I have a friend whose brother-in-law is on this diet and I think it’s just bonkers because it is so unhealthy. I just watched this short on YouTube the other day where a professional discusses why people first feel really good on the carnivore diet, but that that feeling doesn’t stick around for long (https://youtube.com/shorts/TBUKtQyTt34?si=JugWHySq8V2LGtyX) - it’s all about gut health. Very intriguing article, cheers!
Thanks so much for sharing the video, sounds interesting! I'll check it out right now.
Feel free to share the above collection of expert quotes with that brother-in-law. Alternatively, you could also send this one (a list of questions for people who follow the carnivore diet):
"So why do influencers push a diet that is scientifically baseless, unsustainable, and harmful?"
Nobody is pushing the carnivore diet. Nobody is proselytizing. Some people are choosing to try it out and decide to stick with it, but that's about as far as it goes. People on carnivore diets seldom demand accommodation for their dietary choices or insist that their diet is the only moral choice.
On the other hand, veganism is frequently pushed as a moral imperative, despite the fact that it is not always a nutritionally complete or viable option for everyone. As someone with an autoimmune disorder of the digestive system, I cannot eat a plant-based diet, and as someone who enjoys a rich array of fruits and vegetables, I don't have the luxury to do so since it will trigger my autoimmune disorder, causing further inflammation. My terminal ileum - the part of the digestive system where many essential minerals are absorbed - has been removed.
Veganism requires supplementation to avoid deficiencies in essential nutrients like vitamin B12 and heme iron: nutrients that are readily available in animal products. Up until recently, we did not have the technology to make living a vegan diet even a feasible option for most people due to the risk of anemia and other conditions.
Historically, there have been populations that thrived on diets heavy in animal products, particularly in regions where plant-based food availability was scarce.
The characterization of the carnivore diet as “scientifically baseless” is overly simplistic. While long-term research is still limited, there are people who report significant health improvements on the diet, just as some people thrive on plant-based diets. Dismissing an entire dietary approach outright, while ignoring the challenges and risks of veganism, seems intellectually inconsistent. Like with vegans, if people want to make themselves data points in diets that deviate substantially from the human norm, what does it matter? It will provide us with more information moving forward.
Every time I read Vegan Horizon, I’m struck by how rigid and dismissive the perspective is. A more balanced discussion would acknowledge that different diets work for different people rather than resorting to mockery.
"Nobody is pushing the carnivore diet." → That's not true at all. The diet has been aggressively promoted on all major social media platforms. Happy to provide links if you need proof.
"Veganism is frequently pushed as a moral imperative" → In contrast to the carnivore diet, the vegan diet has tangible benefits for animals, environment, climate, global food security, and public health. There are solid scientific and ethical reasons to 'push' veganism. Although I agree that this advocacy should happen in a peaceful and non-judgemental manner (see here, for example: https://veganhorizon.substack.com/p/why-shaming-people-wont-save-animals)
"The characterization of the carnivore diet as 'scientifically baseless' is overly simplistic." → No, it isn't. There is not the slightest bit of scientific evidence to support this diet. At the same time, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that high consumption of animal products is associated with various long-term health risks.
"A more balanced discussion would acknowledge that different diets work for different people rather than resorting to mockery." → Where is this article 'mocking' people? I'm trying to be polite. And I'm trying to provide helpful information. That's all.
Veganism is not 'a diet'. Veganism is a stance against animal use.
The Vegan Soceity: "The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of [* non-human] animals by man" and "The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting [* non-human] animals."
The Society pledges itself to "seek to end the use of [* non-human] animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of [*non-human] animal life by man." (Leslie Cross, Veganism Defined 1951)
Cross, maintaining the position he presented 23 years earlier, wrote in a 1974 retrospective that veganism "means and will always mean the philosophy that man should for his own advancement live without exploiting [*non-human] animals".
The idea that "nobody is pushing the carnivore diet" is simply inaccurate. There are many vocal proponents of the diet who aggressively promote it online, often claiming it is superior to all other ways of eating. The claim that carnivore adherents don't insist their diet is the only moral choice is a straw man—while they may not use moral arguments in the same way vegans do, many push misleading narratives about plant-based diets being harmful or unnatural, which serves the same function: to discourage people from adopting them.
