a persuasive speech entitled vegetarianism

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Get a free “How to Go Vegan” eBook!

Bite Size Vegan

veganism [simplified]

This Speech Will Change How You See Everything

By Emily Moran Barwick | April 5, 2023 | 31 Comments

This speech sheds light on aspects of our food system that are deliberately hidden—allowing you to make truly informed choices. By highlighting how you already hold the core values of veganism, the information in this speech empowers you to align your actions with your existing values.

Table Of Contents

You deserve to know the truth, is veganism an extreme way of living, milk production requires repeated pregnancies, what happens to the male calves of the dairy industry, the toll of separating mother & child, infection is the norm: the physical demands of dairy, what happens to the female calves of the dairy industry, the greatest magic trick ever performed, layer hens: living beings treated as machines, what happens to the male chicks of the egg industry, what happens to the female chicks of the egg industry, the power of packaging, animal lovers eating animals, standard mutilations in the meat, dairy & egg industries.

• Humane Legislation: Defining the "Right Way" to Kill

This Is Happening All Over the World

The water footprint of animal products, our food & water are going to the animals we eat, the land usage of animal agriculture, the environmental impact of fishing, animal agriculture & ocean health, the extremism of eating animals, beyond personal choice, the health impact of animal products, we are living the greatest lie ever told, the good news: you can choose to live your values.

In this persuasive speech about veganism, speaker Emily Moran Barwick challenges you to reconsider your beliefs about veganism and our food system and look at the everyday with new eyes.

Instead of listing reasons why you should go vegan, this speech sheds light on aspects of animal agriculture that are deliberately hidden from the public—allowing you to make truly informed choices.

By highlighting how you already hold the core values of veganism, the information in this speech empowers you to align your actions with your existing values.

Technical Notes : As this article is a speech transcript, the written version will reflect a spoken delivery and also may not properly relay the speaker’s pace, tone, and emphasis.

This speech was originally published on June 15, 2016. Reasons for republication .

What would you do if you found out that everything you know, everything you believe, everything you’ve been told since you were a child was a lie?

And not just any lie, but one carefully crafted, finely tuned, expertly executed, and deliberately designed with the express purpose of assuring you that wrong was right, that bad was good, and that violence was love.

Hello, my name is Emily Moran Barwick. I’m an animal liberation activist, an artist, an educator and a vegan. I created BiteSizeVegan.org, where I educate people about veganism through a wide array of content styles while covering a diverse range of subjects.

Undoing a life-long belief is no easy task. But in order to make informed decisions, to look ourselves in the mirror and ask if we are truly living the values we purport to have, we must know the truth. We must educate ourselves about what is really going on, not rely on what we’ve been taught. We must make decisions based on facts, not fantasy.

In our time together today, I’m very likely going to challenge some of your life-long beliefs. I’m going to ask you to set your preconceptions aside and try to look at the ordinary with a fresh set of eyes.

I am aware that this is a great deal to ask of you, especially coming from a total stranger. I’m asking for your trust when I haven’t even earned it. But believe it or not, I am not here to force my beliefs upon you. Or to make you vegan. I won’t pretend to have that power. And no one really makes any lasting change through force anyway.

I’m simply here to show you what is really going on every second of every day all around the world behind closed doors. To present evidence—for your consideration—that things may not be as they appear.

I’ll want to preface this talk by saying that I’m going to be transparent with you, and I’ll even tell you if I don’t know something. I’ll also be providing citations throughout this post for every fact I state, along with a bibliography below so that you can dig deeper. I’ll only be able to scratch the surface in this brief window of time we have together.

So let’s get started. Veganism is often viewed as an “extreme” way of living. Vegans do not eat, wear, or use anything that comes from someone else’s body.

We don’t eat meat, drink milk or eat cheese . We don’t consume eggs or honey. We don’t wear leather , wool , silk , or down. We don’t use products that were tested on animals or contain byproducts from their slaughter.

We don’t attend circuses, zoos , aquariums, or any other event that exploits living beings for our entertainment and pleasure .

From the outside, such rigorous exclusions and avoidances can easily appear extreme. But remember: today is about challenging appearances and assumptions of extremism and normality.

Today is a lesson in unlearning .

The Truth About Dairy

What better way to unlearn than to start our journey at the end and work our way back to the beginning?

And what better way to question what’s accepted as good and normal than with something as wholesome and everyday as a glass of milk ?

The source of milk is no big secret: it comes from cows. But that’s about as far back as most people trace milk’s journey to our refrigerated grocery case.

Most of us grow up thinking that cows are made to be milked. We may think they have a constant supply of milk—even that they need to be milked to relieve the pressure.

Well let’s look at this critically for a moment. Cows are mammals, just like us. And mammals produce milk for one reason: to feed their babies.

Cows carry their babies for nine months—just like we do; they lactate to feed their babies—just like we do; and after weaning, they stop producing milk—just like we do.

So, in order to have a constant supply of cow’s milk for human consumption, we need a constant supply of pregnant cows.

In the dairy industry, cows are repeatedly inseminated —which is a nice word for raped. The restraining apparatus used to secure the cows is referred to—at least in America—as a “rape rack.” 1

Veal—an industry that even many meat-eaters oppose—wouldn’t exist without dairy. Every cup of yogurt, every scoop of ice cream, and every glass of milk is directly connected to the deaths of those baby calves.

Once a cow gives birth, we face another roadblock to our milk’s journey. Babies, after all, drink their mother’s milk.

So, to make sure there’s a constant supply of milk for us , the babies must be taken away soon after birth. This is precisely what occurs in the dairy industry .

If the calf is a male, he is sent to a veal farm where he is tied down, unable to move, or locked in a cage where he cannot even turn around until he’s slaughtered while still only a few weeks old.

But we’re not quite done tracing milk’s path to our cereal bowls. While the slaughter of babies is certainly horrific enough, we cannot forget the mothers left behind .

Cows bond intensely with their calves and will cry out for days when they are taken.

When residents of Newbury, MA called the police to report disturbing noises emanating from the Sunshine Dairy farm at all hours of the day and night, the police explained that the mother cows were “lamenting the separation from their calves”—but not to worry as “the cows are not in distress and that the noises are a normal part of farming practices.” 2

This is not anthropomorphizing. It is a mother’s grief and it’s utterly heartbreaking to watch .

The bodies of dairy cows generally give out at age four or five—at which point they are regarded as “spent”—despite their natural lifespan of twenty years or more. They are sent to slaughter for cheap meat and pet food—deemed unfit for human consumption.

The Final Separation: Slaughter of Fetal Calves

At the slaughterhouse, many of these mothers face their final and most brutal separation from yet another child .

At the slaughterhouse, this most horrific and final separation of mother and child is just the last in a cycle of pregnancy after pregnancy, and loss after loss.

While formal statistics are difficult to obtain as most studies focus on the economic cost of “fetal wastage,” approximately 10%-70% of cows arrive at the slaughterhouse pregnant. 3

In fact, there are entire industries that rely upon the slaughter of pregnant animals.

A wide array of scientific experiments use what’s called fetal serum from a range of animals—with bovine fetal serum being the most widely utilized. 4

Bovine fetal serum is obtained by cutting a living fetus out of the mother’s womb, piercing the heart and draining the blood. The process can take up to 35 minutes while the fetal calf remains alive. 5

But this most horrific and final separation of mother and child was just the last in a cycle of pregnancy after pregnancy and loss after loss.

There’s an official number of pus cells allowed in milk, euphemistically referred to as the “somatic cell count.”

In addition to this extreme psychological and emotional trauma , the physical demands of repeated milkings and the crowded and unsanitary living conditions lead to frequent infections and sores.

Dairy cows are pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones, all of which seep into their milk. 6

In fact, there’s an official number of pus cells allowed in milk, euphemistically referred to as the “somatic cell count.”

In the United States, around 22 million [22,177,500] pus cells are allowed per single fluid ounce of milk [750,000 cells/mL], with global allowable limits ranging from just under 12 million [11,828,000 cells/fl. oz. in Canada & the EU (400,000 cells/mL)] to 29.5 million cells/fl.oz. in Brazil [1,000,000 cells/mL]. 7

When we push onwards through to our dairy cow’s beginning, back past the first pregnancy, before she became the broken, hollowed-out shell eventually collapsing under the insane demands of her short life, we come to her birth. The moment she emerges into the world, wide-eyed and brand new.

The moment she is taken from her own mother.

You see, we talked about what happened to the male calves who are sent off for veal. The daughters of the dairy industry are still separated from their mothers.

They’re kept around to take their mother’s place and keep the money machine going. Keep the milk flowing.

So that every grocery store, every corner shop, every gas station will be sure to stock this wholesome, normalized, entirely ordinary product.

We are being sold the ultimate outcome of rape, enslavement, kidnapping, abuse, disease, torture, infanticide & murder— whitewashed into an image of wholesome nutrition. It’s the greatest magic trick ever performed.

The animal products we perceive as mundane, when reverse-engineered, reveal a perversely complex and—to put it lightly—an ethically challenging journey from genesis, through processing and production, to the end product.

That is to say: from the animals’ birth, through confinement, abuse, slaughter, and denigration of corpses to the shiny, happy, store-ready products that we literally eat up without even a single thought as to what the animals went through.

We are being sold the pus-filled ultimate outcome of rape, enslavement, kidnapping, abuse, disease, torture, infanticide, and murder—whitewashed into an image of wholesome nutrition.

And people say veganism is extreme.

The Truth About Eggs

Unfortunately—or perhaps you may feel fortunately—we don’t have time to take this reverse journey in such depth with all of the products we create from living beings.

But let’s at least take an abridged look at another seemingly harmless item. One consumed all over the world and with which most Americans start their day.

One lovingly mixed into baked goods for birthdays and other special occasions. One decorated in celebration of peace and new life: the incredible, edible egg .

Like milk, the source of eggs is clear: they come from chickens. Unlike milk, chickens do not have to be impregnated to supply them.

But any time we make a living being into a machine —a supplier of inventory—the bottom line will always be profit. And increasing profit means increasing output and increasing efficiency.

Any time we make a living being into a machine—a supplier of inventory—the bottom line will always be profit.

Just like the mothers of dairy, the bodies of layer hens give out prematurely from the extreme demands of production. 8 Hens lose vital nutrients every time their body forms an egg.

Every aspect of their lives is regulated to ensure maximum output.

From controlling their laying cycles with days and days of persistent light, followed by long periods of complete darkness, to starving them for weeks at a time in an effort to force yet another egg cycle from their worn-out bodies—a process benignly referred to as “induced molting” 9 —to the outright manipulation of their very genetic makeup .

We’ve optimized our machines, you see, and bred one kind of chicken for meat, and another kind for eggs.

Because of this, the egg industry produces billions of unwanted male baby chicks every year. Just like male dairy calves, who are unable to produce milk, male layer chicks can’t lay eggs. So they are of no use.

Male baby chicks are either painfully gassed, slowly suffocated in plastic bags, or they are ground up alive—referred to as “maceration” within the industry. We’re talking about the cute, fluffy yellow baby chicks we adore come Easter time.

This is standard practice all around the world , with the United States and European Union specifying that chicks must be less than 72 hours old when they are killed. 10

They are not even granted three days of life.

The sisters of the egg industry’s discarded sons get to live out their short lives in cramped battery cages, unable to even extend their wings. 11

Of course, you’ve likely heard about the rise of free-range and cage-free facilities . 12 But in truth, the only comfort these labels bring is to our own conscience. 13

Cage-free birds are crammed into tiny sheds and have twice the mortality rates of battery-caged hens. 14

Layer hens are generally good for 1–3 cycles, each lasting roughly a year. In countries where induced molting (again, the industry term for starvation) is illegal, they’re simply killed around their first birthday.

I hope you are starting to see the power of this lie.

We might as well start our day by throwing chicks in a blender.

Of presenting cruel confinement, starvation, abuse, the barbaric murder of day-old babies, and the slaughter of one-year-olds—themselves still children—as something completely normal and kind. Packaged in perfect little orbs.

And we have the audacity to decorate them in celebration of new life.

To fawn over the very chicks who were ground up alive for their production. To mix them into treats for our children and loved ones. To start our day with the products of abject misery and call it “sunny side up.”

We could spend all week reverse-engineering the paths of the seemingly endless number of animal-derived products we encounter on a regular basis.

In fact Dutch artist Christien Meindertsma spent 3 years tracing and cataloging all of the products made from a single pig: PIG 05049. 15

The only way to maintain this duality of our professed values (as animal lovers) and our daily actions (as animal eaters)—is to ensure that the animals we eat and use have no names , no faces , and no identities . So we give them inventory numbers.

This brings us to the next layer of our collective self-deception: the systematic erasure of individual identity.

You see, this is where the lie is most vulnerable. Because beneath the years of indoctrination, we still believe ourselves to be animal lovers .

We go to the movies and root for Babe the pig, cheer for the chickens of Chicken Run, and pull for Nemo the fish to find his way back to his father.

Then we go home and eat bacon and eggs and make chicken fingers and fish sticks for the kids.

The only way to maintain this most glaring dissonance—this duality of our professed values and our daily actions—is to ensure that the animals we eat and use have no names , no faces , and no identities .

So we give them inventory numbers.

The Systematic Erasure of Individual Identity: Animals as Inventory

To mark these living beings as inventory, we brand them with hot irons or freeze their skin off. We tattoo and tag them, inject electronic transponders under their skin, or strap them to their necks or ankles. We even give them barcodes. 16

The important thing is that they are clearly identified as property . And that they are treated as such.

Because as soon as we see them as individuals , we threaten the very foundation of the lie upon which we so desperately depend.

We humans love to play the role of savior in the disasters of our own creation. We swoop in to milk the cow and relieve the painful pressure of her swollen udder—pressure that wouldn’t exist had we not taken her child away.

If their bodies don’t conform to our desires, we alter them at will.

Baby pigs have their teeth cut out, their ears notched, their tails cut off, and their testicles ripped out—all without anesthetic.

Chickens, turkeys and other birds in the meat and egg industries have their sensitive beaks cut or seared off .

Cows have their horns cut or burned off and are also castrated without anesthetic .

And with some of our most impressive mental gymnastics —which would be admirable if it weren’t so horrific—we say this barbaric mutilation, this conversion of living beings from some ONES to some THINGS is for their own good .

Because if we don’t clip their teeth or cut their beaks or slice off their tails, they’ll attack and chew on each other.

What we fail to mention is that these behaviors are stress responses to confinement in overly-crowded, insanity-inducing conditions. That if we didn’t put them in these abusive conditions , they wouldn’t react the way they do.

But we humans love to play the role of savior in the disasters of our own creation. We swoop in to milk the cow and relieve the painful pressure of her swollen udder. Pressure that wouldn’t exist had we not taken her child away.

Humane Legislation: Defining the “Right Way” to Kill

The term “humane slaughter” is a perfect embodiment of our desperate attempt to simultaneously be animal lovers and animal killers. To be their protectors and their tormentors. tweet this

We amass mountains of paperwork, conduct thousands of studies, spend untold amounts of money, form governmental, institutional, and industry panels, all to decide, define and decree the right way to kill .

You can pour through the documents from the USDA, 17 or the European Union, 18 or any country for that matter, to learn the legal speak that makes taking the life of a living being acceptable .

And you don’t have to look too far to start finding caveats and loopholes. Religious slaughter without any form of stunning gets a pass.

Birds and fish are excluded from humane slaughter regulations —the very name of which is a perfect embodiment of our desperate attempt to simultaneously be animal lovers and animal killers. To be their protectors and their tormentors.

I mean it really is absurd when we step back and think about it. Do we have manuals on how to humanely rape? Or how to compassionately kidnap? Or ethically rob? Of course not, because those are oxymorons. They cannot coexist.

But when it comes to killing animals, we will bend over backwards and create massive paper trails of regulations to feel good about what we are doing.

Again, I must ask— is veganism really the extreme choice here?

Look at what we have to go through to make eating animals acceptable.

What Happens Behind Closed Doors

Note: At this point in the speech, I inform the audience that I will be playing a video of what happens to animals within the animal products industries. This footage has been blurred in the YouTube video of the speech but is available in full in the accordion below (along with an explanation for the blurring).

Before we move into issues of the environment and health impacts of diet, I’m going to play brief video.

The portions of the footage where the location is known will be labeled as such. But it doesn’t mean that the same thing isn’t happening in other parts of the world. I trimmed down hours of footage into a 3-minute clip.

It will not be pleasant, but I’d implore you to watch anyway. You can’t make an informed decision without having all the facts.

If you feel you must turn away, I’d just ask you to think on the question: “If I can’t watch the process, do I have a right to eat the product?”

This is the footage originally shown in this speech. Due to the nature of the footage, the speech video was age-restricted on YouTube, severely decreasing its accessibility to a broad audience.

In order to make the speech available to all viewers, I blurred the footage within the YouTube video. However, I believe it’s of vital importance for the uncensored footage to be available to all, which is why I have included it in this post.

In my years of being vegan and speaking with many, many non-vegans, I have yet to ever hear one reason that even comes close to justifying putting a sentient being through what we just saw. Not one .

You cannot watch that and say that the animals we kill for our food don’t know any better. That they die peacefully and humanely.

They can sense the fear. They can smell the blood. And they fight. They fight to the end.

And you can’t say that it’s happening in some far away place because it’s happening all over the world .

The CO2 chambers you saw—those were the medieval devices lowering pigs to an extraordinarily painful death of burning from the inside out— that is seen as the most humane method of slaughtering pigs .

It’s employed worldwide , including here in the United States. 19

The Environmental Impact of Animal Agriculture

Thus far, I’ve focused primarily on the ethical truths behind the mask of normality.

But the wake of our destruction is littered with far more than the trillions of beings we kill every year.

The environmental , health and societal impact of what (whom) we put in our mouth is astounding.

There is no way I’ll be able to cover these areas today in the depth they deserve, so I encourage you to refer to the resources linked throughout and at the base of this article. But let’s try to take a bird’s eye view of our impact on this planet.

When it comes to the environment, we usually hear about conserving water, cutting down on emissions, halting deforestation.

The single most devastating force behind our planet’s environmental collapse remains not only unspoken, but actually  actively denied  by the very organizations charged with saving our planet.

Environmental protection agencies encourage us to take shorter showers, carpool or ride our bikes, go paperless, and recycle more.

Our governments hold international conferences to address climate change and seek solutions.

All the while the single most devastating force behind our planet’s environmental collapse remains not only unspoken, but actually actively denied by the very organizations charged with saving our planet. 20

Animal agriculture is a leading cause of climate change . 21

It’s responsible for up to 51% of greenhouse gas emissions compared to the 13% of all global transportation. 22

It uses a third of the earth’s fresh water, 23 up to 45% of the Earth’s land , 24 and is responsible for 91% of Amazon rainforest destruction—with 1–2 acres cleared every second. 25

It is also a leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones , and habitat destruction. 26

The efforts we make to recycle and take shorter showers are rather insignificant in comparison.

Accounting for variation in production system, the global average water footprint for a single pound of beef is 1,847 gallons/lb, with numbers ranging all the way to 8,000 gallons/lb. 27

Without fail, plant-based products have the smallest water footprints based on weight. 28

Of course weight doesn’t necessarily mean sustenance. Still, global averages show that “when viewed from a caloric standpoint, the water footprint of animal products is larger than for crop products” with “the average water footprint per calorie for beef [being] twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots.” 29

Animal Protein Requires More Water Than Plant Protein

With protein being one of the greatest nutrition concerns for people considering veganism, it’s worth noting that “the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses,” with beef’s footprint being 6 times larger. 30

Leading to the conclusion that “it is more efficient to obtain calories, protein, and fat through crop products than animal products.” 31

But we don’t really need studies to tell us that eating animals requires more energy input and creates more waste than eating plants. How can it not?

Eating animals is incredibly inefficient . We are filtering our nutrients, water, and resources through someone else’s body.

Eating animals is incredibly inefficient. We are filtering our nutrients, water, and resources through someone else’s body.

Globally, we’re feeding close to 40% of our grain to our food animals. 32 How can that not be worse for the environment than simply eating the plants ourselves?

The United States alone could feed 800 million people with the grain we feed to our livestock. 33 That’s more than the estimated 795 million people going hungry in the world today. 34

Ninety-eight percent of the massive water footprint for animal agriculture we just covered goes to growing feed crops for the animals we eat. 35

I’m not suggesting that a global shift to veganism will automatically result in the proper redistribution of our crops to those in need, nor address the issue of unnecessary food wastage, but it’s the only way we can have enough food to feed everyone.

For an in-depth (and updated) look at the inefficiency of animal products, the diversion of our resources, and the necessity of a global shift to plant-based diets, please see “ Can Veganism Solve World Hunger? An Honest Answer “

This is where many people point to small, local farms, and sustainable practices. Like grass-fed beef. Or free-range, cage-free eggs .

The thing is, we don’t have the land . There’s simply not enough land for the number of animals we eat every year.

The amount of land that it takes to produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based foods will only yield 375 pounds of meat. 36

The land required to feed one vegan for one year is 1/6th acre. It takes three times as much for a vegetarian (someone who consumes dairy and eggs but no meat) and eighteen times as much for a meat-eater. 37

You can grow fifteen times more protein on any given area of land with plants versus animals. 38

On top of all of that, studies show that pasture-raised cows emit 40%–60% more greenhouse gases than grain-fed cows. 39

I could talk about the environmental cost of animal agriculture all day and we would only just be scratching the surface.

I do want to speak briefly to fishing and ocean health before moving on. I produced a video report, “ Empty Oceans: Is The World Running Out Of Fish? ” encompassing the most recent research (at the time of production) on the state of our oceans, which you may refer to, but I’ll summarize some main takeaways.

Whether you eat fish and marine life or not, this matter impacts all of us. The ocean, or rather the phytoplankton within the ocean, provides somewhere between 50%–80% of our oxygen, 40 and the oceans’ ecosystems store carbon in massive quantities. 41

Since we tend to go for the “biggest fish” first, only 10% of predatory fish species remain, 42 which could leave the unchecked species to feed on the ocean’s vegetation, releasing the stored carbon.

If we lost just 1% of these blue carbon ecosystems, it would be equivalent to releasing the annual greenhouse gas emissions of Australia. 43

We pull 90-100 million tonnes 44 of fish from our oceans each year, 45 with some sources even estimating 150 million tonnes. 46 There is no way for the marine populations to replenish themselves.

Our industrial fishing methods are incredibly inefficient, with some operations throwing 98% of their catches overboard, dead, 47 because they aren’t the targeted species.

As I said earlier, land-based animal agriculture is the leading cause of ocean dead zones , which are areas in the ocean starved of oxygen such that marine life suffocates and dies.

So the animals we are raising for food on land are killing the animals we are ripping from the ocean .

