In recent years, I’ve witnessed an exhausting number of debates between vegans and non-vegans focusing on nutrition. In my lesser moments, I have read comments sections and watched social media videos in which tired iterations of these high-emotion low-rationality debates played out. These discussions often follow familiar, circular patterns, and I generally avoid weighing in, not because nutrition isn’t important to me or because I think it’s completely irrelevant, but because I think arguing nutrition is one of the least effective or persuasive ways to defend or advocate for animal rights. There are many reasons for this, and here are a few.
Why Nutrition Debates are Often Unproductive
1) Nutrition science is messy. It’s noisy, complex, and tends to be slow. Nutrition research is difficult to conduct because controlling multiple confounding variables (ie: age, exercise, lifestyle, genetics, socioeconomic status, etc.) makes isolating an effect very difficult. Add ethics constraining how research can be conducted and the challenge is multiplied. The lag between consistent new evidence emerging and the scientific consensus shifting (when consensus occurs) makes it easy to dismiss any claim as cherry-picked. It’s an uphill battle, and seldom are these debates engaged with the openness and good faith necessary for productive disagreement.
2) Most folks believe they have a better understanding of nutrition than they really do. Major Dunning Kruger territory here. Part of this obstacle can be defined at the level of the individual; people’s diets tend to be intimate and habitual, often rooting themselves into identity in ways that conflicting information can be experienced as personal attacks rather than helpful updates based on new evidence. Additionally, people’s scientific literacy varies considerably, and many can’t distinguish correlation from causation, epidemiology from RCTs, adequacy from optimization, and so forth. Add our susceptibility to many biases (confirmation bias, bandwagon effect, authority bias, etc.) and the likelihood that we’ll encounter reactance becomes very high.
A big part of this obstacle extends beyond the level of the individual. This is the very muddy informational environment in which we currently find ourselves. Media and pop-nonfiction often misinterprets or simplifies complex and nuanced study results to the point of reducing information to misinformation. Financial and political agendas result in food producers, authors, supplement and pharmaceutical companies etc. pumping out disinformation and creating confusion through promoting fad diets and miracle foods. Even if people believe they’re approaching disagreement in good faith, their convictions often outweigh their up-to-date evidence-based knowledge by a wide margin. Our growing mistrust of experts further impedes information communication at every level, resulting in a lot of info accessible to the lay-individual being reductive to the point of inaccuracy.
3) Some people feel better and healthier eating animal products. I suspect some folks who make this claim simply have not put in the requisite effort to find a plant-based diet that works for them, but there is a lot of variation between individual metabolic profiles, so I believe that there are folks who are genuinely healthier eating animal products, just as there are many who are genuinely healthier not eating them. I do not see challenging people’s conclusions about themselves after earnest but perhaps flawed attempts to explore alternatives as being fruitful, and the potential for people feeling judged and disrespected seems particularly high.
4) Winning an argument rarely results in behavioural shifts. Even when folks are persuaded intellectually, they often don’t make changes due to habit, convenience, social pressure, or other sources of friction. There is a strong argument to be made for the value of planting a seed in people’s minds, but debate is rarely the most effective method for inspiring germination. More effective advocacy can come from intellectual clarity, credibility, self-possession, and modeling health
The Personal Costs of Debate
5) Personally, I don’t have the time or energy. It’s intellectually exhausting for me to debate people, and I’d rather put that effort into something more fulfilling, like cluttering the internet with unnecessary articles, getting myself out into nature, or taking detailed mental inventories of all past personal failures. If you’re championing a cause that goes against the grain, learn to conserve your energy to avoid burnout. The things you care about and the social changes you’re trying to support are important, even if caring about them can be exhausting in a seemingly uncaring world.
Nutrition Debates Miss the Point
6) Perhaps most importantly, these debates divert attention away from the real issue, which is not about nutrition. By focusing on health, animal rights are no longer the central consideration. When animal products are framed as nutritional necessities, the ethical conversation never gets off the ground. If they’re framed as unnecessary, the debate immediately shifts to edge cases involving children, pregnancy, illness, elders, and so forth. Rare deficiencies and extreme anecdotes often dominate these discussions and undermine or trivialize the importance of quality evidence.
If You Must… Practical Advice for Nutrition Debates
I’m not looking to dissuade anyone from engaging in these types of debates. I do sometimes see selective value in them and I enjoy watching skilled and charismatic debaters. If folks do choose to engage, here are a few guidelines that may help them be more effective advocates:
1) Read my article on Why Conversations between Vegans and Non-Vegans Break Down (And How to Have Better Ones). It’s the best advice I can offer. Everything below is damage control by comparison.
2) Clarify the scope of the discussion and be selective about who you engage. Moving goal posts are a common feature of these discussions, so being able to parameterize the content of discussion can be helpful and necessary. It’s also a waste of time to debate people who lack openness, curiosity, or who argue in bad faith. If these attributes present themselves, disengage early.
3) Frame claims modestly and accurately. Avoid claims that extend beyond available evidence. For example, “a vegan diet is adequate for most people when well-planned,” not “a vegan diet is optimal for everyone”. “Vegan diets resulted in comparable health outcomes in these circumstances,” not “vegan diets were superior in all cases.” Overclaiming destroys personal credibility and further damages veganism’s reputation.
4) Be judicious about your sources. Avoid anecdotes and individual studies. Instead, use authoritative consensus at the highest possible standard of evidence. Be specific about the studies to which you refer, and know your shit. Anyone can say that “studies prove that vegan diets are safe”. Instead, be able to refer to specific sources like the 2022 meta-analysis published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition that concluded that well-planned vegan diets are nutritionally adequate and are associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, and certain cancers, but may impair bone health when improperly implemented. Speaking of which…
5) Honestly acknowledge limitations. While vegan diets can contain enough protein, my activity level is such that 1.5 grams of protein per kilogram of my body weight per day is advisable, and this would be very difficult for me without protein powder supplements. Getting enough B12 almost always requires supplementation (though I eat enough fortified nutritional yeast that I can get away without it). Proper planning is more important on a vegan diet, and some folks really struggle with this, especially when making the transition. Admitting limitations will pay dividends in reducing defensiveness, increasing trust, and getting out in front of arguments that will almost certainly come up.
6) Frame the discussion in terms of trade-offs instead of absolutes. Instead of getting caught up in “proofs”, consider focusing on comparative risks, such as what risks in vegan diets are seen as unacceptable and how these risks compare to those associated with animal-product diets.
7) Know when to quit. If you miscalculated during the selection phase (1) and you’re noticing that the goalposts are continuously moving, your sources are reflexively dismissed, or the tone becomes adversarial, find a way to walk away. Preserving credibility will be more valuable than winning.
In summary, if you really want to debate, engage judiciously, be narrow in scope, approach with humility, and come prepared. You’re not just representing yourself; you’re shaping how the world will see and think about vegans. Good luck out there, and Happy New Year.