ArticlePDF Available

The geographies of veganism: Exploring the complex entanglements of places, plants, peoples, and profits through vegan food practices

Authors:

Abstract

The increasing visibility of veganism and plant-based eating makes it timely for environmental geographers to critically engage with these unfolding debates. In this review, we unpack the complex socio-environmental entanglements of contemporary vegan food practices (VFPs), drawing on food geography literature to reflect on the extent to which veganism can, and does, challenge and transform the hegemonic industrial globalised food system. We consider the productive conversations to be had with sustainability, food sovereignty , food justice and vegetal geographies in promoting the collective potential of VFPs beyond the indi-vidualisation of mainstreamed, 'plant-based' business-as-usual; re-centring production, hitherto relatively invisible in the hegemonic consideration of veganism as just consumption praxis; and engaging with 'multi-elemental' plant ethics. This offers a cross-pollination of ideas through a focus on the geographies of veganism, which promotes the development of relational, placed and scaled analyses of vegan identities, experiences and practices while also bridging the intradisciplinary silos within environmental geography. Engaging with the geographies of veganism offers a timely and grounded lens to critically interrogate key contemporary debates around diverse knowledges, sustainability and justice. As such, the alternative ways of doing, being and relating offered by VFPs show real potential for hopeful, responsive and constructive research.
The geographies of veganism:
Exploring the complex
entanglements of places, plants,
peoples, and prots through
vegan food practices
Agatha Herman and Kirstie ONeill
School of Geography and Planning, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
Abstract
The increasing visibility of veganism and plant-based eating makes it timely for environmental geographers
to critically engage with these unfolding debates. In this review, we unpack the complex socio-environmen-
tal entanglements of contemporary vegan food practices (VFPs), drawing on food geography literature to
reect on the extent to which veganism can, and does, challenge and transform the hegemonic industrial
globalised food system. We consider the productive conversations to be had with sustainability, food sov-
ereignty, food justice and vegetal geographies in promoting the collective potential of VFPs beyond the indi-
vidualisation of mainstreamed, plant-basedbusiness-as-usual; re-centring production, hitherto relatively
invisible in the hegemonic consideration of veganism as just consumption praxis; and engaging with
multi-elementalplant ethics. This offers a cross-pollination of ideas through a focus on the geographies
of veganism, which promotes the development of relational, placed and scaled analyses of vegan identities,
experiences and practices while also bridging the intradisciplinary silos within environmental geography.
Engaging with the geographies of veganism offers a timely and grounded lens to critically interrogate
key contemporary debates around diverse knowledges, sustainability and justice. As such, the alternative
ways of doing, being and relating offered by VFPs show real potential for hopeful, responsive and con-
structive research.
Keywords
vegan geographies, more-than-human, food system transformation, food justice, food sovereignty,
neoliberalism, plantationocene, sustainability
Introduction
Veganism has witnessed signicant changes
historically, but over the last ten years, it has
been subject to considerable ux and uidity.
While growth from 2014 onwards led some to
claim that vegan food practices (VFPs)
1
had
mainstreamed(Oliver 2022, among others), the
rise of a depoliticised plant-based consumption
has threatened more radical understandings
of veganism, while the growth in vegan food
Corresponding author:
Agatha Herman, School of Geography and Planning,
Cardiff University, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII
Avenue, Cardiff, CF10 3WA, UK.
Email: HermanA@cardiff.ac.uk
Original Research Article
Progress in Environmental Geography
121
© The Author(s) 2025
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/27539687241307954
journals.sagepub.com/home/peg
businesses and products through increasing cor-
poratisation (Giraud 2021) has recently stalled
(Ungoed-Thomas 2023). In 2024, 4.7% of the
UK population (approx. 2.5 million people)
identied as vegan, while in 2022 around 50%
of the UK population consumed some plant
milk and meat replacements (Chiarelli 2022).
The growth of people consuming plant-based
products but not becoming fully vegan is a
key area of contestation, generating challenges
to historically dominant animal- and activist-
interpretations of veganism. Nonetheless, veganism
has never been monolithic (Oliver 2022; Williams
2023) with varied motivations for becoming vegan,
although typically focusing on animal welfare/
rights, health and the environment (Green,
Costello and Dare 2010; Giraud 2021; Oliver
2022). For some, this is through exitarian
practices to reduce meat consumption; for
others, being social omnivores(eating animal
products in social circumstances); or embarking
on a full vegan transition. Contemporary
veganism therefore comprises multiple move-
ments, motivations, practices and discourses
(Wright 2015; Dutkiewicz and Dickstein 2021).
Although more apparent in high income
countries, these production and consumption
trends are increasingly reected globally
(Radnitz, Beezhold and Dimatteo 2015; The
Vegan Society 2022). Such consumption prac-
tices are nding greater traction with consumers
and policymakers in response to climate change
and the increasingly widely recognised violence
of animal agriculture. Institutions, events, cam-
paigns and reports, including Veganuary (2014
onwards), the EAT-Lancet Commission Report
on Healthy Diets (2019), the IPCC Special
Report on Climate Change and Land (2019),
and the Vegan Societys (2024) Vegan Manifesto
call for dietary and food system transformation
(Janssen et al. 2016; Edwards, Sonnino and
Cifuentes 2024). However, climate arguments by
both policymakers and scholars frequently encour-
age a reduction but not removal of animal pro-
ducts from diets (Scarborough et al. 2023).
Therefore, although once dismissed by aca-
demia as a serious topic of enquiry (Yilmaz
2019), veganism is undergoing a surge of inter-
est from multiple disciplines. Geographers have
come relatively late to researching veganism,
but as Oliver (2023a) argued, it is a timely
empirical subject, opening up contemporary
food system debates around scale, place,
power and relationality. Historically, veganism
has been explored by scholars through diverse
cross-cutting approaches such as vegan studies
and critical animal studies, philosophy and
ethics, and much recent research in these
arenas continues to focus on the social practices
associated with vegan food consumption,
exploring how eating more plant-based foods
changes and repurposes practices, knowledges,
materials and local spaces (Fuentes and
Fuentes 2022; Godin 2023; Wendler 2023).
Less attention is paid to how such vegan con-
sumption practices are changing the wider
food system, to explore their impacts on the
individuals, communities, spaces and political
economies of production, and the metabolic
interactions of these with consumers and con-
sumption spaces (Cusworth 2023). New studies
by Hodge et al. (2022) and Oliver (2022)
brought vegan geographies to the fore. In
this critical review, we centre the geographies
of veganism to examine the multiple entangle-
ments that constitute contemporary VFPs by
bringing these into conversation with food
geographies research to unpack the distant-
and-local relational impacts in the wider
food system.
Through long-standing practices of mixed
methods research, sensitivities to interactions
between people and landscapes, recognition of
ways in which simultaneous processes shape mul-
tiple spatial scales from the body to the state to the
long reach of commodity chains, geographers
have a diverse, analytical tool kit for making
meaningful investigations into slow violence.
(OLear 2021, 1)
2Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
Following OLear (2021), we argue that geo-
graphers are both well-suited to critically explor-
ing the slow (and fast) violence that veganism
aims to combat (yet can also reproduce), and the
entanglements of diverse veganisms with the key
debates on capitalism; neoliberalism; identity;
coloniality and the decolonial; the more-than-
human; ethnicity and race; gender; and sustain-
ability, which have long engaged critical environ-
mental geographers. This is imperative given that
the growing popularisation of veganism risks a
homogenising narrative that elides signicant ten-
sions; amidst calls for food system transformation
(Edwards, Sonnino and Cifuentes 2024) research
must attend to the unfolding and dynamic politics
and injustices that are occurring in places and
among peoples where plants are being commodi-
ed for neoliberal Western markets.
We began work on this paper in 2020 and this
longitudinal engagement has allowed us to
follow the debates in this changing and
dynamic arena. The earliest iterations of our
ideas have been superseded by new research,
and it is beyond the scope of any paper to
fully trace all the lines of these evolving
debates. We have therefore chosen to focus on
three facets of contemporary research around
VFPs that we nd particularly compelling in
terms of their connections to our own research
interests, and the opportunities they present for
cross-pollination with food geographies. What
has particularly intrigued us is the seeming dis-
connect between the emancipatory potential
presented by activist veganisms discourses
and how veganism has become co-opted by cor-
porate and industrial values as it has main-
streamed. Our aim in this review is therefore
to respond to a guiding question: to what
extent can and does veganism challenge and
transform the hegemonic practices of the con-
temporary industrialised and globalised food
system? We do this through drawing on long-
standing discussions within food geography lit-
erature, with a focus on food justice and food
sovereignty.
In what follows, we offer a synthesis of
research pertaining to three specic and inter-
related aspects of VFPs, followed by reections
on how and where environmental geographers
might further engage. Our contribution seeks
to generate productive research conversations
about the fuller food geographies of which
vegan and plant-based eating form a part. In
Section 2, we push beyond the individualisation
of mainstream, corporatised, plant-basedbusi-
ness-as-usual to explore how veganism might
engage with the alternative and collective endea-
vours of food sovereignty. Section 3 proposes
shifting the dietary focus of contemporary vegan-
ism as consumption practice to recentre the hith-
erto invisible production spaces drawing on the
food justice movement. In section 4, we reect
on veganisms challenge to structural anthropo-
centrism to promote a genuinely multi-species
and decolonial ethical praxis. These debates not
only highlight the opportunities for geographers
to develop relational, (em)placed and scaled ana-
lyses of vegan identities, experiences and prac-
tices, but the potential disruptions veganism
presents to environmental geography. Engaging
critically with the geographies of veganism neces-
sitates a move beyond the intradisciplinary silos
of, but not limited to, agri-food, animals, health,
ecosystems, consumption, activism, decolonisa-
tion, feminism and posthumanism, demanding a
contextual, practise-based and multiperspective
on who we should care for, where, how and
why, to better engage with the key socio-
environmental challenges of our times.
