what is vegetarianism essay

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Vegetarianism Essay

This is a model  vegetarianism essay .

As I always stress, you should  read the question very carefully  before you answer it to make sure you are writing about the right thing.

Take a look at the question:

Every one of us should become a vegetarian because eating meat can cause serious health problems.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Staying on topic

If you rush to start writing and don't analyse the question and brainstorm some ideas you may include the wrong information.

There are religious or moral arguments for not eating meat, but if you discuss those you will be going off topic .

This question is specifically about the health problems connected to eating meat.

So you must discuss in your answer what some of these problems are and if you think there are real health risks or not.

Knowing about the topic

And don't get worried that you do not know much about diet and health.

As part of your IELTS study it will help if you know the basics of most topics such as some health vocabulary in this case, but you are not expected to be an expert on nutrition.

Remember, you are being judged on your English ability and your ability to construct an argument in a coherent way, not to be an expert in the subject matter. So relax and work with

Organisation

In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

The essay has been organised in the following way:

Body 1: Health issues connected with eating meat (i.e. arguments in support of being a vegetarian Body 2: Advantages of eating meat

Now take a look at the model answer.

Model Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay - Sample Answer

Vegetarianism is becoming more and more popular for many people, particularly because of the harm that some people believe meat can cause to the body. However, I strongly believe that it is not necessary for everybody to be a vegetarian.

Vegetarians believe that meat is unhealthy because of the diseases it has been connected with. There has been much research to suggest that red meat is particularly bad, for example, and that consumption should be limited to eating it just a few times a week to avoid such things as cancer. Meats can also be high in saturated fats so they have been linked to health problems such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

However, there are strong arguments for eating meat. The first reason is that as humans we are designed to eat meat, which suggests it is not unhealthy, and we have been eating meat for thousands of years. For example, cavemen made hunting implements so that they could kill animals and eat their meat. Secondly, meat is a rich source of protein which helps to build muscles and bones. Vegetarians often have to take supplements to get all the essential vitamins and minerals. Finally, it may be the case that too much meat is harmful, but we can easily limit the amount we have without having to cut it out of our diet completely.

To sum up, I do not agree that everyone should turn to a vegetarian diet. Although the overconsumption of meat could possibly be unhealthy, a balanced diet of meat and vegetables should result in a healthy body.

(264 words)

You should begin by intoducing the topi c. The introduction in this vegetarianism essay begins by mentioning vegetarians and the possible harm of eating meat .

It then goes on to the thesis statement , which makes it clear what the candidate's opinion is.

The first body paragraph has a topic sentence which makes it clear that the paragraph is going to address the possible health issues of eating meat.

Some reasons and examples are then given to support this.

The second body paragraph then has a topic sentence which makes it clear that the main idea is now about the arguments for eating meat .

The conclusion in this vegetarianism essay then repeats the opinion and gives the candidates final thoughts.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Human Cloning Essay: Should we be scared of cloning humans?

Human cloning essay - this is on the topic of cloning humans to use their body parts. You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts, and what reservations (concerns) you have.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Fillers for IELTS Speaking: Avoid 'Eh', Uhm', 'You know'.

Apr 27, 24 05:48 AM

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

Vegetarianism Health Benefits Essay

Introduction, obesity and overweight, strong bones, heart disease, cancer protection, more energy, diabetes prevention.

The term “vegetarianism” may be understood differently among different people. However, the vegetarian diet generally does not include the consumption of meat. There exist various types of vegetarian practices; ranging from the most strict to the less strict one. The most restrict group consists of vegans.

This group consumes only those foods that come from plants and these include the grains, nuts, beans, fruits and vegetables. The other group consists of the lacto-vegetarians and these ones consume dairy products on top of the foods from the plants. The third group consists of “Lacto-ovo-vegetarians” who are similar to the lacto-vegetarians but they also consume the eggs in addition.

The other group is the “pesco-vegetarians who eat similar foods to those eaten by the “lacto-ovo-vegetarians” but on top of these, they also eat fish. The least strict group consists of the “partial-vegetarians” and these consume all kinds of foods apart from the red meat. People decide to become vegetarians for a variety of motives. There are those who want to live longer, to live healthy lives, or play their part in the society of bringing down the level of pollution.

This paper is going to look at the health benefits one can obtain by becoming or being a vegetarian. It is going to be argued that; Being a vegetarian is good for health since it leads to the prevention of obesity and overweight, developing strong bones, prevention of heart disease, having cancer protection, having diabetes prevention and also enables one to have more energy in the body.

The paper is going to be arranged in sub-topics with each of them supporting the argument. The conclusion section is going to give a summary of the main points in the discussion.

Being a vegetarian enables one to reduce chances of becoming obese and overweight. It is pointed out that “64 percent of adults and 15 percent of children aged 6 to 19 are overweight and are at risk of weight-related ailments including heart disease, stroke and diabetes” (“Why go veg?”, 2012, p.1).

A research that was carried out between the period starting from the year 1986 up to the year 1992 by the director and president of the “Preventive Medicine Research Institute”, Dean Ornish, in California established that the people who were overweight and followed a vegetarian diet and which was low in fat were able to lose, on average, twenty four pounds within the first year and were able to keep off that weight five years thereafter (“Why go veg?”, 2012, p.1).

They were able to lose weight without engaging in counting the carbs or calories and also with no engagement in the measurement of the portions or having a feeling of hunger (“Why go veg?”, 2012).

Becoming a vegetarian enables one to build strong bones. Every time there is no adequate calcium in one’s blood in the body, a person’s body will have to seep the calcium from the bone that is there. Following this, the metabolic consequence will be that one’s skeletons will turn out to be permeable and in the course of time become weak.

A larger number of the practitioners in the healthcare field propose that a person should engage in increasing his or her calcium ingestion through the manner in which nature designed and this is through foods. The foods as well supply nutrients like vitamin D, magnesium and phosphorous among others which are essential to enable the body to carry out absorption as well as utilization of calcium.

It is reported that “people who are mildly lactose-intolerant can often enjoy small amounts of dairy products such as yogurt, cheese and lactose-free milk” (“Why go veg?”, 2010, p.1).However, in case one may avoid the dairy products altogether, they can still obtain healthful calcium dose from the “dry beans, soymilk, and dark green vegetable such as broccoli, kale, collards and turnip greens” (“Why go veg?”, 2012, p.1).

By one becoming a vegetarian, they reduce the risks of getting heart disease. It is pointed out that eating vegetables and fruits on a regular basis brings down the level of the risk of “ischemic heart disease” (Craig, 20034, p.1).

Following a survey that was conducted sometime back which involved surveying forty seven thousand Italian people, it was established that “persons in the highest tertile of vegetable consumption had a 21 and 11 % reduced risk of myocardial infarction and angina, respectively, compared with those in the lowest tertile of vegetable consumption” (Kafatos, A., et al, 1997, p.1882).

Moreover, the findings that were presented following a study that was conducted in Britain indicated that the day to day eating of fresh fruits contributed towards having a twenty-four percent decrease in the mortality that results from heart disease as well as a thirty-two percent decrease in mortality resulting from the “cerebrovascular disease”, in comparison to less regular eating of fruit. It was further established that the day to day raw salad eating contributed to having a reduction of twenty-six percent in deaths resulting form the heart disease (Key, et al, 1996, p.777).

Another study involved investigating the lifelong vegetarians; it was found out that this group of people had a twenty-four percent “lower incident and lifelong vegans had a 57 percent lower incident of coronary heart disease compared to meat eaters” (Thorogood, et al., 1987, p.352).

There are a number of factors in vegetables and fruits which offer achievable protection against the cardiovascular disease. Among these factors we have “folic acid, dietary fiber, potassium, magnesium, carotenoids, phystosterols, flavonoids, and other polyphenolic antioxidants” (Craig, 20034, p.1).

The vegetarian diets are usually as well somehow lower in cholesterol and in saturated fat. The people who are vegetarians usually do have the levels of blood cholesterol that are lower. The food plants that have much soluble fiber are apples, dry beans, and oats among others are helpful in bringing down the amount of serum cholesterol in the body. Moreover, a large number of flavonoids found in some plant foods have wide-ranging organic properties which bring down the chances of one developing heart disease.

The flavonoids offer the protection to the LDL cholesterol against oxidation. Moreover, it helps in inhibiting blood clots formation, and “have hypolipidemic effects and anti-inflammatory action”(Manach, et al, 520, p.520). Studies conducted in Europe indicated that the people who had the highest flavonoids consumption “had 60 percent less mortality from heart disease and 70 percent lower risk of stroke than the low flavonoids consumers” (Keli, et al, 1996, p.641)

Being a vegetarian enables one to be protected against cancer. A report that was presented by the “World Cancer Research Fund” in the year 1997 presented a recommendation that people should lower the risk of being attacked by the cancer disease by selecting mainly the “plant-based diets” which are rich in various fruits as well as vegetables and also rich in the legumes and “minimally processed starchy staple foods, and to limit the intake of grilled, cured and smoked meats and fish” (Craig, 20034, p.1).

More than two hundred studies that have been conducted have given a revelation that frequently eating fruits as well as vegetables offers remarkable protection against the cancer disease at a large number of sites. Those individuals who eat a lot of fruits as well as vegetables “have about one-half the risk of cancer, especially the epithelial cancers”(Craig, 2003, p.1). It is also pointed out that it was also found out that “the most cancers were 20 – 50 % lower in those with high versus low consumption of whole grains” (Craig, 2003, p.1).

Several plant foods have been found to have the properties that are cancer protective (Craig, 2003). These foods include the umbulliferous herbs and vegetables, the cruciferous vegetables and other vegetables and fruits. Other such foods include the several nuts, beans and several seasoning herbs.

Such foods have the cancer-protective phytochemicals like “carotenoids, flavonoids, isothiocynates, allegic acid, glucaates and phenolic acids among others” (Craig, 2003, p.1). The compounds that are beneficial change the pathways as well as the actions of the hormones which are associated with cancer development, facilitate stimulation of the immune system and they also possess antioxidant activity (Craig, 1999).

Being a vegetarian enables one to have more energy. Having good nutrition facilitates generation of more utilizable energy “to keep pace with the kids, tackle that home improvement project or have better sex” (“Why go veg?”, 2012, p.1).Having a large amount of fat in blood implies arteries will not open in an appropriate way and also that the muscles will not obtain adequate oxygen.

The consequence of this is that one will feel zapped. The balanced vegetarian diets are “free of cholesterol-laden, artery-clogging animal products that physically slows us down and keep us hitting the snooze button morning after morning” (“Why go veg?”, 2012, p.1). Therefore, since the plant foods have large amounts of complex carbohydrates, they help in giving the body much energy.

Vegetarians are at a lower risk of becoming diabetic. It is pointed out that consuming more nuts and whole grains is associated with having “lower rates of diabetes” (Craig, 2003, p.1). In one of the large studies, it was established that consumption of fruits and vegetables was associated with the occurrence of diabetes in an inverse way, especially among women (Ford & Mokdad, 2001, p.34).

Men as well as women who reported of rarely or never consuming green leafy vegetables or fruits had “higher mean HbA 1C levels than those who had more frequent consumption” (Sargeant, L.A, et al, 2001, p.344). High levels of vegetable and fruit consumption tends to make a great contribution towards facilitating the prevention of the diabetes disease.

Being a vegetarian is good for health since it leads to the prevention of obesity and overweight, developing strong bones, prevention of heart disease, having cancer protection, having diabetes prevention and also enables one to have more energy in the body.

Considering the case of obesity and overweight, it has been found out that the people with these conditions who become vegetarians are able to lose a substantial amount of weight within the first year and over time, they are able to attain healthy weight. Moreover, vegetarians develop strong bones because of the availability of adequate calcium in their bodies which are obtained from food plants such as dark green vegetables, dry beans, and turnip greens among others.

There can also be prevention of cancer through the vegetarian diet. Several plant foods have been found to have the properties that are cancer protective which include such foods as the umbulliferous herbs and vegetables, the cruciferous vegetables and other vegetables and fruits and other foods include nuts, beans and a variety of seasoning herbs. In addition, heart disease can be prevented by one making a decision to become a vegetarian.

Eating vegetables and fruits on a regular basis brings down the level of the risk of “ischemic heart disease”. Everyday consumption of fresh fruits leads to a decrease in the mortality that result from heart disease and also a reduction in mortality resulting from the “cerebrovascular disease”. Furthermore, diabetes can also be prevented by one becoming a vegetarian.

Eating fruits and vegetables was associated with the occurrence of diabetes in an inverse way, especially among women. High levels of vegetable and fruit consumption tends to make a great contribution towards facilitating the prevention of the diabetes disease. Last but not least, the vegetarian diet enables one to have more energy in the body. The foods coming from plants are rich in complex carbohydrates and they supply much energy in the body.

Craig, W.J.(1999). Nutrition and Wellness. A Vegetarian Way to Better Health . Berrien Springs, MI: Golden Harvest Books.

Craig, W. (2003). Health benefits of vegetarian diets . Web.

Ford, E.S, & Mokdad, A.H. (2001). Fruit and vegetable consumption and diabetes mellitus incidence among U.S. adults . Prev Med , 32(1),33-9.

Kafatos, A., et al. (1997). Heart disease risk-factor status and dietary changes in the cretan population over the past 30 y: the seven countries study. Am J Clin Nutr, 65(1),1882-6.

Keli, S.O, et al.(1996). Dietary flavonoids, antioxidant vitamins, and incidence of stroke: the zutphen study. Arch Intern Med ,156(1), 637-42.

Key T.J, et al. (1996). Dietary habits and mortality in 11,000 vegetarians and health conscious people: results of 17-year follow up. BMJ, 313(1),775-79.

Manach C, et al.(1996). Bioavailability, metabolism and physiological impact of 4-oxo-flavonoids. Nutr Res , 16(1), 517-44.

Sargeant, L.A, et al.(2001). Fruit and vegetable intake and population glycosylated haemoglobin levels: the EPIC-Norfolk Study. Eur J Clin Nutr , 55(1),342-8.

Thorogood, M, et al. (1987). Plasma lipids and lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations in people with different diets in Britain. Br Med J , 295(1), 351-3.

Why go veg? . (2012). Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 15). Vegetarianism Health Benefits. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarianism-essay/

"Vegetarianism Health Benefits." IvyPanda , 15 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarianism-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Vegetarianism Health Benefits'. 15 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Vegetarianism Health Benefits." April 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarianism-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "Vegetarianism Health Benefits." April 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarianism-essay/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Vegetarianism Health Benefits." April 15, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarianism-essay/.

• Vegetarianism Relation with Health and Religion
• Vegetarian and Non Vegetarian Healthier Diet
• Benefits of Vegetarianism
• Consumer Behavior Theory: Vegetarianism
• Why You Should Not Be a Vegetarian
• Can Vegetarian Diets Be Healthy?
• Harmfulness of Vegetarianism: The False Health Claim
• Vegetarianism and Its Causes
• Vegetarianism and Health
• Soul Food: The Origin and Reasons of Vegetarianism
• The Dangers of Energy Drinks
• Vegetarian Diet as a Health-Conscious Lifestyle
• Risk Cluster Linked to Child Obesity
• Food Ethics
• Correlation Between Poverty and Obesity

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Moral Vegetarianism

Billions of humans eat meat. To provide it, we raise animals. We control, hurt, and kill hundreds of millions of geese, nearly a billion cattle, billions of pigs and ducks, and tens of billions of chickens each year.

To feed these animals, we raise crops. To raise crops, we deforest and use huge quantities of water. To quench these animals, we use still more water.

In turn, these animals produce staggering amounts of waste, waste that poisons water sources and soil. They produce staggering amounts of greenhouse gasses.

To raise these animals and produce this meat, farmers and slaughterhouse workers labor in conditions from onerous to brutal.

If controlling, hurting, or killing animals is wrong or if the production of these environmental effects or effects on people is wrong or if consuming the meat produced is wrong, then a breathtaking level of wrong-doing goes on daily.

Many fewer than a billion humans are vegetarian, have diets excluding meat. They are vegetarian for various reasons: because it’s healthy, because their parents make them be vegetarian, because they don’t like meat. Some are vegetarian on moral grounds. Moral vegetarianism is the view that it is morally wrong—henceforth, “wrong”—to eat meat.

The topic of this entry is moral vegetarianism and the arguments for it. Strikingly, most contemporary arguments for moral vegetarianism start with premises about the wrongness of producing meat and move to conclusions about the wrongness of consuming it. They do not fasten on some intrinsic feature of meat and insist that consuming things with such a feature is wrong. They do not fasten on some effect of meat-eating on the eater and insist that producing such an effect is wrong. Rather, they assert that the production of meat is wrong and that consumption bears a certain relation to production and that bearing such a relation to wrongdoing is wrong. So this entry gives significant space to food production as well as the tricky business of connecting production to consumption.

§1 introduces relevant terminology and an overview of the main positions. §2 explains meat production, the main moral arguments against it, and some responses to those arguments. That section—like the rest of the entry—focuses on medium-sized land animals. Yet fish and insects are killed in a number that dwarfs the number of land animals killed. Some issues these killings raise are covered in §3.

None of the foregoing is about consuming animals. §4 covers moral arguments from premises about meat production to conclusions about meat consumption. §5 considers some extensions of the arguments in §2. It wonders about which arguments against meat production can, if sound, be extended to show that animal product production or even some plant production is morally wrong. This last idea is relatively new. §6 briefly summarizes some other new issues in the moral vegetarian literature.

1. Terminology and Overview of Positions

2.1 animal farming, 2.2.1 suffering, 2.2.2 killing, 2.2.3 harming the environment, 2.2.4 general moral theories, 3. fish and insects, 4.1 bridging the gap, 4.2 against bridging the gap, 5.1.2 dairy, 5.2.1 plants themselves, 5.2.2 plant production and animals, 5.2.3 plant production and the environment, 5.3 summary of animal product and plant subsections, 6. conclusion: where the debate about vegetarianism stands and is going, other internet resources, related entries.

Moral vegetarianism is opposed by moral omnivorism, the view according to which it is permissible to consume meat (and also animal products, fungi, plants, etc.).

Moral veganism accepts moral vegetarianism and adds to it that consuming animal products is wrong. Whereas in everyday life, “vegetarianism” and “veganism” include claims about what one may eat, in this entry, the claims are simply about what one may not eat. They agree that animals are among those things.

In this entry, “animals” is used to refer to non-human animals. For the most part, the animals discussed are the land animals farmed for food in the West, especially cattle, chicken, and pigs. There will be some discussion of insects and fish but none of dogs, dolphins, or whales.

Primarily, this entry concerns itself with whether moral vegetarians are correct that eating meat is wrong. Secondarily—but at greater length—it concerns itself with whether the production of meat is permissible.

Primarily, this entry concerns itself with eating in times of abundance and abundant choices. Moral vegans need not argue that it is wrong to eat an egg if that is the only way to save your life. Moral vegetarians need not argue it is wrong to eat seal meat if that is the only food for miles. Moral omnivores need not argue it is permissible to eat the family dog. These cases raise important issues, but the arguments in this entry are not about them.

Almost exclusively, the entry concerns itself with contemporary arguments. [ 1 ] Strikingly, many historical arguments and most contemporary arguments against the permissibility of eating meat start with premises about the wrongness of producing meat and move to conclusions about the wrongness of consuming it. That is, they argue that

It is wrong to eat meat

By first arguing that

It is wrong to produce meat.

The claim about production is the topic of §2.

2. Meat Production

The vast majority of animals humans eat come from industrial animal farms that are distinguished by their holding large numbers of animals at high stocking density. We raise birds and mammals this way. Increasingly, we raise fish this way, too.

Raising large numbers of animals enables farmers to take advantage of economies of scale but also produces huge quantities of waste, greenhouse gas, and, generally, environmental degradation (FAO 2006; Hamerschlag 2011; Budolfson 2016). There is no question of whether to put so many animals on pasture—there is not enough of it. Plus, raising animals indoors, or with limited access to the outdoors, lowers costs and provides animals with protection from weather and predators. Yet when large numbers of animals live indoors, they are invariably tightly packed, and raising them close together risks the development and quick spread of disease. To deal with this risk, farmers intensively use prophylactic antibiotics. Tight-packing also restricts species-typical behaviors, such as rooting (pigs) or dust-bathing (chickens), and makes it so that animals cannot escape each other, leading to stress and to antisocial behaviors like tail-biting in pigs or pecking in chickens. To deal with these, farmers typically dock tails and trim beaks, and typically (in the U.S., at least) do so without anesthetic. Animals are bred to grow fast on a restricted amount of antibiotics, food, and hormones, and the speed of growth saves farmers money, but this breeding causes health problems of its own. Chickens, for example, have been bred in such a way that their bodies become heavier than their bones can support. As a result, they “are in chronic pain for the last 20% of their lives” (John Webster, quoted in Erlichman 1991). Animals are killed young—they taste better that way—and are killed in large-scale slaughterhouses operating at speed. Animal farms have no use for, e.g., male chicks on egg-laying farms, are killed at birth or soon after. [ 2 ]

Raising animals in this way has produced low sticker prices (BLS 2017). It enables us to feed our appetite for meat (OECD 2017).

Raising animals in this way is also, in various ways, morally fraught.

It raises concerns about its effects on humans. Slaughterhouses, processing this huge number of animals at high speed, threaten injury and death to workers. Slaughterhouse work is exploitative. Its distribution is classist, racist, and sexist with certain jobs being segmented as paupers’ work or Latinx work or women’s (Pachirat 2011).

