The Non-Collapse of the Vegan Movement

"Being a protector means you speak up for the voiceless and the people that can't take care of themselves" - Rich Roll

Quotes from Rich Roll bookend this essay as I wanted to draw attention to the hypocrisy of his statements about speaking up for the voiceless and "standing up for what you believe in" while simultaneously whining about vegans who unapologetically advocate for veganism on the basis of animal rights and who spend their time speaking up for our fellow animals "even when it might irritate other people".

It has become popular these days to talk about the "collapse of the vegan movement". This is the title of a recent podcast episode from plant-based podcaster Rich Roll in which he interviews Simon Hill, another popular plant-based podcaster (1). The most frustrating aspect of their conversation is their failure to begin with a definition of veganism, a lack of clarity on basic terms that results in much confusion about exactly what movement it is they are talking about.

In this essay I explore how these widespread misunderstandings of what veganism is creates confusion when online influencers and others in the vegan or plant-based movement speak about the subject of veganism.

Untangling the Mess (definitions are great actually)

Jordi Casamitjana, in his book "Ethical Veganism" defines vegans as those who "don't consume any animal products (at least in diet)" (2). Elsewhere he defines "vegan" as "a vegetarian who may care enough about animal exploitation to at least avoid consuming any animal product as food".

I certainly respect and admire Jordi Casamitjana for his campaigning work but I must respectfully disagree with his classification of vegans. To be fair he acknowledges that some vegans will dispute the classifications he makes. Well yes, I am one of those who do, but I also think that I do so on some quite solid grounds - on the basis of not just how the vegan movement began but how that movement has evolved over time.

Under "Vegans", Jordi lists the major categories of "Dietary Vegans" and "Ethical Vegans". Under Dietary Vegans he lists various kinds of what he calls "health vegans" such as "raw vegans", "wholefood vegans" (WFPB), "High-carb-low-fat vegans" (HCLF) and "Macrobiotic vegans". Junk-food vegans get their own entry under "dietary vegans" but outside of the "health vegans" branch. (3)

Leaving aside some of the earlier proto-vegan movements, there is general agreement that the vegan movement and the philosophy of veganism took shape around Donald Watson, Arthur Ling, Leslie Cross and others who setup the Vegan Society in 1944. That makes the vegan movement just over 80 years old. Ideas such as "ahimsa" are much older and although they deserve acknowledgement, in my opinion, it was the commercial availability of B12 in the early to mid 1950's that made veganism a really viable movement and philosophy.

Roger Yates has written extensively on the history of the vegan movement in articles such as those collected at the Vegfest UK site: https://www.vegfest.co.uk/about-2/and-if-you-know-your-history/ and at his blog https://onhumanrelationswithothersentientbeings.weebly.com/the-blog and substack https://drrogeryates.substack.com/ and is well worth reading.

Strict Vegetarianism

When I booked a flight recently and requested a vegan meal, I was pleasantly surprised to find that the meal was listed as "strict vegetarian". This is a term which has been strangely forgotten but is in dire need of a resurrection. A strict vegetarian (as defined at the Wiktionary site) is someone "who excludes all animal products from their diet, including meat, dairy, eggs, and honey."

The usage notes state (correctly) that a strict vegetarian is "Sometimes distinguished from vegan on grounds of motivation, veganism typically being inspired by support for animal rights."

This is precisely correct and it shows that we do not need to adopt a new definition of veganism, despite what Jordi suggests or what people like Tobias Leenaert would prefer. One of the clearest and best definitions of veganism was given in 1964 by Eva Batt when she defined veganism as :

“Veganism is one thing and one thing only – a way of living which avoids exploitation, whether it be of our fellow men, the animal population, or the soil upon which we rely for our very existence.”

I would contend that what Jordi describes as "dietary veganism" is better described as "strict vegetarianism". We don't need to redefine veganism - we already have a perfectly good word that describes the dietary choice to eat a diet devoid of animal products. Vegans follow a "strict vegetarian" diet but so do many other people, for various different motivations. This is fine but following a strict vegetarian diet does not make you a vegan - veganism is an ethical stance, philosophical belief, praxis and social movement. Even my local airline booking website seems to understand this so it can't be all that difficult!

One of the reasons that strict vegetarianism can often be a better term than "plant-based" is that many people eat mushrooms - which are not plants and the word "plant-based" is rather woolly, it's not really clear whether such a diet could involve occasional consumption of animal products - they are not excluded by definition as plant-based does not necessarily have any ethical component involving concern for our fellow animals.

