See New Updates Below as of February 24, 2017, Marked ^
When was the last time you were on social media when, on a recipe page, or on totally non-food related posts, and people comment “You should go vegan” as if that’s going to convince anyone. How many people have ever been convinced to make a major, health-affecting life change because a random person on the internet with no health credentials said they should do it?
Do they not realize that people do not like the ‘preachy’ approach?
That said, here are some hints and tips about how to approach the ‘you should go vegan’ dilemma.
- Don’t mislead or invent data to sway people. Be completely honest. No one likes being misled or lied to. If you felt terrible when you started your new diet, alert people! Don’t say “I felt great as soon as I switched!” Because people may not feel that way, and will revert if they feel negative consequences. This article is titled ‘9 Lies Vegans Love Telling‘ (although not all are lies- some are partial truths as the author points out- then in the comments section of that article you’ll see vegans hurling insults at the author (because that will help!), despite the fact that what he wrote is verified in science). In any case, it’s important to get all the information and know how to separate the facts from the myths.
Always make sure you can support your claim 100% before posting it as ‘fact’. For example, this website has a whole section about ‘The truth and the facts’ yet makes no in-text references, and the reference list they do provide at the end has no reputable reference in it whatsoever – not a single peer-reviewed or otherwise scientific source. Furthermore, it contains many unproven conspiracy-type data. Perhaps they should refer to my other article about citing legitimate sources and bias? I’m not hating on other’s blogs/websites, but I will always call out false info, as I strongly believe that publicizing misleading info to sway people to your agenda should be illegal. Especially in this day and age of the internet when the majority of people don’t know what’s fact and fiction anymore and have a habit of believing memes over scientists.
- Do not preach or harass people into doing what you are doing. Fact: Veganism is NOT for everyone, and people should respect that. For example, this lady actually became very ill from living on a vegan diet, and the author of that article also mentions she, as a lacto-ovo vegetarian, has noticed some minor health issues since she cut meat from her diet. This lady named Tara also wrote about why she stopped her vegan diet (mostly due to social reasons and lacking energy). What’s more, women need more iron than men due to menstruation, losing approximately 1mg (milli grams) of iron per day of menstruating. Men only require around 8mg per day while women need around 18mg, and pregnant women even more- 27mg! The best sources of iron are meat, particularly red meat. While it is true that some leafy greens provide iron, you’d have to eat more of them to get the same amount of iron as you would from a small serving of meat, and what’s more, it is not absorbed as well from plants as it is from meat. For example, doing some simple calculations based on the tables from this government website, we can see an adult female needs 18mg/day of iron. A single serve of liver (100 grams) provides 11mg iron alone. So, assuming you like liver (I can’t say I do), then a small serve of liver will see your daily requirements fulfilled quite easily. Let’s take a more widely eaten meat on the list: Beef. 100g of cooked beef provides 3mg of iron. So you’d need to eat 600g of beef to get your daily iron as an adult female. The highest iron-providing food on the non-meat list is Spinach (cooked), providing 4.5 mg of iron per 145g of cooked spinach. I don’t know if you’ve ever cooked spinach, but it shrinks down to a fraction of the amount you started with very quickly. To get the 18mg/day using just spinach, you’d need to eat 580g of spinach. That may not sound like a lot, in fact, the number is less than for beef. But here’s the catch: Have you seen what 580g of cooked spinach looks like? That is a LOT of spinach. I like spinach, but I’m not sure I could eat that much of it daily! Of course, you could eat a variety of foods to get your daily serve, this was just to illustrate a point. For example, you can get the same iron from 900g of cooked lentils/kidney beans, a similar quantity of tofu and sultanas and so on.
Our bodies use the nutrition, such as iron and proteins, from meat products more readily than those found in plant products. This is because the animal products are far more similar to our own cells, and so our bodies use them first, as they require the least modification to be used. Plant proteins also have limited amino acids (also stated in this link) which our body requires to synthesize, or create, proteins.
- Don’t make your diet a religion. There are two types of vegans. The first are those who eat their vegan diet in peace and don’t cause a scene or force their beliefs on others. The second are those extreme vegans that have made their diet into a religion, and feel the need to preach about it to everyone, somehow relate it to every conversation, and become aggressive when you ask them to back off and respect the fact you have no interest in following that diet.
