A meta-analysis of nine studies involving 1.8 million adults found that vegetarians have a lower risk for cancers of the pancreas, breast, prostate, and kidney as well as lower risk for multiple myeloma. Surprisingly, it also found that vegans had a 40% higher risk for colon cancer.

For a couple of reasons, I’m not especially alarmed by these findings. The authors noted that the statistical power was low since there were so few vegans with cancer in this study. They wrote:  

“The higher risk of colorectal cancer observed in vegans is based on only 93 incident cases among vegans in seven studies in the UK and US, with <10 cases in vegans in five of these studies and therefore should be interpreted with caution.”

Also, the findings were no longer significant when the researchers excluded the first 4 years of follow-up. That’s important because cancer develops over a long time and can’t necessarily be linked to subjects’ more recent diet choices.

But while I don’t want to overstate the significance of these findings, I do want to consider whether there might be something we can learn here to make vegan diets better. 

One potential risk factor for colon cancer is low calcium intake. Calcium is thought to protect against colon cancer by binding bile acids and free fatty acids in the colon, which could lower their potentially carcinogenic effects. It’s the unabsorbed calcium from our diet that ends up in the colon and gives this protection. That means that getting enough calcium to protect against colon cancer is different from meeting calcium needs to support bone health.

For bone health, what matters is how much calcium you absorb from the intestines into the blood. In fact, you can get away with a fairly low calcium intake if you’re eating foods with high calcium bioavailability. As an example, 3 cups of fortified soy milk (300 mg calcium carbonate per cup) provide 900 mgs of calcium and we absorb about 30% of that, or around 270 mgs. Three cups of Chinese cabbage have only about 475 mg of calcium, but it’s absorbed at a high rate – close to 54% — so we end up absorbing about 255 mg of calcium or close to what you’d get from the milk. The impact on bone health should be about the same, despite the lower total amount of calcium in Chinese cabbage.

But look at what you’re not absorbing – over 600 mg of calcium from the milk vs a little over 200 from the Chinese cabbage. That’s a lot more calcium from the milk making its way through the intestines to the colon.

In the past, I’ve talked mostly about absorbing enough calcium to protect bones. Now my thinking about this is shifting and I’m more inclined to recommend that vegans also aim to meet the RDA.  For many of us, this means using fortified foods or supplements. It’s worth it, though, since there are good reasons related to health (for example, high intake of dairy foods is linked to higher risk for prostate cancer), the environment, and ethics for getting calcium from plant foods

If, like me, you eat lots of cruciferous veggies, that’s great for your bones, but you may still need to regularly consume calcium-rich foods like extra-firm calcium set tofu, fortified plant milks, and fortified juices. There’s lots of variation here since the calcium content of both tofu and plant milk varies. (And for milk, the type of added calcium affects absorption rates.) In my refrigerator right now, I have Nature’s Promise Oat Milk with 350 mg of calcium, Nature’s Promise Soy Milk with 300 mg calcium, and Silk Soy Milk with 475 mg calcium. These are all great choices, and I wish I consumed them more often. But in fact, plant milk plays a small role in my own diet (the ones in the fridge are for my husband’s smoothies and cereal) so I supplement with calcium – usually 300 to 400 mg per day divided into two doses. Calcium supplements are associated with lower risk for colon cancer while also providing reasonable amounts of absorbed calcium for bone health.

One other note about plant-based food choices for calcium: Leafy greens like spinach and chard are high in calcium but most of it is bound to oxalate. It’s not available for absorption and probably not much is available to bind with bile acids in the colon. The calcium in spinach most likely is not helping either your bones or your colon. (Although spinach provides plenty of other compounds that lower cancer risk and protect bone health.)

Finally, it’s interesting that pescatarians had a lower risk for colon cancer in this study. Since pescatarians consume both dairy foods and fish, they may be getting some dual benefit of omega-3 fats plus calcium. But the evidence for a protective effect of omega-3s is less convincing compared to calcium.  (Jack has written about this study on the Vegan Health site and he promises to look more into the relationship of omega-3s to cancer. As always, I’ll be interested to see what he comes up with.)

I want to reiterate that I’m not at all convinced that vegans, even with a lower calcium intake, have a greater risk for colon cancer. A healthy vegan diet should clearly offer protection against colon cancer given that we eat lots of fiber, lots of health-supporting bioactive compounds, and we don’t eat red meat. But we’re not immune to this or any other cancer, and we should be open to any improvements we can make.