Regarding health concerns, while individual cases vary, the vast majority of people can thrive on a well-planned plant-based diet, and major dietetic organizations recognize it as nutritionally adequate across all life stages. Your personal health condition may make plant-based eating difficult for you, and if that's the case, no one is forcing you to be vegan. However, the existence of individual exceptions does not invalidate the ethical argument against exploiting and killing animals when alternatives exist for most people.
As for supplementation, vitamin B12 is not an argument against veganism. B12 is produced by bacteria, not animals, and modern food systems have disrupted natural sources of it. Even many non-vegans rely on fortified foods or supplements. Meanwhile, heme iron is not necessary for health - plenty of people maintain excellent iron levels on plant-based diets with non-heme iron sources.
The historical argument ignores the fact that necessity is not morality. Many societies have done things out of necessity that we would not justify today. The fact that some populations historically relied heavily on animal products does not mean it's ethical or optimal now, especially given modern food accessibility and our ability to make choices that reduce harm.
Finally, dismissing veganism as "risky" while defending the carnivore diet is ironic. The latter lacks fiber, is dangerously low in essential nutrients like vitamin C, and has no long-term population studies supporting its safety. Veganism, on the other hand, is backed by extensive research. If we’re truly interested in intellectual consistency, we should acknowledge that while any diet can be poorly executed, a well-planned plant-based diet is entirely viable - and, for most people, the most ethical choice.
We all know veganism is a diet when you want it to be, and a philosophy when you don't want it to be: you can go into a pet food store and buy "vegan cat food," for example. I can tell you that my cat doesn't hold philosophies about "animal exploitation." I've heard it all before a million times.
An enormous number of children forced into veganism by their parents have died from malnutrition to the point where several countries were thinking of making raising children on a plant-based diet illegal.
Your B12 nonsense is absurd: me, my vegan friend, and my vegan cousin all have permanent B12 deficiency induced neuropathy from not consuming sufficient sources, which they must get from meat or bacterial sources that would not have been easily available in the near past.
I don't care to get into a pissing war with vegans and your emotional mind games and manipulation. I don't care if one is vegan: just don't expect me or anyone else to cater to your lifestyle decisions, just as people on a carnivore diet don't expect people to cater to their lifestyle decisions... and it's undeniable that carnivore diets historically have been successful in certain societies, when there have been no examples of purely vegan diets up until recently.
Veganism is based on emotional manipulation. For some people, a well-planned plant-based diet IS viable, but most people don't want to spend substantial time in planning their diet and making it the central focus of their lifestyle.
As for "the most ethical choice," that is entirely subjective, and not objective.
1. "Veganism is a diet when you want it to be, and a philosophy when you don't want it to be."
Read the definition again. Veganism is not just a diet - it is a moral position that seeks to avoid the exploitation of non-human animals as far as practicable & possible. A plant-based diet is just one application of that stance. That’s why the term “plant-based” exists for those who eat that way for health, but “vegan” is an ethical stance.
The existence of plant-based cat food doesn’t contradict veganism - it exists because some people are trying to avoid animal use & seek systemic change while still meeting nutritional needs. Whether they use the term 'plant-based cat food' or 'vegan cat food', this is merely a descriptive term. 'vegan' simply equates to 'suitable for vegans'.
2. "An enormous number of children forced into veganism by their parents have died from malnutrition to the point where several countries were thinking of making raising children on a plant-based diet illegal."
This is a sensationalist, baseless claim. Well-planned plant-based diets are suitable for all stages of life, according to major health organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the British Dietetic Association.
The rare cases of child malnutrition in vegan households result from severe neglect and unbalanced diets, just as there are malnourished children in non-vegan households. The issue isn’t veganism, it’s parental ignorance or neglect.
3. "Your B12 nonsense is absurd: me, my vegan friend, and my vegan cousin all have permanent B12 deficiency induced neuropathy from not consuming sufficient sources."
B12 isn't produced by animals, it’s made by bacteria. The only reason animals have it is because they consume B12-producing bacteria in soil or from fortified feed.
Many non-vegans are also B12 deficient - it’s not a "vegan problem," it’s a general problem with modern hygiene reducing natural bacterial exposure.
If someone develops permanent B12 deficiency, it can be because they ignored symptoms for years. That’s personal negligence, not an issue with a plant-based diet. The solution? Take a B12 supplement, just as farmed animals are supplemented. No need to consume animals as middlemen.
