Skip to main content
Log in

In defense of the vegan ideal: Rhetoric and bias in the nutrition literature

  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Much of the scientific literature on vegetarian nutrition leaves one with the impression that vegan diets are significantly more risky than omnivorous ones, especially for individuals with high metabolic demands (such as pregnant or lactating women and children). But nutrition researchers have tended to skew their study populations toward “new vegetarians,” members of religious sects with especially restrictive diets and tendencies to eschew fortified foods and medical care, and these are arguably the last people we would expect to thrive on vegan diets. Researchers also have some tendency to play up weakly confirmed risks of vegan dietsvis-à-vis equally weakly confirmed benefits. And, in spite of these methodological and rhetorical biases, for every nutrient which vegans are warned to be cognizant of, there is reason to believe that they are not at significantly greater risk of nutritional deficiency than omnivores.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Varner, G.E. In defense of the vegan ideal: Rhetoric and bias in the nutrition literature. J Agric Environ Ethics 7, 29–40 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01997222

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01997222

Keywords

Navigation