Industrial meat production poses a threat to public health through the creation and spread of pathogens resulting from the overcrowding of animals with weakened immune systems and the routine use of antibiotics and attendant creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Anomaly (2015) and Rossi & Garner (2014) argue that these risks are wrongful because unconsented to and because they are not justified by the benefits of assuming those risks.

Industrial meat production directly produces waste in the form of greenhouse gas emissions from animals and staggering amounts of waste, waste that, concentrated in those quantities, can contaminate water supplies. The Böll Foundation (2014) estimates that farm animals contribute between 6 and 32% of greenhouse gas emissions. The range is due partly to different ideas about what to count as being farm animals’ contributions: simply what comes out of their bodies? Or should we count, too, what comes from deforestation that’s done to grow crops to feed them and other indirect emissions?

Industrial animal farming raises two concerns about wastefulness. One is that it uses too many resources and produces too much waste for the amount of food it produces. The other is that feeding humans meat typically requires producing crops, feeding them to animals, and then eating the animals. So it typically requires more resources and makes for more emissions than simply growing and feeding ourselves crops ( PNAS 2013.

Industrial animal farming raises concerns about the treatment of animals. Among others, we raise cattle, chickens, and pigs. Evidence from their behavior, their brains, and their evolutionary origins, adduced in Allen 2004, Andrews 2016, and Tye 2016, supports the view that they have mental lives and, importantly, are sentient creatures with likes and dislikes. Even chickens and other “birdbrains” have interesting mental lives. The exhaustive Marino 2017 collects evidence that chickens can adopt others’ visual perspectives, communicate deceptively, engage in arithmetic and simple logical reasoning, and keep track of pecking orders and short increments of time. Their personalities vary with respect to boldness, self-control, and vigilance.

We farm billions of these animals industrially each year (Böll Foundation 2014: 15). We also raise a much smaller number on freerange farms. In this entry “freerange” is not used in its tightly-defined, misleading, legal sense according to which it applies only to poultry and simply requires “access” to the outdoors. Instead, in the entry, freerange farms are farms that that, ideally, let animals live natural lives while offering some protection from predators and the elements and some healthcare. These lives are in various ways more pleasant than lives on industrial farms but involve less protection while still involving control and early death. These farms are designed, in part, to make animal lives go better for them, and their design assumes that a natural life is better, other things equal, than a non-natural life. The animal welfare literature converges on this and also on other components of animal well-being. Summarizing some of that literature, David Fraser writes,

[A]s people formulated and debated various proposals about what constitutes a satisfactory life for animals in human care, three main concerns emerged: (1) that animals should feel well by being spared negative affect (pain, fear, hunger etc.) as much as possible, and by experiencing positive affect in the form of contentment and normal pleasures; (2) that animals should be able to lead reasonably natural lives by being able to perform important types of normal behavior and by having some natural elements in their environment such as fresh air and the ability to socialize with other animals in normal ways; and (3) that animals should function well in the sense of good health, normal growth and development, and normal functioning of the body. (Fraser 2008: 70–71)

In this light, it is clear why industrial farming seems to do less for animal welfare than freerange farming: The latter enables keeping animals healthy. It enables happy states (“positive affect”) and puts up some safeguards against the infliction of suffering. There is no need, for example, to dock freerange pigs’ tails or to debeak freerange chickens, if they have enough space to stay out of each other’s way. It enables animals to socialize and to otherwise lead reasonably natural lives. A freerange’s pig’s life is in those ways better than an industrially-farmed pig’s.

Yet because freerange farming involves being outdoors, it involves various risks: predator- and weather-related risks, for example. These go into the well-being calculus, too.

Animals in the wild are subjected to greater predator- and weather-related risks and have no health care. Yet they score very highly with regard to expressing natural behavior and are under no one’s control. How well they do with regard to positive and negative affect and normal growth varies from case to case. Some meat is produced by hunting such animals. In practice, hunting involves making animals suffer from the pain of errant shots or the terror of being chased or wounded, but, ideally, it involves neither pain nor confinement. Of course, either way, it involves death. [ 3 ]

2.2 The Schematic Case Against Meat Production

Moral vegetarian arguments about these practices follow a pattern. They claim that certain actions—killing animals for food we do not need, for example—are wrong and then add that some mode of meat production—recreational hunting, for example—does so. It follows that the mode of meat-production is wrong.

Schematically

X is wrong.

Y involves X . Hence,

Y is wrong.

Among the candidate values of X are:

• Causing animals pain for the purpose of producing food when there are readily available alternatives.
• Killing animals for the purpose of…
• Controlling animals…
• Treating animals as mere tools…
• Ontologizing animals as food…
• Harming humans….
• Harming the environment…

And among the candidate values of Y are:

• Industrial animal farming
• Freerange farming
• Recreational hunting

Space is limited and cranking through many instances of the schema would be tedious. This section focuses on causing animals pain, killing them, and harming the environment in raising them. On control, see Francione 2009, DeGrazia 2011, and Bok 2011. On treating animals as mere tools, see Kant’s Lectures on Ethics , Korsgaard 2011 and 2015, and Zamir 2007. On ontologizing, see Diamond 1978, Vialles 1987 [1994], and Gruen 2011, Chapter 3. On harming humans, see Pachirat 2011, Anomaly 2015, and Doggett & Holmes 2018.

Some moral vegetarians argue:

Causing animals pain while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives is wrong.

Industrial animal farming involves causing animals pain while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives. Hence,

Industrial animal farming is wrong.

The “while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives” is crucial. It is sometimes permissible to cause animals pain: You painfully give your cat a shot, inoculating her, or painfully tug your dog’s collar, stopping him from attacking a toddler. The first premise is asserting that causing pain is impermissible in certain other situations. The “when there are readily available alternatives” is getting at the point that there are substitutes available. We could let the chickens be and eat rice and kale. The first premise asserts it is wrong to cause animals pain while raising them for food when there are readily available substitutes.

It says nothing about why that is wrong. It could be that it is wrong because it would be wrong to make us suffer to raise us for food and there are no differences between us and animals that would justify making them suffer (Singer 1975 and the enormous literature it generated). It could, instead, be that it is wrong because impious (Scruton 2004) or cruel (Hursthouse 2011).

So long as we accept that animals feel—for an up-to-date philosophical defense of this, see Tye 2016—it is uncontroversial that industrial farms do make animals suffer. No one in the contemporary literature denies the second premise, and Norwood and Lusk go so far as to say that

it is impossible to raise animals for food without some form of temporary pain, and you must sometimes inflict this pain with your own hands. Animals need to be castrated, dehorned, branded, and have other minor surgeries. Such temporary pain is often required to produce longer term benefits…All of this must be done knowing that anesthetics would have lessened the pain but are too expensive. (2011: 113)

There is the physical suffering of tail-docking, de-beaking, de-horning, and castrating, all without anesthetic. Also, industrial farms make animals suffer psychologically by crowding them and by depriving them of interesting environments. Animals are bred to grow quickly on minimal food. Various poultry industry sources acknowledge that this selective breeding has led to a significant percentage of meat birds walking with painful impairments (see the extensive citations in HSUS 2009).

This—and much more like it that is documented in Singer & Mason 2006 and Stuart Rachels 2011—is the case for the second premise, namely, that industrial farming causes animals pain while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives.

The argument can be adapted to apply to freerange farming and hunting. Freerange farms ideally do not hurt, but, as the Norwood and Lusk quotation implies, they actually do: For one thing, animals typically go to the same slaughterhouses as industrially-produced animals do. Both slaughter and transport can be painful and stressful.

The same goes for hunting: In the ideal, there is no pain, but, really, hunters hit animals with non-lethal and painful shots. These animals are often—but not always—killed for pleasure or for food hunters do not need. [ 4 ]

Taken together the arguments allege that all manners of meat production in fact produce suffering for low-cost food and typically do so for food when we don’t need to do so and then allege that that justification for producing suffering is insufficient. Against the arguments, one might accept that farms hurt animals but deny that it is even pro tanto wrong to do so (Carruthers 1992 and 2011; Hsiao 2015a and 2015b) on the grounds that animals lack moral status and, because of this, it is not intrinsically wrong to hurt them (or kill or control them or treat them like mere tools). One challenge for such views is to explain what, if anything, is wrong with beating the life out of a pet. Like Kant, Carruthers and Hsiao accept that it might be wrong to hurt animals when and because doing so leads to hurting humans. This view is discussed in Regan 1983: Chapter 5. It faces two distinct challenges. One is that if the only reason it is wrong to hurt animals is because of its effects on humans, then the only reason it is wrong to hurt a pet is because of its effects on humans. So there is nothing wrong with beating pets when that will have no bad effects on humans. This is hard to believe. Another challenge for such views, addressed at some length in Carruthers 1992 and 2011, is to explain whether and why humans with mental lives like the lives of, say, pigs have moral status and whether and why it is wrong to make such humans suffer.

Consider a different argument:

Killing animals while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives is wrong.

Most forms of animal farming and all recreational hunting involve killing animals while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives. Hence,

Most forms of animal farming and all recreational hunting are wrong.

The second premise is straightforward and uncontroversial. All forms of meat farming and hunting require killing animals. There is no form of farming that involves widespread harvesting of old bodies, dead from natural causes. Except in rare farming and hunting cases, the meat produced in the industrialized world is meat for which there are ready alternatives.

The first premise is more controversial. Amongst those who endorse it, there is disagreement about why it is true. If it is true, it might be true because killing animals wrongfully violates their rights to life (Regan 1975). It might be true because killing animals deprives them of lives worth living (McPherson 2015). It might be true because it treats animals as mere tools (Korsgaard 2011).

There is disagreement about whether the first premise is true. The “readily available alternatives” condition matters: Everyone agrees that it is sometimes all things considered permissible to kill animals, e.g., if doing so is the only way to save your child’s life from a surprise attack by a grizzly bear or if doing so is the only way to prevent your pet cat from a life of unremitting agony. (Whether it is permissible to kill animals in order to cull them or to preserve biodiversity is a tricky issue that is set aside here. It—and its connection to the permissibility of hunting—is discussed in Scruton 2006b.) At any rate, animal farms are in the business of killing animals simply on the grounds that we want to eat them and are willing to pay for them even though we could, instead, eat plants.

The main objection to the first premise is that animals lack the mental lives to make killing them wrong. In the moral vegetarian literature, some argue that the wrongness of killing animals depends on what sort of mental life they have and that while animals have a mental life that suffices for hurting them being wrong, they lack a mental life that suffices for killing them being wrong (Belshaw 2015 endorses this; McMahan 2008 and Harman 2011 accept the first and reject the second; Velleman 1991 endorses that animal mental lives are such that killing them does not harm them). Animals could lack a mental life that makes killing them wrong because it is a necessary condition for killing a creature being wrong that that creature have long-term goals and animals don’t or that it is a necessary condition that that creature have the capacity to form such goals and animals don’t or that it is a necessary condition that the creature’s life have a narrative structure and animals’ lives don’t or… [ 5 ]

Instead, the first premise might be false and killing animals we raise for food might be permissible because

[t]he genesis of domestic animals is…a matter…of an implicit social contract—what Stephen Budiansky…calls ‘a covenant of the wild.’…Humans could protect such animals as the wild ancestors of domestic cattle and swine from predation, shelter them from the elements, and feed them when otherwise they might starve. The bargain from the animal’s point of view, would be a better life as the price of a shorter life… (Callicott 2015: 56–57)

The idea is that we have made a “bargain” with animals to raise them, to protect them from predators and the elements, and to tend to them, but then, in return, to kill them. Moreover, the “bargain” renders killing animals permissible (defended in Hurst 2009, Other Internet Resources, and described in Midgley 1983). Such an argument might render permissible hurting animals, too, or treating them merely as tools.

Relatedly, even conceding that it is pro tanto wrong to kill animals, it might be all things considered permissible to kill farm animals for food even when there are ready alternatives because and when their well-being is replaced by the well-being of a new batch of farmed animals (Tännsjö 2016). Farms kill one batch of chickens and then bring in a batch of chicks to raise (and then kill) next. The total amount of well-being is fixed though the identities of the receptacles of that well-being frequently changes.

Anyone who endorses the views in the two paragraphs above needs to explain whether and then why their reasoning applies to animals but not humans. It would not be morally permissible to create humans on organ farms and harvest those organs, justifying this with the claim that these humans wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the plan to take their organs and so part of the “deal” is that those humans are killed for their organs. Neither would it be morally permissible to organ-farm humans, justifying it with the claim that they will be replaced by other happy humans. [ 6 ]

Finally, consider:

Harming the environment while producing food when there are readily available alternatives is wrong.

Industrial animal farming involves harming the environment while producing food when there are readily available alternatives. Hence,

A more plausible premise might be “egregiously harming the environment…” The harms, detailed in Budolfson 2018, Hamerschlag 2011, Rossi & Garner 2014, and Ranganathan et al. 2016, are egregious and include deforestation, greenhouse gas emission, soil degradation, water pollution, water and fossil fuel depletion.

The argument commits to it being wrong to harm the environment. Whether this is because those harms are instrumental in harming sentient creatures or whether it is intrinsically wrong to harm the environment or ecosystems or species or living creatures regardless of sentience is left open. [ 7 ]

The argument does not commit to whether these harms to the environment are necessary consequences of industrial animal farming. There are important debates, discussed in PNAS 2013, about whether, and how easily, these harms can be stripped off industrial animal production.

There is an additional important debate, discussed in Budolfson 2018, about whether something like this argument applies to freerange animal farming.

Finally, there is a powerful objection to the first premise from the claim that these harms are part of a package that leaves sentient creatures better off than they would’ve been under any other option.

Nothing has been said so far about general moral theories and meat production. There is considerable controversy about what those theories imply about meat production. So, for example, utilitarians agree that we are required to maximize happiness. They disagree about which agricultural practices do so. One possibility is that because it brings into existence many trillions of animals that, in the main, have lives worth living and otherwise would not exist, industrial farming maximizes happiness (Tännsjö 2016). Another is that freerange farming maximizes happiness (Hare 1999; Crisp 1988). Instead, it could be that no form of animal agriculture does (Singer 1975 though Singer 1999 seems to agree with Hare).

Kantians agree it is wrong to treat ends in themselves merely as means. They disagree about which agricultural practices do so. Kant ( Lectures on Ethics ) himself claims that no farming practice does—animals are mere means and so treating them as mere means is fine. Some Kantians, by contrast, claim that animals are ends in themselves and that typically animal farming treats them as mere means and, hence, is wrong (Korsgaard 2011 and 2015; Regan 1975 and 1983).

Contractualists agree that it is wrong to do anything that a certain group of people would reasonably reject. (They disagree about who is in the group.) They disagree, too, about which agricultural practice contractualism permits. Perhaps it permits any sort of animal farming (Carruthers 2011; Hsiao 2015a). Perhaps it permits none (Rowlands 2009). Intermediate positions are possible.

Virtue ethicists agree that it is wrong to do anything a virtuous person would not do or would not advise. Perhaps this forbids hurting and killing animals, so any sort of animal farming is impermissible and so is hunting (Clark 1984; Hursthouse 2011). Instead, perhaps it merely forbids hurting them, so freerange farming is permissible and so is expert, pain-free hunting (Scruton 2006b).

Divine command ethicists agree that it is wrong to do anything forbidden by God. Perhaps industrial farming, at least, would be (Halteman 2010; Scully 2002). Lipscomb (2015) seems to endorse that freerange farming would not be forbidden by God. A standard Christian view is that no form of farming would be forbidden, that because God gave humans dominion over animals, we may treat them in any old way. Islamic and Jewish arguments are stricter about what may be eaten and about how animals may be treated though neither rules out even industrial animal farming (Regenstein, et al. 2003).

Rossian pluralists agree it is prima facie wrong to harm. There is room for disagreement about which agricultural practices—controlling, hurting, killing—do harm and so room for disagreement about which farming practices are prima facie wrong. Curnutt (1997) argues that the prima facie wrongness of killing animals is not overridden by typical justifications for doing so.

In addition to pork and beef, there are salmon and crickets. In addition to lamb and chicken, there are mussels and shrimp. There is little in the philosophical literature about insects and sea creatures and their products, and this entry reflects that. [ 8 ] Yet the topics are important. The organization Fish Count estimates that at least a trillion sea creatures are wild-caught or farmed each year (Mood & Brooke 2010, 2012, in Other Internet Resources). Globally, humans consume more than 20 kg of fish per capita annually (FAO 2016). In the US, we consume 1.5 lbs of honey per capita annually (Bee Culture 2016). Estimates of insect consumption are less sure. The UN FAO estimates that insects are part of the traditional diets of two billion humans though whether they are eaten—whether those diets are adhered to—and in what quantity is unclear (FAO 2013).

Seafood is produced by farming and by fishing. Fishing techniques vary from a person using a line in a boat to large trawlers pulling nets across the ocean floor. The arguments for and against seafood production are much like the arguments for and against meat production: Some worry about the effects on humans of these practices. (Some workers, for example, are enslaved on shrimpers.) Some worry about the effects on the environment of these practices. (Some coral reefs, for example, are destroyed by trawlers.) Some worry about the permissibility of killing, hurting, or controlling sea creatures or treating them merely as tools. This last worry should not be undersold: Again, Mood and Brooke (2010, 2012, in Other Internet Resources) estimate that between 970 billion and 2.7 trillion fish are wild-caught yearly and between 37 and 120 billion farmed fish are killed. If killing, hurting, or controlling these creatures or treating them as mere tools is wrong, then the scale of our wrongdoing with regard to sea creatures beggars belief.

Are these actions wrong? Complicating the question is that there is significantly more doubt about which sea creatures have mental lives at all and what those mental lives are like. And while whether shrimp are sentient is clearly irrelevant to the permissibility of enslaving workers who catch them, it does matter to the permissibility of killing shrimp. This doubt is greater still with regard to insect mental lives. In conversation, people sometimes say that bee mental life is such that nothing wrong is done to bees in raising them. Nothing wrong is done to bees in killing them. Because they are not sentient, there is no hurting them. Because of these facts about bee mental life, the argument goes, “taking” their honey need be no more morally problematic than “taking” apples from an apple tree. (There is little on the environmental impact of honey production or (human) workers and honey. So it is unclear how forceful environment- and human-based worries about honey are.)

This argument supporting honey production hinges on some empirical claims about bee mental life. For an up-to-date assessment of bee mental life, see Tye 2016, which argues that bees “have a rich perceptual consciousness” and “can feel some emotions” and that “the most plausible hypothesis overall…is that bees feel pain” (2016: 158–159) and see, too, Barron & Klein 2016, which argues that insects, generally, have a capacity for consciousness. The argument supporting honey production might be objected to on those empirical grounds. It might, instead, be objected to on the grounds that we are uncertain what the mental lives of bees are like. It could be that they are much richer than we realize. If so, killing them or taking excessive honey—and thereby causing them significant harms—might well be morally wrong. And, the objection continues, the costs of not doing so, of just letting bees be, would be small. If so, caution requires not taking any honey or killing bees or hurting them. Arguments like this are sometimes put applied to larger creatures. For discussion of such arguments, see Guerrero 2007.

4. From Production to Consumption

None of the foregoing is about consumption. The moral vegetarian arguments thus far have, at most, established that it is wrong to produce meat in various ways. Assuming that some such argument is sound, how to get from the wrongness of producing meat to the wrongness of consuming that meat?

This question is not always taken seriously. Classics of the moral vegetarian literature like Singer 1975, Regan 1975, Engel 2000, and DeGrazia 2009 do not give much space to it. (C. Adams 1990 is a rare canonical vegetarian text that devotes considerable space to consumption ethics.) James Rachels writes,

Sometimes philosophers explain that [my argument for vegetarianism] is unconvincing because it contains a logical gap. We are all opposed to cruelty, they say, but it does not follow that we must become vegetarians. It only follows that we should favor less cruel methods of meat production. This objection is so feeble it is hard to believe it explains resistance to the basic argument [for vegetarianism]. (2004: 74)

Yet if the objection is that it does not follow from the wrongness of producing meat that consuming meat is wrong, then the objection is not feeble and is clearly correct. In order to validly derive the vegetarian conclusion, additional premises are needed. Rachels, it turns out, has some, so perhaps it is best to interpret his complaint as that it is obvious what the premises are.

Maybe so. But there is quite a bit of disagreement about what those additional premises are and plausible candidates differ greatly from one another.

Consider a productivist idea about the connection between production and consumption according to which consumption of wrongfully-produced goods is wrong because it produces more wrongful production. The idea issues an argument that, in outline, is:

Consuming some product P produces production of Q .

Production of Q is wrong.

It is wrong to produce wrongdoing. Hence,

Consuming P is wrong.

Or never mind actual production. A productivist might argue:

Consuming some product P is reasonably expected to produce production of Q .

It is wrong to do something that is reasonably expected to produce wrongdoing. Hence,

Consuming P is wrong. (Singer 1975; Norcross 2004; Kagan 2011)

(The main ideas about connecting consumption and production that follow can—but won’t —be put in terms of expectation, too.)

The moral vegetarian might then argue that meat is among the values of both P and Q : consuming meat is reasonably expect to produce production of meat. Or the moral vegetarian might argue that consuming meat produces more normalization of bad attitudes towards animals and that is wrong. There are various possibilities.

Just consider the first, the one about meat consumption producing meat production. It is most plausible with regard to buying . It is buying the wrongfully-produced good that produces more of it. Eating meat produces more production, if it does, by producing more buying. When Grandma buys the wrongfully produced delicacy, the idea goes, she produces more wrongdoing. The company she buys from produces more goods whether you eat the delicacy or throw it out.