Some people have a condition called pernicious anaemia, where their immune system attacks the stomach's parietal cells, which produce intrinsic factor - a protein needed for B12 absorption in the small intestine. Without intrinsic factor, even if someone consumes enough B12, their body can't properly absorb it, leading to deficiency.
In such cases, B12 injections (or very high-dose sublingual supplements) are used to bypass the digestive system & ensure adequate absorption. This condition can affect both vegans & non-vegans, as it's an issue of absorption rather than intake.
4. "I don't care to get into a pissing war with vegans and your emotional mind games and manipulation."
Calling concern for suffering “emotional manipulation” is just a way to dismiss ethics without addressing the argument.
Ethics by nature involve emotions - compassion, fairness, justice. That’s not a flaw, that’s humanity.
5. "Carnivore diets have been historically successful, and no purely vegan societies existed until recently."
Historically, humans have eaten predominantly plant-based diets, supplemented with animal products when necessary. The longest-lived populations today (Blue Zones) eat mostly plants. Just because purely vegan societies didn’t exist doesn’t mean it’s not viable now. Science advances. Infant mortality was also high in the past - does that mean modern medicine is unnatural?
6. "Veganism is based on emotional manipulation. For some people, a well-planned plant-based diet IS viable, but most people don't want to spend substantial time planning their diet."
Veganism is based on justice, not “emotional manipulation.” Do we call opposition to human exploitation "emotional manipulation"?
Most people already plan their meals - it’s not harder to eat plants instead of animals. What takes more effort - buying plant foods or slaughtering an animal, processing their flesh, and packaging it?
7. "As for 'the most ethical choice,' that is entirely subjective, and not objective."
Ethics aren’t purely subjective. If we applied this logic to human ethics, we’d be in serious trouble.
Unnecessary exploitation is objectively unjust. If we can thrive without using animals, there is no justification for continuing to exploit them. Morality is not subjective; exploitation & use is always wrong from the victims' perspective.
I have a friend whose brother-in-law is on this diet and I think it’s just bonkers because it is so unhealthy. I just watched this short on YouTube the other day where a professional discusses why people first feel really good on the carnivore diet, but that that feeling doesn’t stick around for long (https://youtube.com/shorts/TBUKtQyTt34?si=JugWHySq8V2LGtyX) - it’s all about gut health. Very intriguing article, cheers!
Thanks so much for sharing the video, sounds interesting! I'll check it out right now.
Feel free to share the above collection of expert quotes with that brother-in-law. Alternatively, you could also send this one (a list of questions for people who follow the carnivore diet):
https://open.substack.com/pub/veganhorizon/p/carnviore-diet-fans-ive-got-a-few
If he has any questions, ask him to reach out via my comment sections. Happy to engage. Thanks for stopping by!
Cheers! Much appreciated!
"So why do influencers push a diet that is scientifically baseless, unsustainable, and harmful?"
Nobody is pushing the carnivore diet. Nobody is proselytizing. Some people are choosing to try it out and decide to stick with it, but that's about as far as it goes. People on carnivore diets seldom demand accommodation for their dietary choices or insist that their diet is the only moral choice.
On the other hand, veganism is frequently pushed as a moral imperative, despite the fact that it is not always a nutritionally complete or viable option for everyone. As someone with an autoimmune disorder of the digestive system, I cannot eat a plant-based diet, and as someone who enjoys a rich array of fruits and vegetables, I don't have the luxury to do so since it will trigger my autoimmune disorder, causing further inflammation. My terminal ileum - the part of the digestive system where many essential minerals are absorbed - has been removed.
Veganism requires supplementation to avoid deficiencies in essential nutrients like vitamin B12 and heme iron: nutrients that are readily available in animal products. Up until recently, we did not have the technology to make living a vegan diet even a feasible option for most people due to the risk of anemia and other conditions.
Historically, there have been populations that thrived on diets heavy in animal products, particularly in regions where plant-based food availability was scarce.
The characterization of the carnivore diet as “scientifically baseless” is overly simplistic. While long-term research is still limited, there are people who report significant health improvements on the diet, just as some people thrive on plant-based diets. Dismissing an entire dietary approach outright, while ignoring the challenges and risks of veganism, seems intellectually inconsistent. Like with vegans, if people want to make themselves data points in diets that deviate substantially from the human norm, what does it matter? It will provide us with more information moving forward.