- If scientists and medical professionals are performing studies which question how healthy a vegan diet is and conclude that it’s not 100%, acknowledge that you don’t have all the answers and therefore cannot claim that vegan is the best and only choice, and perhaps read into the other side of the argument instead of remaining single-sided. I’m sure we all know how frustrating it is when we present someone with ample evidence and they still insist their opinion is fact. This following article (linked) is in response to an older article titled ’22 reasons to go vegetarian’, and refutes all 22 reasons and backs it all up with peer-reviewed literature, and compares nutrient values of plant and animal foods: Twenty-two reasons not to go vegetarian.
Food for thought:
- Please also don’t visit non-vegan pages/blogs just to project your views there. No one likes that. It helps no one and nothing. Even worse: don’t go to pages and websites that have absolutely nothing to do with diet and food and somehow bring veganism into it e.g. toothpaste ads, zoo conservation, politics etc. It just helps enforce the negative ideas that people already have about vegans and ultimately gives people more reasons to avoid the vegan lifestyle.
- Today I saw a post where someone was claiming there is no such thing as ‘humane killing’. A quick google search will provide you with evidence that humane killing is very much real, has a legal definition, and the RSPCA (Australia) even provide the definition on their own page, i.e. an organisation devoted to animal welfare explains the definition of humane killing. The definition is very much common sense- don’t cause unnecessary suffering.
The RSPCA definition of humane killing is: ‘an animal must be either killed instantly or rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes’. When killing animals for food (termed slaughter), this means they must be stunned prior to bleeding out so they immediately become unconscious.
- This has a range of criteria which must be met. Click the link above to read more.
- The USA even has an entire legal act, the Humane Slaughter Act 1978, which outlines the definitions and processes required for a humane kill.
- Recently, Italy has proposed to make it illegal to force a vegan lifestyle on children, punishable by jail time, due to the number of children becoming sick or dying as a result of the vegan diets their negligent parents fed them (see this link). Please think very carefully about your child’s individual needs and lifestyle before deciding a vegan diet is the only choice. Children require different nutrition to adults, as they are growing. A simple vegan diet may not provide all the nutrients and energy a growing child needs. Always consult a health professional or licensed dietitian before making drastic dietary changes.
- Humans evolved on meat. It allowed us to evolve into the walking, talking beings with high functioning brains that we are today. Meat has a very important role in humanity for this reason. There has been recent research which discovered humans started eating meat and bone marrow around 2.5 million years ago, Citation: Pobiner, B. (2013) Evidence for Meat-Eating by Early Humans. Nature Education Knowledge 4(6):1 .
- Switching to vegan is a BIG change. It can involve a lot of time to research alternatives and learn the names of all the fancy ingredients in packaged items to determine if they are vegan-friendly or not. Not everyone has that much free time in a world where people are becoming more and more time-poor, or access to resources to research.
- It can also be costly to replace a large percentage of your fridge, freezer and pantry, and many vegan specific products cost as much or even more than meat. You only have to take a tour around your local supermarket to see this for yourself.
- Some people struggle with veganism due to the social aspect: they avoid going to restaurants with family/friends/partners because the restaurant offers either no or few vegan options, for example.
- Many people struggle with veganism due to the health consequences, as they don’t always eat enough meat and animal-substitute products to get the same nutrition found in meat and animal products, such as vitamin B12 (which is generally only found in animal products such as meat and cheese with few exceptions), protein, calcium, iron and omega fatty acids. Many vegans don’t get enough B12 in their diets as most vegan sources of B12 are fortified e.g. in some soy products, plant milks. Vegetarians may also be lacking. Many vegans have to take artificial supplements to meet their requirements. This study found that vegans and vegetarians lack B12 at a higher rate than omnivores- because plants don’t make B12.
Why is B12 important you ask? It helps with the creation of healthy red blood cells, and pregnant women require it for their developing babies. B12 deficiencies can also cause brain disorders and inhibit cell division (required for your DNA).
Symptoms of B12 deficiency and resulting health conditions can be found here and also here.
- Greenpeace even stated that:
Advocating a one-size-fits-all solution of ‘go vegan to save the planet’ simply isn’t an appropriate, meaningful or impactful solution to someone who relies on subsistence farming or fishing for survival.