These arguments hinge on an empirical claim about production and a moral claim about the wrongfulness of producing wrongdoing. The moral claim has far-reaching implications (DeGrazia 2009 and Warfield 2015). Consider this rent case:

You pay rent to a landlord. You know that he takes your rent and uses the money to buy wrongfully-produced meat.

If buying wrongfully-produced meat is wrong because it produces more wrongfully-produced meat, is it wrong to pay rent in the rent case? Is it wrong to buy a vegetarian meal at a restaurant that then takes your money and uses it to buy wrongfully-produced steak? These are questions for productivists’ moral claim. There are further, familiar questions about whether it is wrong to produce wrongdoing when one neither intends to nor foresees it and whether it is wrong to produce wrongdoing when one does not intend it but does foresee it and then about whether what is wrong is producing wrongdoing or, rather, simply producing a bad effect (see entries on the doctrine of double effect and doing vs. allowing harm ).

An objection to productivist arguments denies the empirical claim and, instead, accepting that because the food system is so enormous, fed by so many consumers, and so stuffed with money, our eating or buying typically has no effect on production, neither directly nor even, through influencing others, indirectly (Budolfson 2015; Nefsky 2018). The idea is that buying a burger at, say, McDonald’s produces no new death nor any different treatment of live animals. McDonald’s will produce the same amount of meat—and raise its animals in exactly the same way—regardless of whether one buys a burger there. Moreover, the idea goes, one should reasonably expect this. Whether or not this is a good account of how food consumption typically works, it is an account of a possible system. Consider the Chef in Shackles case, a modification of a case in McPherson 2015:

Alma runs Chef in Shackles, a restaurant at which the chef is known to be held against his will. It’s a vanity project, and Alma will run the restaurant regardless of how many people come. In fact, Alma just burns the money that comes in. The enslaved chef is superb; the food is delicious.

The productivist idea does not imply it is wrong to buy food from or eat at Chef in Shackles. If that is wrong, a different idea needs to explain its wrongness.

So consider instead an extractivist idea according to which consumption of wrongful goods is wrong because it is a benefiting from wrongdoing (Barry & Wiens 2016). This idea can explain why it is wrong to eat at Chef in Shackles—when you enjoy a delicious meal there, you benefit from the wrongful captivity of the chef. In outline, the extractivist argument is:

Consuming some product P extracts benefit from the production of P .

Production of P is wrong.

It is wrong to extract benefit from wrongdoing. Hence,

Moral vegetarians would then urge that meat is among the values of P . Unlike the productivist argument, this one is more plausible with regard to eating than buying. It’s the eating, typically, that produces the benefit and not the buying. Unlike the productivist argument, it does not seem to have any trouble explaining what is wrong in the Chef in Shackles case. Unlike the productivist argument, it doesn’t seem to imply that paying a landlord who pays for wrongfully produced food is wrong—paying a landlord is not benefiting from wrongdoing.

Like the productivist argument, the extractivist argument hinges on an empirical claim about consumer benefits and a moral claim about the ethics of so benefiting.

The notion of benefiting, however, is obscure. Imagine you go to Chef in Shackles, have a truly repulsive meal, and become violently ill afterwards. Have you benefit ted from wrongdoing? If not, the extractivist idea cannot explain what is wrong with going to the restaurant.

Put so plainly, the extractivist’s moral claim is hard to believe. Consider the terror-love case, a modification of a case Barry & Wiens 2016 credits to Garrett Cullity:

A terrorist bomb grievously injures Bob and Cece. They attend a support group for victims, fall in love, and live happily ever after, leaving them significantly better off than they were before the attack.

Bob and Cece seem to benefit from wrongdoing but seem not to be doing anything wrong by being together. Whereas the productivist struggles to explain why it is wrong to patronize Chef in Shackles, the extractivist struggles to explain why it is permissible for Bob and Cece to benefit from wrongdoing.

A participatory idea has no trouble with the terror-love case. According to it, consuming wrongfully-produced goods is wrong because it cooperates with or participates in or, in Hursthouse’s phrase, is party to wrongdoing (2011). Bob and Cece do not participate in terror, so the idea does not imply they do wrong. The idea issues an argument that, in outline, goes:

Consuming some product P is participating in the production of P .

It is wrong to participate in the production of wrongful things. Hence,

Consuming P is wrong. (Kutz 2000; Lepora & Goodin 2013)

Moral vegetarians would then urge that meat is among the values of P . Unlike the productivist or extractivist ideas, the participatory idea seems to as easily cover buying and eating for each is plausibly a form of participating in wrongdoing. Unlike the productivist idea, it has no trouble explaining why it is wrong to patronize Chef in Shackles and does not imply it is wrong to pay rent to a landlord who buys wrongfully-produced meat. Unlike the extractivist idea, whether or not you get food poisoning at Chef in Shackles has no moral importance to it. Unlike the extractivist idea, the participatory idea does not falsely imply that the Bob and Cece do wrong in benefiting from wrongdoing—after all, their failing in love is not a way of participating in wrongdoing.

Yet it is not entirely clear what it is to participate in wrongdoing. Consider the Jains who commit themselves to lives without himsa (violence). Food production causes himsa. So Jains try to avoid eating many plants, uprooted to be eaten, and even drinking untreated water, filled with microorganisms, to minimize lives taken. Yet Jaina monastics are supported by Jaina laypersons. The monastic can’t boil his own water—that would be violent—but the water needs boiling so he depends on a layperson to boil. He kills no animals but receives alms, including meat, from a layperson. Is the monastic participating in violence? Is he participating because he is complicit in this violence (Kutz 2000; Lepora & Goodin 2013)? Is he part of a group that together does wrong (Parfit 1984: Chapter 3)? When Darryl refuses to buy wrongfully-produced meat but does no political work with regard to ending its production is he party to the wrongful production? Does he participate in it or cooperate with its production? Is he a member of a group that does wrong? If so, what are the principles of group selection?

As a matter of contingent fact, failing to politically protest meat exhibits no objectionable attitudes in contemporary US society. Yet it might be that consuming certain foods insults or otherwise disrespects creatures involved in that food’s production (R.M. Adams 2002; Hill 1979). Hurka (2003) argues that virtue requires exhibiting the right attitude towards good or evil, and so if consuming exhibits an attitude towards production, it is plausible that eating wrongfully produced foods exhibits the wrong attitude towards them. These are all attitudinal ideas about consumption. They might issue in an argument like this:

Consuming some product P exhibits a certain attitude towards production of P .

It is wrong to exhibit that attitude towards wrongdoing. Hence,

Moral vegetarians would then urge that meat is among the values of P . Like the participatory idea, the attitudinal idea explains the wrongness of eating and buying various goods—both are ways of exhibiting attitudes. Like the participatory idea, it has no trouble with Chef in Shackles, the rent case, the food poisoning case, or the terror-love case. It does hinge on an empirical claim about exhibition—consuming certain products exhibits a certain attitude—and then a moral claim about the impermissibility of that exhibition. One might well wonder about both. One might well wonder why buying meat exhibits support for that enterprise but paying rent to someone who will buy that meat does not. One might well wonder whether eating wrongfully-produced meat in secret exhibits support and whether such an exhibition is wrong. Also, there are attitudes other than attitudes towards production to consider. Failing to offer meat to a guest might exhibit a failure of reverence (Fan 2010). In contemporary India, in light of the “meat murders” committed by Hindus against Muslims nominally for the latter group’s consumption of beef, refusing to eat meat might exhibit support for religious discrimination (Doniger 2017).

The productivist, extractivist, participatory, and attitudinal ideas are not mutually exclusive. Someone might make use of a number of them. Driver, for example, writes,

[E]ating [wrongfully produced] meat is supporting the industry in a situation where there were plenty of other, better, options open…What makes [the eater] complicit is that she is a participant . What makes that participation morally problematic…is that the eating of meat displays a willingness to cooperate with the producers of a product that is produced via huge amounts of pain and suffering. (2015: 79; all italics mine)

This seems to at least incorporate participatory and attitudinal ideas. Lawford-Smith (2015) combines attitudinal and productivist ideas. McPherson (2015) combines extractivist and participatory ideas. James Rachels (2004) combines participatory and productivity ideas. And, of course, there are ideas not discussed here, e.g., that it is wrong to reward wrongdoers for wrongdoing and buying wrongfully produced meat does so. The explanation of why it is wrong to consume certain goods might be quite complex.

Driver, Lawford-Smith, McPherson, and James Rachels argue that it is wrong to consume wrongfully produced food and try to explain why this is. The productivist, extractivist, participatory, and attitudinal ideas, too, try to explain it. But it could be that there is nothing to explain.

It could be that certain modes of production are wrong yet consuming their products is permissible. We might assume that if consumption of certain goods is wrong, then that wrongness would have to be partly explained in terms of the wrongness of those goods’ production and then argue that there are no sound routes from a requirement not to produce a food to a requirement not to consume it (Frey 1983). This leaves open the possibility that consumers might be required to do something —for example, work for political changes that end the wrongful system—but permitted to eat wrongfully-produced food.

As §4.1 discusses, Warfield raises a problem for productivist accounts that they seem to falsely imply that morally permissible activities like paying rent to meat-eaters or buying salad at a restaurant serving meat are morally wrong (2015). Add the assumption that if consumption is wrong, it is wrong because some productivist view is true, and it follows that consumption of wrongful goods need not be wrongful. (Warfield does not assume this but instead says that “the best discussion” of the connection between production and consumption is “broadly consequentialist” (ibid., 154).)

Instead, we might assume that an extractivist or participatory or attitudinal view is correct if any is and then argue no such view is correct. We might, for example, argue that these anti-consumption views threaten to forbid too much. If the wrongness of producing and wrongness of consuming are connected, what else is connected? If buying meat is wrong because it exhibits the wrong attitude towards animals, is it permissible to be friends with people who buy that meat—or does this, too, evince the wrong attitudes towards animals? If killing animals for food is wrong, is it permissible merely to abstain from consuming them or must one do more work to stop their killing? The implications of various arguments against consuming animals and animal products might be far-reaching. Some will see this as an acknowledgment that something is wrong with moral vegetarian arguments. As Gruen and Jones (2015) note, the lifestyle some such arguments point to might not be enactable by creatures like us. Yet they see this not as grounds for rejection of the argument but, rather, as acknowledgment that the argument sets out an aspiration that we can orient ourselves towards (cf. §4 of Curtin 1991 on “contextual vegetarianism”).

A different sort of argument in favor of the all things considered permissibility of consuming meat comes from the idea that eating and buying animals actually makes for a great cultural good (Lomasky 2013). Even if we accept that the production of those animals is wrong, it could be that the great good of consuming justifies doing so. (Relatedly, it could be that the bad of refusing to consume justifies consumption as in a case in which a host has labored over barbequed chicken for hours and your refusing to eat it would devastate him.) Yet this seems to leave open the possibility that all sorts of awful practices might be permissible because they are essential parts of great cultural goods. It threatens to permit too much.

5. Extending Moral Vegetarian Arguments: Animal Products and Plants

Moral veganism accepts moral vegetarianism and adds to it that consuming animal products is wrong. Mere moral vegetarians deny this and add to moral vegetarianism that it is permissible to consume animal products. An additional issue that divides some moral vegans and moral vegetarians is whether animal product production is wrong. This raises a general question: If it is wrong to produce meat on the grounds adduced in §2 , what other foods are wrongfully produced? If it is wrong to hurt chickens for meat, isn’t it wrong to hurt them for eggs? If it is wrong to harm workers in the production of meat, isn’t it wrong to harm workers in the production of animal products? If it is wrong to produce huge quantities of methane for meat, isn’t it wrong to produce it for milk? These are challenges posed by moral veganism.

But various vegan diets raise moral questions. If it is wrong to hurt chickens for meat, is it wrong to hurt mice and moles while harvesting crops? If it is wrong to harm workers in the production of meat, isn’t it wrong to harm workers in the production of tomatoes? If it is wrong to use huge quantities of water for meat, isn’t it wrong to use huge quantities of water for almonds?

5.1 Animal Products

As it might be that meat farming wrong, it might be that animal product farming is wrong for similar reasons. These reasons stem from concerns about plants, animals, humans, and the environment. This entry will focus on the first, second, and fourth and will consider eggs and dairy.

Like meat birds, egg layers on industrial farms are tightly confined, given on average a letter-sized page of space. Their beaks are seared off. They are given a cocktail of antibiotics. Males, useless as layers, are killed right away: crushed, dehydrated, starved, suffocated. As they age and their laying-rate slows, females are starved so as to force them to shed feathers and induce more laying. They are killed within a couple years (HSUS 2009; cf. Norwood & Lusk 2011: 113–127, which rates layer hen lives as not worth living).

Freerange egg farming ideally avoids much of this. Yet it still involves killing off young but spent hens and also baby roosters. It often involves painful, stressful trips to industrial slaughterhouses. So, as it is plausible that industrially and freerange farming chickens for meat makes them suffer, so too is it plausible that industrially and freerange farming them for eggs does. The same goes for killing.

The threat to the environment, too, arises from industrial farming itself rather than whether it produces meat or eggs. Chickens produce greenhouse gas and waste regardless of whether they are farmed for meat or eggs. Land is deforested to grow food for them and resources are depleted to care for them regardless of whether they are farmed for meat or eggs.

In sum, arguments much like arguments against chicken production seem to apply as forcefully to egg production. Arguments from premises about killing, hurting, and harming the environment seem to apply to typical egg production as they do to typical chicken production.

Like beef cattle, dairy cows on industrial farms are tightly confined and bereft of much stimulation. As dairy cows, however, they are routinely impregnated and then constantly milked. Males, useless as milkers, are typically turned to veal within a matter of months. Females live for maybe five years. (HSUS 2009; cf. Norwood & Lusk 2011: 145–150).

Freerange milk production does not avoid very much of this. Ideally, it involves less pain and suffering but it typically involves forced impregnation, separation of mother and calf, and an early death, typically in an industrial slaughterhouse. So far as arguments against raising cows for meat on the basis that doing so kills them and makes them suffer are plausible, so are analogous arguments against raising cows for dairy.

The threat to the environment is also similar regardless of whether cattle are raised for meat or milk. So far as arguments against raising cows for meat on the basis that doing so harms the environment are plausible, so are analogous arguments against raising cows for milk. Raising cows for meat and for milk produces greenhouse gas and waste; it deforests and depletes resources. In fact, to take just one example, the greenhouse-gas-based case against dairy is stronger than the greenhouse-gas-based case against poultry and pork (Hamerschlag 2013).

In sum, arguments much like arguments against beef production seem to apply as forcefully to dairy production. Arguments from premises about killing, hurting, and harming the environment seem to apply to typical dairy production as they do to typical beef production.

As it might be that animal, dairy, and egg farming are wrong, it might be that plant farming is wrong for similar reasons. These reasons stem from concerns about plants, animals, humans, and the environment. This entry will focus on the first, second, and fourth.

Ed drenches Fatima’s prized cactus in pesticides without permission. This is uncontroversially wrongful but only uncontroversial because the cactus is Fatima’s. If a cactus grows in Ed’s yard and, purely for fun, she drenches it in pesticides, killing it, is that wrong? There is a family of unorthodox but increasingly common ideas about the treatment of plants according to which any killing of plants is at least pro tanto wrongful and that treating them as mere tools is too (Marder 2013; Stone 1972, Goodpaster 1978, and Varner 1998 are earlier discussions and Tinker 2015 discusses much earlier discussions). One natural way to develop this thought is that it is wrong to treat plants this way simply because of the effects on plants themselves. An alternative is wrong to treat the plants this way simply because of its effects on the biosphere. In both cases, we can do intrinsic wrong to non-sentient creatures.

The objection raises an important issue about interests. Singer, following Porphyry and Bentham, assumes that all and only sentient creatures have interests. The challenge that Marder, et al. raise is that plants at least seem to do better or worse, to flourish or founder, because they seem to have interests in a certain amount of light, nutrients, and water. One way to interpret the position of Porphyry, et al. is that things are not as they seem here and, in fact, plants, lacking sentience, have no interests. This invites the question of why sentience is necessary for interests (Frey 1980 and 1983). Another way to interpret the position of Porphyry, et al. is that plants do have interests but they have no moral import. This invites the questions of when and why is it permissible to deprive plants of what they have interests in. Marder’s view is that plants have interests and that these interests carry significantly more moral weight than one might think. So, for example, as killing a dog for fun is wrong, so, too, is killing a dandelion. If killing a chicken for food we don’t need is wrong, so, too, is killing some carrots.

If it is impermissible to kill plants to provide ourselves food we don’t need, how far does the restriction on killing extend: To bacteria? Pressed about this by Gary Francione, Marder is open-minded: “We should not reject the possibility of respecting communities of bacteria without analyzing the issue seriously” (2016: 179).

Marder’s view rests on a controversial interpretation of plant science and, in particular, on a controversial view that vegetal responses to stimuli—for example that “roots…are capable of altering their growth pattern in moving toward resource-rich soil or away from nearby roots of other members of the same species” (2016: 176)—suffice to show that plants have interests, are ends in themselves, and it is pro tanto wrong to kill them and treat them as tools.

Uncontroversially, much actual plant production does have various bad consequences for animals. Actual plant production in the US is largely large scale. Large-scale plant production involves—intentionally or otherwise—killing a great many sentient creatures. Animals are killed by tractors and pesticides. They are killed or left to die by loss of habitat (Davis 2003; Archer 2011). The scope of the killing is disputed in Lamey 2007 and Matheny 2003 but all agree it is vast (cf. Saja 2013 on the moral imperative to kill large animals).

The “intentionally or otherwise” is important to some. While these harms are foreseen consequences of farming, they are unintended. To some, that animals are harmed but not intentionally harmed in producing corn in Iowa helps to make those harms permissible (see entry on doctrine of double effect ). Pigs farmed in Iowa, by contrast, are intentionally killed. Chickens and cows, too. (Are any intentionally hurt? Not typically. Farming is not sadistic.)

The scale is important, too. Davis (2003) and Archer (2011) argue that some forms of meat production kill fewer animals than plant production and, because of that, are preferable to plant production.

The idea is that if animal farming is wrong because it kills animals simply in the process of producing food we don’t need, then some forms of plant farming are wrong for the same reason. More weakly, if animal farming is wrong because it kills very large numbers of animals in the process of producing food we don’t need, then some forms of plant farming are wrong for the same reason.

An outstanding issue is whether these harms are necessary components of plant production or contingent. A further issue is how easy it would be to strip these harms off of plant production while still producing foods humans want to eat at prices they are willing to pay.

A final objection to the permissibility of plant production: There are clearly environmental costs of plant production. Indeed, the environmental costs of plant farming are large: topsoil loss; erosion; deforestation; run-off; resource-depletion; greenhouse gas emissions. To take just the last two examples, Budolfson (2016: 169) estimates that broccoli produces more kilograms of CO 2 per thousand calories than pork and that almonds use two and a half times the water per thousand calories that chicken does.

If some forms of animal farming are wrong for those environmental reasons, then some forms of plant farming are wrong for those reasons (Budolfson 2018).

Again, an outstanding issue is whether these harms are necessary components of plant production or contingent. A further issue is how easy it would be to strip these harms off of plant production while still producing foods people want to eat at prices they are willing to pay.

Moral vegetarian arguments standardly oppose treating animals in various ways while raising them for food that we do not need to eat to survive. This standardly makes up part of the arguments that it is wrong to eat animals.

These arguments against meat production can be extended mutatis mutandis to animal product production. [ 9 ] They can be extended, too, to some forms of plant production. This suggests:

The arguments against industrial plant production and animal product production are as strong as the arguments against meat production.

The arguments against meat production show that meat production is wrong. Hence,

The arguments against industrial plant production and animal product production show that those practices are wrong.

One possibility is that the first premise is false and that some of the arguments are stronger than others.

Another possibility is that the first premise is true and all these arguments are equally strong. We would then have to choose between accepting the second premise—and thereby accepting the conclusion—or denying that meat production is wrong.

Another possibility is that the argument is sound but of limited scope, there being few if any alternatives in the industrialized West to industrialized plant, animal product, and meat production.

A final possibility is that the parity of these arguments and evident unsoundness of an argument against industrial plant production show that the ideas behind those arguments are being misexpressed. Properly understood, they issue not in a directive about the wrongness of this practice or that. Rather, properly understood, they just show that various practices are bad in various ways. If so, we can then ask: Which are worse? And in which ways? The literature typically ranks factory farming as worse for animals than industrial plant farming if only because the former requires the latter and produces various harms—the suffering of billions of chickens—that the latter does not. Or consider the debate in the literature about the relative harmfulness to animals of freerange farming and industrial plant farming. Which produces more animal death or more animal suffering? Ought we minimize that suffering? Or consider the relative harmfulness of freerange and industrial animal farming. Some argue that the former is worse for the environment but better for animals. If so, there is a not-easy question about which, if either, to go in for.

Given length requirements, this entry cannot convey the vastness of the moral vegetarian literature. There is some excellent work in the popular press. Between the Species , Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , Journal of Animal Ethics , Environmental Ethics , and Journal of Food Ethics publish articles yearly. Dozens of good articles have been omitted from discussion.

This entry has omitted quite direct arguments against consuming meat, arguments that do not derive from premises about the wrongness of producing this or that. Judeo-Islamic prohibitions on pork, for example, derive from the uncleanliness of the product rather than the manner of its production. Rastafari prohibitions on eating meat, for another example, derive in part from the view that meat consumption is unnatural. Historically, such prohibitions and justifications for them have not been limited to prohibitions on consuming meat. The Laws of Manu ’s prohibition on onion-eating derives from what consuming onion will do to the consumer rather than the manner of onion-production (Doniger & Smith (trans.) 1991: 102). The Koran’s prohibition on alcohol-drinking derives from what consuming alcohol will do to the consumer rather than the manner of alcohol-production (5:90–91).

