The purpose of this website is to provide information/news about Veganism and animal abuse/welfare/rights. It is hoped this information will be used for research and prompt a consideration of why Veganism
is so important, particularly at this time. While Veganism is concerned with diet and the environment, it must always be animal-centered. Veganism, which is not animal-centered, is not Veganism...
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
(Vegan Society)
The Future is Vegan...
Objections
The following deals with some of the objections and accusations made by anti-vegans. Despite being successfully answered countless times, they continue to be made, thus indicating the anti-vegan has no real interest in obtaining the facts. Invariably, there is no connection whatsoever between the various accusations made, but this does not prevent the anti-vegan adopting a "blunderbuss approach" and firing a range of very different and unrelated accusations. Any analysis of this phenomenon will demonstrate that the anti-vegan has no valid argument(s) and has also little, if any knowledge about the subject.
However, before dealing with the attempts to discredit Veganism, it should not be overlooked that many people present a misleading idea of Veganism. For example, the many "Vegan" websites and social media accounts that concentrate entirely on food as if Veganism is centred on diet and diet alone. A further issue with social media are the "Vegan" pages that allow anti-vegan trolls to post negative (and moronic) comments but also distasteful messages that often mock the suffering of animals and/or Vegans, presumably in the hope these will upset the readers. One appropriate comment left on Reddit in 2021 by tantrakalison said:
"Most anti-vegan trolls I have met are uneducated, scientifically illiterate cowards who pretend they enjoy or are okay with animal abuse but just want to belong to the herd. Unless they're truly sociopaths which most are not...
Most anti-vegans I met over the years on social media are anti-science and mostly closet bigots or have some type of entitled right wing ideology. Most of their arguments are not based on logic or science, and
most of them just like the attention and bashing veganism...and going along with the crowd even if it's unethical, because they have a weak underdeveloped character.
Most of them can't stomach or even sit through a simple documentary like Dominion and they can much less sit through slaughterhouse footage...Most of them talk big and joke about how much they don't care about animal suffering and
abuse by humans for taste/pleasure but wouldn't want the same to happen to their pet cat, dog or horses. Most of them talk about a Disneyland fantasy cartoon in which grass-fed organically-fed animals
are humanely murdered..."
I have to agree with much that the writer says. The majority of comments left by anti-vegans appear to have been written by a poorly-educated 7-year old.
Furthermore, what also appears to have happened, and certainly so on social media, is that Veganism is seen by some as the means of making money. As an example, on 23 June 2024, LaRoy Doge was contacted about his Facebook page and how he allowed free rein to anti-vegan trolls making offensive comments about suffering animals and vegans (bearing in mind his page is supposed to promoting Veganism!)
His response was:
"Bye. My page is monetized, and I'm running it accordingly so I can get compensated for my efforts. I don't block trolls that were sent over by Facebook algorithm. But you, easy. Waste my time."
This attitude speaks volumes....
Returning to the bizarrre behaviour of anti-vegans, which sometimes resembles a crusade or campaign, this has resulted in number of studies. A review of 'The Vegan myth: The Rhetoric of Online Anti-Veganism,' by Carmen Aguilera-Carnerero and Margarita Carretero-Conzález, noted:
"This stereotyping results in 'a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism' which the authors termed 'vegaphobia.' A study published by Maclnnis and Hodson in 2015 revealed that vegetarians and vegans were equivalently or more negatively evaluated than several common prejudice target groups, more negatively evaluated than several nutritional outgroups (particularly if vegetarianism or veganism was embraced on ethical grounds), and vegan and vegetarians reported experiencing negativity due to their ethical choice. More recently, a survey from Lifesum, a weight-loss app of U.K.- and U.S.-based vegans, revealed that “92 percent ot respondents experienced vegaphobia from family and friends, 59 percent experienced it while dining out, 55 percent in the workplace, and 21 percent while grocery shopping” (Krishnan)...
By mocking the ideology that threatens to destabilize the status quo, it actually reinforces it."