Challenging globalised,
corporatised mainstreaming: the
placeless foodscapes of
depoliticised plant-based diets
Contemporary veganism is commonly posi-
tioned as a consumption practice (Hirth 2020)
typically focused on food, although many
vegan organisations extend this to a way of
Herman and ONeill 3
living which seeks to exclude all forms of
exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food,
clothing or any other purpose(The Vegan
Society 2020a, emphasis added). As White
(2018) stated, such an activist conceptualisation
of veganism offers a radical praxis grounded in
trans-species justice and demands wider (food)
systems change (Giraud 2021; White 2021). The
increasingly popularised and corporatised plant-
baseddiet, in contrast, obscures such radical
politics and can reverse vegan activistssuccess
in drawing attention to the animal condition in
neoliberal, capitalist and patriarchal systems of
exploitation (White 2018; Giraud 2021; Sexton,
Garnett and Lorimer 2022). The mainstreaming
of Big Veganism(Sexton, Garnett and Lorimer
2022) as an individualised consumption practice
therefore acts to dilute activist veganisms critical
and emancipatory energy.
It is widely argued that ethical consumption
can connect across scales and remediate socio-
ecological challenges (Johnston, Szabo and
Rodney 2011). Gills and Morgan (2020; see
also Kortetmäki and Oksanen 2021) encouraged
us to reduce or eliminate meat and dairy, and
buy local and/or organic as much as possible;
while the controversial EAT-Lancet diet advises
substantial, population-level dietary changes
focused on plant-based eating (Lawrence
et al. 2019). Nevertheless, veganism as a
form of ethical consumption continues to treat
the consumer as a rational economic actor disem-
bedded from context, using their purchasing
decisions to facilitate socio-environmental
justice without needing to do anything differ-
ently (Stanescu 2019). Despite more radical
vegan ideologies standing in opposition to
capitalisms consumption mandate (Wright
2017), mainstreamed plant-based eating as
dietary praxis remains dependent on corporatised
consumption (Garnett 2019). Indeed, the rising
popularity of plant-based foods can be seen as
veganism without the ideological baggage
(Pendergrast 2016), and is actively constructed
by mainstream actors as justa diet (White
2018; Giraud 2021). Within this, plant-based
foods have become depoliticised and, while nat-
uralised as solutions to climate change, animal
welfare, and human health challenges(Clay
et al. 2020, 946), in many incarnations are pro-
moted for health and aesthetics rather than
animal liberation and environmental issues.
This project of the selfrepresents a perform-
ance of a neoliberal will-to-healththrough
individualised responsibility and accountability
through consumption (Pirani and Fegitz 2019).
Reecting on the Meatless Mondayscam-
paign, critiqued by Morris (2018) for being an
unthreatening and apolitical lifestyle choice,
the potentially problematic mobilisation of meat-
free eating is highlighted since it perpetuates an
exploitative industrial food system to maximise
prots(Singer 2017, 352). Meatless Monday
brand partners use vegan/vegetarian products to
expand their markets rather than replace conven-
tional meat products, not challenging the fetishised
position of meat in our diets (Dilworth and
McGregor 2015) and leaving the meatica-
tion(Morris 2018) of the food industry
untouched. As Twine (2018) suggested, the
expanding market for meat substitutes con-
tinues to normalise the eating of animal pro-
ductsinattemptingtoimitateacooked dead
animals body: its taste, texture, physical
appearance, smell, and, sometimes, name
(Chauvet 2018, 401) and, therefore, the politics
that underlie these practices (Singer 2017). As
such, plant-based diets have been co-opted by
the corporate agribusiness complex, which
conceals its activities of exploitation, dispos-
session and cultural abuse in a new round of
capital accumulation (Singer 2017; Clay et al.
2020), where plant-based consumption neither
challenges omnivorism nor neoliberal capitalist
approaches to food commodication. For
example, Clay et al. (2020), in their work on
mylks, argued that such plant-based substi-
tutes effectively hide agri-industrial production
systems through mobilising discourses of sus-
tainability, alterity and disruption. However,
4Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
mylks (and other plant-based substitutes)
represent palatable disruptionsthat encour-
age people to rebel just enough to switch from
dairy milk to plant mylk while entreating them
to remain devoted consumers of commodity
mylk (and dairy milk)(Clay et al. 2020,
948). This, like Meatless Mondays, enables
the reproduction of globalised, capitalist systems
of provision through green-washed consumerism,
which responsibilises the citizen-consumer
without challenging the politico-economic
status quo, facilitating the systems which per-
petuate violence to diverse peoples, animals,
ecosystems, and lands.
In contrast, VFPs offer a widely enacted
form of trans-species direct action(White
2021, 190) that intentionally seeks to destabilise
the hegemonic food system, which has contrib-
uted to our existing climate, biodiversity and
geopolitical perma-crisis. Feminist, indigenous,
and degrowth scholars have argued that radical
action is required to change world views and
enact a cultural transformation that re-establishes
livelihoods, relationships and politics around a
new suite of values and goals(Paulson 2017,
430). This position is also advocated by food sov-
ereignty movements, which depart from a critique
of capitalisms impact on the environment and
inequality, and develop a vision that stresses the
right to act(Patel 2009); working towards the
right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropri-
ate food produced through sustainable methods
and their right to dene their own food and agri-
culture systems(Nyéléni 2007). While food sov-
ereignty and VFPs share certain framings, ‘…as a
comprehensive attack on corporate industrialised
agriculture for its devastations, both environmen-
tal and socialas a programme for the constitu-
tion of a new, sustainable and socially just world
food order…’ (Bernstein 2014, 1032), they
differ in their central gures of the (peasant) pro-
ducer and (activist) consumer. Nonetheless, both
advocate for marginalised food actants (either/
both themselves or non-human others) and thus
challenge the associated power imbalances of the
current neoliberal food regime. As such, VFPs
could offer an alternative valuation of the natural
world, drawing on food sovereignty to resist
appropriation by the political economy of indus-
trial agri-business and replace food systems.
Harper (2013, 56) maintained that vegan-
ism represents a potent political challenge
since it is about the ongoing struggle to
produce socio-spatial epistemologies of con-
sumption that lead to cultural and spatial
change. Although all eating impacts the land
and resource use (Dal Gobbo 2018), and ultim-
ately involves death(Heldke 2012, 68),
through practising a vegan diet, people can
become aware of the gravity of the planetary
ecological situation(Dal Gobbo 2018, 241).
Nevertheless, within the dominant noncon-
frontational veganism(Cole and Morgan
2011; Overend 2019), politics has been
reduced to individual consumption and pur-
chasing decisions, and power remains with
corporations (Clay et al. 2020), doing little to
allow alternative, collaborative food systems
to grow. Beacham and Jackson (2022) argued
more widely that citizens need to engage in
food politics, as with activist veganism (this
is not homogenous, see Véron 2016; Sanford
and Lorimer 2022), yet this is an underex-
plored area in relation to understanding the
impacts of plant-based eating. We need to
be attuned to how vegan-industrial food com-
plexes can reinforce the power of globalised
corporate food actors in shaping food
futures, presenting themselves as ethical
while conducting business-as-usual. Indeed:
If ethical eating is judged solely on an animal/
nonanimal food divide, we obscure and relegate
other forms of food politics, including but not
limited to the conditions of migrant workers
who produce vegan food; how vegan food pro-
duction affects local people, environments, and
ecosystems; and how some vegan food move-
ments overwhelmingly feed an afuent white
middle class. (Overend 2019, 8283)
Herman and ONeill 5
While food sovereignty has been critiqued
for its essentialising rhetoric of we are all the
same(Park and White 2015) and the difculties
its local, producer focus makes in up-scaling
this political project (Bernstein 2014; Grey and
Patel 2015), its emphasis on relationality,
context and multi-scalar networks offers valu-
able opportunities for veganism as a movement
to contextualise and attend with care to the
metabolic ows and political economies of its
global commodity networks (GCN) (Cusworth
2023). Mares and Peña (2011) argued that a
food sovereignty approach to veganism shifts
the focus from White, middle-class urban con-
sumers to embrace diverse, rural producers,
and addresses justice concerns around working
conditions, hunger and food poverty. Others
have argued that veganism can enhance urban
food sovereignty, and that by linking veganism
to food justice and food sovereignty as well as
Black cultural movements like hip-hop, it
offers a means for food system transformation
(Nocella et al. 2017). Such moves promote
resistance and activism, to overcome the domin-
ation of the industrial food system (Cadieux and
Slocum 2015) and relocalise food systems in
ways that are more ethical and ecological,
through building resilient and collective food
movements. We suggest that Cusworths (2023)
concept of metabolic agricultural ethicsoffers
one avenue for veganism to draw from food
sovereignty to disrupt the hegemony of the
globalised food regime and do so in a way
that is not just about privileging the local
but instead recongure scale(Wald and Hill
2016, 209). Focusing on the in- and out-ows
from any site along a GCN enforces the con-
ceptualisation of both the distant and local out-
comes being produced through the activitiesof
that site (Cusworth 2023, 67).
Engaging with these debates acknowledges
the potential of veganisms more expansive,
activist relations of care and justice, offering
routes beyond the individual consumer embed-
ded in globalised, commodied food regimes.
Veganism can build on the systemic, scaled
and collective challenge to neoliberal and indus-
trial ideologies presented by food sovereignty to
extend this into a more inclusive resistance in
which the human is de-centred and the non-
human right to dene their systems is founda-
tional. Although recent trends in veganism
may be little characterised by ethical and polit-
ical concerns but strongly related to a neo-
liberal focus on the self(Pirani and Fegitz
2019, 60), the struggle against the destructive
forces of capitalism is both global and personal,
across multiple geographical scales and embody-
ing differential politics (Klein, 2014 in Pilgrim
2019). Food has always offered a platform allow-
ing everyday interdependencies to be felt and
practised but, whatever the underlying ideology,
these always need to be critically and reexively
interrogated to maintain their connective, pro-
gressive, and expansive potential. Despite
veganism frequently being presented as a more
ethical option (Wright 2017), it remains entangled
in the injustices, violences and inequalities that
structure neoliberal market relations (Mares and
Peña 2011; Featherstone 2013; Trauger 2022).
Thus, we need to question how the politics of
VFPs manifest in production spaces; the extent
to which the realities of such production practices
are visible to consumers; how consumers interpret
and remake vegan food identities in multiple
spatial contexts; and the implications for contested
power relations throughout.