Arguments like this, arguments against consumption that start from premises about intrinsic features of the consumed or about the consumed’s effects on consumers, largely do not appear in the contemporary philosophical literature. What we have now are arguments according to which certain products are wrongfully produced and consumption of such products bears a certain relation to that wrongdoing and, ipso facto , is wrong. Moral vegetarians then argue that meat is such a product: It is typically wrongfully produced and consuming it typically bears a certain relation to that wrongdoing. This then leaves the moral vegetarian open to two sorts of objections: objections to the claims about production— is meat produced that way? Is such production wrongful?—and objections to the claims connecting consumption to production— is consuming meat related to wrongful production in the relevant way? Is being so related wrong? Explaining moral vegetarian answers to these questions was the work of §2 and §4 .

There are further questions. If moral vegetarian arguments against meat-consumption are sound, then are arguments against animal product consumption also sound? Might dairy, eggs, and honey be wrongfully produced as moral vegetarians argue meat is? Might consuming them wrongfully relate the consumer to that production? Explaining the case for “yes” was some of the work of §5 .

Relatedly, some plants, fruit, nuts, and other putatively vegetarian foods might be wrongfully produced. Some tomatoes are picked by workers working in conditions just short of slavery (Bowe 2007); industrial production of apples sucks up much water (Budolfson 2016); industrial production of corn crushes numerous small animals to death (Davis 2003). Are these food wrongfully produced? Might consuming them wrongfully relate the consumer to that production? Explaining the case for “yes” here, too, was some of the work of §5 .

Fischer (2018) suggests that the answers to some of the questions noted in the previous two paragraphs support a requirement to “eat unusually” and, one might add, to produce unusually. If meat, for example, is usually wrongfully produced, it must be produced unusually for that production to stand a chance of being permissible, perhaps as faultless roadkill (Koelle 2012; Bruckner 2015) or as the corpse of an animal dead from natural causes (Foer 2009) or as a test-tube creation (Milburn 2016; Pluhar 2010; see the essays in Donaldson & Carter (eds.) 2016 for discussion of plant-based “meat”).

If consuming meat is usually wrong because it usually bears a certain relation to production, it must be consumed unusually to stand a chance of being permissible. Some people eat only food they scavenge from dumpsters, food that would otherwise go to waste. Some people eat only food that is given to them without asking for any food in particular. If consuming is wrong only because it produces more production, neither of these modes of consumption would be wrongful.

As some unusual consumption might, by lights of the arguments considered in this entry, turn out to be morally unobjectionable, some perfectly usual practices having nothing to do with consumption might turn out, by those same lights, to be morally objectionable. Have you done all you are required to do by moral vegetarian lights if you stop eating, for example, factory-farmed animals? Clearly not. If it is wrong to eat a factory-farmed cow, it is for very similar reasons wrong to wear the skin of that cow. Does the wrongful road stop at consumption, broadly construed to include buying, eating, or otherwise using? Or need consumers do more than not consume wrongfully-produced goods? Need they be pickier in how they spend their money than simply not buying meat, e.g., not going to restaurants that serve any meat? Need they protest or lobby? Need they take more direct action against farms? Or more direct action against the government? Need they refuse to pay rent to landlords who buy wrongfully-produced meat? Is it permissible for moral vegetarians to befriend—or to stay friends with—meat-eaters? As there are questions about whether the moral road gets from production to consumption, there are questions about whether the road stops at consumption or gets much farther.

As discussed in §5 , the moral vegetarian case against killing, hurting, or raising animals for food might well be extended to killing, hurting, or raising animals in other circumstances. What, if anything, do those cases show about the ethical treatment of pets (Bok 2011; Overall (ed.) 2017; Palmer 2010 and 2011)? Of zoo creatures (DeGrazia 2011; Gruen 2011: Chapter 5; Gruen 2014)?

What, if anything, do they show about duties regarding wild animals? Palmer 2010 opens with two cases from 2007, one of which involved the accidental deaths of 10,000 wildebeest in Kenya, the other involving the mistreatment and death of 150 horses in England. As Palmer notes, it is plausible that we are required to care for and help domesticated animals—that’s why it is plausibly wrong to let horses under our care suffer—but permissible to let similar harms befall wild animals—that’s why it is plausibly permissible to let wildebeest suffer and die. And yet, Palmer continues, it is also plausible that animals with similar capacities—animals like horses and wildebeest—should be treated similarly. So is the toleration of 10,000 wildebeest deaths permissible? Or do we make a moral mistake in not intervening in such cases? Relatedly, moral vegetarians oppose chicken killing and consumption and yet some of them aid and abet domestic cats in the killings of billions of birds each year in the United States alone (Loss, et al. 2013; Pressler 2013). Is this permissible? If so, why (Cohen 2004; Milburn 2015; Sittler-Adamczewski 2016)? McMahan (2015) argues that standard moral vegetarian arguments against killing and suffering lead (eventually) to the conclusion that we ought to reduce predation in the wild.

What, if anything do moral vegetarian arguments show about duties regarding fetuses? There are forceful arguments that if abortion is wrong, then so is killing animals for food we don’t need (Scully 2013). The converse is more widely discussed but less plausible (Abbate 2014; Colb & Dorf 2016; Nobis 2016).

Finally, in the food ethics literature, questions of food justice are among the most common questions about food consumption. Sexism, racism, and classism, are unjust. Among the issues of food justice, then, are how, if at all, the practices of vegetarianism and omnivorism or encouragement of them are sexist (C. Adams 1990) or racist (Alkon & Agyeman (eds.) 2011) or classist (Guthman 2011). Industrial animal agriculture raises a pair of questions of justice: It degrades the environment—is this unjust to future generations who will inherit this degraded environment? Also, what makes it so environmentally harmful is the scale of it. That scale is driven, in part, by demand for meat among the increasingly affluent in developing countries (Herrero & Thornton 2013). Is refusing to meet that demand—after catering to wealthy Western palates for a long stretch—a form of classism or racism?

The animals we eat dominate the moral vegetarian literature and have dominated it ever since there has been a moral vegetarian literature. A way to think about these last few paragraphs is that questions about what we eat lead naturally to questions about other, quite different topics: the animals we eat but also the animals we don’t; eating those animals but also eating plants; refusing to eat those animals but also raising pets and refusing to intervene with predators and prey in the wild; refusing to eat but also failing to protest or rectify various injustices. Whereas the questions about animals—and the most popular arguments about them—are very old, these other questions are newer, and there is much progress to be made in answering them.

• Abbate, Cheryl E., 2014, “Adventures in Moral Consistency”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18(1): 145–164. doi:10.1007/s10677-014-9515-y
• Adams, Carol, 1990, The Sexual Politics of Meat , New York: Continuum.
• Adams, Robert Merrihew, 2002, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195153715.001.0001
• Alkon, Alison Hope and Julian Agyeman (eds.), 2011, Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Allen, Colin, 2004, “Animal Pain”, Noûs , 38(4): 617–643. doi:10.1111/j.0029-4624.2004.00486.x
• Andrews, Kristin, 2016, “Animal Cognition”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/cognition-animal/>.
• Anomaly, Jonny, 2015, “What’s Wrong with Factory Farming?”, Public Health Ethics , 8(3): 246–254. doi:10.1093/phe/phu001
• Archer, Michael, 2011, “Ordering the Vegetarian Meal? There’s More Animal Blood on Your Hands”, The Conversation , 15 December 2011, Archer 2011 available online .
• Barnhill, Anne, Mark Budolfson, and Tyler Doggett (eds.), 2016, Food, Ethics, and Society: An Introductory Text with Readings , New York: Oxford University Press.
• ––– (eds.), 2018, The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Barnhill, Anne and Tyler Doggett, 2017a, “Food Ethics I: Food Production and Food Justice”, Philosophy Compass 13(3): e12479. doi:10.1111/phc3.12479
• –––, 2017b, “Food Ethics II: Consumption and Obesity”, Philosophy Compass 13(3): e12482. doi:10.1111/phc3.12482
• Barron, Andrew and Colin Klein, 2016, “What Insects Can Tell Us About the Origins of Consciousness”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113(18): 4900–4908. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520084113
• Barry, Christian and David Wiens, 2016, “Benefiting from Wrongdoing and Sustaining Wrongful Harm”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 13(5): 530–552. doi:10.1163/17455243-4681052
• Beauchamp, Tom L. and R.G. Frey (eds.), 2011, The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195371963.001.0001
• Bee Culture, 2016, “U.S. Per Capita Consumption of Honey Drops 3%, Imports Climb to 80% of Consumed Honey and Prices Drop 4%”, Bee Culture , 31 March 2016, < available online >.
• Belshaw, Christopher, 2015, “Meat”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 9–29. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0002
• BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), 2017, “Average Retail Food and Energy Prices, U.S. and Midwest Region”, available online .
• Bok, Hilary, 2011, “Keeping Pets”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 769–795.
• Böll Foundation, 2014, Meat Atlas: Facts and Figures About the Animals We Eat , second edition, Berlin: Böll Foundation. [ Böll Foundation 2014 available online ].
• Bowe, John, 2007, Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy , New York: Random House
• Bradley, Ben, 2015, “Is Death Bad for a Cow?”, in Višak and Garner (eds.) 2015: 51–64. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.003.0004
• Braithwaite, Victoria, 2010, Do Fish Feel Pain ?, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bramble, Ben and Bob Fischer (eds.), 2015, The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.001.0001
• Bruckner, Donald W., 2015, “Strict Vegetarianism is Immoral”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 30–47. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0003
• Budolfson, Mark Bryant, 2015, “Is It Wrong to Eat Meat from Factory Farms? If So, Why?”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 80–98. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0006
• –––, 2016, “Consumer Ethics, Harm Footprints, and the Empirical Dimensions of Food Choices”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2016: 163-181. [ Budolfson 2016 associated Excel workbook available online ]
• –––, 2018, “Food, the Environment, and Global Justice”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 67–94.
• Callicott, J. Baird, 2015, “The Environmental Omnivore’s Dilemma”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 48–64. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0004
• Carruthers, Peter, 1992, The Animals Issue , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511597961
• –––, 2007, “Invertebrate Minds: A Challenge for Ethical Theory”, Journal of Ethics , 11(3): 275–297. doi:10.1007/s10892-007-9015-6
• –––, 2011, “Animal Mentality: Its Character, Extent, and Moral Significance”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 373–406.
• Cerulli, Tovar, 2012, The Mindful Carnivore: A Vegetarian's Hunt for Sustenance , New York: Pegasus Books.
• Chignell, Andrew, Terence Cuneo, and Matthew C. Halteman (eds.), 2015, Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments About the Ethics of Eating , New York: Routledge.
• Clark, Stephen, 1984, The Moral Status of Animals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, Carl, 2004, “A Critique of the Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism”, in Sapontzis (ed.) 2004: 152–166.
• Colb, Sherry F. and Michael C. Dorf, 2016, Beating Hearts , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Crisp, Roger, 1988, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy , 4(1): 41–49. doi:10.5840/ijap19884118
• Curnutt, Jordan, 1997, “A New Argument for Vegetarianism”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 28(3): 153–172. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1997.tb00393.x
• Curtin, Deane, 1991, “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care”, Hypatia 6(1): 60–74. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1991.tb00209.x
• Davis, Steven, 2003, “The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 16(4): 387–394. doi:10.1023/A:1025638030686
• DeGrazia, David, 2009, “Moral Vegetarianism from a Very Broad Basis”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 6(2): 143–165. doi:10.1163/174552409X402313
• –––, 2011, “The Ethics of Confining Animals: From Farms to Zoos to Human Homes”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 738–768.
• Delon, Nicolas, 2016, “The Replaceability Argument in the Ethics of Animal Husbandry”, in Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics , Living Edition, Paul B. Thompson and David M. Kaplan (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_512-1
• Diamond, Cora, 1978, “Eating Meat and Eating People”, Philosophy , 53(206): 465–479. doi:10.1017/S0031819100026334
• Doggett, Tyler and Seth M. Holmes, 2018, “Food Labor Ethics”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 494–520.
• Dombrowski, Daniel, 2004, “A Very Brief History of Vegetarianism”, in Sapontzis (ed.) 2004: 22–33.
• Donaldson, Brianne and Christopher Carter (eds.), 2016, The Future of Meat Without Animals , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Doniger, Wendy, 2017, “Hinduism and Its Complicated History with Cows (and People Who Eat Them)”, The Conversation , 16 July 2017, Doniger 2017 available online .
• Doniger, Wendy and Brian Smith (eds.), 1991, The Laws of Manu , Hamondsworth: Penguin Classics. Translation of the Manavadharmasastra .
• Driver, Julia, 2015, “Individual Consumption and Moral Complicity”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 67–79. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0005
• Engel, Mylan Jr, 2000, “The Immorality of Eating Meat”, in Louis P. Pojman. (ed.), The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature , first edition, New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “Vegetarianism”, in Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics , Henk ten Have (ed.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2925–2936. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_434
• Erlichman, James, 1991, “Cruel Cost of Cheap Pork and Poultry: The Meat Factory”, The Guardian , 14 October 1991, p. 4.
• Estabrook, Barry, 2011, Tomatoland , Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel.
• Fan, Ruiping, 2010, “How Should We Treat Animals? A Confucian Reflection”, Dao , 9(1): 79–96. doi:10.1007/s11712-009-9144-7
• FAO, 2006, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options , Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [ FAO 2006 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security , FAO Forestry Paper 171, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [ FAO 2013 available online ]
• –––, 2016, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016: Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All , Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [ FAO 2016 available online ]
• Fischer, Bob, 2016, “Bugging the Strict Vegan”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 29(2): 255–263. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9599-y
• –––, 2018, “Arguments for Consuming Animal Products”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 241–266.
• Foer, Jonathan Safran, 2009, Eating Animals , New York: Little, Brown.
• Francione, Gary L., 2009, Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Fraser, David, 2008, Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context , Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Frey, R.G., 1980, Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals , Oxford: Clarendon.
• –––, 1983, Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Goodpaster, Kenneth, 1978, “On Being Morally Considerable”, Journal of Philosophy , 75(6): 308–325. doi:10.2307/2025709
• Gruen, Lori, 2011, Ethics and Animals: An Introduction , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976162
• ––– (ed.), 2014, The Ethics of Captivity , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199977994.001.0001
• Gruen, Lori and Robert Jones, 2015, “Veganism as an Aspiration”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 153–171. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0010
• Guerrero, Alexander A., 2007, “Don’t Know, Don’t Kill: Moral Ignorance, Culpability, and Caution”, Philosophical Studies , 136(1): 59–97. doi:10.1007/s11098-007-9143-7
• Guthman, Julie, 2011, Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice, and the Limits of Capitalism , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Halteman, Matthew C., 2010, Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation , Washington, DC: Humane Society of the United States.
• Hamerschlag, Kari, 2011, The Meat-Eater’s Guide to Climate Change and Health , July, Environmental Working Group, Washington, DC. [ Hamerschlag 2011 available online ]
• Hare, R.M., 1999, “Why I Am Only a Demi-Vegetarian”, in Jamieson (ed.) 1999: 233–246.
• Harman, Elizabeth, 2011, “The Moral Significance of Animal Pain and Animal Death”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.), 2011: 726–737.
• Harris, Craig K., 2016, “Seafood Ethics: The Normative Trials of Neptune's Treasure”, in Rawlinson & Ward 2016: 315–328.
• Herrero, Mario and Philip K. Thornton, 2013, “Livestock and Global Change: Emerging Issues for Sustainable Food Systems”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110(52): 20878–20881. doi:10.1073/pnas.1321844111
• Hill, Jr., Thomas. E, 1979, “Symbolic Protest and Calculated Silence”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 9(1): 83–102.
• Holmes, Seth M., 2013, Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies: Migrant Farmworkers in the United States , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Hsiao, Timothy, 2015a, “In Defense of Eating Meat”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 28(2): 277–291. doI:10.1007/s10806-015-9534-2
• –––, 2015b, “A Carnivorous Rejoinder to Bruers and Erdös”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 28(6): 1127–1138. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9582-7
• –––, 2017, “Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 30(1): 37–54. doi:10.1007/s10806-017-9652-0
• [HSUS] Humane Society of the United States, 2009, “An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Animals in the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries”, Humane Society of the United States. [ HSUS 2009 available online ]
• Hurka, Thomas, 2003, Virtue, Vice, and Value , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195137167.001.0001
• Hursthouse, Rosalind, 2011, “Virtue Ethics and the Treatment of Animals”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 119–143.
• Jamieson, Dale (ed.), 1999, Peter Singer and His Critics , Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• –––, 2008, Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511806186
• Kagan, Shelly, 2011, “Do I Make a Difference?”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 39(2): 105–141. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01203.x
• Kant, Immanuel, 1775–1780, Lectures on Ethics , in Louis Infield (trans.), Kant: Lectures on Ethics , London: Methuen, 1930.
• Keller, Julie C., Margaret Gray, and Jill Lindsey Harrison, 2016, “Milking Workers, Breaking Bodies”, New Labor Forum , 26(1): 36–44. doi:10.1177/1095796016681763
• Kemmerer, Lisa, 2011, Animals and World Religions , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199790678.001.0001
• Koelle, Alexandra, 2012, “Intimate Bureaucracies: Roadkill, Policy, and Fieldwork on the Shoulder”, Hypatia , 27(3): 651–669. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01295.x
• Korsgaard, Christine, 2011, “Interacting with Animals: A Kantian Account”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 91–118.
• –––, 2015, “A Kantian Case for Animal Rights”, in Višak and Garner (eds.) 2015: 154–177. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.003.0010
• Kutz, Christopher, 2000, Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511663758
• Lamey, Andy, 2007, “Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 38(2): 331–348. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00382.x
• Lawford-Smith, Holly, 2015, “Unethical Consumption and Obligations to Signal”, Ethics and International Affairs , 29(3): 315–330. doi:10.1017/S089267941500026X
• Lepora, Chiara and Robert E. Goodin, 2013, On Complicity and Compromise , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677900.001.0001
• Lipscomb, Benjamin J. Bruxvoort, 2015, “‘Eat Responsibly’: Agrarianism and Meat”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2015: 56–72.
• List, Charles, 2018, “Local Food and the New Hunters”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 170–188.
• Lomasky, Loren, 2013, “Is It Wrong to Eat Animals?”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 30(1–2: 177–200. doi:10.1017/S0265052513000083
• Loss, Scott R., Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra, 2013, “The Impact of Free-Ranging Domestic Cats on Wildlife of the United States”, Nature Communications , 4: 1396. doi:10.1038/ncomms2380 [ Loss, Will, and Marra 2013 available online ].
• Marder, Michael, 2013, Plant Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life , New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 2016, Grafts: Writings on Plants , Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Mares, Teresa, forthcoming, The Other Border: Sustaining Farmworkers in the Dairy Industry , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Marino, Lori, 2017, “Thinking Chickens:A Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior in the Domestic Chicken”, Animal Cognition , 20(2): 127–147. doi:10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4
• Matheny, Gaverick, 2003, “Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis’s Omnivorous Proposal”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 16(5): 505–511. doi:10.1023/A:1026354906892
• McMahan, Jeff, 2008, “Eating Animals the Nice Way”, Daedalus , 137(1): 66–76. doi:10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.66
• –––, 2015, “The Moral Problem of Predation”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2015: 268–293.
• McPherson, Tristram, 2015, “Why I Am a Vegan (and You Should Be One Too)”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2015: 73–91.
• –––, 2018, “The Ethical Basis for Veganism”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 209–240.
• Meyers, C.D., 2013, “Why It Is Morally Good to Eat (Certain Kinds of) Meat: The Case for Entomophagy”, Southwest Philosophy Review , 29: 119–126. doi:10.5840/swphilreview201329113
• Michaelson, Eliot and Andrew Reisner, 2018, “Ethics for Fish”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 189–206.
• Midgley, Mary, 1983, Animals and Why They Matter , Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
• Milburn, Josh, 2015, “Rabbits, Stoats, and the Predator Problem: Why a Strong Animal Rights Position Need Not Call for Human Intervention to Protect Prey from Predators”, Res Publica , 21(3): 273–289. doi:10.1007/s11158-015-9281-2
• –––, 2016, “Chewing Over In Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social Progress”, Res Publica , 22(3): 249–265. doi:10.1007/s11158-016-9331-4
• Nefsky, Julia, 2018, “Consumer Choice and Collective Impact”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 267–286.
• Nobis, Nathan, 2016, “Review of Sherry F. Colb and Michael C. Dorf, Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights (2016)”, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews , 2016.06.25. [ Nobis 2016 available online ].
• Norcross, Alastair, 2004, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases”, Philosophical Perspectives , 18(1): 229–245. doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2004.00027.x
• Norwood, F. Bailey and Jayson L. Lusk, 2011, Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199551163.001.0001
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2017, “Meat Consumption (Indicator)”, Paris: OECD, available online .
• Overall, Christine (ed.), 2017, Pets and People: The Ethics of Companion Animals , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190456085.001.0001
• Pachirat, Timothy, 2011, Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Palmer, Clare, 2010, Animal Ethics in Context , New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 2011, “The Moral Relevance of the Distinction Between Domesticated and Wild Animals”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 701–725.
• Parfit, Derek, 1984, Reasons and Persons , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019824908X.001.0001
• Plato, c. 380 BCE, Republic , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
• Pluhar, Evelyn, 2010, “Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 23(5): 455–468. doi:10.1007/s10806-009-9226-x
• PNAS ( Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America ), 2013, Special issue on sustainable intensification, December 24, 2013.
• Porphyry, c. 300 CE [2000], De abstinentia , translated by Gillian Clark as On Abstinence from Killing Animals , London: Bloomsbury, 2000.
• Pressler, Jessica, 2013, “Must Cats Die So Birds Can Live? Inside an Animal-Lover Civil War”, New York June 8, 2013. [ Pressler 2013 available online ]
• Rachels, James, 2004, “The Basic Argument for Vegetarianism”, in Sapontzis (ed.) 2004: 70–80.
• Rachels, Stuart, 2011, “Vegetarianism”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 877–905.
• Ranganathan, Janet, Daniel Vennard, Richard Waite, Brian Lipinski, Tim Searchinger, Patrice Dumas, Agneta Forslund, Hervé Guyomard, Stéphane Manceron, Elodie Marajo-Petitzon, Chantal Le Mouël, Petr Havlik, Mario Herrero, Xin Zhang, Stefan Wirsenius, Fabien Ramos, Xiaoyuan Yan, Michael Phillips and Rattanawan Mungkung, 2016, Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future , Working Paper, Installment 11 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future , Washington, DC: World Resource Institute. [ Ranganathan et al. 2016 available on-line ].
• Rawlinson, Mary and Caleb Ward (eds.), 2016, Routledge Handbook of Food Ethics , New York: Routledge.
• Regan, Tom, 1975, “The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 5(2): 181–214. doi:10.1080/00455091.1975.10716107
• –––, 1983, The Case for Animal Rights , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Regenstein, J.M., M.M. Chaudry, and C.E. Regenstein, 2003, “The Kosher and Halal Food Laws”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety , 2(3): 111–127. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00018.x
• Rossi, John and Samual A. Garner, 2014, “Industrial Farm Animal Production: A Comprehensive Moral Critique”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 27(3): 479–522. doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9497-8
• Rowlands, Mark, 2009, Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice , New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230245112
• Saja, Krzysztof, 2013, “The Moral Footprint of Animal Products”, Agriculture and Human Values , 30(2): 193–202. doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9402-x
• Sandler, Ronald, 2017, Environmental Ethics: Theory in Practice , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sapontzis, Steve (ed.), 2004, Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat . Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
• Schlottmann, Christopher and Jeff Sebo, forthcoming, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An Ethical Approach . New York: Routledge.
• Scruton, Roger, 2004, “The Conscientious Carnivore”, in Sapontzis (ed.) 2004: 81–91.
• –––, 2006a, Animal Rights and Wrongs , Revised Edition, London: Continuum.
• –––, 2006b, “Thoughts on Farming, Hunting, and Fishing”, in Scruton 2006a.
• Scully, Matthew, 2002, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy , New York: St Martin’s.
• –––, 2013, “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life: The Conscience of a Pro-Life, Vegan Conservative”, National Review , 7 October 2013. [ Scully 2013 available online ]
• Singer, Peter, 1975, Animal Liberation , New York: Harper Collins.
• –––, 1999, “A Response”, in Jamieson (ed.) 1999: 269–335.
• Singer, Peter and Jim Mason, 2006, The Ethics of What We Eat , Emmaus, PA: Rodale.
• Sittler-Adamczewski, Thomas M., 2016, “Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals”, Journal of Practical Ethics , 4(2): 94–102. [ Sittler-Adamczewski 2016 available online ]
• Sorabji, Richard, 1993, Animal Minds and Human Morals , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Stone, Christopher D., 1972, “Should Trees Have Standing?”, Southern California Law Review , 45: 450–501.
• Tännsjö, Torbjörn, 2016, “It’s Getting Better All the Time”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2016: 362–366.
• Tinker, Tink, 2015, “The Irrelevance of Euro-Christian Dichotomies for Indigenous Peoples: Beyond Nonviolence to a Vision of Cosmic Balance”, in Irfan A. Omar and Michael K. Duffey (eds.), Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in World Religions , Malden, MA: Wiley, pp. 206–225.
• Tye, Michael, 2016, Tense Bees and Shell-Shocked Crabs: Are Animals Conscious? , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Varner, Gary E., 1998, In Nature’s Interests? Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Velleman, J. David, 1991, “Well-Being and Time”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 72(1): 48–77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.1991.tb00410.x
• Vialles, Noëlie, 1987 [1994], Le sang et la chair : les abattoirs des pays de l'Adour , Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme. Translated by J.A. Underwood as Animal to Edible , New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
• Višak, Tatjana and Robert Garner (eds.), 2015, The Ethics of Killing Animals , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.001.0001
• Wallace, David Foster, 2004, “Consider the Lobster”, Gourmet , August 2004, pp. 50, 55–56, 60, 62–64. [ Wallace 2004 available on-line ]
• Warfield, Ted, 2015, “Eating Dead Animals: Meat Eating, Meat Purchasing, and Proving Too Much”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2015: 151–162.
• Zamir, Tzachi, 2007, Ethics and the Beast: A Speciesist Argument for Animal Liberation , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Adamson, P., 2012, “ King of Animals: Porphyry ”, podcast Episode 92 of History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps , LMU/Munich and Kings College London.
• Adamson, P. and J. Ganeri, 2016, “ Mostly Harmless: Non-Violence ”, podcast Episode 15 of History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps , LMU/Munich and Kings College London.
• Hurst, Blake, 2009, “ The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals ”, in The American , 30 July 2009, American Enterprise Institute.
• CIW (Coalition of Immokalee Workers), 2010, “ Slavery in the Fields and the Food We Eat ”.
• Kaplan, David, Philosophy of Food Project , University of North Texas
• Mood, A. and P. Brooke, 2010, “ Estimating the Number of Fish Caught in Global Fishing Each Year , at fishcount.org.uk.”
• –––, 2012, “ Estimating the Number of Farmed Fish Killed in Global Aquaculture Each Year ”, at fishcount.org.uk.

