Thank you. This resonated so deeply. Thank you for being a part of our vegan family, and articulating this. This is how we win, indeed! And win we will.
"Even vegan, it’s probably 4-5%. We are not alone—not by a long shot. But even still, even at 4% vegan, that’s still 96% of the public who are consuming animal products."
This seems false. What evidence do you have that 4% of the public is vegan? Faunalytics puts it at about 1%.
The larger issue is the instability of estimates when dealing with very small base rates. Most national polls report a margin of error of approximately plus or minus 3 percent, but when the underlying prevalence is very low, small changes in responses, weighting, or question wording can produce large swings in point estimates. As a result, differences between estimates such as 1 percent and 4 percent should not be treated as definitive. This is why it might be more meaninful to focus on the combined total of vegetarians and vegans; the larger base rate yields more stable estimates and greater statistical confidence.
"They, overwhelmingly, stop being vegan for one reason: they feel isolated and alone." -- That's not what then Faunalytics study you cited says. Can you quote the partthat you believe justifies your claim?
"Former vegetarians/vegans were asked to give the primary reason they stopped eating the diet. Of 908 codeable responses, the reasons for lapsing mentioned were: unsatisfied with food (293 people; 32%), health (237 people; 26%), social issues (120 people; 13%), inconvenience (115 people; 13%), cost (56 people; 6%), lack of motivation (56 people; 6%), and other (228 people; 25%)." https://faunalytics.org/tactics-in-practice-the-science-of-making-and-keeping-vegans-and-vegetarians/
This is an extrapolation from two different Faunalytics studies along with significant additional peer-reviewed work on vegan stigma, not a claim based on that single survey item alone. I agree that the existing research is suggestive rather than definitive.
My argument is also broader: people lapse for multiple reasons, and “social issues” appear both directly (explicit stigma, family pressure, lack of support) and indirectly through categories such as “unsatisfied with food” and “inconvenience,” which are often shaped by social contexts—workplace meals, family gatherings, travel, and availability. Even “health” concerns are frequently interpreted through social stigma. In that sense, isolation functions not only as sole reason people lapse but additionally as a major driver that amplifies other possible reasons.
While I am skeptical that the Faunalytics 84% figure is precise and suspect that the true recidivism rate is lower, the majority evidence does seem support the conclusion that attrition among vegans and vegetarians is high, and that social isolation is a significant contributing factor.
Thank you. This resonated so deeply. Thank you for being a part of our vegan family, and articulating this. This is how we win, indeed! And win we will.
"Even vegan, it’s probably 4-5%. We are not alone—not by a long shot. But even still, even at 4% vegan, that’s still 96% of the public who are consuming animal products."
This seems false. What evidence do you have that 4% of the public is vegan? Faunalytics puts it at about 1%.
Of course. Here is one Substack post that walks through several of the studies on vegetarian and vegan prevalence, including critique of common estimates: https://winforanimals.substack.com/p/how-many-vegetarians-and-vegans-are.
In addition, here is an earlier post that discusses the Faunalytics/HRC study in more detail and specifically addresses prevalence estimates: http://www.criticalanimal.com/2019/07/guest-post-response-to-claim-that-only.html.
The larger issue is the instability of estimates when dealing with very small base rates. Most national polls report a margin of error of approximately plus or minus 3 percent, but when the underlying prevalence is very low, small changes in responses, weighting, or question wording can produce large swings in point estimates. As a result, differences between estimates such as 1 percent and 4 percent should not be treated as definitive. This is why it might be more meaninful to focus on the combined total of vegetarians and vegans; the larger base rate yields more stable estimates and greater statistical confidence.
"They, overwhelmingly, stop being vegan for one reason: they feel isolated and alone." -- That's not what then Faunalytics study you cited says. Can you quote the partthat you believe justifies your claim?
"Former vegetarians/vegans were asked to give the primary reason they stopped eating the diet. Of 908 codeable responses, the reasons for lapsing mentioned were: unsatisfied with food (293 people; 32%), health (237 people; 26%), social issues (120 people; 13%), inconvenience (115 people; 13%), cost (56 people; 6%), lack of motivation (56 people; 6%), and other (228 people; 25%)." https://faunalytics.org/tactics-in-practice-the-science-of-making-and-keeping-vegans-and-vegetarians/
This is an extrapolation from two different Faunalytics studies along with significant additional peer-reviewed work on vegan stigma, not a claim based on that single survey item alone. I agree that the existing research is suggestive rather than definitive.
My argument is also broader: people lapse for multiple reasons, and “social issues” appear both directly (explicit stigma, family pressure, lack of support) and indirectly through categories such as “unsatisfied with food” and “inconvenience,” which are often shaped by social contexts—workplace meals, family gatherings, travel, and availability. Even “health” concerns are frequently interpreted through social stigma. In that sense, isolation functions not only as sole reason people lapse but additionally as a major driver that amplifies other possible reasons.
While I am skeptical that the Faunalytics 84% figure is precise and suspect that the true recidivism rate is lower, the majority evidence does seem support the conclusion that attrition among vegans and vegetarians is high, and that social isolation is a significant contributing factor.