The problem with Veganuary

Like so many New Year’s resolutions, this one is not only doomed to fail, it is as good as designed to do so.

Illustration by Marie Montocchio / Ikon Images

If the nation had to make one dietary New Year’s resolution, it should probably be “eat less meat”. For both health and environmental reasons, pretty much every expert agrees we consume far too many animals. On average, meat and dairy produce far more greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) than arable crops, whether you measure it per kilogram or per calorie, and global food system is responsible for a third of human-caused emissions. Agriculture is also the primary driver of biodiversity loss, mainly due to the conversion of natural ecosystems to pasture or to arable land to grow feed for livestock. And people with diets high in meat, especially of the processed variety, are at higher risk of a range of diseases, including heart disease and cancer.

So starting 2025 with “Veganuary” might look like a splendid idea. After the excesses of festive feasting and endless meals of meaty leftovers, going cold turkey seems both more appealing and more sensible than eating it.

But like so many New Year’s resolutions, this one is not only doomed to fail, it is as good as designed to do so. The problems stem from both parts of the portmanteau. Start with the January component. This month is inescapably associated with purging and puritanism. It’s when people resolve to go on diets, or try dry January. Asking people to go meat-free at the dawn of the year inescapably makes it seem like another act of self-denial.

That is not how we should think of a plant-based diet. For as long as people think of meat and dairy as the yummy stuff and veggies as a virtuous necessity, getting them to eat less of the former and more of the latter will remain an uphill battle.

For the plant-based shift to work, people have to see how a properly balanced diet is not about denial but widening the range of culinary enjoyment. Arguably, meat, dairy and eggs can be enjoyed more when they are not on every plate. Most of the excess animal fats and proteins we eat are mass produced from factory-farmed animals, and are little more than protein fillers with little flavour. If we ate less but better meat, we’d enjoy it a lot more. For example, the free-range bacon bap I have around once a month tastes all the better not only because the meat is top quality but because it’s an occasional treat.

This brings us to the vegan part of Veganuary. The name itself shows that it is no secret that the organisers’ aim is not to get people to reduce their meat consumption but to eliminate it. “Our vision is simple; we want a vegan world,” the Veganuary homepage declares proudly. A small fraction of people who do Veganuary may end up giving up meat for good. But the proportion of people who go full-time vegan remains stubbornly low, around 4 per cent, and that when the food diaries of people who say they are vegan are examined closely, many are much more “flexitarian” anyway.

We will barely make a dent in the necessary societal shift to a plant-based diet if we rely on vegans and vegetarians alone. It requires the large majority of omnivores to change how they eat. “Plant based” does not mean “plants only”, and insisting people try a diet few will continue with is not the best way to try to cultivate new habits.

This is not the only way in which the V-word is an obstacle. Menus and supermarket aisles are now full of “vegan” options. But there are no vegan foods, only diets. The likes of hummus, dhal and caponata have been part of traditional omnivorous diets for centuries. Separating our such foods and labelling them “vegan” undermines the vital idea that plant-based foods belong in all diets.

All these objections could be dismissed if it turned out Veganuary did help to reduce meat and dairy consumption. But there is no evidence that it does so, even in the short term. Research by ProVeg showed that during 2021’s Veganuary, although sales of meat-free products in supermarkets increased, meat sales were almost unchanged.

This points to another way in which Veganuary doesn’t help meet the goals of meat reduction. This month the products promoted for Veganuary will almost all be processed products, many of them meat substitutes. These often ultra-processed foods may sometimes be better than their equally industrial meat versions, but they are not the fresh fruits and vegetables we need to eat more of. Arguably, many are less healthy than a modest portion of good-quality meat, especially if served with fresh vegetables.

When people fail to stick with Veganuary – or don’t even try it in the first place – they revert to their old ways. It would be far better if we started with a more realistic and modest goal to cut down. A report by Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) looked at what changes were needed in British dietary patterns to meet the recommendation of the EAT-Lancet Commission. This was made up of 19 expert commissioners and 18 co-authors from 16 countries, from the fields of human health, agriculture, political sciences and environmental sustainability. Its brief was to come up with a diet that was good for the planet and our health. CIWF calculated that the UK would have to reduce meat consumption by 71 per cent, and dairy and eggs by 56-57 per cent, but could increase fish and seafood consumption by 12 per cent.

These goals are entirely achievable. A meat-free month is not only the wrong way to promote them, it distorts and displaces the message everyone needs to get. Just as a dry January won’t undo 11 months of over-drinking, Veganuary will not fix our fundamental over-reliance on calories from animals. What we need is not a vegan month but a more plant-rich year.