Advertising Non-Veganism to Vegans
My extensive dissertation on the ethics of Plant-Based Capitalism (PBC).
Today, one of my readers reached out and asked me the following question: “How do you feel about Impossible Foods?” Great question! This question provokes a different response among vegans with lots of heavy discourse attached. As we know, vegans are not monoliths; however, veganism is not a competition, although some may believe it is. You’re either vegan or you’re not, and, personally, I have a lot to say on the matter.
My reader is referring to the 188 rats who were experimented on and killed in order for Impossible Foods to launch their products, which include soy leghemoglobin. Obviously, experimentation on animals is not vegan, yet some vegans argue that the benefits of meat-like plant-based meats outweigh the 188 rats who were abused and killed. These vegans identify with Peter Singer’s philosophy: Utilitarianism.
Where do you stand? Read my dissertation from Fall 2024, published below, and let me know your thoughts.
Advertising Non-Veganism to Vegans
The Vegan Society’s definition of veganism reads:
“[v]eganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude–as far as is possible and practicable–all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans, and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals” (The Vegan Society).
Veganism is more than a diet; it is a moral philosophy with a corresponding lifestyle. By this most commonly referred to definition, a vegan must abstain from all practices that involve animal exploitation as far as is practicable and possible. Yet, so many companies and products label themselves as vegan without meeting this criterion. Vegans are constantly being advertised non-vegan products by companies that benefit from animal exploitation in order to market their products successfully. Vegans must only promote the development of ethically vegan products and companies. Plant-based capitalism is ruining the vegan movement.
Surprisingly, many people who follow veganism still contribute to animal exploitation by succumbing to plant-based capitalistic marketing. Plant-based capitalism includes anything that doesn’t contain animal ingredients but has been tested on animals or is produced by a company that profits from animal exploitation while masquerading as beneficial to the vegan movement. This ploy includes large animal-free alternative brands like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods, as well as smaller animal-free alternative brands like Tofurky, which are owned by companies that abuse animals. Plant-based capitalism also encompasses the overwhelming number of plant-based products emerging from massive animal-abusing corporations like Tyson Foods and Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Holdings Inc.
Most importantly, plant-based capitalism is a laugh in the face of veganism. Veganism is an ethical stance, not a shopping label. Companies that create plant-based products without animals in mind or directly exploit animals through their practices in order to cater to a wider demographic are not vegan; therefore, they must be avoided by all who follow a vegan lifestyle.
Instead, vegans must support 100 percent vegan alternative-animal product companies, businesses, and restaurants that instill ethical practices and promote the abolition of animal exploitation. Vegans must do more than the bare minimum of checking ingredients; an ethical lifestyle requires thorough research and action. Although less accessible, it is a vegan’s duty to support causes, companies, and products that share the idea that animals are not commodities.
The argument against plant-based capitalism is a relatively new concept. It currently has no official peer-reviewed research and is in its early stages of development. However, the practice of plant-based capitalism has existed for decades.
Historically, plant-based products have been popular for the past forty years. According to Eater, a famous food and dining blog owned by Vox Media, plant-based meat alternatives began to hit shelves in the 1980s with the introduction of the Vegeburger, Garden Burger, and the Boca Burger. Unfortunately, they weren’t created for animal abolitionists.
Although these products are the more ethical choice, plant-based meats are not marketed to ethical vegans and vegetarians; instead, they aim to appeal to meat-eaters who are looking to reduce their meat consumption for health reasons or to improve the environment. The same article by Eater states, “[v]egetarians may only make up around 3 percent of the US population, but, according to Sweet Earth, more than 54 percent of American adults are trying to eat less meat and more plant-based foods — whether for health reasons, environmental reasons, or both” (Vox Creative). These products were created without animal rights in mind. Instead, they were created for people concerned with their health or the environment. Any reason is a good reason not to eat animals, but when animal liberation is conveniently left out of the conversation, the ethics begin to blur.
Today, several suspiciously meat-like alternatives are available in restaurants and grocery stores worldwide, including the famous Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods brands. At first glance, the overwhelming success of these plant-based alternatives is a major victory for the vegan movement. Unfortunately, these alternatives don’t have animals in mind. Instead, all these companies see are dollar signs.
