Arguments against veganism

[brewerb]

Oh no, I'm a vegan shamer? OK, ya got me. My penance will be to go without meat for 6, no, 12 hours. 

[SYZ]

It's incorrect to describe people as "meat eaters" —which
is obviously used in a pejorative sense.  And it's wrong for
all sorts of reasons.

All humans are defined biologically correct as "omnivores".
And as part of a healthy omnivore diet, both animal and
vegetable food sources should be consumed.

Animal-sourced foods, such as meats, poultry, eggs, milk, and fish are
nutrient-dense foods that are rich sources of protein, essential amino
acids, and micronutrients that can be challenging to obtain solely through
plant-based foods. Animal-sourced protein foods provide crucial nutrients
that support the growth and development in children, maintenance of
muscle mass and function in adults, gain in muscle mass and strength in
exercising individuals, and mitigation of sarcopenia in the elderly. The
2020–2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans have identified the important
role of animal-sourced foods in the diet at every stage of life.

 —PubMed, Frontiers in Nutrition, Sydney Sheffield et al, July 2025.

Here in Australia, vegans and vegetarians are vociferously
opposed to any and all forms of animal production intended
for human consumption.  There've been numerous, often violent
protests at farms mounted by vegetarians, many resulting in
charges of trespass, assault, theft, and—bizarrely—animal cruelty.

I've yet to see any omnivore protests at market gardens growing
lettuces or tomatoes LOL.

[Mathilda]

It's incorrect to describe people as "meat eaters" —which
is obviously used in a pejorative sense.  And it's wrong for
all sorts of reasons.

All humans are defined biologically correct as "omnivores".
And as part of a healthy omnivore diet, both animal and
vegetable food sources should be consumed.

I didn't realise that people who eat meat found "meat-eaters" a pejorative term. I assumed that "meat-eaters" for people who literally eat meat was a factually correct and succinct term.

Oh well, you live and learn.

Personally I am not a meat-eater don't eat meat. I used to love it, but I had to stop for health reasons when I got diagnosed with MS. I'm not actually vegan myself but a pescatarian so eat fish instead of meat. Personally I don't miss it at all and much prefer fish and even if I could go back to eating meat I probably wouldn't.

Not sure you can say all humans are omnivores though. I mean if we're actually going to be technical and pedantic here, I am human and I can't eat meat as part of a healthy diet, and many other people can't either. If I touch meat then it will most likely lead to brain damage. So that's one human at least that can no longer be considered an omnivore. Therefore not ALL humans are omnivores.

So because of this, "meat-eater" to describe people who literally eat meat is an accurate, succinct and precise term.

[Rhythmcs]

You eat fish, and veggies, and I assume nuts, maybe fungus, and probably grains. That's omnivory. There's no "fish instead of meat". Ask the fish.

[Paleophyte]

So because of this, "meat-eater" to describe people who literally eat meat is an accurate, succinct and precise term.

Not really. It's more sensible to describe me as a "plant-eater", because I clearly ingest more plant matter than animal, even though I'm a self-described carnivore. I have nothing against the term (perjorative?!?) other than its lack of accuracy or precision, and the fact that certain groups try to use it as a perjorative.

Honestly, the entire question is ridiculous. Everybody needs to eat what they like and not go shaming others because they eat what they like. The question does run into a lot of emotionally-charged virtue signaling, shaming, and related absurdities from all sides. I have zero problem with anybody else' dietary choices so long as they return the favour. More bacon for me. 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Plant to flesh conversion is simply a step in the food chain.

[Mathilda]

Plant to flesh conversion is simply a step in the food chain.

It all ends up as compost again.

[Dexta]

Plant to flesh conversion is simply a step in the food chain.

Your being obtuse IMO - the obvious difference is that animals have brains and can suffer, plants cannot.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Plant to flesh conversion is simply a step in the food chain.

It all ends up as compost again.

Or loaded into the back of a manure spreader. If you don't worry about communicable diseases then this method is fine. As the manure is still ... damp ... then it will break down quicker in rainy weather, like in Spring most places.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Plant to flesh conversion is simply a step in the food chain.

Your being obtuse IMO - the obvious difference is that animals have brains and can suffer, plants cannot.

I hope you can find the person you're speaking to.

[pattylt]

I’ve heard stories (so, grain of salt here) that some vegans are so vegan they include their not just their children but also their dogs and cats. That is dangerous and way overboard.

[epronovost]

If we’re meant to be vegans, why do we have canines?   Why do vegans have to worry about getting enough vitamins and minerals?  Meat eaters don’t.

Meat eaters definitely should and often do lack important vitamins and minerals in their diet. It's one of the reason why vegans tend to be more healthy than meat eaters. They watch their diet more closely.

As for the OP, I would personnally say that the moral arguments of the vegan is actually very strong. The only moral "counter argument" I have developped to their's would be the concept of a "right to predation" which would make the killing of animals by other animals moral if it were done for for food, reproduction or shelter. Humans, being omnivorous, thus have the same right to predation than any other meat eating animals and thus the killing of animals for food would be acceptable.

[Dānu]

Generally speaking, the crimes of nutrition involve too much of a thing rather than its surfeit. My high-sodium diet being a case in point.

[GenesisNemesis]

I don't care if people decide to be vegan. 

Same reason I don't really care if someone decides to deprive themselves of pleasure and follow the complete opposite lifestyle of mine.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Meat eaters definitely should and often do lack important vitamins and minerals in their diet. It's one of the reason why vegans tend to be more healthy than meat eaters. They watch their diet more closely.

Self-reportage is always in need of confirmation.

[pattylt]

Any omnivore that eats a good variety of plants and animals has no need of supplements. In the US, we tend to have very expensive urine for all the supplements we pee out.

