Cross-posted from my Substack
To start off with, I’ve been vegan/vegetarian for the majority of my life.
I think that factory farming has caused more suffering than anything humans have ever done.
Yet, according to my best estimates, I think most animal-lovers should eat meat.
Here’s why:
- It is probably unhealthy to be vegan. This affects your own well-being and your ability to help others.
- You can eat meat in a way that substantially reduces the suffering you cause to non-human animals
How to reduce suffering of the non-human animals you eat
I’ll start with how to do this because I know for me this was the biggest blocker. A friend of mine was trying to convince me that being vegan was hurting me, but I said even if it was true, it didn’t matter. Factory farming is evil and causes far more harm than the potential harm done to me.
However, you can eat meat and dramatically reduce the amount of suffering you cause.
Here’s my current strategy, but I’m sure there is a lot of room for improvement (and if there is anybody who feels nerdsniped by this, then I’ll consider this post to be a success):
- Mussels and oysters. They are quite unlikely to be sentient (very few neurons, mostly immobile so less evolutionary reasons to develop things like fear or pain). If they are sentient, farming practices are pretty similar to their evolutionary environment, so it’s probably not bad.
- Wild caught fish. They are not factory farmed, which removes most of the suffering. Then it’s just counterfactually killing them earlier than they would have died anyways, and in ways that might actually be faster and less painful than the “natural” ways (starvation, disease, predation from other animals). Here’s a good case for sardines in particular.
- Beef, especially pasture-raised (different from grass-fed). Factory farming of cows is far less bad than other animals. They often have access to the outdoors for a large percentage of their lives. They are cuter so we treat them better. Also, since they’re massive, even if their lives are quite bad, if you ate exclusively cow for a year, you most likely wouldn’t finish a single cow. Compare that to a chicken, which might last you a day. The same logic applies to dairy.
- High welfare eggs. Be careful with this one. Regular factory farmed eggs have nearly the highest suffering-per-meal of any animal product. However, there are certain welfare standards that are rigorously defended where I’m pretty sure the hens have better lives than the median human. Do your research based on where you are and find a brand you can trust. Look for ones that don’t do beak trimming and are pasture raised (different from “free range”). If you have the ability, have your own hens. It’s a really rewarding experience and then you can know for sure that the hens are happy and treated well.
Avoid pig, chicken, factory-farmed fish and eggs. They cause some of the most suffering-per-meal.
You can also consider offsetting, by donating to an animal welfare charity.
Being vegan is (probably) bad for your health
First off, even the most dedicated vegans will tell you that to stay vegan you need to take medicine to not die - B12.
Not to mention all of the vitamins that technically you could get enough of in vegan diet, but in practice you never will because nobody wants to eat a cup of sesame seeds a day and 2 bags of spinach or the like. Things like iron, DHA omega 3, calcium, zinc, choline, coenzyme Q10, collagen, vitamin K2, selenium, taurine, vitamin D, creatine, or carnosine.
And that’s just what we know of.
Nutrition science is at about the level of medicine in the 1800s. We know enough not to remove half of your blood if you’re sick, but we’re still doing the equivalent of not washing hands between surgeries.
Here is a list of just the antioxidants that we know about in thyme:
“alanine, anethole essential oil, apigenin, ascorbic acid, beta-carotene, caffeic acid, camphene, carvacrol, chlorogenic acid, chrysoeriol, derulic acid, eriodictyol, eugenol, 4-terpinol, gallic acid, gamma-terpinene, isichlorogenic acid, isoeugenol, isothymonin, kaemferol, labiatic acid, lauric acid, linalyl acetate, luteolin, methionine, myrcene, myristic acid, naringenin, rosmarinic acid, selenium, tannin, thymol, trytophan, ursolic acid, vanillic acid.”
Excerpt from In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan
Have you ever heard of rosmarinic acid? What does it do in the body? If anything? How does it interact with myristic acid? What about with all of the other ones?
Or take a look at this simplified chart of human metabolism (that we know about so far!)
I highly recommend Michael Pollan’s book, In Defense of Food. It’s basically about the meta field of nutrition and how little we know, how most of nutrition science is fundamentally difficult, and is just one giant case for epistemic humility when it comes to nutrition.