Ultimately, animal rights are constantly left out of the conversation when it comes to plant-based capitalistic products and companies. Ethan Brown, founder of Beyond Meat, spoke with the University of Maryland’s student publication, Terp, about his company. Brown shared that the main motivator for creating such a brand was to improve human health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Seth Goldman, Beyond Meat’s company chair executive, furthers this motivation in the same interview with Terp. Author Chris Carroll writes:
“‘[Brown] knows you’re not going to build a brand on a guilt trip,’ he said before a recent on-campus talk in the Robert G. Hisaoka Speaker Series. ‘So he focuses on all the positive aspects of the brand: health and vitality, the fact the product has more protein than beef and no cholesterol, protection of the environment. And as a side benefit, we’re taking billions of animals out of the process” (Carroll).
Both Brown and Goldman purposefully distance themselves from the animal liberation movement in order to appeal to more customers.
To further illustrate their lack of ethics, the official Beyond Meat website mentions animal welfare last in their mission statement, and the only talk of veganism is discreetly hidden beneath the final question on their frequently asked questions page (Beyond Meat). Although Brown claims to be vegan, he admitted in an interview with Time Magazine’s Alice Park that he routinely purchases and taste-compares real animal flesh to Beyond Meat Products. He said, “‘I’ve been vegan for at least 16 years. But I routinely test meat [from animals] for taste and spit it out’” (Park). Purchasing Beyond Meat products encourages the consumption and exploitation of animals to continue.
Speaking of testing, another popular plant-based meat company is Impossible Foods. Impossible Foods has never had animal rights or liberation in mind, especially during the creation process of their product. According to a 2018 report by StatNews, Impossible Foods tested soy leghemoglobin by force-feeding nearly two hundred rats and killing them. The article reads. “[t]he company determined that it would have to test its special ingredient in animal models in order to get the stamp of approval it wanted from the FDA. So it did so, on a total of 188 rats in three separate experiments. As is typical in medical research, the rats were sacrificed” (Robbins and Garde). This experimentation appears to be required; however, upon further investigation, the disturbing truth is revealed.
The most interesting part is that Impossible Foods was already selling their products, containing soy leghemoglobin, in restaurants all across the United States. The same article by StatNews states that the FDA would only allow them to sell in grocery stores or chain restaurants with their seal of approval. Impossible Foods was determined to become global, so they decided to test on animals to achieve their desired outcome, completely ruining their chance of being regarded as a vegan company.
Obviously, this act of animal abuse by the company has received a lot of press coverage. According to one of the scathing articles, author Ethan Huff of Food Science expresses:
“PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] reportedly approached Impossible Foods founder Patrick Brown about the issue, and Brown admitted that the test didn’t have to be conducted. But he apparently refused to commit to never conducting similar animal experiments in the future, which means more rats are likely to be harmed so that vegans can consume plant-based, meat-like ‘foods’” (Huff).
Although Huff seems to be against the vegan movement in his article, his anguish against animal testing for food perfectly summarizes how many non-vegans feel regarding vivisection.
There has been constant conflict between Impossible Foods, PETA, and vegan consumers. Animal liberation is not a priority for the Impossible Foods brand. According to Molecules, the difference between cow flesh burgers and Impossible burgers is still very noticeable, especially through taste (Hernandez et al.). Based on the obvious findings, Impossible Foods’ entire justification for testing on animals is now obsolete. Paired with such a statement from the company’s founder, provided by Huff, Impossible Foods has never and will never be vegan.
Unfortunately, some plant-based companies were once considered vegan, but now no longer hold that title. A very popular plant-based meat alternative brand, Tofurky, was a leader in making animal-liberating foods easily accessible to those fighting the good fight. With pro-vegan packaging and messaging on the official Tofurky website, the company was proud of its stance against animal exploitation. As quite a surprise to the vegan community, AgFunderNews reported that Tofurky sold its company and its sister company, Moocho, to Morinaga Nutritional Foods Inc. in February 2023 (Watson). The new owner of Tofurky is also the leading dairy producer and supplier in Japan, Morinaga Milk Industry. The official Morinaga Milk website informs readers how successful its business is with countless products and locations (Morinaga Milk Co.). Once ownership changed, veganism was quickly swept under the rug.