Knowing and caring for invisible
places: constructing and
connecting spaces of vegan
practices
All ideologies require bodily interactions to
perform their foundational discourses and prac-
tices; indeed, it is the doings and sayings of
vegans themselves which have been responsible
for the successful reproduction and growth of
the practice(Twine 2018, 167). Yet, recent
6Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
market growth does not reect the ideals and
politics of long-term vegans (Giraud 2021);
with veganism increasingly positioned as an
eating practice, the relations within broader com-
modity networks are masked, which prevents an
acknowledgement of the relationalities of food
provisioning (Hirth 2020). Hirth (2020) therefore
proposed a move from veganismto VFPsto
highlight the non-exclusive relationship between
vegan identities and practices (Niederle and
Schubert 2020) and recognise the role that pro-
ducers (and processors, policymakers and busi-
nesses) also play in dening and materialising
food relations (ONeill 2014). Here, we can
see opportunities for engaging with food justice
debates, which offer insights into the historical
inequalities and marginalities across the whole of
the food chainmaking visible the persistent
inequalities that have been hidden by the changing
discourses and motivations of alternative food
systems(Herman and Goodman 2018, 1042).
Following Herman and Goodman (ibid), we
argue that the more holistic framing of food net-
works through food justices explicit attention
to (in)justice more broadly demands action
across the scales and places of contemporary
agri-food systems.
After all, everyone in a GCN makes political
and ethical choices; acknowledging this moves
VFPslike other ethical consumption move-
mentsbeyond questions of the practices and
responsibilities of the citizen-consumer and
of activists combatting the violent injustices
of explicitly animal agri-food systems to take
a more expansive view of the potential for
vegan justiceto shape the praxis of GCNs.
Adopting a deontological perspective that posi-
tions veganas a diverse and uid practice
(Herman 2018) rather than an attribute estab-
lishes it as something that must be constantly
performed by the diverse actants that constitute
its networks. As such a carrot becomes vegan
through its (animal-free) production rather than
being an inherent quality or due to the identity
of its consumer (Hirth 2020). Seymour and Utter
(2021) suggested that further research is needed
to explore these emergent veganicagricultural
practices and how they relate to environmental
indicators such as soil health. Veganic farming
presents changes in human-environment relation-
ships, affecting and challenging local cultures
and food practices, and need to be examined in
different parts of the world, paying close attention
to how geopolitical and climatic shifts are playing
out in tandem.
Vegan activism commonly focuses on con-
sumerscare for animals, through challenging
the use of animals as food, pets (and pet food),
entertainers and clothing as well as in the
pharmaceutical industry (see, for example,
PETA UK 2020; The Vegan Society 2020b;
Baker 2023). While this connects the meati-
cation(Weis 2007) of global diets to broader,
environmental issues around global warming
(sic), widespread pollution, deforestation,
land degradation, water scarcity and species
extinction(The Vegan Society 2020b), care
for the injustices and violence perpetuated
against humans and non-humans in both cor-
porate and alternative GCNs producing vegan
foodstuffs is only slowly being recognised.
The focus on being a consumer forecloses
many possible avenues of change that would be
opened to us if we also saw ourselves as citizens,
neighbours, or just humans(Werkheiser and
Noll 2014, 204) and the opacity of the supply
chain obscures the condition of production such
that consumers have little to go on in terms of
making ethical choices of any kind(Trauger
2022, 640). Like with consumer movements
more broadly, to enhance its ethical capability to
enact change within GCNs, veganism arguably
needs to better connect into its networked and
performative practices, resisting its corporate
reduction to a consumer-facing attribute.
Food justices focus on access to sufcient,
affordable, healthy, culturally appropriate food,
andvery importantlyrespect and self-
determination(Bradley and Galt 2014, 173)
demands attention to the racialised and class-based
Herman and ONeill 7
relations, practices and inequities throughout agri-
food systems (Agyeman and McEntree 2014).
Food justice scholarship has continued to evolve,
moving beyond the race emphasis engendered by
US-centric research (Glennie and Alkon 2018),
and has become united by a focus on just sustain-
ability(Agyeman 2013), which promotes a recog-
nition of the intersectional justice issues within food
systems. There are clear parallels here with activist
veganisms foregrounding and championing of
trans-species justice, which offers:
a statement of intent that rejects the intentional
suffering of other animals and acknowledges the
intrinsic violence, brutality and exploitation that
humans endure when caught up in key spaces of
animal violence(White 2021, 191)
However, we argue that this needs to be
extended beyond the admittedly critical arenas
structuring the animal condition to acknowledge
that trans-species violence also happens else-
where. For example, environmental arguments
for veganism tend to focus on the greenhouse
gas emissions associated with animal agricul-
ture (Scarborough et al. 2014; Aleksandrowicz
et al. 2016), with little recognition of the land
use changes and consequent justice issues that
accompany the growth of newcommodities
that support plant-based eating and VFPs. The
ecological impacts of replacement industries
for animal products are rarely considered in
detail (McGregor and Houston 2018);
Australias emerging soy plantations are
highly water intensive, creating challenges for
sustainable socio-agro-ecologies in biomes that
already suffer signicant water stress, which is
further exacerbated by a changing climate.
Such shifts in production systems require
in-depth analysis to expose the potential for
transformation or reproduction of monocultural
industrial agriculture, and its biodiversity and
climate-related damages (Figueroa-Hellend,
Thomas and Aguilera 2018), as well as social
justice issues (see Oxfam report into labour
violations in chicken processing plants (cited
in Roeder 2021), which Trauger (2022) sug-
gested may be replicated in the production of
industrialised animal protein substitutes). The
environmental and animal-welfare impacts of
modernindustrialised forms of agriculture
are long-documented (see Steinfeld et al.
2006; Kemmerer 2015). However, compara-
tively little is known about the wider impacts
of the burgeoning globalised corporate vegan
food system, which relies on similarly conten-
tious socio-economic, environmental and political
relations and practices to conventional industrial
agricultural complexes.
2
The expansion of plant-
based markets therefore has the potential to per-
petuate socio-environmental destruction (Vijay
et al. 2016) through displacing biocultural diver-
sity in distanciated places. The large-scale produc-
tion of many commodities iconic within VFPs
(such as almonds, avocados, coconuts and soy
3
)
are tied into neocolonial industrial supply chains
(Garnett 2019) with deeply problematic human-
environment relations, such as monocultural plan-
tations, use of agro-chemicals, exploitative labour
practices, and contentious breeding systems. An
emphasis on trans-species justice must not mask
the global concerns, raised by food justice and
food sovereignty activists, around labour rights,
representation, trade relations and sustainable
market access that persist for many small produ-
cers and hired labour (Glennie and Alkon 2018;
Apostolidis 2020; Dickstein et al. 2020).
GCN scholars have directed their attention to
the continuing legacies of colonialism as well as
forms of neocolonialism in relation to both
carnist and VFPs (Overend 2019).
Nevertheless, for Harper (2013, 133), veganism
can decolonize the negative effects of colonial-
ism on our bodies and mindsand offers a potent
political tool to dismantle dominant, racialized,
and systemic health structures and injustices.
While Dean (2014, 138144) acknowledged
that the practices of veganism cannot fully
step outside of all systems of oppression, she
maintains that veganism is less governed by
8Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
normalizing, patriarchal powerthan omnivor-
ism and that, when adopted as an ethical practice
of freedom, veganism allows us to eat with the
least amount of domination possible. However,
persistent monocultures (Figueroa-Hellend,
Thomas and Aguilera 2018) and industrialised
and globalised supply chains (Clay et al. 2020;
Sexton, Garnett and Lorimer 2022) reproduce dis-
tanced, placeless foodscapes and systems of
oppression. A geography of veganism approach
could critically excavate the extent to which con-
temporary food systems are reproducing or chal-
lenging these aspects of the industrialised food
system through vegan GCNs.
With a global population predicted to reach
nine billion by 2050, there are frequent claims
that shifting to a plant-based diet is a structural
necessityespecially for afuent countries
(Cole, 2008, Vinnari and Vinnari, 2014 cited in
Dal Gobbo 2018, 236). Although disputed, the
Anthropocene(Steffen, Crutzen and Mcneill
2007) is leading to an increased emphasis on the
role of globalised food production and consump-
tion systems in causing unprecedented ecosystem
destruction and greenhouse gas emissions (Gills
and Morgan 2020). These socio-ecological con-
cerns are regularly used to promote veganism as
sustainable dietary praxis (Ripple et al. 2021),
representing a signicant shift from its original
ethical motivations around animal liberation
(Watson 1944) and challenging speciesism
(Greenebaum 2017). Adopting a socio-ecological
lens can, therefore, elide critical questions asso-
ciated with VFPs; shifting attention to counting
carbon and developing new, efcientproduction
systems and associated certication schemes
(Freidberg 2014) results in an epistemologically
different understanding of what it means to
be vegan (Dutkiewicz and Dickstein 2021;
Sexton, Garnett and Lorimer 2022). Focusing
on the socio-ecological effects of VFPs may
obscure broader concerns around labour and
trade justice; power and informational inequalities;
biocultural connectivities; food quality and safety;
and even animal rights as the discourse of plant-
basedor meatlessabsents animals (Pendergrast
2016). It is therefore critical that research exam-
ines the discursive shifts that occur as different
vegan-isms are espoused in diverse fora
(Dutkiewicz and Dickstein 2021; Kortetmäki
and Oksanen 2021). Such research will be
key in developing detailed accounts of vegan-
isms evolving and relational nature, and the
challenges presented by plant-baseddiets.
Writing from an indigenous perspective in
Australia, Yandarra et al. (2022) noted how
industrial agriculture perpetuates colonisation,
of land, bodies and animals, especially on lands
stolen from indigenous communities (see also
Dal Gobbo 2023). They argued for a more cultur-
ally embedded and relational approach to
veganism, one that reects indigenous cosmol-
ogies to living with kin. Future research on
vegan food networks should pay close attention
to the potential for challenging and dismantling
industrial systems of oppression, and the extent
to which the growing adoption of plant-based
diets offers an opportunity to substantively
transform food systems, while not universalis-
ing the sovereignty of different communities to
practice culturally signicant ways of eating.
As such, and despite challenging discourses of
speciesism and imperialism, lived VFPs must
be analysed to understand the role plant, as well
as animal, bodies and materials play in the neoco-
lonial vegan project. In what ways are plants
instrumentalised for nationalistic ends? How are
plants re-made and commodied into (neo)colo-
nial subjects, continuing to normalise settler
modes of colonial life and further displacing alter-
native epistemologies?