I don't call myself an "ethical vegan" or "vegan for the animals" because there is no such thing as a form of veganism which is not motivated at a minimum by ethical concerns for our fellow animals. As far as I'm concerned, although people may call themselves whatever they wish, those who call themselves vegan while not being motivated by concerns for our fellow animals are not part of the vegan movement. I think the vegan movement can co-exist and even flourish alongside the various plant-based and strict-vegetarian movements but we do not have the same ethical views nor share the same goals. It is a mistake to speak of us as being part of the same movement as Rich Roll does.

Reducetarianism

This difference in goals is clear from listening to the Rich Roll podcast where he states that:

"If you got 80% of the population to do meat-free Mondays, that's way better than convincing 1% of the population to go 100% vegan"

This is a common reducetarian talking point and it has a certain appeal, especially to those who are enamored of utilitarian ethics and effective altruism. If you just "do the math", less animals are harmed under the scenario of 80% of the population adopting meat-free Mondays. The difference between this goal and that of the vegan movement is that the vegan movement is trying to create a vegan world. You can only get closer to a vegan world by having more vegans. Having a huge majority of the population excluding meat from their diet on Mondays (for health reasons) doesn't move the needle towards a vegan world at all. It doesn't change anything about the way the population thinks about our fellow animals, or change ingrained speciesist attitudes about our use of our fellow animals as resources.

Roger Yates has a few things important things to say on Reducetarianism and related issues in this short video.

Colleen-Patrick Goudreau

Disappointingly, Colleen-Patrick Goudreau, who started one of the first vegan podcasts on the internet, and who I've followed for many years, has also been recently moving in the direction of advocating reducetarianism as you can read in this blog which she titled "being vegan isn't the point". I would contend being vegan is entirely the point. She published a post previous to this called that was called "The Intolerance of Vegans" - it rails against those (like me) who do not wish to see the definition of veganism loosened to the point of meaninglessness. The three appearances of the word "journey" will certainly raise an eyebrow among those familiar with ex-vegan content analysis. See Danny Ishay.

Being Inclusive, Binary Divisions and The Vegan Police

In Colleen's blog titled "The Intolerance of Vegans" she writes:

"Being inclusive means welcoming different opinions and perspectives. Unfortunately, the binary identity divisions currently dominating politics (us/them, in-group/out-group) are all too prevalent in the vegan community as well.

You’re either welfarist or abolitionist.

You’re either plant-based or vegan.

You’re either vegan for health or vegan for animals.

If you’re vegan for health, you can’t call yourself “vegan” (according to the vegan police).

If you’re vegan for animals, you’re probably a “junk food vegan” (according to whole food, plant-based eaters who strictly avoid processed foods)."

She goes on to say:

"Aside from the fact that there is no vegan overlord deciding who is vegan and who isn’t, if believing that it’s better to eat plants rather than animals is the only thing we agree on, that’s enough. That’s a lot. That’s really what vegan means."

Who is Redefining Veganism Now?

But its not. That's never been what vegan means. Veganism has never been just a dietary choice. The founders of the vegan society understood this ... Eva Batt understood this in 1964. Contrary to Colleen's claim that 'Some vegans, however, have made it their mission to change the definition of what it means to be vegan", it is she that is trying to change the definition of veganism, to restrict it to being merely a dietary choice and excluding the ethical foundations which were always a part of veganism from the very beginnings of the movement.

The Limits of Tolerance - No platform for fascism

Welcoming opinions and perspectives is something most people would agree with at least to an extent. But there are limits to what perspectives and opinions we should tolerate. If you want to see what it looks like when hateful, racist and fascist opinions and perspectives are welcomed and encouraged then take a look at Twitter (X) under Elon Musk's stewardship.

I am really tired of the "why can't we all just get along" politics which she exemplifies in her decrying of the" binary identity divisions currently dominating politics". Well, you should ask Alex Pretti why he couldn't "just get along" with the ICE thugs who mobbed him in the street, disarmed him and then shot him in the back while he tried to protect someone who had fallen. Sometimes the "other side" really are not your friends.

