Talk:Veganism

Page views for the last 12 months

Valluvar as the earliest of vegans

This is about the addition of Valluvar as the earliest of vegans. Although researchers are uncertain about his exact year, they consider him to have lived between the 4th and 1st centuries BCE (the latest of the proposed dates being c. 31 BCE). I just happened to learn from his famous work, the Tirukkural (see <http://www.projectmadurai.org/pm_etexts/pdf/pm0153.pdf> for an English translation), that there is a separate chapter on vegetarianism/veganism (there wasn't any major difference between the two in ancient India for the ancient Indian people, including saints and sages, were known for their strict vegetarian [or vegan, in today’s terms] diet habits). See the chapter on "The Renunciation of Flesh" in page 31 of the PDF (couplets 251 to 260). Additionally, there are many chapters emphasizing ahimsa or vegan concepts, such as chapters “Not doing evil” (couplets 311 to 320), “Not killing” (couplets 321 to 330), etc. Should we not consider this since Valluvar lived more than a millennium before Al-Maʿarri? Thanks for reviewing. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

He's currently listed in the article as an early "strict vegetarian". In order to say more, we would need a WP:Reliable source (e.g. a book on Indian religions) describing the relationship between Valluvar's ideas and veganism. The sources I can find only talk about the Tirukkural's advocacy of vegetarianism (e.g. [1] [2]); given that the book only discusses flesh, not eggs or dairy, and given how little we know of Thiruvalluvar's life, I doubt we'll be able to find a source claiming he was vegan, let alone "the earliest".

In general, though, I think we should add more information on veganism in India and other Eastern countries. I can find a few more or less reliable academic sources [3] and [4] (which copies extensively from this article), and some more informal news sources [5] [6], including one testifying to ongoing confusion on the topic [7]. FourViolas (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vegan symbolism

There does not appear to be any reason for a separate article on symbols. This article represents a content fork, and should be merged into Veganism. KDS4444 (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Compare:

Fascist symbolism

Anarchist symbolism

Communist symbolism

As a political movement with political goals, veganism and its associated movements (such as veganarchism) should have a separate page for vegan symbolism, unless you want to merge these pages with their respective ideologies.--Mychemicalromanceisrealemo (talk) 16:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Dearchived per outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/The Vegan flag. I did a preliminary selective merge, but as I mentioned there this seems excessively detailed for this page; there have been hundreds of books published about Veganism#Vegan_diet and Veganism#Philosophy, compared with a few blog mentions of most (supposedly) vegan-associated symbols. I think it would be better to move this to Vegetarian and vegan symbolism, leaving only a "See also" link. I made a draft, including a lede section with a new scholarly source about vegetarian labeling (I can WP:RX PDFs to interested parties); you can see it at Vegan/Vegetarian and vegan symbolism. Pinging User:KDS4444, User:Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, User:Randy Kryn. FourViolas (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

A 2015 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

About this addition. The ref is a primary source PMID 27001851.

We have this review PMID 27812156 citing it, which is free-access and can be used to summarize the findings (see Discussion section).