(Re)centring the Other:
deconstructing human
multispecies hierarchies
A key question underpinning veganism is what
and for whom are animals for?As Davis (2011,
in Pilgrim 2019, 89) argued our use becomes
Herman and ONeill 9
their ontologyand their teleologyand -
under dominant, meat-centric discourses (i.e.,
carnism) - ‘…animal bodies that are inserted
into capitalist spaces of commodity production
are always already scheduled for death…’
(Belcourt 2015, 9). Scholars have argued that
anthropocentrism is the anchor of speciesism,
capitalism and settler colonialism(Belcourt
2015, 4) and myriad forms of violence and
oppression: in order to challenge unsustainable
global practices, we, therefore, need to confront
structural anthropocentrism (Dal Gobbo 2018).
How we relate to, and care for, animals in par-
ticular becomes an indicator of our relations
with non-humans, women and the environment
(Pilgrim 2019), as well as indigenous and ethnic
communities, since the animal-centric dis-
courses, which dominate both conventional
and alternative food systems, are colonial,
violent, anthropocentric and hetero-patriarchal
(Cudworth 2008; Collard, Dempsey and
Sundberg 2015; Gillespie 2021).
While Cole and Morgan (2011) argued that
animal rights are the primary rationale for
veganism, evidence suggests that personal,
health-centred lifestyle drivers (White 2018)
have been foregrounded as veganism has main-
streamed (Pendergrast 2016; Overend 2019;
Pirani and Fegitz 2019). Indeed, MacInnis and
Hodson (2015) suggested that non-vegans are
more likely to accept health than animal rights
as a motivation for veganism (ONeill et al.
2019). While changing diet can destabilise the
mindless repetition of taken for granted ways
of thinking, doing and sensing(Dal Gobbo
2018, 242), engaging in VFPs for health
reasons does not automatically translate into
an interest in, or activism around, animal
rights and liberation or other justice-related con-
cerns. Historically veganism has sought to
re-centre animals by abstaining from systems
that oppress them (Giraud 2021), supporting
the work of critical animal geographies in
advancing our understandings of the agency of
the more-than-human within social relations,
structures, practices and environments (Philo
and Wilbert 2000; Collard, Dempsey and
Sundberg 2015). Although changing motiva-
tions mean that veganisms capability to chal-
lenge conventional relations with non-humans
cannot be assumed, its longstanding aim of
decentring humans offers a clear route to
rethinking and contesting these relations
(Giraud 2021), although analysing the geog-
raphies of these remains underdeveloped.
Considering veganism as a radical departure
from oppressive colonial and patriarchal power
relations(Overend 2019, 85) offers the poten-
tial for wider food system transformation,
through challenging globalised, industrial food
systems. Nonetheless, such alternatives need to
be rooted beyond anthropocentric, modern,
colonial, capitalist, and heteropatriarchal civili-
sational frames(Figueroa-Hellend, Thomas
and Aguilera (2018, 175). Tracing the roots of
the contemporary food system, vegan or other-
wise, presents Eurocentric masculinised epis-
temologies and ontologies as shaping hegemonic
industrialised production methods, exploitative
and violent relations through human supremacy
and racialised categories of sub-humans (Nocella
et al. 2017; Roeder 2021).
The cultural politics of food have always
been deeply entangled with discourses of race,
nationalism, and colonialism, with animals and
animality long playing a central role in boundary
work (Joy 2010; Hirth 2020) and nation-making
projects of inclusion/exclusion(Gillespie and
Narayanan 2020, 23). Vegan discourses are not
immune to place-specic, politicised and racia-
lised interpretations that sculpt particular national
narratives, as evidenced in Israels self-positioning
as an animal-friendlynation (Alloun 2020).
Here, veganism provides moral legitimation to
Israeli nationhood while sedimenting Palestinian
unbelonging and exclusionand obscuring
settler-colonial violence and occupation (ibid:
25). Discussions of animal welfare enable the
construction of a progressive Israel against a
backwards Palestine and, thus, silences the
10 Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
voices and narratives of Palestinian animal
activists. Alloun (2020) reected that this is
an ambivalent, complex, lived, uneven
terrain of powerthat overlooks and depoliti-
cises the injustices of the [Israeli] States
expansionist policies:suchdepoliticised
framing obscures intersections of colonial
and racial oppression(ibid:3036). Such
debates highlight the important role attitudes
towards animals play within national imagin-
aries, and how they can be mobilised to
shape intra- and inter-national geopolitical
relations. It is critical to further explore the
spatial and racial politics of all food networks,
especially those that are plant-based or vegan,
to expose the potential offered by an expan-
sive trans-species justice.
Decolonial theory presents a radical chal-
lenge to the colonialist thinking that shapes the
ongoing experiences of exclusion, exploitation
and extraction of communities and individuals
in developing spaces(Noxolo 2017). There
are, then, productive connections with vegan
practices, and critical engagement with the more-
than-human by decolonial geographers, offering
a route to engaging with collective agency and
co-becoming; challenging the value of knowledge
and relations; and exploring how to care through
complex, politicised and historic entanglements
(Bell 2019; Krzywoszynska 2019; Puig de la
Bellacasa 2019). Drawing from other disciplines,
this work acknowledges how settler colonialism,
and therefore contemporary international relations,
are grounded in the placed and politicised inclu-
sions and exclusions of particular plant, animal
and human bodies, with the indigenous often
being erased in favour of imports (Belcourt
2015; Gillespie and Narayanan 2020) via indus-
trialised and globalised systems of provision.
Scholars such as Dunford (2017) argued that plur-
iversality is critical for engaging with other cos-
mologies that can represent equal and different
ways of knowing and being in the world, which
offer potential to transform relations in place,
across and within species. Further, those who
have been dehumanized through centuries of colo-
nialism and coloniality, have important perspec-
tives that need to be heard in debates relating to
veganism and the food system more broadly
(Maldonaldo-Torres 2008; Yandarra et al. 2022).
Haraways (2015) concept of the
Plantationoceneseeks to reect this Eurocentric
genealogy of racism, homogeneity, efciency,
control and accumulation, which underpins
modern industrialised agriculture (Jackson
2020a) and foregrounds the violent human
plant entanglements that are central to racia-
lised capitalism (Lawrence 2022):
the alienation of people, plants, and land, the
domination of powerful and predatory institutions
over workers and nature, the violent compartmen-
talization, hierarchization, and economization of
human and other-than-human life in plantation
societies past and presentThinking-with the
Plantationocene thus opens fertile avenues for
engaging with the necrobiopolitics of the planta-
tion as an assemblage of human and non-human
life, whose fates and futures are thoroughly, if
often unevenly and violently, enmeshedthe
concept invites a critical interrogation of the pos-
sibilities for social, environmental, and multispe-
cies justice in plantations as landscapes of
empire(Besky 2013)(Chao et al. 2023, 546)
As Mares and Peña (2011) observed, it is
important to attend to the historical and contem-
porary projects of settler colonialism that con-
tinue to extract and disperse peoples, animals
and plants. Such injustices, discrimination and
appropriation endure in contemporary foodscapes,
including corporate vegan food systems.
When indigenous foodstuffs are (re)discov-
eredthrough VFPs, this can have signicant
socio-cultural, environmental, economic and
political impacts on their origin communities
(Mares and Peña 2011). This can be seen in
discussions around the impacts of the chan-
ging demand for so-called vegan superfoods
such as maca and spirulina among international
consumers. However, few foods are vegan
Herman and ONeill 11
specic and those perceived as vegancan be
subject to uncritical purity politics by those
wishing to delegitimise and discredit vegan
praxis, as has been the case with quinoa
(Ofstehage 2012; Walsh-Dilley 2020; Giraud
2021). These socio-economic, environmental
and cultural impacts demand attention to the
power-laden politics of such food choices,
leading to consideration of when appreciation
becomes appropriation (Julier 2019). How
then are, for example, key proteins in VFPs,
such as soy, coconuts, almonds and chickpeas
understood, valued and consumed in their
native production spaces? Sportel and Veron
(2016) highlighted that coconut and copra
are one of the most globalised commodity
markets, yet we know little about the implications
of this within producer communities. Where
are the plants themselves, their unique
and Othertemporalities, agency and ethics
(Lawrence 2022)?
Vegan geographies, and philosophies more
broadly, continue the wider consensus that con-
siders even staple, well-distributed or economic-
ally important plants as invisible, overlooking
them as passive objects or a collective backdrop
to human/animal activities (Atchison and Phillips
2020). Yet, interrogations of lifewhich
refer only to animal bodieswhile valuable
can only take us so far(Lawrence 2022, 630).
As Trauger (2022) stated, a hierarchy of care is
shaped by types of closenessand degrees of
harm, which privilege some humans, animals
and places over others. Proponents of a new
vegetal geographyargued that attending to
plants challenges hegemonic ethical imaginaries
grounded in reciprocal relations and the avoid-
ance of death, enforcing a broader consideration
of how care is enacted and for whom (Atchison
and Phillips 2020; Lawrence 2022); for people
to live, something must die(Trauger 2022,
651). Engaging with a multispecies necropoli-
tics of the plantation allows us to explore who
is disposable and who is not(Mbembe 2003,
27), with arguably the native species (plant
and animal) removed to make space for the
plantation, and the commodity crops there to
be extracted both experiencing the status of
living dead(ibid: 40). In these spaces, death
is always imminent and in a system of total
human control. Within this framing, Lawrences
(2022, 638) provocation—‘how should a vegan
ethics respond to the acknowledgement that all
consumption involves some form of violence
and death?’—does not seek to denigrate the suf-
fering of animals. Likewise, we are not arguing
for a diminishing importance of critical animal
geographies but seek to push veganism to cham-
pion a more diverse justice through the inherently
multispecies, multi-scalar and multi-elemental
nature of plant ethics(ibid). This would make
space for us to acknowledge the plant but also
human and animal lives lost to a plant-based
label [which] are unaccounted for and obscured
from view with deceptive marketing(Trauger
2022, 650). Plant instrumentalism underpins all
industrial agricultural systems (ibid); to truly chal-
lenge structural anthropocentrism, geographies of
veganism need to subject the place of plants in
the GCNs of vegan and plant-basedfoods to crit-
ical and reective enquiry.