Now, of course, being vegan won’t kill you, right away or ever. But the same goes for eating a diet of purely McDonald’s or essentially just potatoes (like many peasants did). The human body is remarkably resilient and can survive on a wide variety of diets. However, we don’t thrive on all diets.
Vegans often show up as healthier in studies than other groups, but correlation is not causation. For example, famously Adventists are vegetarians and live longer than the average population. However, vegetarian is importantly different from vegan. Also, Adventists don’t drink or smoke either, which might explain the difference.
Wouldn’t it be great if we had a similar population that didn’t smoke or drink but did eat meat to compare?
We do! The Mormons. And they live longer than the Adventists.
The problem with vegans is that it selects for a very particular sort of person - somebody who can control what they eat far more than the average population.
Not to mention it controls for the people who don’t have such severe health effects that they drop the diet. Many people tried vegan and then stopped because it caused health issues for them.
There are also undoubtedly plenty of effects that we do not measure well, haven’t thought to study, or what not, that are caused by veganism. A common pattern I had with a friend of mine is that they’d think their life was falling apart and they’d pick fights with everybody until I asked, as tactfully as I could, when was the last time they took their iron pills. I’d always find out they’d accidentally slipped for a week or so. They felt better within a day or two of restarting.
As far as I’ve seen, nutrition studies rarely measure things like irritability. What other symptoms are we experiencing from eliminating a whole food group from our diet that we don’t know about? There are already some indicators in studies that need way more follow up.
There was that RCT showing that creatine supplementation boosted the IQs of only vegetarians.
Calcium is one of the only nutrients we know of that can reduce the mood symptoms of PMS for women and it is practically impossible to get enough calcium from real food from vegan sources (you’re stuck taking medicine for it in the form of supplements or eating artificially fortified sources, like soy milk).
Here’s a list of negative health effects found in studies, with the usual caveat that correlation isn’t causation and doing RCTs on long term effects of diets is almost impossible:
- Vegans/vegetarians had over twice the odds of depression (OR ~2.14) compared to omnivores
- Among those who lived to 80, vegetarians/vegans had higher rates of cognitive impairment: vegetarians had over 2× the odds of cognitive impairment (OR ~2.05) and also more physical disabilities and chronic diseases by age 80. The analysis suggested a dose-response, with the stricter vegan diet linked to more adverse outcomes than ovo-vegetarian or pesco-vegetarian diets
- Vegans had over 2× the risk of hip fracture (HR 2.31, CI 1.66–3.22) compared to meat-eaters
- Meat consumption is a predictor of longer life expectancy. This relationship remained significant when influences of caloric intake, urbanization, obesity, education and carbohydrate crops were statistically controlled.
- In multivariate analysis, vegetarians had 35% lower odds of healthy aging (OR ~0.65), and specifically vegans had ~57% lower odds (OR 0.43) of healthy aging compared to omnivores
- In the EPIC-Oxford cohort, average B₁₂ intake among vegans was well below recommendations, and even though ~50% of vegans reported taking B₁₂ supplements, many still had biochemical evidence of B₁₂ deficiency
- Such neurological symptoms have been documented in vegans who forego B₁₂ supplements for years. They are often reversible with B₁₂ therapy if caught early, but can be permanent if prolonged
- A small study found 26.5% menstrual irregularity in vegetarians vs 4.9% in non‑vegetarians. Low B₁₂ and iron can lead to anemia and ovulatory problems; low zinc may disrupt menstrual cycles; inadequate iodine or selenium can affect thyroid function, which is crucial for fertility.
But honestly, the best we have most of the time are observational studies or RCTs done on a short time frame, measuring only a small fraction of all the relevant possible outcomes, with no or few ways to see if people actually followed the diet. So consider this just light evidence pointing in the direction that eliminating a whole source of nutrition has negative side effects.
There are many other pieces of evidence that point that direction.
There’s the sniff test. A large percentage male vegan influencers look pale and sickly. (I’m not going to name names, but if you follow the space at all, you’ll know who I’m talking about, because it could refer to so very many of them.) Of course, you can build muscle and be fit as a vegan, but it is much harder, and we know that muscle mass is a significant predictor of all sorts of positive health outcomes.