Colon cancer is especially concerning since it’s on the rise among younger people so that recommendations are now to start colonoscopy screening at age 45 instead of waiting until you’re 50.  Eating plenty of fiber-rich whole plant foods, limiting alcohol, and getting regular colonoscopies is good advice for vegans and for everyone else. So is eating a calcium-rich diet.  

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee spent two years rigorously reviewing the evidence, holding public meetings, and inviting public comment. When their findings were dismissed by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., he explained that it was because “all scientific questions were evaluated through a health equity lens.” According to Kennedy, this led the Committee to “consistently advocate plant-based dietary patterns, deprioritize animal-sourced proteins, and favor high linoleic acid vegetable oils.”

In response, RFK Jr. hastily assembled his own group of reviewers, who quickly produced the dietary recommendations released last week. These new guidelines are a clear gift to the meat and dairy industries. They are also sloppy, illogical, and retrograde.

Despite boasting that the recommendations are “free from ideological bias, institutional conflicts, or predetermined conclusions,” the opposite is true. The guidelines transparently reflect Kennedy’s own ideological commitments and long-held beliefs about food.

What struck me, too, when reading the consumer-facing materials was how embarrassingly amateurish they felt for official government publications. Inconsistencies in language and recommendations make the entire project look like something a college student rushed to finish the night before it was due.

I know this is the point in the critique where I’m supposed to acknowledge what the guidelines get right, so here it is: yes, it’s good—though hardly groundbreaking—that the guidelines suggest eating more whole foods and fewer Twinkies. Unfortunately, from there, the advice quickly devolves into contradictions and outright errors.

The most obvious contradiction is the recommendation to prioritize high-fat animal foods while keeping saturated fat intake below 10% of calories. This is next to impossible. Consuming the recommended three daily servings of full-fat cow’s milk, plus three ounces of beef, plus a tablespoon of RFK Jr.’s beloved beef tallow (yes, beef tallow is explicitly recommended as a cooking fat) on a 2000 calorie diet would push most people past the 10% limit before they’d consumed even half their calories.

The text accompanying the guideline graphic does mention plant protein sources like beans and tofu. The graphic itself, however, barely acknowledges them. There’s a walnut, an almond, a peanut, and a small pile of what appear to be kidney beans. These sit beneath an entire roasted chicken (or maybe it’s a turkey), a quart of cow’s milk, a can of tuna, a large wedge of cheese, and a steak roughly the size of a loaf of bread. The intention to prioritize animal foods couldn’t be clearer.

Some guidance is simply incorrect. For example:

“When cooking with or adding fats to meals, prioritize oils with essential fatty acids, such as olive oil. Other options can include butter or beef tallow.”

None of these fats are meaningful sources of essential fatty acids. The best sources are walnuts, flax and chia seeds, and canola and soy oil. But the last two are seed oils—and one of RFK Jr.’s firmly held beliefs is that seed oils are harmful, despite substantial evidence to the contrary. Their omission reflects bias and personal agenda. The claim about olive oil, meanwhile, is just careless.

If these guidelines are poor advice for the average American, they are essentially useless for vegans. Where are the alternatives to cow’s milk? Even the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has publicly criticized this omission, so it’s not just me being a whiny vegan. The list of plant-based calcium sources included in previous guides has simply disappeared.

Soy milk was almost certainly dropped because it’s considered “processed” and sometimes contains added sugar. This is a prime example of philosophical bias overriding science. While we don’t have mountains of data, some  evidence suggests that soy milk consumption reduces risk factors for heart disease and may offer protection against breast cancer. Allegiance to so-called “real food” isn’t always aligned with better health outcomes.

And of course, vegans aren’t the only people who avoid cow’s milk. What about those with lactose intolerance, or people whose cultural food traditions include little or no dairy? Addressing the needs of diverse populations is clearly off-limits for this administration, and the guidelines faithfully reflect that exclusion.

The guidelines also incorrectly list vitamin E, niacin, vitamin B6, magnesium, phosphorus, and potassium as potential shortfalls in vegan diets. It’s an irresponsible error. The mistake stems from a modeling exercise that removed eggs and dairy from a healthy vegetarian diet without replacing them with appropriate alternatives. When fortified soy milk is used instead, the list of deficiencies shrinks considerably. Notably, the reviewer responsible for this section—who has a strong pro-animal-food bias—acknowledged the error after it was pointed out on social media.

