Do Most Vegans Go Back To Eating Animals?
Print This Post
Flashback: This post is a good one so it’s getting republished. The original publish date was July 2nd 2011. Some minor edits were added and now it’s up again. Enjoy!
Do Most Vegans Go Back To Eating Animals?
or
The Myth of the Ex-Vegetarian
There’s been a lot of talk lately about ex-vegans and ex-vegetarians. In fact, there’s a short blog post in Psychology Today that asks Why Do Most Vegetarians Go Back To Eating Meat? Vegan advocates have chimed in on the issue including Ginny Messina and Erik Marcus. (As well as Matt Ball).
But if you actually take a look at the studies, you’ll find that the issue isn’t so much an issue of “failed vegans” or “ex-vegetarians.” It appears that the majority of the people who now claim to be ex-vegetarians were never actually vegetarian.
According to Herzog, the author of the Psychology Today article who did a study about the motivations of ex-vegetarians, “Most participants ate some meat when they were in their vegetarian stage” (source link).
Let me repeat that because it deserves emphasis:
According to Hal Herzog, who did an internet survey of so-called ex-vegetarians, “Most participants ate some meat when they were in their vegetarian stage”
But he didn’t say that in his article, only in the study conclusion. Instead, Herzog wrote:
“[A]ccording to a 2005 survey by CBS News, three times as many American adults admit to being ‘ex-vegetarians’ than describe themselves as current vegetarians. This suggests that roughly 75% of people who quit eating meat eventually change their minds and return to a diet that includes animal flesh.”
In the CBS poll that Herzog cites there’s a margin of error that virtually erases his entire claim that “Most Vegetarians Go Back To Eating Meat.” CBS found that 2% of people claimed to be vegetarian whereas 6% claimed to be ex-vegetarian but the margin of error was 3 percentage points!
Other studies indicate that about half of all people who claim to be vegetarian actually eat animals:
“A small proportion of U.S. adults (1-3% of the population, or 2-6 million adults) are ‘actual’ veg*ns, though about twice that number (4-6%) consider themselves vegetarian when asked by researchers.” (source: Humane Research Council)
“The number of self-reported vegetarians and vegans is roughly double the number of actual vegetarians and vegans” (source: Cultivate Research)
The key flaw in the studies that suggest swaths of ex-vegetarians is a simply error: they mistake the identity labels of “vegetarian” and “ex-vegetarian” as indicative of actual human behavior. The fact is, human beings are complex. They don’t always act in accordance with their stated identities or values.
Instead of asking Why Do Most Vegetarians Go Back To Eating Meat? Herzog should have dropped the “why” and simply started with the question: Do Most Vegetarians Go Back To Eating Meat? In fact, his study – and others – suggests that people who call themselves vegetarian but aren’t vegetarian are better labled as “meat-reducers.” Herzog found that these “meat-reducers” increased their meat consumption when they (wrongly) identified themsleves as “ex-vegetarian.”
Let me repeat that because it deserves emphasis:
“Meat-reducers” chose to re-identify themsleves as “ex-vegetarian” when they increased their consumption of animals.
Clearly, the issue isn’t so much getting vegans to stay vegan. Rather, the issue is getting people to actually do what they say. As in, when people say they “love animals” yet instead of going vegan, they support factory farming by eating animal products at every other meal.
Why do so many people behave in ways that run counter to their stated ideals? Melanie Joy (partially) answers the question in her recent article, Understanding Neocarnism: How Vegan Advocates Can Appreciate and Respond to “Happy Meat,” Locavorism, and “Paleo Dieting”. Joy writes:
“it is not despite vegan advocacy, but largely becauseof it that such defensiveness has made its way into public discourse. The new wave of pro-meat arguments is in part an attempt to defend the weakened meat-eating establishment against the very real threat posed by an increasingly powerful vegan movement. ‘Happy meat,’ locavorism, and ‘paleo dieting’ are signs of society’s willingness to examine the ethics of eating meat, eggs, and dairy, and they reflect people’s genuine concern for animals (and the environment and health). But they also reflect the resistance of the dominant, meat-eating culture to truly embracing a vegan ethic. The new pro-meat arguments are part of a carnistic backlash against the growing popularity of veganism, and vegans and non-vegans alike must understand and appreciate them in order to move toward a more humane and just society.”