And to add a further layer of perversity, we are feeding the fish we catch to the cows, pigs, chicken, and other land animals—and to the fish we farm.

As consumers, we find comfort in the fact that most people eat the way we do—that most people don’t seem to be concerned. And we continue to believe the lie  that this is the way it’s supposed to be .

And people think veganism is extreme?

When humanity is decimating habitats , consuming land and resources, polluting the oceans , destroying the rainforest, driving species after species into extinction, feeding plants that we could eat to animals , and feeding other animals to animals that aren’t supposed to eat animals —all so that we can eventually eat the animals ourselves.

But of course as a consumer, we don’t see the trail. We see the pretty packages and sleek advertising.

We see these ordinary, innocent, everyday products. And we find comfort in the fact that most people eat the way we do—that most people don’t seem to be concerned.

And we continue to believe the lie that this is the way it’s supposed to be .

We say that children are our future, but what future can they have when we are eating the planet to death?

Ethics aside, we have environmentally reached the point beyond personal choice—beyond “you eat how you want to eat and I’ll eat how I want to eat.” This is a global crisis, and it’s not about you or me anymore.

The world cannot sustain meat, dairy, and egg production. It simply can’t. We have to start aligning our actions with our values.

I’m going to speak very briefly to the impact that animal consumption has on our health .

The doctors in whose hands we place our very lives aren’t even educated about the number one cause of disease and death in our country.

We take drugs by the truckload, undergo dangerous surgeries, spend trillions of dollars on health care every year,all in our stubborn refusal to acknowledge the simple fact that diet is the number one cause of disability and premature death . 48

That the vast majority of deaths in the United States are entirely preventable if we would simply change the way we eat. 49

The denial of this truth is so pervasive, our desire to maintain the system we’ve constructed so strong, that only one quarter of medical schools in the United States teach even a single course in nutrition . 50

Heart disease, the number one killer in the United States, is a dietary disease that can be and has been reversed with a vegan, plant-based diet. 51

But instead, we take handfuls of medications and have doctors crack open our chests to roto-rooter our arteries rather than stop eating animals. 52

After all, a vegan diet is too extreme, right?

Once we look at it objectively, from the outside, our behavior is baffling.

We serve meat, dairy, and eggs at climate change conferences—supporting and consuming the very source of the problem that the conference was created to address.

We train doctors to save lives with years of expensive education covering every drug on the market while never addressing the true cause of disease.

We run our resources and nutrition through someone else’s body, squandering astronomical amounts of food and water and creating an astounding amount of waste.

We genetically manipulate , breed , confine, abuse, rape, torture, denigrate, mechanize , and murder sentient individuals under our self-created codes of conduct that bring comfort to consumers .

All to avoid facing the fact that we are living the greatest lie ever told .

Veganism—far from being an extreme lifestyle—is the most  sane  and  rational  way to live. It’s the most powerful tool we have for saving our planet, for improving our health when we eat health-consciously, and for regaining our compassion—for becoming the people we believe ourselves to be:  good   people .

But here’s the good news. We have the power to open our eyes. We have the choice to break the cycle and refuse to sell this lie to the next generation.

To realize that veganism—far from being an extreme lifestyle—is the most sane and rational way to live.

It’s the most powerful tool we have for saving our planet, for improving our health when we eat health-consciously, and for regaining our compassion—for becoming the people we believe ourselves to be: good people.

And good people don’t destroy the planet, leaving our children without a future. Good people don’t throw newborn babies into grinders.

Good people don’t rip day-old babies away from their mothers. Good people don’t rape, torture, and murder.

Yet “good people” everywhere are doing all of these things with every bite of every meal.

But that’s the beauty here. You no longer have to buy into the lie.

You decide what goes into your body. You decide whether you want to continue to have others kill for you . You decide whether you want to continue consuming death, terror, and heartbreak.

You have the information at your feet. The responsibility now lies in your hands.

You decide. And my hope is, you’ll decide to go vegan .

If you found this speech impactful, please SHARE it with others.

If you would like to support Bite Size Vegan in creating free, educational resources about veganism, please see the support page .

— Emily Moran Barwick

Get Started

Free “How to Go Vegan” Guide

MORE IN THIS SERIES:

Life-Changing Speeches

Featured topics:.

ethical basis for veganism

environmental basis for veganism

societal basis for veganism

RELATED POSTS:

• The “Psychopathy” of Eating Meat | Interview with Philosopher John Sanbonmatsu
• Can Veganism Solve World Hunger? An Honest Answer
• The Psychological Toll of Killing Animals: PTSD in Slaughterhouse Workers
• The Public Health Crisis of Animal Waste – Our Global Poo Problem
• What Does Cage-Free Eggs Mean?
• Why I’m A Vegan Against Animal Welfare
• The Best We Have To Offer? | How Ireland Exposes “Humane” Farming
• LIVE At A UK Slaughterhouse & Gas Chamber
• Are Halal And Kosher Slaughter Humane?
• The Greatest Lie Ever Told | Slam Poem

Reasons for re-publication & other editor notes (from Emily): This speech was originally published June 15, 2016 under the title “The Extremism Of Veganism | Exposing The Greatest Lie”. At the time of publication, and for many years thereafter, this article was purely a straight transcript of the speech (essentially a massive “wall of text”). In a long -held desire to increase the accessibility of this (and all) Bite Size Vegan resources, I have completely overhauled the formatting and structure of this article: adding subheadings, images, pullquotes, and more useful links to updated and additional information. I also decided to re-name the speech to be more approachable for a general audience. While I am generally hesitant to alter the publication date of an article on my website, I have chosen to in this case due to the degree of change. However, I want to be clear that while I have updated linked resources within the text, and addressed broken links within the citations and bibliography, all of the statistics and figures remain as they were in 2016—they have not been updated to current data.

• It’s often stated by activists, myself included, that the restraining apparatus used to secure cows for AI is referred to within the dairy industry as a “rape rack.” In her informational essay, “Dairy Takes Babies from Their Mothers,” Sandra Higgins, BSc (Hons) Psych, MSc Couns Psych of Go Vegan World traces this terminology to its origin with vivisectionist Harry Harlow. See: Sandra Higgins, BSc (Hons) Psych, MSc Couns Psych, “Dairy Takes Babies from Their Mothers,” Go Vegan World (blog), accessed August 30, 2016, https://goveganworld.com/why-vegan/the-animals-we-use/dairy-take-babies-mothers/ ; Lauren Slater, “Monkey Love – The Boston Globe,” The Boston Globe , March 21, 2004, http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/03/21/monkey_love/ ; “Monkey Love,” Four Corners , accessed February 7, 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1658576.htm ; Britain’s Channel 4 and ABC TV, “Additional Resources for ‘Monkey Love,'” Four Corners, December 6, 2006, https://web.archive.org/web/20150114211206/http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1660901.htm. As of this writing, I have yet to find a solid example of its use within the industry. Of course, I would assume this kind of phrasing would not be widely publicized in official documents. I will update this citation if I am able to find a solid source .
• Dave Rogers, “Strange Noises Turn out to Be Cows Missing Their Calves,” The Daily News , October 23, 2013, http://www.newburyportnews.com/news/local_news/strange-noises-turn-out-to-be-cows-missing-their-calves/article_d872e4da-b318-5e90-870e-51266f8eea7f.html .
• B.O. Oduguwa, “Fetal Losses from Slaughtering Pregnant Cows at Lafenwa Abattoir in Abeokuta, South Western Nigeria,” Global Journal of Biology, Agriculture & Health Sciences 2, no. 2 (2013), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363935076_FETAL_LOSSES_FROM_SLAUGHTERING_PREGNANT_COWS_AT_LAFENWA_ABATTOIR_IN_ABEOKUTA_SOUTH_WESTERN_NIGERIA ; G. D. Mshelia, V.A. Maina, and M.D. Aminu, “Foetometrics and Economic Impact Analysis of Reproductive Wastages in Ruminant Species Slaughtered in North-Eastern Nigeria,” Journal of Animal Production Advances 5, no. 4 (2015), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275963613_Foetometrics_and_Economic_Impact_Analysis_of_Reproductive_Wastages_in_Ruminant_Species_Slaughtered_in_North-Eastern_Nigeria ; Peter Olutope Fayemi and Voster Muchenje, “Maternal Slaughter at Abattoirs: History, Causes, Cases and the Meat Industry,” SpringerPlus 2 (March 22, 2013), https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-125 ; B. K. Whitlock and H. S. Maxwell, “Pregnancy-Associated Glycoproteins and Pregnancy Wastage in Cattle,” Theriogenology 70, no. 3 (August 2008): 550–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2008.05.003 ; P. W. Ladds, P. M. Summers, and J. D. Humphrey, “Pregnancy in Slaughtered Cows in North-Eastern Australia: Incidence and Relationship to Pregnancy Diagnosis, Season, Age and Carcase Weight,” Australian Veterinary Journal 51, no. 10 (October 1975): 472–77, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1200929/ ; C. Ndi, N.E. Tambi, and N.W. Agharih, “Reducing Calf Wastage from the Slaughtering of Pregnant Cows in Cameroon,” Influence of Climate on Livestock Breeding , World Animal Review, 77 (April 1993), http://www.fao.org/docrep/v1650t/v1650t0g.htm ; G. H. Singleton and H. Dobson, “A Survey of the Reasons for Culling Pregnant Cows,” The Veterinary Record 136, no. 7 (February 18, 1995): 162–65, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7762126/ .
• Carlo EA Jochems et al., “The Use of Fetal Bovine Serum: Ethical or Scientific Problem?,” ATLA-NOTTINGHAM-* 30, no. 2 (2002): 219–28, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/JBF_Valk/publication/11396187_The_use_of_fetal_bovine_serum_Ethical_or_scientific_problem/links/54008f690cf23d9765a3ed64.pdf .
• Jochems et al.
• P. L. Ruegg and T. J. Tabone, “The Relationship Between Antibiotic Residue Violations and Somatic Cell Counts in Wisconsin Dairy Herds,” *Journal of Dairy Science 83, no. 12 (December 1, 2000): 2805–9, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)75178-2 ; Dan Charles, “FDA Tests Turn Up Dairy Farmers Breaking The Law On Antibiotics,” NPR , March 8, 20153:02 PM ET, http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/08/391248045/fda-tests-turn-up-dairy-farmers-breaking-the-law-on-antibiotics ; Department of Health and Human Services and Center for Veterinary Medicine, “Milk Drug Residue Sampling Survey,” Compliance Enforcement (Food and Drug Administration, March 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20160303192948/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/ComplianceEnforcement/UCM435759.pdf ; American Cancer Society, “Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone,” American Cancer Society , September 10, 2014, http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone ; Pamela L. Ruegg, “Relationship between Bulk Tank Milk Somatic Cell Count and Antibiotic Residues,” in Proceeding of the 2005 National Mastitis Council Meeting. National Mastitis Council , 2005, 28, https://web.archive.org/web/20160322031929/http://www.nmconline.org/articles/residues.pdf ; G. van Schaik, M. Lotem, and Y. H. Schukken, “Trends in Somatic Cell Counts, Bacterial Counts, and Antibiotic Residue Violations in New York State during 1999-2000,” Journal of Dairy Science 85, no. 4 (April 2002): 782–89, https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(02)74136-2 .
• Veterinary Services Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Healthogy and Animal Health, “Determining U.S. Milk Quality Using Bulk-Tank Somatic Cell Counts” (USDA – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, September 2012), https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy_monitoring/BTSCC_2011infosheet.pdf ; “Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, Including Provisions from the Grade ‘A’ Condensed and Dry Milk Products and Condensed and Dry Whey–Supplement I to the Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance -2011 Revision,” USPHS/FDA Milk Ordinance (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011), https://web.archive.org/web/20160626022014/http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/NationalConferenceonInterstateMilkShipmentsNCIMSModelDocuments/UCM291757.pdf ; Hoard’s Dairyman Staff, “Somatic Cell Legal Limit Will Stay the Same,” Hoard’s Dairyman , May 5, 2011, sec. HD Notebook, https://hoards.com/blog-2409-somatic-cell-legal-limit-will-stay-the-same.html ; Jack McAllister and Mark Witherspoon, “Measuring Somatic Cell Counts in DHIA,” Cooperative Extension Service: University of Kentucky College of Agriculture , 2013, http://bitesizevegan.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/McAllister-and-Witherspoon-2013-Measuring-Somatic-Cell-Counts-in-DHIA.pdf ; The Milk Quality Improvement Program, “Mastitis and Somatic Cells,” accessed April 22, 2016, http://www.milkfacts.info/Milk%20Microbiology/Mastitis%20and%20SCC.htm ; Jerome Wilfred Schroeder, Bovine Mastitis and Milking Management , Mastitis Control Programs (North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND: NDSU Extension Service, 1997), https://library.ndsu.edu/ir/bitstream/handle/10365/5362/as1129.pdf?sequence=1 ; G M Jones and T L Bailey, “Understanding the Basics of Mastitis,” Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University , no. 04–233 (2009): 5, https://web.archive.org/web/20170611204516/https://www.pubs.ext.vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/404/404-233/404-233_pdf.pdf ; J.S. Hogan and National Mastitis Council (U.S.), Current Concepts of Bovine Mastitis , Fifth edition (New Prague, Minnesota: National Mastitis Council, 2016), https://www.worldcat.org/title/current-concepts-of-bovine-mastitis/oclc/1002064103 ; J. Eric Hillerton and Elizabeth A. Berry, “Quality of the Milk Supply: European Regulations versus Practice,” in NMC Annual Meeting Proceedings , 2004, 207–14, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268260157_Quality_of_the_milk_supply_European_regulations_versus_practice ; Larry K. Smith and J. S. Hogan, “Milk Quality – A Worldwide Perspective,” vol. 1998 Annual Meeting Proceedings (National Mastitis Council Annual Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri: National Mastitis Council, 1998), https://web.archive.org/web/20160322034924/http://www.nmconline.org/articles/keynote98.htm ; Elizabeth Farina et al., “Private and Public Milk Standards in Argentina and Brazil,” Food Policy 30 (February 1, 2005), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2005.05.008 .
• Harish Sethu, “The Forgotten Mothers of the Chickens We Eat,” Counting Animals , April 30, 2014, http://www.CountingAnimals.com/the-forgotten-mothers-of-chickens-we-eat/ .
• United Poultry Concerns, “Forced Molting,” United Poultry Concerns, February 2, 2022, http://www.upc-online.org/molting/ ; Ken Anderson, “Induced Molting of Commercial Layers,” NC State Extension Publications , no. AG-801 (February 11, 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20160518055230/http://content.ces.ncsu.edu/induced-molting-of-commercial-layers ; M. Yousaf and A.s. Chaudhry, “History, Changing Scenarios and Future Strategies to Induce Moulting in Laying Hens,” World’s Poultry Science Journal 64, no. 01 (March 2008): 65–75, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933907001729 ; McDonald’s Cruelty: The Rotten Truth About Egg McMuffins , 2011, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6E8H3C1CrU ; Phillip Clauer, “Modern Egg Industry,” PennState Extension , July 5, 2012, https://web.archive.org/web/20161016041332/http://extension.psu.edu/animals/poultry/topics/general-educational-material/the-chicken/modern-egg-industry ; Susan C. Kahler and Gail C. Golab, “Shedding Light on Induced Molting,” JAVMA News , June 15, 2000, https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2000-07-01/shedding-light-induced-molting ; United Poultry Concerns, “The Animal Welfare and Food Safety Issues Associated With the Forced Molting of Laying Birds” (United Poultry Concerns, September 23, 2003), http://www.upc-online.org/molting/52703.htm ; A. B. Molino et al., “The Effects of Alternative Forced-Molting Methods on the Performance and Egg Quality of Commercial Layers,” Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola 11, no. 2 (June 2009): 109–13, https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-635X2009000200006 ; James Edward Rice, Clarence Arthur Rogers, and Clara Nixon, The Molting of Fowls (Cornell University, 1908), https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Molting_of_Fowls/eEQiAQAAMAAJ .
• Steven Leary and Gail C Golab, AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition (Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association, 2013), https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf ; The Council of the European Union, “Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing,” Pub. L. No. Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, § Date of document: 24/09/2009, Date of effect: 08/12/2009, Entry into force Date pub. + 20 See Art 30, Date of effect: 01/01/2013, Application See Art 30, Date of end of validity: 31/12/9999, OJ L 303 30 (2009), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF .
• Marian Stamp Dawkins and Sylvia Hardie, “Space Needs of Laying Hens,” British Poultry Science 30, no. 2 (June 1, 1989): 413–16, https://doi.org/10.1080/00071668908417163 ; Gregory Barber, “Are Cage-Free Eggs All They’re Cracked Up to Be?,” Mother Jones , February 10, 2016, http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2016/02/corporations-are-going-cage-free-whats-next-hens .
• Chase Purdy, “Egg Industry Yielding in Cage-Free Fight,” POLITICO , September 21, 2015, http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/egg-industry-hands-animal-advocates-big-win-in-cage-free-fight-213905 ; Terrence O’Keefe, “Egg Producers See Big Shift to Cage-Free Eggs by 2025,” WATTAgNet , February 11, 2016, sec. Poultry Welfare, http://www.wattagnet.com/articles/25650-egg-producers-see-big-shift-to-cage-free-eggs-by– ; Terrence O’Keefe, “US Cage-Free Egg Layer Flock Is Rapidly Increasing,” WATTAgNet , November 16, 2015, sec. Business & Markets, http://www.wattagnet.com/articles/24914-us-cage-free-egg-layer-flock-is-rapidly-increasing .
• Sara Shields and Ian JH Duncan, “A Comparison of the Welfare of Hens in Battery Cages and Alternative Systems,” An HSUS Report, IMPACTS ON FARM ANIMALS, 2009, http://animalstudiesrepository.org/hsus_reps_impacts_on_animals/18/ ; Barber, “Are Cage-Free Eggs All They’re Cracked Up to Be?”; British Hen Welfare Trust, “Enriched Cages,” BHWT.org, accessed March 31, 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20160331091200/http://www.bhwt.org.uk/egg-industry/enriched-cages/ ; Jason Lewis, “French Farmers Ignore Battery Hen Ban,” The Telegraph , January 1, 2012, sec. Earth News, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8986255/French-farmers-ignore-battery-hen-ban.html ; Jennifer Chaussee, “The Insanely Complicated Logistics of Cage-Free Eggs for All,” WIRED , January 25, 2016, http://www.wired.com/2016/01/the-insanely-complicated-logistics-of-cage-free-eggs-for-all/ .
• For an updated, in–depth exploration of mortality rates in layer hens, please see “ What Does Cage–Free Eggs Mean? “; Coalition For Sustainable Egg Supply, “Research Results Report Appendix,” Laying Hen Housing Research Project (The Center for Food Integrity, 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20160325092347/https://www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org/document_center/download/final-results/ResearchResultsReportAppendix.pdf ; Coalition For Sustainable Egg Supply, “Final Research Results Report,” Laying Hen Housing Research Project (The Center for Food Integrity, 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20160325090921/http://www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org/document_center/download/public/CSESResearchResultsReport.pdf ; Coalition For Sustainable Egg Supply, “Summary Research Results Report,” Laying Hen Housing Research Project (The Center for Food Integrity, March 2015), https://web.archive.org/web/20160325150951/http://www2.sustainableeggcoalition.org/document_center/download/final-results/SummaryResearchResultsReport.pdf .
• Christien Meindertsma, “How Pig Parts Make the World Turn,” http://www.ted.com/talks/christien_meindertsma_on_pig_05049?language=en ; Christien Meindertsma, PIG 05049 , 2007, Artist book with video documentation, 2007, https://christienmeindertsma.com/PIG-05049 .
• United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, “Good Practices for the Meat Industry. Section 3: Animal Identification Practices,” n.d., https://www.fao.org/3/y5454e/y5454e03.pdf ; Michael Neary and Ann Yager, “Methods of Livestock Identification” (Purdue University Department of Animal Sciences), accessed April 22, 2016, https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/as/as-556-w.pdf .
• 95th Congress, “Humane Methods of Slaughter Act,” 92 Stat. 1069 § Volume 92 (1978), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-92/pdf/STATUTE-92-Pg1069.pdf ; United States Department of Agriculture, “Humane Methods of Slaughter Act | Animal Welfare Information Center,” accessed April 22, 2016, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/policy/food-safety-acts/humane-methods-slaughter-act ; Government Printing Office and United States Department of Agriculture, “Humane Slaughter of Livestock Regulations,” § 313.5 9 CFR Ch. III (1–1–00 Edition) § Part 313 (n.d.), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2000-title9-vol2/pdf/CFR-2000-title9-vol2-part313.pdf ; American Veterinary Medical Association, “AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia” (United States Department of Agriculture, June 2007), https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/avma-guidelines-euthanasia-animals ; National Archives and Records Administration Office of the Federal Register, “92 Stat. 1069 – Humane Methods of Slaughter Act,” Pub. L. No. Public Law 95-445 (1978), https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/STATUTE-92/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.govinfo.gov%2Fapp%2Fdetails%2FSTATUTE-92%2FSTATUTE-92-Pg1069 ; Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration, “Title 9 – Animals and Animal Products,” AE 2.106/3:9/ § (2003), https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2003-title9-vol1/content-detail.html ; Steven Leary and Gail C Golab, AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition (Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association, 2013), https://www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Documents/euthanasia.pdf ; Geoffery S. Becker, “Nonambulatory Livestock and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act,” Congressional Research Service 7–5700 (March 24, 2009), http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RS22819.pdf ; Geoffery S. Becker, “USDA Meat Inspection and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress (United States Department of Agriculture, February 2008), https://web.archive.org/web/20160316015443/http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/19529 ; Government Printing Office., “Twenty-Eight Hour Law,” 49 USC, § Section 80502 (1994), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title49/pdf/USCODE-2011-title49-subtitleX-chap805-sec80502.pdf ; United States Department of Agriculture, The Twenty-Eight Hour Law Annotated: Act of Congress Approved June 29, 1906, C. 3594, 34 Stat. 607 …* (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1909), https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Twenty_eight_Hour_Law_Annotated/i2LNAAAAMAAJ ; Harry Goding, Joseph Raub, and United States Department of Agriculture: Bureau of Animal Industry, “The 28-Hour Law Regulating the Interstate Transportation of Live Stock; It’s Purpose, Requirements, and Enforcement,” Bulletin No. 589 § (1918), https://web.archive.org/web/20150914200449/https://awic.nal.usda.gov/sites/awic.nal.usda.gov/files/uploads/28hour1918.pdf ; Tadlock Cowan, “Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues,” *Congressional Research Service , 2012, http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/RS21842.pdf ; United States Congress House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Hearings Before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives [Jan. 23, 30 and Feb. 20, 1906] on House Bills 47, 145, 440, 10699, 12316, 12478, and 12615, Proposing to Extend the Time for Which Cattle and Other Animals May Be Confined During Shipment from One State to Another (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1906), https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/ykIvAAAAMAAJ?hl=en ; United States Government Accountability Office, “Action Needed to Address Unintended Consequences from Cessation of Domestic Slaughter,” Report to Congressional Committees, June 2011, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11228.pdf .
• For a deep–dive into the European Union’s regulations, see my speech delivered in Dublin, Ireland The Council of the European Union, “Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24 September 2009 on the Protection of Animals at the Time of Killing,” Pub. L. No. Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009, § Date of document: 24/09/2009, Date of effect: 08/12/2009, Entry into force Date pub. + 20 See Art 30, Date of effect: 01/01/2013, Application See Art 30, Date of end of validity: 31/12/9999, OJ L 303 30 (2009), http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:303:0001:0030:EN:PDF ; European Commission, “REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on Systems Restraining Bovine Animals by Inversion or Any Unnatural Position,” February 8, 2016, https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-48-EN-F1-1.PDF .
• “Butina Reference List of Customers,” November 2013, https://web.archive.org/web/20140311094717/http://www.butina.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/images/Case_stories/Reference_list_nov_2013..pdf .
• Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret , 2014, http://www.cowspiracy.com .
• Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, “Livestock and Climate Change: What If the Key Actors in Climate Change Are…Cows, Pigs, and Chickens?,” World Watch Magazine , December 2009, https://web.archive.org/web/20160528182943/http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf .
• Goodland and Anhang.
• Mario Herrero et al., “Biomass Use, Production, Feed Efficiencies, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Global Livestock Systems,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, no. 52 (December 24, 2013): 20888–93, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1308149110 ; Mesfin M. Mekonnen and Arjen Y. Hoekstra, “A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products,” Ecosystems 15, no. 3 (April 2012): 401–15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-011-9517-8 ; P. W. Gerbens-Leenes, M. M. Mekonnen, and A. Y. Hoekstra, “The Water Footprint of Poultry, Pork and Beef: A Comparative Study in Different Countries and Production Systems,” Water Resources and Industry , Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) for better water governance and sustainable development, 1–2 (March 2013): 25–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wri.2013.03.001 .
• Pete Smith et al., “Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU),” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , n.d., https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf ; Philip Thornton, Mario Herrero, and Polly Ericksen, “Livestock and Climate Change,” Livestock XChange , no. no 3 (2011), https://clippings.ilri.org/2011/11/03/livestock-and-climate-change-2/ .
• Dr Richard Oppenlander, Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work (Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street Press, 2013), https://www.google.com/books/edition/Food_Choice_and_Sustainability/nZYRAgAAQBAJ ; Sérgio Margulis, Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon , World Bank Working Paper, no. 22 (Washington, D.C: World Bank, 2004), https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/758171468768828889/pdf/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf .
• “PRESS RELEASE LOUISIANA UNIVERSITIES MARINE CONSORTIUM,” August 4, 2014, https://web.archive.org/web/20150505163537/http://www.gulfhypoxia.net/Research/Shelfwide%20Cruises/2014/Hypoxia_Press_Release_2014.pdf ; EarthTalk, “What Causes Ocean ‘Dead Zones’?,” Scientific American, accessed February 26, 2016, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-dead-zones/ ; United States Environmental Protection Agency, “What’s the Problem? | Animal Waste | Region 9 | US EPA,” July 3, 2015, https://web.archive.org/web/20150703204620/http://www3.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html ; Henning Steinfeld et al., Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006); World Wildlife Fund, “Impact of Habitat Loss on Species,” accessed February 26, 2016, http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/ ; Center for Biological Diversity, “How Eating Meat Hurts Wildlife and the Planet,” Take Extinction Off Your Plate, accessed February 26, 2016, http://www.takeextinctionoffyourplate.com/meat_and_wildlife.html ; Dr Richard Oppenlander, “Freshwater Depletion: Realities of Choice,” Comfortablyunaware (blog), accessed February 26, 2016, https://comfortablyunaware.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/freshwater-depletion-realities-of-choice/ ; Oppenlander, Food Choice and Sustainability ; C. Michael Hogan, “Causes of Extinction,” in The Encyclopedia of Earth , accessed February 26, 2016, http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150962/ ; Brian Machovina, Kenneth J. Feeley, and William J. Ripple, “Biodiversity Conservation: The Key Is Reducing Meat Consumption,” Science of The Total Environment 536 (December 1, 2015): 419–31, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022 ; Dr Richard Oppenlander, “Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification,” Comfortably Unaware (blog), June 9, 2012, https://comfortablyunaware.wordpress.com/2012/06/09/biodiversity-and-food-choice-a-clarification/ .
• Arjen Hoekstra and Water Footprint Network, “Water Footprint Product Gallery,” Water Footprint Network, 2017, https://waterfootprint.org/en/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/ ; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, “A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products”; M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra, “The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products,” 2010, https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-green-blue-and-grey-water-footprint-of-animals-and-animal-pro .
• Mekonnen and Hoekstra, “The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products”; Arjen Y Hoekstra, “Water for Animal Products: A Blind Spot in Water Policy,” Environmental Research Letters 9, no. 9 (September 1, 2014): 091003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/9/091003 ; The Water Footprint Network, “Water Footprint Of Crop And Animal Products: A Comparison,” accessed March 13, 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20160508002219/https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/ .
• Mekonnen and Hoekstra, “The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products.”
• Mekonnen and Hoekstra; The Water Footprint Network, “Water Footprint Of Crop And Animal Products: A Comparison”; Hoekstra, “Water for Animal Products.”
• Mekonnen and Hoekstra, “The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products”; Hoekstra, “Water for Animal Products”; The Water Footprint Network, “Water Footprint Of Crop And Animal Products: A Comparison.”
• For an updated an in–depth look at the diversion of food crops, please see “ Can Veganism Solve World Hunger “; “U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain That Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists,” Cornell Chronicle , August 7, 1997, http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat .
• For an updated an in–depth look at the diversion of food crops, please see “ Can Veganism Solve World Hunger “; “U.S. Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain That Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists.”
• For an updated an in-depth look at the relationship of diet and world hunger, see “ Can Veganism Solve World Hunger “; United Nations World Food Programme, “Hunger Statistics,” accessed March 13, 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20160307041628/https://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats ; “2015 World Hunger and Poverty Facts and Statistics by WHES,” accessed March 11, 2016, https://web.archive.org/web/20160304015534/http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm .
• M. M. Mekonnen and A. Y. Hoekstra, “The Green, Blue and Grey Water Footprint of Farm Animals and Animal Products,” 2010, https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-green-blue-and-grey-water-footprint-of-animals-and-animal-pro .
• Dr Richard Oppenlander, Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work (Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street Press, 2013), https://www.google.com/books/edition/Food_Choice_and_Sustainability/nZYRAgAAQBAJ ; Johnny Seeds, “Direct Seeded Vegetable Crops,” n.d.; “Animal Industry Report Released by Iowa State Animal Science Department,” Iowa State University , February 16, 2012, https://www.cals.iastate.edu/news/releases/animal-industry-report-released-iowa-state-animal-science-department ; Iowa State University, “Journal Repository,” Animal Industry Report , accessed March 29, 2023, https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/entities/journal/ad42728d-b712-4852-b654-b04d0188497f .
• John Robbins, Diet for a New America: How Your Food Choices Affect Your Health, Happiness and the Future of Life on Earth Second Edition , 25th Anniversary Edition edition (Tiburon, California : Novato, California: HJ Kramer/New World Library, 2012), https://www.google.com/books/edition/Diet_for_a_New_America/iHK3kKfcGngC ; Johnny Seeds, “Direct Seeded Vegetable Crops.”
• National Soybean Research Laboratory. “Benefits of Soy.” Accessed September 10, 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20150818090612/http://nsrl.illinois.edu/content/benefits-soy.
• Janet Raloff, “AAAS: Climate-Friendly Dining … Meats,” Science News , February 15, 2009, https://web.archive.org/web/20160328183902/https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-public/aaas-climate-friendly-dining-%E2%80%A6-meats .
• John Roach, “Source of Half Earth’s Oxygen Gets Little Credit,” National Geographic News , June 7, 2004, https://web.archive.org/web/20160302050244/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html ; Dr Jack Hall, “The Most Important Organism?,” Ecology Global Network, September 12, 2011, https://web.archive.org/web/20150305131359/http://www.ecology.com/2011/09/12/important-organism/ ; Diana Nelson, “Save the Plankton, Breathe Freely,” National Geographic Education , February 28, 2012, https://web.archive.org/web/20160406053709/http://education.nationalgeographic.org/activity/save-the-plankton-breathe-freely/ .
• Trisha B. Atwood et al., “Predators Help Protect Carbon Stocks in Blue Carbon Ecosystems,” Nature Climate Change 5, no. 12 (September 28, 2015): 1038–45, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2763 .
• Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm, “Rapid Worldwide Depletion of Predatory Fish Communities,” Nature 423, no. 6937 (May 15, 2003): 280–83, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01610 .
• Atwood et al., “Predators Help Protect Carbon Stocks in Blue Carbon Ecosystems”; Sarah Sedghi, “Shark Culling May Be Contributing to Climate Change,” ABC News , September 29, 2015, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-29/sharks-and-other-predators-help-prevent-climate-change/6813042 .
• The “tonnes” referred to throughout this paper are metric tons. [tonne/metric ton = 1,000kg/ 2,204.6lbs; ton(UK) = 1,016kg/2,240lbs; ton(US) = 907.2kg/2,000lbs]
• Fen Montaigne, “The Global Fisheries Crises (Still Waters, The Global Fish Crisis),” National Geographic , April 2007, https://web.archive.org/web/20160312042537/http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/04/global-fisheries-crisis/montaigne-text ; United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), “The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012,” 2012, http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2727e/i2727e01.pdf .
• The Last Fish: Our Exhausted Seas (English Dubbing of German Documentary “Der Letzte Fisch: Unsere Meere Am Scheideweg”)*, 2011, https://youtu.be/lQoVQRqQhlI with original German: https://youtu.be/_bzM_MSZNiE .
• Environmental Justice Foundation, “Squandering The Seas: How Shrimp Trawling Is Threatening Ecological Integrity and Food Security Around the World.,” 2003, https://web.archive.org/web/20140628204336/https://ejfoundation.org/sites/default/files/public/squandering_the_seas.pdf ; *The Last Fish: Our Exhausted Seas (English Dubbing of German Documentary “Der Letzte Fisch: Unsere Meere Am Scheideweg”)*.
• Dean Ornish, “Intensive Lifestyle Changes and Health Reform,” *The Lancet Oncology 10, no. 7 (July 2009): 638–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70175-5 ; Michael Greger, M.D. and Gene Stone, How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease (Flatiron Books, 2015), https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_Not_to_Die/wzupCQAAQBAJ .
• D. Ornish et al., “Effects of Stress Management Training and Dietary Changes in Treating Ischemic Heart Disease,” JAMA 249, no. 1 (January 7, 1983): 54–59; Greger, M.D. and Stone, How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease .
• Kelly M. Adams, Martin Kohlmeier, and Steven H. Zeisel, “Nutrition Education in U.S. Medical Schools: Latest Update of a National Survey,” Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 85, no. 9 (September 2010): 1537–42, https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181eab71b ; Greger, M.D. and Stone, How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease .
• C. B. Esselstyn et al., “A Strategy to Arrest and Reverse Coronary Artery Disease: A 5-Year Longitudinal Study of a Single Physician’s Practice,” The Journal of Family Practice 41, no. 6 (December 1995): 560–68, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500065 ; Caldwell B. Esselstyn et al., “A Way to Reverse CAD?,” The Journal of Family Practice 63, no. 7 (July 2014): 356–64, http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf ; Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr., “Foreword: Changing the Treatment Paradigm for Coronary Artery Disease,” American Journal of Cardiology 82, no. 10 (November 26, 1998): 2–4, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(98)00714-0 ; C. B. Esselstyn, “In Cholesterol Lowering, Moderation Kills,” Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 67, no. 8 (August 2000): 560–64, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10946449 ; Caldwell B. Esselstyn Jr. and René G. Favaloro, “Introduction: More than Coronary Artery Disease,” American Journal of Cardiology 82, no. 10 (November 26, 1998): 5–9, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(98)00715-2 ; C. B. Esselstyn, “Resolving the Coronary Artery Disease Epidemic Through Plant-Based Nutrition,” Preventive Cardiology 4, no. 4 (2001): 171–77, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11832674 ; Caldwell Esselstyn and Mladen Golubic, “The Nutritional Reversal of Cardiovascular Disease – Fact or Fiction? Three Case Reports,” Experimental & Clinical Cardiology 20, no. 7 (2014), http://www.dresselstyn.com/Esselstyn_Three-case-reports_Exp-Clin-Cardiol-July-2014.pdf ; C. B. Esselstyn, “Updating a 12-Year Experience with Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease (an Overdue Requiem for Palliative Cardiology),” The American Journal of Cardiology 84, no. 3 (August 1, 1999): 339–41, A8, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10496449 ; Greger, M.D. and Stone, How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease .
• Caldwell B. Esselstyn, “Is the Present Therapy for Coronary Artery Disease the Radical Mastectomy of the Twenty-First Century?,” The American Journal of Cardiology 106, no. 6 (September 2010): 902–4, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2010.05.016 ; C. B. Esselstyn, “Presidential Address: Beyond Surgery. American Association of Endocrine Surgeons,” Surgery 110, no. 6 (December 1991): 923–27, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1745979 | full transcript: http://www.dresselstyn.com/site/study06 /.