Welcoming Communities and Non-Arbitrary Binaries

She paints welfarist/abolitionist as an arbitrary identity division but I can't really see how someone could be both an abolitionist and a welfarist so I don't really understand what that's even trying to say. Everyone who is vegan is "plant-based" but not everyone who is plant-based is vegan, its not that complicated. You can be vegan for the animals AND for your health but you can't be vegan just for health reasons (why would you avoid zoos and circuses and not buy animal products in goods other than food if health was the only concern?). Someone who says the are "vegan for health" is either some form of plant-based or a strict vegetarian. In some cases, they may even be closer to a flexitarian - eating animal products in certain situations. The statement "vegan for health" is inherently contradictory.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with having a community that welcomes everyone who is plant-based, strict-vegetarian or vegan. I have been in many such communities. But obviously, they are not communities composed only of vegans. By definition. I understand there are folks who are plant-based or who follow some variety of strict vegetarian diet who would like to use the label "vegan", for some reason. People can call themselves whatever they like but, as always, calling yourself something, does not make you that thing. There are times and places to challenge such statements and it may not always be opportune to do this, that I can entirely accept. But sooner or later, a person who calls themselves "vegan for health"  will come across a vegan and sooner or later that vegan will take exception to their naming themselves by a term which they do not understand. The "vegan police" will be happy to clear things up, no offense intended!

Her final binary is 

"If you’re vegan for animals, you’re probably a “junk food vegan” (according to whole food, plant-based eaters who strictly avoid processed foods)."

Well, I could care less what WFPB dieters say about the diets of vegans. As I think Colleen knows, the WFPB dietary ideology is full of nonsense and scaremongering about ultra- processed foods and oils - it has no basis in nutrition science so their opinions on the nutritional adequacy of others diets are worthless as far as I'm concerned. If what another person is eating is vegan, then it's no business of anyone else's whether its a superfood or whether it will give them colon cancer. You can offer your opinion (if you're a friend and its welcome and you're concerned about their health) but there is no ethical concern in terms of harming other animals than themselves. Plenty of vegans eat junk food, sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, but there are also plenty of vegans who eat very healthfully and of course there are WFPB vegans (who follow the WFPB nutritional dogma but are also vegan for the animals). So there's no binary here that I can see and from my experience, its rare to hear this kind of language from WFPB dieters as they do generally understand the difference when someone says they are vegan "for the animals" as opposed to eating WFPB for health. Criticising someone you don't know well for their poor dietary choices after they've just told you that they don't avoid animal products for health reasons makes no sense.

At the end of the binaries she states:

"We profess diversity, but what we really seem to prize is homogeneity—particularly homogeneity of thought and ideology. There is a presumption among some vegans that if you’re vegan, you’re also liberal, socialist, atheist, liberationist, feminist, intersectional, progressive, and leftist—and that, if you aren’t any of these things, you’re not only unwelcome—you’re not even vegan"

If you don't have an ideology, than the ideology has you. Nothing wrong with having a different ideology to someone else but when you think of yourself as being without ideology, that's where things get dangerous, because then can fall into what Slovenian philosopher Slavok Žižek described as "the sublime object of ideology", the ideology has you to such an extent that you can no longer see it, like a fish in water. This blog is clear about the ideologies we hold, Veganarchism, the combined ideologies of veganism and anarchism, a unified movement against hierarchy and oppression. From our first blog post:

"We aim to connect anti-oppression and anti-hierarchical struggles into a more holistic concept that expands the historical anarchist circle of concern to the oppression of other animals and conversely to shift the lifestyle politics of the mainstream and welfarist vegan movement towards a more radical, politically engaged, anarchist practice."

Despite Colleen's long experience as a vegan, I do feel that a better understanding of the history of the vegan movement would be of great benefit to her as this section in particular illustrates what seems to be a lack of understanding of where the movement came from, it's ethical and philosophical foundations and goals.

Veganism is a movement of the left. It is a movement against oppression, a peace movement promoting non-violence and opposition to speciesism. These are values of the left, not the centre, not the right. And they have been the values of veganism since it's inception. To try to occlude the origin of veganism as some kind of non-political "its only about the animals" stance is a betrayal of the foundations of the movement itself.

The Society for Ecological Veganarchism tries to join up the vegan movement to it's natural sibling, Anarchism, with the aim of recognition that they are fundamentally the same movement, the movement against hierarchy and oppression. Veganarchism is naturally intersectional, Libertarian Socialist (Anarchist), Feminist and obviously it is progressive and "of the left". It would make no sense to claim otherwise. I would agree that there are strict vegetarians out there who are right-wing and express racist, fascist or violent sentiments. One need only look as far as the celebrity "vegan", Gary Yourofsky to find the most heinously racist, genocidal, misanthropic sentiments expressed by someone calling themselves a vegan. Should we welcome Gary's "different opinions and perspectives" on whether Palestinian children deserve to live? Are you serious? Although people with right-wing sentiments may occasionally find their way into veganism, this is no reason to tolerate racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic opinions in the vegan movement. Welcoming people into the movement does mean we should tolerate such opinions.