I would add “ex-vegetarians” to her list of neocarnists. And I’d agree with her that their existence is evidence that the AR movement is successful. Similarly to Joy, the Winograds explain:
“How do such individuals overcome the guilt of knowing they are engaging in admitted unethical behavior which is detrimental to both animals and the environment, without also admitting to being unethical themselves? They rationalize.”
Continuing with the science compiled at The Humane Spot, we find that “The most significant barriers to vegetarianism and veganism are concerns about preferred taste, nutritional deficiencies, and convenience.” (source: HRC)
So it’s obvious that vegan advocates should use solid nutrition information when encouraging nonvegans to choose vegan. Duh. But since convenience and taste are also one of the three major reasons given for avoiding veganism, we ought to make sure the nutrition information we provide is easy to understand and provides tasty, appealing options.
Looking at all this information I came to a few conclusions about how to be effective advocates of veganism:
- We ought to offer easy solutions to common problems.
- We ought not overcomplicate vegan nutrition.
- And lastly, we ought to take new information with a grain of salt.* Be a skeptic.
—
*Preferably, iodized salt.
Thank you for this great, very insightful article!
When I first read the Psychology Today article I was skeptical right away because anyone who has done even a tiny bit of work with stats knows how easily they can be manipulated. For example, three times as many Americans sounds a lot more dramatic than 6%, especially when 6% of 936 = only 56 people, and as you pointed out, the margin of error makes the finding statistically irrelevant anyway! That’s why I always prefer to see real numbers rather than percentages only. In the comment section you also pointed out the problems with labels which Herzog never bothered addressing. Seeing the actual questions of his survey would have been awfully nice too.
Besides, I always like to check out other stuff written by an author (including book reviews) and given the fact that he seems to think there may be a link between vegetarianism and eating disorders leads me to think he may be biased anyway. So yep, a huge grain of salt is in order here!
Great commentary. I think that you’ve hit one truth and that is that a lot of people who claim to be veg aren’t because they identify it with being better/more ethical. But I think it is also true that a number of those who do, fall off the wagon.
Here is another good insight on the PT blog, which tackles Herzog’s arguments from that perspective: http://bit.ly/kh191j
Put your two responses together and Herzog’s piece is totally decimated.
Sharon, great link! Thanks for sharing
Two things. Herzog has been on a mission for decades to discredit animal rights activists. Keep in mind that we are talking about a guy who used to make his money running tests on animals; and he thought animal rights activists were gaining to much attention in the mainstream public. In one of the first articles he wrote on this subject he focused on the cognitive functioning of animal rights activists (The Movement is My Life; Journal of Social Issues, 1993, Vol. 49, No. 1, p. 103-119). Second, Psychology Today got into deep trouble about a month ago for publishing a so-called research article that “proved” that black women are objectively less attractive than women of any other race (http://www.change.org/petitions/psychology-today-stop-publishing-racist-sexist-articles). I rest my case.
“Three times as many American adults admit to being ‘ex-vegetarians’ than describe themselves as current vegetarians. This suggests that roughly 75% of people who quit eating meat eventually change their minds and return to a diet that includes animal flesh.”
Need I point out that this is not a logical conclusion at all?
Let’s suppose we have a society where everyone lives to 80, and the population is evenly distributed across ages (number of 5-year olds = number of 23 year olds = number of 72 year olds, etc). Suppose that at age 20, 11% of the people go vegetarian. Then, suppose that at age 35, until death at 80, ALL of them go back to eating meat. Then, at any given point in time, 2% of the population is vegetarian and 6% of the population is ex-vegetarian, but actually ALL vegetarians eventually become ex-vegetarians.