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 11:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you are claiming a scientific article published in PNAS is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia as it is a primary source. I find that debatable. According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." All articles published in PNAS, the second most cited journal across all fields of science, are peer reviewed, so the article qualifies as WP:RS. The Time magazine analysis of this scientific article is not a primary source for sure, and also qualifies as a reliable source. I'm restoring the material based on Time magazine analysis. I'll wait for further discussion here before restoring the PNAS article. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with BB; this is not an appropriate source. Our articles must be based on decent secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How is a peer-reviewed scientific article published in PNAS not an appropriate source? And how is an analysis of said article in a major news publication not a reliable secondary source? You have provided no evidence to back up your claims, I have however cited wiki policy in this matter, and that policy appears to back my arguments. I am partially restoring my previous edits, and will leave the (unbelievably biased) lede as is until further discussion--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I said, "our articles must be based on decent secondary sources" - this is policy. I wouldn't use laypress for that. Maybe consider some of the thoughts in WP:SCIRS. And stop edit warring. Alexbrn (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That is NOT policy. Articles must be based on RELIABLE sources, which the Time article is. Again, Wiki policy quoted above states that peer-reviewed academic research papers published in reputable journals are acceptable and considered RS for Wikipedia. As such, the PNAS article qualifies as RS. This has yet to be disputed. My edits were to balance the unbelievably biased lede with actual scientific research, because as of now it reads as if veganism will kill you and people must consume animal products or face serious health consequences, which is not true. (Much of this was added just recently by User:BallenaBlanca, who was quick to delete my additions. Funny that.) If this doesn't change, a neutrality tag might be warranted because as of now the lede is designed to scare people away from a vegan diet/lifestyle.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." [my bold] Primary and tertiary sources can be useful for building on the foundations, but for surprising or significant themes (such as you are attempting to introduce) we need really good sources. And WP:EW is policy. I would advise against casting aspersions or trying to pull a "hostage tag" stunt either. Alexbrn (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, I did introduce really good sources, and both qualify as reliable sources. That vegan diets are healthy is hardly a surprising theme. Claims that vegan diets can result in death and severe health consequences and that animal products must be consumed in order to avoid such health complications, now that is a surprising and highly disputed theme that should include a rebuttal like the one I provided, especially in the lede given that's all some readers even look at. As the lede stands now it is hardly neutral; readers will take away from this that vegan diets can be very dangerous, which is not accurate! (This will also come as a shock to all the vegans who are healthy and continue to walk the earth, such as myself, but I digress...) This is unacceptable for a Wikipedia article. Furthermore, purging any mention of the 2015 PNAS study from the body of the article, and not just the lede, is completely unjustified in my opinion. And yes, without "casting aspersions", it does have me wondering if a bias against veganism by some editors plays a part in this. And my reverts were not edit warring, as I modified them each time to conform with what was being discussed on talk, such as not reinserting the material from the primary source that was removed (even though peer-reviewed PS are acceptable sources).--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• content was making health claims, source fails MEDRS, and obviously so.Jytdog (talk 15:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Per the essay Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?: "The primary scientific literature is very exploratory, and not reliable. The use of WP:PRIMARY sources is really dangerous in the context of health." Granted this is an essay and not policy, but now I can understand why such fierce opposition to including the PNAS article. I will not push for its inclusion from this point forward. However, the issue of the last section of the lede being heavily biased against veganism to the point of fear-mongering about severe health consequences and early death unless animal products are consumed still needs to be addressed, especially the most recent additions by User:BallenaBlanca. This is what prompted me to include the PNAS study in the first place. I'll be on the lookout for sources that rebut this but also conform to the standards provided in the essay when the time permits.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Vitamin B12 deficiency

Nope the article and lead are mostly NPOV with regard to how MEDRS sources view a vegan diet - it can help prevent chronic diseases but has risks that can be pretty easily managed but have pretty serious consequences if not managed. This article has been heavily edited by vegan advocates but it is in the ballpark of OK. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

The usual solution to NPOV problems is to raise source quality, not lower it. FWIW the lede does seem to me to go just a little overboard on the possible adverse effects of veganism and could be a shade more succinct in this respect. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah the addtional sentence on B12 was a bit much. I fixed that. Other than that it is massively OVERCITED but that is because vegan advocates keep trying to delete it. Does that edit address the "little overboard" concern? Jytdog (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I have reread the previous text calmly and I realize the concern of C.J. Griffin.

There was one major problem that led to confusion, related to the order of the information, which seemed to imply that the only solution for avoiding vitamin B12 deficiency is to eat meat. That was not the intention! It would be solved by rearranging the information like this (strikethrough -> previous version, bold -> reordered version):

However, as a result of the elimination of all animal products, vegan diets can lead to significant nutritional deficiencies, that can nullify their beneficial effects for health and cause serious health consequences. These deficiencies can only be prevented through the choice of fortified foods or the regular intake of dietary supplements. Vitamin B12 status is a major concern because its deficiency can cause disorders of the nervous system and blood, and if untreated, may lead to death; only food of animal origin contains sufficient amount of this vitamin for humans. These nutritional deficiencies can only be prevented through the choice of fortified foods or the regular intake of dietary supplements.

