Home / G. Health and nutrition / Part IND

G19

"Veganism is an eating disorder in disguise"

Before answering: an indirect argument

This argument is about health and nutrition, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If veganism were defended on health grounds, anyone who manages to be healthy eating animals, and many people do, would have no reason to change. And if an animal product turned out to be demonstrably healthier, the same argument would start defending exploitation. The eater's health says nothing about whether what is done to the animal is just.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

The answer in one sentence

eating disorders are serious illnesses, and there is indeed a statistical association between them and meat-free diets. But the best-documented direction is the reverse: people who already have a disorder sometimes adopt vegetarianism as a socially accepted way of restricting food. In a community sample, vegans showed no more signs of disordered eating than omnivores. When a vegan falls ill or dies of an eating disorder, it's a tragedy caused by the illness, not by the ethics of not exploiting animals.

Note: if you or someone close to you shows signs of an eating disorder, seek professional help. The subject is handled here with care, because it involves real suffering

Short answer

Eating disorders are serious illnesses and deserve care. Research shows that many people who already have a disorder start avoiding meat as a way of restricting food, not the other way around. In a community sample, vegans showed no more signs of disordered eating than omnivores. When someone falls ill or dies, the cause is the illness, which also affects many people who eat meat.

For children

Some people get ill and become very afraid of eating, and that's a serious illness that needs a doctor. Sometimes those people say they don't eat meat, but the problem is the illness, not the meat. Being vegan is something else: it's not wanting animals to suffer, and eating well, with beans, rice, fruit and lots of tasty things.

Ask a question back

"If a person with anorexia avoids bread, would you say bread caused the anorexia?"

Como pode aparecer

"It's an eating disorder disguised as ethics."

Everyday conversation

"Veganism is anorexia with an excuse."

Everyday conversation

"Another vegan starved to death. How long will people keep defending this?"

Social media

"Orthorexia: the vegan disease."

Social media

"Restrictive diets adopted for moral reasons can mask eating pathology."

Academic version

"I know someone who got sick being vegan." (which is G10)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"That's not ethics, it's an eating disorder. Did you see that vegan who died? It was veganism."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1Studies find more vegetarians and vegans among people with eating disorders than in the general population.
P2Diets that exclude whole food groups encourage food restriction.
P3Cases of vegans who fell ill or died from eating disorders show this risk.
CSo veganism is, or causes, an eating disorder, not an ethical choice.

P1 is true, and it's important to acknowledge it. P2 has some truth for people who already have a disorder. The problem lies in the conclusion, which confuses correlation with cause and treats tragic cases as the rule.

The argument is invalid: from a statistical association it doesn't follow that veganism causes the disorder, nor that every vegan has one.

Full answer

Reconstruction and diagnosis

The argument confuses three things:

Claim	What the evidence shows
There are more vegetarians among people with eating disorders	True, in several studies
Vegetarianism or veganism causes the disorder	Not shown: the studies are cross-sectional, and many point the other way
Vegans in general have more eating disorders	No: in a community sample, they scored slightly lower

b
Where the argument breaks
1. The best-documented direction is the reverse.
In a study of women who had an eating disorder, most of those who became vegetarian said it was related to the disorder and began after it. In other words, the disorder came first, and the meat-free diet served as an accepted way to restrict.
2. Correlation isn't cause.
A systematic review of 20 studies found an association between vegetarianism and eating disorders in young people, but stresses that, because the studies are cross-sectional, a causal link can't be established.
3. Vegans in the community don't show more signs of disorder.
In a study of 578 people, vegans scored slightly lower than omnivores on a standard questionnaire of eating pathology. The differences were small, but pointed to slightly healthier attitudes toward food.
4. Motivation makes a difference.
Avoiding meat to lose weight is different from avoiding animal products so as not to exploit animals. In the patient study, weight-related motivation appeared among those with a disorder, and not among those without one. That's why health professionals are advised to look into the reason for the diet.
5. Eating disorders affect every kind of diet.
Anorexia has one of the highest mortality rates among mental disorders, and the vast majority of those affected aren't vegan. When a vegan dies of an eating disorder, the cause is the illness. Using someone's death to attack an ethical position is disrespectful to the victim and to others who suffer from the same illness.
6. Any diet can become a tool for restriction.
Weight-loss diets, low carb, "clean eating" and fasting can also be used to restrict. No one concludes that all of them are disorders.