In fact, weight loss is a common side effect of a vegan diet, which could explain all or most of any health upsides, rather than being vegan itself. Being overweight leads to poor health outcomes independent of the source of weight.
Not to mention that of all of the hunter gatherer tribes ever studied, there has never been a single vegetarian group discovered. Not. A. Single. One.
Of the ~200 studied, ~75% of them got over 50% of their calories from animals. Only 15% of them got over 50% of their calories from non-animal sources.
Of course, what we did in our ancestral environment is not always good for us (there was a lot of infectious disease and murder there). And there’s a ton of variety in hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, it is a good prior to assume that our bodies are evolved for our ancestral environment, so start with the prior that if all of our hunter-gatherers did a certain thing, it is more likely than not that that thing is good for us. The burden of evidence should be on people proposing a diet that eliminates the majority of foods we ate in our ancestral environment.
Health is important for your well-being and the world’s
Now, why should you care about your health? Well, I’m just going to assume that you care about your own suffering at the very least.
But this also affects your ability to help others. Health problems directly affect your ability to work on altruistic activities by preventing you from working or forcing you to take time off. Affecting your cognitive abilities affects your ability to choose good strategies, which can be the difference between being net negative and net positive.
Affecting your mood is an underrated side effect of poor health. You might be feeling tired and sad because your job isn’t a good fit. Or you might be deficient in something.
You might be missing one of the things we know that you need and is hard to get with a vegan diet, or you might be missing one of the innumerable bioactive compounds that we haven’t researched enough yet to know. Or maybe ones we haven’t discovered yet. Choline was only recognized as an essential nutrient in 1998.
I once had to take time off of work due to depression. There are many things that could have led to a cure, but one thing correlates is when I recovered, I’d secretly started consuming dairy again. Vitamin B12 deficiency includes fatigue, depression, loss of appetite.
I kept it secret because I felt I couldn’t tell my vegan friends what I was doing. They would think that I didn’t care about animals. But I do care about animals. A lot.
I wish that we could be optimally healthy without eating animals. Honestly, I’d prefer not to eat plants either, because I put a disconcertingly high probability that plants are also sentient.
But we are what we are. I do not wish to kill all lions because they cause suffering to the gazelles. I do not wish to force all lions to live on a vegan diet that slowly kills them, or live semi-healthily with medical intervention of pills to keep away the known deficiencies. Likewise, I do not wish for humans to sacrifice their health for others.
You could make the argument that taking supplements and having greater risk of various health issues is worth the guaranteed harm you’ll cause to animals.
The argument against that is:
- You can reduce the amount of suffering you cause by a ton, such that that argument is substantially weakened.
- Most people would consider sacrificing their health for others to be too demanding an ethical framework.
Another argument could be that you simply try vegan, then switch back if you experience health issues. This is actually already the default for most people.
The problem with this is when it’s unclear whether the diet is causing health issues. For example, it might be affecting people’s IQs by just a handful of points. You wouldn’t be able to subjectively tell, but this could be massively affecting your life and ability to do good in the world.
One of the most common side effects of deficiencies are mood disorders, which are extremely hard to notice as such. The default is for our brains to blame sadness, anxiety, or anger on external things (your job, your partner, the weather, society, politics) and it’s very hard for us to notice that it might be based on nutrition.
I never considered that perhaps my depression was caused by B12 deficiency. I was supplementing and eating fortified vegan foods. I thought it was because of my job and my relationship. And I still think it might have been those things! The human mind is complex and we do not really understand it, even our own.
My friend who got irritable never noticed that it was iron deficiency, even when they had such frequent and clear feedback loops.
It’s made worse by the fact that nutrition effects often happen in unintuitive ways. You body can store vitamin B12 for years before it runs out, leaving you to develop deficiency symptoms years after you go vegan. You maybe be taking supplements or eating vegan alternatives, but not absorbing the nutrients well.
One could feasibly do something like eat a regular diet, systematically measure as many possible figures as you can, then take the same measurements at a few points later on (shorter term and longer term) and see if there were any differences.