None of this is to say that vegan diets have no potential nutrient shortfalls. Vegans should pay attention to calcium, zinc, iron, iodine, and vitamins D and B12. But the new dietary guidelines offer no practical help beyond vague suggestions to use supplements. The reality is that this group had neither the interest nor the expertise to provide meaningful guidance for nutritionally adequate vegan diets.

Maybe these failures are the result of simple incompetence and sloppiness. But given the viewpoints of RFK Jr. and his hand-picked experts, it’s hard not to suspect a broader agenda – one that doesn’t include a commitment to a kinder and healthier planet or the health of all people.

I’d like to say that none of this matters to vegans. After all, we have access to excellent resources for planning healthy diets, and most reasonable people will dismiss nutrition advice coming from RFK Jr. Still, these guidelines represent a setback for public health, the planet, and animals.

It’s good, though, to see the deficiencies of these dietary guidelines being exposed by voices far more impactful than mine. In the meantime, I plan to keep doing what I’m doing: speaking out on behalf of farmed (and all) animals and the planet and continuing to share evidence-based information about healthy vegan diets while challenging misinformation wherever it appears.

Animals endure immense suffering on factory farms, and many individuals and organizations are working to improve their living conditions. But are these efforts enough?

Toni Vernelli, former head of communications for the Veganuary program, believes they are. She argues that eliminating animal products from one’s diet is a waste of time and has said that “diet change shouldn’t even be a part of the conversation.” Vernelli now works for FarmKind, an organization that encourages people to set aside personal dietary change and instead donate to nonprofits focused on improving conditions for farmed animals.

I found the FarmKind website confusing. The organization claims its mission is to “end factory farming,” but it’s unclear what that actually means. Does ending the use of gestation crates for pigs or battery cages for laying hens—important reforms, to be sure—amount to ending factory farming? Or is it simply making factory farming somewhat less cruel?

More importantly, can factory farming really end while we continue to produce the hundreds of millions of animals slaughtered every day to meet current demand for meat, dairy, and eggs? A transition to smaller, more humane farms would almost certainly require a significant reduction in animal food consumption. And because welfare improvements often increase greenhouse gas emissions, these changes could actually worsen environmental outcomes unless we encourage people to eat fewer animals and animal products.

FarmKind does support the development of plant-based meats and efforts to make plant foods more accessible. But if outreach and education around dietary change are abandoned, where will the demand for these products come from? If diet change is “out of the conversation,” why would people feel motivated to seek out plant-based foods at all?

I don’t object to the kinds of solutions FarmKind promotes. But I disagree with the claim that veganism is meaningless or impossible—and with what appears to be an active effort to discourage it. FarmKind’s Forget Veganuary website portrays veganism as unpleasant and pointless, suggesting that going vegan makes you annoying and guilty, and claiming it helps only 22 animals per year.

Those numbers don’t ring true to me. For example, the USDA reports that Americans consume an average of four pounds of shrimp per year. If we’re talking about jumbo shrimp—the kind served in shrimp cocktail—that alone could amount to roughly 60 animals per person per year. Advocating for shrimp may seem far-fetched to many people, but FarmKind, which lists the Shrimp Welfare Project as one of their recommended charities, clearly believes these creatures deserve moral consideration. Shouldn’t they be included then in the number of animals we vegans are helping?  

And what about the countless sea animals killed as bycatch in commercial fishing? Or the wild animals who die in crop production—deaths that are higher for animal agriculture, given the enormous volume of crops grown for feed? None of these animals appear to be included in the “22 animals” figure.

As I write this on New Year’s Eve, I don’t have traditional resolutions—just a continued commitment to helping animals in the ways available to me. That includes:

• Supporting rescue, welfare, and vegan organizations financially when I can.
• Working with a local lobbying group to improve animal welfare legislation in my state.
• Doing hands-on work with a local TNR (trap–neuter–return) program for community cats.
• Contributing articles on plant-based diets to nutrition journals.
• Writing a Substack newsletter targeted to omnivores to encourage reductions in animal consumption and gently introduce ideas about veganism and animal rights.
• And (hopefully) devoting more time to this website to share evidence-based information on vegan nutrition and activism.

