HRC report: 70% of vegans stop being vegan.

prioritarian

Forum Senior
Joined
May 21, 2014
Reaction score
38
Location
PDX
Previous studies suggested that the vast majority of vegetarians stop being vegetarian but there has been quite a bit of debate about what these numbers mean when it comes to veganism. The Humane Research Council recently published a study of ~10,000 respondents that finds that ~70% of vegans stop being vegan. This compares with ~84% of vegetarians giving up vegetarianism.


Summary:
HRC Study of Current and Former Vegetarians and Vegans | HumaneSpot.org


Link to study (registration and delay):
http://spot.humaneresearch.org/syst...+Vegans+Dec+2014+(Tables+%26+Methodology).pdf


I think this study provides an incredibly strong argument for promoting "veganish"-ism as opposed to veganism. If so many are failing at strict "veganism" perhaps it's better for the animals and our planet to promote being "almost vegan" rather than being vegan with a capital "V".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Second Summer
Well as much as I'd like to use this as an argument against veganism.....it has vegetarians returning to eating meat as well so the issue here seems to be meat and not the strictness of veganism.

I tend to think one of the biggest issues is people's dietary practices, there are a lot of poor dietary practices in the western veg community and its not difficult seeing how these may result in health issues or general malaise overtime. Most people, I think, are skeptical of whether people can really be healthy without eating meat so the second a vegetarian of vegan fails to thrive there is often a lot of pressure on them to eat meat again.

Maybe letting the food industry and entrepreneurs control the culinary show isn't such a good idea?
 
Because being a veg**n isn't going to be easy for most people. Societal pressure, cultural norms, nostalgia/habits, family and the fact that most people actually like animal products a lot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: emmaline and Tom L.
I think this study provides an incredibly strong argument for promoting "veganish"-ism as opposed to veganism. If so many are failing at strict "veganism" perhaps it's better for the animals and our planet to promote being "almost vegan" rather than being vegan with a capital "V".

I am coming over to this way of thinking too, although I would rather that the people would say that they were something like they had a mostly plant-based diet rather than vegetarian or vegan if possible.:D One of my builders said he doesn't drink dairy milk (not that he was offered any here) and it made me feel a little bit grateful that at least he was lactose intolerant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KLS52
Well as much as I'd like to use this as an argument against veganism.....it has vegetarians returning to eating meat as well so the issue here seems to be meat and not the strictness of veganism.

In the survey there is some evidence that ex-veg*ns craved meat more than current veg*ns (obviously a simplistic measure but informative, IMO). I think for both vegetarians and vegans giving in to these cravings can lead to a fear of "failure", of being deveg*nized, of being ostracized -- basically shame. And to compound this the veg*n community is not particularly tolerant or supportive of those who give into "cravings". I would like to see veg*nism become more welcoming of people who are making an honest effort to be more veg*n. If more "vegans" were willing to own the veganish self-identity it might make the ethical approach to eating/living more approachable to people who are not always "perfect" (who is?). I personally view myself as veganish even though my veg partner breaks out laughing at this self-characterization (she's seen me do the jekyll and hyde thing when someone gives me a buttered brioche with my vegan burger).
 
I am coming over to this way of thinking too, although I would rather that the people would say that they were something like they had a mostly plant-based diet rather than vegetarian or vegan if possible.

I think plant-based is owned by the whole food/health crowd and does not capture the motivations of many almost vegans and "pregans". I believe the term "veganish" could help some feel connected to animal right/welfare-focused veganism even when they are having trouble with "level 5" perfection :).
 
And to compound this the veg*n community is not particularly tolerant or supportive of those who give into "cravings". I would like to see veg*nism become more welcoming of people who are making an honest effort to be more veg*n. If more "vegans" were willing to own the veganish self-identity it might make the ethical approach to eating/living more approachable to people who are not always "perfect" (who is?).
This may be a factor for vegans....but I doubt its much a factor for vegetarians as there really is no monolithic "vegetarian community" that is going to judge you for an isolated departure from vegetarianism. In any case, I don't think you're going to re-brand veganism into something more flexible. I think most people that go from vegan to "vegan-ish" tend to drop any association with veganism.

But what thing missing from these surveys is the degree to which people return to eating meat. For example, someone going from a vegan diet to a vegan diet + occasional dairy/fish is a lot different than someone returning full-force to eating meat, dairy, etc on a daily basis.

But, as I said, I think the primary issue is nutritional.......vegetarians and vegans in the US don't have good "rule foods" to guide them in making food choices that, when combined, create a well-balanced diet. Second would be culinary, a lot of vegetarian and vegan food in the west is pretty bad.
 