To better understand how veganism is and always will be, a movement of the left, the best resource is the following speech given by Steve Best in 2013 to the International Animal Rights Conference. The founding of the Society of Ecological Veganarchism seeks the inverse of what Colleen puts forward - a reclaiming of the vegan movement as part of the anarchist movement and a reminder that veganism has always been a left-wing movement.

Veganism and Diet Trends

Many online commentators have very short memories of what they understand as veganism - for many of them veganism is a some kind of diet trend that started with "Freelee the Banana Girl" in 2009 and began to decline during the pandemic as the "Carnivore Diet" and "Lion Diet" trended upwards. Diet trends can be interesting to track but when you confuse these things with veganism as a philosophical and ethical movement, it results in an utterly confused analysis. Jordi Casamitjana has a longer view that reaches back all the way to Jainism and Ahimsa, several thousand years BCE. However, although Ahimsa is a recognisable antecedent, as I explained above, I regard the vegan movement proper as dating from the mid 1940's with the founding of the Vegan Society.

When Horseshoe Theory Fails - Raw Veganism and the Carnivore Diet

Horseshoe theory is the idea that, at the political extremes, the far right and far left are closer to each other than the political centre. This is sometimes also applied to other domains. In a recent YouTube video, my friend Mike (of "Mic The Vegan") describes the (welcome) decline of the carnivore diet trend over the last few years. It is indeed great to see this insane diet trend declining but as part of his analysis he shows a horseshoe with the carnivore diet at one end of the horseshoe and "raw veganism" on the other.

While I understand the sentiment in terms of showing how there is sometimes traffic between these two diet trends, I think that again this is missing the point that veganism is not a diet so veganism doesn't really belong on a spectrum where raw veganism is at one end and a carnivore diet on the other. Raw veganism is not a "more extreme" version of veganism, its an extreme type of strict vegetarian diet that does not necessarily have anything to do with veganism, despite having "vegan" in the name.

"Raw vegans" are actually much closer to the carnivore diet than it appears. They are both extreme diets, founded on either ignorance of or denial of the findings of modern nutrition science. Raw veganism is shot full of insane pseudoscientific nonsense about "mucus" and "enzymes" and is not only without scientific foundation but does not necessarily have any ethical concerns about our use of our fellow animals. The Carnivore diet has the same lack of interest in the findings of nutrition science, is full of denialism about the consequences of high LDL and very low vitamin C, and draws adherents through anecdotes about miraculous recoveries.

In the case of the Petersons (Mikhaila and Jordan) their supposedly miraculous recoveries, claimed as a result of following varieties of a carnivore diet, were later found to be completely fabricated as the same problems that they said were cured by such a diet, nevertheless returned. Jonathan Jarry wrote an excellent article recently for McGill's "Office for Science and Society" blog which perfectly described the journey and motivations of this pair, whose influence was very important in the rise of the carnivore diet. Thus, the fact that people might transition from raw veganism to the carnivore diet or vice versa is not too surprising as they're not that far from each other philosophically and neither necessarily encompass any ethical concern for our fellow animals.

Ryan (who was once "raw vegan" himself) of "Happy Healthy Vegan" made a great video on the topic of "Raw Vegans"/"Raw Foodists". As he says, "veganism is not about eating uncooked food for the rest of your life, its a stance against animal cruelty and exploitation." Quite so. I would only add that veganism also originated in concerns about the environment and in promoting peaceful and nonviolent relations between humans as well as towards our fellow animals. "Raw Veganism" is an extreme diet trend and should never be placed alongside the vegan movement, they have very little in common.

Online Content Creators and Fear of a Vegan Planet

I have been vegan for about 20 years and in that time I have been pleased to see the growth in the popularity of strict vegetarian diets and increased availability of foods suitable for vegans. I remember a time when the idea of a "vegan section" in a supermarket was something almost unimaginable. Nevertheless, despite this mainstreaming of the concept of veganism I have noticed a disturbing trend whereby certain popular figures in the vegan and "plant-based" space have been shying away from using the term "vegan" as if veganism and animal rights were toxic subjects. I have several case studies which I want to explore over subsequent blog entries but a good place to start might be Simon Hill, who was interviewed on the previously mentioned episode of the Rich Roll podcast and who also hosts his own very popular podcast, "The Proof".