As an activist ideology, veganism challenges
the hegemonic patriarchal, racialised, colonial
and anthropocentric discourses, which ground
relations from the personal to geopolitical
(Overend 2019; Pilgrim 2019). Indeed, a core
feature of veganism is the recognition that food
connects us to systems and structures beyond our-
selves…’ (Overend 2019, 89) and yet contempor-
ary veganism is typically portrayed as a white,
middle-class identity (Harper 2013; Wright
2017; Pirani and Fegitz 2019; Oliver 2023a).
That blackness and veganism are popularly per-
ceived as mutually exclusive (Pirani and Fegitz
2019) is promulgated by mainstream plant-based
literatures writing for a specic audience, which
fail to address the relationship between black-
ness and veganism, and so generalise what is
actually highly specic (Harper 2012). Yet,
for Greenebaum (2017, 359) the issue around
12 Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
privilegearises when the idea of veganism as
a privileged diet or lifestyle is couched as a fun-
damental or essential characteristic of veganism
itself. The capability to choose any kind of
speciality dietentails some degree of con-
sumer privilege but the targeted attention on
vegan privilegein particular, deects the
moral and ethical ideology of ethical veganism
and reinforces the legitimacy of carnism(ibid:
362; see also White et al. 2022), limiting the
scope for more fundamental critiques of
humannon-human relations (Giraud 2021).
Nevertheless, the increasing connection of
veganism to healthist ideologies ignores the
systemic barriers to accessing and maintain-
ing health(Overend 2019, 93) and a repulsively
post-racialgreen and healthy eating agenda
ignores its foundational grounding in particular
experiences of white, socio-economic privilege
(Harper 2013).
Nevertheless, Overend (2019, 85) argued that
veganism can offer a radical departure from
oppressive colonial and patriarchal power rela-
tions; as Harper (2013, 133) suggested, vegan-
ism challenges the industrialised, colonised
diet and bodies that have established nutrition-
ally grounded health disparities, particularly
among non-White US communities. It is import-
ant to recognise that veganism in and of itself is
not an immediate solution for overlapping oppres-
sions (Breuck 2017) or removing more-than-
human inequalities. To do so, veganism needs to
engage in more active connections with other
socio-environmental justice movements, such as
food justice and food sovereignty, to promote
deeper and wider change, particularly in relation
to the roles of neoliberalism and neocolonialism
in reproducing oppression and violence in the
food system and beyond. Research that focuses
solely on White, Western, female and privileged
consumerscan neither reveal the experiences
of the colonised and marginalised Othernor
offer insights into food system transformation.
It is critical to investigate where power lies in food
production, distribution and consumption systems
and who has the authority to dene universal
truths and corevalues in nutrition and healthy
eating (Hayes-Conroy 2013). Decolonising VFPs
is therefore critical in learning, unlearning and
relearning inclusive and diverse genealogies and
practices of activism, labour, health and values.
Conclusions: the geographies of
veganism
Eating is a political act (Mackendrick 2014):
engaging with the geographies of veganism
encourages foodscape analysisincluding
food justice and food sovereigntyto move
beyond the dominant anthropocentric meats-
cape. This illuminates foods relations across
environments, places and communities along-
side the multiple practices of (in)equality, (in)
justice, exclusion, exploitation, and domination
that exist. Exploring the emerging, alternative
ways that foodscapes can be Othersolidies
the idea of the economy as a site of ethical
action and citizenship instead of solely capital
accumulation and consumption (Gibson-Graham
and Roelvink 2011; Raj, Feola and Runhaar
2024). Being open to multiple food practices
uncovers new ways of living with nature (Buck
2015), new forms of economy (Paulson 2017)
and new ways of caring and co-becoming (Puig
de la Bellacasa 2010) to transform socio-economic
structures and norms in the Anthropocene
(Roelvink and Gibson-Graham 2009) or
Plantationocene (Haraway 2015). Thus, as Ko
(2019, 10) argued, veganism is about more than
food and lifestyles, with the potential to trigger
powerful conversations for changenot only
within but also beyond the food system.
As an embodied practice, veganism seeks
to destabilise mindless eating(Greenebaum
2017) retraining tastebuds (McGregor et al.
2023) to unlearn and relearn food practices
(Hayes-Conroy 2013; Godin 2023; McGregor
et al. 2023). However, the increasingly depoliti-
cised, placeless and individualised corporate
incarnation of plant-basedeating presents
Herman and ONeill 13
challenges for ethico-political veganism to
retain its radical, emancipatory and activist
ideals, and develop a more critical and inclu-
sive interrogation of all the places, scales,
relations and agents that co-constitute its
food practices. Fundamentally, the networked
practices of inclusive trans-species justice
should destabilise and challenge the status quo
of contemporary food systems. Fetishised, corpor-
ate, industrialised vegan GCNs are accelerating
the permacrises in climate, social justice and
geopolitical terms: a dramatic social shift is
needed to challenge them, not business as
usualas encapsulated in a chicken-less nugget,
which continues to fetishise the corpses of
animals, even amongst those choosing to go
meat free. As such, we consider that while
veganism as a food practice has the potential
to challenge the hegemonic globalised food
system, further critical interrogation is needed.
Through engaging with food sovereignty to
resist corporate appropriation, food justice to
acknowledge connections throughout its GCNs,
and plant geographies to develop a more expan-
sive and decolonised trans-species justice, VFPs
could offer an Othering that offers an inclusive,
sustainable and care-full transformation.
In conclusion, we are advocating for more
attention to be paid to the geographies of vegan-
ism. We are not attempting to rstor suggest
that this represents a new research agenda
(Oliver, Turnbull and Richardson 2024); however,
engaging specically with spatially centred
questions that can both build on geographic
research focused on the food system more
widely, and veganism specically, is critical.
We suggest a number of productive routes
for research into the geographies of veganism
through engaging with key contemporary
debates in environmental geography:
the more-than-human; vegetal geographies;
the decolonial; Indigeneity; sustainability;
climate change; GCNs; and food justice and
sovereignty. Veganism represents a micro-
cosm of the food system and embodies a
space for critical environmental geographic work
to explore issues of justice, power and politics
as being changed by, and changing, veganism.
Thus, veganism presents an effective assem-
blage for what remain often siloed concerns
within environmental geography, offering a
lens to understand and analyse relations with
animals, plants and nature more broadly
through a trans-species and multi-scalar
praxis of care-full justice. We conclude by
advancing four provocations connecting
VFPs to the broader food system and environ-
mental debates through:
Multi-scalar food systems change.
Veganisms ideological opposition to
hetero-patriarchal, colonial, capitalist
and anthropocentric frameworks presents
an opportunity to challenge, and critically
and reexively investigate, the alternative
ways of connecting across scales such an
epistemology offers. However, there is
also a need to acknowledge and analyse
the environmental, socio-cultural and eco-
nomic impacts of plant-based and vegan
GCNs and cultures to problematise VFPs
ethical relations, exploring its politics
across scales, knowledge systems, dis-
tance and context. To critically explore
veganisms intra- and inter-national
labour and trade relations, racial and
spatial politics, and role in global envir-
onmental change, there is a need to
move beyond the existing focus on con-
sumer identities and behaviours, and
connect explicitly into these critical,
contemporary debates.
Assembling inclusive connections.
Veganisms inherent foregrounding of
non-humans presents opportunities to
develop conceptual frameworks to critique
and reect on the relations and practices
of the Anthropocene/Plantationocene,
offering opportunities for rethinking
future food systems within planetary
14 Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
boundaries. Decentring humans also
offers critical opportunities for reect-
ing on the collective and performative
discourses and practices of a care-full
agency within decolonial scholarship.
This focus on the more-than-human
must involve a critical examination of
the effects of rising demand for vegan
products on the myriad animals, plants
and people (framed by some as non-
humans, see Jackson 2020b)enrolled
in these systems. Building on longstand-
ing research on GCNs to explore the
connective opportunities posed by
ideas of journeying (George and Wiebe
2020) and metabolism (Cusworth
2023) offers a means to promote an
inclusive, care-full and holistic
approach to analysing network relations
(Sexton, Garnett and Lorimer 2022).
Working through assemblage theory
would add further nuance to understand-
ing the heterogenous and placed con-
nections and conicts that dene
contemporary veganism across its mul-
tiple places and scales of operation
(Herman 2019), folding in the materials
and (digital) technologies that mediate
VFPs (Clear et al. 2016; ONeilletal.
2019).
Foregrounding invisible others. VFPs
have roots in, and routes to, the diverse
places and practices that sustain and
reproduce veganism. Engaging with pro-
ducer spaces and communities is critical
to consider how commodities become
veganand the impacts of vegan con-
sumer ideologies in shaping agricultural
practices and experiences, often at a dis-
tance. After all, environmental as well as
socio-cultural issues arise from the mono-
cultures, ecological harm and cultural
appropriation, which are part of conven-
tional as well as vegan GCNs. Again, an
assemblage approach would enhance
investigations of relationships between
local variations and contested meanings
of veganism in diverse places: it is import-
ant to connect with places that are not
scripted as veganunder hegemonic
urban White, middle-class, female dis-
courses. How are invisiblevegan spaces,
places, plants, and peoples, as well as the
non-vegan Other, affected by their enrol-
ment in globalised, corporatised plant-based
markets? Responding critically to this
would offer important insights into prac-
tices of alternativeand ethicalmove-
ments more broadly.
A challenge to the conventional.
Veganismsmainstreaminghas estab-
lished a corporate, industrialised market-
placecentred on a health-and-beauty-
focused, depoliticised and neoliberal pol-
itics of dietary choice. Exploring existing,
or potential, connections to food sover-
eignty, as well as food, social and envir-
onmental justice movements would
enable analyses of veganisms capability
to offer a constructive challenge or resist-
ance to neoliberal diets and ideologies, the
political economy of industrial agricul-
ture, and global environmental change.
For researchers, understanding the extent
to which such ethicalnetworks already,
or could, offer an alternative to their con-
ventional counterparts is critical. As such,
investigating the geographies of veganism
through the lens of justice and/or care is
essential to better understanding the chal-
lenges and opportunities for attending to
gender, race, class, the more-than-human
and place in alternative foodscapes and
cultures.
Today, there are many challenges across envir-
onmental, socio-cultural, economic and political
arenas, affecting humans and non-humans at all
scales. It is therefore easy to fall into apathetic
despair through contemplating Earths
Herman and ONeill 15
ruination. However, food is something we all
do(Allen 2008; Herman and Goodman
2018) and engaging with VFPs creates hopeful
potential; alternative ways of doing, being and
relating through such a connective praxis
offers the real capability for responsive and
care-full research, and an active opportunity
for constructive food system change.