animal: cognition | animal: consciousness | animals, moral status of | doing vs. allowing harm | double effect, doctrine of | ethics: in Indian Buddhism | moral status, grounds of

Acknowledgments

Surveys of the moral vegetarian literature are common. I have greatly benefited from reading, among others, Engel 2015, Fischer 2018, McPherson 2018, and Stuart Rachels 2011.

I have benefited, too, from helpful comments, criticisms, and suggestions. For them, I thank Anne Barnhill, Selim Berker, Mark Budolfson, Terence Cuneo, Bob Fischer, Rachelle Gould, Matthew C. Halteman, Elizabeth Harman, Oscar Horta, James John, Robert C. Jones, Jeff McMahan, members of the Vermont Ethics Group, Kate Nolfi, Clare Palmer, L.A. Paul, Tina Rulli, Jeff Sebo, Peter Singer, Sarah Stroud, Mark Timmons, Amy Trubek, and Alisha Utter.

Some material in this entry started life in Barnhill & Doggett 2017a and 2017b.

Copyright © 2018 by Tyler Doggett < tyler . doggett @ uvm . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Health & Wellness Health

Resources for Journalists

• Food & Farming Media Network
• How to Pitch Us
• Freelance Charter
• Work With Us

Sentient Media

• Environmental Policy
• Code of Ethics
• Testimonials

Vegetarianism: Why Are There So Many Different Types of Vegetarian Diets?

There are many different versions of vegetarianism, and a wide range of benefits from adopting a more plant-rich diet.

Explainer • Diet • Health

Words by Hemi Kim

Increasing numbers of U.S. consumers are trying plant-rich diets such as vegetarianism. The dietary practice of abstaining from eating meat has ties to a wide range of social movements and ethical positions. But this worldwide trend also has varied roots in Asia, Africa and Indigenous cultures — something that can be easy to miss as we browse recipes online or order takeout food. 

What Is Vegetarianism?

Vegetarianism is a dietary practice of eating foods that are made of plants: beans, legumes, fruits, grains and — most importantly — no animal flesh. People who follow a vegetarian diet may eat animal products like honey, eggs and milk-based products. Some vegetarians eat dairy products but not eggs. Some vegetarians exclude all animal products from their diet, as vegans do. There are even people who call themselves vegetarian despite eating fish.

Some adhere to a vegetarian lifestyle because of ethical beliefs about reducing harm toward animals. Health is another value that many vegetarians share. Some vegetarians are private about their diet, and others are more public. Vegetarianism can also be a social identity: vegetarians can find each other and form communities based on their shared experiences.  

The vegetarian standards of individuals and groups can vary and also evolve, resulting in complexities in the vegan and vegetarian experience. For example, PETA used not to oppose the eating of eggs from companion birds if they were well-cared for and not purchased from hatcheries, but now omits that exception to their position.

History of Vegetarianism

Vegetable-based diets that avoid the consumption of meat are often tied to belief systems that have roots in ancient history. Diets that abstain from meat and avoid harm to living beings were first documented in religious texts dating back to fifth century B.C. in India . When the British colonized India in the 17th and 18th centuries, they observed vegetarianism in practice and went on to popularize the practice back home to other Europeans, according to one British historian. 

Many peoples indigenous to the Americas had plant-based diets that preceded contemporary vegetarianism. The Choctaws of present-day Mississippi and Oklahoma were farmers whose diet was primarily plant-based, with infrequent consumption of game meat. A corn, pumpkin and bean stew was a staple food of Choctaws, who also wore plant-based clothing and who revered corn as a divinity. Aztecs and Mayan people are reported to have raised their children as vegetarians. Many other grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables in today’s domestic pantries, particularly those of vegans, are the result of agricultural advancements of Indigenous peoples, including tomatoes, potatoes and paprika. 

Indigenous and diasporic Africans also have plant-based traditions that sustain today’s vegan movements. In Africa, Ethiopian food traditions have catered to semi-vegan diets since antiquity as a result of many Ethiopians’ adherence to the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s fasting practices.

In the 1930s in Jamaica, Rastafarians developed a movement of Black vegetarians who opposed systems of oppression under British colonial rule and neo-imperialism. Rastafarians saw spiritual divinity embodied in Ethiopian leader Haile Selassie, who was referred to as Ras Tafari until he became emperor in 1930. Ras means chief in Amharic, the language spoken in Ethiopia. Since the 18th century, Black people active in U.S. social and religious movements have often identified with Ethiopia due to its central presence in the Bible, as explained in Horace Campbell’s Rasta and Resistance . The Ethiopianism movement solidified in South Africa in the 1870s, Campbell writes, spread throughout Africa, and contributed to the formation of the Rastafarian religion. 

Ethiopian vegan dishes, like Rastafarian “Ital” foods, also have distinct histories tied to anticolonialism. Ethiopia’s victory against Italian invasion in 1896 was a significant sign of resistance, giving hope to Africans and Black people around the world organizing against white supremacists. Each year on March 2 , Ethiopians celebrate that their country was the only African nation to successfully resist the European partition of Africa. 

Why Choose a Vegetarian Diet?

Health is a commonly cited reason for people to pursue a vegetarian diet. Reducing harm toward the environment and to animals are also popular reasons for going vegetarian. 

In India about one-third of the population is vegetarian , partly the result of social taboos around eating meat. These social stigmas can make it difficult to measure people’s fidelity to their self-described diets. Not eating meat in India can also be a matter of having little disposable income, living in rural areas and living in cultural isolation. These latter reasons for following a vegetarian diet reveal some of the diverse socioeconomic factors that complicate researchers’ understandings of dietary trends.

What Is a True Vegetarian?

There is no such thing as a “true vegetarian” in any generally accepted sense. However, academic researchers have used this term to describe people who choose to abstain from eating meat, poultry and fish. The term can be useful for researchers studying human behavior since a significant number of self-described vegetarians do eat some meat , according to nutrition surveys in the United States. Researchers also describe vegetarians who eat meat as semi-vegetarians or part-time vegetarians . Pesco-vegetarians eat fish, dairy products and eggs, but no other types of meat.

Are Vegetarians Hypocrites?

Some vegans regard vegetarianism as inconsistent, even characterizing vegetarians as hypocritical for consuming animal-derived products like dairy and eggs. But the characterization of vegetarians as hypocritical ignores the reality that there are many different reasons why some people choose to be vegetarian, according to the Vegetarian Resource Group. These include economics, health, the environment, disliking the taste of meat, compassion for animals and a range of other ethical principles. Vegetarians are simply people who do not eat meat, which includes fish and poultry.

To make matters more complicated however, because some self-described vegetarians do sometimes eat meat , discussions about the term can become challenging. When vegetarians are motivated by moral ideals such as not wanting to harm animals and then still eat meat, they may feel a tension between their beliefs and their behaviors. 

The discrepancy between someone’s attitudes and their actions can be described as a form of hypocrisy — though the term has negative connotations and assigns unpleasant qualities to a person or organization. To deal with the difficult feelings that arise from consistently living out of alignment with one’s values, people develop coping mechanisms such as avoiding thinking about farmed animals or eating meat products that do not resemble the original animal. 

Animal advocates who are interested in changing consumer habits have found that focusing on moral hypocrisy, however, is not necessarily helpful in achieving their goal of reducing meat consumption. In a 2021 survey of British respondents, the Humane League UK found that people were more likely to be swayed to sign a petition for farmed fish when they were told about the disgusting health of farmed fish, compared to when they heard messages about the corporate hypocrisy of supermarkets. The message about corporate hypocrisy did, however, resonate with anti-corporate vegans in the study. 

Types of Vegetarians

While food and nutrition researchers classify vegetarian diets into different categories, two of which are listed below, there is significant heterogeneity of diet within each grouping of vegetarians. It all boils down to the individual experience of someone who is trying to eat in a certain way. 

Ovo-Lacto Vegetarianism

Ovo-lacto (or lacto-ovo) vegetarians do not eat meat, but do eat dairy products and eggs. Dairy products include milk, cheese and whey. Lacto-vegetarians allow themselves to eat dairy products, but no meat and no eggs. 

Vegans exclude all animal products from their diet — and lifestyle — to the extent that is practical and possible. Vegan diets typically exclude meat, eggs, honey, dairy and other animal-derived food ingredients. 

What Do Vegetarians Eat?

Vegetarians eat fruits, vegetables, leafy greens, nuts, beans, legumes, grains and food products that are derived from these ingredients. Vegetarians can make simple meals quickly at home or they can purchase ready-made food from the supermarket or restaurants. 

How Do Vegetarians Get Protein?

Vegetarians can get protein simply by eating a variety of foods. Some popular sources of protein include beans and legumes — like chickpeas, peanuts, black beans and soy. 

What Foods Do Vegetarians Not Eat?

Vegetarians do not eat foods that have meat or animal products in them, including ham, chicken, or beef, or a soup with bone broth.  

What Are the Benefits of Vegetarianism?

Many people adopt the vegetarian diet because it is associated with lowered risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure and cancer. People who value animal welfare and animal rights can also feel better eating vegetarian foods, knowing that their diet will exclude their animal friends. Another benefit of vegetarianism is that it is considered better for the planet, and a way to mitigate climate change.  

Nutrition for Vegetarians

The information below is summarized from Vegan Health .

Vitamin B12

Vegetarians who do not eat eggs or dairy products should take vitamin B12 supplements and eat foods that have been fortified with the vitamin, according to nutritionists and vegan health professionals. B12 is found in meat, eggs and dairy, but it is not usually found in plant foods. However, it is made by bacteria, so B12 supplements are available that are not derived from animal products.

Plant foods high in iron content include Grape Nuts cereal, Total cereal, molasses, lentils, spinach, kidney beans, garbanzo beans, Swiss chard, edamame and pinto beans. Iron in plant foods can be made more absorbable by adding vitamin C to meals, and by avoiding calcium supplements at meals.

Plant foods with higher amounts of zinc in them include oatmeal, tofu, cashews, sunflower seeds, garbanzo beans and lentils. Zinc is not typically difficult for vegans to find in their diets, but like iron it is harder for them to absorb from their foods due to phytates that are found in plant foods. 

Omega-3 Fatty Acids

To meet the recommended amount of essential omega-3 fatty acid intake, vegans can eat chia seeds, flax seeds, walnuts, soybeans, soy oil, canola oil, tofu and tempeh. The VeganHealth website also recommends taking more than the daily recommended amount per day. 

How To Make the Change to a Vegetarian Diet

Organizations based in the United States and Europe have developed programs to support individuals seeking to make a change toward a vegetarian diet. Sentient Media’s Take Action resource webpage includes a section on Dietary Change that includes a 30-day pledge program, petitions for plant-based options in public schools, and other events. 

What You Can Do

If you haven’t already done so, you can read more articles to help you reduce meat in your diet. To help you consider a more vegetarian diet, check out Sentient Media’s plant-based guide and recipes . 

Independent Journalism Needs You

Hemi is a writer and educator.

7 Cruelty-Free & Vegan Collagen Alternatives for Your Skin

Beauty • 10 min read

More Health & Wellness

What a Vegan Is and Isn’t, Explained

Diet • 9 min read

In New York City Hospitals, Over 1 Million Vegan Meals Served

A partnership between Mayor Eric Adams, Sodexo and NYC Health and Hospitals aims to boost community health through culturally relevant plant-based meals.

Diet • 4 min read

Bird Flu Has Spread to Dairy Cows in Five States

Cows in Texas, Kansas and New Mexico have tested positive for bird flu.

Health • 4 min read

New Air Quality Monitors Could Expose Factory Farming and Environmental Racism

Climate • 6 min read

Investigation

On Organic Caviar Farms, Fish Still Suffer

Aquaculture • 4 min read

‘The Smell of Money’ Film Is Bringing Together Environmental and Food Justice Advocates

Justice • 5 min read

The 11 Most Helpful Animals on Earth (Though It’s Quite a Competition)

Research • 10 min read

Most Read Today

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Vegetarianism — An Introduction to the Reasons for Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism: Introduction, Positive and Negative Sides

• Categories: Vegetarianism

About this sample

Words: 1182 |

Published: Aug 10, 2018

Words: 1182 | Pages: 3 | 6 min read

Table of contents

What is vegetarianism (essay), benefits and drawbacks of vegetarian diets, works cited.

• Davis, B., & Melina, V. (2014). Becoming Vegetarian: The Complete Guide to Adopting a Healthy Plant-Based Diet. Book Publishing Company.
• Flynn, R. W. V. (2017). Vegetarianism in Western Europe: A Study of Vegetarianism in France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, and Sweden. Routledge.
• Fox, N., & Ward, K. (2008). Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivations. Appetite, 50(2-3), 422-429. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.007
• Haddad, E. H., Sabaté, J., Whitten, C. G., & Tanzman, J. S. (2014). Vegetarian food guide pyramid: A conceptual framework. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(Supplement_1), 356S-361S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.071621
• Leitzmann, C. (2017). Vegetarian nutrition: Past, present, future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 100(Supplement_1), 496S-502S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.071621
• Mangels, A. R., Messina, V., & Messina, M. (2011). The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets: Issues and Applications. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Marsh, K., & Zeuschner, C. (2012). The vegan plate: A guide to healthy vegan nutrition. Akerman Publishing.
• Sabaté, J., & Wien, M. (2015). Vegetarian diets and childhood obesity prevention. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 101(1), 152S-157S. doi:10.3945/ajcn.113.071621
• Spencer, E. A., Appleby, P. N., Davey, G. K., & Key, T. J. (2003). Diet and body mass index in 38 000 EPIC-Oxford meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans. International Journal of Obesity, 27(6), 728-734. doi:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802300
• Tuso, P. J., Ismail, M. H., Ha, B. P., & Bartolotto, C. (2013). Nutritional update for physicians: Plant-based diets. The Permanente Journal, 17(2), 61-66. doi:10.7812/TPP/12-085

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1878 words

1 pages / 533 words

2 pages / 946 words

5 pages / 2144 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Vegetarianism

There is a common misconception that vegetarians eat animal crackers. However, this is not the case. In fact, vegetarians do not consume any animal products, including animal crackers. The confusion may arise from the name of [...]

Vegetarianism used to be an unusual lifestyle choice. Today, it is becoming more common and widely accepted by mainstream society. Healthy lifestyles have become more prevalent in the minds of many people in contemporary [...]

Would you be willing to give up meat just once a week to heal the world? In this essay I’m going to explain why it is a good idea. If everyone in the world gave up meat even for just one day in every seven, we [...]

While the great physicist Albert Einstein and the civil rights leader Mahatma Gandhi shared the characteristics of a lifelong dedication to a plant-based diet, each of these figures did so for different reasons. Gandhi made his [...]

Vegetarianism, as a dietary choice, has gained significant attention in recent years due to its potential health benefits. This lifestyle involves abstaining from the consumption of meat, poultry, and fish, with some variations [...]

In the poetry collection Gardening in the Tropics, Olive Senior instructs readers in the traditions of the Caribbean, like the traditional uses of Annatto and Guinep in her poem ‘Annatto and Guinep’ and the traditions of [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.9(5); 2023 May
• PMC10200863

Forty-five years of research on vegetarianism and veganism: A systematic and comprehensive literature review of quantitative studies

Gelareh salehi.

a Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Universidad Pontificia Comillas. ICADE, Spain

b Business Management Department, Spain

Estela Díaz

Raquel redondo.

c Quantitative and Statistical Analysis Department, Spain

Associated Data

Data will be made available on request.

