The story this week about Adam Richman ‘going vegan’ has brought with it quite a bit of discussion about what it means to be vegan, and how that term is often misrepresented in the media.
The story of Richman going from the extremes of Man vs. Food (a television programme I have never watched) to veganism is at the core of the media articles. However, there is just one issue. He isn’t vegan. He has just reduced the amount of dairy, eggs and meat in his diet, albeit by quite a significant amount. This is hardly worthy of a news story in itself, especially as many people in society seem to be doing just that; and generally for the health reasons that Adam Richman seems to be advocating, rather than ‘for the animals’, which is the core tenet of veganism.
There has been discussion about whether this actually matters? Does it matter that the word ‘vegan’ is used to garner publicity when the actual meaning of the term is absent from the story? In this case it does matter because veganism is about animal exploitation, and is an attempt (as far as is possible and practicable) to avoid activities and products that involve the consumption of animals. It isn’t reducible to a diet, as the Richman story seems to suggest, and even then he is ‘plant strong’ if you like, or a meat reducer, but not a vegan, because he intentionally consumes non-human animals.
Other aspects of the discussion have centred around the apparent need for an identity, and a desire to categorise people. ‘I am vegan’, ‘I am plant strong’, ‘I am a vegetarian’. In some ways it is useful to adopt these terms because it helps with communication, but at the same time we can see many people have also internalised the stereotypes in these words. Even vegans themselves have internalised false stereotypes, and appear to search for people to categorise as ‘vegan police’, ‘preachy’, ‘inflexible’ or ‘extreme’. Whilst in reality there is nothing extreme about veganism. It might be unusual in society to show compassion for non-human animals, but it is not an extreme act, and it is strange to see these false ideas perpetuated by vegans themselves. A better approach would be to challenge instances of ‘vegan policing’, where people have criticised the unintentional consumption of animal products, and recognising this is different from challenging the use of the term ‘vegan’ when applied to people that intentionally consume those products.
Is all publicity good publicity? An article like the one featuring Richman (which was trending according to facebook), may well cause people to research veganism, and the story itself didn’t have an overtly negative theme beyond the implication of the ‘extreme’. However, for the other readers that may decide the meaning of veganism is merely to reduce the amount of meat and dairy you consume, it becomes both misleading, and absent of the challenge to animal use. Though this story does present an opportunity to engage with the issue of veganism, it has appeared to many that discussion has originated from a ‘negative’ or ‘preachy’ standpoint, because vegans once again have had to clarify what the term actually means.