For myself, the things I most worry about are mood issues, which I know I cannot measure well enough to be of use in this sort of experiment. I regularly track my happiness on a scale of 1 to 10, and in one period, I was experiencing depression severe enough to make me stop working. I recorded an average 6.5 out of 10 compared to my average 7.5, because my coping mechanisms allowed me to feel neutral, as long as I was completely engaged in the most entertaining entertainment I could find. The moment I “returned to the real world”, the emotions would come crashing down again. So at the end of the day, I would record a 6 or a 7 for happiness - because while I was completely distracted, I felt alright.
If veganism caused anything less than full on depression, I most likely wouldn’t be able to detect it with my measurements.
Not to mention, given the suffering mitigation strategies, it’s unclear to me whether this is worth the time or effort.
The world is full of things I could stop consuming that probably cause some amount suffering.
For example, a large percentage of chocolate comes from slave labor and I am very against slavery. But the marginal effects on my chocolate consumption on slavery seem small enough that most people wouldn’t consider sacrificing chocolate due to this.
I think this is rational. There are nearly infinite things you can do to make the world better. It’s best to focus on the things that have the highest returns on investment, since you have limited amounts of energy and time.
You could also start from a stronger prior that you should require very strong evidence to do something that none of your ancestors did in the ancestral environment. Or a strong prior that you should not sacrifice your health for others.
Anyways, it’s complicated. Like any time you try to make the world better.
So, if you want to maximize the good in the world, don’t martyr your health to a proof-of-virtue diet or think in black-and-white of vegan vs carnivore. Choose welfare-optimized animal products, consider offsetting with targeted donations to animal charities, and remember that thriving humans - sleeping well, thinking clearly, not anemic or depressed - are the ones who best help all sentient beings.

I agree that removing the 10% of animal products from your diet that causes the least suffering is not that important, and otherwise clear-headed EAs treat it like a very big deal in a way they don’t treat giving 10% less to charity as a very big deal (even though it only takes small amounts of base giving for the latter to be a far bigger deal). There is a puritanical attitude to diet that is surprisingly pervasive on the forum which I think is counter-productive.
Another commenter (Tristan) is right to point to other and second-order benefits of veganism, but some of the common ones I hear I don’t find persuasive. For example, it’s not clear to me whether the signaling value of being 100% vegan and strict about it (which many people now pattern match with being shrill and judgmental) is positive, or at least more positive than being 90% vegan (signaling that change doesn’t have to be all or nothing, that taking intermediate first steps is good etc.)
But this post’s title that ‘you SHOULD eat meat if you hate factory farming’ goes too far. I don’t find the case compelling. So upvoting and disagreeing :)
Hey, I agree that many people associate veganism with 'annoying people'. But that's actually...more reason to call yourself vegan, if you're not an annoying person yourself! Break the stereotype, and normalise being standing for vegan values :)
My sense is that a lot of people in EA are against factory farming, but still buy into human supremacy and are ok with free-range farming. Then the 90% approach reflects the appropriate attitude and is fine. But for those like myself who have long-term hopes of ending animal exploitation altogether, I think it makes sense to signal that we oppose all of it. Requiring others to be strict is certainly counter-productive, though. I also don't think change has to be all or nothing - I actually think it's really good for people who make exceptions sometimes to call themselves vegan.
To be clear, I want to see factory farming ended, I’m vegan (except occasional bivalves), and co-founded an animal welfare charity.
I’m with you on the goal.
But while all the vegans I know seem to take it as self-evident that being vegan is the best diet choice in terms of social signalling, I’m not convinced.
You’re right that it’s possible to be a non-judgmental strict vegan, and everyone should aspire to be. But in my experience, the average vegan doesn’t meet this standard. And so rather than assuming a marginal vegan will be the best case scenario, I assume they’ll be average, and I think that could be negative.
[Of course, I don’t have good data on how judgmentally the average vegan behaves — but neither do the people who assume they’re positive signaling value. It’s also likely that my and most people’s perceptions of vegans is skewed by a vocal minority. But the result is that omnivores are often very defensive around vegans, even when the vegan isn’t being judgmental and is just silently being a strict vegan. I suspect that for someone to know that you’re a strict vegan and not feel judged would require you to actively demonstrate to them that you don’t judge them. And that’s actually quite hard to do]I’m
Good question! I think (a) having to think about which is the 10% and “should I eat this” every meal uses too much bandwidth. I find a simple rule easier overall. It’s kind of like how I don’t calculate the consequences of my actions at every decision even though I’m consequentialist. I rely on heuristics instead. (b) I found it really hard to get to my current diet. It took me many years. And I think that personally I’ll find it hard to re-introduce 10% of the animal products without being tempted and it becoming 50%. (c) I think the things I say about veganism to other vegans / animal people are more credible when I’m vegan [as I’m clearly committed to the cause and not making excuses for myself].