Declaration of conicting interests
The authors declared no potential conicts of interest
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no nancial support for the
research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
ORCID iD
Agatha Herman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
0646-9726
Notes
1. Following Hirth (2020), we move away from
veganism as an identity and towards the broader,
performative vegan food practices, which encom-
pass all the discourses, relations, materialities and
skills (Herman 2018) which constitute vegan
praxis across its global commodity networks.
2. See, for example, Alpro (owned by Danone),
Quorn and Cauldron (owned by Monde Nissin),
Pure Free From (owned by The Kerry Group)
and Vitalite (owned by Saputo Dairy UK) as
instances of brands certied by The Vegan
Society, which form part of predominantly
animal-based corporate portfolios.
3. Foods such as these, which are frequently labelled
as vegan, are also eaten by non-vegans. As such,
it is misleading to conate these items solely with
VFP, yet many processed vegan commodities do
rely on plants such as coconut and nuts for their
raw materials.
References
Agyeman, J. 2013. Introducing Just Sustainabilities:
Policy, Planning and Practice. London: Zed Books.
Agyeman, J., and J. McEntree. 2014. Moving the Field of
Food Justice Forward Through the Lens of Urban
Political Ecology.Geography Compass 8: 21120.
DOI: 10.1111/gec3.12122.
Aleksandrowicz, L., R. Green, E. J. Joy, et al. 2016. The
Impacts of Dietary Change on Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Land Use, Water Use, and Health: A
Systematic Review.PloS One 11(11): e0165797. DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0165797.
Allen, P. 2008. Mining for Justice in the Food System:
Perceptions, Practices, and Possibilities.Agriculture
and Human Values 25: 15761. DOI: 10.1007/
s10460-008-9120-6.
Alloun, E. 2020. Veganwashing Israels Dirty Laundry?
Animal Politics and Nationalism in Palestine-Israel.
Journal of Intercultural Studies 41: 2441. DOI: 10.
1080/07256868.2019.1617254.
Apostolidis, P. 2020. Meatpackers are deeply vulnerable
to Covid19: Expect a Reckoning for US Workers.
LSE Blogs [Online]. Accessed 7 December 2020.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/covid19/2020/05/05/covid-19-
contributes-to-the-crisis-of-occupational-safety-and-
health-in-meatpacking/.
Atchison, J., and C. Phillips. 2020. Plant Geographies.In
International Encyclopedia of Human Geography,
edited by A. Kobayashi (ed), Second Edition.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, 199203. DOI: 10.1016/B978-
0-08-102295-5.10750-4.
Baker, C. 2023. Humane Dog Food? Caring and Killing
in the Certied Humane Dog Food Value Chain.
Environment and Planning E 7(1): 31129. DOI: 10.
1177/25148486231165457.
Beacham, J., and P. Jackson. 2022. An Appetite for
Change? Engaging the Public in Food Policy and
Politics.Consumption and Society 1: 42434. DOI:
10.1332/KENJ3889.
Belcourt, B.-R. 2015. Animal Bodies, Colonial Subjects:
(re)Locating Animality in Decolonial Thought.
Societies 5(1): 111. DOI: 10.3390/soc5010001.
Bell, S. J. 2019. Co-becoming with Angophora: Performing
More-Than-Human Belongings in Ku-Ring-gai Chase
National Park.Social & Cultural Geography
20(5): 60529. DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2017.
1375551.
Bernstein, H. 2014. Food Sovereignty via the Peasant
Way: A Sceptial View.Journal of Peasant Studies
41(6): 103163. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2013.852082.
Bradley, K., and R. E. Galt. 2014. Practicing Food Justice
at Dig Deep Farms & Produce, East Bay Area,
16 Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
California: Self-Determination as a Guiding Value and
Intersections with Foodie Logics.Local Environment
19(2): 17286. DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2013.790350.
Breuck, J. F. 2017. Veganism in an Oppressive World.
Milton Keynes: Sanctuary Books.
Buck, H. J. 2015. On the Possibilities of a Charming
Anthropocene.Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 105(2): 36977. http://www.
jstor.org/stable/24537851.
Cadieux, K. V., and R. Slocum. 2015. What Does it Mean
to do Food Justice?Journal of Political Ecology 22(1):
126. DOI: 10.2458/v22i1.21076.
Chao, S., W. Wolford, A. Ofstehage, et al. 2023. The
Plantationocene as Analytical Concept: A Forum for
Dialogue and Reection.The Journal of Peasant
Studies 51(3): 54163. DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2023.
2228212.
Chauvet, D. J. 2018. Should Cultured Meat be Refused in
the Name of Animal Dignity?Ethical Theory and
Moral Practice 21: 387411. DOI: 10.1007/s10677-
018-9888-4.
Chiarelli, N. 2022. Almost half of UK adults set to cut
intake of animal products [Online].Accessed 2
September 2024. https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/almost-
half-uk-adults-set-cut-intake-animal-products.
Clay, N., A. E. Sexton, T. Garnett, et al. 2020. Palatable
Disruption: The Politics of Plant Mylk.Agriculture
and Human Values 37: 945962. DOI: 10.1007/
s10460-020-10022-y.
Clear, A. K., K. ONeill, A. Friday, et al. 2016. Bearing
an Open PandorasBox: HCI for Reconciling
Everyday Food and Sustainability.ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
23(5), No.28: 125.
Cole, M., and K. Morgan. 2011. Vegaphobia: Derogatory
Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of
Speciesism in UK National Newspapers.The British
Journal of Sociology 62(1): 13453. DOI: 10.1111/j.
1468-4446.2010.01348.x.
Collard, R. C., J. Dempsey, and J. Sundberg. 2015. A
Manifesto for Abundant Futures.Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 105: 322
30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24537846.
Cudworth, E. 2008. “‘Most Farmers Prefer Blondes: The
Dynamics of Anthroparchy in AnimalsBecoming
Meat.Journal for Critical Animal Studies VI(1): 32
45.
Cusworth, G. 2023. Metabolic Agricultural Ethics:
Violence and Care Beyond the Gate.Progress in
Environmental Geography 2(1-2): 5876. DOI: 10.
1177/27539687231155224.
Dal Gobbo, A. 2018. Desiring Ethics: Reections on
Veganism from an Observational Study of Transitions
in Everyday Energy Use.Relations 6(2): 23350.
DOI: 10.7358/rela-2018-002-dalg.
Dal Gobbo, A. 2023. Of Post-Animal Meat and Other
Forms of Food Innovation: A Critical and Intersectional
Reading from the Perspective of Political Ecology.
Consumption and Society 2(2): 313322. DOI: 10.1332/
RVDO1043.
Dean, M. A. 2014. You Are How You Eat? Femininity,
Normalization, and Veganism as an Ethical Practice
of Freedom.Societies 4(2): 12747. DOI: 10.3390/
soc4020127.
Dickstein, J., J. Dutkiewicz, J. Guha-Majumdar, et al.
2020. Veganism as Left Praxis.Capitalism Nature
Socialism 33(3): 5675. DOI: 10.1080/10455752.
2020.1837895.
Dilworth, T., and A. McGregor. 2015. Moral Steaks?
Ethical Discourses of In Vitro Meat in Academia and
Australia.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 28: 85107. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-014-9522-y.
Dunford, R. 2017. Toward a Decolonial Global Ethics.
Journal of Global Ethics 13(3): 38097. DOI: 10.
1080/17449626.2017.1373140.
Dutkiewicz, J., and J. Dickstein. 2021. The Ism in
Veganism: The Case for a Minimal Practice-Based
Denition.Food Ethics 6(2). DOI: 10.1007/s41055-
020-00081-6.
Edwards, F., R. Sonnino, and M. L. Cifuentes. 2024.
Connecting the Dots: Integrating Food Policies
Towards Food System Transformation.Environmental
Science & Policy 156: 103735. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.
2024.103735.
Featherstone, D. 2013. The Contested Politics of Climate
Change and the Crisis of Neo-Liberalism.ACME: An
International E-Journal for Critical Geographies
12(1): 4464. DOI: 10.14288/acme.v12i1.951.
Figueroa-Hellend, L., C. Thomas, and A. P. Aguilera. 2018.
Decolonizing Food Systems: Food Sovereignty,
Indigenous Revitalization, and Agroecology as
Counter-Hegemonic Movements.Perspectives on
Global Development and Technology 17: 173201.
DOI: 10.1163/15691497-12341473.
Freidberg, S. 2014. Footprint Technopolitics.Geoforum
55: 17889. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.009.
Fuentes, M., and C. Fuentes. 2022. Reconguring Food
Materialities: Plant-Based Food Consumption Practices
in Antagonistic Landscapes.Food, Culture & Society
25(3): 52039. DOI: 10.1080/15528014.2021.1903716.
Garnett, T. 1 October 2019. Has veganism become a dirty
word?FCRB Blogs [Online]. Accessed 1 June 2020.
https://fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-blogs/has-veganism-become-dirty-
word
George, R. Y., and S. M. Wiebe. 2020. Fluid Decolonial
Futures: Water as a Life, Ocean Citizenship and Seascape
Herman and ONeill 17
Relationality.New Political Science 42(4): 498520.
DOI: 10.1080/07393148.2020.1842706.
Gibson-Graham, J. K., and G. Roelvink. 2011. The Nitty
Gritty of Creating Alternative Economies.Social
Alternatives 30(1): 2933.
Gillespie, K. 2021. An Unthinkable Politics for Multispecies
Flourishing Within and Beyond Colonial-Capitalist
Ruins.Annals of the American Association of
Geographers 112(4): 110822. DOI: 10.1080/
24694452.2021.1956297.
Gillespie, K., and Y. Narayanan. 2020. Animal
Nationalisms: Multispecies Cultural Politics, Race,
and the (un)Making of the Settle Nation-State.
Journal of Intercultural Studies 41(1): 17. DOI: 10.
1080/07256868.2019.1704379.
Gills, B., and J. Morgan. 2020. Global Climate Emergency:
After COP24, Climate Science, Urgency, and the Threat
to Humanity.Globalizations 17(6): 885902. DOI: 10.
1080/14747731.2019.1669915.