And yes, for the 34th year,I will continue my personal commitment to veganism. It’s a choice with measurable impacts (those 22 animals, plus shrimp, plus field mice) and others that are harder to quantify. I move in many non-vegan circles, and I know my own diet has encouraged others to try vegan cooking. At my church—where only five of us, including a four-year-old, are ethical vegans—every event now includes vegan food, and sometimes only vegan food. Eight years ago, vegan food wasn’t on the congregation’s radar at all. Our meat-eating neighbors send us vegan recipes and invite us over for vegan meals. My family is exploring more plant-based meats on their own after I introduced them to some of my favorites.

I can’t measure the impact of these changes precisely, but I think they matter. They help normalize plant-based eating and open the door to deeper conversations about why it matters.

There’s also something more fundamental at stake. Embracing a vegan ethic challenges the dominant narrative about our relationship with animals. It confronts the speciesism that underlies not only factory farming, but animal exploitation more broadly. That’s a heavier lift and a longer-term strategy than passing legislation to ban gestation crates for sure. But addressing root causes has to be part of any serious effort to solve the problem.

We need to do better for animals in every way we can. That means harm-reduction efforts like welfare reforms, and it means sharing a vegan ethic when people are open to hearing it. It means taking a clear stand against animal exploitation by accepting responsibility for our own consumption choices. As we head into 2026, I remain convinced that veganism is still a meaningful ethic and an impactful choice.

My dinner last night was an amazing salad with lots of greens and chopped vegetables,  almonds, quinoa, chickpeas, and strips of plant-based chicken. Plus a splash of red wine vinegar and a drizzle of olive oil. It was super-satisfying and healthy. Yes, healthy even with the processed plant-based chicken.

There is a lot of fear around plant-based meats and their ingredient lists. It’s a fear that is exploited by the meat industry and by pro-meat wellness influencers. But even some advocates for a vegan diet suggest that these foods should be avoided – or at best, that they are valuable only as “transition foods.”

I disagree and so do many plant-based nutrition experts. A group of us recently published a paper to offer some perspective around these foods. Given their nutrient profiles and their practical appeal, we concluded that for most people, a daily serving of a plant-based meat fits well within the context of an overall healthy diet.

But the discomfort around these foods is understandable. Plant-based meat alternatives are labeled as ultra-processed food (UPF). This term entered the nutrition lexicon in 2009 when Brazilian scientists launched the Nova system for classifying foods. Nova categorizes foods based on the nature and extent of processing; it’s important to recognize that it doesn’t consider nutrient profile or health impacts of individual foods.

Notably, Nova’s list of UPFs includes a wide range of dissimilar foods – everything from Twinkies to veggie burgers. In one observational study of nearly 200,000 men and women, while total intake of UPFs was linked to greater risk for cardiovascular disease, the relationship was mostly due to consumption of sweetened beverages and processed meats. In fact, some categories of UPFs were associated with a lower risk for CVD.  The researchers said, “These data suggest that UPF are not a homogeneous entity concerning their nutritional quality and role in cardiovascular risk.”

Clearly different UPFs have different impacts on health. And the research suggests that plant-based meats don’t act like many other UPFs. A 2024 study looked at different types of UPFs and their relationship to telomere length in white blood cells. Telomeres are DNA sequences that serve as protective caps at the end of chromosomes. Factors that lead to shortened telomeres are thought to be associated with accelerated aging. In this study, plant-based UPFs like veggie burgers had a beneficial effect and were associated with longer telomere length while processed animal foods were associated with shorter telomeres.  

Likewise, while total UPF intake and processed meat consumption were both linked to risk for type 2 diabetes in one study, plant-based meat and milk alternatives – both are UPFs according to Nova—were associated with a more than 50% decreased risk. 

And in Stanford University’s SWAP-Meat study, subjects eating 2 ½ servings of plant-based meats per day had lower body weights and lower LDL-cholesterol compared to the group eating a combination of processed and unprocessed organic grass-fed meat.   

It’s true that plant-based meats lack some healthy attributes of other protein-rich foods like beans. But consumers are sadly resistant to eating beans. In fact, bean intake is fairly low even among vegans. Beans have so many wonderful attributes related to health, economics, and the environment and I do want to encourage people to eat them often. But we need more protein-rich choices than just beans, tofu, and peanut butter if we want to facilitate a global shift away from animal foods.