Unsurprisingly, many of the pro-vegan messaging and illustrations on the official Tofurky website were removed or scaled down once the new owner took over (Tofurky). When purchasing Tofurky, a vegan’s money will end up in the pockets of those profiting from extreme animal abuse.
When it comes to advertising plant-based products, veganism is conveniently left in the dark to appeal to whoever has money to spend. The vast majority of the population already has a sour taste in their mouth about vegans, and advertisers don’t want to risk losing out on a sale.
Apparently, the word “vegan” in marketing can scare people off. According to George Hajjar, a writer for the Specialty Food Association:
“Marc Elkman, CEO and co-founder of Mighty Yum, a plant-based grab-and-go lunch option geared toward children, shares a similar mindset. ‘We don’t want to force the vegan label onto consumers,’ he said. ‘And we don’t want parents to think that we want to convert their children to become vegan. Instead, we want to create a place for people to substitute meat options with plant alternatives’” (Hajjar).
This attitude against veganism in marketing to appeal to non-vegans furthers the stigma and enforces the notion that vegans are unwelcomingly intense.
Similarly, other so-called vegan brands appear moral based on their pro-vegan packaging, only for their dirty secrets to be hidden beyond the labeling. A popular blog for shoppers looking to make a difference, Ethical Consumer illustrates, “[d]epending on which brands of vegan and dairy-free cheese, milks, and yoghurt you buy, your money could still be finding its way into the pockets of those who profit from animal exploitation” (Ethical Consumer). According to one of the blog’s spreadsheets, many vegan-certified companies are owned and funded by massive meat and dairy brands like Dean Foods, Unilever, and Nestlé.
Not only do these companies enslave, sexually abuse, and execute millions of animals every year, but some also engage in vivisection and human rights violations. An Academicia Globe: Inderscience Research journal by Dr. U. Sharipova and Master’s student N. Zaynutdinova states, “[h]uman trafficking, illegal use of water resources, child labor, usage of price-fixing strategy are some of the main accusations against Nestlé” (376). Although human animals are not centered in the vegan movement as much as non-human animals, the mistreatment of any animal reinforces speciesism and must be avoided at all costs.
The most common occurrence of plant-based capitalism is through animal-exploitative companies creating and selling plant-based and even vegan-certified products. Several fast-food chain restaurants have released plant-based options in recent years. According to The Verge, The Impossible Whopper arrived at Burger King in 2019 to a massive audience (Carman). However, the first appearance of plant-based meat in fast food chains was much earlier. Nation’s Restaurant News reported that Chipotle released its plant-based meat alternative, Sofritas, in 2014 (Thorn). As wonderful as these products may seem, they aren’t vegan by nature.
To eat fully plant-based at a fast food chain restaurant, the consumer must make several modifications to their meal or simply run the risk of unknowingly consuming animal products. According to an article by the famous vegan media publication VegNews, to make the Impossible Whopper truly plant-based, it would require several modifications, including being warmed in the microwave rather than cooked on the grill and the removal of dairy and egg-based condiments (Flink). At Chipotle, there are even more issues. Several vegans end up with mouthfuls of meat from their Sofritas burrito because of Chipotle’s common cross-contamination. Even popular blogs like Delish Knowledge have spoken about the lack of safety when eating at Chipotle as a vegan (Caspero | article removed). The risk is not worth the so-called convenience.
Personally, I have received animal meat from Chipotle twice; the last time was in a burrito, and the two-inch-long piece of cow flesh ended up in my mouth. I took a boiling hot shower for two hours after violently vomiting. Regardless of my negative experience, Chipotle simply isn’t vegan-friendly enough. The restaurant does not carry vegan cheese or sour cream. If these companies genuinely cared about animal liberation rather than appealing to more customers, they would be a completely vegan company. At the very least, they would ensure they gave customers what they asked for.
