Arguments against veganism

[Paleophyte]

In all my many decades of eating at restaurants and clubs and pubs,
I've not once ever seen an omnivore complain to the chef about a lack
of meat/poultry/fish dishes on the menu.  But... I have seen, numerous
times, vegetarians/vegans complaining vociferously about the lack of
so-called vegetarian dishes on the menu.  To everybody's embarrassment,
particularly to the wait staff and other diners.

I can only assume that's because:

1. There's nothing "so-called" about them. They either have meat or they don't. Using dismissive language like that simply highlights that you're merely acting like you're right. And you aren't very good at acting.
   
2. You don't get out much.
   
3. You clearly aren't paying attention when you do.
   
4. Carnosaur and Omnivore menus are the default at most restaurants. You have to work to find a restaurant without meat on the menu.
   
5. We omnivores can eat plants, so the only time that there's nothing on the menu for us is when it's ground rocks and broken glass.
   
6. You've clearly never eaten with me.
   

[SYZ]

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics report
"Dieting and Food Avoidance" report of September 2025:

   •  One in four (24.9%) people were following a diet or eating pattern in 2023,

   •  Food avoidance (37.9%), energy restriction (30.5%) and single nutrient
      reduced (EG: low carb) (24.0%) diets were the most common types of diet or eating pattern,

   •  One in twenty (5.3%) people were vegetarian or vegan.

Apparently there's been a major increase in vegetarianism
in Australia over the past decade, but every site quotes a
different percentage.   

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Which side are mushrooms on?

[brewerb]

Some people have medical conditions and restrictive diets that they heed to adhere to in order to stay healthy. If it keeps them healthy they can talk about/ask for it as they rightly should. That supersedes any 'moral' conversations. 

If I previously offended anyone with a condition I apologize.

Edit: I see Mathilda covered it, better than I did.

[SYZ]

In all my many decades of eating at restaurants and clubs and pubs,
I've not once ever seen an omnivore complain to the chef about a lack
of meat/poultry/fish dishes on the menu.  But... I have seen, numerous
times, vegetarians/vegans complaining vociferously about the lack of
so-called vegetarian dishes on the menu.  To everybody's embarrassment,
particularly to the wait staff and other diners.

I can only assume that's because:

1. There's nothing "so-called" about them. They either have meat or they don't. Using dismissive language like that simply highlights that you're merely acting like you're right. And you aren't very good at acting.
   
2. You don't get out much.
   
3. You clearly aren't paying attention when you do.
   
4. Carnosaur and Omnivore menus are the default at most restaurants. You have to work to find a restaurant without meat on the menu.
   
5. We omnivores can eat plants, so the only time that there's nothing on the menu for us is when it's ground rocks and broken glass.
   
6. You've clearly never eaten with me.
   

I'm guessing that the behaviour of restaurants, and their diners, are
somewhat different in North America in comparison to Australian
restaurants.  There've been numerous complaints across the media
here from diners who've specifically told their servers that they're
vegetarian, only to find a small bone of some sort, or a prawn in their
allegedly veg dish.  Chefs here are often untrained in what exactly
constitutes a true veg dish, as are careless sous chefs.

I'm actually uncertain as to why a veg person would go to any
restaurant not knowing they didn't have veg dishes on their menu.  
A quick advance phone call would sort it out surely?  Anyway...

This following is an example of the pettiness and vindictiveness of
some vegetarian/vegans when they're denied their paddock weeds:

[Thumpalumpacus]

Stereotypes ... stereotypes everywhere ...

[Paleophyte]

I'm guessing that the behaviour of restaurants, and their diners, are
somewhat different in North America in comparison to Australian
restaurants.  There've been numerous complaints across the media
here from diners who've specifically told their servers that they're
vegetarian, only to find a small bone of some sort, or a prawn in their
allegedly veg dish.  Chefs here are often untrained in what exactly
constitutes a true veg dish, as are careless sous chefs.

Speaking as a carnivore who would die from a prawn in my food, those "chefs" should be strung up. Seriously, how few brain cells do you have to have to not know that carrot soup shouldn't have bones in it?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I had sirloin, broccoli, and mushrooms for dinner tonight.

[Rizen]

I'm not vegetarian but I am conscious about my meat intake. For example I made hamburgers but I just had one because I'm limiting my red meat consumption. I try to eat a lot of chicken, turkey and fish instead as well as fruits and vegetables. It's a healthier, more ecologically sustainable lifestyle.

[SYZ]

One in three US adults (33%) say they have tasted a plant-based burger,
which contains no meat. While most of them have done so rarely, a
majority of 72% of them say it tasted pretty good, giving the flavour
of the plant burger a score of seven or higher on a scale of one to 10.