Full Bibliography

Related topics, reader interactions, comment etiquette.

BiteSizeVegan.org encourages a meaningful, educational and thought-provoking community. Commenting is open to everyone. In order to foster a welcoming and engaging environment, please familiarize yourself with the guidelines below before commenting. Any comments found in breach of the comment policy, or Terms of Service will be removed, and may result in your account being banned.

• First and foremost, be respectful; if you disagree with another community member, voice this constructively.
• Rude, harassing, aggressive, and/or derogatory remarks towards anyone will be removed and could result in your account being banned.Everyone is welcome in this community; any comments designed to promote exclusion will be removed.
• Comments deemed to be spam or solely promotional in nature (whether for yourself or on behalf of a third party) will be removed. Including a link to relevant external content is permitted in specific cases, but should be relevant to the post topic.
• This site includes content for young adults and supervised minors; comments including profanity or language or concepts that could be deemed offensive or inappropriate will be removed.
• By using BiteSizeVegan.org, you agree to restrict your comments to either personal experience or factual information; please include sources for any non-personal experience whenever possible.
• Please do not reply to comments that are in violation of these guidelines. Instead, please help by reporting them for removal .

Please note this list is not comprehensive and that BiteSizeVegan.org reserves the right to edit or delete any comments submitted without notice. This comment policy is subject to change at any time. Please help us build a safe and respectful community by reporting any comments in violation of these guidelines .

31 Comments

May 10, 2016 at 9:55 am

A cogent, powerful speech. Thank you.

May 27, 2016 at 3:48 am

Very, very good job.(I hope I’m excused from watching the 3 minute video since I’ve been vegan for a couple years. I just couldn’t bear it.)

June 15, 2016 at 1:51 pm

Soon! someday i will find the time in my busy life to translate this whole speech in Spanish, prepare myself to present a speech like yours and go back to Peru and Latin America to share the vegan message THIS clear and THIS factual.

lots of vegan love Emily! :D

September 18, 2016 at 4:57 pm

I stopped eating all animal products exept for organic eggs and fish. But after seeing this its hard for me to even eat those 2 things. I said before that you dont focus on human suffering. But its also good to point out how animals are treated. I cried when i saw how the animals were abused and tortured. Im a christian, the Bible says that you shouldnt treat your animal with cruelty. Im disgusted by the state of the world were in. Its a culture of death so thick that pervades this society, only Christ’s coming can change it! We are rotten and sick people for doing the things we do to all creation! tomorrowsworld

January 9, 2017 at 5:51 pm

Thank you, thank you, thank you for making this video! You said everything so perfectly, with just the right amount of blame that won’t make meat eaters angry, but instead, maybe start considering what the true extreme choice here is. I will definitely be sharing this on my Facebook, instagram, blog, family and friends, etc. I’m so proud to be vegan and you are a true role model. Thank you!!

January 9, 2017 at 11:52 pm

Thank you so much Valerie! So honored to hear that this speech was effective for you :) I do feel that it’s probably the best “generalized” speech of mine, meaning one you can send to almost anyone. Anyways! I so appreciate your feedback. All the best to you!

April 5, 2023 at 3:31 pm

I agree with what Mark S. wrote above. I wouldn’t change anything with regard to your speech. And the same thing goes for your video. Sadly, people who aren’t vegan (yet) need to hear your words. You’re speaking the truth. And of course, sometimes the truth hurts. I’m already familiar with what happens to animals used for food, entertainment, etc. and even I am hurting for the animals. The video is extremely difficult to watch — but as you said, you can not watch and just listen.

I especially like that you make the point that people should extend the love and compassion they show toward certain creatures (I’m trying to reference the part when you talk about Finding Nemo, et. al., but can’t remember it all — sorry!), toward all animals, including those used for the purposes I stated above. It’s that “disconnect” that so many people don’t get. And the disconnect often is unintentional. It was for me, until I learned the facts. This education is so important and you present it so well.

It’s obvious to me that you spent a lot of time on writing your speech, doing your research — so you could use *facts”, and making the video. I know you’re not looking for compliments but way to go, Emily! Fantastic job.

Thank you so much for doing this — for the animals, our planet, and more.

April 5, 2023 at 3:57 pm

Randy, thank you so much for your profoundly kind words about my speech. I am honored to hear that you find it to be effective in conveying the realities of what we do to non-human animals. And yes, the part with loving animals while eating other animals is this section . I am so appreciative of you taking the time to share your feedback with me. And honored that the work I put into this seems to be of some worth. Many thanks!

April 5, 2023 at 5:31 pm

Hi again, Emily, Thank you so much for your kind reply. And thank you for the link to what I was *trying* to reference! Yes, that’s it — “this most glaring dissonance—this duality of our professed values and our daily actions”. I’m so glad you presented this in your speech so very well. In my opinion, this really gets to the core of what veganism is all about. If I were in your audience, listening to your talk — *that* is what would get my attention and help me to think about, most of all. The rest of your speech is wonderful, of course. It’s just that the concept of understanding the “dissonance” or the “disconnect” with regard to animals is what I feel could be the best catalyst for the kind of change we’re hoping for. I’m not sure whether that came out “on paper” as I had intended, but the feeling is there in my head and in my heart.

April 5, 2023 at 5:50 pm

I agree that it is a powerful point of emphasis! I actually discuss this in this section of a speech I gave to vegan activists .

April 7, 2023 at 8:58 pm

This speech was powerful and you touched on all the important reasons to change to a vegan whole plant based diet. My only wish is that everyone could hear this speech. Thank you for speaking out for those who can’t. Beautifully done, Emily!

April 8, 2023 at 9:49 am

Thank you so very much, Judi! I’m honored to hear that you found the speech to be effective. Thank you for taking the time to comment and share this with me.

February 3, 2018 at 12:24 am

Hi! Thank you so much for this powerful speech, and all the other fantastic educational work you’ve done. How have I only just discovered you??? Thank you for your time and keep up the awesome work!

January 9, 2022 at 5:43 pm

I was only Vegan 8 years and departed after being put in a nursing home that would not give me vegan food. I fear my health is dictating that I should return to this most compassionate of lifestyles not only for the animals this time, but for myself too..

April 5, 2023 at 12:32 pm

Well done! Worth the countless hours you spent on it. Can’t think of a single word I’d change.

One note, when I watch the video the 3 minute clip that starts at 21 minutes is blurred out. I can hear the audio but all I see is extremely blurred video. Not that I really want to see it again. I can tell from the audio I’ve seen many of the clips in some of you earlier videos.

April 5, 2023 at 12:37 pm

Mark, Thank you so much for your feedback! RE: the blurring, you can see the uncensored footage still on this post . You’ll also see there the explanation for why I had to blur the footage in the original YouTube video. I hope that’s helpful! It was a hard decision to make. I hope the way I’ve gone about it has struck a decent balance.

UPDATE: I have now added a “banner” below the video embed at the top of the post to hopefully make it clear to anyone at the top about the play the video. The text links to the footage embedded within the post. I hope this helps orient people more! I really appreciate your feedback on this experience!

April 5, 2023 at 2:24 pm

My experience as well. It would have been helpful if the blurring explanation was more obvious and part of the clip’s introduction as I was confused, wondering whether the problem was on my end.

April 5, 2023 at 2:49 pm

I totally understand and wish I was able to do that. The only way I was able to un-age-restrict the existing video was to use the (very limited) YouTube editor. It allows you to make very, very limited changes to already-published YouTube videos. I was able to blur and get the age-restriction lifted. However, there is no way for me to actually edit the video to add an explanation within the video itself. I did add a “card” that comes out of the upper right of the video right at the moment the footage starts. I also added notes to the description, first comment (only on YouTube, obviously), and then on this post, within the body of the article. I do apologize that this is not an ideal situation. But of the limited options available to me, it was the best I could find.

April 5, 2023 at 2:58 pm

Dear Emily, It was very helpful to learn how you put together speeches and articles. It is a good entry point for those new to veganism. I only had books to rely on, but your informative articles speak plainly and directly to people.

It is definitely a one source place to learn and find all the information needed. People now have a place not only to learn but to share with other like-minded people. It is tough for those new to veganism not to have anyone to share and exchange information with. Now thanks to you we do.

April 5, 2023 at 3:03 pm

Sally, thank you so much for always taking the time to grace me with a thoughtful comment. Really brightens my day. I’m glad that you enjoyed learning more about the “behind-the-scenes” of making these educational resources. I’m honored by your framing of my work. I do so hope that it serves as a growing library of resources that are approachable, accessible and effective. Many thanks always!

April 6, 2023 at 6:00 am

Hi Emily.I remember sharing this speech years ago when you first made it.This is one of the best speeches I have seen on the “brushed under the carpet”subject.

Very good work Emily,you are one of the reasons i went the compassionate route all those years ago.

Thank you,you are a blessing to this planet.

April 6, 2023 at 5:38 pm

Thank you so very much, Paul! That means a great deal to me. I hope this speech can continue to reach people. I’m so incredibly honored to have had any role in your journey. Thank you for taking the time to comment.

April 7, 2023 at 5:37 am

You are most welcome Emily.

April 7, 2023 at 2:39 am

Thank you for your great effort for making the most comprehensive, essential, and depth work on veganism and animal advocacy.

April 7, 2023 at 8:57 am

Thank you, Chris! That means so much to me. I do hope this speech can continue to reach people.

April 9, 2023 at 9:42 pm

Finally watched the behind the scenes video and part of this one, and skimmed the transcript. Sorry for the delay.