Interesting post.
As a vegan-for-the-animals for 27 years I agree that
- nutrition science is very complex and very primitive
- there definitely could be nutritional benefits to animal products (and downsides to avoiding them) that we're not seeing yet
- the vegan/animal rights movement is sometimes too dogmatic about vegan diets, and sometimes downplays the potential pitfalls
- caring for your own health is important and a moral thing to do, with potentially beneficial altruistic outcomes
- agreed that within omnivorous diets a lot of variation in terms of negative impacts on animals exists
- I also think there's possibly potential pro-animal bias involved in our assessment of the science (including by vegan health professionals). Motivated reasoning and wishful thinking could also make us not see potential downsides, averse effects in ourselves, and not communicate about them.
however
- i think the claim that veganism is "probably unhealthy" is too strong, and too vague.
- just like we need to take into account pro-animal/pro-vegan bias, we also need to take into account a carnistic bias (same here in the comments)
- the caveat about correlation/causation is really important (e.g. in the ca... (read more)
I started writing a long reply on the many parts of this I disagree with, and I may finish that over the weekend. In the meantime, I just have to ask: What on earth is going on with the fearmongering around vitamins and supplements?
I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to a vitamin as "medicine" before, and the way you repeatedly do in this piece reads to me as some odd scare tactic. I think we're actually as an EA community really in favor of vitamin supplementation (just search "Vitamin A" on the Forum) and most people would not consider fortified foods medicine.
In my opinion, fortification is pretty amazing! The discovery of vitamins was pretty amazing! I think both should be celebrated, not stigmatized.
I'm reading the way you talk about this as weirdly "anti-science wellness influencer" coded, but am I missing something here?
This post assumes that the main reason for going vegan is due to your individual consumer impact. But there are at least three other, in my opinion stronger, reasons to go vegan:
Consumer boycotts aren't often effective at putting industries out of business. Social and political movements are, and the above three points contribute better to social and political change.
In response to the health argument:
The argument seems to be primarily an argument about ignorance: we don't understand nutrition, so veganism might be bad for us in a bunch of ways that we don't yet know about. But any modern diet is pretty far from a 'natural' one, so I'm not sure why defaulting back to a normal modern diet is any ... (read more)
It is not necessary to be permanently vegan for this. I have only avoided chicken for about 4 years, and hit all of these benefits.
- Because evidence suggests that when we eat animals we are likely to view them as having lower cognitive capabilities or moral status (see here for a wikipedia blurb about it).
- I have felt sufficient empathy for chicken for basically the whole time I haven't eaten it. I also went vegan for (secular) Lent four years ago, and felt somewhat more empathy for other animals, but my sense is eating non-chicken animals didn't meaningfully cloud my moral judgment enough to care about, given my job isn't in animal welfare.
- As a social signal, to show to others that you object to this practice as a whole.
- My family eats chicken all the time, so when I visit they change to beef or vegetarian, which serves the social signal purpose without making it difficult for us to eat together
- I gave up squid and octopus this year, and on two instances this has come up and people have praised me for being virtuous
- You just find it easier to live according to simple ethical principles rather than calculating the expected utility in every situation.
- I don't need to think about expected
... (read more)If you can control your diet enough to be vegan, you can probably control it enough to eat healthier with a non-vegan diet as well.
The important thing isn't that you're healthier compared to a SAD diet. Pretty much anything is better than a SAD diet. The important thing is whether you're healthier than your realistic alternative.
If you eat in the way I describe you still get the signalling benefits and you don't have to do expected value calculations with every decision.
In fact, you might have better signalling effects because it shows you're not just blindly virtue signalling but actually trying to solve the problem.
Also, if you look and are healthier, people will find that more persuasive.