Meat production and consumption are sources of animal cruelty, responsible for several environmental problems and human health diseases, and contribute to social inequality. Vegetarianism and veganism (VEG) are two alternatives that align with calls for a transition to more ethical, sustainable, and healthier lifestyles. Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic literature review of 307 quantitative studies on VEG (from 1978 to 2023), collected from the Web of Science in the categories of psychology, behavioral science, social science, and consumer behavior. For a holistic view of the literature and to capture its multiple angles, we articulated our objectives by responding to the variables of “WHEN,” “WHERE,” “WHO,” “WHAT,” “WHY,” “WHICH,” and “HOW” (6W1H) regarding the VEG research. Our review highlighted that quantitative research on VEG has experienced exponential growth with an unbalanced geographical focus, accompanied by an increasing richness but also great complexity in the understating of the VEG phenomenon. The systematic literature review found different approaches from which the authors studied VEG while identifying methodological limitations. Additionally, our research provided a systematic view of factors studied on VEG and the variables associated with VEG-related behavior change. Accordingly, this study contributes to the literature in the field of VEG by mapping the most recent trends and gaps in research, clarifying existing findings, and suggesting directions for future research.

Non-standard Abbreviations

• • Vgt: Vegetarianism; Vgn: Veganism, M: Meat consumption; AHR: Animal-Human relationship; C: Cultured meat consumption; D: Diet; F : Food; P : Philosophy of life.
• • HL: Health; EN: Environment; AN: Animals; CL: Cultural & Social; SN: Sensory; FT: Faith; FN: Financial & economic; PL: Political; JS: Justice & world hunger.
• • A: Attitudes; M: Motivations; V: Values, T: Personality; E: Emotions; K: Knowledge; B: Behavior; I: Intentions; S: Self-efficacy or Perceived Behavioral Control; N: Networks; O: Norms; D: Identity; P: Product Attributes; F: Information.
• • CR: Correlational: M-CR: Mixed method study including Correlational section; EX: Experimental; EXC: Choice Experiment.

1. Introduction

Meat production contributes to animal suffering [ 1 ], environmental problems (loss of biodiversity, climate change, or water pollution) [ 2 ], and public health problems (zoonotic diseases such as COVID-19 and chronic non-communicable diseases such as type II diabetes) [ 3 ]. Consequently, there is an increasing interest in a dietary transition to reduce or exclude animal products [ [4] , [5] , [6] , [7] ]. Such dietary transitions would directly support goal 12 of the Agenda for Sustainable Development of the United Nations (2019), which is to “ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns” [ 8 ]. Adopting and maintaining vegetarian and vegan lifestyles are two of the most promising ways to achieve this goal [ 9 , 10 ].

VEG has a long history, dating back to ancient Greek philosophers, and can encompass various underlying approaches, including dietary behaviors, food and other product choices, social justice movements, and political activism [ 11 ]. Vegetarianism, as a philosophy of life, generally relates to the protection of non-human animals (hereafter referred to as “animals”), which, in practice, translates to a lifestyle that abstains from the consumption of all types of animal flesh, including meat (i.e., beef, pork), poultry (i.e., chicken, turkey), and fish and seafood [ 12 ]. Vegetarianism comprises several modalities: ovo-vegetarianism (accepts the consumption of eggs but not dairy products), lacto-vegetarianism (accepts the consumption of dairy products but not eggs), or lacto-ovo-vegetarianism (accepts the consumption of both eggs and dairy products) [ 13 , 14 ]. By contrast, veganism can be understood as a philosophy of life rooted in anti-speciesism, which, in practice, translates to rejecting the consumption of any product (or service) which involves the exploitation of an animal either in the context of food (meat, eggs, dairy, honey, gelatin), clothing (leather, silk), or any other form (entertainment and experimentation) as far as possible and practicable [ 15 , 16 ]. Veganism also promotes the production and consumption of alternatives free of animal use. To address vegetarianism and veganism (VEG), both of which avoid animal flesh products, many authors use the term “ veg*an-ism ” [ 8 , 17 ].

Over the last 50 years, the interest of consumers, entrepreneurs, and public institutions in the VEG phenomenon has grown [ 18 , 19 ]. VEG has increasingly spread worldwide [ 7 , 18 , 20 , 21 ]; for example, the number of individuals following some kind of VEG lifestyles is considered to have doubled from 2009 to 2016 [ 21 ], with 2019 being labelled “the year of the vegan” by The Economist [ 8 ]. The growing realization of the importance of these phenomena has also been reflected in academia, where studies on VEG have flourished in the last decade [ 7 ]. In this regard, VEG has rapidly expanded from philosophical and medical disciplines to other areas related to psychology, consumer behavior, and behavioral science [ 22 ]. One of the reasons for the increase in this research is related to the fact that, although VEG is seen as a promising avenue that brings a more ethical, sustainable, and healthier society, such a lifestyle transition is also seen as a challenge [ 23 , 24 ].

This extraordinary progression of scientific knowledge makes it advisable to know the current trends to map and have an overview of VEG research. Previous narrative literature reviews [ 11 , 22 , 25 ] have been of great relevance for this and have illuminated the way for researchers, practitioners, and public actors. However, owing to the increasing number of studies published in the last decade, it is highly recommended to update the knowledge and have a holistic view of the VEG literature. To achieve this, the most appropriate methodology is a systematic literature review [ 26 , 27 ]. This logic has been recently used to analyze the aspect of identity in veganism [ 28 ].

In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review in the VEG field to extend, complete, and update previous literature reviews. Specifically, our work principally focused on reviewing the quantitative studies in psychology, behavioral science, social science, and consumer behavior literature published in scientific journals from 1978 up to December 31, 2022, on VEG. A successful systematic literature review relies on straightforward research questions provided at the beginning of the process [ 27 ]; therefore, we articulated our objectives using the 5W1H [ 29 ], which explores a phenomenon from multiple perspectives based on the following questions: (1 W) “WHEN” refers to the period of the analysis and possible trends in VEG research; (2 W) “WHERE” focuses on the countries in which VEG studies have been conducted; (3 W) “WHO” refers to the journals in which VEG studies have been published; (4 W) “WHAT” refers to the different research streams and frames included in the VEG body of research; (5 W) “WHY” includes the reasons (environmental, health, or animals) that made VEG an essential topic for scholars to study; and (1H) “HOW” focuses on reviewing the different research methodologies and statistical analyses employed in the literature on VEG. Additionally, we added another question, “WHICH,” comprising the variables measured in the studies. Thus, we followed a 6W1H approach ( Fig. 1 ).

6 W & 1H approach applied to VEG literature.

This study contributes to the existing literature on VEG by mapping the state of the art, identifying trends and gaps in research, clarifying existing findings, and suggesting directions for future research. Our systematic literature review also highlighted the factors examined in VEG and the variables associated with VEG-related behavior change, thus playing an important role in advancing research on VEG. For practitioners, our study will help elucidate possible interventions and design more effective (marketing) campaigns to improve and promote the transition to VEG. Additionally, these interventions may be beneficial for private organizations and public authorities seeking to design policies to encourage fairer and more sustainable consumption and healthier lifestyles.

This article is organized as follows: In Section 2 , we outline the methodology. Next, we present the results of our analysis, which was performed using the 6W1H approach. In Section 4 , we discuss the main findings and future avenues of research. Finally, in Section 5 , we highlight the main contributions and managerial implications of the study.

The systematic search included articles up to December 31, 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used for reporting the methods of this systematic literature review [ 30 ]. The systematic literature review protocol included the following steps: (1) search strategy; (2) inclusion, exclusion, and selection criteria; and (3) data extraction.

2.1. Search strategy

The first step of conducting the systematic literature review was keyword design. Following the backward and forward search methods [ 27 ], we created a pool of terms related to VEG literature that represented the main objectives of the review and were included in the previous reviews [ 11 , 22 ]. Additionally, we screened through the preliminary keyword results in several non-medical articles that focused on VEG. The resulting keyword syntax designed was: title, abstract, and keywords = [(vegan* OR vegetarian* OR plant-based*)] AND [(diet* OR food* OR lifestyle* OR movement* OR activism*) OR (eat* OR choos* OR choice* OR behavio* OR chang* OR purchas* OR buy* OR pay* OR cosnum* OR substitut* OR lik* OR familiar* OR reject* OR avoid* OR accept* OR restrict* OR disgust* OR information*) OR (motiv* OR reason* OR attitude* OR intention* OR willing* OR belief* OR perception* OR value* OR identity* OR emotion* OR empathy* OR norm* OR social* OR knowledge* OR familiarity* OR gender*)].

We used Web of Science (WoS) for our search. WoS was preferred to other databases because it is the world's leading scientific citation search engine and the most widely used research database [ 31 , 32 ]. WoS has guaranteed scientific content, strict filtering, and anti-manipulation policies, and offers many resources for searching and collecting metadata [ [33] , [34] , [35] , [36] ]. In addition, WoS focuses on Social Sciences and Humanities (and less on Health Sciences) [ 37 ], which is more in line with the objectives of our study and covered all major journals relevant to our topic. However, it is worth mentioning that the final number of articles included in our systematic literature review resulted from reviewing the reference list of studies retrieved through WoS.

2.2. Inclusion, exclusion, and selection criteria

2.2.1. inclusion criteria.

The systematic search included articles up to December 31, 2022. During the initial search, 25,73 9 articles were identified through their titles, abstracts, and keywords ( Fig. 2 ). Once the articles were identified, we filtered the results following the inclusion criteria based on the following: (1) discipline: we included articles related to behavioral science, psychology, sociology, and business economics; (2) document type : we included only peer-reviewed articles; and (3) language: we only included articles written in English to ensure consistency and comparability of terms across the included studies. This was especially important as VEG is a recently emerging multi-disciplinary area.

PRISMA Flow diagram of the systematic literature review of quantitative VEG studies [ 30 ].

2.2.2. Exclusion criteria

Initially selected articles were removed based on the following: (1) research area : if their key focus was not on behavioral and psychological aspects of VEG. Thus, articles concerning medical issues (e.g., nutritional status or diseases), specific environmental problems (e.g., gas emissions or water), and technological challenges of food science (e.g., the chemical process of producing vegan products) were not included; (2) unit of analysis: studies with units of analysis different from individuals or households were excluded; and (3) methodology : we excluded qualitative studies. This decision was made because qualitative and quantitative approaches differ not only in their research techniques but, more importantly, in the ontological and epistemological perspectives they adopt [ 38 ]. Thus, we considered that separating quantitative from qualitative studies was advisable to gain a deeper knowledge on the issue. We focused on quantitative studies because there has been a more pronounced growth of quantitative studies and a greater interest in statistically measuring the factors that explain the adoption (or rejection) of VEG lifestyles. The selection protocol had no restrictions on sample characteristics (country and sex) and study setting (laboratory or restaurant).

This step left 203 articles for a full manuscript review. Finally, the reference list of articles was also reviewed, and 48 qualifying articles were added to the sample for data extraction. A total of 251 articles (307 studies, given that some articles included several studies) were recognized for data extraction. Initial screening for eligibility was performed by the three authors, each of whom reviewed one-third of the articles through the abstracts. To ensure consistency in the selection process, 5% of the articles were randomly assigned to a different author to perform an inter-reviewer reliability test [ 39 , 40 ]. The results indicated excellent agreement in this first step, as 96.5% of the articles were equally identified by the reviewers, and Cohen's kappa was 0.91.

2.3. Data extraction

A coding template was designed in Excel to extract specific data to answer the 6W1H questions. Information on WHEN (year of publication), WHERE (country of the sample), and WHO (journals) was coded directly. The coding of WHAT was more complicated; therefore, we designed a coding protocol to perform a preliminary content analysis of the data following the recommendations of Welch and Bjorkman [ 41 ]. We initially started pilot coding 30 articles, considering two main research streams : veganism (Vgn) and vegetarianism (Vgt). The coding of these research streams was based on the provided definitions of VEG and explained earlier. In this understanding, some scholars addressed their objective on vegetarianism (Vgt) and considered veganism (Vgn) as a sub-category of vegetarianism (Vgt). In these studies, we coded the stream as Vgt-Vgn. It should be noted that some studies also used the term “plant-based” in their studies; however, when reviewing the work, we observed that the authors used that term as a synonym for vegetarianism, veganism, or both. Therefore, following the same approach for vegetarianism, we coded these studies in the corresponding group of currents. In the second round of coding, we identified that veganism and vegetarianism were also studied simultaneously (Vgt-Vgn) as well as with other phenomena: meat consumption, animal-human relationship, and cultured meat consumption; we called these three new streams secondary streams . In total, coding was performed with seven streams.

To provide more nuanced information concerning WHAT, a further coding step was conducted to reclassify the studies not only concerning the streams but also the following three frames: (1) food, referring to specific products; (2) diet, referring to dietary practices; and (3) philosophy of life, referring to a social movement and lifestyle, focusing on the characteristics of the person consuming VEG products or following a VEG diet or philosophy of life. As mentioned previously, sometimes, these three frames were analyzed in combination (e.g., food and diet). Overall, five research frames were identified. To ensure the decision in coding, each article was scanned for keywords using an agreed a priori system. The manuscripts were also re-checked, ensuring accuracy and agreement, and differences were discussed with the third researcher to reach inter-coding agreement, which provided a measure of consistency.

For WHY, we were interested in coding the reasons that scholars considered VEG as an important subject to be studied. Reasons from existing literature were classified into two broad categories: central and peripheral reasons. Central reasons included health issues, concern for animals, and environmental sustainability. Peripheral reasons comprised justice and world hunger; faith, religion, and spirituality concerns; sensory factors; cultural and social aspects; financial and economic aspects; and political concerns.

WHICH aimed to explore the variables measured in the VEG studies (attitudes or values). Finally, for HOW, we collected information contained in the methodology section of the articles regarding the type of study, sample, and statistical techniques. Thus, we collected information regarding the unit of analysis (individuals vs. objects), type of data (longitudinal vs. cross-sectional), data sources (secondary vs. primary), number of data sources, data collection methods (archival data, or surveys), and the year of data collection. Information on the sample comprised the size, country, mean age, percentage of female participants, racial or ethnic origin of respondents, and VEG orientation of respondents (vegetarian or vegan). Additionally, we checked whether the sample was representative of the corresponding general population. Subsequently, the studies were classified into non-experimental or correlational or experimental (choice experiment, or within-subject and between-subjects).

We also collected information regarding the dependent and independent variables, number of constructs, and the theoretical frameworks and scales used to measure them (especially if the scale used was designed ad ho c to study the VEG phenomenon). Finally, regarding the statistical techniques, we compiled information about the analyses and techniques used (e.g., t-tests, correlation tests, ANOVA, MANOVA, regressions, SEM, and latent class analysis). We also checked for the use of normality tests (if required), scale validation, moderation, and mediation tests, as well as whether the study was aware of the possible threat of common method effects (if required), social desirability, or other potential biases. The criteria for coding HOW included the guidelines of the Effective Public Health Practice Project.

3.1. WHEN were the VEG studies conducted?

The final 307 studies covered a period from 1978 to December 31, 2022. The characteristics of the studies are summarized in Table 8 in Annex. Eighty-four percent of the studies included in this review were published in the last ten years (see Fig. 3 ). The findings provide reasonable evidence that academic interest in VEG research has grown exponentially. Exploring the evolution in more detail, we observed three peaks in the number of publications. First, in 1999 the number of publications per year increased from one to four; second, in 2015, the number of publications increased again to approximately more than ten articles per year. Finally, the most significant evolution occurred in 2019, when the number of publications doubled (from 14 to 35). The trend also grew steadily until 2021; in 2022, this number increased to 61 studies. Most of the publications in 2021 were related to the special issue of Appetite journal, titled “The psychology of meat-eating and vegetarianism.”

Count of VEG topic studies published from 1978 up to December 31, 2022.

3.2. WHERE were the VEG studies conducted?

In terms of regional concentration, research was focused on developed countries, mainly in the US (33%), the UK (10%), Germany (6.5%), Australia (3.5%), Canada (3.3%), and Spain (3.3%). It should be noted that many studies (12%) included data from more than one country, but these international samples were mainly from the US and the UK. A simultaneous analysis of WHEN (publication year) and WHERE (country) also showed that the pioneer countries were the US, UK, Australia, and Canada. Other countries’ quantitative inquiries on VEG started in 2000 by studies in New Zealand, Finland, and the Netherlands. Geographical orientations became more widespread from 2015 onward ( Table 1 ).

Simultaneous analysis of WHERE and WHEN.

3.3. WHO published the VEG studies?

The reviewed articles were published in 92 different journals ( Table 2 ). Regarding the number of articles published in each journal, the relevance of Appetite was evident, with 21.8% of all articles reviewed published in this journal. This was followed by Food Quality and Preference (6.8%), Sustainability (4%), and British Food Journal (3%).

Journals and their research areas.

3.4. WHAT has been studied in VEG research?

3.4.1. streams of veg.

As it is shown in Table 3 , we discerned the following seven streams: vegetarianism and veganism (Vgt-Vgn); vegetarianism (Vgt); veganism (Vgn); vegetarianism, veganism, and meat consumption (Vgt-Vgn-M); vegetarianism and meat consumption (Vgt-M); vegetarianism, veganism, meat consumption, and cultured meat consumption (Vgt-Vgn- M -C); and vegetarianism, veganism, animal-human relationship (Vgt-Vgn-AHR) . The research mainly focused on Vgt-Vgn (30%), Vgt-Vgn-M (17.6%), Vgt (13%), and Vgt-M (12%).

WHAT streams have emerged in the VEG quantitative studies? a .

Vgt: Vegetarianism; Vgn: Veganism; M: Meat consumption; AHR: Animal-Human relationship; C: Cultured meat consumption.

By simultaneously analyzing WHAT (streams) and WHEN (publication years), we noticed that the first quantitative study on the Vgn stream was conducted in 2010 ( Fig. 4 ). Academic interest in Vgn research grew steadily, except for a decline in 2018. However, Vgt studies started decades earlier, in 1981. The Vgt stream was the pioneer in the quantitative approach of VEG, but this trend was not continuous; we observed a gap from 2010 to 2016 in the Vgt stream. Interestingly, in 2020 there was a peak in research focused on Vgn and Vgt streams. Finally, we observed an evolutionary increase of studies in the Vgt-Vgn- M -C stream.

When and what (streams).

3.4.2. Frames of VEG

By analyzing the different conceptualizations of VEG in research, we observed that 56% of studies framed it as diet, 24% as consumption of VEG food products, and 6% as the philosophy of life. Some studies also considered VEG as a combination of two frames: diet and consumption of VEG food products (6.5%) and diet and philosophy of life (6%). To get a more accurate picture of the focus of researchers, we crossed the streams with the frames of VEG. As shown in Table 4 , framing the VEG phenomenon as diet was more present in Vgt stream (70.7%), followed by Vgt-Vgn-M (68.5%) and Vgt-M (67%) streams. Expectedly, framing VEG as food was more prevalent in Vgt-Vgn- M -C (79%). Through the simultaneous evaluation of seven streams and five frames, we found a total of 35 distinct research categories on VEG. This analysis showed that 19.5% of studies focused on Vgt-Vgn. D stream, followed by Vgt-Vgn-M. D (12%), Vgt- D (9%), and Vgt-M. D (8%). It is noteworthy to mention that in four research categories (Vgt-Vgn-M. P , Vgt-Vgn-M. DP , Vgt-Vgn- M -C. P , and Vgt-Vgn-AHR. DF ) , we did not find any published articles.

VEG has been studied in WHAT frames through the streams?

Vgt: Vegetarianism; Vgn: Veganism; M: Meat consumption; AHR: Animal-Human relationship; C: Cultured meat consumption; D : Diet; F : Food; P : Philosophy of life.

The publication of five VEG research frames over the years is shown in Fig. 5 . Studying VEG through the diet frame increased over the years, with peaks in 2021 (28 studies) and 2015 (11 studies). However, this interest decreased to 15 studies in 2022. By contrast, there was a relatively high number of studies analyzing VEG in the food consumption frame, with two peaks in 2022 (35 studies) and 2020 (10 studies). It is worth noting that the number of studies in other frames was relatively small and did not seem to follow any temporal pattern.

When and what (frames).

3.5. WHY have researchers found it relevant to study VEG?

In Section 2.3 , we undertook a classification of the relevance of studying the VEG phenomenon as cited in the reviewed articles. Our analysis yielded two distinct groups: central and peripheral reasons. The former comprised concerns related to health, environmental issues, and animal welfare. The latter encompassed a diverse range of additional factors, including cultural and social considerations, sensory preferences, faith, financial and economic implications, political concerns, and world hunger. For clarity, we will discuss these nine motives below according to the order of importance in which they appear in the reviewed studies (see Fig. 6 ).

WHY it is important to study VEG.

3.5.1. Central motives

Among the reasons identified in the studies to justify the importance of studying VEG, health concerns (83%) had the highest presence. Exploring this further, we found that many articles referred to the health aspect of VEG as the respondents’ motivation [ 42 , 143 ]. Some authors explained the positive effect of VEG on the human body by mentioning specific benefits, such as reducing cholesterol, blood pressure, or risk of diabetes, as well as reducing the incidence of cancers, heart disease, and hypertension [ 2 , 3 , 63 , 144 ]. More recently, a body of research interested in a more holistic view of health considered VEG options as an essential contributor to well-being and quality of life [ 8 , 53 , 115 ]. However, a minority referred to the potential adverse physical health effects, such as nutritional deficiencies (vitamin B12, zinc, or iron) if a well-planned VEG diet is not followed [ 53 ], or mental health risks, such as risks of stigmatization, discrimination, or feelings of embitterment [ 48 , 91 , 168 ]. Simultaneous analysis of WHY and WHAT showed that health considerations were the most frequently cited concern across all streams. Notably, more articles focused on Vgn (93%) and Vgt-Vgn (89%). Table 5 summarizes the convergence of these motives in each stream.