The worst part about plant-based capitalism is how easy it is to get away with false veganism. According to Ashbury Global, an expert in product and labelling compliance, “[t]here’s no legal definition for the term ‘vegan’ in food law, nor is there official legislation governing how to use it on a food label. Ultimately, ‘vegan’ is a voluntary marketing claim. Although no law exists, the fundamental rules of food labeling regulations still apply – labels must accurately reflect the product and prevent misleading consumers” (McKevith). The goal of marketing is to appeal to the desired audience. If vegans are the desired audience, it’s easy to reel them in.
While no official legislation is in place to determine a product's vegan status, there are several different vegan certifications, including the Vegan Action certification. The official Vegan Action website lists that products cannot be tested on animals if they aim to receive the Vegan Action certification (Vegan Action). Yet, somehow, several products that Vegan Action currently verifies are owned by parent companies that test on animals. For example, Ben & Jerry's non-dairy ice cream is certified by Vegan Action. Although Ben & Jerry’s is owned by Unilever, a company that continues to test on animals, they have still received Vegan Action’s stamp of approval. The official Unilever website claims to make attempts at developing animal-free testing procedures, yet very little progress has been made (Unilever PLC).
Similarly, lawsuits were also filed against Ben & Jerry’s for allegedly misleading consumers about the ethics of the dairy used in their products. The brand claimed to work exclusively with local Vermont farms that housed “happy cows.” Thankfully, many activists saw directly through these green-washing marketing tactics. Environmental advocate James Ehlers released a statement to TODAY regarding the lawsuit, reading, “‘[o]nly a minority percentage of the milk and cream in the products actually is sourced from these ‘happy cows’ on ‘Caring Dairy’ farms’” (Chayes Wida). When so-called vegan organizations become untrustworthy, like with Vegan Action, the confidence in knowing who and what to believe continues to dwindle.
Obviously, veganism is a moral philosophy, not a consumer identity. Vegans must support companies that work towards animal liberation, not those who aid in animal exploitation. Non-vegan companies that create plant-based products do not care about animal liberation or the vegan movement. They directly profit from and rely on animal exploitation, and veganism would demolish their livelihoods. They are simply creating certain products that they can sell to as many people as possible. This belief extends to non-vegan restaurants and non-vegan food companies. The ability to label and market a non-vegan product to vegan consumers is an extremely unethical marketing loophole that advertisers are utilizing.
Moreover, the so-called vegan companies that create products through animal exploitative practices are not vegan, as animal exploitation is the very thing veganism is working to abolish. If these brands did care about animal liberation, they would not have implemented these practices in the first place. Animal testing is not required by law to become accessible, and the point of taste comparing animal flesh to plant-based products only works to serve animal eaters.
In fact, these so-called vegan companies owned and funded by animal-exploitative parent companies must be ignored and boycotted. Non-vegan parent companies often implement vivisection into their practices, and vegans could be supporting animal exploitation through their dollars without ever knowing. The motivation for non-vegan investors to purchase vegan companies is to profit from the trend of plant-based dieting, not because they care about animals. The money they make off of their vegan investments will be funneled into animal exploitation either directly or indirectly. The more revenue they generate, the easier it is to advertise these non-vegan products to vegan consumers.
Undoubtedly, a vegan philosophy revolves around removing oneself from animal exploitation as much as possible. Vegans can not possibly justify their contribution to animal exploitation, especially through such unnecessary means. Plant-based capitalism is avoidable. The concept of being against plant-based capitalism only encompasses non-essential plant-based alternatives to popular animal-based products, which are not required for a healthy vegan lifestyle. As Beyond Burgers and certain non-dairy ice creams were created through animal exploitation, there is no justification for purchasing these products. These companies pat themselves on the back for calling their business “vegan” and profiting from the vegan movement while directly contributing to the antithesis of veganism.