I think this kind of signal might work for high-functioning EAs, but not for your average person. It's too complicated: "I don't want to participate in a practice that harms animals" is much easier to understand.
By the logic you've expressed in the post, I think you could also consider eating leftover meat, meat that's for free, meat that's from someone you know... so it gets complicated. My expectation is that most people see such behaviour, and think this person kind of cares about animal welfare, but only a bit.
That all said, I think (although I'm uncertain) that reason (1) in my last comment might actually be the most important.
"humans evolved eating a variety of diets in different places"
Yes, but none of them were ever vegan. I think this is important. It makes it much more likely that our bodies are not evolved for veganism.
We have relatively small teeth, weak jaws, small digestive systems, and low stomach acidity compared to other primates. We are clearly adapted to eating cooked meat and fats.
I'd like to point out that many of the articles you provided linked vegetarian / vegan diets to poor health outcomes were performed in China or global contexts. Globally, meat is quite expensive and therefore you could expect that correlational studies will find that meat intake is correlated positively with health outcomes simply due to income effects. I don't see that as particularly strong evidence that vegan / vegetarian diets are unhealthy when most existing research finds benefits for plant-based diets, especially for cardiovascular health.
Separately from the debate of veganism vs eating meat, we have strong evidence that high intake of fiber, low intake of saturated fats, and low intake of red and/or processed meats are all correlated with positive health benefits. Given that, my prior assumption is that a vegan/vegetarian diet (which is likely to be high in fiber, low in sat fats and have zero red and/or processed meat) is generally going to be healthier. It would take very strong evidence to the contrary for me to shift my mindset to believe that vegan diets are less healthy.
Finally, if you are going to consume animal products, aside from bivalves dairy probably causes the... (read more)
Agree with your point about the Chinese study reference, about healthy aging for elderly Chinese people. The OP uses it to make three separate points, about cognitive impairment, dose-response effects and lower overall odds of healthy aging, but it's pretty clear that the study is basically showing the effects of poverty on health in old age.
Elderly Chinese people are mostly vegetarian or vegan because a) they can't afford meat, or b) have stopped eating meat because they struggle with other health issues, both of which would massively bias the outcomes! So their poor outcomes might be partly through diet-related effects, like nutrient/protein deficiency, but could also be sanitation, malnutrition in earlier life (these are people brought up in extreme famines), education (particularly for the cognitive impairment test), and the health issues that cause them to reduce meat.
The study fails to control for extreme poverty by grouping together everyone who earned <8000 Yuan a year (80% of the survey sample!), which is pretty ridiculous, because the original dataset should have continuous data...
The paper also makes it very clear that diet quality is the real driver, and that h... (read more)
You say that you put a disconcertingly high probability that plants are sentient, yet seem to understate this possibility for bivalves despite their nerve ganglia, which allow for nociception and make them biologically closer to the organisms we associate with sentience than plants.
I find your encouragement of backyard eggs to be particularly concerning. Keeping hens in backyards does not address important welfare concerns around unnaturally frequent laying and still supports the commercial breeding industry which commonly macerates and suffocates male chicks. The wild ancestors of domestic chickens (i.e., red jungle fowl) laid around 8 to 12 eggs per year, limited to particular seasons. Meanwhile, modern laying hens have been selectively bred to lay upwards of 300 eggs year-round, which is far beyond their natural reproductive capacity. This causes nutrient deficiencies (especially for calcium, which is taken from bones and eggshell formation), and increases the risk of egg binding and egg peritonitis, both of which are painful conditions. If you have the time and resources to keep backyard hens, you can probably afford to take a multivitamin to cover your bases.
Your recommendatio... (read more)
"In fact, weight loss is a common side effect of a vegan diet, which could explain all or most of any health upsides, rather than being vegan itself."
This is more a point against your thesis than for it, I think. It doesn't matter if the ideal meat diet is better than the ideal vegan diet, because people won't ever actually eat either-this is just the point about how people won't actually eat 2 cups of sesame seeds a day or whatever. If going vegan in practice typically causes people to lose weight, and this is usually a benefit, that's a point in favour of veganism. Unless people can easily just lose weight another way-and they very much cannot as we know from how much almost everyone overweight struggles to get permanently healthy by dieting-it doesn't matter if the benefit from veganism could theoretically be gained by some non-vegan diet that you could theoretically follow. I guess the main counter-argument here would be if you think the existence of ozempic now makes losing weight in another way sufficiently easy.