I also understand that what has caused "alarm" is the mention of the risk of death in the lede. There are few documented cases, but there are. I think it is a matter of sufficient importance to mention it in the lead. However, I will respect to keep it out of the lede and wait to see the opinions of other users.

But IMO the effects of vitamin B12 deficiency should be mentioned in the lede, it is not disproportionate. Increasing evidence emphasizes the importance, especially since the high content of folacin in vegetarian diets may mask the hematological symptoms of vitamin B12 deficiency, so it may go undetected until neurological signs in the late stages are evident, which can be irreversible.

There are several possible nutritional deficiencies that can cause various health problems, but we only talk about the consequences of one of them in the lede (blood disorders and neurological damage from vitamin B12 deficiency), in the same way that there are several advantages over health and the most important ones are currently mentioned too ("a vegan diet can reduce the risk of some types of chronic disease, including heart disease"). I think it is correct, to give neutrality and that this way we can all agree; as Alexbrn proposes, the possible side effects are mentioned in a more succinct way.

I will adjust the page a bit and wait for your opinions. (step 1)

Also, I have seen that this does not fit the source: "The German Society for Nutrition cautions against vegan diets for children, and during pregnancy and lactation." What it really says is "For pregnant women, breastfeeding, infants, children and adolescents, a vegan diet is not recommended by DGE." (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ernährung, the German Society for Nutrition).

I will also adjust this information and move it. Its logical place is following the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (step 2)

There is more information that does not fit the source that accompanies it, like this one: "No animal products are involved in the production of B12 supplements". What the ref really says is "Dietitians should also be able to provide suggestions for brand names of b12 supplements that are vegan", which is not the same.

This page needs more review to continue giving neutrality. For example, criticism, contradictions, recent discoveries about plant neurobiology that points to them as sentient beings, etc. are lacking. There was total silence regarding the impossibility of following a lifestyle that completely eliminates the use of animals, such as the problematic of medications suitable for vegans, etc.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 19:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting the most recent B12 part back to Alexbrn/Jytdog's version for multiple reasons. First, it's excessive detail. The lede is for the most important points and should avoid over-specific descriptions; the essentials you have to know about the subject. You doesn't need to know how to diagnose B12 deficiency in order to write a book about veganism; anyone interested in knowing more about it can click through to the fine article. Second, it's misleading; "only food of animal origin contains sufficient amount [sic] of this vitamin for humans" is only true if "food" is understood to mean "foods not specially formulated for higher vitamin concentration". Finally, the undue attention and phrase "major concern" unnecessarily risks violating WP:NPOV or making readers think we're trying to scare them away from veganism.

While I agree it's attention-grabbing that very rare deaths have resulted from poorly-planned vegan diets, it's undue to mention them; compare Cycling and Alcoholic drink, two much deadlier topics whose ledes mention risks but not deaths.

Going forward, has anyone in the archives done a general survey of national dietetic organizations' positions? E.g., Dietitians of Canada agreed with the ADA as of 2003. If we quote the ADA and DGE in the lede, we should ensure that's representative per WP:DUE.