Obviously, animal exploitation takes place in nearly every facet of existence as a human. Gas stations sell hot dogs and beef jerky, meat-based ads play in between television shows, and unless you live in a major vegan-friendly city, you do not have access to a fully vegan grocery store. Even then, the products inside the vegan grocery store may not meet the standards laid out by anti-plant-based capitalistic messaging. Plant-based capitalism does not apply to brands that sell produce, beans, rice, and other plant-based diet staples, as these items are already vegan by nature and do not profit from fake veganism.
Although non-vegan “vegan” items are enjoyable and meet the bare minimum of plant-based requirements, plant-based capitalism is still not something vegans can support, as it goes against the animal liberation movement. When an alternative that better represents the animal liberation movement becomes available, vegans must support it. Not supporting the liberating alternative goes against the moral principles of veganism.
If veganism excludes the consumption and utilization of animal exploitation as far as is practicable and possible, surely a non-vegan grocery store is allowed when no vegan grocery stores are accessible. However, a burger created through vivisection, a non-dairy ice cream created by a non-vegan company, or a plant-based alternative at a non-vegan restaurant would not be. As these products are not necessary for human survival and there are a plethora of truly vegan alternatives, there is no justification for continuing to support these businesses.
Based on what is known about supply and demand, supporting companies that do consider animal liberation will compel other truly vegan companies to begin operations. This act of supporting animal liberating brands may influence plant-based companies to implement actual ethical practices and go completely vegan. Contributing to plant-based capitalism in any capacity goes against the very definition of veganism. Supporting ethical and truly vegan companies based on supply and demand would motivate more investors, suppliers, and others to support authentic brands.
Despite this truth, many vegans believe that supporting so-called vegan products from non-vegan companies drives the demand for vegan products, therefore increasing the supply. Several vegans have argued that if vegans do not support non-vegan companies that are pushing out plant-based products, these companies will take them off the menu or remove them from shelves and diminish progress within the vegan movement.
Similarly, famous vegan activist Gary Yourofsky said, " I encourage people to eat at non-vegan restaurants that offer vegan options” in one of his published YouTube videos (Yourofsky, 00:00:14). Many vegans also use The Vegan Society's definition of veganism in defense of supporting plant-based capitalism. However, The Vegan Society exclusively says that vegans must promote vegan products, not plant-based products masquerading as vegan products. Yourofsky affirms this belief of supply and demand, that driving up the supply of plant-based options from non-vegan institutions will convert non-vegan companies into vegan companies. As wonderful as that idea sounds, there is no evidence to support that this is even possible. In fact, the opposite has quite a fair amount of supporting evidence.
Amy's Kitchen, a famous vegetarian ready-made meal company, has over 100 vegan-certified products. Arguably, Amy's Kitchen is more well-known for its vegan products than its vegetarian counterparts. However, there are no signs that the company will evolve to become completely vegan. According to the Amy’s Kitchen official website, two of its newest products are extremely egg-heavy (Amy’s Kitchen). It seems as though Amy's Kitchen has no intention of removing animal ingredients from their products.
This belief that brands will become vegan continues to be disproven by other vegetarian brands. According to Forbes, another popular vegetarian brand, MorningStar Farms, promised consumers that the company would be completely vegan by the end of 2021 (Forgrieve). However, it is now the end of 2024, and the brand has yet to fulfill that promise. On the official MorningStar Farms website, readers can find a newly released recipe that isn't even vegetarian, as it calls for Worcestershire sauce, which includes anchovies (MorningStar Farms). If vegetarian brands aren’t even moving in the right direction, we can safely assume animal-based brands are not coming any closer.
Overwhelmingly, supply and demand for plant-based companies are dwindling regardless. In 2019, when Beyond Meat was at its height, its stock prices were each over $200 per share. As of today, Beyond Meat stock has fallen to just $4.86 per share as of December 3rd, 2024, according to the popular stock history website MacroTrends (MacroTrends). As for Impossible Foods and other plant-based meat alternatives, meatless meat sales in grocery stores have been declining since 2021. An article by Vox Media regarding the drop in plant-based excitement discloses:
“[t]he plant-based stagnation isn’t a surprise to anyone who has been following the industry. Over the last two years, some traditional meat companies, like JBS and Maple Leaf Foods, have cut back on their US plant-based meat production. A number of regional tests of new menu items at fast food restaurants never got a national rollout, like McDonald’s McPlant burger or KFC’s Beyond Fried Chicken. The trend reversal caused Bloomberg to recently call plant-based meat ‘just another fad’” (Torrella). It appears that caring for animals isn’t a core belief for the vast majority of consumers, but rather a fleeting trend.