My understanding is that the most rigorous RCT on creatine for cognitive performance found no difference between vegetarians and meat eaters and virtually no effect size in either case.
(Crossposted from my LessWrong comment.)
If you personally feel safer eating animals products, fine.
If you don't want to follow a well-planned diet, also fine to eat omnivorously.
But before encouraging others to feel unsafe about following a well-planned vegan diet, it's probably a good idea consider that the US Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics published in 2025 a peer-reviewed position paper that reiterates what they've been publishing for decades now, that well-planned vegan diets are healthy, and to explain why and how they would do that if, as you claim, the weight of the evidence pointed to expecting well-planned vegan diets to be a bad idea for health.
How would the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals manage to push through the peer review process, decade after decade, position papers that INCORRECTLY claim well-planned vegan diets are healthy?
"It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that, in adults, appropriately planned vegetarian and vegan dietary patterns can be nutritionally adequate and can offer long-term health benefits such as improving several health outcomes associated with cardiometabolic di... (read more)
On top of the others' comments on B12, it's worth noting that there's a common blanket recommendation for everyone over 50 to supplement B12, no matter their diet, because absorption gets worse with age. So it's strange to insist on lack of B12 and need of medicine as a problem only for vegans.
Reference: Institute of Medicine. 1998. Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/6015.
x-posted from Substack
The Seventh-Day Adventist studies primarily looked at differences *between* different Seventh-Day Adventists, not just a correlational case of Seventh-Day Adventists against other members of the public. This helps control for a number of issues with looking across religious groups, which would be a pretty silly way to determine causation from diet... (read more)
Interesting points! An important caveat is that, in addition to animal welfare, people do not eat meat/animal products because of the environmental impact, biorisks, social justice, etc. Moreover, the whole world cannot eat off pasture-raised beef or "high-welfare" eggs, which complicates a bit what we ought to do as individuals. And even in the best scenarios of eating animal products, pasture-raised cows are often transported far distances with no water, cramped, etc., and slaughtered in problematic ways. "High welfare" eggs still require sourcing laying hens and male chicks being disposed of, etc. No shame in doing what is best for you and your health, though!
I wonder if some of the health impacts of being vegan could be mitigated with single cell protein. For methane SCP fed to salmon, just a little compared to fully vegan (soy) diet showed a big improvement in gut health. I'd be most confident that this would port to other obligate carnivores like cats, but I could see it being beneficial for dogs and humans as well. Unfortunately, methane SCP is not yet approved for human food, but hydrogen SCP is in some places. Quorn is also SCP (fungal), so any studies on whether that helps?
Interesting post, curious if your motivation with this post is to promote that animal advocates eat animals? Anyway, I have a couple of objections here.
Not eating sentient beings generally minimizes harm more effectively than eating some of them. That is true both in the direct sense, since fewer beings suffer and die, and in the indirect sense, since it avoids reinforcing speciesism. Those second-order effects could easily outweigh any claimed benefits of selectively eating animals. For that reason, I still think the principle of avoiding the consumption of sentient beings wherever possible and practicable is the stronger position.
The question that is on every single EAs mind is, of course, what about huel or meal replacements? I've been doing huel+supplements for a while now instead of meat and I want to know if you believe this to be suboptimal and if so to what extent? Nutrition is annoyingly complex and so all I know for sure is like protein=good, cal in=cal out and minimize sugar (as well as some other things) and huel seems to tick all the boxes? I'm probably missing something but I don't know what so if you have an answer, please enlighten me!
You might like this diet offset calculator, Kat: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/Bc6E6AeWesmeobeKq/beyond-go-vegan-a-video-introducing-omnivores-to-another
Very interesting article. I agree that nutrition as a vegan is tricky- there can be limits to supplementation (although relatively cheap b vitamins and vegan omega-3 supplements are available online in my experience). I’d mildly disagree with you that gaining muscle as a vegan is ‘much harder’, pea-isolate protein powder and tofu (if you know where to get it) can be a nutritionally complete protein source, price competitive with even with chicken.
