G. Health and nutrition

17 arguments in Part IND.

Underlying question: Do we need animal products?
Dominant error: Empirical

Family of indirect arguments

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

G. Health and nutrition

We need animal protein.

Plant protein is incomplete.

If you need B12 supplements, it isn't natural.

You'll lack iron, zinc and other micronutrients.

Milk is necessary for your bones.

Only fish provides omega-3.

Soy causes female hormones and cancer.

Children and pregnant women can't be vegan.

Athletes need meat.

I know someone who got sick being vegan.

My body can't adapt.

A carnivore, paleo or keto diet is healthiest.

The WHO exaggerates; red meat isn't bad for you.

Ultra-processed vegan foods are worse than meat.

Plants have antinutrients.

Vegans are weak, pale and depressed.

My doctor told me to eat meat.