I recently found myself in a room with a spokesperson for a large vegan advocacy organisation and found that we had something surprising in common. We had both experienced online abuse from vegan activists after media appearances.
The vitriol aimed at me is perhaps understandable; I have publicly criticised those activists for militantly shaming and judging other people’s food choices, after which they ironically line up to militantly tell me how mistaken I am.
The vegan spokesperson receives similar levels of ire, often from the same individuals, keen to inform her that her statements aren’t vegan enough. She laughed this off as a consequence of representing a passionate community, but I could see the upset in her eyes. These attacks can cause real damage, and should never be taken lightly.
Advertisement
Want to know how to battle bad science?
Food inspires strong beliefs. In our secular age, many modern tribes signal their status through diet rather than religious faith, with restrictions on what we eat a particularly potent identifier. Vegans are a particularly vociferous modern tribe. The passions of many can run hot, and it can make them believe some curious things.
The recent film , available on Netflix, is a case in point. A thinly disguised piece of vegan propaganda, it bombards the viewer with a stream of misinformation and bad or outdated science; equating eating is one example.
Conspiracy theories
It also badly muddles the relative and absolute cancer risks of consuming processed meat, making the dangers sound much greater than they are.
Then there are objectionable conspiracy theories and dubious healing anecdotes. It claims that prominent cancer and heart charities are influenced by the food industry to cover up links between animal products and poor health. That is both unfounded and insulting to thousands of researchers fighting cancer and heart disease.
That it is listed as a documentary is questionable. There is no attempt to provide balance or reasoned debate.
Such extreme passions push the argument away from genuine and important issues. Given the widespread discussion of its shortcomings, What the Health risks creating the impression that all vegan campaigners are wild-eyed and scientifically illiterate, incapable of understanding evidence or having a rational discussion.
There are real concerns about animal welfare and the outsized environmental impact of livestock in meeting an ever growing need for food. If vegans want to engage others in this debate, they need to publicly reject the likes of What the Health and condemn the fallacious assertions made in their name.
We are all free to make choices about what we eat. But some vegans are falling into the trap of embracing bad science when making a health-based case for their diet. Real change will only come from many millions of us modifying our behaviour in small but significant ways. The likes of What the Health will do nothing on that front.