Unfortunately, we build barriers to plant-based diets if we promote fear around long ingredient lists, GMOs, and food processing. We build barriers  – and a sense of fear about these foods – when we suggest that veggie meats are appropriate only during a temporary transition to a plant-based diet. In contrast, giving people more choices is one way to remove obstacles and to position a vegan diet as a realistic option.  

If you’re interested in the role of these foods in plant-based diets, please take a look at our paper (it’s open access and free to read). There is a lot to celebrate when it comes to plant-based meats in terms of their protein content, their environmental benefits, their ease of preparation, and the way they let you cook up a platter of spaghetti and meatballs just like what your grandmother used to make. Meat alternatives make plant-based eating versatile and welcoming. We need them if we want to end the exploitation of farmed animals. 

Just after the election last year, I wrote about veganism as a source of empowerment. That is, every time you choose a vegan meal, you take a stand against injustice. It might feel like a small thing, but it’s a daily reminder that change is possible.  

I hope you’ll take a peek at my new substack newsletter Resistance Kitchen. It’s a place where I hope to explore the ways in which food choices can be one way we push back against assaults on science, public health, the future of the planet, and even the concept of compassion. And more importantly, I want to give guidance on how to make these choices.   

Although I expect that there will be some overlap with this blog, Resistance Kitchen is targeted towards non-vegans who are open to exploring more plant-based eating.  I hope you’ll share it with anyone you think might be interested in these issues.

Advocates for animal agriculture and for the meat, egg, and dairy industries are eager to disparage plant-based alternatives of all kinds. They do it by focusing on ingredient lists and the fact that these foods, particularly veggie meats, are “ultra-processed.”

We vegans should be careful that we don’t help them. Too often, people advocating for a plant-based diet support the idea that healthy eating relies on foods made with “clean” ingredients. I see it in the comments on social media when I post about the role of plant-based meats in vegan diets. I see it in the push for a vegan diet that incorporates only “whole foods” and that shuns anything made with oils or isolated proteins.

And I’ve even seen vegan food companies chime in to disparage their vegan competition. One example in my social media feeds comes from the Rebel Cheese company. They suggest that you should buy their products because other plant-based cheeses are “full of garbage.” I’ve tasted several types of Rebel Cheese – made famous through the company’s appearance on Shark Tank. Their products are excellent. But if you want to try this cheese, you may need to buy it online since it’s not widely available in stores. Also, it costs upwards of $55 per pound – plus shipping.

In our advocacy to help people decrease their intake of cow’s milk products, do we really want to tell them that their only choice is between a hard-to-find excessively expensive product or cheese that is “full of garbage?” This kind of rhetoric is unhelpful. It’s also not true.

Rebel is far from the only plant-based company casting vegan competitors as “fake foods.” To no avail, I’ve politely asked a number of companies, like Pegg vegan eggs and Plant Provisions, to consider marketing efforts that don’t promote fear of other vegan foods or harmless ingredients. (Rebel Foods has at least responded to my comments in a friendly way; Pegg just deletes them.)

I get that vegan food companies need to make a profit. But I also hold them to a certain standard, and I don’t think it’s unfair to do so. Plant-based companies, like Tofurky and Treeline  were founded on clearly stated commitments to ethical veganism and continue to maintain those commitments. Whether or not the new companies share those goals, I would still ask that they at least not make veganism more difficult. It’s fair to expect that of vegan activists, too.  

Here is why more people don’t eat vegan foods: It’s because they like the convenience and taste of meat, milk, and eggs. Why would we vilify foods that give them the convenience and taste they value, but without exploiting animals?

How we talk about vegan food matters. Plant-based meats, plant milks, plant-based cheese – they all help people make the transition to a vegan diet. They make it easier to stay vegan. They make it more fun to be vegan. They allow vegans to recreate dishes and recipes that are part of their culture or meaningful to them in other ways. There are many people in the world – proponents of animal agriculture and conspiracy-minded “wellness” activists – who want us to fear these foods. And the more fear they create around these foods, the more barriers they effectively create to veganism. Don’t help them.

My husband and I are scheduling a short trip to visit friends this month. I’m a planner, which means I’ve been busy reading restaurant menus online and compiling a list of any that look promising for vegan dining. I wasn’t surprised to see that several restaurants boast that none of their dishes contain seed oils.  