Simon Hill

Simon's story begins with his witnessing his father having a heart attack when he was a teenager. This had a profound influence on him and, with some prompting from his brother who was cutting back on animal products due to health concerns, sparked an interest in health and nutrition science which he brought to his evidence-based podcast which was originally called "Plant Proof". Simon authored a well reviewed popular nutrition book: "The Proof is in the Plants".  "The Proof is in the Plants" was well-reviewed by the folks at Red Pen Reviews who gave it 84% with a 95% for scientific accuracy. No mean feat in the world of popular nutrition science books which, more often than not, are chock-full of nonsense.

Although his diet shift originated with health-based concerns, the book includes the following section :

"It almost goes without saying that a diet that removes, or a least significantly reduces, animal products from the plate is a more compassionate choice too. Each day in Australia alone approximately 13.4 million sentient beings are killed for human consumption. Not out of necessity but because we like the way they taste and eating them is ingrained into our culture. Together, these make up the three pillars of my Plant Proof philosophy: human health, planetary health and animal welfare."

While the reducetarian sentiment already seen above in 2021 is disappointing, as is the appearance of animal welfare concerns rather than animal rights, it seems clear that, at the very least, Simon was aware of and conscious of the ethical concerns with our society's use of other animals for food and understood that a strict vegetarian diet is a step towards improving this situation and stepping away from that unnecessary violence. The concerns for human health, planetary health and for the animals are direct parallels to the concerns of the original vegan society founders.

So what happened?

In 2022, as an online counter-reaction against veganism and plant-based diets developed and the carnivore diet started to gain traction, Simon rebranded the podcast simply as "The Proof". Apparently the proof was not in the plants anymore.... it had gone... .somewhere else?

In the description of a YouTube video at the Time, Simon tries to explain this as: "Let me just say on the record, I still eat plants, and only plants. Dropping the "plant" from the title is by no means related to my diet at all; it is simply because I want to expand the show." OK. But it still begs the question, if the proof is not in the plants, where has it gone? Expand the show to what audience? An audience that consumes animal products perhaps?

Simon and Drew

In a 2023 episode that Simon hosted with Drew Harrisburg (4), Simon, in a section entitled "Ethical Veganism: Can You Be Vegan after eating one egg?" provides an example of when he ordered a vegan sandwich, received and started to eat the sandwich and then discovered it contained egg. Instead of returning the sandwich to the counter and asking for a replacement, he decided to go ahead and eat the sandwich, egg and all, his moral defense being that if he had done so, the sandwich would have been thrown out and wasted. There are two problems here, the first one of which  is viewing the bodies of animals as resources which can be productively used or "wasted". In the case of a human corpse, we would never consider the idea that if the corpse was not consumed, that it was "wasted" as this would be to regard the body fundamentally as a resource and food source. We reject this out of hand for humans just as we should reject it out of hand when it comes to the bodies of nonhuman animals. For a vegan, the bodies or secretions of nonhuman animals are not food.

Drew Harrisberg then responds with his own "confession". He relates his story of how he was once at a dinner where a large amount of seafood was served and the group did not eat all of it so the servers started to bring it back into the kitchen. Drew asked about the food and was told it would be thrown out so he decided in that case, it was OK to eat the seafood, which he promptly did. The moral defense of this is something similar to the ideas behind freeganism - if the food is being thrown out, its ok to eat it as you're not actually paying for the product and the animal was already killed. But the reason most vegans do not agree with freeveganism is because it still promotes the idea that the bodes or secretions of animals are food for us to eat and thus reinforces speciesism and the consumption of animal products.

Simon however is sympathetic to the story and responds that "in that moment, that's a net positive". Drew continues, saying that the fish did not taste good enough for him to consider adding it back into his life on a daily basis - so I guess we can assume that if it HAD tasted good enough, he WOULD have gone ahead and become a pescatarian from that point onward. Simon raises the possibility that someone in the group might have criticized him for this action and might perhaps have accused him of "not being vegan anymore". Drew's response is to say "first of all, I never said I was vegan, I eat a plant-based diet. But a big component of that is ethics" One wonders what ethics those might be .... they're certainly not recognisable as any kind of vegan ethics. He himself admits that his action presents the danger of a slippery slope towards eating animal products more regularly. Its a valid concern, above and beyond what I've already criticized about the action.

