Betrayal from the left: The excuses behind the leftist critique of "white veganism"

A mural in Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh, India)

There are few topics nowadays capable of setting people on edge as much as veganism in the social media. If you ask meat-eaters if non-humans deserve to have rights, most would probably say "Yes" and would genuinely prefer animals not to suffer. However, when veganism comes up in a conversation, it's another thing: It irritates many people because it's considered radical and extreme as it forces us to question the way we live and what we consume. There are some who react almost allergically to the word "veganism" and wouldn't eat a product labelled as vegan even though they already eat fruits and vegetables, among others. Surprisingly to me, some of the harshest criticism comes from those who I expected to be allies in this struggle against oppression: a certain sector of the political left, which despite actively engaging in the fight against sexism, classism, racism and homophobia rejects antispeciesism. Such critics often deny the political nature of veganism and label it as a trend in consumption which negatively affects rural and indigenous communities through a white and eurocentric perspective.

A couple of days ago I had an intense discussion with a friend who attacked what is often labelled as "white veganism". She shared a news item exposing the shockingly precarious conditions in which workers picking vegetables in Andalucía are expected to spend their confinement, and accused white vegans of not speaking up against that injustice. The workers, interviewed by the renowned Catalan journalist Jordi Évole, were all migrants who live in squalid, improvised shacks, where self-isolation to prevent the spread of the SARS CoV-2 virus is simply impossible. Such stories should inevitably point our attention to the racism and classism inherent in neoliberalism. Migrants on low wages, picking fruits and vegetables for Europeans to consume, while they are exposed to diseases and life in misery: This is unfortunately nothing new in capitalism, which thrives on inequality.

I was deeply disturbed by the story, however I also felt that focusing the criticism on vegans was deeply unfair, so I challenged my friend's views. In this particular case the criticism is clearly misdirected, first and foremost because it's not only vegans who consume the vegetables picked up by the migrants. I think it's obvious as all of us, whether we're vegan, vegetarian or omnivore, consume vegetables, legumes and fruits. What is less obvious and perhaps less known is the fact that abattoirs also employ an important percentage of migrant workforce, who earn low wages and expose themselves to disease, including mental disease and emotional disorders related to the dire conditions they work in. The fact that numerous migrants take up this job to satisfy the demand of animal products in wealthy Western societies is somehow (probably deliberately) overlooked by those who attack veganism for creating a demand which eventually leads to exploitation. Their incoherence is further made evident as they also ignore the severe environmental destruction that they contribute to by consuming meat, most of which is not purchased from local farmers but in supermarkets supplied by industrial farms.

Another Vegan mural in Udaipur (Rajasthan, India)

In the comments to my friend's post another person's harsh attack finally motivated me to write this post. The person, who had apparently been vegan for five years and then changed their mind (which anyone has the right to), claimed that there is nothing political about veganism. Unfortunately such contemptuous statements, which reduce veganism to a fashion or a trend in consumption, are quite extended even among theoretically liberal and open-minded people. This might feel like a stab in the back from people you expected to be on your side, although I can understand where the confusion stems from. There is no doubt that plant-based diets have become an attractive product especially in our 'Global North', where many people have adapted such diets due to health reasons or simply fashion. This in turn inevitably produced resistance of certain sectors of the society. It is undeniable that such tendency exists and uses veganism for no other reason than economic profit. However, this trend should not be confused with what veganism stands for as a way of life based on the rejection of animal products for ethical reasons. The main drive behind it is antispeciesism, which can be defined as a political stance against the oppression of other animals. To say that there is nothing political about veganism is similar to claiming the same about antifascism, antiracism or feminism.

What I find especially surprising and incoherent is the attitude of some white leftists who attack veganism for supposedly contributing to the deterioration of indigenous cultures and their practices. According to them the production of vegan food takes up the land and resources of indigenous people, causing environmental destruction and increasing the cost of living for those communities. Again: Are vegans the only people consuming avocados, soy, quinoa, cashew nuts or palm oil? Quite clearly the answer is no. To be quite frank, I am surprised when I hear such a passionate defense of indigenous communities coming from white Westerners. It doesn't mean they have no right to voice their concern, but I haven't come across too much of the same criticism raised by the very indigenous communities they supposedly support. Perhaps the indigenous farmers wouldn't target vegans specifically but rather vent their anger on corporations which destroy their land by cultivating, among other things, enormous quantities of feed for the animals which are eaten mostly in the 'Global North'...

By no means I'm saying that white veganism, like white feminism and other white "versions" of well-meaning struggles, is perfect and doesn't deserve criticism. Raising ethical questions concerning minority groups and their cultural practices can also be problematic bearing in mind the history of Western cultural impositions on other cultures. There is no doubt that the Western mindset and education deliberately ignore and look down upon other cultures and traditions. Such neocolonial attitude needs to be uprooted from any movement which defends justice and equality, as white supremacy is incompatible with those same values that antispeciesism or feminism stand for and ends up being counterproductive for the cause. However, there is a thin line between showing respect for those cultures and becoming entangled in the cobweb of cultural and moral relativism, as opposed to ethical universalism. As a friend and activist wrote in an extremely absorbing article (Author and title below), we need to ask ourselves if the rights of cultural minorities should prevail over the rights of non-human animals and if any defense of animal rights can be considered eurocentric and neocolonialist. According to numerous authors, the answer to both questions is "No" and the defense of animal rights can be compatible with defending cultural rights of minorities.

It is also worth noting that the Western antispeciesist movement challenges mostly the Western consumption models and industrial farming more than, for example, the subsistence consumption of Inuit fishermen or farmers in Sudan whose resources are more scarce and consumption choices more limited. This does not mean, however, that cultural practices which are harmful to non-human animals are accepted from an antispeciesist perspective. Perhaps there is a difference between the two examples of subsistence consumption mentioned above and, for example, the ritual "sacrifice" of animals for religious feasts, although none of them are justifiable from the point of view of animal rights. As my activist friend reminded me, it is important to challenge the incoherence between the treatment of human rights, declared universal in 1948, and animal rights, which are still subject to moral relativism. If we don't apply ethical universalism in both cases, we need to explain why, which will uncover the speciesist ideology motivating such a differentiation.

What I find especially disappointing is the excuses that even theoretically leftist and liberal people find to continue consuming animal products. Some of them heave a sigh of relief when they read research favouring the consumption of animal products, often sponsored by the meat or dairy industry. They share articles and interviews with false and manipulated data in their social media, such as the often cited Lierre Keith whose credibility is extremely low. I can understand the fact that people want their choices and actions to be ethical and therefore try to justify them in order to avoid the feeling of guilt. What we don't need, however, is excuses. We should be able to face the reality honestly and recognise our wrongdoing, if needed. As humankind we are committing outrageous atrocities against members of other species. The suffering inflicted upon them especially in industrialised farming is unimaginable and unacceptable, and the pollution caused by the industries is startling.

What I expected from all those concerned with justice and equality is some more sense of what we call "intersectionality". White veganism certainly deserves the backlash it is receiving, but if we criticise it only to justify our consumption of animal products and to reject veganism altogether, we align ourselves with the oppressors, not with the oppressed. I understand that we are all doing our best and none of us are 100% coherent, but denying the reality and looking for excuses only causes profound gaps between our causes, which would work much better united.


*The article mentioned above is "El conflicto entre los derechos culturales y los derechos de los animales no humanos: una propuesta de mediación" by Antonio Muñoz Cuenca. Thank you Toni for your feedback and suggestions!