Source: https://ebrary.net/
Another, 'Is being anti-vegan a distinct dietarian identity? An investigation with omnivores, vegans, and self-identified “anti-vegans”', by Rebecca Gregson, Jared
Piazza and Heather Shaw, stated:
"Our findings also provided confirmation of several inferences drawn from Gregson et al.’s (2022) study of online anti-vegan groups. Gregson et al. observed that anti-vegans frequented subreddits dedicated to dark humour, a predominantly male interest (Hofmann et al., 2020) underpinned by right-wing, conservative ideology (Hodson et al., 2010)...Consistent with theorising regarding dark humour as an expression of hegemonic masculinity (Plester, 2015), we observed links between dark humour and the endorsement of traditional male-gender roles...We found that anti-vegans were the least trusting of science, relative to both omnivores and vegans, and vegans had the highest levels of trust in science. We suspect that this distrust may be a by-product of their more “right-wing” profile. Indeed, some previous work (e.g., Kerr & Wilson, 2021) has shown that a SDO-conservative-values nexus correlates with distrust in science."
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
In sum, it appears that the opposition to Veganism often incorporates a near-obsessive colouring that has its roots in a combination of right-wing libertarianism, dark humour and an incel-type aggressive need to
assert masculinity (which is often associated with self-doubts about sexuality). Moreover, rather like fundamentalist Christians, anti-vegans, most of whom appear to have had no higher education, are sceptical about scientific
claims.
A number of writers have referred to the hatred that Veganism arouses, e.g.,
"Anti-vegan, obsessed individuals who often seem to make it their life’s mission to destroy veganism and for “humanity” to remain existing in slaughterhouse-based “civilizations.” They already know the vegan side of the story and they cannot tolerate it. These rabid anti-vegans want no vegans in the world, they often tell us to kill ourselves and other such hateful heckling; they’re basically just frothing with hatred for all things vegan."
Source: https://blameitonlove.wordpress.com/
This is no exaggeration: I have moderated different Vegan Facebook pages and witnessed the torrent of abuse generated by simply showing images of animal suffering and recommending a Vegan lifestyle. Messages and comments were received in which the sender told the Vegan recipients to (for example) "go and kill yourself" or "Fuck off and die". No one asked the sender to visit the page so this confirmed how anti-vegans choose to wander around,
looking for Vegan pages and Vegans to abuse.
"The late celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain once wrote in his book, Kitchen Confidential: 'Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter-faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant to any chef worth a damn. To me, life without veal stock, pork fat, sausage, organ meat, demi-glace, or even stinky cheese is a life not worth living.'
Gordon Ramsey was a little more direct, saying: 'If the kids ever came up to me and said, ‘Dad, I’m a vegetarian,’ then I would sit them on the fence and electrocute them...'
In a 2015 study, researchers Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson...found that vegans who are vegan for animal rights purposes were judged more harshly than those who are vegan for health or environmental reasons. Those who are vegan for ecological reasons were evaluated more severely than those who are vegan for health reasons. This shows that ethical concerns are particularly sensitive when disrupting cognitive dissonance...It was observed that meat-eaters generally believe that vegans see them as morally inferior. And the stronger the belief (increased evidence of moral reproach), the more negative vegans are viewed. In other words, the more vegans hold non-vegans accountable; the more vegans are hated...
Vegans come along and present a direct threat to beloved traditions. There’s a term for this; threat theory. Threat theory is when people perceive an out-group as a threat to their way of life. So when vegans try to influence the meat-eating majority, it’s seen as a threat to their traditions and customs. It doesn’t matter how veganism is presented or how non-threatening vegans come across. The message is always received as a threat to the status quo. Veganism is always going to be inconvenient to the meat-eating majority.
Religious and political beliefs also influence anti-veganism....exaggerated bias exists toward vegetarians and vegans among prejudice prone individuals. Those with a strong right-wing ideology/conservatism were associated with more negative attitudes toward vegetarians and vegans. The assumption here is that vegans are seen as less compliant and more of a threat to people who hold these beliefs."
Source: https://theminimalistvegan.com/
And in respect of the psychological aspect:.
"Though it’s natural for people to disagree, the passionate rage – and even mild irritation – that veganism stirs up seems to defy rational sense. Research has shown that only drug addicts face the same degree of stigma – and the least popular vegans of all are those who cite animal cruelty as their reason...
Some psychologists take [the] view – that far from being driven by factors within our conscious awareness, the widespread resentment we have for vegans is down to deep-seated psychological biases...Hank Rothgerber, a social psychologist at Bellarmine University, Kentucky, thinks it all comes down to answering the question: how do we continue to eat meat?...To continue to eat meat, Rothgerber suggests, requires some serious mental gymnastics...
According to Rothgerber, people tend not to think of meat eating as an ideology...Some psychologists call this the “meat paradox”, though it’s also been couched in stronger terms – as “moral schizophrenia”...