Every time I read Vegan Horizon, I’m struck by how rigid and dismissive the perspective is. A more balanced discussion would acknowledge that different diets work for different people rather than resorting to mockery.
Hi John, thanks for stopping by.
"Nobody is pushing the carnivore diet." → That's not true at all. The diet has been aggressively promoted on all major social media platforms. Happy to provide links if you need proof.
"Veganism is frequently pushed as a moral imperative" → In contrast to the carnivore diet, the vegan diet has tangible benefits for animals, environment, climate, global food security, and public health. There are solid scientific and ethical reasons to 'push' veganism. Although I agree that this advocacy should happen in a peaceful and non-judgemental manner (see here, for example: https://veganhorizon.substack.com/p/why-shaming-people-wont-save-animals)
"Veganism requires supplementation to avoid deficiencies" → There are a lot of misconceptions around supplementation. See here: https://veganhorizon.substack.com/i/146062351/a-common-misconception
"The characterization of the carnivore diet as 'scientifically baseless' is overly simplistic." → No, it isn't. There is not the slightest bit of scientific evidence to support this diet. At the same time, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that high consumption of animal products is associated with various long-term health risks.
"A more balanced discussion would acknowledge that different diets work for different people rather than resorting to mockery." → Where is this article 'mocking' people? I'm trying to be polite. And I'm trying to provide helpful information. That's all.
Veganism is not 'a diet'. Veganism is a stance against animal use.
The Vegan Soceity: "The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of [* non-human] animals by man" and "The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting [* non-human] animals."
The Society pledges itself to "seek to end the use of [* non-human] animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of [*non-human] animal life by man." (Leslie Cross, Veganism Defined 1951)
Cross, maintaining the position he presented 23 years earlier, wrote in a 1974 retrospective that veganism "means and will always mean the philosophy that man should for his own advancement live without exploiting [*non-human] animals".
The idea that "nobody is pushing the carnivore diet" is simply inaccurate. There are many vocal proponents of the diet who aggressively promote it online, often claiming it is superior to all other ways of eating. The claim that carnivore adherents don't insist their diet is the only moral choice is a straw man—while they may not use moral arguments in the same way vegans do, many push misleading narratives about plant-based diets being harmful or unnatural, which serves the same function: to discourage people from adopting them.
Regarding health concerns, while individual cases vary, the vast majority of people can thrive on a well-planned plant-based diet, and major dietetic organizations recognize it as nutritionally adequate across all life stages. Your personal health condition may make plant-based eating difficult for you, and if that's the case, no one is forcing you to be vegan. However, the existence of individual exceptions does not invalidate the ethical argument against exploiting and killing animals when alternatives exist for most people.
As for supplementation, vitamin B12 is not an argument against veganism. B12 is produced by bacteria, not animals, and modern food systems have disrupted natural sources of it. Even many non-vegans rely on fortified foods or supplements. Meanwhile, heme iron is not necessary for health - plenty of people maintain excellent iron levels on plant-based diets with non-heme iron sources.
The historical argument ignores the fact that necessity is not morality. Many societies have done things out of necessity that we would not justify today. The fact that some populations historically relied heavily on animal products does not mean it's ethical or optimal now, especially given modern food accessibility and our ability to make choices that reduce harm.
Finally, dismissing veganism as "risky" while defending the carnivore diet is ironic. The latter lacks fiber, is dangerously low in essential nutrients like vitamin C, and has no long-term population studies supporting its safety. Veganism, on the other hand, is backed by extensive research. If we’re truly interested in intellectual consistency, we should acknowledge that while any diet can be poorly executed, a well-planned plant-based diet is entirely viable - and, for most people, the most ethical choice.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts, Helen. I couldn't have said it any better!
We all know veganism is a diet when you want it to be, and a philosophy when you don't want it to be: you can go into a pet food store and buy "vegan cat food," for example. I can tell you that my cat doesn't hold philosophies about "animal exploitation." I've heard it all before a million times.
An enormous number of children forced into veganism by their parents have died from malnutrition to the point where several countries were thinking of making raising children on a plant-based diet illegal.
Your B12 nonsense is absurd: me, my vegan friend, and my vegan cousin all have permanent B12 deficiency induced neuropathy from not consuming sufficient sources, which they must get from meat or bacterial sources that would not have been easily available in the near past.