It’s not my first personal run-in with the anti-seed oil crowd. At a recent gathering, a family member recoiled in absolute horror when I handed her a bottle of canola oil for a dish she was making. I couldn’t convince her that it was safe to use. Instead, she waited until she could get to the store to buy olive oil.  

Some evidence suggests that the anti-seed oil conspiracy originated with carnivore diet advocates who were platformed by conservative media. Notably, RFK, Jr, Donald Trump’s terrifying pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, avidly spreads anti-seed oil misinformation. He wants to replace the oils used in fast food restaurants with beef tallow. But wherever it started, the fear around seed oils has become so pervasive that no one group, political or otherwise, owns credit for it.

Commonly used seed oils include sunflower, safflower, soy, and corn oils, all of which are rich in linoleic acid, an essential omega-6 polyunsaturated fat. Canola is another seed oil although it is relatively low in linoleic acid and higher in monounsaturated fats.

Critics maintain that linoleic acid promotes inflammation through its conversion to the fatty acid arachidonic acid, thereby raising the risk for chronic diseases. This perspective is outdated. First, conversion of linoleic acid to arachidonic acid is limited and increased intake of linoleic acid has only negligible effects on blood or tissue levels.¹  Intake of red meat is more likely to be associated with higher levels of arachidonic acid.² Furthermore, arachidonic acid is converted to both inflammatory and anti-inflammatory compounds.^1,3 So it’s not surprising that neither the clinical trials nor observational studies have linked linoleic acid consumption to inflammation in the body.^4-8   

Seed oils are also criticized because of the processing required to extract oil from seeds. But what matters is how a food affects health, not whether it has undergone processing.  Contrary to the fearful discussion around seed oils and linoleic acid, there is abundant evidence that higher intake lowers risk for heart disease and possibly for type 2 diabetes.^3,9-14 We also know – and have known for a long time – that replacing saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid-rich fats like seed oils lowers blood cholesterol levels.¹⁵

It’s true that many highly processed foods are made with seed oils, but this has nothing to do with why some of these foods are unhealthful. Calorie-dense, sugary or salty foods made with lots of refined ingredients aren’t especially good for you regardless of the type of fat they contain. Adding seed oil to a processed snack food isn’t the thing that makes that food unhealthy. And Twinkies aren’t better for you than other snack cakes because they are made with beef tallow instead of canola oil.   

In my house, we use a lot of good quality extra-virgin olive oil, especially to dress salads or drizzle over cooked vegetables. I also use small amounts of oil for sauteing, and it’s usually some type of seed oil like soy or canola. I’ve yet to see any evidence-based reason why I should avoid these fats.

We should always push back against conspiracy theories aimed at discouraging harmless plant-based choices. The misinformation around seed oils is more than just annoying; it’s a real issue for veganism. It’s no big deal if manufacturers and restaurants start replacing soy oil with olive oil. It matters though, if they replace it with tallow and lard. Anything that drives up the demand for animal products harms animals and anything that shrinks the number of options for vegan dining hurts animals, too.

References

1. Rett BS, Whelan J. Increasing dietary linoleic acid does not increase tissure arachidonic acid content in adults consuming Western-type diets: a systematic review. Nutr Metab (Lond) 2011;8:36.
   
2. Seah JY, Gay GM, Su J, Tai ES, Yuan JM, Koh WP, Ong CN, van Dam RM. Consumption of Red Meat, but Not Cooking Oils High in Polyunsaturated Fat, Is Associated with Higher Arachidonic Acid Status in Singapore Chinese Adults. Nutrients 2017;9.
   
3. Farvid MS, Ding M, Pan A, Sun Q, Chiuve SE, Steffen LM, Willett WC, Hu FB. Dietary linoleic acid and risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Circulation 2014;130:1568-78.
   
4. Su H, Liu R, Chang M, Huang J, Wang X. Dietary linoleic acid intake and blood inflammatory markers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Food Funct 2017;8:3091-3103.
   
5. Johnson GH, Fritsche K. Effect of dietary linoleic acid on markers of inflammation in healthy persons: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Acad Nutr Diet 2012;112:1029-41, 1041 e1-15.
   
6. Virtanen JK, Mursu J, Voutilainen S, Tuomainen TP. The associations of serum n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids with serum C-reactive protein in men: the Kuopio Ischaemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study. Eur J Clin Nutr 2018;72:342-348.
   
