Promoting veganism vs meat reduction

[guitaramole]

Im not a vegan, but im reducing my meat and considering veganism down the road. Currently, I can't see myself involved in promoting veganism if I were vegan. As an outsider, I see it as a lifestyle that takes a lot of dedication, a lot of motivation. Veganism seems very hard, and not everyone cares about animals enough not to eat them.

Wouldn't it be more practical and effective to promote meat reduction along side promoting veganism? I haven't seen this, so correct me if Im wrong.

The more people to reduce their meat, the less there is animal suffering. That means more people eating vegan meals, experiencing a vegan lifestyle, and understanding it better from experience rather than purely a biased perspective. I imagine it could decrease their meat consumption further over time, especially if they see results in their health.

I have a lot of criticism with people who promote veganism online who are aggressive and use guilt as a tactic. I've reduced my meat despite those people, but I think its turning a lot of people away from trying.

I can't say for certain if everyone should be vegan, but everyone should try reducing their meat.

[brimstoneSalad]

Reducitarianism could potentially be a good message for carnists, but like calorie restriction for weight loss, people aren't great at metering themselves, so I think it's important to recommend more specific calls to action.

Messages like "Meatless Monday" are probably better since they're more clear directions, or "vegetarian/vegan at home". People tend to work well with clear rules rather than a vague sliding scale with no real standards to compare to. If "reducitarian" helps with identity and encourages people as a word, that's great though.

Once you go Meatless on Monday, you can discover a lot of great meatless meals over time, and you can add more days, or maybe do breakfast and lunch meatless every day. Vegan before 4? Or vegan at home. Item by item, day by day, meal by meal; that's a great way to go. The trick is a heuristic people can follow and build on.

Mercy for Animals has a great article on "the V word": http://www.mercyforanimals.org/v-word

The point is that "vegetarian" actually seems to be well received, and pescetarian may be even better received. Eliminating land animal meat is an amazing step, and the biggest step most people would consider. If I recommend reducitarianism, I like to do so by referring people to a particular goal. It's hard to just have an idea that you're reducing without some kind of end point in mind. An end point means that you can set smaller achievements along the way, and helps establish a standard to guide improvement by. Like having a target weight or target time for doing a lap when it comes to fitness.

Outside this forum, you will rarely ever hear me use the word "vegan" when talking to people about animal products.

[guitaramole]

Having a specific goal is a great point. My specific goal is not buying meat at the grocery store, and starting next week, dairy as well. I let myself eat meat and dairy when I'm out with friends or family, which is about two to four times a month.

That's a goal really easy for me to follow. I'm not terribly comfortable using the V word. I've told the person closest to me that I'm reducing meat and considering veganism. It was a neutral reaction. To other people I've said I'm trying to eat a lot more vegetables.

I think people could benifit from an app that can track how much meat they consume. Like in the way my fitness pal tracks calories.

Maybe at the end of the day or week they are given statistics on how their level of meat consumption affects animal welfare, the environment, and their health.

"You eaten 5.4 lbs of beef this week. X amount of swimming pools worth of water was used to produce this meat."

It could give people a more personal and concrete understanding of their diets consequences, as well as a concrete understanding for how they have improved the world by eating less meat.

[ReginaL]

There's this:http://vegetariancalculator.com/vegetarian-calculator-monthly

It relies on average meat consumption. I entered 1 month and it said I saved 17 animals and didn't eat 16 pounds of meat! I doubt I've ever eaten 16 pounds of meat in a month, but it does give you a sense of the difference you're making. Of course, it lumps all meat together, which doesn't really give an accurate count of actual animals. Naturally, a person who eats mostly chicken will save more animals by not eating them than a person whose meat consumption is primarily beef.

Meatless Monday has the potential to reduce the number of animals killed per year by 1.4 billion if everyone participated.

http://cok.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/MM-Each-Day-Fact-Sheet.pdf

[PsYcHo]

It is definitely easier to promote slowing down on eating meat than just stopping all-together. That's how I started, just a meal or two weekly, then realized I didn't miss it as much as I thought I would. Some Vegans have an "all or none" mentality, and it stops a lot of people from even considering reduction of meat intake. (So if I don't eat 30 bananas a day, I'm a bad person? Guess I'll be bad and have the steak.."

I thought Vegans were crazy, but the videos I watched that led me here were reasonable, so I checked it out. No one was "YOU EAT MEAT!! DIE MURDERER!!", so I actually listened to them. Still not Vegan, but the encouragement I got from taking small steps led me to go a lot further than I would have listening to some other Vegan "advocates" .

Just like with children, positive reinforcement works better in the long run.

[ReginaL]

Another consideration is the effect on markets and availability of "vegan" products. Vegans, for the most part, aren't driving those markets because the consumer base is small. What is driving the market, especially when large corporations are involved, is reducers and programs like Meatless Monday. Food producers are profit-driven and they only change when there is sufficient market outcry and demand. Think about the gluten-free craze. That market isn't primarily driven by Celiacs, but by many average consumers thinking gluten-free is somehow healthy. Removing trans fats from products was driven by the market, and only by health concerns in an indirect way. Government reports declaring that trans fats are unhealthy would not have changed the amount of trans fats in consumables without market demand. Similarly, I think we'll eventually see the fall of ubiquitous palm oil as more consumers become aware of the deforestation/orangutan issue.

So, if reducers can drive the market in a more veg-friendly direction, it's counterproductive to vilify them as not being good enough. Sure, keep educating about why vegan is best, but recognize that when many people take even the smallest steps the effects are cumulative and substantial.