In the case of eating meat, Rothgerber suggests we have a number of strategies – around 15 – which allow us to avoid facing up to the meat paradox. These include pretending that meat has no link to animals, imagining that we eat less of it than we really do, wilful ignorance about how it’s produced – helped by the cartoons of happy farm animals that we’re exposed to from childhood – and only eating meat from animals which are “humanely” farmed. Unfortunately, most of these are derailed by the presence of vegans."
Source: https://www.bbc.com/
Naren Dubey, Ph.D., wrote of his experiences:
"While I routinely see 'vegan hatred' in online interactions and discussion forums, I had not experienced that in my day to day life until recently. I’ve had some conversations recently with close friends where I’ve seen them roll their eyes in exasperation when they learned that I had turned vegan. Even some very liberal and progressive friends of mine refer to vegans as 'irrational vegans' or 'annoying vegans'. I had no idea that vegans invoked such wrath. A few google searches on 'vegan hatred' revealed that this was a global phenomena."
Source: https://narendubey.medium.com/
Other statements, no less enlightening, are as follows:
"But veganism’s explosive growth alone does not explain why it attracted such controversy. There is something inherent to veganism and vegans that arouses deeper feelings. What is it about the vegan lifestyle that stirs such strong emotion in those who don’t happen to share it? Why do people hate vegans so much?...Calling them humourless or militant, sanctimonious or annoying or hypocrites – all of these terms are just smokescreens for what it is that people really feel, which is fear...
The vegan conversation, then, is a stand-in for much bigger things. When we talk about veganism we are talking about environmental and social change; we are also contemplating the erasure of tradition (Texas barbecue! The Sunday roast! The sausage roll!). We are also tabling a long-overdue referendum on how our food choices affect us and the world around us. And as much as its popularity has been pumped up by concepts like flexitarianism, ultimately veganism’s goal is a world in which the annual per-capita consumption of animal products is precisely zero. No wonder things have got so heated..."
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/
"Something I also noticed, which turns out to be well supported by academic research, is that a lot of people weren't all that fond of us vegans. Studies indicate that people described as vegan are perceived more negatively, as being less likable...
Where does the bias come from? One explanation is the media. A study of UK news found that 73 percent of references to vegans were written in a negative light. Another, perhaps more complicated explanation, is guilt. It has been hypothesised that people often have strong negative attitudes towards vegans to protect or disguise their underlying guilt that they too should be doing more to reduce animal suffering or help the environment... "
Source:
https://m.economictimes.com/
"When researchers asked omnivores to evaluate vegans along with several “common prejudice target groups..'Strikingly, only drug addicts were evaluated more negatively than vegetarians and vegans.' The study’s authors, Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson, noted a unique aspect of anti-vegan bias: 'Unlike other forms of bias (e.g., racism, sexism), negativity toward vegetarians and vegans is not widely considered a societal problem; rather, negativity toward vegetarians and vegans is commonplace and largely accepted.'
In fact, research has revealed widespread anti-vegan bias not only in the media but even within academic research itself. A study of UK media found that 73.4% of references to vegans were negative, and a review of social science literature discovered that researchers used terms that 'denigrated [veganism] and made…[it]…seem ‘difficult’ and 'abnormal.' Some social psychologists argue that negativity toward vegans has less to do with vegans themselves than what they represent and bring to mind.1e usually don’t think about eating animal products as a conscious choice...
Vegans don’t just pose a threat to our individual identities as moral people - they also pose what researchers call a “symbolic threat” to group identities, cherished traditions, cultural values, and social norms...Research shows the more firmly people associate meat-eating with their identity, the more likely they are to perceive vegans as a threat to their way of life, and thus the more they will engage in a variety of defenses, including stigmatizing and attacking vegans...
Studies indicate that omnivores tend to overestimate the degree of actual judgment from vegans, and, at times, create it entirely. Even the mere mention of a theoretical person being vegetarian or vegan was shown to prompt defensive reactions..."
Source: https://bitesizevegan.org/
"Matt Ball of One Step for Animals wrote that...'The only group viewed more negatively than vegans were drug addicts'...He also cited another analysis that found that 'labeling a product ‘vegan’ causes its sales to drop by 70%.'