This speech is so powerful, so well thought out, written, organized, and so well presented. (Where was it delivered?) It is easily on par with Gary Yourofsky’s “best speech ever” and deserves the same exposure and accolades. I shared it on FB (the only social media platform I’m on).

Each one of the sub-sections of the transcript is a world in itself to explore and learn about. You have probably done a video on each of those sub-sections.

Sometimes the truth is difficult to hear, especially when we have been deliberately lied and believed lies those lies our whole life. I hope everyone will watch this speech and that they do so with an open mind and heart, and change their behavior to match values that, as you point out, they already hold.

Thank you so so much, Emily.

April 11, 2023 at 8:32 am

Thank you so much for the feedback, David, and for sharing the speech! It was delivered in Worcester, Massachusetts. I’m honored to hear how effective it’s come across for you and do so hope it remains a solid “entry point” to veganism.

April 13, 2023 at 9:25 pm

Absolutely brilliant powerful inspiring. Thank you. I’m sharing the link WIDELY! Vegan for over 34 years, this is one of the BEST presentations I’ve seen. It made me so PROUD to be vegan for the animals.

April 14, 2023 at 7:45 am

Veda, I cannot express how much it means to me to hear that you found my presentation to be so effective. And thank you SO much for sharing it! I can only do so much to get the resources I create “out there” to the public. Sharing it with others is SUCH a service, and I greatly appreciate it. I just want everyone to have access to the truth—I believe everyone deserves to know the true impact of their choices and have the opportunity to align their actions with their values. Many thanks!

January 13, 2024 at 6:55 am

Well done. When I watched it the footage in the middle was blurred.

January 15, 2024 at 8:16 am

Thank you so much, John. I unfortunately had to blur the footage in order for YouTube to un-age-restrict the video. You can watch the uncensored footage at this point in the article . (There is also an explanation for the blurring within the accordion)

Leave a Comment: Cancel reply

Your Comment

Notify me via email if someone replies to my comment. Note: If this is your first time subscribing to comment notifications, you will need to click the link in a confirmation email you'll receive after submitting your comment. If you've previously confirmed at the same email, you should not have to confirm a second time.

Content & Resources

• Guided Search
• Browse by Topic
• Browse All Content
• Get Started Guides

Get Involved

• Donate to Bite Size Vegan

Subscribe to Bite Size Vegan

• How to Use This Site
• Report A Problem

Stay up-to-date with Bite Size Vegan. Choose your subscription method below to be notified when new Bite Size Vegan content and resources are published, as well as receive occasional updates.

Subscribing to Bite Size Vegan's Telegram channel is the most reliable way to ensure you're notified of new content and updates. You can download Telegram for free on both your mobile device and desktop computer.

Subscribe via Email Newsletter

Get a free eBook when you subscribe!

(Available in: English, Español)

If you prefer email, fill in the simple form above and choose how often you'll like to be notified of new Bite Size Vegan content. You may change your frequency and subscription preferences at any time.

Or, for the "cool kids," Subscribe via RSS: https://bitesizevegan.org/feed

Why I'm a weekday vegetarian

• global issues
• sustainability

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

current events conversation

What Students Are Saying About Vegetarianism, Parental Advice and How We Listen

Teenage comments in response to our recent writing prompts, and an invitation to join the ongoing conversation.

By The Learning Network

For this week’s roundup of student comments on our writing prompts , we asked teenagers to tell us what they think about vegetarianism, share how often they turn to their parents for advice, and interpret an image about talking and listening.

Before we jump in, we want to offer a warm welcome to new classes who joined the conversation this week from Arleta, Calif. ; Arts in Action Middle School, Calif. ; Cape Town, South Africa ; Columbus, Ohio ; Michigan ; North Hollywood, Calif. ; Polytechnic Senior High, Calif. ; Springville, N.Y. ; and Washington .

Please note: Student comments have been lightly edited for length, but otherwise appear exactly as they were originally submitted.

Would You Ever Consider Becoming Vegetarian?

In the Opinion piece “ I Admire Vegetarians. It’s a Choice I Won’t Ever Make, ” Alicia P.Q. Wittmeyer discusses how meat is central to her family’s culture, and the challenges involved with ever giving meat up.

We asked students if they were vegetarian or vegan or if they had ever thought about adopting that diet. They told us how their cultures, the environment, ethics and health reasons have all influenced their decisions about what they eat and don’t eat.

Holding onto cultural traditions — with or without meat

In my big Italian family, food is the center of every occasion, event, and party. My family as well myself love to cook and we sit down and eat dinner with each other every night and even have family dinners with my uncle, aunt, and cousins on Sundays. I can’t imagine a major holiday like Christmas without seafood or meatballs, it just wouldn’t be the same.

— Josie S., Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, IL

Meat has a significant impact on my life, much more so than I thought. As an Asian, more specifically Korean, my family eats meat daily. If I were to be a vegetarian or vegan, I would become a burden on my family. My mom would have to change her grocery plan to fit my specific needs on top of the rest of my six-person family. When visiting grandparents or aunts and uncles, whether it be for a reunion or holiday, meat is served in almost all dishes. I would either have to ask them to make something specifically for me, bring my own meal, or simply not eat. Food is a big part of bonding as well. Korean barbecue is a frequented holiday meal and I can become detached from my family if I do not participate.

— Sophia Lee, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, IL

I am not necessarily a vegetarian, but there have been times when I have had to do so because of religious beliefs. Every time there is a full moon, my family and I do not eat meat or go vegetarian for a day. We choose to do this because we believe that by not harming the animals the Gods will return us a favor in the future. My family and I rarely eat red meat, but we do have a lot of chicken and fish. I think that if we tried to go vegan or vegetarian it would be easy because our meals already consist of a lot of vegetables.

— Phebe Truong, J.R Masterman

I grew up in a Mexican family where meat was so prevalent in the food we ate, yet, my parents and I quit meat back in 2015. Not eating meat would mean alienating ourselves from our histories and traditions, but I would argue this is a good thing. It’s these past traditions that have put our planet in this harsh, urgent condition. I disagree with the notion of placing our personal wants before an issue which is or will impact everyone: climate change. We somehow value our taste buds that much? To me, the cultural aspect of meat and food itself is little compared to our ideas, our languages, our music, etc.

— Oscar Espejel, Glenbard West High School, Glen Ellyn IL

I am not a vegetarian or vegan, however I do observe a number of meat free and egg free (lacto-vegetarian) days for religious reasons. I am South African-Indian Hindu and take part in a fast that abstains from the consumption of meat and eggs, every Monday, Tuesday and occasional Hindu auspicious days. My family and I also take part in a month long fast from mid September to mid October in the Tamil month of Purtassi and we do not eat beef and pork at all.

In the past three years I have continuously contemplated becoming vegetarian for religious, ethical and environmental reasons, and it’s a constant battle because living a vegetarian lifestyle comes with great benefits. My closest friends are also vegetarian and I always feel uncomfortable eating meat around them.

— Keenen Gilbert, Cape Town, Soth Africa

I’ve been vegan actually for four years now (since I was 12, I’m 16 now). I’m Puerto Rican, therefore meat is a big part of my culture. It’s really easy and my family is very supportive. Whenever my parents cook they just make my own meal with vegan products.

— Alejandro, South Carolina

Eating for the environment

I have been a vegetarian for four years and while it can be hard to find food sometimes in such a carnist society, I can’t say that I regret it. To me, it’s a matter of having as little impact on the Earth as I can. Over a year, a vegetarian will use 3 fewer acres of land, be responsible for 60% fewer emissions, and save up to 270 animals. In a growing population, turning to vegetarianism and veganism is the only way that we will be able to feed our entire population because of the huge amounts of land we use to grow grain for livestock and graze them.

I am tired of hearing the excuse, “But I really like meat.” Yes, ideally, it would be great if we could all eat meat, but we are currently in a climate crisis. Big problems require big solutions and changing your diet is the single biggest thing you can do to lower your emissions.

— Cooper Hyldahl, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

Throughout all my years, I have been on and off vegetarian. It started in middle school and to this day, I try to avoid meat. I think that the reasoning behind it is more targeted for the food industry and the pure animal abuse that is behind the meat (and dairy) industry. If everyone in the world became vegetarian and continued a sustainable lifestyle, our CO2 emissions would plummet, as well as greenhouse gasses and other harmful chemicals. For years I’ve been finding new ways to replace meat in my diet and I don’t miss meat at all -and that’s coming from a steakhouse chefs daughter.

— Ava Iserloth, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, IL

I admire people who become vegetarian for environmental reasons, since usually they have had meat before, probably miss it, but want to do what is best for the Earth. It is also probably a healthier option. But I eat meat practically every day.

No. I would never go vegetarian in my life. I like cheeseburgers, steak, and chicken and I couldn’t imagine only eating salad and veggie burgers. If anything I would minimize my meat intake but I’d never stop eating meat and become a vegetarian. With the new impossible burger from Burger King I think it would be interesting to try to new plant based burgers and chicken and everything but I would never not eat burgers, steak, or chicken.

— Nolan Hart, Glenbard West High School, IL

Choosing the best option for my health

I think that becoming a vegetarian is a brave decision. I have seen many people who are vegetarian and can keep their decision to do not eat meat at all, but I cannot. I consider a balanced diet that brings me different amino acids and minerals which are necessaries for my body. A balanced diet contains proteins, carbohydrates, vegetables, fruits, grains, and dairy. One of the proteins from this diet is meat that is important because it brings us iron, some essential amino acids, vitamins A and B12.

— Andrea SW, YC CLIP

I chose to become pescatarian for a variety of reasons, the first being the health benefits. As a ballet dancer I have to be very careful with what I put into my body to power myself while maintaining how I look, so I decided to cut out red meat, then chicken and now I am left with fish. I have found that by doing this, my body has responded in a positive way, lending it towards dance more.

— Lauren Alving, Glenbard West High school

Nine months ago I decided to become vegetarian. While I’ve eaten meat my entire life, I felt better without it. The thing is, it hasn’t made this drastic impact, my family continues to eat meat, I don’t feel the need to pressure others into not eating it, and I continue to go out to eat wherever I want. Becoming a vegetarian can be for your own reasons, for me I felt healthier without the grease, as well as the impact the meat industry has on the environment.

— Charlotte Todd, Hoggard High School

Making ethical decisions about food

Last year for about 6 months I actually was vegetarian. I saw this video about how they processed meat in factories, it was heartbreaking seeing what they did to the animals. When I was vegetarian I couldn’t even fathom eating meat. I’m very lucky to have a family that supports me and were more than willing to cook separate meals for me that didn’t contain meat.

— Bailey Hughes, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

In my short 16 years of being alive, I have found few foods that I enjoy, in all honesty, certain meat products are ones I have come to enjoy. So being a vegetarian or vegan isn’t something I really would want to do. And I don't think that it will stop the problem of animal abuse and neglect by huge mass producing farms. Local small farms that actually care for their animals and offer them a healthy, normal life are the best way to protect animal welfare. Treat them with love and they will treat you with love back.

— Gabe Pellette, Springville, Ny

I get why people become vegetarian; they are against killing animals and the abusive nature of how they are raised. I can see why people don’t like that, but in my opinion refusing to eat meat won’t change what’s going on. If you go into a store and refuse to buy meat, then someone else after you is going to end up buying it. If the meats already in the package and in stores, you might as well not let it go to waste. That’s my philosophy, but I also believe the meat industry is very cruel and they should find other ways to operate their industry.

— Luke Zemenak, Glenbard West, Glen Ellyn, IL

Do You Turn to Your Parents for Advice?

Why do teenagers reject parents’ solutions to their problems? “It’s usually because we’re not giving them what they’re really looking for,” Lisa Damour writes in an article about how teenagers want their parents to respond.

We asked students who they go to when they need help. Many thought they were “different” than most teenagers because they do turn to their parents for advice. But in the responses below, you’ll see they’re not alone. Others told us about the friends, teachers and family members who they prefer talking to, and why.

Turning to parents in times of need

After school, the first person I talk to is my mom. We talk about our days, the good and the bad. She is literally my best friend. I ask her for advice on just about everything. It shows that you can build a strong and trustful bond between a parent and child … My parents are two people in this world who I trust the most, and by opening that line of communication between us, it makes my life so much better.

— Katie, Hanover

Most of the time, I turn to my mom for advice (in any situation). She always says her opinion on things so confidently, which, I guess, somehow satisfies me. Even if the solution she gives me isn’t what I was particularly looking for, her reasoning on why she thought/felt that way always seems to make sense. Also, because she says things so confidently and with good reasoning, it gives me a whole new perspective to the problem.

— Chloe, Saigon South Int. School, HCMC, Vietnam

I do ask my mother for advice most of the time. When I do I feel like I’m getting the right solution. But, sometimes it can be hard to talk to her. Like, when she does not understand what I’m inferring to or, I have to repeat myself. Which, gets very annoying. But, I still ask and try to explain to her. My mother is also supportive of my decisions. I don’t know what I’ll have done without her.

— Samantha, Northern Academy

At a younger stage of my life, I believed the best place to go with problems or questions was my friends and not my parents. As I’ve grown, I’ve done the exact opposite. Realizing that my parents have experienced way more than me has opened me up to them. Many of the problems I face today seem like grown up problems that need to be taken care of by adults, as I become an adult I learn by my parents helping me solve these problems.

— Jakub M, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, IL

I am lucky to have parents that listen to me and give me good advice. Many times after something happens that upsets me, I often turn to my mom to complain about teachers, tests and homework, as well as drama that happens with friends and peers. My mom has been through high school before, so she knows what it is like. Although, when she was in high school, many things were very different. So at times, it is hard for her to understand what I am going through. This can cause miscommunications or me getting frustrated and going to talk to a friend about it.

— Keira McWilliams, Hoggard High School in Wilmington NC

Seeking solace in friends, teachers and other family members

I think it’s easier to go to an older friend. Someone who has truly had experience but also understands what we may be going through. Parents sometimes don’t really understand the stress some of us have. They forget what it was like to be our age.

— Sydney Short, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

I usually go to a teacher I trust because they have known me for a long time and they actually give advice. Sometimes my mom will just get upset when I ask her for advice. I only really ask her about my grades. Then she will never give me advice she’ll only get upset and ask me how I got there instead of helping.

— Renee Regnier, Nipomo High School

To me, talking to my parents about an issue is an awkward experience. If I have an issue that I need help solving I usually hop on my phone and text my group chat. All 15 people in the group chat are some of my closest friends that I feel like I can share anything with.

— Dean, Glenbard West Highschool

When I need advice specifically at school, I have multiple teachers that I am comfortable talking to. For instance, earlier this year I was having a problem with anxiety, and my math teacher from last year helped me through it. When I was feeling overwhelmed, I would go to her classroom and we would talk out my problems. I think having these trusting relationships with mothers and teachers is healthy and important for students because it gives them away to comfortably discuss their emotions.

— Summer Brown, Bryant, Arkansas

Personally, I don’t like going to my parents for advice. Nothing against my parents but I think my friends understand me better. I feel more comfortable turning to a friend for help rather than one of my parents. My parents will say that I can tell them anything and that they will help but, whenever I do they start lecturing me on what I have done wrong or how I haven’t done anything to help. I feel like whenever I turn to my parents for help it’s just a headache for me to deal with.

— Brianna K., J.R Masterman

Concerns about parents’ expectations and disapproval

Though it may seem reasonable to seek advice or help from your parents, in my case it does not rest the same. Growing up with immigrant parents was difficult, in the aspect that they were not as open enough to me and were highly strict with their parenting terms. Their strictness may have prevented me from opening up to a relationship with them, but for many cases found in immigrant families, it is more likely, causing more signs of anxiety and depression.

— Vanessa Gonzalez, John H. Francis Polytechnic High School

My issue is when I try to talk to my mom about situations that are happening in my life, she nicely tells me that it’s my fault that I’m in the situation and then gives me a lecture about knowing right from wrong and other similar subjects. First of all that’s not helpful second it makes me feel attacked and then I don’t want to talk anymore. So I don't tell myself much of anything unless I really have to. Although I wouldn’t mind telling my mom everything going on in my life, it just never goes well for me.

— Daleah Vallardo, California

It’s hard and uncomfortable for me to share my problems with my parents because they don’t always react how I want them to. Sometimes they say that it’s my fault, so I don’t really talk to them about my issues, because I think I can handle them on my own. Also, I know that they’re busy and don’t have time, so I don’t bother them with stuff. I don’t ask for help on anything. I only ask if I’m desperate. They say I shouldn’t be asking for help much, and I should try to figure it out on my own.

— Catherine Jonathan, J.R Masterman

Telling our parents about our issues can sometimes be the biggest problem. For example I find that whenever I receive a bad grade, or fail to do something, my issue is never really that I am worried about what I can do to fix it, but how my parents will react to the news. Because of this I only feel comfortable talking to my parents about certain things, like teachers, or other topics not related to grades and schoolwork, that happen at school.

— Valeria, J.R. Masterman

Usually I’m the type to hold on my feelings until I decide I’ve had enough, I do that with my friends and my family. I speak my mind when I need to and I say what I have to say, but when it comes to my feelings, they are harder to express. Often times, going to my mom isn’t the easiest or most comfortable option I have. When I go to my mom, I have to gather up courage to face my mother in a raw, letting go of my pride sort of way in order to tell her how I feel.

— Jessica Elkotbeid, Los Angeles, CA

What parents could do better

This is to parents; We teens act mostly on our emotion, especially when we have it all bunched up in us. And when we turn to you guys for help, we expect that you guys would be there to tell us it’ll be ok. Instead some parents are criticize our thoughts because sometimes they think it is too immature …

— zero, Upper Merion High School, PA

When a pile of stress is dropped on us, we get lost and feel alone when we don’t know who to turn too. Parents try to help in any way they can, and they usually try to help by give advice. However, in the eyes of a teenager, parents seem to be criticizing our every move when we are only look for a support system. For parents and teens to overcome this obstacle, it is best for parents to know that we are not always looking for a solution.

— Jamyah Bernard, Wekiva High School, Apopka FL

I can majorly relate to the “rinse and repeat” motion of explanation, interruption, and anger that come with many of the conversations. This anger usually erupts from my hopes for an ear to listen being taken over by a mouth saying “well why don’t you try this” or “you should be doing that.” Most of the time, I don’t want advice. Rather, I need to let my feelings out with someone I feel comfortable with.

— Megan Hoerster, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, IL

What Do You Think This Image Is Saying?

We asked students to tell us what they thought the above image from our Picture Prompt “ Talking and Listening ” was saying. They interpreted it in a number of ways: from the dangers of not being open to new ideas to the need for men to listen to women .

The value of listening

At first, I saw this picture and instantly thought that this is another painting that shows how the ‘world’ tries to pull you in their direction. The noise, comments, adds, famous opinions can change the way you think. Then I looked a little deeper. The man is listening, he is cuffing his ear so he can hear better. His face is calm. He doesn’t look confused or torn between the opinions of the world. He wants to listen. I think this art piece is truly beautiful. The man shows an example of listening even when the people are angry, joyful, sad. You never know the wisdom or relationships you will find if you just listen.

— Adin Williams, Hawaii

This simple picture speaks volumes on how people interact with one another. Taking a closer look you see really only speech bubbles in the background, a handful of people talking and creating speech bubbles, and yet there is only one person listening.

I can relate to this picture rather deeply. I personally think of myself a more of a listener- despite being a rather loquacious person. Seems contradictory, right? But really when it comes down to it I’d much rather listen to other people talk about their day, their inspiration, their interests, their problems, than to bulldoze a conversation and hop at any opportunity to give my opinion.

— Ani, Glenbard West High School

The fact that there’s only one major figure in the entire art piece who’s listening to all the colorful chaos that people are saying speaks loudly to what this piece is about, in my opinion. I find it to be speaking about how there’d very few people who will actually want to listen to what people are trying to say. I also noticed how none of the speech bubbles from the people are actually going into the listeners ear. This could signify how larger companies or authority figures can sometimes say they are listening to the community or people when in reality they aren’t.

— JD, Kauai, HI

Overwhelmed by opinions

The image is suggesting that it is overwhelming to try to listen to everyone you can in the world. When seeking advice or answers from the community, people will often hear answers which contradict or have no correlation with each other — making it very difficult to draw a personal conclusion.

On my football team, I might be told by my position coach to do something a specific way (the “right” way); but 5 minutes later I am told to do it in the complete opposite manner: this causes an overwhelming and stressful environment to make my own decisions in.

— Braden Spiech, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, IL

This image speaks to me in the way that people will provide positive and negative influences/ words to you which will change you as a human. This image shows an open-eared person listening to all the bad and good that comes out of people’s mouths to them and a big problem in our society is that people actually won’t talk bad to someone to their face its always behind their back or thru a screen.

In my opinion if you got something to say negative about a person then tell them straight up because if you are too cowardly to even confront them or tell them what you think about them, then you shouldn’t be talking bad in the first place.

— Gianni Melle, Kauai, HI

The need for men to listen to women

It seems as though he’s pretending to listen, like the women in the picture are trying to say something important but their words are falling on deaf ears. It also seems like the man is meant to be white while the women are diverse and come from multiple different races. It’s a statement about how the cries of people of color, specifically women of color, aren’t heard by white men, the powerful in our current society. He seems to be patronizing them and not quite listening to them because he’s turned away, like he’s turned his back to them and their problems.

— Elliot Wells, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

The picture shows many women saying something at a man. This picture represents how women might be disrespected in workplaces or at home. In general, I think the illustration conveys the idea of listening to one another. The man in the picture isn’t, which could allude to how to be a good listener we have to stop talking.

— Priya Patel, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

This image is saying that men need to listen to women more. Throughout history, women have constantly been shut up and their opinions cast aside. While I believe that this still happens a little bit in today’s society, I believe that there is a bigger problem: nobody is listening to each other. In the world today, there are so many voices that want to be heard, but there are so few people that are willing to listen to what is being said. I believe it is important to listen and to not always be the one who is talking. Listening is a good skill to have because it allows you to have deeper and more meaningful conversations, and it allows you to have multiple perspectives on issues in the world.

— Skye S, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, IL

The importance of open debate

The image is demonstrating what it means to engage in an issue. All around us there are views and opinions on every issue imaginable. Some will be on one end of the debate, others will be on the complete opposite side, and many will be in between the two extremes. Amid all these differing and conversing views, it can be difficult to listen to opinions that might contradict or challenge your own view. But like the man in the picture, it is vital that when engaging in a debate we listen to all sides of the debate, even those we may disagree with, and treat those views with respect and an open mind.

— Gavin Schilling, Glenbard West HS Glen Ellyn, Il

We often have political debates in class and the sides are divided, one side fights with the other and they are so focused on voicing their own ideas that they forget to listen or even consider what the other side is saying. Why are we wired like this, imagine if we sat back and listened to others opinions and built off them, used their ideas to support our own even if they have a different opinion than us. We would probably learn so much more.