As for "criticism and contradictions", some are integrated at the end of "§ Into the mainstream (2010s)" as recommended by WP:CRITICISM. The plant sentience argument you mention has not been taken seriously in the ethics literature for two reasons. First, the underlying science has been chronically shaky since its mid-century beginnings withThe Secret Life of Plants, with core results failing reproducibility; as the PI of the plant physiology lab I used to work for said, postulating plant consciousness is "missing the whole point" of the centuries of research discovering robust explanations for long-distance signaling in plants in terms of simple chemistry and physics. Second, as Peter Singer noted in Animal Liberation (1975), even if "plant lives matter" for the sake of argument, production of animal food requires many more plants to be killed (as fodder) than production of an equal amount of plant food. The only major recent exception I know of is Smith (2016) chaps. 2-3, which received a few mostly-negative reviews IIRC (e.g.) and is unlikely to become worth mentioning in this article's extremely short overview of vegan-related ethics. Unavoidability arguments are similarly disregarded; vegan authors sometimes acknowledge it but assert some version of "we should still do our best", and even anti-vegans like Hsiao (2017) concede that these kind of arguments "do not get at the heart of why eating meat is [supposedly] morally permissible". FourViolas (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Finally, the undue attention and phrase "major concern" unnecessarily risks violating WP:NPOV or making readers think we're trying to scare them away from veganism." I think "you've put your finger on the sore": you worry that readers do not adopt the vegan philosophy, I care about taking a neutral point of view and that readers have enough information to make their own decisions. From your position, it is more favorable to try to mask and take away the importance of vitamin B12 deficiency. From neutrality, it is essential to reflect why there is that risk (the absence of enough vitamin B12 for humans in plant products is the most important point of the vegan diet), what can it cause, and the importance of taking recommendations for consuming supplements and fortified food seriously.

IMO, my recent text of vitamin B12 is still a brief summary that complies with the style manual: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. ... However, do not hint at startling facts without describing them.

It would be interesting to see more opinions.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

"Neutrality" is determined by the published sources; even our (general) diet-focused sources don't describe B12 deficiency in their abstracts [8], and in fact several of the highest-quality don't even mention it there [9] [10] [11]. Kindly comment on the content concerns I raised rather than imputing WP:ADVOCACY; I actually expressed the opposite concern.

Again, compare cycling and alcoholic drink; their ledes mention risks like "reduced protection in crashes" and "physical dependence and alcoholism", but refrain from providing further details beyond wikilinks, because it's simply not necessary to recognize delirium tremens in order to understand what an alcoholic drink is. FourViolas (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The sources you are mentioning are already several years old, but it is recently when deficiencies of vitamin B12 derived from vegetarian diets are being studied more and making clear that they are more common and serious than previously thought. We are writing in 2017.

• [12] Is of 2007 and can hardly mention in the abstract, since it has no abstract...
• [13] [14] both are of 2009, and the last one says in the abstract "Micronutrients of special concern for the vegan include vitamins B-12 and D, calcium, and long-chain n–3 (omega-3) fatty acids".
• [15] of 2014 and says in the abstract "Large randomized intervention trials on the effects of vegetarian diet patterns on neurological and cognitive functions, obesity, diabetes, and other cardiovascular outcomes are warranted to make meaningful recommendations." And here we see the conclusions of this source of 2016 [16] which you not mentioned and that we have now as reference number 24 that says in the abstract "The deficiency of vitamin B12 is clinically manifested in the blood and nervous system where the cobalamin plays a key role in cell replication and in fatty acid metabolism. Hypovitaminosis arises from inadequate absorption, from genetic defects that alter transport through the body, or from inadequate intake as a result of diet. With the growing adoption of vegetarian eating styles in Western countries, there is growing focus on whether diets that exclude animal foods are adequate. Since food availability in these countries is not a problem, and therefore plant foods are sufficiently adequate, the most delicate issue remains the contribution of cobalamin, which is poorly represented in plants."

But the most important thing is that our page is not a scientific paper, we are not a scientific journal, but an encyclopedia. We do not have an "abstract" but an introductory section and concrete policies and style manuals (that we have already mentioned). We write for all types of public, not for health professionals. There is no need to explain to a doctor what to have a vitamin B12 deficiency means and the importance of supplementation. Yes we must explain it with all the necessary clarity to lay readers, so that they can understand it, because is one of the central themes of the vegan diet and maximum visibility must be given, due to the serious health consequences, which may be irreversible and irreparably jeopardize the future especially of children.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 07:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