Giraud, E. 2021. Veganism: Politics, Practice and Theory.
London: Bloomsbury.
Glennie, C., and A. H. Alkon. 2018. Food Justice:
Cultivating the Field.Environmental Research
Letters 13(7): 113. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aac4b2.
Godin, L. 2023. Transitioning to a Vegetarian or Vegan
Diet: Fractures and Continuities in Biography and
Practice.Consumption and Society 2(2): 22037.
DOI: 10.1332/DCSH5470.
Green, L., L. Costello, and J. Dare. 2010. Veganism,
Health Expectancy, and the Communication of
Sustainability.Australian Journal of Communication
37(3): 5172.
Greenebaum, J. 2017. Questioning the Concept of Vegan
Privilege: A Commentary.Humanity & Society 41(3):
35572. DOI: 10.1177/0160597616640308.
Grey, S., and R. Patel. 2015. Food Sovereignty as
Decolonization: Some Contributions from indigenous
Movements to Food System and Development
Politics.Agriculture and Human Values 32: 43144.
DOI: 10.1007/s10460-014-9548-9.
Haraway, D. 2015. Anthropocene, Capitalocene,
Plantationocene.Environmental Humanities 6(1): 159
65. DOI: 10.1215/22011919-3615934.
Harper, A. B. 2012. Going Beyond the Normative White
Post RacialVegan Epistemology.In Taking Food
Public: Redening Foodways in a Changing World,
edited by P. Williams-Forson, and
C. Counihan. New York: Routledge, 15574.
Harper, A. B. 2013. Doing Veganism Differently:
Racialized Trauma and the Personal Journey
Towards Vegan Healing.In Doing Nutrition
Differently: Critical Approaches to Diet and
Dietary Intervention, edited by A. Hayes-Conroy, and
J. Hayes-Conroy. Abingdon: Taylor and Francis
Group, 13348.
Hayes-Conroy, A. A. J. 2013. Feminist Nutrition:
Difference, Decolonization, and Dietary Change.In
Doing Nutrition Differently: Critical Approaches to
Diet and Dietary Intervention, edited by
A. Hayes-Conroy, and J. Hayes-Conroy. Abingdon:
Taylor and Francis Group, 17388.
Heldke, L. 2012. Exotic Appetites: Ruminations of a Food
Adventurer. London: Routledge.
Herman, A. 2018. Practising Empowerment in
Post-Apartheid South Africa: Wine, Ethics and
Development. Abingdon: Routledge.
Herman, A. 2019. Assembling Fairtrade: Practices of
Progress and Conventionalization in the Chilean Wine
Industry.Environment and Planning A 51(1): 5168.
DOI: 10.1177/0308518X18805747.
Herman, A., and M. K. Goodman. 2018. New Spaces of
Food Justice.Local Environment 23(11): 10416.
DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2018.1527302.
Hirth, S. 2020. Food That Matters: Boundary Work and
the Case fo Vegan Food Practices.Sociologia
Ruralis 61(1): 23454. DOI: 10.1111/soru.12317.
Hodge, P., A. Mcgregor, and S. Springer, et al., eds. 2022.
Vegan Geographies: Spaces Beyond Violence, Ethics
Beyond Speciesism. Brooklyn, NY: Lantern
Publishing and Media.
Jackson, M. 2020a. On Decolonizing the Anthropocene:
Disobedience via Plural Constitution.Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 111(3): 698
708. DOI: 10.1080/24694452.2020.1779645.
Jackson, Z. I. 2020b. Becoming Human: Matter and
Meaning in an Anti-Black World. New York:
New York University Press.
Janssen, M., C. Busch, M. Rodiger, et al. 2016. Motives
of Consumers Following a Vegan Diet and Their
Attitudes Towards Animal Agriculture.Appetite 105:
64351. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.06.039.
Johnston, J., M. Szabo, and A. Rodney. 2011. Good
Food, Good People: Understanding the Cultural
Repertoire of Ethical Eating.Journal of Consumer
Culture 11(3): 293318. DOI: 10.1177/
14695405114179.
Joy, M. 2010. Why we Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear
Cows: An introduction to Carnism. San Francisco,
CA: Conari Press.
Julier, A. 2019. Critiquing Hegemony, Creating Food,
Crafting Justice: Cultivating an Activist Feminist
Food Studies.In Feminist Food Studies: Intersectional
Perspectives, edited by B. Parker, J. Brady, E. Power, et
al. Toronto: Womens Press, 1332.
Kemmerer, L. 2015. Eating Earth: Environmental Ethics
and Dietary Choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18 Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
Ko, A. 2019. Racism as Zoological Witchcraft: A Guide to
Getting Out. New York: Lantern Books.
Kortetmäki, T., and M. Oksanen. 2021. Is There a
Convincing Case for Climate Veganism?Agriculture
and Human Values 38: 72940. DOI: 10.1007/
s10460-020-10182-x.
Krzywoszynska, A. 2019. Caring for Soil Life in the
Anthropocene: The Role of Attentiveness in
More-Than-Human Ethics.Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 44(4): 66175. DOI:
10.1111/tran.12293.
Lawrence, A. M. 2022. Listening to Plants: Conversations
Between Critical Plant Studies and Vegetal
Geography.Progress in Human Geography 46(2):
62951. DOI: 10.1177/03091325211062167.
Lawrence, M., P. Baker, C. Pulker, et al. 2019. Editorial.
Sustainable, Resilient Food Systems for Healthy Diets:
The Transformation Agenda.Public Health Nutrition
22(16): 291620. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980019003112.
Macinnis, C. C., and G. Hodson. 2015. It Aint Easy
Eating Greens: Evidence of Bias Toward Vegetarians
and Vegans from Both Source and Target.Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations 20(6): 72144.
DOI: 10.1177/136843021561825.
Mackendrick, N. 2014. Foodscape.Contexts 13(3): 16
8. DOI: 10.1177/153650421454575.
Maldonaldo-Torres, N. 2008. Against War. London: Duke
University Press.
Mares, T. M., and D. G. Peña. 2011. Environmental and
Food Justice.In Cultivating Food Justice: Race,
Class and Sustainability, edited by A. Hope-Alkon,
and J. Agyeman. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 197
220.
Mbembe, A. 2003. Necropolitics.Public Culture 15(1):
1140. DOI: 10.1215/08992363-15-1-11.
McGregor, A., and A. Houston. 2018. Cattle in the
Anthropocene.Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers 43(1): 316. DOI: 10.1111/tran.
12193.
McGregor, A., D. Houston, T.-L. Dilworth, et al. 2023.
Plant-based Food Politics: Veganism, Quiet
Activism and Small Businesses in Sydneys
Foodscapes.Social & Cultural Geography 25(6):
891908. DOI: 10.1080/14649365.2023.2208087.
Morris, C. 2018. Taking the Politics out of Broccoli:
Debating (de)Meatication in UK National and
Regional Newspaper Coverage of the Meat Free
Mondays Campaign.Sociologica Ruralis 58(2):
43352. DOI: 10.1111/soru.12163.
Niederle, P., and M. N. Schubert. 2020. How Does
Veganism Contribute to Shape Sustainable Food
Systems? Practices, Meaning and Identities of Vegan
Restaurants in Porto Alegre, Brazil.Journal of Rural
Studies 78: 30413. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.06.
021.
Nocella, A. J., P. Parmar, D. C. Sawyer, et al. 2017. Hip
Hop, Food Justice, and Environmental Justice.In
Addressing Environmental and Food Justice Toward
Dismantling the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Poisoning
and Imprisoning Youth, edited by A. J. N. II,
K. A. Ducre, and J. Lupinacci. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 17792.
Noxolo, P. 2017. Decolonial Theory in a Time of the
re-Colonisation of UK Research.Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers 42(3): 3424. DOI:
10.1111/tran.12202.
Nyéléni 2007. Nyéléni 2007 Forum for Food
Sovereignity Synthesis Report.Sélingué, Mali.
Ofstehage, A. 2012. The Construction of an Alternative
Quinoa Economy: Balancing Solidarity, Household
Needs, and Prot in San Agustin, Bolivia.
Agriculture and Human Values 29: 44154. DOI: 10.
1007/s10460-012-9371-0.
OLear, S. 2021. A Research Agenda for Geographies of
Slow Violence: Making Social and Environmental
Injustice Visible. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Oliver, C. 2022. Veganism, Archives and Animals:
Geographies of a Multi-species World. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Oliver, C. 2023a. Vegan World-Making in Meat-Centric
Society: The Embodied Geographies of Veganism.
Social & Cultural Geography 24(5): 83150. DOI:
10.1080/14649365.2021.1975164.
Oliver, C., J. Turnbull, and M. Richardson. 2024.
Claiming Veganism and Vegan Geographies.The
Geographical Journal 190(1): e12546. DOI: 10.1111/
geoj.12546.
ONeill, K. 2014. Situating the AlternativeWithin the
Conventional- Local Food Experiences from the
East Riding of Yorkshire, UK.Journal of Rural
Studies 35(1): 11222. DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.
04.008.
ONeill, K. J., A. K. Clear, M. Hazas, et al. 2019.
Fracturesin Food Practices: Exploring Transitions
Towards Sustainable Food.Agriculture and Human
Values 36: 22539. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-019-09913-
6.
Overend, A. 2019. Is Veganism a Queer Food Practice?
In Feminist Food Studies: Intersectional Perspectives,
edited by B. Parker, J. Brady, E. Power, et al.
Toronto: Womens Press, 79102.
Park, C. M. Y., and B. White. 2015. We are not all the
Same: Taking Gender Seriously in Food Sovereignty
Discourse.Third World Quarterly 36(3): 58499.
DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2015.1002988.
Herman and ONeill 19
Patel, R. 2009. Food Sovereignty.The Journal of
Peasant Studies 36(3): 663706. DOI: 10.1080/
03066150903143079.
Paulson, S. 2017. Degrowth: Culture, Power and
Change.Journal of Political Ecology 24(1): 42548.
DOI: 10.2458/v24i1.20882.
Pendergrast, N. 2016. Environmental Concerns and the
Mainstreaming of Veganism.In Impact of Meat
Consumption on Health and Environmental
Sustainability, edited by T. Raphaely, and
D. Marinova. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 10622.
Peta UK. 2020. The Issues [Online].Accessed 27
October 2020. https://www.peta.org.uk/issues/.
