths resulting from harvesting. Pest control is a big one, ranging from poisoning of rodents up to control of animals seen as pests that compete with the farmer (eg here in Australia we have kangaroos and feral pigs and many others).

No-one has made a very accurate estimate of the numbers of animals harmed per hectare per year from crop related activities, but it could be anywhere from a handful up to as many as 100. The killer argument in that regard is that it is possible to still raise animals for food while minimising both ecological and environmental harms and minimising actual deaths and pain and suffering. It's hard in the public mind to see a field of wheat with the associated harm that incurs as being somehow more desirable than an open range with natural grass and tree cover and grazing cattle.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not convinced, I guess. Crop deaths is a subject that is frequently referred to by those who wish to criticise veganism and if there isn't a cogent response it leads to a loss of credibility.

Part of the complexity is that it's an epistemological issue, and one of complex moral consideration because you have to look also at the alternative baseline of harm to understand what actual harm agriculture is doing, as well as consideration for culpability (like natural predators, which most people will take to be less wrong than and end directly from human hands).

I think you are wrong to suggest that crop deaths (which is really a euphemism for harms accruing from crop agriculture) is both insignificant and largely due to animal ag.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but thermodynamics isn't wrong. Animal agriculture causes disproportionate harm due to the sheer acreage and amount of feed input it requires. There's not any practical way to avoid that.

That doesn't mean that vegan crops cause no harm, but the fact that they cause less is ALL we need to understand to see that a vegan diet causes less overall harm and thus should be preferred. Is there something better than vegan, like a vegan+, that we could aspire to? Perhaps. Maybe that's some kind of veganic agriculture. But that's aside from the point that people should go vegan and animal agriculture should be ended. It's also not a consumer option to choose veganic most of the time. If and once the world goes vegan or mostly vegan I'm sure there will be more consumer options as to the production of plant foods. Like there was no such thing as "fair trade" while most of the world was literally using slaves.

Certainly, CAFOs drive a lot of crop production and we know for example that a lot of land is cleared for soy. Soy meal as a feed source is a major contributor, but unfortunateky nearly 100% of all soy grown also services the human supply chain. At a sort of general level, we cannot claim that most of the world's soy is grown to feed animals. Most of it does end up being used by people. It's a little more complex than the simplistic vegan meme.

I don't think you understand the point. Thermodynamically, meat requires more resources to produce than an equivalent plant meal, period. You're not going to violate physics with magical cows.

Obviously there are coproducts that are used in animal agriculture, like soybean meal left behind after soybean oil extraction, cottonseed, etc. but you can't obfuscate reality on that basis. In terms of calories in vs. calories out, resources in vs. resources out, animal foods are simply inefficient. Just because there's a little overlap in some products doesn't undermine the fundamental differences in food production. You can follow industry guidelines and calculate the nutrients these animals are consuming vs. the nutrients in the yield via FCR; there's a large loss there. Of course the harms are greater for animal agriculture than for vegan foods based on that difference in efficiency alone.

As well, crop related harms are substantial, ranging from impacts on local ecologies from clearing land for crops

Grazing is a leading cause of deforestation, not tofu. There's plenty of evidence for disproportionate impact from animal agriculture on this and every metric.

to loss of biodiversity due to monoculture crop systems

Animal agriculture, again, has been identified as a leading cause of extinction.
If you want to prevent ecological harm, you have to use less land for agriculture which means cutting out inefficient systems like animal agriculture.

extensive harm and suffering from animal populations due to use of chemicals,

That's a big fear mongery claim. Were are you getting this?
Modern farming practices use pesticides very sparingly; they are expensive after all. The EPA and comparable environmental government organizations regulate usage for large farms. More harmful is actually lawn care which is largely unregulated.

In either case, if you have a problem with chemikills, animal agriculture again is a disproportionate contributor.

and ongoing losses of species due to those same chemicals.

Again, where are you getting this? And again, animal agriculture specifically has been identified as a leading cause of extinction by peer reviewed studies.

