> In other words, from the advocacy group’s perspective, health can be an effective “foot in the door” approach to increasing the number of vegetarians and vegans, but often not enough to keep people animal-free for the long-term.
Not even their own health is a big enough factor for them to control their lust.
> “The latest findings once again show that a message focused on reduction instead of elimination of animal products may be more effective to create an overall decline in animal product consumption,” the report says. “Advocates would be well advised to soften their appeals to avoid suggesting the choice is all or nothing.”
I wonder if those vegetarians/vegans that returned to eating animal products returned 100%, or in a reduced manner. That's the really interesting bit unfortunately missing from the article. If people reduce their animal products usage with, say, 50% vs someone going vegan for a few months and then returns to animal products with a 50% reduction, they will ultimately have had a bigger impact than people "only" doing the reduction. Personally, all the vegetarians/vegans I know that have gone back have done it because it was too hard in social settings, but the experience have resulted in them reducing their use of animal products to "rarely" or "at social occasions" or "when it's not hard to skip on it", and that's a pretty big reduction.
As someone who grew up vegetarian, I take a bit of offense at you calling it "lust" and that those who return are "weak". That's a very black and white view of an issue with a whole lot of grey.
I'm one of those people you mention who went back because it was hard in social settings. For context, I stopped being vegetarian because I wanted to be more free to eat with my friends and family. It was incredibly hard growing up, as I could rarely have dinner at a friends house or eat meals in Boy Scouts. People didn't want to eat food that I cooked because there wasn't meat in it, so no one ate at my house. Even going out to restaurants was hard. Telling people I didn't want to go to their favorite burger joint on a road trip is challenging when you do it all the time. I had to either bow out of social situations and do my own thing, bring my own food, or not eat.
Going through that for my entire childhood definitely changed me. You have to fight against the ingrained American mentality that meat always belongs at the table. You have to make people leave their comfort zones or do extra work in order to accommodate your needs. You have to be comfortable being "that person" who isn't normal. It wears on you over time, and at some point it just wasn't worth it any more.
Now, I eat meat occasionally when I go out and I cook it for special occasions at home. Otherwise my meals are vegetarian most of the time. I enjoy meat in a limited capacity, and I personally want to keep it that way. I wish those who advocated for vegetarianism and veganism had some more capacity to see consumption reduction as aligned their cause. Black and white views exist on both sides here, and I think the solution is somewhere in the middle. Eat meat when its special. In my opinion it tastes better and you appreciate it more!
Just because something is healthy, doesn't mean its required. The human diet isn't ruled by absolutes.
I see from your comment history that you are a vegan yourself, and your behavior is exactly what turns people away from it. What's right for you isn't right for everyone. Take your arrogance elsewhere, and learn some compassion.
It's still doesn't change the fact that if you can't even control your lust for the sake of your health, you are as weak as they come.
And to that extend, it's universally agreed upon by science and all mayor and respected health organizations that a vegan diet is at least as healthy (and quite possibly healthier) as any non-vegan diet, and that animal agriculture is the single biggest contributor to climate change, and it's obviously better for the animals, so objectively, it's the superior choice.
> In other words, from the advocacy group’s perspective, health can be an effective “foot in the door” approach to increasing the number of vegetarians and vegans, but often not enough to keep people animal-free for the long-term.
Not even their own health is a big enough factor for them to control their lust.
> “The latest findings once again show that a message focused on reduction instead of elimination of animal products may be more effective to create an overall decline in animal product consumption,” the report says. “Advocates would be well advised to soften their appeals to avoid suggesting the choice is all or nothing.”
I wonder if those vegetarians/vegans that returned to eating animal products returned 100%, or in a reduced manner. That's the really interesting bit unfortunately missing from the article. If people reduce their animal products usage with, say, 50% vs someone going vegan for a few months and then returns to animal products with a 50% reduction, they will ultimately have had a bigger impact than people "only" doing the reduction. Personally, all the vegetarians/vegans I know that have gone back have done it because it was too hard in social settings, but the experience have resulted in them reducing their use of animal products to "rarely" or "at social occasions" or "when it's not hard to skip on it", and that's a pretty big reduction.