Introduction
My name is Jan Deckers. I am a member of the Vegan Society and I work at 
Newcastle University, where I teach health care ethics. The Engagement and Place Fund at Newcastle University funded this research briefing. The fund aims to share the benefits of Newcastle University research with those outside the University. This year, the Fund prioritises engagement projects that respond to the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26).
In this briefing, I respond to 10 questions that researchers from The Vegan Society Researcher Network would like to see answered about my research, focusing on the ethics of the climate crisis and the role of vegan diets. The aim is to contribute to resolving the climate crisis and to inform stakeholders involved in discussions in COP26. If you would like to engage with me about this research briefing, you are very welcome to contact me by email: jan.deckers[at]ncl.ac[dot]uk.
A video resource accompanies this research briefing. It answers the same questions in an alternative and simpler format, to facilitate wider access.
Ten questions answered
1. What do you think is the basic significance of your work for the topic of the ethics of greenhouse gas emissions?
Many people approach the ethics of greenhouse gas emissions in isolation from other moral questions. Thus, one might argue that a meeting such as the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) should take place exclusively via the internet, rather than in Glasgow or wherever else it may be. Whilst I am not opposed to this meeting taking place virtually, it is important to consider the ethics of climate change in the context of ethics in general. This is why I use the concept of Global Health Impact, or GHI. In every situation, we should ask ourselves the question of which action maximises positive GHIs or minimises negative GHIs, and commit ourselves to that action. If some people involved with COP26 meet in Glasgow, rather than via the internet, it might well maximise positive GHIs. Whilst it might be wrong for some people to go on holiday to Glasgow, it may not be wrong for others to go to Glasgow to present in the COP26.
In my work, I apply this notion of maximising positive GHIs, or minimising negative GHIs, also to the topic of dietary choices. When we think about the negative GHIs associated with human dietary choices, it may well be right, for example, to adopt a particular vegan diet, even if that diet would be associated with greater greenhouse gas emissions compared to another diet. This is because we must not only think of emissions when we think of GHIs, but also of many other things; the impacts of our dietary choices on the lives of nonhuman animals, for example. In reality, however, plenty of research shows that many vegan diets are better for the climate crisis compared with many other diets. An important part of my work aims to address the question of how significant that fact is for our dietary choices.
2. What is the role of vegan diets in relation to the climate crisis?
In many situations, vegan diets contribute far less to climate change than other diets. If we compare vegan diets with diets that include farmed animal products, this becomes very clear. Let’s look at the main reasons for this:
Firstly, diets that include animal products tend to produce more carbon dioxide (CO2). Animals respire, producing carbon dioxide in the process. Now, it might be said that this carbon dioxide would also end up in the atmosphere if these animals had not existed, as plants and soils also release carbon. This is true, but timing is critical. Some plants, such as trees, live for a very long time. As long as they live, they store more carbon than the amount they release. Healthy soil also stores carbon. The problem is that many soils that are used to graze animals and to grow crops to feed farmed animals are not healthy. Diets that include animal products also tend to produce more greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuels. These are used to operate agricultural machinery, as well as to create synthetic fertilisers and pesticides, most of which are derived from oil. Yes, many vegan diets also rely on the use of oil, but a lot less oil tends to be used to produce these. This is so for various reasons, most notably the fact that a lot of arable land is used to produce feed for nonhuman animals. A large amount of this feed is not converted into body parts that people eat, but transformed into parts (bones, intestines, etc.) that are not eaten, as well as in the energy that is used by the animals simply to keep them alive. In addition, a lot of feed is grown far from where the animals who eat it live. Carbon dioxide is also produced by building, maintaining, and heating animal housing, as well as by transporting animals and the products that are derived from them. As slaughterhouses have become bigger and fewer in number, animals are often reared far away from where they are killed, turned into products, and consumed. The cultivation of many fruits and vegetables also requires specialist housing; greenhouses, for example, which can also rely on fossil fuel, and the transportation, processing, and storage of fruits and vegetables also emit greenhouse gases, but these emissions tend to be lower.