A powerful message from a listener

I am a listener. Not just by choice but because of my incapability to stand up for myself. I can act pretty confident but it comes in waves and even then my anxiety floods my brain. I wish I had the energy to express myself more but I choose to listen to other’s issues and ideas instead.

Over the years I’ve learned how important it is to really be silent and listen to others. Last year, my class would set up socratic seminars where we could speak our minds. I couldn’t help but be bothered by those who raised their hands too often or changed the topic so they could speak about themselves. Sadly, we were graded by the number of times we talked instead of the quality of our conversations. The calm seminars soon turned into a quiet but deadly war of backhanded compliments. It hurt my ego to see my classmates fighting. All because they couldn’t truly listen.

Listening is much more than sounds waves entering the auricle, passing through the auditory canal, and hitting our eardrum. Listening means putting everything down and thinking about something or someone other than yourself. This can include an unprofessional therapy session with a friend or even a lecture by your math teacher.

So please, from the nervous girl in chemistry or the loud spontaneous track runner. Next time someone has the courage to talk, Listen.

— Chloe Scatton-Tessier, Hoggard High School in Wilmington, NC

📕 Studying HQ

Persuasive speech on vegetarian as the way of life – best student’s health sample essay, dr. wilson mn.

• March 17, 2022

This article provides a student’s sample essay on the topic; Persuasive Speech On Vegetarian As The Way Of Life

Permalink: https://studyinghq.com/persuasive-speech-on-vegetarian-as-the-way-of-life

Thestudycorp.com has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is  place an order  with us.

Disclaimer: This is a sample essay written by a student and not one of our professional nursing writers. It is meant to be used as just an example to other students.

What You'll Learn

Persuasive Speech On Vegetarian As The Way Of Life Essay

Imagine yourself being frequently bombarded by questions by family, friends, and even stranger about Do you eat chicken? Do you drink milk? Do you eat fish? What about eggs? Why are you just eating vegetables instead of the delicious tendering meat?

These are questions that I heard often, and I must admit that sometimes I do get tired of answering them. The short answer is I am a vegetarian because I care. I care about preventing the suffering of innocent creatures. I care about preventing world hunger. I care about the air we breathe in, and the water that flows in rivers or streams. And I also do care about my own health. I truly honestly believe that the most important thing I, as an individual, can do for any one of these things that I care about is to only consume vegetarian food.

I am a vegetarian since I was born into this humble world due to my family and religious matters, therefore I have not tried any other means of food other than vegetables. Well, I have to face the fact that I’m a vegetarian. As time passes by I soon realize that the health benefits of vegetarianism are massive.

Based on my research, I have learned that the majority of audiences are not keen to turn their meat diet into the vegetarian diet but when the audience encounters any major sickness they will automatically insist on changing into a vegetarian diet. However, this is not the major concern that I wanted people to conceal. I personally wanted people to understand the true benefits of vegetarianism in long term instead of using vegetarianism as a scapegoat while having an illness. For that reason today my speech is to persuade you to change your diet into a vegetarian diet. The three benefits of a vegetarian are Health, Endurance, and Avoid Toxic Food Containments.

As you continue, thestudycorp.com has the top and most qualified writers to help with any of your assignments. All you need to do is  place an order  with us. (Persuasive Speech On Vegetarian As The Way Of Life)

By eating animal products, such as meat and eggs, both of these foods are the main dietary sources of cholesterol and the head source of saturated fat which is the main cause of heart disease. By not consuming these foods it will dramatically reduce the risk of heart attack by 90 % (Joan Lang, 2006). The fiber in vegetarian diets removes unnecessary cholesterol and other cancer-causing agents. A 1990 Study verified by Dr. William Castelli from University Hospital in Linkoping, Sweden that vegetarians overall are 20% less prone to die from a heart attack than meat-eaters.

A low-fat vegetarian diet, combined with exercise, it does help to reduce blood pressure and control or remove diabetes. Having a vegetarian diet can also benefit asthmatics patients. According to a 1985 year-long study which is conducted by the University Hospital in Linkoping, Sweden, over 90% of asthma patients had less severe and frequent attacks while having a vegetarian diet, and it can also reduce their need for medication (Dr. John McDougall, 2004).

Over 20 years of research at Loma Linda University in California shows that men who eat meat are prone to be three times more to suffer from prostate cancer than vegetarians. According to a study made by Dr. Takeshi Hirayama of the National Cancer Research Institute of Tokyo, vegetarianism reduces the risk of breast cancer in women by 35% (Dr. Takeshi Hirayama, 2005).

Animal products are basically high in fats and always lack fiber. This is why vegetarians avoid animal fat, the eating which will link to cancer, and vegetables are rich with fiber and vitamins that help prevent cancer. According to the University of Hawaii, on average, vegetarians ate about twice as much fiber as meat-eaters. Thus vegetarians are expected to suffer much less from constipation than meat-eaters.

Almost everyone in this world needs more energy; however few people make the association between exhaustion and eating meat. The majority of people mistakenly believe that eating meat is crucial that will lead to good strength and health. Eating meat is significantly reduces a person’s energy and contributes towards generally poor health.

Based on scientific studies, shows that a vegetarian diet will improve in a person’s endurance and energy. Dr. Yale Professor Irving Fisher conducted a test by comparing the stamina and strength of meat-eating athletes to vegetarian athletes and inactive vegetarians. The results of the test are the meat-eaters had far less endurance than even the inactive vegetarians. Another research found out that athletes who change their diet to vegetarianism gradually improve their endurance about three times as much as to those who ate meat.

A vegetarian diet is the perfect source of nutrients for the human body, basically, a common vegetarian diet is based on vegetables, fruits, and whole grains (Dr. T. Colin Campbell, 2002) which are low in fat, a good source of fiber, and rich in vitamins and minerals which will enhance our body energy. The main factor of a balanced vegetarian diet is carbohydrates, which are the perfect foundation for maximum endurance and energy.

The majority of people do not realize that meat products contain poison and toxins. For example, there was a bacterial outbreak traced back to a Michigan Meat Processing Plant that killed nine people and sixty other people were sickened. Millions of people become sick after eating meat that is contaminated throughout the years. There are a few contaminants I would like to share which is Mad Cow Disease. This disease is caused by “cow cannibalism” (John Robbins, 2006). This is usually done by feeding dead diseased animal parts to other animals from the same species. It will cause memory loss, loss of body control, and lastly death.

Secondly, parasites which are available throughout eighty-five percent of all pig-related products even in many species of carnivores and omnivores. A parasite is a kind of worm that lives in the human digestive system. Such as tapeworms that are contracted from eating meat. These parasites stay attached in the intestine by stealing nutrients from our digested food thus causing malnutrition.

Meat products contain the most sources of pesticides in the human diet. Almost ninety-five to ninety-nine percent of toxic chemical residues in the American diet comes from meat, fish, dairy products, and eggs (Roberta Larson Duyff, 2006). Pesticides contain numerous kinds of toxins that can cause cancer, birth defects, abortions, and even death.

In a nutshell, please eat vegetables and be healthy, the evidence is overwhelming. Eating meat is bad for your health, environment, and everyone. On the contrary, the vegetarian diet is delicious and nutritious which is the perfect source of energy for the human body. By choosing a vegetarian diet, you can have perfect health, and the happiness of living at peace with your family, friends, and the little ones in the animal kingdom.

Related FAQs

1. Is Vegetarianism a healthier way of life?

“It can be one of the healthiest ways to eat, because we know plant foods are loaded with nutrients to protect our health.” According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, an evidence-based review showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease.

2. Why is vegetarian important for health?

Many studies agree that a vegetarian diet can offer a range of health benefits. Studies show that a vegan or vegetarian diet may reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and various types of cancer. A non-meat diet may also reduce the risk of metabolic syndrome, which includes obesity and type 2 diabetes.

3. How do vegetarians stay healthy?

To get the most out of a vegetarian diet, choose a variety of healthy plant-based foods, such as whole fruits and vegetables, legumes and nuts, and whole grains. At the same time, cut back on less healthy choices, such as sugar-sweetened beverages, fruit juices and refined grains.

4. Why vegetarians are better than non vegetarians?

A non-vegetarian diet includes chicken, meat, eggs and fish. A non-vegetarian diet also has several health benefits because this type of food is rich in protein and vitamin B. Non-vegetarian food strengthens our muscles and helps them grow faster. It also helps to maintain body stamina and hemoglobin.

5. Do vegetarians live longer?

A team of researchers at Loma Linda University in the United States has shown vegetarian men live for an average of 10 years longer than non-vegetarian men — 83 years compared to 73 years. For women, being vegetarian added an extra 6 years to their lives, helping them reach 85 years on average.

All Related Articles

Start by filling this short order form order.studyinghq.com

And then follow the progressive flow. 

Having an issue, chat with us here

Cathy, CS. 

New Concept ? Let a subject expert write your paper for You​

Have a subject expert write for you now, have a subject expert finish your paper for you, edit my paper for me, have an expert write your dissertation's chapter, popular topics.

Business StudyingHq Essay Topics and Ideas How to Guides Samples

• Nursing Solutions
• Study Guides
• Free Study Database for Essays
• Privacy Policy
• Writing Service 
• Discounts / Offers 

Study Hub: 

• Studying Blog
• Topic Ideas 
• How to Guides
• Business Studying 
• Nursing Studying 
• Literature and English Studying

Writing Tools  

• Citation Generator
• Topic Generator
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Maker
• Research Title Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Summarizing Tool
• Terms and Conditions
• Confidentiality Policy
• Cookies Policy
• Refund and Revision Policy

Our samples and other types of content are meant for research and reference purposes only. We are strongly against plagiarism and academic dishonesty. 

Contact Us:

📧 [email protected]

📞 +15512677917

2012-2024 © studyinghq.com. All rights reserved

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

A ‘Life-Style Choice’ or a Philosophical Belief?: The Argument for Veganism and Vegetarianism to be a Protected Philosophical Belief and the Position in England and Wales

Paul mckeown.

Northumbria School of Law, Northumbria University, City Campus East 1, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST UK

Rachel Ann Dunn

The recent judgment in Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports in England and Wales held that ethical veganism was a protected philosophical belief under employment law. In contrast, vegetarianism was found not to be a protected philosophical belief in Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others . The authors argue that the Employment Tribunal misunderstood the notion of vegetarianism when deciding that it was a ‘life-style choice’. There are different kinds of vegans and vegetarians, each with their own way of practising the philosophy which influences how they live their life. Not all people who follow a meat-free diet should be afforded this protection, and it depends on whether their belief is one which is determined by certain factors, such as animal welfare and environmentalism, rather than for health purposes. The authors explore the arguments and analysis in the above employment cases, coming to the conclusion that the tribunals oversimplified what it means to hold values such as veganism and vegetarianism, failing to understand the differences between different classifications and sub-groups when coming to a decision. The different kinds of vegans and vegetarians and their characteristics are outlined, before determining whether this should constitute protection under employment law, protecting individuals from discrimination. The situation in the USA and Canada regarding this issue is very different, and there are parallels drawn with attempting to establish veganism or vegetarianism as a religion, and where they could benefit from the recent decision in England and Wales. Finally, this paper concludes that ethical and environmental veganism and vegetarianism should both qualify as protected philosophical beliefs, but other kinds may fall short of what is required to satisfy the requirements under law.

Introduction

Veganism is by no means a new concept, but has become more prominent in recent years, particularly in the UK. Statistics show that in 2018 the UK had the highest number of new vegan products launched, 1 which is understandable when the number of vegans has risen to 600,000 in 2019, from 150,000 in 2014, with about half of UK vegans converting in 2018. 2 Other research found that vegetarianism is the most popular non-meat diet, followed by pescatarian and then vegan, with an estimation that 6.7 million British adults currently follow a meat-free diet, but with an indication that this will rise to 12 million by the end of 2020. 3 The reasons for becoming vegetarian or vegan 4 vary, including to improve health, the environmental impacts and, the main motivation, animal welfare concerns.

Despite the rising popularity of veganism and vegetarianism, those who practice as vegans or vegetarians can be subjected to discrimination. There are reasons as to why individuals are opposed to the vegan diet, and actively argue against it, with views that ‘predation is natural and that animals often kill and eat each other.’ 5 Others see it as an attack on their autonomy of choice or a conflict with the omnivore’s majority beliefs. 6 Some of the difficulties vegans report in their life is eating out, finding vegan substitutes for clothing and household products, and feeling isolated from omnivore family and friends. 7 Further, vegans and vegetarians face stereotypes and prejudices on a regular basis, such as the belief they want to convert omnivores to veganism and are judgmental toward them, that they are hippies and all are animal activists. 8 Some even hide their beliefs in the workplace, for the fear of prejudice, or avoid conversations about their beliefs at mealtimes, wanting to avoid confrontation. 9

Though vegetarians and vegans may have such a strong belief, they are not more biased than meat eaters, but as Adams argues, they ‘do not benefit as meat eaters from having their biases actually approved of by the dominant culture’. 10 Further, it has been trivialised, or seen as a ‘distraction’ from other important aspects of history, and judged as irrelevant to other topics such as sexism and racism. 11 This discrimination, or bias, does happen though, and studies have found that vegans and vegetarians are subjected to attitudes which are equivalent or more negative than common prejudice target groups, including significantly more negatively than black people, and overall vegans were viewed more negatively than vegetarians. 12 This was not, however, in all aspects of life, and they were not subject to less willingness to be hired for a job or rented accommodation compared to other target groups, including immigrants and atheists. 13 This kind of bias even has a name: veganphobia. This bias and discrimination can affect individuals in the work place, for example being forced to use animal products in the workplace, 14 or their taxes going toward systems which abuse animals, ‘forcing vegans to contribute to something they strongly disagree with.’ 15

In January 2020, an Employment Tribunal in England held ethical veganism to be a philosophical belief and therefore a protected characteristic pursuant to the Equality Act 2010. 16 As such, ethical vegans may gain protection from discriminatory treatment. In contrast however, an Employment Tribunal previously held that vegetarianism was not capable of satisfying the requirements of being a philosophical belief. 17 The authors will argue that these cases oversimplified concepts of veganism and vegetarianism. In particular, the authors will analyse what it means to hold beliefs in veganism and vegetarianism, and how the tribunal failed to understand the differences between different classifications and sub-groups when coming to a decision.

This article begins by defining religion, philosophical beliefs and creeds, looking at the legal position in the England and Wales, US and Canada. A discussion of the philosophy of veganism and vegetarianism follows, looking at the work of Francione specifically, before exploring the influencing factors of becoming, and kinds of, a vegan or vegetarian. It is analysed whether veganism and vegetarianism are protected philosophical beliefs, exploring recent case law in the England and Wales, and whether they should be protected. Finally, this article concludes which classifications of veganism and vegetarianism should both qualify as protected philosophical beliefs, though, some classifications may fall short of what is required to satisfy the requirements under law.

Defining Religion, Philosophical Beliefs and Creeds

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief , and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice , worship and observance . 18 {emphasis added}

The text above acknowledges the universal human right to thought, conscience and beliefs. This right is further enshrined into international law through Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. The movement to eradicate discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief is further re-enforced through the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. Whilst Article 1(1) of the aforementioned Declaration re-iterates the language of ‘thought, conscience and religion’, Article 1(2) states, ‘No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have a religion or belief of his choice .’{emphasis added}

Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) also enshrines the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, whilst within the European Union, Article 10 the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union embeds freedom of ‘thought, conscience and religion’ within member states. 19 Whilst there have been no cases determining the meaning of thought, conscience and religion within the context of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the matter has been considered in relation to the ECHR.

Religion is not defined within the text of Article 9 nor in the European Court of Human Rights case law. 20 This is deliberate, as any definition would need to be ‘both flexible enough to embrace the whole range of religions worldwide…and specific enough to be applicable to individual cases—an extremely difficult, indeed impossible undertaking.’ 21 However, Article 9 ECHR has been held to apply to ‘the “major” or “ancient” world religions’, ‘new or relatively new religions’ and ‘various coherent and sincerely-held philosophical convictions’. 22

Freedom of belief, including secular beliefs, is well established in international law, as summarised above. However, whilst international law recognises the freedom of religion and belief, the protection of these freedoms needs to be afforded at domestic level for individuals to meaningfully avail themselves to protection of these freedoms as the discrimination will often emanate from individuals or private companies rather than the State. Further, where freedom of religion and belief are protected at domestic level, it is for national authorities to interpret the extent of the protection afforded based upon their jurisdictional definition of religion and belief, or whatever wording each jurisdiction may utilise. The difficulties on establishing an international consensus on the definition of religion and belief can be seen with certain ‘religions’ such as the Church of Scientology. 23

Within England and Wales, religion and belief are a protected characteristic pursuant to the Equality Act 2010. 24 Whilst claims for contravention of the ECHR can only be brought against public authorities, 25 courts and tribunals must interpret legislation, so far as is possible, in a way which is compatible with the ECHR. 26 As such, the definition of religion and belief is a ‘broad definition in line with the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed by Article 9’. 27

Religion is defined under the Equality Act 2010 as ‘any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.’ 28 Thus, religion is defined as itself. The definition encompasses traditional religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism but also smaller religions such as Rastafarianism or Paganism, as long as it has a clear structure and belief system. 29 The approach appears to be that whilst religion is not defined in England and Wales, the courts and tribunals will know it when they see it.

Section 10(2) of the Equality Act 2010 defines ‘belief’ as ‘any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.’ 30 In determining what constitutes a ‘philosophical belief’, the Explanatory Notes to the Equality Act 2010 provide some guidance stating the belief ‘must be genuinely held; be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and be worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.’ 31 Further, the belief must have a similar status or cogency to a religious belief. 32

There is an inherent problem in providing a statutory definition for philosophical beliefs due to the widely varying beliefs that individuals may hold and which of these beliefs should be protected. As with religion, it has therefore been left to the courts to define whether a particular belief should be protected and indeed the guidance set out above was implied or introduced by reference to the jurisprudence. 33

In the United States, freedom of religion is established by the First Amendment of the Constitution stating that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…’ 34 Whilst the First Amendment regulates the role of the Government in legislating on religion, it does little to protect individuals from being discriminated against by other individuals or private organisations. At Federal level, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) prohibits employment discrimination on the grounds of, inter alia, religion. 35 In contrast to the Equality Act 2010, Title VII only refers to ‘religion’, not ‘religion and belief’. It is therefore necessary to consider the definition of religion for the purposes of Title VII. Religion is defined broadly to include ‘all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief…’ 36 Whilst it includes all traditional religions, it also encompasses unorganised and less common systems of belief. 37 The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have adopted the definition of religion given by the US Supreme Court in United States v Seeger and therefore, it is religious if it is “a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to that filled by…God.” 38 As such, religious beliefs include theistic and non-theistic beliefs, although beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. 39 In United States v Meyers , 40 the court set out the following factors to assist in determining whether a belief is religious: Ultimate Ideas; Metaphysical Beliefs; Moral or Ethical System; Comprehensiveness of Beliefs; and Accoutrements of Religion. 41 The latter factor considers the following: Founder, Prophet, or Teacher; Important Writings; Gathering Places; Keepers of Knowledge; Ceremonies and Rituals; Structure or Organization; Holidays; Diet or Fasting; Appearance and Clothing; and Propagation. 42

The court recognised that no one factor is dispositive, and instead the factors should be seen as ‘criteria’ that if ‘minimally satisfied’ should include the beliefs with the term religion. 43 However, ‘[p]urely personal, political, ideological, or secular beliefs probably would not satisfy enough criteria for inclusion.’ 44 Examples of beliefs falling outside the definition of religion include: nihilism; anarchism; pacifism; utopianism; socialism; libertarianism; Marxism; ‘vegetism’; and humanism. 45 Such an effect this has had on gaining protection for veganism and vegetarianism in the US, some have argued for the establishment of a Church of Animal Liberation, to provide a religious organization for those who wish to seek protection and accommodation for their beliefs in animal rights. 46

In contrast to the United States Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Canadian Charter) enshrines ‘conscience and religion’ as well as ‘thought, belief, opinion and expression’ as fundamental freedoms. 47 Moon posits that ‘distinguishing religious beliefs/practices from secular beliefs/practices’ in Canada resolves the problem ‘which has bedevilled the American courts’. 48 However, the Canadian Charter only applies to Governments, not disputes between individuals, businesses and other organisations.

The Canadian Human Rights Act does prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion. 49 Whilst the Act only applies to federally regulated activities, each province and territory has its own anti-discrimination laws, adopting differing approaches to religion and creed. 50 The Supreme Court of Canada has defined religion broadly ‘as a particular and comprehensive system of faith and worship’ which ‘tends to involve the belief in a divine, superhuman or controlling power.’ 51 However, this definition did not include ‘secular, socially based or conscientiously held’ beliefs. 52 The Supreme Court of Canada summarised the definition stating:

…religion is about freely and deeply held personal convictions or beliefs connected to an individual’s spiritual faith and integrally linked to one’s self-definition and spiritual fulfilment, the practices of which allow individuals to foster a connection with the divine or with the subject or object of that spiritual faith. 53

In 2015, the Ontario Human Rights Commission updated their ‘Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed’. Whilst creed was previously interpreted to mean religion, 54 in the updated policy, creed was defined to ‘also include non-religious belief systems that, like religion, substantially influence a person’s identity, worldview and way of life.’ 55 Whilst there is no single definition, the factors identifying a creed within this policy are; it is sincerely, freely and deeply held; it is integrally linked to a person’s identity, self-definition and fulfilment; it is a particular and comprehensive, overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices; it addresses ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a Creator and/or a higher or different order of existence; and it has some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief. 56

In considering the various definitions used, it is clear that religion, philosophical beliefs and creed have been interpreted broadly. However, the various jurisdictions have been reluctant to include secular beliefs, which would include veganism and vegetarianism, within the definition of religion. Whilst the position is still unclear with regards to the United States, which will be considered below, a secular belief system is more likely to be protected when legislation expressly differentiates between religion and other beliefs. This can be seen in international law, specifically within the context of the ECHR, within England and Wales protecting philosophical beliefs, and in Ontario, Canada developing the definition of creed as distinct from religion.

There is also a distinct similarity between the factors determining whether a belief constitutes a philosophical belief in England and Wales, or a creed in Ontario, Canada as shown in Table  1 below. 57 This suggests that philosophical belief and creed are synonymous with one another.

