Veganism and the concept of necessity

Philosophy of veganism is entirely about justice for animals. Like all justice movements, it questions the injustice perpetrated by oppressors (humans) against other animals (the oppressed). However, veganism is often misunderstood as a movement that ignores human conditions in the narrative against cruelty to animals. I see veganism as an all-encompassing philosophy that includes removing injustices within our species as well (we too are animals). However, we must acknowledge that veganism is not a religion or a community that has a specific doctrine to follow. So, one can see racists, casteists, misogynists, and abusive /militant activists masquerading themselves vegans. I believe that they cannot be called vegans since veganism is about respecting all sentient lives (including homo sapiens). Before addressing the question of necessity, let’s look at what exactly is veganism. Veganism is a philosophy that envisions causing least harm possible to animals during our lifetime (or causing lowest cruelty footprint). It is a philosophy that envisages not harming animals unnecessarily. Now, what determines necessity and unnecessity? Necessity is a situated concept and it should be decided on a case-by-case/ person-to-person basis. However, one can broadly and fairly classify that cultural habits, fashion, entertainment, or taste cannot be the basis for determining necessity. Veganism, therefore, asks individuals to review their own habits and food choices that cause exploitation of animals and avoid them if it is unnecessary.

The “situated-necessity” is not new. We already know that killing of humans is wrong if it is not a necessity. But situations such as self-defense and euthanasia necessitates killing and the killer is considered not guilty. The situated nature of necessity of animals products can be observed in the society. For example, hunter-gatherers of the past were vegans since hunting was a necessity. Even now, we don’t apply our laws and morality on tribal communities such as Sentinelese tribal population in Andaman and Nicobar Islands and so they are vegans. People like aborigines, inuits and other people leading a natural lifestyle in forests/peripheries cannot become plant-based and so they are vegans by default. Also, for many marginalised families living in remote villages, meat obtained from hunting remains the major source of food since the supply chain inefficiency makes the supply of vegetables, fruits, lentils, and beans scarce. They are vegans too, according to the definition of veganism. Tamil Nadu government’s daily supply of eggs in schools is another example of necessity. This supply of nutrient-rich noon-meal helped the state drastically reduce the % of children with stunted growth. Similarly, living plant-based may be impossible for many. However, meat and eggs eaten for necessity would be much smaller in % cruelty (I would guess, such people might constitute 20% of world’s population and only 2-3% of world animal-based products consumption).

Even for typical vegans (people who call themselves vegans), ‘necessity’ is situated. These people, in general, avoid direct forms of animal torture (meat, dairy, eggs, silk, leather, fur, honey, zoos, circuses etc) but differ about indirectly contributing to animal exploitation. One example of how typical vegans themselves differ on identifying products that indirectly involves animal cruelty will be: the choice between the normal food and organic, pesticide-free food (which involves less killing of pests and polluting water resources that are lifeline for animals). Richer, city-based people choose pesticide-free food and middle-class people choose cheaper versions. Another example could be the difference in opinion about the use of plastics that are eventually dumped into the sea, causing the fish population to dwindle (but fishing nets thrown as garbage are the biggest chunk of plastics that kill fishes across the oceans). Likewise, some believe that animal-tested vaccination and life-saving drugs are not a necessity since human lives are not more important than animals. But such thinking is rather selfish since vaccination helps prevent the spread of diseases to other humans and life-saving drugs could save lives and protect people dependent on them (vaccines saves more lives than lives suffered due to it). We should rather progress toward a future technology that will eliminate animal-testing and until then we shall use animal-tested lifesaving drugs and vaccines since it is a necessity to protect against diseases. These differences break the notion of “vegan” as a fixed identity. However veganism as a philosophy is a consistent one.

Having discussed the situated nature of necessity, the question to be answered here is: should veganism activists then be targeting only the rich and upper-middle-class because they consume a disproportionately high amount of animal products (e.g. cheese contributes to multiple times cruelty compared to milk)? No. There is a widespread misconception that veganism is an elitist philosophy. Such targeted narrative on the elites will actually turn it exclusivist or elitist. The message must be common for everyone, but the definition of necessity should be left to individuals (after clearly understanding that culture/ taste/ fashion/ entertainment cannot be classified as necessity). For example, such message may have an impact even among the marginalised people as well. Understanding veganism and speciesism (thinking that humans are superior to other species) could help every human to classify animal “sacrifice” to gods as unnecessary or may help everyone of us rethink sports like Jallikattu or cockfight and may deem it unnecessary. So veganism philosophy is for everyone.

Adopting veganism makes people voluntarily reduce the demand side of animal exploitation. Now coming to the other side of economics, the supply side. Many micro and small businesses are dependent on the demand for animals products. However, there won’t be any short/medium term impact solely attributed to veganism. There is always a long term shift in demand for every single business. So veganism alone cannot be blamed for such impact. Though veganism narrative has been here for around a decade in India, consumption of animal products has only increased, and it would keep increasing despite people adopting veganism (consumption pattern of the rich keeps rising) at least for a decade or two. Only after a few decades, veganism will create an impact and it will take few more decades (even by an aggressive estimate) for India to become a majorly (>50%) a plant-based nation. So, about 30-40 years is a long period for businesses to change slowly based on demand. Every business is operated only based on demand. People don’t buy things because they are available. Things are available because people want it. So, there is no question of what will happen to micro-businesses if everyone stops buying animal products. The question is hypothetical and diverts from the more important questions concerning animal exploitation.

I have a difference over naming people who go plant-based as vegans (Virat Kohli, for e.g.). Veganism is a philosophy that is for animal liberation. Going plant-based for health or environmental reasons alone cannot be classified as veganism. I am not a firm believer in identities such as ‘feminists’ and ‘vegans’ since I see veganism as a basic duty of not harming animals unnecesarily. Identity is not important but tenets of veganism must be read and followed by all.

Finally, is veganism an economically viable option for the middle-class? There is a strong misconception that milk has to be replaced with plant milk and meat with tofu-based products. Apart from rare restaurant visits (twice in a year), I have never consumed tofu and never had any milk replacers. My food bill is much lesser compared to my family members who continue to use animal products. Milk per head (250 ml a day) comes to around Rs. 350 a month (Rs. 45 a litre). I can save that and buy Vitamin B12 and D supplements for 6 months if needed. (many people who consume animal products also are deficient in B12 and D, which is why even wheat flour and cooking oils have added vitamins and minerals). The money I would otherwise spend on meat (once a week), milk products like ghee, butter, sweets and snacks, and leather products like belts, wallets and shoes (non-leather products are cheaper) all go into my savings! I eat a normal south Indian diet but with improved variety of food such as pulses (chickpeas, green gram, peas, beans), grains (pearl millet, fox-tail millet, rice, and wheat) and vegetables that our family buys in common. Even if I visit expensive restaurants with friends, plant-based food (fried rice and mushroom manchurian, for e.g.) always is the cheapest of all. The biggest gift in terms of health for adhering to veganism is that it has reduced my cholesterol (from 180 to 112, HDL-55, LDL-57) and brought my blood pressure to normal levels. However, I see health as a benefit, not as a cause for going vegan. Finally, as a person from a middle-class family, I saved money on a plant-based diet while maintaining my health better. Even if I earn better in the future, I plan to adhere to veganism philosophy and be a minimalist so that I contribute to lesser animal cruelty.