- A 2015 US study from Carnegie Mellon University explained that the cost of energy to produce many plants, e.g. lettuce, is as bad and in some cases worse than the energy costs to produce meat. “Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon,” said Paul Fischbeck, one of the researchers. “Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken.” (Reference)
- Vegan diets come with their own ethical issues. For example: anyone familiar with economics will know about the supply and demand curve. As demand for a product increases, the price goes up. This is exactly what happened with quinoa and a variety of other products that vegans made popular. The poorer people in Bolivia and Peru could no longer afford the staple grain in their diets. Increased popularity of these plants mean more land needs clearing to keep up with the supply schedules. I’m not sure how you could claim you eat an ‘ethical vegan diet’ if hectares of rainforest had to be cleared to grow your dinner- just my 2 cents. Obviously growing meat for consumption requires land clearing too, but vegans often claim their diet is the more ethical/moral choice (in saying that, ethics and morals can be debated forever and vary person to person). A report commissioned by the WWF set out to investigate just this, and found that switching from beef to tofu could increase the land requirements (in the UK), not decrease it. ^ UPDATE 24 Feb 2017: Another ethical concern about vegan diets is the number of animals that are killed each year from crop farming, and the environmental damage that would occur if we all suddenly turned vegan from the vast amounts of fertilizers, pesticides etc., which ultimately end up in water ways, and the additional land that’d need to be cleared of vegetation to turn into crop farms- vegetation which is home to many animals. Each year, millions of mice, reptiles, small mammals, birds and insects are killed in the processes required to farm fruits and vegetables and grains. In fact, so many are killed it equates to 25 times more deaths of sentient animals per kilogram of food than cattle farming. So, when a vegan claims that their diet is the only ethical choice, the fact is, it’s not. No matter what diet you eat, something had to die for you to eat it. There was controversy over the figures of ’25 times more deaths’, however, regardless of the actual number, it’s still true that the vegan diet involves the death of millions of mice, rabbits, birds, snakes, lizards and insects every year, and thus, is not the perfect ‘ethical’ choice some of them claim it is. These deaths can be from tractors running them over or otherwise killing them with tractor equipment, removal of the crops/vegetation the animal was living in, upsetting the ground the animal was burrowing in, or poisoning them. This was a counter argument from the below source:
It’s obvious that some animals die when their land is taken away for farming, Norris says, “but you take it away only once.” It doesn’t lead to the continuous slaughter of animals for human consumption, he contends, because once the land is turned into a farm, there aren’t that many animals around to kill. (Source)
The problem with this argument is that, once you have cleared the land for farming (crops OR cattle), you have permanently reduced the available land that the other animal species can utilize as part of their habitats. There aren’t that many animals around to kill because their habitat and key breeding ground has been destroyed- potentially even endangering/eliminating the species in that area or at a larger scale, especially if a particular plant the species homed in was only found in that area. So that argument essentially boils down to “it’s better to kill an entire species once, than to kill them in select numbers over time”. I’m not sure that argument holds any logic, or even any ethics. It’s rather silly actually.
In Australia at least, most of the land used for cattle is not suitable for much else anyway, especially not crops- as it’s in the arid regions. Most cattle are farmed at locations where water is an issue either from the lack of pipework or from drought, i.e. crops would die.
As for the argument that most of the grains/wheat are used to feed the cattle in turn- untrue again- at least in Australia, where almost all cattle are pasture grazers, and up to around 30% spend the last few weeks in feed lots, if necessary, to bring them up to weight. Considering Australia is one of the driest countries on earth, I’d say that having a system where our cattle spend almost their entire lives outdoors and grazing is quite good.
- As ex-vegan (of 20 years), author of ‘The Vegetarian Myth’, Lierre Keith put it (see link here for more):
“The truth is that agriculture is the most destructive thing humans have done to the planet, and more of the same won’t save us. The truth is that agriculture requires the wholesale destruction of entire ecosystems. The truth is also that life isn’t possible without death, that no matter what you eat, someone has to die to feed you.”
- Lierre had some interesting and valid points to think about in an interview titled ‘Why Vegetarianism will not save the world’ written here.