So why all the vitriol? We still don’t know exactly, but there are a few theories. One is that vegans make people feel guilty. People tend to interpret someone’s choice not to eat meat as condemnation of their own choices, which can make them pretty defensive. Other people have suggested that it comes from the cognitive dissonance that eating meat produces: Most of us like animals, so eating them feels kind of messed up — even if we don’t realize it. Vegans also represent a threat to the status quo, and cultural changes make people anxious."
Source: https://www.vox.com/
"Slamming vegans is becoming de rigueur for the mainstream media. The worst part is that the plant-based community is in a lose-lose situation. If we play into stereotypes of being peaceful and placid, we risk allowing misinformation to flood the media, weakening our cause. However, if we fight back, we are extremists or the 'Guardian-reading tofu-eating wokerati'...Because of this rock-and-hard-place situation, attempting to wind vegans up has become a pastime for, in particular, journalists whose stars are waning."
Source: https://plantbasednews.org/
"Meat eaters don’t hate vegans per se; they hate that vegans present a lifestyle that is vastly different from their own. Rather than questioning themselves and opening up to why that person is vegan, and hearing what they have to say, many people find it far quicker, and simpler, to declare rage, which is nothing more than their own confusing, conflicting, internal beliefs, values, and feelings battling to remain dominant."
Source: https://www.elephantjournal.com/
As noted, there is a definite perceived link between masculinity and meat. The 2023 paper 'Gender, Masculinity, and the Perception of Vegetarians and Vegans: A Mixed-Methods Investigation' noted: "Anthropological works point out that this connection is because meat was primarily reserved for social elites, dominated by men, linking meat consumption to the gender-based distribution of power (Modlinska et al., 2020)." Science Direct stated "Meat consumption specifically is normatively linked to hegemonic masculinity (Lupton, 1996, Adams, 1990, Adams, 2003), being able to index its expressive attributes, for example the suppression of emotionality and assertion of dominance over others, where the entitlements of one eclipse the rights of all others (Connell 1995). As Fox (1999:27) points out, ‘meat is a highly visible reminder and reinforcer of patriarchal control in all of its manifestations’."
This of course has its comical aspect as the anti-vegan sees himself as "a true male," as his ancestors, because he too eats meat: however, he overlooks the fact
that the collection of meat was achieved by his ancestors hunting animals, while all that the anti-vegan does is wander around a supermarket on a Saturday. with a trolley picking his chosen meat from a freezer.
Hardly the archetypal "hunter-gatherer."
Indeed, as also noted on this page, a man becoming vegan challenges the status quo that provides security to the insecure anti-vegan. The Guardian observed: “The things associated with men are more highly valued. Every time a man becomes a vegan, it challenges basic assumptions about masculinity and femininity.” And one thing that the unimaginative does not welcome is being forced to witness change that he does not understand.
Two further articles on this matter are:
Why going vegan is a power move for modern men.
Masculinity and Veganism.
Before dealing with some of the specific objections/accusations, I would draw the reader's attention to some excellent websites, which answer some of the other accusations often made.
Anti-vegans, will sometimes argue that Veganism is a "cult". However, for an organisation or a group to be recognized as a "cult", certain criteria have to be satisfied. Conditions include:
(a)a leader to whom there is absolute commitment;
(b)a leader who is not accountable;
(c)an emphasis on gaining money;
(d)a strict prohibition on any dissent;
(e)members are encouraged to sever all connections with family and friends and hand over all their possessions to the cult/leadership;
(f)primarily religion-based.
According to TeenVogue:
"It is hard to find a singular definition of “cult” that everyone can agree on, including researchers. Therefore, it is easier to recognize them by looking for specific warning signs.
According to the Cult Education Institute, these include:
Authoritarianism without accountability (the leader’s word is the law);
No tolerance for questions or criticism;
Lack of financial disclosure;
Unreasonable fears of the outside world (ranges from a fear of persecution to apocalyptic thinking);
A belief that former followers were wrong to leave because they claim there is no legitimate reason to;
A history of abuse (physical or psychological) of its members;
Records, books, news articles, and television programs documenting this abuse."
Source: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/ Psychology Today states:
"What exactly is a cult? Destructive individuals and cults use deception and undue influence to make people dependent and obedient. A group should not be considered a cult merely because of its unorthodox beliefs. It is typically authoritarian, headed by a person or group of people with near complete control of followers. Cult influence is designed to disrupt a person’s authentic identity and replace it with a new identity.
There are many types of cults: political, religious, self-help, large group awareness trainings, mini-cults (family or one-on-one), multi-level-marketing (MLM), conspiracy theory, commercial, and labor/sex trafficking."