Secondly, the farmed animals' sector also produces methane (CH4), mainly from enteric fermentation by ruminants and from stored manures, especially where stored in liquid form, for example in lagoons. The fact that the sector produces a large amount of methane is primarily associated with the large number of ruminants who are farmed. Although methane does not remain in the atmosphere for as long as CO2, its global warming potential is much greater.
Thirdly, chemical and organic nitrogen fertilisation also produce emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx), nitrous oxide (N2O), and ammonia (NH3). The creation of large volumes of nitrous oxide is particularly concerning, as it has a global warming potential that dwarfs that of CO2. The microbial production of nitrous oxide from soil nitrogen is promoted where the available nitrogen exceeds plant requirements. As animal manure is frequently highly concentrated due to the industrialisation of farming, this problem has aggravated significantly in recent years.
So far, I have compared vegan diets with diets that rely on farmed animal products. However, products that are derived from animals who have not been farmed frequently also contribute disproportionately to the climate crisis. Examples are the emissions from the long-distance boat journeys that are associated with the catching of fish preferred by Western customers, and those from processing fish, produced by canning and refrigeration, for example. Whilst the emissions from diets that include farmed fish can be relatively low, this is not the case for many forms of aquaculture that rely heavily on the use of other fish as feed. Apart from these emissions, fish and the ecosystems that support them store large amounts of carbon. Many fishing technologies, trawler fishing, for example, destroy both fish and their ecosystems, increasing the negative climate impacts of fishing significantly.
3. What do you think are the most significant reasons for people adopting vegan diets?
The number of people who adopt vegan diets has increased significantly in recent years. This is a positive trend. However, the number of vegans remains very small. I think the reason why veganism has grown in its appeal relates to the fact that more people are starting to realise that vegan diets are ‘win-win-win diets’, at least in many situations. Who does not like being a winner?
The first ‘win’ relates to the human health impacts of our diets. In many situations, vegan diets are better not only for the climate, but also to counter the health problems caused by zoonoses, inappropriate land use, and water usage, and pollution. Whilst these problems are not just issues for human beings, in the first chapter of my book, Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?, I argue that even people who claim not to care about any nonhuman animals should take an interest in these problems, as they jeopardise the human right to health care. If we think that all people have such a right, we should care about the zoonoses and the ecological issues that impact negatively upon human health. More people, especially younger folks, are now starting to see the human health benefits of vegan diets.
The second ‘win’, discussed in chapter two of my book, relates to our relationships with other animals: many people who are sincere with themselves will recognise that they have some resistance to eating companion animals. Even if few people question the consumption of other animals, more people are starting to put two and two together now: is it not a bit odd that we eat some animals and have some revulsion towards eating others? Perhaps this feeling of revulsion, or disgust, should be generalised? More work needs to be done on how this feeling of revulsion fits together with the human desire to eat animal products, and on how it plays out across the range of animal products. For example, I do not have the same revulsion towards eating eggs, which I continued to eat when they were produced by my rescued hens after I had become a vegan in all other respects, as the revulsion I feel when I contemplate the thought of eating most other animal products. I argue, however, that even those who do not recognise any feelings of revulsion towards eating animal products should take seriously other feelings that they are likely to have, such as the aversion they may feel towards inflicting pain and death on animals, at least in situations where this is of no benefit to the animals themselves. So the second ‘win’ relates to our mental health, which can only be protected when we sort out how we ought and ought not to relate to other animals.
The third ‘win’, discussed in my book’s appendix, relates to the narrow health benefits of vegan diets. What I mean by ‘narrow’ here is that they relate only to the physical health of those who adopt such diets. Many people think that they would lose out by adopting vegan diets, as doing so would remove items from the menu. Some think that they would also lose out because they believe that vegan diets are unhealthy. Whilst there is no doubt that vegan diets can be unhealthy, I have argued that carefully designed vegan diets are not only healthy but likely to be healthier compared to other diets. More people are becoming convinced of this, as well as of the fact that designing good vegan diets is not rocket science.