I don't care to get into a pissing war with vegans and your emotional mind games and manipulation. I don't care if one is vegan: just don't expect me or anyone else to cater to your lifestyle decisions, just as people on a carnivore diet don't expect people to cater to their lifestyle decisions... and it's undeniable that carnivore diets historically have been successful in certain societies, when there have been no examples of purely vegan diets up until recently.
Veganism is based on emotional manipulation. For some people, a well-planned plant-based diet IS viable, but most people don't want to spend substantial time in planning their diet and making it the central focus of their lifestyle.
As for "the most ethical choice," that is entirely subjective, and not objective.
1. "Veganism is a diet when you want it to be, and a philosophy when you don't want it to be."
Read the definition again. Veganism is not just a diet - it is a moral position that seeks to avoid the exploitation of non-human animals as far as practicable & possible. A plant-based diet is just one application of that stance. That’s why the term “plant-based” exists for those who eat that way for health, but “vegan” is an ethical stance.
The existence of plant-based cat food doesn’t contradict veganism - it exists because some people are trying to avoid animal use & seek systemic change while still meeting nutritional needs. Whether they use the term 'plant-based cat food' or 'vegan cat food', this is merely a descriptive term. 'vegan' simply equates to 'suitable for vegans'.
2. "An enormous number of children forced into veganism by their parents have died from malnutrition to the point where several countries were thinking of making raising children on a plant-based diet illegal."
This is a sensationalist, baseless claim. Well-planned plant-based diets are suitable for all stages of life, according to major health organizations, including the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics and the British Dietetic Association.
The rare cases of child malnutrition in vegan households result from severe neglect and unbalanced diets, just as there are malnourished children in non-vegan households. The issue isn’t veganism, it’s parental ignorance or neglect.
3. "Your B12 nonsense is absurd: me, my vegan friend, and my vegan cousin all have permanent B12 deficiency induced neuropathy from not consuming sufficient sources."
B12 isn't produced by animals, it’s made by bacteria. The only reason animals have it is because they consume B12-producing bacteria in soil or from fortified feed.
Many non-vegans are also B12 deficient - it’s not a "vegan problem," it’s a general problem with modern hygiene reducing natural bacterial exposure.
If someone develops permanent B12 deficiency, it can be because they ignored symptoms for years. That’s personal negligence, not an issue with a plant-based diet. The solution? Take a B12 supplement, just as farmed animals are supplemented. No need to consume animals as middlemen.
Some people have a condition called pernicious anaemia, where their immune system attacks the stomach's parietal cells, which produce intrinsic factor - a protein needed for B12 absorption in the small intestine. Without intrinsic factor, even if someone consumes enough B12, their body can't properly absorb it, leading to deficiency.
In such cases, B12 injections (or very high-dose sublingual supplements) are used to bypass the digestive system & ensure adequate absorption. This condition can affect both vegans & non-vegans, as it's an issue of absorption rather than intake.
4. "I don't care to get into a pissing war with vegans and your emotional mind games and manipulation."
Calling concern for suffering “emotional manipulation” is just a way to dismiss ethics without addressing the argument.
Ethics by nature involve emotions - compassion, fairness, justice. That’s not a flaw, that’s humanity.
5. "Carnivore diets have been historically successful, and no purely vegan societies existed until recently."
Historically, humans have eaten predominantly plant-based diets, supplemented with animal products when necessary. The longest-lived populations today (Blue Zones) eat mostly plants. Just because purely vegan societies didn’t exist doesn’t mean it’s not viable now. Science advances. Infant mortality was also high in the past - does that mean modern medicine is unnatural?
6. "Veganism is based on emotional manipulation. For some people, a well-planned plant-based diet IS viable, but most people don't want to spend substantial time planning their diet."
Veganism is based on justice, not “emotional manipulation.” Do we call opposition to human exploitation "emotional manipulation"?
Most people already plan their meals - it’s not harder to eat plants instead of animals. What takes more effort - buying plant foods or slaughtering an animal, processing their flesh, and packaging it?
7. "As for 'the most ethical choice,' that is entirely subjective, and not objective."
Ethics aren’t purely subjective. If we applied this logic to human ethics, we’d be in serious trouble.
Unnecessary exploitation is objectively unjust. If we can thrive without using animals, there is no justification for continuing to exploit them. Morality is not subjective; exploitation & use is always wrong from the victims' perspective.