Source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/
Immediately, it is easy to see that Veganism (which doesn't even have a "leader" or organisational base anyway) does not satisfy the most basic and necessary criteria. Further information about the composition of "cults" is available from various sources, e.g., Cultrecovery101, Masterclass, and Verywellmind.
One accusation made by the anti-vegan is that "Hitler was a vegetarian/vegan" (They never seem sure about the difference between vegetarianism and veganism.) Apart from this being incorrect, it naturally invites the response "So what?" Hitler could have been a keen chess player, so does this mean that everyone who plays chess is actually a closet psychopath planning to conquer the world? Alternatively, as Stalin ate meat, does this mean that everyone who eats meat has the same personality-type as Stalin? It was rumoured that Hitler was a teetotaller (which he wasn’t), and he also did not smoke, but you never hear anyone draw a parallel by saying “Hitler was a…” when someone stops at one beer, or doesn’t light up a cigarette.
In sum, if we temporarily overlook the fact that Hitler wasn't vegetarian (see below) and pretend that he was, and we follow the inference that as Hitler was a vegetarian, this means that anyone who is a vegetarian must be like him, this also means that vegetarians, despite their widely different personalities, such as Pythagoras, Leo Tolstoy, Mahatma Gandhi and Jeremy Corbyn, were/are all closet Nazis. Incredibly, the anti-vegan seems unable to grasp the absurdity of his argument. As noted "Respected historian, Daniel Goldhagen and vegetarian [his father Erich Goldhagen, a retired Harvard professor and Holocaust survivor was interned with his family in a Jewish ghetto in Czernowitz], says in a Slate article: 'Hitler liked his followers to wear black clothes. Just because I like to wear black doesn't lump me in with him'."
In The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973), by Robert Payne, it is stated:
"Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress, Eva Braun, who lived with him quietly in the Berghof. There had been other discreet affairs with women. His asceticism was a
fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men."
Consequently, it is clear that any claim that Hitler was vegetarian was/is false: indeed, as noted:
"The Führer chowed down, at least every now and again, on roast squab [pigeon] and liver dumplings. His vegetarianism? One of the great myths of history. In an article for VegSource, Rynn [Berry] quotes Dione Lucas, a chef 'who was an eyewitness to Hitler’s meat-eating.' 'I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab,' she wrote in 1964, 'but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often'."
Apart from the propaganda attempt to present Hitler as a vegetarian so he would be seen as an ascetic, another reason for Hitler limiting (not abstaining from) meat was his severe flatulence which was made worse by any consumption of
meat. As noted:
“While it is true that Hitler's doctors put him on a vegetarian diet to cure him of flatulence and a chronic stomach disorder, his biographers such as Albert Speer, Robert Payne, John Toland, et al, have attested to his liking for ham sausages and other cured meats."
Furthermore, "Adolf Hitler, despite those persistent rumours, never was a vegetarian. Dr Richard H Schwartz, author of Judaism and Vegetarianism, pointed out that Hitler would go on the occasional vegetarian binge with the aim of counteracting sweatiness and flatulence. Another contributor turned up the Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook, in which Dione Lucas, a hotel chef in Hamburg before WW2, recalls Hitler several times ordering his favourite dish of stuffed and roasted squab (baby pigeon). She also gives the recipe.”
On the subject of animal welfare/rights, it should be noted that with respect to comments by anti-vegans that the Nazis' implemented a radical anti-vivisection policy, in reality:
"The rumor that the Nazis passed an anti-vivisection law is also filled with contradictions. No such law was passed, although the Nazis reported that such a law existed. The Nazis allegedly passed an anti-vivisection bill in 1933. Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, reviewed the Nazis' law in 1934 and warned anti-vivisectionists not to celebrate because the Nazis' law was no different, in effect, from the British law that had been passed in 1876, which restricted some animal research, but hardly eliminated it. An enormous amount of research on animals continued to be carried out by Nazi doctors."
One objection to Veganism is the claim "it's too costly." This, as other objections, is nonsense. As reported:
"'We knew that a vegan diet significantly reduces your risk of conditions like heart disease, diabetes, and obesity — and now we have proof that opting for beans instead of beef will also lead to significant savings on your grocery bill,'” said Dr. Hana Kahleova, director of clinical research at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. In their research, Dr. Kahleova and colleagues analyzed the results of a Physicians Committee study in which participants were randomly assigned to a vegan group or control group. The vegan group was asked to follow a low-fat vegan diet consisting of fruits, vegetables, grains, and legumes, while the control group was requested to make no diet changes. Calorie intake and food costs were not limited for either group....Total food costs decreased in the vegan group by 16%, or $1.51 per day, compared with no significant change in the control group."