However, the plant burger still doesn’t beat a meat burger. Nearly nine
in 10 (89%) of those who have eaten a beef burger in the last 12 months
give its taste a seven or more on the same scale. Four in 10 (41%) of a
traditional burger eaters give it a 10 in taste, compared with about a quarter
(26%) who give the plant-based burger that score.

[Dānu]

I had an Impossible Whopper. It tasted slightly drier than the beef. I might have not noticed if I hadn't been comparing them side-by-side.

[Rhythmcs]

Chicken is likely worse than beef from both environmental and ethical standpoint. The environmental arguments tend to sweep an incredible amount of industrial chicken farming shit under the rug while talking about cow burps...and we probably shouldn't even begin to compare the qol of battery raised cattle to battery raised poultry for fear of triggering anyone with the slightest shred of conscience, lol.

There's actually a really neat way to know whether or not the beef or poultry you're eating has been sustainably and ethically produced. If you're paying at least $45 a bird and $2700 a side...there's a good chance it has. If not, it absolutely wasn't. Factory farmed fish have the best chance of ever becoming a truly sustainable and healthy (and potentially ethical, everybody has different lines) operation...but it would require trillions of dollars of investment in the us alone to get it up to scale and standards. Lab grown meat, insect farms..none of these things will take off before RAS batteries do, even with the obstacles involved. Integrated RAS batteries will likely dominate that space, too - and put dirt farms entirely out of business. It's already suboptimal to grow the most valuable veg in soil if you have other options. Fruiting veg, lettuce, herbs - grafted hydro in a hothouse outperforms field ops on a cap ex basis dollar to dollar. The entry costs and lack of sufficient technical labor are the barriers. If the price of real estate continues to balloon that will eradicate any difference almost by itself.

[Rizen]

Chicken is likely worse than beef from both environmental and ethical standpoint.  The environmental arguments tend to sweep an incredible amount of industrial chicken farming shit under the rug while talking about cow burps...and we probably shouldn't even begin to compare the qol of battery raised cattle to battery raised poultry for fear of triggering anyone with the slightest shred of conscience, lol.

This is bullshit, pun intended. Beef requires far more land and water to raise and produces far more GHGs per unit of protein compared to chicken. Cattle ranching accounts for 80% of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. People aren't cutting down rainforests to raise chicken.

While it's true that chicken farming also has a negative impact on the environment, it's still not as bad as beef. The best solution is to cut back on meat altogether.  

In terms of humane treatment of animals, the solution of both fronts is to cut back and buy organic.

It's also generally healthier to eat more chicken than red meats (according to the American heart association).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As a historian I'm impressed that we can even have this debate.

[pattylt]

Is chicken poopy as bad, worse, or better than cow poopy? While chicken poop is nastier to my nose, cow pies are quite large.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It depends what happens to that crap after it hits the ground. Cow flop, if left undistributed, can cause grasses to grow in "rancid clumps" and the fields raked to distribute it. Chicken shit either gets spread out naturally or collects around government workers.

[Rhythmcs]

Chicken is likely worse than beef from both environmental and ethical standpoint.  The environmental arguments tend to sweep an incredible amount of industrial chicken farming shit under the rug while talking about cow burps...and we probably shouldn't even begin to compare the qol of battery raised cattle to battery raised poultry for fear of triggering anyone with the slightest shred of conscience, lol.

This is bullshit, pun intended. Beef requires far more land and water to raise and produces far more GHGs per unit of protein compared to chicken. Cattle ranching accounts for 80% of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. People aren't cutting down rainforests to raise chicken.

While it's true that chicken farming also has a negative impact on the environment, it's still not as bad as beef. The best solution is to cut back on meat altogether.  

In terms of humane treatment of animals, the solution of both fronts is to cut back and buy organic.

It's also generally healthier to eat more chicken than red meats (according to the American heart association).

The numbers you're being treated to are pre-displacement values.  People would cut down the rainforest to grow more chicken if all the beef money went to chicken. Organic classification has no humane treatment metric whatsoever.

Cattle raised to best industry practices actually sequester ghgs. There is no currently understood process to do the same with the cornish cross chicken. Ironically enough, cornish cross production is a historic consequence of battery farming cattle. It answered the question of what to do with the excess feedstock endemic to private competition.

-but don't take my word, or anyones word, for it. Try to raise some food and/or livestock for yourself. That is the surest way to get the product you want, whatever it is. You'll come away with a new understanding and appreciation of the product, in the process. Even if it's just growing basil in the window sill for marinara.

[Rizen]

This is bullshit, pun intended. Beef requires far more land and water to raise and produces far more GHGs per unit of protein compared to chicken. Cattle ranching accounts for 80% of the deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. People aren't cutting down rainforests to raise chicken.