Okay, I know the example I picked to disprove that isn’t a very flattering interpretation of the data, but the it was the easiest counterexample I could think of to the silly “2% vegetarians and 6% ex-vegetarians means 75% of vegetarians go back!” fallacious argument.
EC, thanks for this article. The insight is tremendous. I also followed the link that Sharon put up and think that one is excellent also. I agree with her that if you put the two analyses together, each approaching the issue from a different perspective, that the Psych Today piece is decimated.
One thing I would like to point out is your reference to Marcus and Messina. I realize they may be “big names” in the vegan movement, but they’ve entirely missed the boat on this. Their obsessive focus on nutrition comes off as a monomania. Because of their obsession, they see proof of nutritional deficits everywhere they turn. And they make adopting a vegan diet appear harder than it is. Have you ever seen anyone with gout? No? Neither have I. Yet, the constant harping on iodine and the threat of gout makes it appear that the vegan diet is unnatural and we are all one step away from growths on our necks.
Moreover, they do not appear to have taken their own advice and read that awful post on Psych Today with a few grains of (iodized) salt.
Your analysis lapped them. Just a suggestion that your voice stands alone. Their names only weigh yours down.
Julian, good point.
And of course, the math changes if the terms don’t describe the same thing. It’s likely that the CBS poll actually shows that 1-2% of the population is vegetarian and 6% of the population experimented with meat-reduction in the past.
I was a vegan for two years – loved how I felt and did not feel it was a hassle to eat out – though my loved ones often felt as such. In ’08 I became ill and proceeded to spend a year and a half on and off antibiotics due to chronic infections, near hospitalization due to my inability to take care of myself. In the end I was diagnosed with celiac disease and told to get off soy. Given how sick I was, I had no choice but to believe that returning to a non-vegetarian lifestyle would help. It has, I’ve returned to a normal life, being off medication, active (running marathons) and without pain. I do not believe that veganism is the reason I have celiac disease or any of my other health issues, which is what some might believe. I do believe that your ideas on veganism support are positive and important, but just remember some of us who fall off the wagon if you will don’t do it because they want to.
Jenn, I’m sorry you have celiac disease and soy-intolerance. Glad you got a diagnosis.
Just as some diseases and conditions might make eating a plant-based diet slightly more difficult, the opposite is true too. Someone with PKU will struggle (to put it mildly) with a diet that is full of animal products.
Some diseases require particularly cumbersome nutritional planning. That’s unfortunate, but that’s life.
That’s got nothing to do with my article above. My article is not about people who have diseases or about people who “fall off the vegan wagon.” My article above is about being skeptical of poor science. Just because a bunch of people said they are ex-vegan doesn’t mean they were ever actually vegan!
Yep. Of all the self-proclaimed “ex-vegans” I’ve ever met, not one of them was ever actually a vegan. Most weren’t even vegetarians. It’s getting to the point with me where I simply don’t believe anyone who claims this about themsleves… not even the ones who had “health issues.”
I’m meeting a lot of “mostly vegetarians” lately, citing fish or *humanely* butchered animals as their allowable flesh. I’m trying to wrap my head around that phrase and it’s not working. By definition, being vegetarian is not. eating. animals. period. How can people rationalize away the fundamental meaning of being vegetarian so that it permits them to eat meat?
Jenn, we are not supposed to eat soy. Just eat a normal diet, based on a wide variety of fresh fruits, veggies, nuts and seeds. You can also try algae, mushrooms, legumes and whole grains.
Animal products are the worst things that you can eat. Soy and other processed foods are also very unhealthy.
Most of those who claim that they were ”veg” are just fakes. And a few of them that actually felt ”bad”, felt ”bad” because they were eating only 1 or 2 types of foods, or because they were not eating enough calories. You know, most people think that they can blame the plant based diet for their own mistakes.
Check out my page for info about veganism and plant based diets!