- Vitamin B12 deficiencies are very common amongst vegans, and can lead to a variety of conditions over time as stated above. One only has to do a quick search on Google Scholar to see all the studies investigating this. Taking supplements is not always the best for 3 main reasons as stated in this article, primarily because getting the nutrition straight from the source is always best, and many people forget to take pills. Furthermore, as many vitamin supplements are readily available over the counter with no prescriptions, many people may purchase them and use them because they believe they are deficient, but in fact may not be, or may not know how long they should keep taking them for their individual requirements. As a result, they risk possible overdoses, and other health risks. Dr Drew Ramsey, author of ’50 shades of kale’ among others, has posted many many scientific studies on his website illustrating the importance of a well-balanced diet which includes animal products. Please take some time to browse through them: http://drewramseymd.com/studies/
- ^ Update Feb 24, 2017:In 1959, anthropologist Mary Leakey discovered a hominid skull at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. This was no ordinary man. Mary and her husband Louis named him Zinjanthropus boisei. He became known as the ‘nutcracker man’, and, looking at images of his large cranium, it’s easy to see why. The man had very large, flat teeth that scientists originally thought were used for cracking nuts and other hard items. However, more recent research has suggested he may have used his teeth in a fashion more like cows do- to grind grass.
I’ve seen many vegans bring up what I call the ‘teeth argument’ when it comes to whether humans ‘should’ eat a vegan or omnivorous diet. When comparing the Nutcracker man to the modern human, it should be abundantly clear that modern human teeth are not flat for grinding like his and cows teeth are, which should immediately tell you we were not intended to graze and grind up plant matter as an only food source. We also do not grind our jaws from left to right like cows and other herbivorous grazers do to break down the plant matter. On the other hand, our teeth are not all sharp and pointed like a carnivorous tiger either. We have a mix of both teeth– some flatter molars at the back and some sharper incisors and canines at the front. This should make it rather simple to deduce we are best suited to eating both plants and meat. Teeth don’t always correlate to diet though: take the gorilla for example- large threatening canines are typically used for territorial purposes and to cut through tough bark and fruit skins.
Of course there are people that think we are still herbivores because we don’t go around catching prey with our bare hands and rip it apart with our teeth. This is a rather silly argument and it all comes down to our brains. We don’t need to spend great deals of time and energy physically chasing down prey. Thanks to evolution and our history of eating meat (as mentioned earlier in this article) our brains have evolved to “work smarter, not harder” e.g. throwing a spear/shooting a gun long distance is smarter and more energy efficient than running right up to the creature and risking it escaping or harming you.
Then along comes PETA with this 100% ridiculous article which, as expected, is full of lies/false info from start to finish and just frankly made me laugh. What has PETA become if not a hypocritical joke full of propaganda? It starts off asking us if road kill looks appetizing for human consumption, and if you answer no then ‘congratulations, you are a herbivore’! Ah PETA, always making me cringe and shake my head! The thing about road kill is, even carnivores will typically avoid it and leave it for the scavenger species- crows, other birds, ants and some others.
Then, if we start looking towards the rest of the animal kingdom, we’ll see more evidence that teeth don’t always enable you to pinpoint the diet of the creature, e.g. have you ever seen the teeth of a Koala, a rodent, a panda or a sun bear? Koalas eat almost strictly gum leaves, yet they have very sharp incisors. Many rats, mice, hamsters and other rodents will eat fruit/vegetables, nuts/grains and insects- I’ve even seen mice and rats steal chicken bones left out for my dogs! Yet rodents have a very identifiable tooth pattern– front incisors that eternally grow, and a couple of little molars at the back. No canines or other middle teeth. The teeth of a panda look very vicious- all sharp canines that look threatening- yet they eat bamboo. However, their digestive system is designed for meat (point 47- and also this article) as all bears are- strange that they don’t eat any of it then. Sun bears are in the same category as pandas, yet their diets consist largely of fruits/plants/honey.
Wikipedia provides a nice summary of the nutcracker man complete with references here for those interested in reading further.
- Fellow Word Press Blogger Vegan Biologist does a wonderful job debunking the ‘humans are herbivores’ teeth meme below that keeps circling the internet. I recommend giving it a read here. Even reading the meme, it should be pretty clear that many of these things listed are either completely false, far fetched or irrelevant.
- Physiology: Some describe humans as ‘cucinivores’ as we typically cook our food-be it plants or animals, as plant fibers are easier to digest this way, and cooking eliminates various worms and diseases which can arise in raw meat.