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
Bardone-Cone et al., 2012	Women with an eating disorder history were more likely to have ever been vegetarian (52% vs 12%); most (68%) perceived their vegetarianism as related to the disorder and emerging after its onset	Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 112(8)
Sergentanis et al., 2020	Systematic review of 20 studies: vegetarianism is associated with eating disorders, but the cross-sectional design prevents concluding cause	Children, 8(1)
Heiss, Coffino and Hormes, 2017	Among 578 people, vegans scored lower than omnivores on the EDE-Q, a measure of eating pathology; small differences	Appetite, 118
Arcelus et al., 2011	People with anorexia have mortality about six times higher than expected	Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(7)

d
The strongest counter-reply: veganism provides cover for restriction
The most serious version says: even if veganism doesn't cause disorders, it offers a socially accepted justification for restricting food. Someone prone to a disorder would find in vegan discourse an excuse that's hard to question.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
That calls for clinical attention, not rejecting the ethics.
Professionals can look into the motivation for the diet and treat the disorder. That doesn't make animal exploitation just.
Many justifications serve as cover.
Health, appearance, religion and food intolerances are also used this way. Misuse doesn't invalidate the original reason.
Vegans can help prevent this.
Advocating a varied, sufficient vegan diet, not a restrictive one, protects those who are vulnerable.
f
Back to the moral question
Even if some people with eating disorders use veganism as cover, the question remains the same: is it just to breed and kill animals that feel? Caring for people with eating disorders and respecting animals aren't conflicting goals.

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

Correlation taken as cause

From the association it concludes that veganism causes the disorder

Reversed cause

Ignores that the disorder usually comes before the diet

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Generalizing from tragic cases

Uses individual deaths as the rule

Moral

Is the criterion coherent?

Pathologizing disagreement

Treats an ethical position as a symptom of illness

Biases

Availability heuristic

Tragic cases of vegans stick in memory

General literature on availability

Confirmation bias

Cases of ill vegans confirm the opinion; the others are ignored

General literature on confirmation bias

Do-gooder derogation

Treating the ethics as illness eases the feeling of being judged

Minson and Monin, 2012

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if a diet is associated with a disorder, the diet is the cause and its motivation is illness".

If it applied to…Weight-loss dietsTap to see

They'd all be disorders

No one accepts this

If it applied to…Religious fastingTap to see

It would always be illness

It would disrespect many traditions

If it applied to…Food intolerancesTap to see

Whoever avoids gluten or lactose would be mentally ill

Absurd

Contradictions

Doesn't call weight-loss diets disorders.

Though they can also be used to restrict.

Doesn't blame bread for the anorexia of someone who avoids bread.

But blames veganism.

Recognizes that disorders affect people who eat meat.

And still attributes them to veganism when the patient is vegan.

What the argument gets right

What is true

It's right that eating disorders are serious illnesses with high mortality, and that there's a real association between them and meat-free diets. Health professionals do well to look into why a person with a disorder adopts a restrictive diet, and vegans do well to advocate a varied, sufficient diet, never restriction.

But

But association isn't cause, the best-documented direction is the reverse, and vegans in general don't show more signs of disorder. Respecting animals and caring for those who suffer from an eating disorder go together.

Connections

Usually comes before

G16 Vegans are weak, pale and depressed.The stereotype of weakness becomes a diagnosis

G18 Fruitarianism isn't healthy, so veganism isn't eitherThe restrictive diet becomes the model for all of veganism

G19this argument

Usually comes after

G10 I know someone who got sick being vegan.One case becomes the rule

L2 Veganism is a cult, a religion.The ethics is treated as a symptom

E10 Veganism is opinion, not science.The ethical position is reduced to a psychological problem

References

Eating disorders

Psychology

Do-gooder derogation. *Social Psychological and Personality Science*, 3(2).