WHY did scholars considered VEG important to be studied?

HL: Health; EN: Environment; AN: Animals; CL: Cultural & Social; SN: Sensory factors; FT: Fait; FN: Financial & economic; PL: Political; JS: Justice & world hunger.

In the reviewed literature, there was a significant presence of referring to the environmental benefits of VEG (75%). Diversity in arguments and approaches was also observed when analyzing the environmentalist discourse. Some authors emphasized specific impacts; for example, they discussed how replacing animal-based diets with VEG diets could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions [ 9 , 60 , 67 ] and soil degradation [ 19 , 62 , 66 ], and tackle current problems related to air, soil, and water pollution [ 214 ], biodiversity loss [ 62 ], as well as climate change [ 61 ]. Nevertheless, most studies addressed the environmental benefits of VEG quite loosely, using terms such as a “sustainable” strategy [ 183 ] or alternatives to lessen the impacts of the current animal agriculture. Similarly, some authors mentioned that VEG alternatives comply with the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. However, the terms “vegan” or “vegetarian” are absent in these goals [ 8 ]. Analyzing the frequency of environmental concerns among different streams indicated that environmental issues were the most frequently cited concern in the Vgt-Vgn- M -C stream with a prevalence of 89.6%, followed by 87% in the Vgt-Vgn-M stream and 83% in the Vgt-M stream. This suggests that environmental issues may have a significant role in encouraging studies transitioning from meat consumption to cultured meat consumption.

Approximately two-thirds of the reviewed studies (67%) included varied arguments on animal-related concerns. In some instances, animal-related concerns were considered a central aspect of VEG discourse, while in others, they were only tangentially referenced. References to animal concerns appeared implicit and subsumed under the general term of “ethical” [ 64 , 170 ] or “moral” reasons [ 117 , 212 ]. Conversely, in other instances, the phenomenon of VEG appeared firmly rooted in the animal rights or animal protection movement [ 255 ]. Another example of these differences was found when researchers discussed the drivers of following, adopting, or consuming VEG options. For example, some researchers emphasized the positive aspects of VEG for animals; we found references to “compassion toward animals” [ 54 ], “animal advocacy” [ 258 ], “affection toward animals” [ 255 ], or “animal welfare” [243,263 ] . In contrast, other researchers highlighted the detrimental effects of the current animal agriculture on animals and how VEG alleviates this negative impact. These studies often used expressions such as “animal suffering” [ 117 ], “animal exploitation” [ 260 ], or “animal slaughter” [ 81 ].

Notably, we also found diverse philosophical approaches adopted in the studies to defend VEG. Some research aligned strongly with welfarist positions [ 114 , 145 , 215 ], while others aligned with abolitionist or animal rights perspectives [ 60 , 116 , 256 ]; to a lesser extent, anti-speciesism discourses were also incorporated [ 15 ]. The presence of animal concerns significantly depended on the stream. Expectedly, in the Vgt-Vgn-AHR stream, animal considerations were found in all of the studies, followed by 86% in the Vgn stream.

3.5.2. Peripheral motives

In this category, distinguished three sub-groups according to the relevance with which they appeared in the reviewed research. In the first sub-group, we found cultural and social, and sensory motives, each present in 33% of the studies. Cultural and social factors included the influence exerted by certain people or groups on an individual's decisions about their VEG choices. Specifically, studies focused on analyzing the impact of people's close networks, mainly families or peers [ 21 ], and online vegan discussion groups [ 19 ]. Cultural and social factors were mainly observed in the Vgt stream (41%).

For sensory reasons we referred to consumer or producer concerns about the sensory aspects of VEG alternatives, which are typically related to VEG foods (i.e., taste, texture, odor, or appearance) [ 99 , 117 , 143 ]. Sensory reasons were primarily observed in the Vgt-Vgn-AHR (50%) and Vgn (46%) streams.

In the second place, we found references to financial and economic, and faith reasons, present in 25% and 22% of the articles, respectively. VEG studies citing financial and economic reasons were relatively scarce. These typically covered cost savings from the consumer's perspective [ 174 ]. These concerns were primarily mentioned in the studies on the Vgt-Vgn- M -C stream (72%), which was expected owing to the growing market of VEG products. Faith motives included both religious [ 109 , 231 ] and spiritual beliefs [ 45 ]. Generally, these reasons were typically studied as drivers of VEG choices [ 68 , 100 ]; however, these concepts require further exploration. Faith reasons appeared mainly in the Vgt-Vgn-AHR stream (37%).

Finally, we found that political, and justice and world hunger arguments [ 130 , 153 ] had a much lower presence in the studies; specifically, they were each mentioned in only 12% of the articles. Political aspect of the VEG referred to connections to other social movements and other political issues beyond animal protection; in this sense, we found references to claims for women's or LGBTQ rights [ 258 ]. In most cases, these political issues were neither defined nor explained in depth. Political motives were primarily observed in the Vgn (20%) and Vgt-Vgn-AHR (16%) streams. Justice and world hunger concerns referred to the world hunger problem [ 13 , 205 ] and various arguments on how VEG can improve food availability or exacerbate social inequality and injustices [ 161 , 164 ]. However, these arguments require more specificity and detail. They were mainly explored in Vgn studies (36%). In general, we observed that 50% of studies were commonly mentioned in HL-EN-AN ( Table 8 in Annex).

3.6. WHICH variables were analyzed in VEG studies?

Before proceeding to a detailed study of the variables examined in the literature, it should be noted that only 29.6% of the studies used theoretical frameworks to measure the variables under examination. In this group of studies, we found that 33.7% used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) [ 270 ]; 8.6% of the studies used the Unified Model of Vegetarian Identity [ 271 ]; 7.6% applied human values theory [ 272 ]; 7.6% employed the Transtheoretical Model [ 273 ], and 4% used Social Dominance Orientation [ 274 ]. The usage of these theories across the seven streams of studies is summarized in Table 6 . It is worth noting that approximately 11% of the reviewed studies applied other theoretical frameworks than the five most prevalent ones.

Most extensively researched theories in each stream of VEG studies.

For the specific variables analyzed in the literature, we grouped them into five categories: psychological dispositions, cognitive-affective variables, behavioral constructs, social determinants, and situational variables. Table 7 summarizes the convergence of these variables and constructs in each stream; as illustrated, the prevalence of the variables depended on the stream in question, and in many of them, some variables were overlooked. For clarity, we analyzed each construct group according to the order of frequency in which the variables appeared in the studies.

WHICH variables has been measured in each stream of VEG quantitative studies?

A: Attitudes; M: Motivations; V: Values, T: Personality; E: Emotions; K: Knowledge; B: Behavior; I: Intentions; S: Self-efficacy or Perceived Behavioral Control; N: Networks; O: Norms; D: Identity; P: Product Attributes; F: Information.

3.6.1. Psychological dispositions

Psychological dispositions included variables related to attitudes, motivations, values, and personality traits. Attitudes , understood as perceptions, and opinions on VEG-related issues, applied to different aspects and 67% of the studies measured attitudes. This variable was mainly constructed as attitudes toward animals [ 15 , 136 , 167 ], meat [ 137 , 141 ], and VEG lifestyles [ 54 , 108 ]. In addition, some studies measured attitudes in the context of justification strategies for non-VEG lifestyle choices [ 258 ]. Some authors differentiated between positive, negative, and neutral attitudes [ 23 , 49 ], but most studies did not make such distinctions and referred to attitudes as a uniform construct. Similarly, they did not differentiate between cognitive, affective, and conative aspects recognized in the consumer behavior literature [ 275 ]. Attitudes were primarily found in studies on Vgt-Vgn-AHR (87%), followed by those focusing on Vgt-Vgn- M -C (79%).

Regarding motivations , 39% of the reviewed studies were interested in studying the reasons that encouraged consumers to practice VEG (i.e., becoming a VEG, following a VEG diet, consuming VEG products). Particularly, studies focused on analyzing three types of motivations. First, studies with a strong hedonistic character, which were related to personal health, sensory appeals, and economic considerations [ 43 ]. Second, studies with a strong altruistic, ethical [ 8 , 151 ], or even spiritual character (e.g., Buddhism) on the adoption of VEG choices [ 68 , 261 ]. Here, authors differentiated between interest in animal protection (protecting animals from unnecessary suffering), environmental conservation (climate change and global warming), and human rights (the relationship between world hunger and the dedication of resources to livestock production rather than agriculture) [ 2 , 19 , 113 , 208 ]. Third, studies with a strong social character, in which we detected an interest in studying the effect of following VEG diets due to living with VEG family members or friends [ 53 , 114 ]. It is worth mentioning that some studies took a broader approach to motivations and studied them abstractly as a general concern to pursue their choice of VEG, but without delving into the type of motivation that affected the decision-making [ 13 ]. The interest in measuring motivations was observed, especially in studies on Vgn (53%), Vgt (46%), and Vgt-M (51%).

Values , understood guiding principles [ 42 ], were present in 21% of the studies. They were typically measured with extensively validated instruments, such as the Social Dominance Orientation scale [ 274 ], [e.g., 74 , 104 , 136 , 213 ], the Theory of Basic Human Values of Schwartz [ 271 ], [e.g., 114 ], or Altemeyer's Authoritarianism scale [ 276 ], [e.g., 67,74]. These studies concluded that the likelihood of practicing VEG was associated with greater endorsements of liberalism, universalism, and left-wing ideology [ 54 , 164 , 165 ]. As more specific values related to the VEG, we found speciesism measurement, understood as the belief in the supremacy of humans over animals [ 19 , 94 , 136 , 213 ]; in these cases, the use of the Dhont et al.‘s [ 277 ] speciesism scale stood out. Similarly, we found the measurement of carnism, namely, the belief system that supports the consumption of certain animals as food [ 132 ]; in this case, the variable was measured using Monteiro et al.‘s [ 278 ] scale. It should be mentioned that many scholars considered values as motivations (i.e., referring to religious reasons as religious values) [ 64 ]. Values were observed the most in the Vgt-Vgn-M stream (25%).

Our data also showed that 12% of studies focused on measuring personality traits [ 3 , 109 ]. These studies employed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire [ 45 , 113 ], the Big Five test [ 69 , 84 , 87 ], and the Food Neophobia (reluctant to try or eat novel food) scale [ 52 , 172 ]. Personality traits were observed in the Vgt-Vgn stream (19.5%), followed by the Vgt stream (12%).

3.6.2. Cognitive-affective variables

Cognitive-affective variables referred to variables associated with the emotional responses to and knowledge regarding VEG. Regarding emotions , many scholars acknowledged that VEG lifestyles and choices were affectively charged [ 279 , 280 ]. Despite this recognition, emotions were only present in 23% of the studies in this field. The emotions associated with VEG lifestyle and choices included disgust (toward meat) [ 96 ], sensory (dis)liking VEG foods [ 96 , 143 ], guilt related to diet consistency or pet food choice [ 96 , 268 ], anger [ 144 ], shame [ 213 ], fear [ 74 ], and affect or empathy responses (the capacity to feel what others are experiencing) [ 3 , 15 , 47 , 136 , 194 ]. Most previous studies did not use validated instruments to measure these emotions. Notable exceptions were found in the assessment of meat disgust and meat enjoyment, which was mainly measured using the disgust scale [ 3 ] and the meat attachment questionnaire [ 84 , 213 ], respectively. Emotional concerns were more prevalent in the Vgt-Vgn-AHR (41%) and Vgt-M (32%) streams.

Knowledge was measured in 17% of studies and referred to the familiarity with VEG products [ 143 , 227 ], VEG diet [ 13 , 171 ], and the understanding of the relevance and impacts of VEG on health [ 103 ] and environment [ 202 ]. Knowledge was explored primarily in studies focused on Vgt-Vgn-M (24%).

3.6.3. Behavioral constructs

In the behavioral constructs, we observed behaviors, intentions, and self-efficacy. The measurement of behaviors was present in 72% of the reviewed studies, primarily involving self-reported food consumption habits [ 2 , 3 , 167 ]. In many cases, the inclusion of this construct was intended to complement and compare the self-reported status as vegan, vegetarian, or neither [ 2 , 167 ]. Most of these scales measured general food consumption behaviors. The Food Frequency Questionnaire [ 4 , 90 ], the Food Choice Questionnaire [ 131 ], and purchase frequency [ 8 , 183 , 251 ] were the most commonly used instruments to measure this variable. Notably, two articles advanced the measurement of behaviors using observational measurement via experimental designs [ 126 , 136 ]. Another pattern we observed in our review was the interest in the temporal aspect in which behaviors are performed. In this regard, although most studies focused on current consumption behaviors, some highlighted the relevance of past behaviors [ 110 ] and the duration for which individuals practiced VEG lifestyles [ 2 , 18 , 64 , 141 , 165 , 260 ]. Additionally, a few studies measured more than one behavior; as sometimes, all behaviors were directly related to food consumption. For example, Crimarco et al. [ 145 ] measured participants’ overall food consumption frequency, adherence to the vegan diet, and restaurant-related behaviors. In other studies, measured behaviors were related more to health, such as alcohol consumption [ 113 ] or adequate nutritional intake [ 192 ], and more rarely, to animal-related behaviors [ 128 , 256 , 268 ]. This variable appeared most frequently in the Vgt-Vgn-M (85%) and Vgn (76%) studies.

Intentions were included in 25% of the studies. In the reviewed articles, they were measured as the willingness to cut down on meat [ 205 ], try VEG foods [ 143 ], adopt a VEG lifestyle [ 190 , 226 ], being VEG [ 255 ], or continue practicing a VEG lifestyle in the future [ 2 ]. Some studies specified a time frame (e.g., next month, next two years) in their questions [ 49 , 255 ]. For example, in Wyker and Davison's [ 108 ] study, intention was measured by asking for agreement to the statement, “ I intend to follow a plant-based diet in the next year .” To assess intentions, some studies applied the Transtheoretical Model [ 13 , 108 ], but primarily drew on TPB [ 13 , 15 ]. Among the different streams, measuring intention was predominant in the Vgt-Vgn- M -C (65%), Vgn (33%), and Vgt-Vgn-M (27%).

Self-efficacy was only present in 8% of the studies, and referred to personal control, perceived ability, and perceived level of ease or difficulty in following the VEG lifestyle [ 2 , 108 , 200 ]. Self-efficacy was predominantly based on TPB, referred to under the term Perceived Behavioral Control. This construct was adapted to the VEG context by several scholars [ 15 , 60 , 190 ]. This variable was most prevalent in studies on Vgt-Vgn-M (13%). Interestingly self-efficacy was not observed in Vgn and Vgt-M streams.

3.6.4. Social determinants

The social determinants included variables related to the influence of social ties or networks , as well as identity and social norms to act (or not) in accordance with VEG. Social network was present in 20% of the studies and measured through a variety of constructs, such as group membership [ 136 ], having VEG friends and family [ 8 ], or participation in a social movement [ 165 ]. An analysis of its presence in the different streams showed that it was most prevalent in research on Vgn (43%) and Vgt-M (29%). None of the reviewed studies measured social networks in the Vgt-Vgn- M -C stream.

Our analysis showed that identity was present in 11% of the studies and was analyzed using different approaches, such as political [ 165 ], social [ 18 , 127 , 131 ], or self [ 142 , 190 ] identities. A notable recent construct was that of “dietarian identity” [ 14 , 18 , 132 , 179 ], as measured by the Dietary Identity Questionnaire [ 271 ]. Dietarian identity refers to individuals' self-image with regard to consuming or avoiding animal-based products, regardless of their actual food choices [ 2 , 166 , 168 ]. This latter qualifier is important to consider in VEG studies, because people's actual diets and their self-reported dietary identity may appear inconsistent. For example, people who self-identify as a “vegan” might still consume animal products occasionally, while other people may strictly avoid animal products but not consider themselves to be “vegan.” [ 166 ]. This variable stood out in studies on the Vgt-Vgn-M stream (20%), followed by Vgt (19%).

Finally, another way in which social determinants appeared in the literature was through the social norms , which referred to the social pressure received from society and significant others to adopt (or reject) VEG alternatives [ 60 ]. Specifically, we found this variable in 8% of the studies. In some cases, it referred to imperative (perceived social pressure) and descriptive norms (the number of VEG people in the participant's circle) [ 141 , 205 ]. However, it was more commonly understood as subjective norms, close to the operationalization in TPB (as the extent to which participants consider that significant people in their lives think they should follow or avoid a VEG lifestyle) [ 2 , 15 ]. Social norms were mainly analyzed in the Vgt-Vgn-AHR (16%) and Vgt-Vgn-M (14%) streams.

3.6.5. Situational variables

This group included product attributes and informational signals regarding VEG. Present in 22% of the studies, research on product attributes focused on two types of attributes: (1) extrinsic attributes, such as labeling, nutrition information, functional claim, visibility, affordability, accessibility, promotion, or availability [ 21 , 86 , 242 ]; and (2) intrinsic attributes, such as texture, taste, smell, visual appearance, color, or size [ 143 , 231 ]. Product attributes were observed dominantly in studies on Vgt-Vgn- M -C (55%), followed by Vgt-Vgn-M (27%), and Vgt-Vgn (21%).

Our analysis identified that 19% of the studies focus on analyzing the effect of different informational signals on raising awareness of VEG [ 144 ], promoting VEG products [ 52 ], and eliciting cognitive or emotional responses to VEG information [ 52 ]. For example, some studies focused on measuring the effect of exposure to specific ethical or environmental messages [ 170 , 182 , 258 ], documentaries [ 165 ], or campaigns [ 174 ] on the perception of VEG alternatives. Another group of studies measured the impact that different VEG food images had on consumers [ 5 , 52 , 188 ]. It is worth noting that these studies were often experimental and were conducted online or in laboratory settings [ 3 , 170 ]. Informational signals were mainly explored in studies in Vgn (33%), followed by Vgt-Vgn- M -C (31%) and Vgt-Vgn-AHR (29%) streams.

As discussed above, research has focused on examining a wide range of variables to understand the VEG phenomenon. To summarize, Fig. 7 depicts a conceptual map of the relationships explored in the reviewed studies. It is important to note that the aim of this map was not to provide a conclusive explanatory model, but rather to show how the relationship between the variables has been conceptualized in the literature and illuminate future avenues of research. The map schematically proposes that situational variables elicit certain emotional responses, which in turn can affect knowledge and attitudes toward VEG. Likewise, attitudes, a variable closely related to individuals’ values and beliefs, have a direct impact on intention, which may originate from different motivations. Intentions are assumed to be directly affected by social networks, social norms and self-efficacy, and indirectly affected by identity and personality traits. Finally, the direct and indirect effect of all these variables translates into actual behavior. All these variables translate into actual behavior.

Conceptual map of measured variables in quantitative VEG studies.

3.7. HOW the VEG studies were conducted?

All 307 studies in this review were quantitative, as per the inclusion criteria; however, we found that the studies included different research designs. Sixty-eight percent of the studies were conducted based on correlational or non-experimental design (collecting data based on surveys). Among the non-experimental studies, eight were mix-method designs and included both qualitative and quantitative data, for which we coded the quantitative part ( Table 8 in Annex). Thirty-two percent of the studies were experimental. Among these, 17 were choice experiments. In addition to varied research designs, we observed different types of information regarding the data collection, sample characteristics, and statistical analysis. We discuss these three aspects below.

3.7.1. Data collection

Regarding the type of studies conducted, 87% were based on cross-sectional data (vs. 13% longitudinal data) [ 138 , 162 , 204 ]. It is worth mentioning that only 47.5% of the studies reported the year of data collection. Among the experimental studies, 31% dealt with between-participant and 9% with within-participant designs. Furthermore, the settings of these experiments were mainly online [ 156 , 159 , 269 ], in research laboratories [ 135 , 209 ], or in restaurants or cafeterias [ 186 ]. Manipulations varied depending on the research objective, but many involved the use of exposures to different stimuli, such as informational text messages [ 110 , 114 , 187 ], images of food [ 5 , 86 , 111 , 167 ], or manipulated menu design [ 110 , 125 , 186 ].

Analyzing the data sources utilized in the reviewed studies revealed that 92% of the studies relied on primary sources, 7% employed secondary data, and only a limited number used both primary and secondary data [ 2 , 21 , 231 ]. The secondary data sources were mainly obtained from national panels, such as the US National Health Survey [ 53 ], the Swiss Food Panel [ 4 , 176 ], the UK Integrated Household Survey [ 204 ], and the German Socioeconomic Panel [ 87 ]. An examination of the methodologies used for collecting primary data revealed that a large number of studies relied on a single source (89.5%). Relatedly, the most commonly used method was self-reported data. Only 13% of the studies supplemented the self-reported method with additional information such as body measurements [ 101 , 113 , 164 ], brain responses [ 135 , 167 ], or implicit attitudes [ 3 , 43 , 111 , 209 ].

Of the studies that used primary data, most employed surveys to collect data; among these, the use of Likert scales (ranging from 1 to 5) and yes-or-no questions was prominent. Although the reliability of the scales was addressed in general terms (mainly through Cronbach's alpha), the validity of the scales was often not considered. In this sense, factor analyses (exploratory and confirmatory) were only used in 14% of studies as the most appropriate techniques to test the validity of the scales. It should be mentioned that although many complex concepts related to VEG were investigated, 65% of the studies did not use constructs but single variables. Moreover, most variables did not result from the operationalization of the constructs from a specific theoretical framework.