4. What do you think are the greatest obstacles that impede people from adopting vegan diets?
In chapter four of Animal (De)liberation, I deliberate various explanations that people provide to try to justify the consumption of animal products, as well as the processes related to it, such as the killing of animals. Some people say that they like the taste of products derived from animals too much. Some say something like ‘taste trumps thoughts’. Some invoke health reasons, thinking that people could not be healthy on vegan diets. Some think that our bodies have been designed to eat animal products or that animals have been designed to be eaten by us, and that we should not go against nature’s design. Some find their inspiration in some nonhuman animals eating other animals, claiming that since they do, we should do so too. Some invoke what Rebekah Humphreys has called the ‘argument from existence’: some animals who are eaten would never exist if they were not destined to be eaten, therefore it must be good for them to be eaten. Another argument refers to tradition: the fact that we have done something for a good while would be a good reason to continue doing it. Sometimes, such references to tradition are combined with religious or other texts that speak favourably about human beings eating other animals.
I also found it interesting to explore how people who work in a slaughterhouse try to justify the killing of animals. Some also mobilise religion, as well as traditional texts such as the slaughter man’s motto, a mantra that reminisces of religious prayer by using ‘thy, thyne, and thou’ to refer to the second person and by the demand that it must be recited by heart. Other themes are the slaughter man’s power as he is allowed to do something that not many people – mostly men – are allowed to do; their supposed sincerity in facing up to the reality of what it takes to consume animals, in contrast to others; and their skill in the art of killing, in contrast to those who do not kill properly. This last theme is played out, for example, in the kosher or halal slaughter man claiming to slaughter more humanely compared to other slaughter men, and vice versa. A final theme is fun, either to make fun of animals who are being killed, or to turn the killing of animals into some kind of game.
Whilst I have challenged all of these arguments, they nevertheless appear to be adopted quite widely. I have not really explored what might unite them, but a common factor may be distraction. I think that most people do have some degree of discomfort associated with the killing of animals and with the consumption of many animal products. Whilst setting aside this discomfort may be appropriate in some situations, for example, when one’s life depends on it, most obstacles to adopting vegan diets cannot really be taken seriously.
5. Are governments doing enough to address the contributions of human diets to the climate crisis?
I am not aware of any government on the planet that does enough to address the negative impacts of human diets on the climate. Politicians are not immune from the obstacles that I have talked about, in spite of the fact that they might be expected to be among the more educated people. I think that many educated people are able to see that these obstacles are not really valid but, unfortunately, values are quite immune from being infected by good reasoning. As long as vegans remain a minority, politicians are unlikely to be vegans themselves, particularly because many people are opposed to veganism, a phenomenon that can be attributed to some extent to what Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan call a culture of ‘vegaphobia’. Whilst vegan politicians do exist, their political power is likely to be related inversely to their vegan activism.
The problem is not only that very few politicians promote veganism, but also that they actively undermine it by using vast sums of public money on the promotion of animal products and on downplaying their harmful effects. The farmed animal and fishery sectors are incentivised to produce a large amount of negative GHIs, both by receiving direct subsidies and by their capacities to externalise many negative impacts. In many countries, the sectors’ lobby groups are so influential that they manage to exert great power over politicians in order to ensure they continue to receive subsidies or that they do not have to pay externalised costs, such as the costs associated with the need to adapt to and to mitigate climate change impacts.
6. What government policies would you welcome to promote vegan diets?
I engage with this question in chapter three of Animal (De)liberation. One option is to pour money into educating people about their dietary choices in the hope that, where necessary, they will then go on to make dietary changes. I am not opposed to this strategy, but I think that a policy that restricts itself to this is very inappropriate for many reasons. Firstly, people who adopt unethical diets would continue to get away with this if they are unwilling to change ways. The problem with this is that what is unethical is unethical for a good reason: it inflicts harm on others. It does not sit comfortably with me to say that people can continue to harm others if they are unwilling to change. Secondly, educating people is socially stratified. What I mean by this is that those people who are reasonably well off are frequently the primary beneficiaries of educational projects, exacerbating inequities with those who are less affluent. A third reason is that educational projects do not tackle the systemic problems directly, and may be unable to alter these. Imagine, for example, a highly educated citizenship with a very high proportion of people wanting to commit to vegan diets. They might still be unable to do so if the small proportion of non-vegans had almost all the political and economic power, skewing production systems towards foods derived from animals.