Table 1

Factors determining a philosophical belief in England and Wales or a creed in Ontario, Canada

Protection Afforded to Philosophical Beliefs and Creeds

The extent of protection afforded by anti-discrimination legislation varies between jurisdictions. In England and Wales, the Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful to discriminate against an individual on the grounds of a protected characteristic. The Act applies to numerous areas such as the provision of services, 58 housing, 59 employment, 60 education, 61 and associations. 62 As such, individuals are protected from discrimination in many aspects of their lives. There is a wide breadth of this protection in comparison to anti-discrimination legislation in other jurisdictions. For example, Title VII only relates to the employment field, and therefore does not offer protection from discrimination in other areas such as the provision of services. Further, it only applies where an employer employs fifteen or more employees. 63 As such, there are significant limitations in the protection afforded under Title VII. However, there are various statutes in each State protecting freedom of religion. The Canadian Human Rights Act applies in the areas of the provision of goods and services, 64 commercial and residential premises 65 and employment. 66 The Canadian Human Right Act is limited to Federally regulated activities although each Province has their own anti-discrimination legislation.

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from different types of discrimination, namely: direct; indirect; harassment; and victimisation. Whilst there will be instances of individuals experiencing direct discrimination 67 i.e. not being employed because of their vegan beliefs; in many instances, it is likely that an employer or service provider simply does not cater for their requirements. For example, a failure to provide a vegan meal option or the requirement to wear a uniform manufactured with non-vegan products. The issue is not that the individual is vegan per se, it is the manifestation of those vegan beliefs, i.e. their dietary requirements or refusal to wear clothes manufactured from animal products, which places the individual at a disadvantage in comparison to non-vegans.

Under Article 9 ECHR, 68 the freedom of religion and belief is an absolute right. However, the right to manifest those beliefs may be limited where it is ‘prescribed by law and…necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.’ 69

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals from discrimination because of a manifestation of their religion or belief through indirect discrimination where a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ is applied equally, whether or not individuals share the protected characteristic but places individuals who share the protected characteristic at a particular disadvantage in comparison to those who do not share the characteristic, placing the individual at a disadvantage. 70 However, unlike direct discrimination, indirect discrimination can be justified if it can be shown to be a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.’ 71

With reference to the above examples, a failure to provide a vegan food option or the imposition of a uniform policy is a ‘provision, criterion or practice’ which would clearly put an individual who is vegan at a disadvantage compared with a non-vegan. The question therefore is whether an employer or service provider can establish that the ‘provision, criterion or practice’ was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 should be read compatibly with Article 9(2) ECHR. What is proportionate will differ in every case, so the more serious the impact of the policy, criterion or practice, the greater the justification will need to be for implementing the policy.

Courts and tribunals will balance business needs against the impact on the group disadvantaged. In applying this to the above scenarios, it is likely that the provision of a vegan meal option or allowance of a suitable alternative uniform will suffice to negate any claims for indirect discrimination. However, an example where the provision, criterion or practice may be proportionate is a requirement for a vegan shop worker to handle notes, which are made with animal products, as the business requires the handling of cash. Further, it may be appropriate to discipline an employee for proselytising about their vegan convictions if it violates the dignity of other workers. 72

Individuals will also be protected from harassment which is defined as unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic which has the purpose or effect of violating their dignity, or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. 73 As such, individuals will be protected from bullying or mockery due to their philosophical beliefs and/or the manifestation of those beliefs.

Similar types of discrimination are included within Title VII prohibiting disparate treatment, 74 disparate impact, 75 a failure to accommodate religion, 76 and harassment. 77 The right to reasonable accommodation for religion protects those manifesting their belief, and offers a greater degree of protection than indirect discrimination within England and Wales as there is no requirement to establish a disproportionate impact on a group, merely the individual.

Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, direct discrimination (or disparate treatment) is unlawful within the prescribed areas, 78 as is harassment 79 and retaliation 80 (similar to victimisation). However, a discriminatory policy or practice is only applicable to employment matters albeit there is no justification defence. 81 Once again, different Provinces have their own anti-discrimination legislation.

Philosophy of Vegetarianism and Veganism

The concept of vegetarianism and veganism has been explored in the literature around animal ethics, with philosophers such as Peter Singer 82 and Tom Regan 83 arguing for the abstaining of eating meat and potentially other animal derived products, albeit with differing philosophical underpinnings to come to this conclusion. None are more aligned to the principles of ethical veganism, or abolitionist veganism, than Gary Francione, who argues that this diet rejects any use of animal products, and is ‘the moral baseline for the animal rights movement.’ 84 He rejects any other reasons, or approaches, for animal rights, stating that environmental vegans, or philosophers such as Singer who may allow for the use of animals in certain circumstances, are not really vegans, and do not see veganism as a “philosophy of living” but merely a lifestyle. 85 Thus, those who are serious about the animal rights movement are those who adopt this philosophy in all aspects of their life, and accept that animal lives have moral significance, rejecting their current commodity status. 86 Francione takes his abolitionist view further than food, and argues that we should not have companion animals (though he himself has dogs he sees as ‘refugees’) and should cease to bring domesticated non-human animals into existence, purely for our benefit. 87 This is the same as in Casamitjana Costa, where the Claimant did not live with a companion animal.

Ethical and environmental vegans ‘make their choices in line with their core values. They want to live in alignment with their beliefs.’ 88 Thus, in order to do so, they change the way in which they live their life, adhering to a set of rules which looks to minimise the detrimental impacts a non-vegan life can have on sentient beings and the environment. This can be seen as the practice Ahimsa, the vow of non-injury, the prime practice in Jainism. Apparently, all ‘Jainas are strict vegetarians, living solely on one-sense beings (vegetables) and milk products. Alcohol, honey, and certain kinds of fig are also prohibited, because they are said to harbour many forms of life.’ 89 Thus, it can be seen how veganism has developed from the practice of Ahimsa, taking the vow of non-injury further and modernised it, to incorporate other forms of nonviolence, such as cosmetic and medical products and clothing, which has come at the expense of violence to animals. It is important to note that the philosophy of Ahimsa also extends to non-injury to the environment, and has been argued to be capable of addressing current bio-diversity issues the planet is facing. 90 Thus, though animal rights advocates, such as Francione, argue that ethical veganism is the only way to project animals to a higher moral and legal standing and produce consistent behaviour, it seems that environmental vegans and their beliefs are also encapsulated by the teachings of Ahimsa and the philosophy on non-injury. The teachings of Ahimsa were discussed in Casamitjana Costa, and it was highlighted that the Claimant lived his life in line with these teachings and beliefs, which will be discussed in more detail below.

There are arguments which seek to undermine the philosophy and practice of ethical veganism, however, and they should be addressed. Some people argue that ethical veganism does not, for example, minimise the suffering of animals, due to how many animals are killed in fields from the ploughing of fields and harvesting of vegetables and grains. 91 Therefore, ‘a vegan diet doesn’t necessarily mean a diet that doesn’t interfere with the lives of animals.’ 92 This is true, and in the process of gathering food, whether on an industrial or home-grown organic scale, there will be other beings harmed in the process. Francione argues that this is unavoidable, and all human actions have consequences, some of them adverse. This is no reason, though, to argue against the use of animals and the intentional harm humans cause to them. 93 This is the thinking that helped the Claimant in Casamitjana Costa, and the fact that he would only use animal by-products where there was no other alternative, and only after exhausting all reasonable steps ‘to ensure that his consumption contributes as little as possible to the suffering and/or exploitation of sentient beings no matter how remote that is.’ 94 This was to the extent of food products, such as figs, which he believed would cause harm, and is consistent with the practices of Ahimsa. Whilst the argument of unintentional harm is valid, it does not affect the beliefs held by ethical vegans.

Veganism and Vegetarianism Dissected

There is a clear distinction between veganism and other kinds of non-meat diets, and there is a large variety of diets available. For example, pescatarians do not eat meat, but eat fish and other seafood, as well as other animal derived products, like milk, eggs and cheese. Vegetarians do not eat meat, including ingredients such as gelatine, but eat other animal derived products. Vegans, on the other hand, do not eat any animal derived products, including honey. It is defined by the Vegan Society as ‘a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitations of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.’ 95 This has been a gradual shift in movement from a promotion of a vegetarian diet to a vegan diet, starting in the early 1900’s in the UK, where the Vegetarian Society broke off into two strands with some asking for vegetarians to refrain from eating eggs, milk and products made with them. 96 Leneman states that the main argument for a vegan diet was ‘always the cruelty, inseparable from the acquisition of dairy products, and the linkage of the meat and dairy industries.’ 97 There were, however, other arguments including health and consistency with the philosophy. 98 Thus, it is necessary to explore why individuals choose to go vegetarian or vegan, before going on to discuss in depth the different kinds of diets. There are other influencing factors for going vegetarian or vegan, including religion and as part of the feminist movement, but for the purposes of this article and focusing on protected philosophical beliefs, only factory farming, animal welfare, the environment, health, and working conditions in slaughter houses will be discussed.

The Farming Industry

It is no longer a secret that the farming industry has industrialised and, as a result, intensive farming practices have ensued. 99 Harrison acknowledges that as ‘people become richer, they tend to want more meat, with the result that more and more animals are being farmed for food.’ 100 Since the publication of Animal Machines in 1964, 101 which first exposed the suffering inflicted on animals in factory farms, there have been some significant changes, particularly in the EU and the UK. For example, veal crates, which restrict the movement of calves who are usually tied by their necks, have been banned in the UK since 1990, 102 and the EU brought in a ban in 2006. 103 These crates, however, are still legal in countries such as the US. Whilst there have been some significant improvements, there are certain pressures contributing to intensive farming, such as population growth, urbanization, economic growth and nutrition transition. 104 As a result of this demand, the farming industry has developed to incorporate increasing use of technology, (such as artificial insemination, and advanced feeding systems), suffered structural changes (influenced by factors such as cost reduction), and lessened the restraints of local resources, (such as the rise of supermarkets). 105

These intensive farming practices are having a negative impact on animal welfare, the environment, public health, and the welfare of slaughter house workers.

Animal Welfare

Compassion in World Farming state that 74 billion animals are reared for food each year, with 50 billion reared for food through intensive farming on factory farms. 106 There are many animals which are reared for food, including, but not limited to, cattle, pigs, sheep and chickens, and those who are reared on factory farms face dismal living conditions before slaughter. As stated above, this was brought to light in the UK through the book Animal Machines , 107 but there are others who have shed light on the conditions such as Peter Singer in Animal Liberation , 108 PETA and Compassion in World Farming. The conditions in which animals live on these farms are too extensive to fully outline in this article, but a small discussion will illustrate how they contribute to the factors of becoming a vegan or vegetarian and the philosophy of such practices.

Compassion in World Farming state that there are more than 50 billion chickens reared annually for food, either broiler chickens or egg-laying hens, 109 making them the most farmed animal in the world. For example, 110 in the UK there were 157,000 cattle slaughtered in April 2020, 111 compared to 104 million broiler chickens in the same month. 112 On these farms, chickens are often kept in battery cages, 113 no larger than a single sheet of A4 paper, which restricts them from exhibiting normal behaviour patterns, such as nesting or foraging for food. 114 Further, due to crowding, egg-laying hens feather-peck each other, leading to injuries. As a result, it is practice to de-beak the bird, removing a part of the beak with a hot blade and no aesthetic. 115 Broiler chickens are kept in barns with no natural lighting, and are barren apart from food and water. They are bred to grow intensively, resulting in their legs not being able to carry their weight and suffer from leg disorders. Many die in these sheds from excessive heat, heart attacks, and ammonia pollution produced by their droppings. 116 This is one example of the animal welfare issues on factory farms, but there are many conditions deemed to be ‘common practice’ which result in immense suffering for various animals, such as cows, pigs and sheep.

Vegans, particularly ethical vegans, take the point of animal welfare further, and their philosophy is influenced by other animal welfare issues outside of factory farms. For example, strict ethical vegans do not eat honey, as they believe the harvesting of honey does not abide by their definition of veganism, and it exploits the bees involved in the process. 117 The honey industry can involve specific breeding of honey bees to increase productivity and clipping the wings of queen bees to prevent them setting up a colony elsewhere. Further, there are many animal welfare issues associated with industries such as fur, 118 cosmetic and medical testing, 119 and animals used in entertainment. 120 Clearly our use of animals raises ethical and moral questions, those which vegans, and perhaps to a lesser extent vegetarians, have answered with abolishing any involvement with such industries and choosing to live a life which does not contribute to such welfare violations. After all, the consumer is somewhat responsible for the continuation of such suffering of animals, and to reduce this responsibility DeGrazia argues we should live by the following moral rule: ‘make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to institutions that cause extensive unnecessary harm.’ 121

Environmental Factors

It is becoming more prominent that current farming practices, whether that be for food or other industries such as factory and fur farming, are causing an impact on our environment. The Pew Commission reported that there are three main causes of environmental degradation resulting from intensive farming: large volumes of animal waste, the disposal of these materials and unsustainable water usage and soil degradation associated with feed. 122 There are other issues, including factory farming releasing large amounts of toxic air emission, such as ammonia, causing a risk to public health. 123 Waste can also disturb the environment, and the enjoyment of it, in other ways, such as the odours from poultry facilities attracting flies and rodents, which can carry disease. 124

Land degradation is a common result of unsustainable agricultural practices, and ‘refers to a temporary or permanent decline in the productive capacity of the land of its potential for environmental management.’ 125 This not only damages the environment, but can also affect national food supply, trade and malnutrition. 126 The decrease in the usage of this land due to degradation reduces productivity, and therefore has an economic consequence for farmers, pushing farmland into natural habitats, causing land destruction. This impacts on climate change, loss of biodiversity and depletion of water resources. 127 With regard to climate change, it is becoming increasingly clear that greenhouse gas emissions are severely contributed to by animal agriculture, and agriculture is ‘directly responsible’ for approximately 20% of greenhouse gasses produced by human-generated emissions. 128 By lowering the number of intensively farmed animals, we can lower the impact on climate change. Further, it is predicted that climate change will make it harder to produce enough food needed to meet growing population demands. 129 It is important to recognise that some non-meat diets can also negatively contribute to climate change, and there needs to be consideration still as to which products are consumed in order for the positive impacts to be fully realised. 130

Lastly, there is ‘easily enough grain protein, if used sensibly, to feed every human on earth.’ 131 Not only could this grain protein be used to feed humans rather than animals, but the amount of energy (calories) livestock feed consumes is almost 43%, and animal products return 29%, making it an inefficient system. 132 The amount calories used to feed animals could, therefore, be used directly as human food, creating an annual calorie need for over 3.5 million people. 133

The impact of intensive farming on rural communities has been researched, noting detrimental effects on physical health, mental health, and social health. For example, Horrigan et al. note how pollution from factory farms harms the health of workers and residents, causing respiratory diseases such as asthma, bronchitis and organic dust toxic syndrome. 134 This is caused by the environmental impacts, discussed above.

Factory farms also use antibiotics and hormones, as a way to limit diseases in livestock and promote growth and weight gain. 135 However, this has caused antimicrobial resistance in the environment, and more drug resistant infections have increased in humans. In fact, it is becoming such an issue that the World Health Organisation has asked that farmers and the food industry refrain from routinely using antibiotics. 136 Some countries have, and the EU banned the use of antibiotics for growth production in 2006. 137 The reasons for this are the serious health implications this resistance can have for human health. For example, LA-MRSA identified in pig production is a health risk for the farmers and veterinarians who come into contact with the animals and, though it is unclear what the public health relevance is of consuming contaminated meat, it has been found in pork and meat products. 138

As well as antimicrobial resistance, other concerns with factory farming include the transmission of zoonotic diseases from animals to humans, becoming increasingly more common and prevalent. Morse et al. outline how no pandemic pathogens have been predicted before appearing in humans, 139 though over 70% of emerging infection diseases in humans are zoonotic. 140 For example, the current Covid-19 pandemic is thought to have started in a wet-market in Wuhan, China, which sold wildlife as meat. 141 These issues aren’t isolated to wet-markets, however, and there are many opportunities for animal diseases to jump to humans. Morse et al. identify three stages to assess pandemic potential, the first being no human infection, but factors can contribute to transmission between hosts, expanding within its population, and be transmitted to other non-human populations, increasing likeliness of transmission to humans. Moving of livestock and transportation of wildlife for food can all contribute to a stage 1 emergence. 142 The Food and Agriculture Organisation have stressed that transport systems are ‘ideally suited for spreading disease, as the animals commonly originate from different herds or flocks and are confined together for long periods in poorly ventilated, stressful environments.’ 143 However, there are also cases of animal–animal and animal-human disease being spread from animals transported for use in research, horses moved for equestrian competitions, and in the exotic pet trade. 144

Another health aspect to take into consideration is the health benefits which come with a low meat, or non-meat, diet. It has been shown that high meat consumption, particularly of red meat, can cause cancers, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and abstinence from meat products, even a vegetarian diet, can significantly lower mortality rates from these illnesses. 145 It is important to highlight, however, that there are some health negatives from following these diets, however, particularly with veganism which can cause some deficiencies if not substituted adequately. 146

There is less focus on the working conditions in factory farms and slaughterhouses, but it is becoming more discussed. In the Global South, such as Kenya, very few slaughterhouses provide their workers with protective equipment and hand washing facilities, and a high level of illnesses is reported. 147 In western societies, there are still dangers associated with the job, mainly due to speed at which slaughterers have to work in order to meet targets. Injuries include musculoskeletal injuries, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, and more life-threatening injuries, often with the knives used to cut through bone. 148 Workers have reported being crushed by animals falling out of apparatus or kicked by them as they struggle. 149 There are even deaths caused by poisonous fumes being inhaled while cleaning a blood-collection tank. 150

Accounts of emotional and mental health of slaughterers being affected have emerged, leading to alcohol related problems and even suicide. 151 This has been confirmed by research, which found that slaughterers during the initial stages of their employment had frequent vivid dreams about their work, feeling guilt and shame. In order to deal with these emotions, workers adopt psychological defences and become emotionally detached from their work. This can lead to expressions of anger which spill over into the home as abuse and violence. 152 Though there is no evidence of a vegan of vegetarian choosing to adopt the belief because of this issue, with emerging research and information it may become an influencing factor.

There is also an issue with the wages of slaughterers which have fallen below that of an average manufacturing wage, 153 to maintain production speed despite more meat being produced, and workers not being allowed to go to the toilet and wearing adult diapers or refraining from urinating and causing health issues. 154 The conditions for workers is clearly a very important issue, and one that Muller says to ignore ‘is to ignore a key corner of the intersectional labyrinth that is the pursuit of social justice.’ 155

Different Branches of Veganism and Vegetarianism

How people practice veganism does differ, and a study found that those who ‘created and abided by personal, idiosyncratic definitions of veganism, which were considerably less strict and often included dairy products and honey’, compared to those who followed the rules set by the Vegan Society. 156 As stated above, there are various reasons why one becomes a vegan, and Greenebaum separates vegans into three district categories: health, environmental and ethical vegans. 157 The authors would actually add another kind of vegan which, whilst has links to other groups of vegans, has its own distinct set of characteristics: the humanitarian vegan. There was not any previous research found, which explored this kind of vegan, though some may mention it as an influencing factor and link it to environmental factors, and it may be because there is not enough awareness of these issues. Nonetheless, the authors felt it important to include. Not all of the issues discussed in the previous sections will influence an individual to become vegan, but can be factors in the decision to follow the diet and lifestyle.

What becomes more complicated is where vegetarianism fits into the argument, with some people putting ethical vegetarianism and veganism in the same category. 158 Further, there was less literature which focused solely on ethical vegetarianism, and some which referred to ethical veganism as ‘strict vegetarianism’. 159 The main difference is that, whilst both abstain from eating meat, not all vegetarians will refrain from eating other animal derived products (e.g. eggs) or using animal derived products (e.g. leather), but some will. The differences and similarities between the groups can be different for each individual, and it is not simple to state that vegans have a stronger ethical belief than vegetarians do. Veganism is a relatively newer concept, when one considers the history and development of vegetarianism, and veganism, outside of religion, began as a concern for animal welfare. 160 There are different strands of vegetarianism, such as lacto-ovo vegetarians, who do not eat meat, but eat diary and eggs, or ovo vegetarians, who include eggs in their diet, but not meat or milk/milk products. 161 The underpinning beliefs of animal welfare and environmental practices may be the same, but the practice of those beliefs may vary, 162 and it is not only veganism, but also vegetarianism, which can be seen as ‘being about defining the self, defining who one is, what sort of being one is, what it is to be human and the relationship one has with the non-human…’ 163 Thus, due to the consistent grouping of these terms, they are discussed together, but some of the differences are highlighted throughout the discussions

Figure  1 displays the different kinds of vegans, and the general characteristics which contribute to their belief and identity based on previous research which has explored these influencing factors:

Different kinds of vegans and influencing factors

Munroe’s research argues that ethical vegetarianism is part of the animal welfare movement, a kind of DIY activism, ‘used by activists to publicize an issue as well as to disrupt life in its immediate vicinity.’ 164 To disrupt this life even further, ethical vegans do not use any animal derived products at all, including those in cosmetics or clothing. Greenebaum states an ethical vegan is someone who ‘adopts a vegan diet for moral, ethical and political reasons. The diet forms only part of a lifestyle that is structured around philosophy of animal rights.’ 165 Further, her research found that ethical vegan participants saw veganism as a belief and ‘“liv[ing] in a connected way to the world around you.”’ 166 Their philosophy was so strong that the ethical vegan participants did not like the approach of the health vegans, stating that the purpose of giving up animal products is to no longer harm animals, not to lose weight. Maxim groups the health and environmental rationales together, stating they are merely dietary preferences. 167 The authors would not necessarily agree with this, as ethical, environmental and humanitarian vegans all have an external factor which drives their belief in veganism and dictates how they live, whether this be the treatment of animals or the influence on climate change. A health vegan is the only kind which has an internal driving force, usually the need to control, or prevent, an illness and for the health and body image benefits.

These findings are consistent with other studies, where the driving factor for becoming a vegan was animal welfare issues, followed by health considerations. 168 Mann’s study also found that an influencing factor was that a vegan diet can feed more people, linking into arguments of humanitarian veganism outlined above, as well as the impacts on the environment. 169 Further, a quarter of participants reported being vegetarian, before making the change to veganism, some as a purposeful transition into veganism, and some ultimately moving that way to further eliminate animal cruelty. 170 Interestingly, two vegans in this study who stated they did not follow a vegan lifestyle solely became vegans for health purposes. 171 There are some studies which show, however, that the driving factor for becoming a vegan was for health reasons. 172 Thus, the reasons for becoming a vegetarian or vegan are complex, multi-faceted, and can evolve and change over time.

Is Veganism and Vegetarianism a Protected Philosophical Belief?

Vegan convictions have long been held to fall within the scope of Article 9 ECHR following the 1993 decision in W v the United Kingdom . 173 However, whether veganism and vegetarianism are protected philosophical beliefs has only recently been tested in the domestic courts and tribunals of England and Wales. 174

In 2011, an Employment Tribunal in Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Limited t/a Orchard Park found belief in the sanctity of life to fall within the definition of philosophical belief. 175 Beliefs in the sanctity of life incorporated ‘beliefs in the value of life or veganism, environmentalism and animal rights activism.’ 176 As such, it was clearly arguable that veganism and vegetarianism could be regarded as philosophical beliefs.