The curious thing about Drew's insistence that he is not a vegan and is just "plant-based" is that in a later episode, in January of this year (2026) he says that the reason he went plant-based "was for health reasons" (5). He says "that trigger was health related but very quickly evolved into a strong pull to ethics and environment".  He says that the ethical and environmental pull was initially so strong that he could not imagine not helping to get people to wake up to "what we're doing to the animals". This very much sounds like he DID make the ethical connection that most vegans do towards an ethical concern for animals and that he was not really just plant-based for health as he tried to claim in the previous episode.

He describes how he used to argue in comment sections and "scream to the masses - look you have to see what's happening" and then "all of a sudden" he didn't want to deal with notifications from haters and having arguments, it was "so exhausting", so he stopped. This sounds to me like he very much was vegan, not plant-based but that he got burned out with an initial surge of activism when he realized that it was going to be more difficult than he had initially expected to convince people to go vegan because of "what we're doing to the animals". Most vegans are familiar with this kind of disappointment - we start out thinking that no-one knows what's really happening to the animals and we just need to tell them (or show them) and that they will "wake up" and go vegan, like us. While this may happen in some cases, in a very large majority of cases, it does not and this can cause disappointment and burnout.

Vegans deal with this in different ways - what's most disappointing about Drew is that instead of remaining true to a vegan ethic and concern for animals he retreated to calling himself "plant-based" and sometimes consuming animal products when in fact he had previously made the ethical connection in terms of how we treat our fellow animals.

Not everyone can go vegan

If you've seen any "ex-vegan" video you will have come across the claim that some people cannot be vegan. Simon makes a variation of this claim on the Rich Roll podcast when he says:

"Its difficult from the outside to judge someone based on the way they're eating because only they can do that reconciliation."

The statement is being made in the context of people making excuses as to why they are not fully vegan and still eating some amount of animal products. What Simon and Rich Roll are trying to do is to give people like this an "out" to say, hey, its ok, you don't need to go fully vegan, you shouldn't think of it as a moral baseline, just do your best and if you feel that, for whatever reason, that you "need" to eat animals products now and then, that's totally fine.

This is an enormously problematic take as, if you have seen any ex-vegan video (and I've seen almost all of them) you will know that most "ex-vegans" do not have any good reasons for going back to eating animals and save for a tiny tiny number of exceptions, cannot logically defend their actions. They generally resort to well-tread talking points that are so well-worn that you can get "ex-vegan" bingo cards which are a fun exercise to see how many logical fallacies the ex-vegan in question can hit in a single video. 

As Registered Dietitian Ginny Messina states in her blog:

"There is no way to prove that every person can thrive on a vegan diet. What I do know is that I’ve not yet heard a convincing story from an ex-vegan—one that has persuaded me that the person needed animal foods in their diet. The stories are always either packed with nutrition nonsense, or they are too vague to be persuasive." (6)

The Vegan Movement

The vegan movement is now more than 80 years old. This partner philosophy to anarchism - one of nonviolence and opposition to exploitation, will still be around long after all the plant-based dieters, "raw vegans", "carnivores" and "lion dieters" have been forgotten.

"If you want to be more self-actualized , more integrous, where your actions are in alignment with your ethics and your values and you know what those values are and you stand up for them, that is the ultimate flex of strength. And that's a very attractive thing, someone who stands up for what they believe in, even when its not convenient or even when it might irritate other people." - Rich Roll

Stand up for what you believe in. Go Vegan. Join the Veganarchist Movement.

For Our Fellow Animals
For the People
For the Planet

References:

The cover image is from the 1946 Issue of "The Vegan", magazine of the Vegan Society, UK. Available online at https://issuu.com/vegan_society/docs/the_vegan_spring_1946

(1) Rich Roll - The Collapse Of The Veganism Movement : https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=-KCUUwoL2Vs
(2) page 206 of Jordi Casamitjana, "Ethical Vegan"
(3) page 165 of Jordi Casamitjana, "Ethical Vegan"
(4) The Proof with Simon Hill- "Omega-3s, Ancestral Diets & NEW Banana Study | Drew Harrisberg | The Proof Podcast EP #282" - Chapter: "Ethical Veganism: Can You Be Vegan after eating one egg?" :  https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=QWTEnGoFRRg&t=3220
(5) The Proof with Simon Hill - Rethinking Longevity: Protein, Fat, Bone Health & Why a Meaningful Life is the Best Workout | EP#400 : https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=Tk4_40WkKnw
(6) Disordered Eating, Restrictive Eating, and Ex-Vegans : https://www.theveganrd.com/2014/08/disordered-eating-restrictive-eating-and-ex-vegans/