Well as much as I'd like to use this as an argument against veganism.....it has vegetarians returning to eating meat as well so the issue here seems to be meat and not the strictness of veganism.

I tend to think one of the biggest issues is people's dietary practices, there are a lot of poor dietary practices in the western veg community and its not difficult seeing how these may result in health issues or general malaise overtime. Most people, I think, are skeptical of whether people can really be healthy without eating meat so the second a vegetarian of vegan fails to thrive there is often a lot of pressure on them to eat meat again.

Maybe letting the food industry and entrepreneurs control the culinary show isn't such a good idea?
Why do you want to argue against veganism?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scorpius
Because its inconsistent and, I think, distracts from important animal rights/welfare issues.

Such as...? Most vegans I have met/known seem to be interested in trying to stamp out the worst animal abuses even if they happen to be welfarist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
Such as...? Most vegans I have met/known seem to be interested in trying to stamp out the worst animal abuses even if they happen to be welfarist.

Many activists feel that vegan orthorexia and dogmatism have negatively impacted the struggle for animal rights/welfare. In fact, the mainstream AR/AW movement has increasingly used "veg" or vegetarian in place of vegan due to this perception. And it's not just mainstream AR/AW groups that are unhappy with the vegan community -- even the ALF has published critiques of vegan dogmatism.
 
Such as...? Most vegans I have met/known seem to be interested in trying to stamp out the worst animal abuses even if they happen to be welfarist.
I'm certainly not trying to suggest that vegans, as a group, don't care about animal rights/welfare issues but rather than veganism as an ideology can distract from them. I think veganism can be a distraction because its an extreme position and isn't rooted in any particular legal, ethical, etc theory that can be used to motivate animal rights/welfare issues.....yet it tends to get most of the attention.

Another issue, at least for me, is that there are many things that are perfectly vegan that I think are pretty abhorrent in terms of animal rights/welfare.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Mischief
Because its inconsistent and, I think, distracts from important animal rights/welfare issues.
So what do you suggest replaces veganism? What instead would save more animals, change more minds about animal rights? Some vegan*ish* thing, or vegan+honey+backyard chicken eggs+oysters because more people would stick to the diet?

Or no palm oil, no organic vegetables, no walking outside for fear of stepping on an insect, or breatharianism?

Or is it a health thing where no fake meats or cheese allowed, no vegan baked goods, white flour, rice, and potatoes also banned?

I guess I really don't know where you are coming from.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scorpius
So what do you suggest replaces veganism? What instead would save more animals, change more minds about animal rights? Some vegan*ish* thing, or vegan+honey+backyard chicken eggs+oysters because more people would stick to the diet?
Or no palm oil, no organic vegetables, no walking outside for fear of stepping on an insect, or breatharianism?
Or is it a health thing where no fake meats or cheese allowed, no vegan baked goods, white flour, rice, and potatoes also banned?
I guess I really don't know where you are coming from.

That's a good question.
Speaking for myself, I think a movement that is focused more on the big picture of animal suffering and less focused on trivial minutia is more inclusive and ethically consistent. I also think the numbers in the HRC survey suggest that many ex-vegans do not fit the "egg/bacon cured my brain fog and veganism sucks" stereotype. In fact, I would argue that the Rhys Southans or Lierre Keiths of the world are relatively rare and that there are a lot of people who tried veganism, failed*, but are still sympathetic to it's ideals/ethics. IMO, these people should be welcomed and supported, not criticized or ostracized because they are imperfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scorpius
So what do you suggest replaces veganism? What instead would save more animals, change more minds about animal rights? Some vegan*ish* thing, or vegan+honey+backyard chicken eggs+oysters because more people would stick to the diet?
A movement that is based on particular ethical/legal principles rather than one based on a long list of products you cannot use. Altering the list of products wouldn't resolve the fundamental issues, namely, that veganism isn't based on particular animal rights/welfare issues but instead is based on the boycott of a variety of products.

Also, just to note, my concern about fake meats, fake cheese, etc is that I think it contributes to a failure to thrive on a vegetarian, vegan, or even semi-vegan diet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mischief
IMO, these people should be welcomed and supported, not criticized or ostracized because they are imperfect.
My problem with this line of thinking is that it often assumes that veganism is the ideal but we should accept that people can't always achieve the ideal. I don't think veganism is ideal.....quite the contrary.
 
I highly doubt that by inventing another misleading definition we can increase the number of people who only seldomly, not regularly, abuse animals.

The reason for the figures in the study, IMO might be that everybody who once in his life went a week without eating animal products and then found out that s/he could not stick with it, is included here as "ex-veggie".
I doubt whether these people ever really were vegans or vegetarians by any meaningful criterium.