3.7.2. Sample

The unit of analysis in 98% of the studies was the individual respondents; the rest focused on other units, such as households [ 183 , 204 ]. Additionally, we found that sample sizes ranged from 10 [ 101 ] to 143,362 [ 204 ] and that 11% of the studies used 100% student samples. The measurement of some socio-demographic variables was present in all the studies as necessary information to describe the sample; however, not all studies presented all or the same type of information. Regarding sex, the sample consisted of both male and female participants, except for six studies conducted exclusively with females [ 112 , 122 , 172 , 185 , 197 ]. The data also showed that female participation was generally higher than male participation, with an average of 64% of the total sample. Among those that provided this data, the percentage of female participants was higher than 50% of the total number of cases in 72% of the cases. Concerning the ethnic composition of the sample, we found that only 8% of the studies provided information on ethnicity, 74% of the respondents from the samples (on average) were Caucasian and that one study was conducted entirely on African-Americans [ 230 ]. In terms of age, 40% of the studies did not report the mean age of respondents and 98% used adults as a sample, meaning that only a few studies focused on children [ 12 , 44 , 140 , 141 , 215 ]. Regarding the VEG status of the respondents, 54% of the studies were conducted on VEG and non-VEG participants [ 42 , 205 , 230 ], 25% on only VEG participants [ 18 , 45 , 177 ], and 20.84% on only non-VEG participants [ 13 , 110 , 143 ].

3.7.3. Statistical techniques

The most used statistical techniques in order of relevance were ANOVA (or ANCOVA and MANCOVA; 44%), chi-square test (21%), t-tests (17%), and Mann-Whitney test (3%). A few studies adopted a more predictive approach by running a model with the corresponding dependent and independent variables. In these cases, the most used techniques were OLS regression (16%) [e.g., 41], logistic regression (15%) [ 110 ], or SEM/PLS models (9.7%) [ 15 , 23 , 255 ]. Very few studies performed additional analyses, such as mediation (8%) [ 144 ], and moderation (2%) [ 15 ]. Some other studies tried to classify individuals according to different characteristics and primarily used statistical techniques, such as cluster (2%), [e.g., 84, 90, 151,193] or latent class (1%) [ 202 , 231 ] analyses.

However, normality was assumed in most cases; only 14% of all studies (experimental and non-experimental) reported (non)compliance with the normality assumption [ 15 , 42 , 144 ]. Additionally, very few studies (20%) warned of the risk of certain or potential bias, especially the risk associated with Common Method Effects, such as selection or social desirability biases. Of these few studies, only some performed any statistical technique to ensure that bias did not threaten the results; they mainly mentioned this it in the limitations.

4. Discussion

This systematic literature review shed light on the development of quantitative peer-review studies on VEG published up to December 31, 2022, within psychology, behavioral science, social science, and consumer behavior domains. The 6W1H analytical approach was chosen as a guide for analysis to have a holistic view of the literature and capture its multiple angles. This approach aimed to answer the questions of WHEN, WHERE, WHO, WHAT, WHICH, WHY, and HOW the research on VEG was published. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first systematic literature review conducted on VEG. In this section, we highlight and discuss the most relevant findings and gaps we drew from the study.

In line with the increasing worldwide attention to VEG alternatives and with other authors' observations [ 7 , 11 , 22 ], our study confirmed that researchers’ interest in studying VEG has grown, especially in the last ten years. The results of our review showed exponential growth of publications in recent years; specifically, the average number of publications, which increased from one in the 1980s and 1990s to 61 in 2022.

The present study also showed that such interest is particularly robust within English-speaking Western countries; in this regard, we identified a geographical gap in the literature, as the studies reviewed were mainly concentrated in the US, [e.g., 2,13,143] and the UK [e.g. Refs. [ 14 , 21 , 49 ]]. This geographical dominance, which could be due to multiple causes beyond the scope of this article (e.g., greater number of researchers, potential for research funding, availability of technology, and trajectory of veganism), is a major constraint to advancing knowledge on VEG, given that both human-animal relationships and food consumption are strongly influenced by cultural factors [ 281 , 282 ]. Accordingly, several criticisms have emerged, claiming that research on VEG is racially biased and strongly appropriated by Western culture [ 165 ].

As for the journals in which research on VEG was published, we observed an interesting change of focus. The study on this phenomenon was born with a strong link to journals focused on animal rights and activism as VEG was clearly presented as a manifestation of a philosophical, ethical, and political stance that questions the anthropocentric position of human beings with respect to the rest of the animals. However, our review clearly showed the preference of authors in recent years to publish their research in journals highly focused on analyzing the relationship between behavioral change and nutritional or dietary choices. In this sense, we found that Appetite was the journal chosen most frequently to publish quantitative studies on VEG. This evolution indicates that the rationale for healthy and sustainable eating in VEG research has become more prominent than ever, while the implications these alternatives have for animals have been diluted. In line with this, we found that the Vgt-Vgn. D approach of research dominated the literature, while the most prominent gap in the literature was of VEG as a life philosophy or social movement. This was illustrated by the arguments expressed by researchers to defend the relevance of studying VEG, the main driver being health, followed by animal protection, environmental concerns, and other considerations (religion or spirituality, world hunger, social factors, and sensory appeal). Taken together, our results add evidence to a recent concern in the literature about the depoliticization of VEG in society (especially in veganism) that is fading from its antagonistic origins [ 283 ]. The spread of VEG in academic endeavors, as well as in business and personal practices, seems more often motivated by personal health reasons (understood in terms of physiological health) than by ethical considerations.

Focusing on the objectives and methodological approach of the studies reviewed, we highlighted five main gaps. First, through the overview obtained on the topic, we realized a notable lack of research on consumer behavior change or the process of transitioning to VEG. We identified only a few studies that analyzed self-reported lifestyle changes [e.g. Ref. [ 177 ]], especially measuring actual behavior change over time [e.g. Ref. [ 174 ]].

Second, among the variables used, we noted a preference for studying rational and conscious content over emotions, feelings, and the unconscious mind in human behavior, [e.g. Refs. [ [284] , [285] , [286] ]]. To illustrate, although there was a strong interest in studying attitudes toward meat substitutes [ 231 ], VEG individuals [ 75 ], or VEG diet [ 144 ], it was very rarely accompanied by an adequate definition and measurement of the cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions widely recognized in the literature [ 287 , 288 ]. Despite plenty of measures developed to examine the psychology of meat-eating [ 22 , 289 ], such as carnism inventory [ 278 ], meat attachment [ 60 ], or moral disengagement to meat [ 213 ], we found gaps in the tools used to measure the variables examined in VEG studies. Although some well-known scales were incorporated, such as the disgust scale [ 290 ], or personality traits [ 291 ], in general, the instruments used to measure the constructs were often not validated in the literature but constructed ad hoc for the specific research being conducted. Very little progress has been made in the development of constructs and scales tailored to VEG. The exceptions to this are the Dietary Identity Questionnaire [ 271 ], Vegetarian Eating Motives Inventory [ 116 ], and Vegetarianism Treat Scale [ 277 ].

Third, we observed that in the field of VEG, data-driven research was more prominent than theory-driven research. This is an important shortcoming, given that data-driven methods are less likely to offer clear theoretical perspectives to help analyze results [ 292 ]. We agree with Schoenfeld [ 293 ] that “theory is, or should be, the soul of the empirical scientist” [p [ 105 ]]. Theory-driven approach is especially important in quantitative research owing to its deductive logic based on “a priori theories.” [ [ 294 ] p312]. Thus, the lack of anchoring research on VEG in theoretical frameworks is another of the gaps detected in our review.

Fourth, the rapid growth and innovation of software, together with the increased availability of diverse data sources, have expanded analytical capabilities and methodological options adapted to each topic. However, our research showed that such advances had very little impact on the field of VEG studies (at least in the non-medical VEG literature), as the richness of the data was not large (mainly self-reported and cross-sectional studies); descriptive and correlational statistical techniques remained the most used analytical approaches, highlighting another gap in VEG literature. However, one innovation that was recently incorporated in VEG research and is worth mentioning is brain response measurements. These types of measurement methods were rarely used [ 167 ] as the field is still dominated by self-reported surveys, as mentioned above. Nevertheless, the contrasting results of self-reported versus physiological responses in Anderson et al.‘s [ 167 ] study highlighted the importance of using multiple data sources when attempting to analyze people's responses and to inform the dietary patterns required in dietary scales, as they provide a richer and better picture of consumer behavior.

Fifth, with respect to the samples used in the VEG studies, it is pertinent to address two important matters. On the one hand, vegans and vegetarians were often merged and studied as a unified group. However, a growing body of research demonstrated that vegans and vegetarians not only present differences in terms of behavioral and attitudinal characteristics (such as identity profiles [ 93 ], value orientations [ 42 ], and cognitive ability [ 113 ]), but that the motivations driving the adoption of their lifestyles (animal protection, environment, and health) also influence how the person experiences the VEG alternative. On the other hand, studies were expected to clearly indicate the composition of their sample according to socio-demographic variables; however, our review showed that this practice was not always met, especially regarding ethnicity, sex, and age, variables highly relevant to food, ethical consumption, and animal protection [ 15 , 144 ]. Analyzing the studies that provide such information would reveal that research involving minors and culturally diverse groups [ 54 ] is notably scarce. However, considering that the adoption of VEG has traditionally had a philosophical foundation [ 1 , 16 , [295] , [296] , [297] ] and that certain responses to it are learned by social contagion [ 298 ], different mechanisms depending on the age of the participants and their cultural setting are expected. In addition, we detected a very narrow and traditional approach to the concept of “gender” in that most studies used the dichotomous categories of male and female. This approach does not align with the existing discourse on diversity and gender fluidity [ 299 ] and could hinder progress in deepening our understanding of the relationship between VEG, gender issues, and animal advocacy [ 300 , 301 ].

5. Conclusion

5.1. contribution.

Our systematic literature review contributes to the literature by providing an overview and mapping the growing body of research on VEG, which allowed us to clarify existing findings as well as identify trends and gaps in existing research. Using the 6W1H approach, we offered a novel lens for examining the topic and a systematized mapping of the variables examined by researchers when studying VEG, and more specifically, the new and emerging factors that influence VEG-related behavior change.

Three main conclusions can be drawn from our research. First, our study highlighted the growing body of research on VEG. However, Anglophone countries dominate the research in this field, which may lead to a certain bias in the analysis of the phenomenon. In this regard, some scholars and practitioners have raised some criticisms, claiming that VEG is racially biased and strongly appropriated by Western thought.

Second, reflecting holistically on the evolution of VEG research, it appears to be shifting from a political-philosophical positioning to an individual consumption choice or dietary option. This shift in framing is relevant because it may have important implications for its progress in the sense that the approach we adopt as researchers, when investigating any phenomenon or idea, influences its conceptualization and development in society [ 302 ]. After all, “meanings do not naturally or automatically attach to the objects, events, or experiences we encounter, but arise through culturally mediated interpretive processes” [303 p. 144].

Third, we observed that the field of VEG is still dominated by data-driven research; however, to gain a richer and deeper understanding of the VEG phenomenon and advance the discipline, studies should be grounded in theory. In addition, it is advisable to increase the richness of the data, quality of the measurements, and sophistication of the statistical techniques applied by broadening the variables examined, extending the populations under investigation, and improving the methods of analysis.

5.2. Academic and managerial implications

Our comprehensive overview and mapping of VEG research can benefit scholars in different ways. On the one hand, by highlighting and identifying the latest gaps, this study can be useful in leading and guiding researchers toward topics, the unit of analysis, and methods to advance VEG research and, thus, move the discipline forward. In this sense, our study aimed to show “the path” so that by understanding our current status, we can plan the future of our research. On the other hand, as academics, we need to select the journal that we consider most appropriate for disseminating our work. To this end, we usually apply two central criteria [ 39 , 304 ]: (1) the suitability of the topic studied that is of interest to an audience of academics and practitioners; and (2) the prestige of the journal, a variable that contributes to the credibility and diffusion of our findings. In some cases, this decision may be a simple task; however, it is more complicated in novel fields studied from multiple disciplines and approaches, as is the case of VEG. Therefore, we expect that this study will assist researchers in this regard.

The systematized mapping of measured variables can also help practitioners and public policymakers design innovative and more effective interventions aimed at fostering more just, healthy, and environmentally sustainable societies. Considering that the lack of awareness and confusion about the different VEG options acts as barriers to their adoption, this study can help clarify the different perspectives on the phenomena. This, in turn, can help public and private institutions involved in animal rights, environmental sustainability, and public health in designing educational programs tailored to the idiosyncrasies of the target group. In this sense, future policies could develop educational activities targeting adults and younger generations. In addition, interventions have focused on VEG food choices or reducing meat consumption as stand-alone strategies so far, but future interventions could be more effective if designed through nudging strategies.

From the perspective of understanding consumer behavior, marketers of VEG foods could benefit from our study by having a deeper understanding of consumers' motivations, goals, and objectives toward VEG products, which, in turn, will serve to better segment markets and offer products more tailored to their needs and desires. Marketers can also encourage the consumption of VEG products; for example, by promoting the adoption of short-term actions, such as the “Lundi-Vert” campaign in France or “Veganuary” in the UK, aimed at increasing people's familiarity with these products and improving their perception of them. In addition, the studies reviewed showed the role of monetary incentives on VEG products, which could be used in future policies to increase the willingness to buy them.

5.3. Limitations

Systematic literature reviews present potential shortcomings, especially in the selection process of the publications that constitute the corpus, which could exclude some relevant information. In this sense, although WoS is a very comprehensive and reputable database, we cannot exclude the possibility that some articles may have been excluded from our selection and analysis. Additionally, to provide greater homogeneity and consistency to the study, we focused on articles published in English and in peer-reviewed academic literature. Future research could complement our study with those published in other languages (e.g., Spanish, French, German, or Chinese) as well as in books, conferences, or “gray literature” [ 305 , 306 ].

Another difficulty inherent to the systematic literature review is related to the process of coding the content of the studies that constitute the corpus to be analyzed. As mentioned in the Methodology, in our study the coding was agreed upon and performed by the three researchers. However, it cannot be ruled out that the position of the three investigators may sometimes differ from that of the readers or authors of the studies reviewed.

5.4. Recommendations and future research avenue

In accordance with the research gaps identified, we propose some avenues for future research to contribute to the advancement of VEG research. First, to address geographical gap, we consider it important to broaden the scope of studies to other countries (e.g., Eastern regions or Spanish-speaking countries), and to conduct more cross-cultural research [e.g. Ref. [ 224 ]]. We also recommend that future research focus on the analysis of the less examined VEG frames (e.g., as a philosophy of life or social movement), and explore the sociological and political aspects or dimensions of the phenomenon to have a more comprehensive understanding of it, especially in the case of veganism, which goes far beyond eating habits. However, we also believe that research attempts on VEG will be more fruitful if they incorporate separate (or comparative) analyses of the different streams, as well as the study of attitudes and behaviors toward animals.

To overcome the lack of research on VEG, we encourage scholars to adopt a more dynamic perspective on the phenomenon by incorporating the temporal factor into the design of their studies. This can be achieved, for example, by conducting longitudinal and experimental studies, and by using the so-called “stage theories” in their research. This approach will make it possible to observe how different constructs develop over time and how they influence the process of rejecting or adopting VEG. It may be of great interest for future literature reviews could focus on other topics related to VEG that were only tangentially explored in our work (e.g., cultured meat, pescatarianism, flexitarianism). Additionally, it would be interesting to synthesize the manifold advantages and disadvantages from multiple angles (ethical, environmental, social, and health) of adopting the different VEG options.

In addition, to advance research knowledge, theoretically underpinning future research attempts on VEG will provide a richer and deeper understanding not only on the topic under analysis but also the theoretical framework used in the research. In this regard, it would also be desirable to be more innovative (e.g., including gender diversity and fluidity) [ 299 ] and to show greater diversity (e.g., in terms of age and race) with respect to the population analyzed. This recommendation is more than timely, considering the current overrepresentation of some groups of participants.

In terms of methodology, our research showed that there is much room for improvement in terms of data collection, the variables studied, the tools used to measure these variables, and the statistical techniques used for subsequent analysis. Broadly speaking, future research should consider the following recommendations: (1) use diverse sources to collect information so that studies can combine observed, self-reported, and behavioral data, for which digital technologies can be implemented; (2) examine new variables and use scales and instruments previously validated in the literature to obtain good reliability and validity of the measures to capture the proposed concepts and avoid biases; and (3) conduct complementary analyses to delve deeper into the topic under investigation, using powerful statistical techniques to go beyond simple descriptive and correlational analyses and pave the way for deeper causal analyses.

As stated on multiple occasions, the present article aimed to review the existing quantitative literature to date on VEG. The large number of studies selected and the great heterogeneity observed among them (related to objectives, data, and streams) highlighted the complexity of performing a meta-analysis. Nevertheless, in future research, we will consider the possibility of performing a meta-analysis to deepen the effect of the relationships between some of the variables revealed in our study. Additionally, future reviews can focus on qualitative studies to examine whether their results are similar to ours.

The general conclusion we reach is that, despite the boom in research on VEG in recent years and the great and laudable efforts made to date by researchers, the study of the phenomenon is still in its early stages. This conclusion offers good news: the path of VEG research is still ahead of us and there is sufficient scope for innovation.

Author contribution statement

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

This study has been funded by Universidad Pontificia Comillas, reference number PP2021_10.

Data availability statement

Declaration of competing interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback. The authors also thank Dr. Ben De Groeve and Dr. Jeffrey Soar for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

6W1H of VEG quantitative studies in psychology, behavioral science, social science and consumer behavior domains of WoS (1978–2022)

Vgt: Vegetarianism; Vgn: Veganism; M: Meat consumption; AHR: Animal-Human relationship; C: Cultured meat consumption; D: Diet; F: Food; P:Philosophy of life.

HL: Health; EN: Environment; AN: Animals; CL: Cultural & Social; SN: Sensory; FT: Faith; FN: Financial & economic; PL: Political; JS: Justice & world hunger.

A: Attitudes; M: Motivations; V: Values, T: Personality; E: Emotions; K: Knowledge; B: Behavior; I: Intentions; S: Self-efficacy or Perceived Behavioral Control; N: Networks; O: Norms; D: Identity; F: Information; P: Product Attributes.

CR: Correlational or non-experimental: M-CR: Mixed method study including Correlational section; EX: Experimental; EXC: Choice Experiment.

Home / Essay Samples / Life / Lifestyle / Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism Essay Examples

Understanding the concept and benefits of vegetarianism.

Vegetarianism may seem like a popular diet fad, but it has been advocated by many cultures around the world. Restaurants’ advertising “vegetarian options” on their menu is becoming customary. Vegetarianism is a dietary choice, to abstain from meat that people adopt for many reasons. There...

Vegetarian Diet: Examining the Arguments

As the world grapples with issues of ethics, environment, and health, the debate over adopting a vegetarian diet has gained significant attention. This essay delves into the multifaceted arguments surrounding vegetarianism, evaluating its potential benefits and challenges while considering the broader impact on individuals and...

A Vegetarian Clritical Response to Burger King Commmericial

In our constantly changing society, the stereotypical social norms are assumably diminishing and the term "genderless" society is also becoming more widespread. The world we live in surely sounds promising without expectations from society, without having to force everything into stereotypical categories, but is this...

Challenges of Pursuing the Lifestyle of a Vegetarian

Have you ever tried a diet in hopes that it’ll change your life? The vegetarian lifestyle is one of the most common diets teenagers participate in. Those who participate in a vegetarian diet were either born into it or acted by choice. Vegetarianism consists of...

Why Morality Does not Require Vegetarianism

There has been a great debate about the relationship between vegetarianism and morality. While the arguments against eating meat are quite convincing, there were only a few researches to justify the morality of consuming animal product. However, I believe that morality does not require vegetarianism...

Vegetarianism is not a Healthier Choice

Simply ask people around, most people would think vegetarianism is healthier whether they are Vegetarians or not. It is obviously healthy to eat vegetables, but is it healthy when eating vegetables only? I believe the answer is a no. Organism needs vitamins in small quantities...

How the Vegetarianism Could Change Our Life for Better

Have you wondered why vegetarianism has become so popular nowadays? Do you imagine everyone being vegetarian? Well, this is similarly to a person with distinct ideals from the rest, having another way of putting them on practice. Vegetarianism has changed trough the time, previously being...

The Hidden Politics of Vegetarianism Caste and the Hindu Canteen (hugo Gorringe, D Karthikeyan) 

Food practices varies in Indian culture to its diverse traditions. Hindus, considered as vegetarians, as a common assumption though the fact remains some of them including Brahmins, eat meat. The Vedic texts strongly recommend non-violence against all life forms while it doesn’t explicitly prohibit eating...

Historical Lens: Inevitable Vegetarianism and Its Positive Effect on Society

“Earth’s carrying capacity is estimated to be between 8 and 16 billion,” was found in a 2012 United Nations Environment Programme discussion paper on the Rio+20 which lead to member states deciding to launch a process to develop a set of sustainable development goals that...

The Predposition of Veg and Non Veg to Hypertension

The relationship between diet and hypertension remains an area of controversy and research interest. Hypertension exerts a staggering worldwide burden on human quality of life and healthy care system resources via contribution to increased mortality and risk of cardiovascular diseases such as myocardial infraction, angina...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

You may also like

• Responsibility
• Bucket List
• Grandmother
• Self Esteem
• Visit to a Museum
• Superstition Essays
• Optimism Essays
• Shoes Essays
• Peace Essays
• Survival Essays
• Healthy Lifestyle Essays
• Fashion Essays
• Habits Essays
• Fitness Essays
• Makeup Essays

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->