A second option is to increase the costs of animal products. In the current world, producers can externalise the costs associated with the production of greenhouse gas emissions on others. We all bear the consequences of the climate crisis, and the costs associated with mitigating and adapting to these negative GHIs are borne by everyone, regardless of whether one consumes animal products. The same is the case for many other negative GHIs that are externalised by the animal food sector. To give just one other example, the sector does not bear the costs associated with the development of new viral and microbial pathogens. Rather, it benefits from the availability of cheap antibiotics that are used lavishly, both prophylactically (to prevent rather than cure disease) and to promote growth. Their prices do not factor in the scale and manner of their usage, which trigger antibiotic resistance. By increasing the costs of animal products, those who produce such products might (be obliged to) internalise negative impacts. Alternatively, governments could use the taxes that they might raise to deal with externalised impacts. In addition, a rise in the costs of animal products might go hand in hand with a slump in demand. One problem with this approach, however, is that this is not a necessity. Another is that, by thinking that governments have to do nothing more than to educate people and to increase the costs of animal products, we would adopt the view that all negative GHIs associated with the consumption of animal products can be paid for.
I do not adopt this view, which takes me to the final option, and the answer to the question posed in the subtitle of my book: Should the consumption of animal products be banned? In answering this question, it is important to distinguish between ethics and politics. Ethically, I believe that the consumption of animal products should, in many situations, be banned. However, when we talk about politics, we are talking about what politicians ought to do. This complicates the matter. The reason for this is that I also value democracy. Whilst I do not accept the view that the majority is always right, I am also uncomfortable with the idea that a tiny minority should dictate what the majority ought or ought not to do. Yes, I would support a policy to ban the consumption of animal products in many situations. However, governments must develop policies not on the basis of what I think, but on the basis of what many people think. This takes me back to square one: governments are unlikely to ban the consumption of animal products unless more people already think that such a ban, which I think should be a qualified rather than a total ban, is a good idea.
7. What do you consider the role of transnational organisations, such as the United Nations?
Many negative GHIs are truly global. The topic of climate change provides a good example. Global problems require global solutions. The problem is that we do not have a world government. However, such a government is really needed to avoid the free-rider problem. It is great that nations that think that greenhouse gas emissions should be cut take unilateral or joint action to do so, but the problem is that nations that disagree may benefit twice, both by being able to lap up resources that are no longer demanded by other nations, and by not committing themselves to make changes that might hurt. Whilst it is true that not making changes may hurt as well, some of this harm will not manifest itself until much later on – when those who avoid taking action now are no longer alive, and some harm may mainly affect others. In relation to the latter, it is very problematic that the climate crisis affects nations that have contributed relatively little to the problem the most.
In spite of our lacking a world government, we do have international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, etc., that are able to make international agreements, but the problem is that not many international agreements are legally binding unless they are incorporated into national law. So, one role for transnational organisations is to work towards a world government that is able to make agreements that are legally binding. Another is to highlight issues that are of global relevance. The climate crisis is clearly an issue of global relevance as climate change does not stop at the border and cannot be tackled unless many nations cooperate.
The Food and Agriculture Organization produced quite an influential report in 2006, claiming that ‘the environmental impact of livestock production will worsen dramatically … in the absence of major corrective features’ (Steinfeld et al. 2006, p. 275). Transnational organisations should now focus their attention on these major corrective features, which may be less likely to emerge unless we question looking at animals as ‘livestock’. Whilst global problems require global solutions, it is important to emphasise that we cannot adopt a ‘one solution suits all’ approach. This is why transnational organisations must ensure that their membership includes representatives from all nations, to ensure inclusion and to localise proposed solutions. As I have argued in this chapter (Deckers 2019), veganism may be appropriate for many people, but it may not be appropriate for all, such as for those who would struggle to feed themselves otherwise.