So you agree that the highest-quality sources do not describe the symptoms of deficiency in their abstracts. The best general-public sources I can find, e.g. vegan diet advice published by Dietitians of Canada, the British Dietetic Association, or the American Heart Association, similarly do not describe the symptoms of b12 deficiency despite being much more in-depth than our diet-focused lede paragraph. If you know of many such sources which do give b12 deficiency symptoms such prominence, please present them. Otherwise, your opinion about what "must be given maximum visibility" sounds like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and contradicts the WP:DUE policy. FourViolas (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I concur. I propose removing the bolded part of the following sentence in the lede per WP:DUE: "As a result of the elimination of all animal products, vegan diets can lead to significant nutritional deficiencies, most importantly vitamin B12 deficiency, that can nullify their beneficial effects for health and cause serious health consequences.[20][23][24][25]"--C.J. Griffin (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think DUE calls for removing b12 from the lede entirely, only deficiency symptoms; B12 is usually mentioned prominently along with D, Ca, Fe, Zn, and omega-3s (e.g. Craig, Canada, Key, ADA).

However, I don't think most importantly passes WP:V according to the current four citations. Three simply list it along with D, Fe, etc (Craig ADA Guyda), and even the one which focuses on b12 specifically (Vitale) doesn't claim it's the "most important" deficiency, only that it's "common among vegetarians".

So if we're going to keep B12 in, it looks like we should replace the whole sentence with something like, As a result of the elimination of all animal products, vegan diets are often low in iron, zinc, calcium, and vitamins D and B₁₂, and poorly-planned vegan diets can lead to nutritional deficiencies with serious health consequences. FourViolas (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

generally speaking, FourViolas makes a good argument above in regards to appropriate text, I therefore agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

— It seems bizarre to propose that this is not lede worthy. Avoiding B12-deficiency is a very central component to any information on veganism. That includes giving the reason why it is very important.

B12 is also unique in that it is not possible to consume non-fortified vegan food that contains sufficient B12. I'm not saying anything about including other minerals or vitamins, but B12 should be mentioned in full. Carl Fredrik ^talk 14:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own policies for the introductory section. English is not my native language, but I think that I said can be perfectly understood.

Some of the editors of this page, as they themselves have let see, are concerned that a negative message is transmitted which discourages people from adopting a vegan diet. There is, or there was, silence in uncomfortable subjects as problems with medications, attempts to soften reality with text that does not fit the sources, etc.

It is impossible to get enough vitamin B12 for humans from natural non-animal foods. It is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of veganism, one of the most uncomfortable realities (but of course not the only one): to be able to feed without suffering severe deficiencies, vegans depend on "unnatural" foods, that rely on scientific research for development of supplements and fortified foods which has depended, and currently continue to depend, at least partially, on animal experimentation and/or substances (additives, excipients...) from animal origin. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 15:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

(I separate this in another section, not to mix themes) And connecting with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, in the lead the criticisms for NPOV are lacking .

And also, you are right, some (but only some) "criticism and contradictions" are integrated at the end of "Into the mainstream (2010s), but to comply with Wikipedia:Criticism there should be more, integrated into the respective sections, as for example Ethical veganism and Environmental veganism. We cite "The Abolition of Animal Exploitation, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation?" but we do not cite for example this text The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? reviewed by Ben Mepham, which presents a good summary of the main points of controversy:

The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation? reviewed by Ben Mepham