E.g. http://trophiccascades.forestry.oregons ... a_2015.pdf

The consumption of animal-sourced food products by humans is one of the most powerful negative forces affecting the conservation of terrestrial ecosystems and biological diversity. Livestock production is the single largest driver of habitat loss, and both livestock and feedstock production are increasing in developing tropical countries where the majority of biological diversity resides.

There was also a more recent one I think, but that came up first.

Do you think these researchers who study this and all of the peer reviewers are just so incredibly stupid that they forgot that some soybean products are consumed by humans, and in fact it's human consumption of soybean oil that's doing all of this and not the livestock production? It seems like a rather conspiratorial worldview. Concern over animal agriculture and land cleared for grazing and feed production has been echoed by major governmental orgs and NGOs.

It's not controversial, and by pretending it is all you're doing is feeding the fire of conspiratorial anti-veganism.
People can deny the science on anything, and claim anything is controversial -- from evolution to climate change to the very shape of the Earth -- saying it is and appealing to ignorance doesn't make it so.

In terms of specific deaths in crop production, and disregarding insects, there are more than the few deaths resulting from harvesting.

That's what I was referring to, and the studies we have indicate that they are not large numbers.

Pest control is a big one, ranging from poisoning of rodents up to control of animals seen as pests that compete with the farmer (eg here in Australia we have kangaroos and feral pigs and many others).

All of which applies even more so to animal agriculture. And even in places like Australia.

No-one has made a very accurate estimate of the numbers of animals harmed per hectare per year from crop related activities, but it could be anywhere from a handful up to as many as 100.

Whatever number it is, again it is more for animal agriculture. Current evidence suggests that it's a small number though at least in harvest.
Rare phenomena like mouse plagues are different, but with modern technology they seem to be controlled before populations explode.

The killer argument in that regard is that it is possible to still raise animals for food while minimising both ecological and environmental harms and minimising actual deaths and pain and suffering.

First, the "possible" argument is asinine. It isn't done, so it's irrelevant. It's also possible to grow vegan food without causing any harm to the animals there. There are veganic permaculture food forests and such.

Second, no it isn't possible: not for meat.

1. The land required for 100% grass feeding is not available. The entire planet and likely more would have to be converted into pasture. Grass feeding is not land efficient, it's way worse than factory farming in terms of land use.

2. The global ecological impacts in terms of climate change would be even more dramatic, because grazed cattle take longer to grow and produce more methane along the way. You're also presumably calling for people to eat meat based diets, which would magnify the effect even more over currently grain based diets that even most omnivores consume.

3. To make matters worse, even aside from methane production grazing is not environmentally benign. Gazing animals cause local biodiversity losses too. What you want, if you care about ecology, is land left to go wild without being trampled and destroyed by cattle. And we want TREES regrowing in most of these areas to capture more carbon.

It's hard in the public mind to see a field of wheat with the associated harm that incurs as being somehow more desirable than an open range with natural grass and tree cover and grazing cattle.

"The public" a.k.a. a fringe of anti-vegan pseudo-environmentalists. Sure, they're delusional and they'll believe what they want.
As for anybody who cares about the science, it should be pretty obvious and easy to demonstrate.

[Graeme M]

BrimstoneSalad, good points, but maybe you are missing THE point. The general thrust of the anti-vegan argument in this context is that it is possible to farm animals in ways that minimise animal suffering and death and maximise ecological function, something not possible to the same extent in crop farming. So those making this argument, for example ethical omnivores, will say they are opposed to intensive feed systems but support animal farming on something like regenerative methods.

What they are proposing is not that BAU massive scale animal farming should continue, but rather that animal farming at an appropriate scale is preferable to a completely plant-based system. We can't wave away that kind of proposition as fanciful because it isn't what happens now, after all a plant-only system is just as fanciful. We are really looking for the most optimal solution which might be one in which some proportion of calories is obtained from meat and dairy.

One way to start looking at that might be to say, well, in a more ethical system we'd expect most people to eat some amount of fruit and vegetables daily. I don't know how much is recommended, but for the sake of argument let's say that for a healthy omnivorous diet it is 80% of total calories. That means that we'd need to produce enough meat and dairy to supply 20% of calories in the diet.