8. What do you consider the role of charities, such as the Vegan Society?
The Vegan Society has a Manifesto for Veganism. It calls on the governments of the United Kingdom to enact a number of policies around food, land management, health care, education, and social security. My research supports many of these policies, and I consider that the role of the Vegan Society is to continue to demand that these governments implement these policies, as well as to engage with other governments and international organisations. I think the Manifesto should add the objective that the UK governments should ban the consumption of animal products. Whilst I do not think that banning the consumption of animal products is a defensible option globally, I do think that it is defensible in the UK context. Although it is unlikely that UK governments will adopt such a policy anytime soon, I think the Vegan Society should state, without any reservations, what policies it thinks other people should support, regardless of what other people might think.
At the same time, the Vegan Society should not strive towards a ban on a global scale, as abandoning the consumption of animal products would create severe health problems for some communities, a topic that I discuss in this chapter (Deckers 2019). Whilst vegan diets may be better in many situations, it is also important to acknowledge there are very few vegan diets that do not inflict pain and suffering on animals, a fact that is ignored by the Vegan Society’s ‘Veganalyser’: going vegan does not necessarily save animals as the category of ‘animals’ is a lot broader than the animals who are typically eaten by people. For example, diets that rely on ploughing the land or on the transportation of food over long distances should trouble us a great deal, both because of their impacts on animals and because of other ecological impacts, including their contributions to the climate crisis. In relation to this crisis, the Vegan Society is rightly calling for governmental support for plant-based land management techniques, rewilding, and afforestation. In relation to land management, minimal tillage systems, for example, benefit both nonhuman animals and the climate, as well as many other things.
I have mentioned already that good policies are unlikely to be implemented unless people are prepared for them. This is why I think that the Vegan Society should also continue to drive change by educating people about the benefits of vegan diets. Good education depends on good research. This is why it is good that the Vegan Society conducts research in-house and supports external research. The Society’s membership scheme makes people feel that they are involved in something bigger. It makes people feel that they are part of a larger community, which is important to break the sense of isolation that many vegans will undoubtedly experience in a world that is largely non-vegan and that can be hostile towards them.
I was pleased to read that the Vegan Society wants to make its presence felt at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26). It has an important role to play in reminding stakeholders that tackling climate change is not only about reducing emissions from fossil fuels. The only way in which we can reduce the presence of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere quickly in the short term is through growing and planting trees. To free up space to plant trees on a large scale, we must curtail the consumption of animal products urgently. Regardless of whether or not other charities support veganism, they must also support initiatives that aim to halt the degradation of ecosystems, to increase tree planting, and to develop systems of land and water management that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and capture carbon.
9. What do you consider the most controversial aspect of your research?
It is difficult to identify one controversial aspect, so I have picked out three. At a recent meeting, some people were flabbergasted to hear that I was a speciesist and a vegan at the same time, thinking that these are exclusionary. I think this stems largely from the fact that many people define speciesism incorrectly. It consists neither in the idea that the human species is superior to other species, nor in the rejection of the view that these interests should be treated alike. Rather, it is the idea that we ought to recognise that we have a morally significant interest in attributing special moral significance to members of the human species, merely because of their species membership. The upshot of this for the problem posed by climate change is that we should be primarily concerned about this for the sake of the human species.
A second aspect of my work that is controversial is that I argue for a qualified ban on the consumption of animal products. As mentioned before, for a country like the UK, I support a complete ban. Whilst I am not aware of any academic work that contests this, many people that I speak with disagree, even if I fail to understand why. The best book that I have read to support those who might contest my case is Simon Fairlie’s book Meat: A Benign Extravagance. Whilst I disagree with his position, I recommend this book to all vegans. Fairlie’s position makes a great deal of sense if we focus on climate change and many other ecological aspects associated with human diets. However, my support for a qualified ban on the consumption of animal products is based on an evaluation of what promotes human health optimally. A controversial aspect of my theory is that optimal health demands veganism in many situations, as I think that we ought to give moral significance to feelings of disgust associated with the consumption of animal products. As I mentioned, I think that more work has to go into how this feeling sits together with, and ought to be balanced with, the feelings of attraction that many may have to consuming animal products.