Having said that, many don’t have balanced nutritious diets and should supplement with a vitamin/mineral supplement.

[Jarsa]

If we’re meant to be vegans, why do we have canines?   Why do vegans have to worry about getting enough vitamins and minerals?  Meat eaters don’t.

Meat eaters definitely should and often do lack important vitamins and minerals in their diet. It's one of the reason why vegans tend to be more healthy than meat eaters. They watch their diet more closely.

As for the OP, I would personnally say that the moral arguments of the vegan is actually very strong. The only moral "counter argument" I have developped to their's would be the concept of a "right to predation" which would make the killing of animals by other animals moral if it were done for for food, reproduction or shelter. Humans, being omnivorous, thus have the same right to predation than any other meat eating animals and thus the killing of animals for food would be acceptable.

Why wouldn't this right to predation also allow killing other humans for food, reproduction, or shelter? Animals kill members of their own species all the time, for food or to eliminate rival mates. Is it ok for a homeless person to cannibalize someone for food, or kill a rival mate?

[Rizen]

Meat eaters definitely should and often do lack important vitamins and minerals in their diet. It's one of the reason why vegans tend to be more healthy than meat eaters. They watch their diet more closely.

As for the OP, I would personnally say that the moral arguments of the vegan is actually very strong. The only moral "counter argument" I have developped to their's would be the concept of a "right to predation" which would make the killing of animals by other animals moral if it were done for for food, reproduction or shelter. Humans, being omnivorous, thus have the same right to predation than any other meat eating animals and thus the killing of animals for food would be acceptable.

Why wouldn't this right to predation also allow killing other humans for food, reproduction, or shelter? Animals kill members of their own species all the time, for food or to eliminate rival mates. Is it ok for a homeless person to cannibalize someone for food, or kill a rival mate?

The jump from eating animals to cannibalism is a huge stretch. They're two completely different things.

[brewerb]

[Fireball]

Hm. I think I'll rustle me up some split-tail beaver tonight.

[Rhythmcs]

Meat eaters definitely should and often do lack important vitamins and minerals in their diet. It's one of the reason why vegans tend to be more healthy than meat eaters. They watch their diet more closely.

As for the OP, I would personnally say that the moral arguments of the vegan is actually very strong. The only moral "counter argument" I have developped to their's would be the concept of a "right to predation" which would make the killing of animals by other animals moral if it were done for for food, reproduction or shelter. Humans, being omnivorous, thus have the same right to predation than any other meat eating animals and thus the killing of animals for food would be acceptable.

Why wouldn't this right to predation also allow killing other humans for food, reproduction, or shelter? Animals kill members of their own species all the time, for food or to eliminate rival mates. Is it ok for a homeless person to cannibalize someone for food, or kill a rival mate?

Gonna have to put another person on my list of folks not to fly over the andes with, eh?   

I think peoples dietary preferences are fundamentally and practically amoral (yes, even when we convince ourselves otherwise).  Against veganism as a moral imperative?  Easy.  The vast amount of human and non human suffering veganism would cause.

[SYZ]

Researchers in the United Kingdom analysed the risk of
stroke and other health problems over two decades among
nearly 50,000 people based on the diets they followed.
The types of stroke were analysed, including bleeding into
the brain (haemorrhagic stroke) and non-bleeding stroke
(ischaemic stroke).

Compared with meat eaters:

   •  rates of heart disease (such as angina or heart attack) were 13% lower in pescatarians
   •  rates of heart disease were 22% lower in vegetarians
   •  rates of stroke were 20% higher among vegetarians.
   •  the higher stroke risk among vegetarians was mostly due to hemorrhagic stroke
   •  the higher stroke risk was not observed among pescatarians.

 —Harvard Health Publishing,  Robert H. Shmerling, 25 November 2019.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why wouldn't this right to predation also allow killing other humans for food, reproduction, or shelter? Animals kill members of their own species all the time, for food or to eliminate rival mates. Is it ok for a homeless person to cannibalize someone for food, or kill a rival mate?

One has a "right" to survive. Both claim it. Seldom works out that way. Such ethereal arguments are for those who can afford such. I ate a Mekong catfish raw once. I was hungry. End of argument for the catfish.

[brewerb]

Researchers in the United Kingdom analysed the risk of
stroke and other health problems over two decades among
nearly 50,000 people based on the diets they followed.
The types of stroke were analysed, including bleeding into
the brain (haemorrhagic stroke) and non-bleeding stroke
(ischaemic stroke).

Compared with meat eaters:

   •  rates of heart disease (such as angina or heart attack) were 13% lower in pescatarians
   •  rates of heart disease were 22% lower in vegetarians
   •  rates of stroke were 20% higher among vegetarians.
   •  the higher stroke risk among vegetarians was mostly due to hemorrhagic stroke
   •  the higher stroke risk was not observed among pescatarians.

 —Harvard Health Publishing,  Robert H. Shmerling, 25 November 2019.

Flawed analysis, they excluded the breatharians. 

[epronovost]

Why wouldn't this right to predation also allow killing other humans for food, reproduction, or shelter? Animals kill members of their own species all the time, for food or to eliminate rival mates. Is it ok for a homeless person to cannibalize someone for food, or kill a rival mate?

If you are in a situation where to survive you sbsolutely need to kill and eat another human being; that murder would fall under the rubric of self defense. It already happened before and that's our society treats it; cannibalism and murder in some situation is legal if aweful. Of course, it needs to be a last necessecity because we are part of the same society/group and thus have rights and responsabilities designed to insure mutual safety and survival. Rights don't exist in a vaccuum. No, a "right to predation" assume or extand to a right to kill anybody or anyone because you are a bit peckish; making such an argument is obviously in bad faith.