Source: https://www.sci.news
An article in November 2024 stated:
"While there's growing evidence of significant health benefits associated with veganism, many see it as out of reach due to cost barriers. However, a US study published today found that swapping from a regular omnivorous diet to a vegan one saved the average person almost 20 per cent at the checkout."
Source: https://www.9news.com.au
The article was based on a study published in JAMA, available here.
Anti-vegans as they attempt to find arguments to justify their behaviour will sometimes resort to the most absurd arguments. One is "We have canine teeth. Therefore we should eat meat." This is false, as explained:
"Canine teeth in humans have a single long root, and conical or triangular shaped crown with usually just one large cusp – perfect for taking the strain of side on forces during chewing. Meanwhile our molar and premolar teeth have multiple shorter roots, and bigger flatter crowns with many smaller flatter cusps – and so are much better suited to taking the strain of vertical forces during chewing. In this way canine teeth are said to provide “canine guidance” – separating the premolar and molar teeth during sideways movements and so protecting them from fractures...
The next time a carnist asks “why do we have canines if we’re not supposed to eat meat?” you can confidently answer: to provide canine guidance to protect against fractures in molar and premolar teeth."
Source: https://vegandentist.uk/
"If you look closely at the teeth in your mouth, you’ll find that you have four pointy canine teeth in between your incisors and premolars. But have you ever wondered why these teeth are the way they are?
Pro tip: they’re not for vampire-esque activities and they’re not for tearing meat as other predatory mammals with similar pointy teeth would use them for. Instead, much like our close relative the gorilla, scientists think they exist because they once played a role in mating in our primitive ancestors.
Modern-day gorillas have much larger canine teeth than humans, and we can actively observe how they use them to compete with one another for mating rights with a female. Generally, the male with the largest canine teeth wins the fight."
Source: https://www.labroots.com/
"Lions have them, hippos have them, and even you and I have them: canines, those long, pointy front teeth. They're actually the longest teeth in the human mouth. So what are these long, sharp teeth doing among our short, stubby ones? Well, contrary to popular belief, it's not for tearing and ripping meat. The real reason is actually much more romantic than that.
Human men today have 10% longer canines than women, and this difference isn't unique to our species. Our close relatives, gorillas, have it as well to an even larger extent. Males' canines are twice as long as females'. That's because in gorilla society, males compete for exclusive mating rights to the entire female troop, and the male with the longest, most intimidating set of fangs usually wins."
Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/
"Humans have short, soft fingernails and small, dull canine teeth. All true carnivores have sharp claws and large canine teeth that are capable of tearing flesh without the help of knives and forks.
Real carnivores’ jaws move only up and down, enabling them to tear chunks of flesh from their prey. Humans can move their jaws up and down and from side to side, and we also have flat molars (which carnivores lack), allowing us to grind up fruit and vegetables with our back teeth like herbivores do.
Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, says, “You can’t tear flesh by hand, you can’t tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don’t … have large canine teeth, and we wouldn’t have been able to deal with food sources that required those large canines.” Carnivores have short intestinal tracts that allow meat to pass quickly through their digestive system. Humans’ intestinal tracts are much longer, like those of plant-eaters. This gives the body more time to break down fiber and absorb the nutrients from plant-based foods."
Source: https://www.peta.org/
"There are several serious problems with the “canine teeth” argument, the most glaring one being the premise that “the presence of canine teeth = meant to eat meat.” In truth, with the exception of rodents, rabbits, and pikas, nearly all mammals have canine teeth. In fact, several herbivores and primary plant-eaters have ferocious canine teeth [and]...the largest canine teeth of any land animal belong to a true herbivore.
Not only do most mammals, including herbivores, have canine teeth; but the largest canine teeth of any land mammal belong to a true herbivore: the hippopotamus. Hippos are extremely territorial and aggressive; their sword-like canines, which can reach a terrifying sixteen inches in length, are used for combat and play no role in feeding. The hippo’s diet consists of grass, on which it grazes at dusk."