There was discussion during the passage of the Equality Bill through Parliament as to whether veganism and vegetarianism were included within the definition of philosophical belief, with Baroness Warsi stating:

…the weight of case law meant that only serious and important beliefs would be included as a religious or philosophical belief for the purposes of the law…to include cults and other lifestyle choices such as veganism and vegetarianism is to make something of a farce of the debates that we had. 177

This statement highlights that the inclusion of veganism and vegetarianism within the definition of philosophical belief was controversial, equating veganism and vegetarianism to a ‘cult’. The Equality and Human Rights Commission initially included veganism as an example of a belief attaining protection under the Equality Act stating in draft guidance:

A person who is a vegan chooses not to use or consume animal products of any kind. That person eschews the exploitation of animals for food, clothing, accessories or any other purpose and does so out of an ethical commitment to animal welfare. This person is likely to hold a belief which is covered by the Act. 178

The Government did not share the view that veganism was covered although accepted the decision was ultimately for the courts to determine. 179 The above cited example of veganism as a protected belief did not appear in the final guidance.

In 2019, in Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others , 180 an Employment Tribunal rejected that vegetarianism was capable of being a philosophical belief within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. The Claimant, a barman/waiter, alleged that he had been bullied during the course of his employment because he was a vegetarian. 181 The Claimant’s vegetarianism stemmed from his belief ‘that the world would be a better place if animals were not killed for food.’ 182 It was accepted that the Claimant was a vegetarian, that he had a genuine belief in his vegetarianism, 183 and that the practice of vegetarianism was worthy of respect in a democratic society and not incompatible with human dignity. 184 However, the tribunal concluded that the belief in vegetarianism was an opinion and view point, 185 which could not be described as a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour, merely a life style choice. 186 Finally, the tribunal concluded that the Claimant’s belief did not attain the required level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance as vegetarians could adopt the practice for many different reasons such as lifestyle, health, diet, concern about the way animals are raised or indeed, personal taste. 187 Further, the tribunal stated that the belief did not have a similar status or cogency to that of religion. 188

In contrast to Conisbee , ethical veganism was held to be a philosophical belief in the subsequent Employment Tribunal case, Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports , 189 decided in January 2020. The Claimant alleged that he had been dismissed after he wrote to colleagues advising them that their pensions were being invested in non-ethical funds, specifically pharmaceutical and tobacco companies known to engage in animal testing, and the only ethical fund offered by their employer offered worse rates of return than other ethical funds on the market. 190 The Claimant alleged that the investments were ‘directly contradictory to the reason for the existence and values of the organisation.’ 191 Further, the investment also contravened the Claimant’s beliefs as set out below. It is important to highlight that the judgments in both Casamitjana Costa and Conisbee are First Instance decisions, and therefore not binding. The decisions in these judgments may not be followed in other Employment Tribunals and may be reversed if appealed. 192

The Claimant in Casamitjana Costa did not eat any animal products nor did he purchase any animal products, including products tested on animals; his beliefs had other consequences for his life. 193 Examples include:

• He would not allow non-vegan food to be brought into his home by any other person;
• He would not consume food where he believed its production harmed animals in any way;
• He would not attend any spectacle involving live animals, including zoos, circuses and animal races;
• He would not live with an animal companion;
• He would avoid social gatherings where non-vegan food was to be served;
• He would not date a non-vegan nor share his property with anyone who was not vegan;
• If his destination was within an hour’s walking distance, the Claimant would normally walk rather than use public transport to avoid accidental crashes with insects or birds; and
• He would usually pay for purchases using with a credit card or coins, avoiding as far as possible notes which have been manufactured using animal products. 194

It is interesting to contrast the rationale for the difference in finding vegetarianism not to be a philosophical belief whilst ethical veganism is regarded a philosophical belief. 195

Opinion and Viewpoint

In Conisbee , the tribunal held that the ‘Claimant’s belief in vegetarianism was his opinion and viewpoint in that the world would be a better place if animals were not killed for food .{emphasis added}’. 196 In Casamitjana Costa , the tribunal found that ethical veganism was more than an opinion and viewpoint stating:

…ethical veganism carries with it an important moral essential. That is so even if the Claimant may transgress on occasions. It is clear it is founded upon a longstanding tradition recognising the moral consequences of non - human animal sentience which has been upheld by both religious and atheists alike. Furthermore, there is no doubt that the Claimant personally holds ethical veganism as a belief. He has clearly dedicated himself to that belief throughout what he eats, where he works, what he wears, the products he uses, where he shops and with whom he associates. It clearly is not simply a viewpoint, but a real and genuine belief and not just some irrational opinion. 197 {emphasis added}

It is difficult to reconcile the reasoning given in these two cases. In both cases, the Claimants established a belief in how humans used animals; the difference seemingly the extent of that belief and its manifestation. In McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs, 198 the Employment Appeal Tribunal differentiated a ‘belief’ from an ‘opinion or viewpoint’ stating:

…to constitute a belief there must be a religious or philosophical viewpoint in which one actually believes; it is not enough “to have an opinion based on some real or perceived logic or based on information or lack of information available.” 199

In Conisbee , the Claimant’s belief that the world would be a better place if animals were not killed for food appears to be just that: a belief. The judgment does not make any reference to any logic or information which would support the Claimant merely having an opinion or viewpoint. The Claimant in Conisbee asserted that it was ‘wrong and immoral to eat animals’. 200 As such, there is an analogy with the reasoning in both Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Limited t/a Orchard Park 201 and Casamitjana Costa . The common feature of all these cases is the belief in the relationship between humans and animals. However, it is perhaps the case that sanctity of life encompasses beliefs in the value of life or veganism, environmentalism and animal rights activism, thus impacting upon the individual’s life to a greater extent than merely adopting a vegetarian diet. Similarly, veganism, particularly in the case of Casamitjana Costa , also has a significant impact upon the individual’s daily life. This, however, suggests that the test in some way relies upon the extent and manifestation of the belief and therefore the test has been wrongly applied, as the law does not provide that the manifestation belief has to be extreme or applicable to every aspect on the individual’s life.

Lifestyle Choice

In Conisbee , whilst acknowledging the Claimant’s belief in vegetarianism was an ‘admirable sentiment’, the tribunal determined that it was a lifestyle choice that could not ‘altogether be described as relating to weight and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.’ 202 It is clear that the Claimant’s vegetarianism in Conisbee did not impact upon his daily life as much as the that of the Claimant’s veganism in Casamitjana Costa , therefore it is necessary to consider what differentiates a belief from a mere lifestyle choice.

It is not necessary for a philosophical belief to ‘govern the entirety of a person’s life’. 203 Indeed, vegetarianism was suggested as an example of such a belief. 204 Again, it is difficult to reconcile the reasoning provided in each of the cases. The tribunal accepted in Casamitjana Costa the ‘relationship between humans and other fellow creatures is plainly a substantial aspect of human life’ 205 and therefore it should follow that someone who does not eat animal flesh due to their belief that it is ‘wrong and immoral’ should also satisfy this aspect of the test as it is more than a mere lifestyle choice.

Cogency, Seriousness, Cohesion and Importance

In Conisbee , the tribunal rejected the notion that vegetarianism attained a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. 206 The tribunal compared vegetarianism with veganism stating ‘the reason for being a vegetarian differs greatly…unlike veganism where the reasons for being a vegan appear to be largely the same.’ 207 The tribunal assert that there are many reasons to become vegetarian; lifestyle, health, diet, animal welfare and personal taste. 208 However, the tribunal state that vegans do not accept the practice of eating animal flesh or products under any circumstances, due to a distinct concern about the way animals are reared and a ‘clear belief that killing and eating animals is contrary to a civilised society and also against climate control.’ 209 A similar statement was made in Casamitjana Costa acknowledging ethical veganism as attaining cogency, cohesion and importance describing ethical veganism as:

a way of life which seeks to exclude as far as possible and practical all forms of exploitation 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 humans, animals and the environment. 210

In Conisbee , the tribunal were dismissive of the notion that vegetarianism achieved a similar status or cogency to that of religion. The judgment provides little in the way of reasoning, merely stating it was not enough to have a belief relating to an important aspect of human life or behaviour. 211 Interestingly, the tribunal in Casamitjana Costa did not expressly consider whether veganism attained a similar status or cogency to that of religion, albeit this finding could be implied from the discussion of veganism’s root in Ahimsa. 212 Ahimsa was not discussed greatly in the judgment, but was highlighted that the concept of veganism is rooted in it, that it is the belief of causing no harm or injury, and that the Claimant followed these principles as a firm believer.

The tribunal has misunderstood the concepts of vegetarianism and veganism, using the terminology generally where the concepts are, in reality, more nuanced. As discussed above, there are different classifications and subsets of vegetarians and vegans. Each classification or subset of veganism or vegetarianism should be considered to determine whether they satisfy the criteria for protection as a philosophical belief.

Whether veganism or vegetarianism are protected in the United States remains debateable. Schwartz outlines how ethical veganism as religious discrimination is not a new idea in the United States, but has ‘never fully made its way to the courts on its merits.’ 213 To the authors’ knowledge, the only decided cases on the matter have found against veganism being recognised as a religion. In 2002, Friedman v Southern California Permanente Medical Group , 214 determined that veganism was not a ‘religious creed’ within the meaning of meaning of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. In 2006, a Californian Federal Court found that veganism was not a religion for the purpose of the First Amendment in relation to a prisoners request for a vegan diet. 215 However, the EEOC has indicated that that they consider that a ‘strict vegetarian’ does fall within the definition of religion for the purposes of Title VII. 216 Further in 2012, the United States District Court Southern District Of Ohio Western Division found ‘it plausible that [the Plaintiff] could subscribe to veganism with a sincerity equating that of traditional religious views.’ 217 In both cases, the matter settled before a court determination and therefore, whilst these cases have not established that ethical veganism is a religion, they have also not finished the conversation of it in the courts.

The question of veganism and vegetarianism have not been tested before any Canadian court within the authors’ knowledge. In the 2012 case, Ketenci v Ryerson University , 218 the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario did not find it necessary to consider whether ethical veganism fell within the definition of creed pursuant to the Ontario Human Rights Code. 219 The tribunal determined that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that she was discriminated against because of her beliefs in ethical veganism. 220

The Ontario Human Rights Commission did consider veganism within their consultation on the definition of creed. Drawing upon the work of Labchuck and Szytbel, it was suggested that confining the definition of creed to religion could result in the absurdity of differently sourced beliefs in ethical veganism being protected differently. 221 Labchuck provided the example of: (1) a Jain follower, who is vegan for religious reasons; (2) a practising Christian who sees veganism as a religious duty: (3) A Christian who is vegan, but is a vegan for secular moral relating to animal welfare; and (4) An atheist who is an ethical vegan for strictly secular moral reasons. 222 Labchuck argued that excluding secular beliefs from the definition of creed would result in the ‘apparent logical absurdity’ that protection would only apply to the first two examples despite all being equally committed to the same ethical vegan beliefs. 223

As a consequence of the above consultation, the ‘Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed’ 224 was updated to explicitly state creed included non-religious beliefs. Based upon the consultation, there is clearly an argument that creed includes ethical veganism.

It appears the definition of creed will be tested before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario to determine whether it includes ‘ethical veganism’ in the case of Knauff v Ministry of Natural Resources . This case concerns a firefighter, with a belief in ethical veganism, alleging a chronic lack of vegan food and cross-contamination in the preparation of the food. 225 The Casamitjana Costa case is likely to be cited persuasively with Mr Knauff’s lawyer, Wade Poziomka, quoted as saying:

[It] demonstrates to the HRTO that ethical veganism as a creed is not necessarily something novel. Ontario is not being asked to lead the way in respect of this issue—we’re simply asking the Tribunal to apply the facts of Adam’s particular case and his particular belief-system to the already-accepted creed standard in Ontario. This case shows it is already happening elsewhere. 226

The development of the law around philosophical beliefs or creeds demonstrate that ethical veganism can be protected pursuant to anti-discrimination legislation. Indeed, Mr Knauff is hoping the ruling in his case ‘could be influential in other provinces and internationally.’ 227 The legal profession within Canada also acknowledge the development in this area with one lawyer commenting:

Times are changing. While the development of creed as a protected ground is in its infancy, we fully expect that this will become an important aspect of human rights protections in British Columbia in the near future. 228

Should Veganism and Vegetarianism be a Philosophical Belief?

This article has so far outlined the law relating to discrimination and protected philosophical beliefs, and the different kinds of veganism and vegetarianism, and their influencing factors. The following section analyses and discusses whether they should in fact be protected philosophical beliefs and, if so, to what extent.

The authors concur with the decision in Casamitjana Costa to the extent that ethical veganism should be protected as a philosophical belief. Further, the authors argue that ethical vegetarianism should also be considered a philosophical belief. What becomes more difficult is where we draw the line with what kinds of vegans and vegetarians benefit from the above law. Schwartz argues that this is dependent on how the ethical vegan/vegetarian lives their life, and how they present their arguments. 229 Though the practice of veganism may be similar between the different groups outlined above, it is the underlying belief of the practice which is philosophical, or religious as some argue, in nature. 230 This is a difficulty Schwartz outlines, for example, what position does a court take for a health vegan turned ethical vegan? We know from the studies discussed above that some of those who began as a vegan other than ethical, have since done research and moved over to the ethical branch. Would this restrict their claim of it being a protected philosophical belief, or even religion? The authors argue not, as the reason for starting the practice is irrelevant to the beliefs held at the time of the discrimination, and the seriousness with which they are held. It will be based on the individual and how they practice and hold that belief, as long as they maintain that it is a philosophy, which influences how they live their life and the choices they make. It is useful at this point to make an analogy with religion. It is clear that an individual who has found, or converted to religion, whatever that religion may be, would be protected from discrimination on the grounds of that religion.

Whilst the case for ethical veganism appears to be well established, should other types of veganism warrant protection as a philosophical belief? The case of Casamitjana Costa highlights how the Claimant lived in a way which held the belief of ethical veganism, linked to a philosophical belief that we should not harm animals, closely linked to Ahimsa philosophy. He refused to consume any food which he believed had harmed animals, but beyond this, he would not live with companion animals, and would avoid travelling on public transport which could potentially harm insects or birds. It is clear that his ethical veganism was a belief which was found to have cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. The authors argue that this should be the same principles are applicable for environmental vegans, with support from Grainger plc and others v Nicholson, 231 which held that climate change is a protected philosophical belief. Health vegans, on the other hand, practising veganism solely for intrinsic reasons and to benefit their own health, should not be protected under law.

The authors posit that health vegans would not satisfy the criteria for establishing a philosophical belief. Firstly, it is an opinion and viewpoint that a vegan diet is healthier than a non-vegan diet. By definition, if an individual is adopting a diet for health reasons, if there was evidence to suggest an alternative non-vegan diet was healthier, it is likely their opinion and viewpoint would change. At the very least, they would consider the alternative. Secondly, the authors suggest that health veganism is a lifestyle choice that cannot be described as relating to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour. Finally, health veganism is entirely intrinsic and therefore, in the authors’ view, lacks the necessary level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. If health veganism were considered a philosophical belief, then the belief in attending the gym might also be considered a philosophical belief. For the same reasons, the authors suggest that health veganism does not have a similar status or cogency to a religious belief.

The issue with Casamitjana Costa being the first case to state ethical veganism as a protected philosophical belief, is just how extremely the Claimant follows the practices and the extents he goes to, to ensure that he is not participating in the harm of animals. For future cases, it is not sure how strict a vegan has to be, or how much impact they let it have on, or influence in, their life. In Conisbee , for example, though the Claimant held a belief that it was wrong to kill and eat other animals, it was not found strong enough to be held as a philosophical belief, but rather an opinion or a view point. The authors believe the Employment Tribunal adopted a simplistic definition of vegetarianism and, as discussed in this article, there are many different branches of vegans and vegetarians with different influencing factors. It has already been argued that ‘at best Conisbee could be described as a muddled judgment; at worst, it is seriously flawed. 232 Many vegetarians would strongly disagree that their belief is a lifestyle choice and not a philosophical belief. Further, as highlighted above, studies have shown that a number of vegans become vegetarian first before making the transition, so to deny that they have that philosophical belief whilst going on that journey is an incorrect and narrow view. As Edge stressed, the view of ethical vegetarianism that killing and eating animals is morally wrong, is wider than the decision in Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Ltd , that animals should not be hunted for sport. 233 There needs to be a middle ground, and ethical vegetarianism, or even environmental vegetarianism, should fall on the side of protection. We can again draw an analogy with religion and consider the comparison between devout and non-devout followers of a religion. Whilst their practice, or the manifestation of the religion, may be different, the underlying belief is the same. If we consider the application of this in Conisbee and Casamitjana Costa , whilst the manifestation of their belief was significantly different, they both believed it was morally wrong to kill animals.

The authors suggest that it is misconceived to determine whether an individual has a philosophical belief based upon the label of being a vegan or a vegetarian. Whilst many vegans are likely to satisfy the criteria to qualify as a philosophical belief, some vegans may not. Similarly, some vegetarians may satisfy the criteria whilst others will not. In essence, the court or tribunal need to consider the underlying rationale as to why an individual practices veganism or vegetarianism to determine whether it is a philosophical belief, not merely looking at the manifestation of their veganism or vegetarianism. The classifications and subsets of veganism and vegetarianism may assist in this determination but ultimately, each belief is personal.

Whilst we can criticise the approach adopted by the tribunal, Casamitjana Costa demonstrates that ethical veganism has been judicially recognised as a philosophical belief, building upon the jurisprudence of the EHCR. Casamitjana Costa provides persuasive authority that ethical veganism should be a protected belief not only in other cases within England and Wales, but also in other jurisdictions. There is a distinct challenge in veganism and vegetarianism being recognised as a religion, as illustrated in the United States. However, where non-secular beliefs are protected independently of religious beliefs, there is a stronger argument for inclusion. The wording of legislation protecting non-secular beliefs may take different forms; ‘thought and conscience’; ‘philosophical beliefs’; or ‘creed’. After all, the language used is synonymous.

However, the mere recognition of ethical veganism as a protected belief does not necessarily mean significant changes in the protection afforded. The extent of protection varies across jurisdictions in the areas subject to protection on the grounds of religion and belief, as well as the types of discrimination afforded protection. The authors have identified the broad range of discrimination experienced by vegans and vegetarians, often as a consequence of the manifestation of their beliefs. There will therefore be a continuing question as to how far it is reasonable to protect or accommodate those beliefs.

What has become clear throughout this article is that there is no clear definition of a vegan or a vegetarian, and what influences the choice to abstain from meat, and possibly other animal derived products, is not necessarily based on one factor. There are potentially multiple reasons as to why an individual chooses to practice veganism or vegetarianism, which can change and evolve over time. What this does mean, however, is that it can impact on whether it is perceived to be a protected philosophical belief, worthy of protection of the law.

In Casamitjana Costa it was clear that the Claimant has a deeply rooted philosophical belief in his veganism, to the extent that it impacted on almost every aspect of his life. What is concerning, though, is how this extremity will affect future claims and the extent a claim will have to go to, in order to justify their veganism or vegetarianism as a philosophical belief. This is exactly the issues faced in the previous case of Conisbee , where his vegetarianism was deemed to be a lifestyle choice, rather than appreciating that it also ‘expresses the conviction that to be fully human is to have reverence for all life, especially sentient life. This includes a rejection of violence.’ 234

Whilst the judgment in Casamitjana Costa is a First Instance decision, and therefore not binding, it is important. It has sent a message that the philosophical belief in ethical veganism, which has been justified through research and academic writings, is recognised, and can be protected from discrimination. The comparison to religion is not one the authors think is a substantial argument, and it is important to recognise and protect beliefs which are secular, and more aligned to philosophical beliefs or creeds. Rather than try to fit veganism and vegetarianism into the narrow definition of religion, or even argue for the establishment of a Church of Animal Liberation, 235 those who hold this belief can still be adequately protected and realised by law.

Veganism and vegetarianism are genuine philosophical beliefs which, to the individuals who believe and practice it, is important and impacts greatly on their everyday life. This belief is strong, but not only for ethical vegans, it is also present in ethical and environmental vegans and vegetarians. The criteria and practices for establishing this belief should not be held to the high standard provided in Casamitjana Costa, and extended to others who hold the belief, though they may not practice it as extremely as what has been established in law. The belief that is held philosophically needs to be established in law, so that those who practice it can be protected from discrimination in law.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Professor Tanya Wyatt, for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

1 Mintel Press Office, #Veganuary: UK Overtakes Germany as World’s Leader for Vegan Food Launches , (January 10th 2019) https://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/veganuary-uk-overtakes-germany-as-worlds-leader-for-vegan-food-launches .

2 Vegan Trade Journal, Almost Half of UK Vegans Made the Change in the Last Year, According to New Data (19th November 2018) https://www.vegantradejournal.com/almost-half-of-uk-vegans-made-the-change-in-the-last-year-according-to-new-data/ .

3 Finder, UK Diet Trends 2020 (27 April 2020) https://www.finder.com/uk/uk-diet-trends .

4 Agricultural and Horticulture Development Board, Consumer Insights , (July 2018) https://media.ahdb.org.uk/media/Default/Consumer%20and%20Retail%20Insight%20Images/PDF%20articles/ConsumerInsights%20WEB_1653_180725.pdf .

5 Matthew Calarco, Being toward meat: anthropocentrism, indistinction, and veganism, 38 Dialect Anthropol 415, 426 (2014).

6 Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson, It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target, 20(6) Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 721 (2017).

7 Kelsey Steele, The Vegan Journey: An Exploration of Vegan Experiences with Vegan from Burlington, Vermont, Environmental Studies Electronic Thesis Collection 23, University of Vermont (2013).

8 Kelsey Steele, The Vegan Journey: An Exploration of Vegan Experiences with Vegan from Burlington, Vermont, Environmental Studies Electronic Thesis Collection 23, University of Vermont (2013); Anna Lindquist, Beyond Hippies and Rabbit Food: The Social Effects of Vegetarianism and Veganism Honors Program Theses, University of Puget Sound (2013).

9 Anna Lindquist, Beyond Hippies and Rabbit Food: The Social Effects of Vegetarianism and Veganism Honors Program Theses, University of Puget Sound (2013); Lisa Johnson, The Religion of Ethical Veganism, 5(1) Journal of Animal Ethics 31 (2015); Swinder Janda and Phillip J. Trocchia, Vegetarianism: Toward a Greater Understanding, 18(12) Psychology and Marketing 1205 (2001).