7. Pischon T, Hankinson SE, Hotamisligil GS, Rifai N, Willett WC, Rimm EB. Habitual dietary intake of n-3 and n-6 fatty acids in relation to inflammatory markers among US men and women. Circulation 2003;108:155-60.
   
8. Mazidi M, Gao HK, Vatanparast H, Kengne AP. Impact of the dietary fatty acid intake on C-reactive protein levels in US adults. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e5736.
   
9. Jackson KH, Harris WS, Belury MA, Kris-Etherton PM, Calder PC. Beneficial effects of linoleic acid on cardiometabolic health: an update. Lipids Health Dis 2024;23:296.
   
10. Amiri M, Raeisi-Dehkordi H, Sarrafzadegan N, Forbes SC, Salehi-Abargouei A. The effects of Canola oil on cardiovascular risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis with dose-response analysis of controlled clinical trials. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2020;30:2133-2145.
    
11. Karatzi K, Stamatelopoulos K, Lykka M, Mantzouratou P, Skalidi S, Zakopoulos N, Papamichael C, Sidossis LS. Sesame oil consumption exerts a beneficial effect on endothelial function in hypertensive men. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2013;20:202-8.
    
12. Marangoni F, Agostoni C, Borghi C, Catapano AL, Cena H, Ghiselli A, La Vecchia C, Lercker G, Manzato E, Pirillo A, et al. Dietary linoleic acid and human health: Focus on cardiovascular and cardiometabolic effects. Atherosclerosis 2020;292:90-98.
    
13. Wu JHY, Marklund M, Imamura F, Tintle N, Ardisson Korat AV, de Goede J, Zhou X, Yang WS, de Oliveira Otto MC, Kroger J, et al. Omega-6 fatty acid biomarkers and incident type 2 diabetes: pooled analysis of individual-level data for 39 740 adults from 20 prospective cohort studies. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2017.
    
14. Marklund M, Wu JHY, Imamura F, Del Gobbo LC, Fretts A, de Goede J, Shi P, Tintle N, Wennberg M, Aslibekyan S, et al. Biomarkers of Dietary Omega-6 Fatty Acids and Incident Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality. Circulation 2019;139:2422-2436.
    
15. Schwingshackl L, Bogensberger B, Bencic A, Knuppel S, Boeing H, Hoffmann G. Effects of oils and solid fats on blood lipids: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Lipid Res 2018;59:1771-1782        

Seven years ago, Carol Adams and I wrote Protest Kitchen to explore the impacts of plant-based diets on injustice and oppression. We wrote it in response to the election of Donald Trump and wanted to call it The Anti-Trump Diet. The editors thought it would become outdated too quickly with that title.

If only it were so.

I spent most of yesterday, the day after the 2024 election, talking to friends and taking walks. It was all I could manage and that was okay. I know I wasn’t alone in my feelings of despair and my need to take time to grieve and cry. Over the coming days, though, I expect to be getting a little more energized and organized for whatever is next.

Some of what is next is familiar to me. I’m already involved in local activism for both animals and humans—activities that bring joy, meaning, and connection into my life. And of course I advocate for animals and the environment through my work in vegan and plant based nutrition. I will also continue with national groups that engage in ongoing efforts to protect democracy and that work to bend the arc of the moral universe. Exactly what that will look like, I don’t know, but I’ve identified organizations and activists whose leadership and wisdom I trust; I’ll look to them for guidance in the months ahead.

I’m fortunate to have the time and privilege to be involved in these activities. But we are all limited to some degree – due to other obligations or lack of resources – in what we can do. And this brings me to veganism.

In Protest Kitchen we wrote about veganism as an act of resistance that starts in your kitchen—ie, the ultimate in local activism. When life is overwhelming and you need to step back from other activities, you still need to eat. And every meal is an opportunity for resistance, for the boycott of unjust treatment of animals and for a stance against destruction of the earth. It turns something so simple – a decision about what you’re going to have for dinner – into a source of empowerment.

This is the gift of veganism. Because empowerment includes both your influence on the outer world, and an inner feeling of being enabled to act. And it doesn’t matter whether you’re eating a kale salad or finding consolation in a vegan donut binge. How great is it that even eating purely for comfort can be both self-care and activism?

As you decide what is next for you in the coming days – and I know it will depend on your own priorities, opportunities, and resources – you can know that you are already engaged in meaningful action every day. Every vegan choice is a consequential stand against injustice. Your vegan meals are a daily reminder that change is possible.  