In fact, cellulose (the plant fiber) is not broken down by the body at all (also see here), which can be both a good and bad thing. Meat on the other hand, is easily digested by enzymes found in our digestive system, and despite claims, it does not ‘rot’ and nor does it take a ridiculously long time to digest compared to plant matter.
In an article titled COMPARATIVE GUT PHYSIOLOGY SYMPOSIUM: Comparative physiology of digestion, the authors provide an image illustrating the differences in gut/intestines between humans and several animals including pigs, dogs, horses, sheep, orangutans, kangaroos and koalas. In this image, we see that sheep, who have the same diet as cows, have the longest intestines of all, and the dog, who is mostly carnivorous, has the shortest. This is because it takes an awful lot of time and effort to digest plant matter. Orangutans and pigs, both omnivores, have intestines most similar to humans. Furthermore, herbivores typically ferment their plant diets as a means of digestion, as cellulose is difficult to digest. Whereas carnivores and omnivores use mostly enzyme-based methods of digestion, including humans, pigs, rodents and all carnivores. Cattle and sheep are referred to as foregut fermenters, meaning they have bacteria in their foregut that helps break down plant matter, and because of this, they can suffer issues with glucose production (glucose is the energy required for cells).
Hindgut fermenters on the other hand, include horses, wombats, possums and some others. This method of digestion is not particularly efficient, so much so, that some herbivores of this group have been seen to eat their own waste in an effort to get nutrients, but in doing so, they risk disease.
Humans, just like pigs, rodents and most carnivores, rely on both types of fermentation. Again indicating that we are not herbivores at the intestinal level.
- Beware: I recently discovered a man named Dr David Kleine who claims to have his PhD and other nutrition qualifications from the ‘University of Natural Health‘, which, upon Googling, you will find no official accreditation number. I encourage everyone to beware ‘doctors’ such as this man, who claim extraordinary things, and the only evidence they can provide is the book they wrote themselves- as if you’d discredit your own work in a book you wrote- even if the research was bad! He has given health advice to clients over the internet via comment sections on his articles without knowing a single thing about their medical condition, and without ever even seeing them- corresponding via email only. Such a practice could have terrible consequences to health and body, especially when his advice to everyone- no matter their condition- is ‘buy and read my book to completely change your diet to nothing but raw fruits and vegetables and you’ll be cured of everything.’ You should always consult your GP and do thorough research of your own before making drastic dietary changes- especially one so high in fiber and fruit sugar. Among his countless extreme claims and paragraphs where it is obvious he knows very little about human physiology and biology, he made a very specific claim that all people who eat high fat diets will have diseases/disorders. This is simply not true. Point 18 elaborates….
- While high fat (by which I mean processed foods/junk food, not good fats such as those from say, avocados) is a leading concern in the western world, high fat diets in some regions, such as northern tribes in the snow e.g. eskimos, and the Maasai tribe in East Africa actually excel on high fat, high protein diets. In fact, when we recall our history, you’ll find there are entire tribes and societies that existed purely on meat for generations, with no plant matter at all, and had excellent health. This is a very interesting article, and in the comments, many people claim that they switched from a regular omnivore diet to a pure carnivore diet and many health concerns vanished and their overall health improved, which was confirmed with blood tests. Just goes to show that there is no right or wrong diet as far as health is concerned (with the exception of processes/high salt/high sugar foods).
- Cowspiracy: What a controversial movie. Rather than delve into a small novel of why it is so controversial, I’ll direct you to this fantastic post by Quora user Karen Lindquist (BSc Agriculture (Animal Science Major)) who has analysed all the stats, figures and info on cowspiracy and provided evidence to back up her points as to why Cowspiracy is factually incorrect and misleading.
The movie is also offensive to many cultures and middle- to lower-class societies:
By focusing on veganism to the exclusion of all else, Cowspiracy implies that if any of these frontline defenders – including the murdered Brazilian land rights campaigners mentioned in the film – eat meat then they’re not ‘proper’ environmentalists. This is deeply offensive and exclusive, and also ignores the cultural importance of hunted meat in many Indigenous societies [source].