10 Carol J. Adams, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, xxxvii (Bloomsbury Academic 2015).

11 Id. 142.

12 Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson, ‘It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target’ 20(6) Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 721, 726 (2017).

13 Id. 726–727.

14 Donna D. Page, Veganism and Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs in the Workplace: No Protection without Definition, 7 U. Pa. J. Lab. & Emp. L. 363 (2005).

15 Oscar Horta, ‘Discrimination Against Vegans’ 24 Re Publica 359, 370 (2018).

16 Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports [2020] ET 3331129/2018 (England and Wales).

17 Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others [2019] ET 3335357/2018 (England and Wales).

18 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights art.18.

19 The Treaty on European Union art. 6 (as amended by Treaty of Lisbon).

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_9_ENG.pdf .

22 Id. para 17.

23 Id. paras 21–22.

24 The Equality Act 2010 consolidated discrimination and equality legislation that had developed over a period of more than 40 years. Prior to the Equality Act 2010, religion and belief was protected under The Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003. The Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003 were introduced pursuant to the United Kingdom’s obligations under Council Directive (EC) 2000/78.

25 Human Rights Act 1998 section 7.

26 Id, section 3.

27 Equality Act 2010, Explanatory Notes, para.51; see also Harron v Chief Constable of Dorset Police [2016] IRLR 481 (England and Wales).

28 Equality Act 2010, section 10(1).

29 Equality and Human Rights Commission, Religion or belief discrimination: Advice and Guidance https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/religion-or-belief-discrimination ; see also Equality Act 2010, Explanatory Notes, para.51.

30 Equality Act 2010, Explanatory Notes, para.52.

32 Grainger plc and others v Nicholson [2010] I.C.R. 360, 370 (England and Wales); Regulation 2 of The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 defined ‘religion or belief’ as ‘any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief.’ {emphasis added} As such, under the Regulations, a ‘philosophical belief’ would need to have some similarity to the definition of religion or religious belief to gain protection under the Regulations. The Regulations were amended by section 77(1) of the Equality Act 2006 to remove the word ‘similar’. As explained by Baroness Scotland, it is not clear whether the word ‘similar’ adds to the definition describing it as ‘redundant’ as ‘any philosophical belief must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance, must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and must not be incompatible with human dignity.’ (HL Deb 13 July 2005, vol 673, col 1109–1110).

33 See Grainger plc and others v Nicholson [2010] I.C.R. 360, 369–370 (England and Wales).

34 U.S. Const. amend 1. art 1.

35 42. U.S.C. §2000e-2.

36 42. U.S.C. §2000e-2(j).

37 EEOC, Compliance Manual Section 12: Religious Discrimination (22 July 2008) https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination.

40 906 F. Supp. 1494 (D. Wyo. 1995).

41 Id. 1502.

42 Id. 1502–1503.

43 Id. 1503.

44 Id. 1504.

46 Bruce Friedrich, The Church of Animal Liberation: Animal Rights as Religion under the Free Exercise Clause, 21 Animal L. 65 (2014).

47 Constitution Act, 1982, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2.

48 Richard Moon, Religious Commitment and Identity: Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem, 29(1) The Supreme Court Law Review: Osgoode’s Annual Constitutional Cases Conference 201, 214 (2005).

49 R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6, section 3(1).

http://a.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/consultation%20report_creed%20human%20rights%20research%20and%20consultation%20report.pdf .

51 Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem [2004] 2 SCR 551 para.39 (Canada).

54 Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and creed research and consultation report, 46 (2013) http://a.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/consultation%20report_creed%20human%20rights%20research%20and%20consultation%20report.pdf .

55 Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed, (17 September 2015) http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-creed .

57 The Ontario Human Rights Commission did not incorporate a factor similar to being ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society, compatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others’, whilst it is not necessary for a philosophical belief to have ‘some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief’.

58 Equality Act 2010 Part 3.

59 Id. Part 4.

60 Id. Part 5.

61 Id. Part 6.

62 Id. Part 7.

63 42. U.S.C. §2000e(b).

64 Section 5.

65 Section 6.

66 Section 7.

67 Section 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 defines direct discrimination as ‘A person (A) discriminates against another (B) if, because of a protected characteristic, A treats B less favourably than A treats or would treat others.’

69 ECHR art. 9(2).

70 Equality Act 2010 section 19(1) and (2)(a)–(c).

71 Id. section 19(2)(d).

72 Wasteney v East London NHS Foundation Trust UKEAT/0157/15/LA (England and Wales).

73 Equality Act 2010 section 26(1).

74 Similar to direct discrimination.

75 Similar to indirect discrimination.

76 42. U.S.C. §2000e-2(j).

77 Included within the definition of disparate treatment.

78 Sections 5–9.

79 Section 14.

80 Section 14.1.

81 Section 10.

82 Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (Random House 1975).

83 Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights (University of California Press 1983).

84 Gary L. Francione, Some Thoughts on the Meaning of Vegan, Abolitionist Approach (18 October 2009) https://www.abolitionistapproach.com/some-thoughts-on-the-meaning-of-vegan/ .

86 Gary L. Francione, Reflections on Animals, Property, and the Law and Rain without Thunder, 70 Law & Contemp. Probs. 9 (2007).

87 Gary L. Francione, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, 224–28 (Exempla Press 2015).

88 Kelsey Steele, ‘The Vegan Journey: An Exploration of Vegan Experiences with Vegan from Burlington, Vermont’ Vermont, Environmental Studies Electronic Thesis Collection 23, University of Vermont, 15 (2013).

89 Christopher Key Chapple, Nonviolence to Animals, Earth and Self in Asian Traditions 10 (State University of New York Press, 1993).

90 Kavita Bhatt, ‘Ahimsa: The Jain’s Strategy for the Conservation of Biodiversity’, as found in Indoo Pandey Khanduri (Ed) Human Freedom and Environment: Contemporary Paradigms and Moral Strategies 302 (Kalpaz Publications, 2010).

91 Steven L. Davis, The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet, as found in S. Armstrong and R. Botzler (Eds), The Animal Ethics Reader (3rd edn, Routledge 2016).

92 Id. 267.

93 Gary L. Francione, Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (Exempla Press 2015).

94 Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports [2020] UK ET 3331129/2018, para 17 (England and Wales).

95 The Vegan Society, Definition of Veganism , https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism .

96 Leah Leneman, No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, Britain 7(3) Society and Animals 219, 221 (1999).

97 Id. 222.

99 David DeGrazia, Meat Eating, as found in S. Armstrong and R. Botzler (Eds), The Animal Ethics Reader (3rd edn, Routledge 2016).

100 Marian Stamp Dawkins, Why We Still Need to Read Animal Machines, as found in Ruth Harrison, Animal Machines, 2 (First published 1964, 2013 CABI).

101 Ruth Harrison, Animal Machines (First published 1964, 2013 CABI).

102 The current legislation is the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000.

103 Council Directive 2008/119/EEC.

104 Henning Steinfeld et al., Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, 7–11 (Food & Agriculture Org 2006).

105 Id. 11–20.

106 Compassion in World Farming, Strategic Plan 2018–2022: Working Together to End Factory Farming Worldwide https://assets.ciwf.org/media/7432824/ciwf_strategic-plan-revise18-lr2.pdf .

107 Ruth Harrison, Animal Machines (First published 1964, 2013 CABI).

108 Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (Random House 1975).

109 Compassion in World Farming, Farm Animals: Chickens , <  https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/chickens/ > accessed 5.06.20.

110 It should be noted that these statistics were recorded during the Covid-19 pandemic and may not be as representative of how many animals are slaughtered due to the issues faced by farmers.

111 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom Slaughter Statistics—April 2020 (14th May 2020) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/884944/slaughter-statsnotice-14may20.pdf .

112 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom Poultry and Poultry Meat Statistics—April 2020 ( 21st May 2020) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/886407/poultry-statsnotice-21may20.pdf .

113 It must be noted that battery cages are now banned in some parts of the world. For example, the EU effectively banned battery cages in 2012 through Directive 1999/74/EC. They are still used in the USA, however. For more information, please see: Jessica Braunschweig-Norris, The U.S. Egg Industry - Not All It's Cracked up to Be for the Welfare of the Laying Hen: A Comparative Look at United States and European Union Welfare Laws, 10 Drake J. Agric. L. 511 (2005).

114 Whitney R. Morgan, Proposition Animal Welfare: Enabling an Irrational Public or Empowering Consumers to Align Advertising Depictions with Reality, 26 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 297 (2015).

116 Compassion in World Farming, Farm Animals: Chickens Farmed for Meat https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/chickens/meat-chickens/ .

117 The Vegan Society, The Honey Industry https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan/honey-industry .

118 For example, please see, Rachel Dunn, For Fur’s Sake: Can the UK Can Imports of Fur from Other Countries?, 3(1) The UK Journal of Animal Law 42 (2019).

119 For example, please see, Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (Random House 1975).

120 For example, please see, Trevor J. Smith, Bullhooks and the Law: Is Pain and Suffering the Elephant in the Room? 19(2) Animal Law Review 423 (2013).

121 David DeGrazia, Meat Eating, as found in S. Armstrong and R. Botzler (Eds), The Animal Ethics Reader 428 (3rdedn, Routledge 201).

122 Pew Commission, Environmental Impact of Industrial Farm Animal Production: A Report of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production https://www.lclark.edu/live/files/6699-environmental-impact-of-industrial-farm-animal .

123 Liam H. Michener, Meating America's Demand: An Analysis of the Hidden Costs of Factory Farming and Alternate Methods of Food Production, 7 J. Animal & Envtl. L. 145 (2015).

124 P. Gerber, C. Opio and H. Steinfeld, Poultry production and the environment — a review, Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 3 http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/events/bangkok2007/docs/part2/2_2.pdf .

125 Sara J. Scherr and Satya Yadav, Land Degradation in the Developing World: Implications for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment to 2020, Food, Agriculture, and the Environment Discussion Paper 14, 3 (1996).

127 Henning Steinfeld et al , Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options 29 (Food & Agriculture Org 2006).

128 Leo Horrigan, Robert S. Lawrence and Polly Walker, How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Harms of Industrial Agriculture, 110(5) Environmental Health Perspectives 445, 448 (2002).

129 Compassion in World Farming, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable Solutions for Animals, People and the Planet 39 (2009) https://www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com/media/3817096/beyond-factory-farming-report.pdf .

130 Bingli Clark Chai et al , Which Diet has the Least Environmental Impact on our planet? A Systematic Review or Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets, 11(15) Sustainability 4410 (2019).

131 David DeGrazia, Meat Eating, as found in S. Armstrong and R. Botzler (Eds), The Animal Ethics Reader 428 (3rdedn, Routledge 2016).

132 Compassion in World Farming, Beyond Factory Farming: Sustainable Solutions for Animals, People and the Planet 36 (2009) https://www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com/media/3817096/beyond-factory-farming-report.pdf .

133 Christian Nellemann et al , The Environmental Food Crisis: The Environment’s Role in Averting Future Food Crises, 27 (2009) https://www.gwp.org/globalassets/global/toolbox/references/the-environmental-crisis.-the-environments-role-in-averting-future-food-crises-unep-2009.pdf .

134 Leo Horrigan, Robert S. Lawrence and Polly Walker, How Sustainable Agriculture Can Address the Environmental and Human Harms of Industrial Agriculture, 110(5) Environmental Health Perspectives 445, 451 (2002).

135 Ian Phillips et al , Does the use of antibiotics in food animals pose a risk to human health? A critical review of published data, 53(1) Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 28 (2004).

136 World Health Organisation, Stop using antibiotics in healthy animals to prevent the spread of antibiotic resistance (7 November 2017) https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/07-11-2017-stop-using-antibiotics-in-healthy-animals-to-prevent-the-spread-of-antibiotic-resistance .

137 Regulation 1831/2003/EC.

138 Brigit Lassok and Bernd-Alois Tenhagen, From Pig to Pork: Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in the Pork Production Chain, 76(6) Journal of Food Production 1095 (2013).

139 Stephen S Morse et al , Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis, 380(9857) Lancet 1956 (2012).

140 L.F. Wang and G. Crameri, Emerging zoonotic viral diseases, 33(2) Rev SciTech Off Int Epiz 569 (2014).

141 For example, please see Jimmy Whitworth, COVIDCOVID-19: A fast evolving pandemic, 114(4) Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene 241(2020).

142 Stephen S Morse et al , Prediction and prevention of the next pandemic zoonosis, 380(9857) Lancet 1956 (2012).

143 FOA Animal Production and Health Paper, Improved animal health for poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods 19 (2002) http://www.fao.org/3/a-y3542e.pdf .

144 Michael Greger, The Human/Animal Interface: Emergence and Resurgence of Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, 33(4) Critical Reviews in Microbiology 243 (2007).

145 Alessandra Petti et al , Vegetarianism and veganism: not only benefits but also gaps. A Review, 19(3) Progress in Nutrition 229, 231 (2017).

146 F Phillips, Vegetarian nutrition, British Nutrition Foundation: Briefing Paper (2005).

147 Elizabeth Anne Jessie Cook et al , Working conditions and public health risks in slaughterhouses in western Kenya, 17 BMC Public Health (2017).

148 Jennifer Dillard, A Slaughterhouse Nightmare: Psychological Harm Suffered by Slaughterhouse Employees and the Possibility of Redress through Legal Reform, 15 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 391 (2008).

149 Gail A. Eisnitz, Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the US Meat Industry (Prometheus Books 2006).

150 Stephanie Marek Muller, Zombification, Social Death, and the Slaughterhouse: U.S. Industrial Practices of Livestock Slaughter, 53(3) American Studies 81 (2018).

151 BBC News: Stories, Confessions of a slaughterhouse worker (6th January 2020) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50986683 .

152 Karen Victor and Antoni Barnard, Slaughtering for a living: A Hermeneutic phenomenological perspective on the well-being of slaughterhouse employees, 11 International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Health and Well-being (2016).

153 Jennifer Dillard, A Slaughterhouse Nightmare: Psychological Harm Suffered by Slaughterhouse Employees and the Possibility of Redress through Legal Reform, 15 Geo. J. on Poverty L. & Pol'y 391 (2008).

154 Oxfam Research Report, Lives on the Line: The Human Cost of Cheap Chicken (2015) https://s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/Lives_on_the_Line_Full_Report_Final.pdf .

155 Stephanie Marek Muller, Zombification, Social Death, and the Slaughterhouse: U.S. Industrial Practices of Livestock Slaughter, 53(3) American Studies 81, 82 (2018).

156 Elizabeth Cherry, Veganism as a Cultural Movement: A Relational Approach, 5(2) Social Movement Studies 155, 156 (2006).

157 Jessica Greenebaum, Veganism, Identity and the Quest for Authenticity, 15(1) Food, Culture and Society 129 (2012).

158 For example, Lisa Johnson, The Religion of Ethical Veganism, 5(1) Journal of Animal Ethics 31 (2015).

159 Rebecca Schwartz, Employers, Got Vegan: How Ethical Veganism Qualifies for Religious Protection under Title VII, 24 Animal L. 221, 224 (2018).

160 Please see David Newton, Vegetarianism and Veganism: A Reference Handbook (Contemporary World Issues) (ABC-CLIO 2019) 38–41; Leah Leneman, No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 7(3) Society and Animals 219 (1999).

161 Id. 40.

162 Swinder Janda and Phillip J. Trocchia, Vegetarianism: Toward a Greater Understanding, 18(12) Psychology and Marketing 1205 (2001).

163 Malcolm Hamilton, Eating Ethically: ‘Spiritual’ and’Quasi-Religious’ Aspects of Vegetarianism, 15(1) Journal of Contemporary Religion 65, 69 (2000).

164 Lyle Munro, Strategies, Action Repertoires and DIT Activism in the Animal Rights Movement, 4(1) Social Movement Studies 75, 76 (2005).

165 Jessica Greenebaum, Veganism, Identity and the Quest for Authenticity, 15(1) Food, Culture and Society 129, 130 (2012).

166 Id. 134.

167 Jain Maxim, Vegan Values, Religious Rights: A Cultural Critique of Entrenched Ethics, Conference paper Lewis & Clark Animal Law Conference, 5 (October 2010).

168 Sarah E. Mann, More Than Just A Diet: An Inquiry Into Veganism, Paper 156 Anthropology Senior Theses, 59 (2014).

169 Id. 60.

170 Id. 62.

171 Id. 70.

172 Laura Jennings et al , Exploring Perceptions of Veganism, (2019) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.12567.pdf.

173 W v the United Kingdom (App No 18187/91) Commission Decision 10 February 1993; see also European Court of Human Rights ‘Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion’ (30 April 2020), para.17(c); This case concerned a vegan prisoner who objected to working in a print shop because his beliefs prevented him from working with products tested on animals (i.e. the dyes). It should be noted that the United Kingdom Government did not contest whether veganism was protected under Article 9 ECHR. The case was determined on the basis that the applicant had not exhausted his domestic remedies.

174 ‘Vegetarianism’ has been cited as an ‘uncontroversial’ example of a belief that would fall within the scope of Article 9 See Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Employment & Others (Respondents) ex parte Williamson (Appellant) & Others [2005] UK HL 15, para.55 (England and Wales).

175 Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Limited t/a Orchard Park [2011] ET 3105555/2009 (England and Wales); the case concerned the definition of ‘philosophical belief’ within the context of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003.

176 Id. para. 55; the case particularly related to the Claimant’s belief in anti-hunt activism.

177 House of Lords Debate, UK, 23 March 2010, vol 718, col 853.

178 Equality and Human Rights Commission: Draft Code of Practice Equality Act as stated Practical Law Employment: Religion or Belief Discrimination; See also House of Lords Debate, UK, 23 March 2010, vol 718, col 852–853.

179 Practical Law Employment: Religion or Belief Discrimination.

180 Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others [2019] ET 3335357/2018 (England and Wales).

was also shouted at in front of customers - Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others [2019] ET

3335357/2018 (England and Wales) para.7.

182 Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others [2019] ET, para.39.

183 Id. para.38.

184 Id. para.42.

185 Id. para.39.

186 Id. para.40.

187 Id. para.41.

188 Id. para.43.

189 Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports [2020] ET 3331129/2018 (England and Wales).

190 Jordi Casamitjana, Help an Ethical Vegan who was dismissed by an Animal Welfare charity , www.crowdjustice.com/case/help-a-discriminated-ethical-vegan/ .

192 The authors have no knowledge of an appeal being lodged in the case of Conisbee whilst the parties settled in Casamitjana Costa (Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports [2020] UK ET 3331129/2018 Consent Judgment (England and Wales)).

193 Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports [2020] ET 3331129/2018 (England and Wales) para.20.

195 Incidentally, both Conisbee and Casamitjana Costa were heard before the same Employment Judge.

197 Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports [2020] ET 3331129/2018 (England and Wales) para.34.

198 McClintock v Department of Constitutional Affairs UKEAT/0223/07/CEA (England and Wales).

199 Id. para.45.

200 Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others [2019] ET 3335357/2018 (England and Wales) para.16b.

201 Hashman v Milton Park (Dorset) Limited t/a Orchard Park [2011] ET 3105555/2009 (England and Wales).

202 Id. para.40.

203 Grainger plc and others v Nicholson [2010] I.C.R. 360, 371 (England and Wales).

205 Casamitjana Costa v The League Against Cruel Sports [2020] ET 3331129/2018 (England and Wales) para.35.

206 Conisbee v Crossley Farms Limited and others [2019] ET 3335357/2018 (England and Wales) para.41.

211 Conisbee , v Crossley Farms Limited and others [2019] ET 3335357/2018 (England and Wales) para.43.

213 Rebecca Schwartz, Employers, Got Vegan: How Ethical Veganism Qualifies for Religious Protection under Title VII, 24 Animal L. 221, 230 (2018).

214 No. B150017. Second Dist., Div. Five. Sept. 13, 2002.

215 McDavid v County of Sacramento ED Cal., June 27, 2006.

216 Anderson v Orange County Transit Authority , Charge No. 345960598, EEOC Determination Letter.

217 Chenzira v Cincinnati Childrens' Hospital , No. 1:2011cv00917 - Document 18 (S.D. Ohio 2012).

218 2012 HRTO 994 (Ontario, Canada).

219 Id. para.2.

221 Labchuck, C., Protecting secular beliefs: Should creed provisions protect ethical vegans from discrimination?, Paper presented at the Ontario Human Rights Commission/York University Legal Workshop on Human rights, creed and freedom of religion (2012, March 29–30) Osgoode Hall, York University. Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwFvhg37TTCjMk84Q0l4QTdic3M/preview ; Sztybel, D., Giving credence to philosophical creeds: The cases of Buddhism and veganism. Paper presented at the Ontario Human Rights Commission/York University Legal Workshop on Human rights, creed and freedom of religion (2012, March 29–30) Osgoode Hall, York University Retrieved from https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwFvhg37TTCjS1Awa1JSNkJZNWM/preview?pli=1 as cited in Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and Creed: Research and consultation report, 49 (2013).

224 Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on preventing discrimination based on creed, (17 September 2015) http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-creed .

225 Veromi Arsiradam, A Case for Recognizing Ethical Veganism as Creed, Obiter-Dicta (10 March 2020) https://obiter-dicta.ca/2020/03/10/a-case-for-recognizing-ethical-veganism-as-creed/ .

227 Lily Puckett, ‘ Vegan firefighter complains to Human Rights Tribunal because he wasn’t offered enough food’ food, Independent (22 May 2019) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/vegan-firefighter-sue-food-ontario-human-rights-a8926246.html .

228 Richard Johnson, ‘ Creed: Protecting Veganism as a Human Right’ Right (11 March 2020) https://kentemploymentlaw.com/2020/creed-protecting-veganism-as-a-human-right/ .

229 Rebecca Schwartz, Employers, Got Vegan: How Ethical Veganism Qualifies for Religious Protection under Title VII, 24 Animal L. 221 (2018).

230 Lisa Johnson, The Religion of Ethical Veganism, 5(1) Journal of Animal Ethics 31 (2015).

231 Grainger plc and others v Nicholson [2010] I.C.R. 360, 371 (England and Wales).

232 Frank Cranmer, A Critique of the Decision in Conisbee that Vegetarianism in not ‘A Belief’, 22(1) Ecclesiastical Law Journal 36, 48 (2020).

233 Peter Edge, Vegetarianism as a protected characteristic: Another view on Conisbee, Law and Religion UK (23 September 2019) https://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2019/09/23/vegetarianism-as-a-protected-characteristic-another-view-on-conisbee/ .

234 Malcolm Hamilton, Eating Ethically: ‘Spiritual’ and’Quasi-Religious’ Aspects of Vegetarianism’ (2000), 15(1) Journal of Contemporary Religion 65, 70 (2000).

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Paul McKeown, Email: [email protected] .

Rachel Ann Dunn, Email: [email protected] .