Our authors make the case that for many vegans and vegetarians meat is vilified in order to demonstrate their own moral superiority over barbaric, knuckle-dragging meat eaters. If it was only about personal health choices, then the vegan mobs wouldn’t exist. It would be a case of live and let live.
A fascinating aspect of this chapter is the little know role of Seventh-Day Adventists (SDA) in the vegan movement. This Christian sect, which sprang from a movement who claimed Christ would return on 22 October 1844, relies on the visions of Ellen G. White. She argued, through Divine revelation, that meat was toxic. This religious group couldn’t possibly have influence today, could it? “Many of the leading authors of the 1988 official position paper on vegetarian diets published by the Association of Nutrition and Dietetics are SDA members, yet this conflict of interest was not acknowledged by the group.” SDA member Dr John Kelly founded the American College of Lifestyle Medicine (ACLM) in 2004, and the organisation’s president was Dr George Guthrie from 2016-18. Guthrie too is an SDA member. Unsurprisingly, this college calls for a vegetable only diet. The ACLM has its tentacles in several universities, but they don’t seem to publicise the smuggling in of their Adventist beliefs.
Rodgers and Wolf discuss several other conflicts of interests between ideology and health policy. For instance, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), which has very few physician members, is led by psychiatrist and vegan activist Dr Neal Barnard. This group propagandises through a misleadingly titled magazine Good Medicine. The PCRM has also misleadingly linked themselves to the American Medical Association when in fact the AMA has stated the PCRM’s diet advice “could be dangerous to health and the well-being of Americans.” Former AMA president, Dr Roy Schwarz, even described PCRM members as “neither physicians nor responsible.” Our authors have done us a service here. These are just a couple of examples of dishonesty and half-truths that are in this chapter. It calls into question the vegetarian argument. After all, if their health arguments were so water-tight why the dishonesty?
All of which would be irrelevant, of course, if the vegans would just get on with their lives and leave everyone else alone. Unfortunately, being the control-freak, extreme-leftists that they are, they cannot leave everyone else alone. No, Dear Reader, you and I must conform to what they want. That’s their goal anyway. Remember that vegan propaganda “depicts those who eat meat as barbaric, and uncaring about animals, other humans or the environment.” Our authors take us through just some of the tactics these dietary totalitarians have used beyond calling for meat to be outlawed: death threats, destruction of property, etc.
Rodgers and Wolf argue vegans, because of their radicalism, are incapable of making alliances to combat the West’s industrialised food system. After all, this is a religion. For many “the antimeat ideology is strong and can often become someone’s entire worldview rather than simply a dietary preference.”
This was a good chapter. I was hoping for a little more history, but then again, I’m an historian. It’s my whole thing. For those who already know a bit about vegans and extreme leftists more generally, this chapter will not be a surprise. As another keto advocate has said, “We think they’re wrong; they think we’re evil.” God help us if these people every capture a Western government.