- Water Usage: One point I will make regarding Cowspiracy is that there is a figure often quoted regarding the usage of water to make 1 pound of beef. This figure, 2400 gallons, is wrong (9084L), and has been addressed in many articles, yet the incorrect figure is still quoted by many vegans for ‘shock effect’ purposes. Perhaps once upon a time, before technologies changed that figure was true, but in this day and age, the real figure is nowhere near 2400 gallons. It actually takes around 441 gallons for 1 pound of beef (i.e. about 1545L-1669L for 1kg beef). If you think that is a lot, it’s actually not compared to many other products (products even used by vegans) e.g.
it takes around 713 gallons (2700L) of water to make 1 cotton shirt,
79 Gallons of water for 0.2 gallons of beer (300L water for 1L beer),
4542 gallons water for 2.2 pounds of chocolate (17 196L of water for 1kg chocolate) and 660 gallons (2497L) to make 2.2 pound (1kg) of rice (rice is also heavy on the methane emissions) .
- Methane: New research has concluded methane emissions from cows (in Australia) are around 24% lower than initially thought. Additionally, cattle farming (at less than 15%) is not the biggest source of methane in Australia, electricity (at 35%) is.
- Diabetes: For many years, diabetics would use insulin derived from cows and pigs. More recently, synthetic versions have been created, but many people experience negative side effects from these synthetic variations. So what is a diabetic to do?
- Organ donors: it’s no secret that organ wait lists can be huge and many people are on lists for years, while some may pass away before a suitable donor is found. New technologies allow us to grow some organs in varying ways. One of these ways is ‘Decellularization‘ which involves using cells from pigs and mice (which are similar to humans) to regrow organs. The technique has been used for several years on pig heart valves (which many may know about). The practice is not vegan, but it saves many, many lives. I’m curious to know if a vegan would permit such a practice for a dying loved one? Or even on themselves? It’s quite the dilemma. Furthermore, if you are prescribed medication for whatever condition you have, it’s probably not vegan. So, do you take the medication to get well or risk health concerns or worse? Again, quite the dilemma.
- Pets: Some vegans will go so far as to proclaim that no one should keep pets because it’s wrong. Yup, they’d have you give up your beloved pet dogs, cats, horses and so on- to do what? Roam the wild? Kill native wildlife as they struggle to survive in a world they aren’t familiar with? They’re never quite clear on what should be done once our pets are all ‘free’. While I do agree that domestic cats and dogs especially are well and truly over-bred, I don’t agree that we should give up our beloved fur families. I almost don’t want to post another PETA reference, but it’s so ridiculous I had to. PETA think that the idea of pets should have never existed and that
“This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering.”
Suffering to whom I ask? The animal who gets a loving home, is fed every day, gets a safe place to sleep and medical concerns addressed? Or the human who makes a life-long friend, and overcomes anxiety, depression, PTSD, and a variety of other conditions (including giving the blind confidence to navigate the world) thanks to their pet?
I saw a post on Facebook, where a young vegan woman was insisting that vegan is the only way and animals should all be free. Someone asked her if she had a pet, since that would oppose the point of view she was conveying. After scratching out her name and that first strange sentence she said about farmers which is not relevant here, this was her reply:
Does she not realize that ‘companion animal’ is literally the definition of a pet? It’s noble to rescue animals and all, but if it lives with you and you feed it and care for it, it’s still a pet. The law sees the animal as her pet and her property, a ‘good’ in fact under the COMPETITION AND CONSUMER ACT 2010 – SCHEDULE 2 definitions. In fact, I bet her animal (likely a dog) would see her as a master/owner figure too, as the hand that brings food.
The comment about farms? She claimed that all farms treat animals poorly. Another user asked if she’d been to every farm in the world so she could personally verify that with facts and evidence. That was her reply. Apparently she doesn’t know that society sees a person as ‘innocent until proven guilty’. We do not assume ‘guilty until proven innocent’ because that is completely illogical- think of the money and resources required to prove every single person on the planet is innocent of all crimes, rather than prosecuting those with evidence proving they are guilty. Besides, since when do the actions of a few accurately determine the fate of the many?
In summary: everyone should be permitted to eat whatever they like, so long as they are getting all of the nutrients they need (I say this because I’m sure at least someone would say “What if I want to live on McDonald’s forever?”). If you want to remove animal products from your diet, then as long as you are getting all the nutrients you need, I don’t see the problem. The problem starts when you force your ways on others. That’s not cool. Finally, out of curiosity, please take a moment to view this poll