I do have a few issues with your list of (potentially) ethical aninal products:
- Bivalves: I agree that these are
... (read more)Thank you for trying your best to understand the world better, but please add more points on the health BENEFITS a vegan diet provides.
This post focuses way too much on the negative health correlations among vegans populations, ignoring the many negative health correlations in omnivorous groups--painting a picture that an omnivorous diet is *clearly* better 🙄
To address each of your evidence-based points (ignoring the bro-science points):
- "Vegans/vegetarians had over twice the odds of depression compared to omnivores" Completely expected. We are awa... (read more)
Welcome to the forum, @SpeakClearly. You make some good points here, but could you please engage in a friendlier way?
Tempted to write a response post to this (which at the very least collates the responses in the comments re the various weak evidence it cites), especially given how much positive traction it's got on LessWrong. A worthwhile use of time?
Thanks for writing this Kat! While I don't agree with everything, the core argument (cluelessness about nutritional science means ancestral diets are a strong prior) was convincing to me.
I wanted to note how I updated my diet from this and additional ~3 hours of research:
- 100g/week of sardines: (due to reasons here)
- 150g/week of mussels: I agree with the post that they are unlikely to be sentient
- 2 eggs/week: My guess is that EU welfare level 0 (organic) actually means chickens possibly have a net-positive life. Lmk if you know of welfare concerns with ... (read more)
I agree that we know very little about nutrition, but I don't see why that should bias us against veganism.
I can't really think of a single thing that we eat in our modern diet that remotely resembles what our ancestors ate. We didn't eat chickens. We ate fruit, but none of the fruits resembled what we have now. Literally everything in our food system has been radically transformed in the last few hundred years.
So sure, we don't know for sure that veganism is a good diet for us, but doesn't your argument lead to the conclusions that we don't know if any particular food is good for us? If so, this argument shouldn't bias us towards or against any particular diet.
I agree that nutrition science is not robust enough, but I have never been convinced by arguments against healthiness of a fully plant-based diet.
As you note, vegans live longer in observational studies.
Furthermore, trans fats and heavy metals are very likely to be bad for health. Consuming animal products exposes you to these. (A lot of) Saturated fat might also be bad for you and animal products have more of that. I agree that vegans might be missing out on some beneficial nutrients but there are also some harms avoided. I'm not sure which effect dominates.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Kat.
A question that comes to mind is: If eating bivalves can give you the nutrients you think you might be missing on a vegan diet, why not just be vegan + bivalves? Why include more morally problematic foods like wild caught fish, eggs, etc? Or is it more about the sensory experience and social ease that comes from eating those foods? Thanks!
Thanks for the post, Kat. You are assuming that eating more animal-based foods decreases animal welfare, but I think it actually increases it due to effects on soil animals for my best guess these have negative lives. I am very uncertain about this. However, it is at least clear to me that eating more animal-based foods increases animal suffering if it increases agricultural land, and animal-based product generally require more agricultural land. The decrease in the living time of wild animals is way larger than the increase in the living time of farmed an... (read more)
What an interesting and nuanced article! I somewhat agree with many of your points, although I think we could bypass all of this by focusing on the opportunity of cultivated meat. That's really the only solution that matters for animal welfare, in my opinion.
Does anyone have a good link a discussion of reasons that a strictly vegan/vegetarian diet might outperform light consumption of animal products (e.g., one serving/day) from a health perspective?
I can envision the reasons why a strictly vegan/vegetarian diet might outperform a mostly vegan/vegetarian diet plus some red meat or processed meat -- given that those are suspected or known carcinogens. Why it would outperform the standard American diet is obvious, but that isn't the relevant comparison here. I don't recall seeing a good affirmative case fo... (read more)
EA forum:
Lesswrong:
The disagreements below this post with "X" was quite expected but the post in itself was quite unexpected. I agree to the content btw!
I was initially triggered when I saw the article, but I decided to read it with the intention of challenging my own views, and I’m very glad I did. Thank you for writing such a courageous post. I believe I agree with high majority of your points, and I’ll be more mindful about my supplementation and probably start incorporating bivalves into my diet. Once again, I truly appreciate your courage and good intentions in writing this piece.