While it's true that chicken farming also has a negative impact on the environment, it's still not as bad as beef. The best solution is to cut back on meat altogether.  

In terms of humane treatment of animals, the solution of both fronts is to cut back and buy organic.

It's also generally healthier to eat more chicken than red meats (according to the American heart association).

The numbers you're being treated to are pre-displacement values.  People would cut down the rainforest to grow more chicken if all the beef money went to chicken.  Organic classification has no humane treatment metric whatsoever.

Cattle raised to best industry practices actually sequester ghgs.  There is no currently understood process to do the same with the cornish cross chicken.

First of all, the same amount of chicken meat takes a lot less land and water to raise than that amount of beef. Second, if people started gorging themselves on slugs, then people would cut down the rainforest to raise slugs, therefor slugs are as bad as beef- this is your basic argument. In the magical land of hypotheticals you can rationalize anything but in the real world the rainforests are being cut down primarily to raise cattle.

[Rhythmcs]

Allow me to pour some cold water on the slug idea. It doesnt really matter what would be the case if everyone said "mmm...slugs"......

My man, you're not talking to someone who doesn't truly and deeply wish that the american consumer was suddenly fond of worm meat. Don't get me wrong.....I wouldn't eat it, but I would sure as shit produce it. The Wife has wanted a worm farm since she caught some podcast about it. Not that she'd actually touch a worm. That's what I'm for!

Likewise, and less fantastically, if you have any idea how to raise anything other than cornish cross for equvalent economic or ghg values please...tell me first.

[Mathilda]

I have two wormeries. I swear by worm caste. Amazing stuff.

[SYZ]

...While it's true that chicken farming also has a negative impact on the environment, it's still not as bad as beef.

(my bold)

   How so?   

When climate scientists suggested eating less beef, many people
committed to a “no red meat” diet—but started eating a lot more
chicken instead. Here’s why that swap might actually end up hurting
the environment more than it helps.

A study in the United States by the Union of Concerned Scientists,
published in February of this year (2022), found that US poultry giant
Tyson Foods uses between 9 and 10 million acres of farmland to grow
corn and soybeans for animal feed. That’s an area almost twice the
size of New Jersey. And the majority of it is for—you guessed it—chickens.

But unfortunately, Tyson has only enrolled about 5% of this land in
sustainable farming programs.

The "No Red Meat" Diet: Is Chicken Actually More Eco-Friendly Than Beef?

[brewerb]

Don't forget the bird flu angle with the ability and opportunity to infect multiple species. Thankfully there are no flying cows, but pigs,........... they got big problems.

[Rizen]

...While it's true that chicken farming also has a negative impact on the environment, it's still not as bad as beef.

(my bold)

   How so?   

When climate scientists suggested eating less beef, many people
committed to a “no red meat” diet—but started eating a lot more
chicken instead. Here’s why that swap might actually end up hurting
the environment more than it helps.

A study in the United States by the Union of Concerned Scientists,
published in February of this year (2022), found that US poultry giant
Tyson Foods uses between 9 and 10 million acres of farmland to grow
corn and soybeans for animal feed. That’s an area almost twice the
size of New Jersey. And the majority of it is for—you guessed it—chickens.

But unfortunately, Tyson has only enrolled about 5% of this land in
sustainable farming programs.

The "No Red Meat" Diet: Is Chicken Actually More Eco-Friendly Than Beef?

There's a lot more people in the world now than there were when people started cutting back on red meat. Basically this article is saying that people eat less beef but a lot more chicken and chicken is also bad for the environment. It doesn't say that eating the same amount of chicken as beef is worse than beef, which was my point. Consider this:

 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/rais...1407227289 
 
"Per calorie of food that we consume, dairy, poultry, pork, and eggs had similar environmental costs. Compared with their average, beef production generated five times more greenhouse gases, needed six times more fertilizer and 11 times more irrigation water, and used 28 times the land. The researchers acknowledged that there are other costs, but these four “can be reliably defined and quantified at the national level with currently available data.”

...Eshel and his colleagues say that raising cows for beef takes three to six times more food than raising cows for milk, pigs for pork, and poultry for meat or eggs."

[SYZ]

...Eshel and his colleagues say that raising cows for beef takes three to six times more food than raising cows for milk, pigs for pork, and poultry for meat or eggs."

(my bold)

This may be the case in the United States, but it's totally
the opposite here in Australia.

Dairy cows actually eat more per day than beef cattle,
being slaughtered at around 4 years, while beeves can
be slaughtered from around 18 months.

A lactating dairy cow in Australia consumes 18–25kg of
dry grasses per day.  Beef cattle typically consume 10–15kg
of grasses per day, with around 98% of both cattle being
farmed on pastures or silage rather than feed lots.