No matter how often it happens it’s always big news when a vegan celebrity starts eating meat. I’m not sure I even knew that Lizzo was eating a vegan diet until she stopped eating a vegan diet. She says she needed to add more protein to her diet and that adding animal foods cured her brain fog. (This is according to People magazine, so take it for what it’s worth.)

I don’t know Lizzo’s situation– maybe she really did need more protein than she was consuming. Or maybe, she suffers from disordered eating. Or maybe, like scores of vegans, she just suffers from too much online misinformation about diet and health.

Whatever the reason, there are lessons here for us animal activists.

• Don’t hold up celebrities as models of anything. They are just people. They are susceptible to the same questionable beliefs about diet as anyone else.
• Don’t promote veganism as some cure-all diet. It may get people to stop eating animal foods for a while, but it can also lead to disappointment or ever more severe restrictions.  
• Don’t promote extreme versions of veganism. Lizzo hasn’t exactly given up on veganism; she says she next wants to try a “raw alkaline vegan diet.” To me, this spells more trouble. There’s a thin line between a raw foods diet and disordered eating.
• Don’t insist that vegans never need to think about protein. Some people might in fact feel better with a higher protein intake on their vegan diet. Vegans eating low-calorie diets may need to work a little harder at getting adequate protein. Instead of denying this, let’s support their efforts and help them figure out how to eat a protein-rich vegan diet. Because just eating a variety of whole plant foods isn’t necessarily enough.

There is this theory that most people who go vegan end up abandoning veganism. I’m not convinced this is true. I think the high numbers of so-called ex-vegans are driven by people who are dabbling in different eating patterns in pursuit of perfect health or a smaller body. In a Facebook post about Lizzo’s abandonment of her vegan diet, activist Marla Rose of Vegan Street said this: “Dipping out is not an option when justice and compassion are your guiding principles.”

That’s the truth. It’s easy to abandon a diet and most people have done so any number of times over the course of their lives. It’s not so easy to abandon your principles. Unless, of course, you’ve become convinced that a vegan diet can’t support your health. That’s why an evidence-based approach to veganism is crucial. And it’s why vegan advocacy should always focus on the stickiest of all reasons to embrace a vegan lifestyle, which is justice and compassion for animals.     

When I first moved to western Massachusetts, a new acquaintance invited my husband and me to dinner with a couple she wanted us to meet. She said we had a lot in common with them because of the “food thing.”  I wasn’t entirely surprised to learn that this meant that one half of the couple avoids GMOs and gluten and is interested in juice fasting. She ordered chicken meat for dinner, so we clearly didn’t have a lot in common over the “food thing.”

Still, we bonded over a shared appreciation for classic rock music, and I enjoyed talking with her. We were not destined for friendship with this couple, though. That became abundantly clear towards the end of the evening (thankfully towards the end!) when we learned that the other half of the couple had recently returned from hunting big game in Africa. It didn’t occur to the acquaintance who organized our dinner that vegans don’t generally seek out the company of people whose avocation is hunting lions and elephants.

It wasn’t at all her fault. I’m a dietitian after all, and people often assume my dietary choices are strictly about health. I like plant foods and I like their health benefits, but I don’t eat them exclusively because I want or need to. I eat them because once you eliminate the products of animal cruelty, abuse, and exploitation, plants are what are left. If I cared only about the health of my body, I’d have no problem eating a mostly-but-not-entirely plant-based diet.

A few days after my dinner date with the big game hunter, a young guy who was working at my house asked about my work. I explained that I was a dietitian and that I educate people about how to eat healthfully as vegans. I asked if he knew what veganism was. He looked a little uncertain and then said, “It’s no meat and…well, all-natural, right?” Like the friend who had organized the dinner, he didn’t have a clue about the connection to animal use.

People stop eating animals for all kinds of reasons and that’s fine with me. But, in a society that doesn’t pay much attention to the rights of animals, the whole concept of veganism can sail right over people’s heads. It’s such a powerful concept and we lose a little bit of that power when we reduce veganism to “a diet” that is strictly about us and the state of our bodies. How we define and talk about veganism really does matter.

I’ve added a definition of veganism to this website based on my understanding of the concept. I hope it captures its meaning in a succinct and welcoming way. My aim always is to speak in a way that celebrates a vegan ethic and the rights of animals, and never in a way that denies them. Please let me know what you think.