Source: https://www.bluehorizonprints.com.au/
"Vegetarian animals ranging from gorillas to water deer, she reports, have bigger, sharper canines than we do; our canines aren't specially meant for processing meat. What we lack dentally is more important, in fact, than what we have. Gently open a (calm) dog's jaw, and there at the back will be the carnassial teeth, "blade-like and sharp and perfect for slicing meat." Lions and tigers, racoons and house cats — all carnivores — have them too. We don't."
Source: https://www.npr.org/
An article published by the BBC, written by Zaria Gorvett, claimed that a vegan diet could/would result in a loss of intelligence. This article is still quoted by anti-vegans, presumably because they are unable to undertake some basic research into its flawed methodology and errors.
The following responses are useful:
"According to a recent study by scientists of the Southampton University in England, vegans and vegetarians have a higher IQ than meat eaters. It’s official: vegans and vegetarians are more intelligent than meat eaters says a recent study made by scientists of the Southampton University in England. According to the results, people who were vegans or vegetarians by the age of 30 had a higher IQ than meat eaters.
The initial IQ tests were completed in the 1970s and the results of the today’s studies showed that the children with a higher IQ were more likely to become vegans or vegetarians as adults."
Source:
https://www.animalagricultureclimatechange.org/
"A cohort study recently published in the BMJ [British Medical Journal] by Gale and colleagues assesses whether intelligence can influence the acquisition of protective factors. In a large representative population study of more than 8000 British men and women, intelligence in childhood was associated with a vegetarian diet in mid-adulthood, and this was independent of educational attainment and social class."
Source: https://www.bmj.com/
NB.
The BMJ article states "Conclusion: Higher scores for IQ in childhood are associated with an increased likelihood of being a vegetarian as an adult."
I have even seen an anti-vegan accusing the researchers of manipulating the data (but when asked for the sources to substantiate this allegation, I was greeted with silence). The allegation is shown
to be absurd on reading the Footnote which advises:
"The 10 year follow-up was carried out by the Department of Child Health, Bristol University. The 30 year follow-up was carried out under the auspices of the Joint Centre for Longitudinal Research (comprising the Centre for Longitudinal Studies, Institute of Education, University of London; the International Centre for Health and Society, University College Medical School, London; and the National Centre for Social Research). We thank the UK Data Archive, University of Essex, for providing the data."
Apart from the flaws in Gorvett's article, a clear indication that it cannot and should not be taken seriously is the fact that two years later (May 2022) the BBC published 'The climate benefits of veganism and vegetarianism', written by Zaria Gorvett and a colleague, and this stated that Gorvett was a vegan ("We tracked the diets of a vegan, Zaria Gorvett, and a vegetarian..."). So Gorvett had an article published in Janaury 2020 which claimed that veganism has a detrimental effect on intelligence and yet two years later we read that she is a vegan! Incidentally, the 2022 article concluded "As expected, our vegan scored the lowest emissions, coming in at less than two-thirds the emissions of our vegetarian and just one-fifth that of the omnivore's emissions...What is clear from our experiment (and more importantly, from rigorous scientific research) is that on average a plant-based diet has significantly fewer emissions."
It is sometimes argued that "The only reason we are here is because our ancestors ate meat." This implies that because our ancestors ate meat, so should we. However, this argument is nonsense as the world today is vastly different from the ancient world (Our ancestors worshipped the planets, sacrificed humans, and defecated in public, so should we still do all of these?)
In fact, if we consider the inhabitants of the later Stone Age period (15,000–13,000 years before the present), it appears they were not "meat eaters" as it is usually understood.
In 'Isotopic evidence of high reliance on plant food among Late Stone Age hunter-gatherers at Taforalt, Morocco' published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, on 29 April 2024, it is stated:
"Our results unequivocally demonstrate a substantial plant-based component in the diets of these hunter-gatherers. This distinct dietary pattern challenges the prevailing notion of high reliance on animal proteins among pre-agricultural human groups. It also raises intriguing questions surrounding the absence of agricultural development in North Africa during the early Holocene. This study underscores the importance of investigating dietary practices during the transition to agriculture and provides insights into the complexities of human subsistence strategies across different regions...Our study highlights the importance of the Taforalt population’s dietary reliance on plants, while animal resources were consumed in a lower proportion than at other Upper Palaeolithic sites with available isotopic data. The potential early weaning of infants at Taforalt reinforces the notion of a plant-based food focus for the population, potentially extending to the primary source of nutrition for infants."