This takes me to a third aspect of controversy. Some vegans may oppose the consumption of animal products because they question the human infliction of pain and suffering on animals and because they may wish to reduce some of the ecological impacts of human diets. This raises the question of whether they would consume animal products where these negative impacts are either eliminated or at least reduced significantly. Some companies are trying to do just that through what one might call ‘cellular agriculture’, with the first lab-grown burger being produced from lab-grown animal cells in 2013. If this or similar technology could be scaled up, I would argue that people should still, at least in many situations, refrain from consuming these products because of the feelings of revulsion that I mentioned above, but that they should, at the same time, be more supportive of their consumption than of the consumption of products from conventional agriculture.
10. What motivated you to engage in this kind of research?
I have never been comfortable with killing animals, and I realised from a young age that eating the flesh of animals depends on animals being killed, at least in most situations. In spite of this discomfort, it took me a long time to become a vegan. When I was 20 years old, I had to complete a dissertation as part of my first degree at University. I did not really know what I wanted to work on, but after a chat with one of my teachers, I started writing on ecological ethics. That would be the first out of several dissertations on the same theme. A key theme in ecological ethics is the question of what values we should assign to nonhuman entities, and how we might resolve value conflicts.
Thinking about these questions led me to think that animals should be attributed more moral significance than plants, and to largely adopt vegetarianism from the age of 21 onwards. In the beginning, I continued to eat fish who had not been farmed, as I rationalised that we would have fulfilled our duties towards them if they led lives that were relatively good and if they were killed quickly. I then became increasingly uncomfortable about this view. Surely, would it not be better to allow them to die naturally? Thus, I became a complete vegetarian, and I transitioned to veganism at the age of 31. It took me that long to realise that the eggs, the milk, and the cheese that I used to buy were extracted from animals who were being allowed to live only as long as they produce sufficient quantities of these things and that, as currently practised most frequently, the egg and dairy industries are entwined with the births of large numbers of male individuals who are killed at a very young age.
Having turned vegan around the start of the new millennium, it did not take me long to realise that I was one out of very few vegans on the planet. This was a key reason to research the issue more: were vegetarians and vegans merely being sentimental, or were they eating ethically? Having addressed this question in an article, I then started focussing more on policy-making. Meanwhile, the Food and Agriculture Organization had published its report 'Livestock’s Long Shadow'(Steinfeld et al. 2006), which emphasised the ecological aspects of the farmed animals’ sector, particularly its contributions to the climate crisis. It motivated me to explore this question more: if I assume, for the sake of the argument, that my view about the standing of nonhuman animals is wrong and that the majority is right that human beings should be allowed to kill nonhuman animals for food without too many reservations, would there still be any sound moral reasons to adopt veganism? It led to the publication of several other articles, as well as to the publication of Animal (De)liberation. I still have the same passion for this field of research, and I am always keen to hear from other researchers, including postgraduate students, who wish to collaborate.
Join Jan on Friday 17th September for a live Q&A session by Zoom related to his research briefing and video:
https://newcastleuniversity.zoom.us/j/87896516585
Meeting ID: 878 9651 6585
Passcode: cop26
Friday 17th September at 1900 hrs (current UK time).
This Zoom session provides you with an opportunity to engage with Jan’s exciting research. Please join the session with your questions, or just to listen in. Everyone is welcome.
References
Cole, M., Morgan, K. 2011. Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers. British Journal of Sociology, 62, 134–153.
Deckers, J. 2016. Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned? London: Ubiquity Press.
Deckers, J. 2019. Could Ecologically Sound Human Nutrition Include the Consumption of Animal Products?. In: Sabaté J, ed. Environmental Nutrition. Connecting Health and Nutrition with Environmentally Sustainable Diets. Academic Press, pp.229-242.
Deckers, J. 2009. Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical?. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2009, 22(6), 573-597. (also at: ePrints)
Fairlie, S. 2010. Meat: A Benign Extravagance. East Meon: Permanent Publications.
Humphreys, R. 2014. The Argument from Existence, Blood-sports, and ‘Sport-slaves’. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27(2), 331-345. (PDF version)
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T. et al. 2006. Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental issues and options. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.
The views expressed by our Research News contributors are not necessarily the views of The Vegan Society.