The land used to grow the fruit and veg that constitutes the 80% is a baseline, if you like. It's gonna happen regardless. So what we are interested in is the comparison between the 20% balance being supplied by more fruit and veg or by meat. As meat is mainly about protein, I guess we'd be looking at protein crops rather than lettuce and tomato. We can then probably make some sort of calculation from there.

The regenerative argument (or whatever you like to call it) is that we can raise cattle and sheep on natural pasture with minimal supplemental feeding. By utilising such methods the local ecology can be substantially improved over traditional animal farming methods, thereby delivering maximal local biodiversity and ecology function while also growing food (meat). We cannot do that if we grow lentils/peas/beans or whatever, not to the same extent.

Now obviously we'll need much more land for the cattle and sheep than for the protein crop, but the claim is that for the land used for animals, it is most likely that we will not cause any significant numbers of animals to be killed beyond the farmed animals themselves. That may not be the case for the protein crop. Plus there are other benefits from using natural pasture to feed the cattle when compared to crop farming. On balance, these people claim, we would be doing a service to the biosphere by raising cattle for food in preference to growing crops and also it is quite possible we'd be causing less harm to other animals.

Here'a really rough calculation by way of example. Let's assume that here in Australia, the average person would need to eat about 100g protein daily for a healthy diet. Some proportion would come from fruit and veg (disregarding protein crop), leaving perhaps 80g from meat (in fact I believe most Aussies average about 110g protein daily from meat and dairy). So we are getting 30kg of protein each year from meat. To replace that with plants, we'll need about 150kg of crop.At an average yield of say 2100kg/hectare, we will need about .07 of a hectare. How many animals die on average in Australia to produce that kind of food? No-one really knows. Assume it is 15 per hectare per year and we have one animal dying to grow the plants to replace animals in one person's diet. However, that same person, if they stick to eating meat, will obtain their protein from meat. At roughly 120kg meat needed annually, that translates to about one half of a beef carcass. So the meat eater will cause just .5 of an animal to die. Sure, this is really very rough and ignores all sorts of other factors, my point just is that the numbers are not necessarily wildly in favour of cropping.

By the way, the issue of coproducts remains. Soy for example produces oil as you observe and the market for this oil is growing. Many producers move away from traditional oilseed products in favour of soy because the market offers better returns. Soy oil is used in a remarkable number of ways by humans, and even if we did away with the meal side of the equation, the demand for oil remains. I don't quite see why doing away with the market for meal would lead to substantially less land under soy (or equivalent). Sure, intensive feed systems have driven the growth in production but given the commensurate growth in application for the oil, I am sceptical that we could make a major reduction in land under crop even if we could turn off animal ag tomorrow. Also, I am suspicious that many researchrs do miss this pont. A typical vegan argument is that 70-80% of all soy grown is for animal feed, the implication being that if we stopped animal farming we'd grow 80% less soy. I think they are mistaking what the 80/20 proportion actually represents.

[teo123]

@Graeme M, are you implying people eating plants inherently causes deaths of countless animals? That's clearly not true, think of what people were eating for the last few thousand years: mostly home-grown fruits and vegetables. That causes little or no animal suffering. Now, whether that's ecologically sustainable as the human population grows, I don't think it is (it's probably even less sustainable than organic farming is).

[Graeme M]

teo123, no I am saying modern agricultural techniques in which plants are grown at massive scales inherently causes the deaths of very many animals, as well as impacting local ecologies and causing environmental damage. That ranges from vast areas cleared to grow crops to such places as Almeria in Spain where large tracts of land are covered in greenhouses. For example, there is simply no comparison between the modest efforts of neolithic farmers in Europe with a human population of millions and the modern Europe of almost one billion people.

[teo123]

teo123, no I am saying modern agricultural techniques in which plants are grown at massive scales inherently causes the deaths of very many animals

Well, there's no easy solution to that. And having grain-fed cows obviously just makes things worse.