(i) The resources allocated to concern for animals as opposed to those employed to address human survival, suffering or wellbeing—which may entail substantial opportunity costs for vegans. For example, the energy and time expended in ensuring dietary integrity, and promoting the vegan cause, is necessarily denied to efforts to ease the suffering of humans, of whom about one billion suffer from malnutrition in less-economically developed countries, while many, world-wide, are victims of abuse and exploitation. (ii) The rights and interests of humans at the level of personal health and wellbeing, in societies whose economies, cultures and, in some cases survival, depend on a symbiotic relationship with animals. The discussion in the book seems dominated by attitudes and conditions in western ‘developed’ countries. (iii) The fate of prey, and more generally of adverse effects on ecological sustainability in the wild (including animal and plant species in managed wildlife reserves), of permitting predators, and wild species in general, to satisfy their biological needs. If sentience is the sole relevant characteristic in granting animals rights, what could be the ethical basis of showing partiality to domesticated rather than wild animals? (iv) The adverse effects on wild animals (at individual, group and species levels) of practices employed in arable farming, on which most vegan diets are necessarily dependent. For example, pest control, not only of insects but also of indisputably sentient mammals like rabbits and mice, is crucial for efficient arable farming. Is it really valid to argue that since the adverse effects on wild animals are ‘accidental’ they are beyond vegans' ethical concern? (v) The basis of the distinction assigned to the meaning of ‘property’ in the cases of farmed animals (especially when kept in organic, and particularly permacultural, systems) and ‘rescued’ companion animals. Indeed, it is pertinent that there is a real sense in which human children are, when young, their parents' ‘property’—without this being considered remotely problematical from an ethical perspective. The rigour with which vegans attempt to lead lives according to the strict observance of ethical principles is often regarded as exemplary, and vegan philosophy certainly represents a significant challenge to long-established norms of behaviour. But if the aim of ethics is to choose the right, or best, course of action in specific circumstances ‘all things considered’, it is arguable that adherence to such an absolutist agenda is simplistic and open to serious self-contradictions. Or, as Farlie puts it, with characteristic panache: ‘to conclude that veganism is the ‘only ethical response’ is to take a big leap into a very muddy pond’ (p. 2)

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 10:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've misread Mepham's review. Those are not "the main points of controversy" in vegan-related ethics by a long shot: he prefaces that list with "The Farncione [sic]/Garner book [...] seems rather abstract, omitting consideration of several critical issues. So in conclusion it is perhaps appropriate to identify some of these." In other words, these are points which Prof. Mepham thinks should be discussed more, but are not discussed in the book he's reviewing (nor very much elsewhere). Mepham may be right, but for the time being he's telling us that discussing these points would be out of proportion to the prominence of these viewpoints in the published, reliable sources. FourViolas (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

And what are "the main points of controversy" in vegan-related ethics?

Anyway, Mepham's opinion is as valid as that of other authors currently cited on the Veganism page (philosophers, protectionists, etc.) and this article is published in a specialized journal, peer-reviewed and indexed in PubMed Central. Ben Mepham was a founder member of the Food Ethics Council and its Executive Director for the first five years; Director of the Centre for Applied Bioethics, at the University of Nottingham; a founder member, in the role of bioethicist, of both the Government’s Biotechnology Commission (AEBC, 2000-2003) and the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics (EURSAFE); he has also served on several EU policy committees, and continues to publish in the academic literature.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 08:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

A classic practical debate concerns "humane meat", addressing the question of whether animal suffering might be morally wrong but not animal death (e.g. McMahan 2008), or sometimes whether it could be possible or practical to obtain non-flesh animal products like honey or eggs ethically (e.g. Zamir 2004). Another concerns whether efforts to decrease the suffering of animals used by humans ("welfarism") are counterproductive (because they supposedly retrench the systems of exploitation); e.g. Chiesa 2017. Feminist ethicists argue over whether the sexual exploitation of women can be meaningfully compared to the "sexual exploitation" of animals (artificial insemination, milking, etc), e.g. Hamilton 2016.

Some of Prof. Mepham's points are addressed in animal ethics literature more generally, including the moral status of undomesticated animals (e.g McMahan 2015) and the (property) status of companion animals (e.g. Bok 2011). That literature, however, is dominated by meta-ethical debates (utilitarianism vs rights theory vs virtue ethics vs care ethics vs Kantianism) which are out of the scope of this page.

Unfortunately, since philosophers usually consider the obligation to be vegan to depend more or less entirely on the moral status of animals more generally, I don't know of a secondary philosophical source specifically surveying these different arguments about vegan praxis. You might start with Jones 2016, who looks at different motivations and unpackings of ethical veganism, although he's arguing that one in particular is correct (incidentally, that book looks like a useful source for this page). FourViolas (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)