Unquestionably, the growth of plant-based products is noticeable compared to less than a decade ago. However, the public still sees the success of supply and demand for plant-based options rather than ethically vegan food. The companies receiving the biggest payouts fall under the category of plant-based capitalism.
Regardless of the so-called positive outcome, unethical practices can not be justified. Vegans must fight for a vegan future, not a future with vegan options. Vegans must support businesses that share ethical values rather than companies trying to make money off of ethical beliefs, otherwise known as plant-based capitalism. Based on supply and demand, by supporting plant-based capitalism, vegans demand that these companies continue their unethical business practices by increasing their demand. If vegans truly believe supply and demand work, vegans must increase the demand for fully vegan products created and sold by fully vegan companies.
Another common argument in support of plant-based capitalism that many vegans and non-vegan companies use is that they are saving more animals than they are exploiting. However, it must be noted that veganism is not utilitarianism. Peter Singer, a famous animal rights philosopher who argues for utilitarianism, believes that sacrificing one animal’s life in order to save a hundred animal lives is not only morally permissible but obligatory. Singer reveals in his 1979 publication, Practical Ethics, that he subscribes to a philosophy that achieves the greatest outcome, regardless of the means used to achieve it (Singer). Singer is comfortable taking the life of one being in order to save two.
To expand on Singer’s philosophy, an Animal Legal & Historical Center publication written by Gary L. Francione expands on Singer’s utilitarianism in the book. He states, “[t]he classical utilitarian regards an action as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not” (Francione). Utilitarianism does seem like the moral option at first glance; however, consent is crucial to all actions in order for something to be considered ethical.
Although the outcome of sacrificing a life may be revolutionary, a non-human animal can not consent to being used as a sacrifice for the greater good. Sacrificing the life of a human being who is either not old enough or not mentally equipped enough to consent is immoral. No one can justify sacrificing the life of an unconsenting being, no matter the species.
While less accessible, truly vegan alternatives must be the only alternatives vegans support in the fight against animal exploitation. Historical and scientific articles such as Leitzmann’s from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition clearly show that civilizations have thrived on whole-food, plant-based diets for centuries without the need for mass-produced, unethically sourced, non-dairy ice cream (496S). If vegans are craving an unnecessary treat, vegans must enforce their beliefs and stick to their moral principles by supporting companies and brands that share their values. Vegans must discourage all forms of animal exploitation from continuing and encourage others to join their fight toward animal liberation.
Ultimately, when vegans engage in plant-based capitalism, their money is still going to companies that engage in the very things vegans, as a community, are working to abolish. Plant-based shampoo that is tested on animals can not be considered vegan due to its abuse and exploitation of animals. Any products that are tested on animals, are owned by parent companies that test on animals, and all other animal-exploitative products must also not be considered vegan. These products are unnecessary and have genuinely ethical alternatives. Regardless of the outcome, abusing animals for any reason is not vegan.
Overall, plant-based capitalism contributes to the antithesis of veganism, and products that encompass plant-based capitalism are not vegan. Therefore, vegans must avoid these products and companies and instead support companies that promote animal liberation and veganism. Vegans must also abstain from lining the pockets of corrupt executives and advertisers who prey on those who follow ethical lifestyles.
Furthermore, veganism is a moral philosophy that always does what is right for animals. Plant-based capitalistic products cannot be justified when these companies and products do not consider animal liberation. Vegans must discontinue excusing the atrocities of unethical companies masquerading as animal liberation activists.
From an evaluation of the above arguments and research, products and companies that fall under plant-based capitalism contribute to and benefit from the ongoing abuse, exploitation, oppression, and violence of non-human animals. Veganism is an ethical stance, not a shopping label. In order to protect animals and fight against animal cruelty, boycotting plant-based capitalism is a requirement.