Philo, C., and C. Wilbert, eds. 2000. Animal Spaces,
Beastly Places. London: Routledge.
Pilgrim, K. 2019. Beyond the Story of Sustainable Meat.
Society & Animals 27(1): 7591. DOI: 10.1163/
15685306-12341503.
Pirani, D., and E. Fegitz. 2019. How Veggie Vlogging Looks
Like: Intersections of Gender, Race, and Class in Western
Mainstream Veganism.In Feminist Food Studies:
Intersectional Perspectives, edited by B. Parker, J. Brady,
E. Power, et al. Toronto: Womens Press, 5778.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2010. Ethical Doings in
Naturecultures.Ethics, Place and Environment
13(2): 15169. DOI: 10.1080/13668791003778834.
Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2019. Re-animating Soils:
Transforming Human-Soil Affections Through
Science, Culture and Community.The Sociological
Review Monographs 67(2): 391407. DOI: 10.1177/
0038026119830601.
Radnitz, C., B. Beezhold, and J. Dimatteo. 2015.
Investigation of Lifestyle Choices of Individuals
Following a Vegan Diet for Health and Ethical
Reasons.Appetite 90: 316. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.
2015.02.026.
Raj, G., G. Feola, and H. Runhaar. 2024. Work in Progress:
Power in Transformation to Postcapitalist Work Relations
in CommunitySupported Agriculture.Agriculture and
Human Values 41: 26991. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-023-
10486-8.
Ripple, W. J., C. Wolf, T. M. Newsome, et al. 2021. The
Climate Emergency: 2020 in Review.Scientic
American. https://www.scienticamerican.com/article/
the-climate-emergency-2020-in-review/
Roeder, T. 2021. Beyond Diet: Veganism as Liberatory
Praxis.In Veg(Etari)an Arguments in Culture, History,
and Practice: The V Word, edited by C. Hanganu-
Bresch, and K. Kondrlik. London, Palgrave Macmillan,
291318.
Roelvink, G., and J. K. Gibson-Graham. 2009. A
Postcapitalist Politics of Dwelling: Ecological Humanities
and Community Economies in Conversation.Australian
Humanities Review 46: 14558. DOI: 10.22459/AHR.46.
2009.12.
Sanford, M., and J. Lorimer. 2022. Vegnauary and the
Vegan Sausage (t)Rolls: Conict and Commercial
Engagement in Online Climate-Diet Discourse.
Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9:
455. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01464-2.
Scarborough, P., P. N. Appleby, A. Mizdrak, et al. 2014.
Dietary Greenhouse gas Emissions of Meat-Eaters,
Fish-Eaters, Vegetarians and Vegans in the UK.
Climatic Change 125: 17992. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-
014-1169-1.
Scarborough, P., M. Clark, L. Cobiac, et al. 2023. Vegans,
Vegetarians, Fish-Eaters and Meat-Eaters in the UK
Show Discrepant Environmental Impacts.Nature Food
4: 56574. DOI: 10.1038/s43016-023-00795-w.
Sexton, A. E., T. Garnett, and J. Lorimer. 2022. Vegan
Food Geographies and the Rise of Big Veganism.
Progress in Human Geography 46(2): 60528. DOI:
10.1177/03091325211051021.
Seymour, M., and A. Utter. 2021. Veganic Farming in the
United States: Farmer Perceptions, Motivations, and
Experiences.Agriculture and Human Values 38:
113959. DOI: 10.1007/s10460-021-10225-x.
Singer, R. 2017. Neoliberal Backgrounding, the Meatless
Monday Campaign, and the Rhetorical Intersections of
Food, Nature, and Cultural Identity.Communication,
Culture and Critique 10(2): 34464. DOI: 10.1111/
cccr.12155.
Sportel, T., and R. Veron 2016. Coconut Crisis in Kerala?
Mainstream Narrative and Alternative Perspectives.
Development and Change 47(5): 105177. DOI: 10.
1111/dech.12260.
Stanescu, V. 2019. Selling Eden: Environmentalisam,
Local Meat, and the Postcommodity Fetish.
American Behavioral Scientist 63(8): 112036. DOI:
10.1177/0002764219830462.
Steffen, W., P. J. Crutzen, and J. R. McNeill. 2007. The
Anthropocene: Are Humans now Overwhelming the
Great Forces of Nature.AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment 36(8): 61421. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/25547826
Steinfeld, H., P. Gerber, T. D. Wassenaar, et al. 2006.
Livestocks Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and
Options. Rome: FAO.
The Vegan Society. 2020a. Denition of veganism
[Online].Accessed 20 August 2020. https://www.
vegansociety.com/go-vegan/denition-veganism.
The Vegan Society. 2020b. Why go vegan? [Online].
Accessed 27 October 2020. https://www.vegansociety.
com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan.
The Vegan Society. 2022. Worldwide growth of veganism
[Online].Accessed 18 July 2023. https://www.
20 Progress in Environmental Geography 0(0)
vegansociety.com/news/media/statistics/worldwide#::
text=The%20Food%20and%20You%202%20survey%
20uses%20a%20larger%20number,150%2C000%20(0.
25%25)%20in%202014
Trauger, A. 2022. The Vegan Industrial Complex: The
Political Ecology of Not Eating Animals.Journal of
Political Ecology 29(1): 63955. DOI: 10.2458/jpe.
3052.
Twine, R. 2018. Materially Constituting a Sustainable
Food Transition: The Case of Vegan Eating Practice.
Sociology 52(2): 16681. DOI: 10.1177/
0038038517726647.
Ungoed-Thomas, J. 2023. Has the Vegan Bubble Burst?
Sales Stagnate in UK as Brands Withdraw
Plant-Based Products.The Observer 20 May 2023.
Véron, O. 2016. (Extra)Ordinary Activism: Veganism
and the Shaping of Hemeratopias.International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 36(11-12):
75673. DOI: 10.1108/IJSSP-12-2015-0137.
Vijay, V., S. L. Pimm, C. N. Jenkins, et al. 2016. The
Impacts of oil Palm on Recent Deforestation and
Biodiversity Loss.PloS One 11: e0159668. DOI: 10.
1371/journal.pone.0159668.
Wald, N., and D. P. Hill. 2016. RescalingAlternative Food
Systems: From Food Security to Food Sovereignty.
Agriculture and Human Values 33: 20313. DOI: 10.
1007/s10460-015-9623-x.
Walsh-Dilley, M. 2020. Resilience Compromised:
Producing Vulnerability to Climate and Market
among Quinoa Producers in Southwestern Bolivia.
Global Environmental Change 65: 102165. DOI: 10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102165.
Watson, D. 1944. No Title.The Vegan News. Leicester.
Weis, T. 2007. The Global Food Economy: The Battle for
the Future of Farming. London: Zed Books.
Wendler, M. 2023. The Social Challenges of not Eating
Meat: How Social Interactions Shape the Role of
Meat in Everyday Food Practices.Consumption and
Society 2(1): 2441. DOI: 10.1332/HJWX1794.
Werkheiser, I., and S. Noll. 2014. From Food Justice to a
Tool of the Status Quo: Three sub-Movements Within
Local Food.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 27: 20110. DOI: 10.1007/s10806-013-9459-6.
White, R., O. Veron, S. Springer, et al. 2022. Ethical
Veganism for More Critical Geographies.In Vegan
Geographies: Spaces Beyond Violence, Ethics Beyond
Speciesm, edited by P. Hodge, A. Mcgregor,
S. Springer, et al. New York: Lantern, 118.
White, R. J. 2018. Looking Backward/Moving Forward.
Articulating a Yes, BUT!Response to Lifestyle
Veganism, and Outlining Post-Capitalist Futures in
Critical Veganic Agriculture.EuropeNow 20: 113.
White,R.J.2021.Advancing Trans-species Social and
Spatial Justice Through Critical Animal Geographies.
In A Research Agenda for Animal Geographies,edited
by A. Hovorka, S. Mccubbin, and L. V. Patter.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 18397.
Williams, N. M. 2023. Ethical Veganism as Quiet
Resistance.Journal of Animal Ethics 13(2): 18494.
DOI: 10.5406/21601267.13.2.09.
Wright, L. 2015. The Vegan Studies Project. Athens, GA:
University of Georgia Press.
Wright, L. 2017. Introducing Vegan Studies.ISLE:
Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment
24(4): 72736. DOI: 10.1093/isle/isx070.
Yandarra, S. S., N. Smith, P. Hodge, et al. 2022. Ngurrajili -
Continued Giving. In Vegan Geographies: Spaces
Beyond Violence, Ethics Beyond Speciesism, edited by
P. Hodge, A. Mcgregor, S. Springer, et al. Brooklyn,
NY: Lantern Publishing and Media, 83106.
Yilmaz, A. F. 2019. Contemporary Feminist Politics of
Veganism: Carol J AdamsThe Sexual Politics of
Meat and Alternative Approaches.Global Media
Journal 11(1): 2338.
Herman and ONeill 21
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Growing evidence shows that current policies are unable to catalyse the necessary transformation towards a more just and sustainable food system. Scholars argue that food policy integration-policies that unite numerous food-related actions-is required to overcome dominant siloed and fragmented approaches and to tackle environmental and economic crises. However, what is being integrated and how such integrations contribute to food system transformation remain unexplored. This paper aims to disentangle frames and approaches to food policy integration through a critical analysis of literature on integrated policies and food system transformation. Complemented by a systematic literature review for "food system" and "polic* integrat*", overlapping approaches and gaps between these literatures are revealed over the last twenty years. We use the prisms of processes ("how" food policy integration is being practiced), placement ("where" crossovers between sectors in governance institutions and where synergies between objectives can be created) and things ("what" specific aspects of the food system and related sectors exist within integrated policies and leverage points to trigger transformative dynamics) to explore how policy integration and food system transformation intersect within current debates. Our findings reveal cross-cutting themes and distinct theoretical frameworks but also identify substantial gaps, where frames of food policy integration often remain within their disciplinary silos, are ambiguous or ill-defined. We conclude that to achieve policy integration as a tool for food system transformation, a new research and policy agenda is needed that builds on diverse knowledges, critical policy approaches and the integration of food with other sectors.
Article
Full-text available
Community-supported agriculture (CSA) initiatives are spaces where diverse work relations are performed. From a postcapitalist perspective, these initiatives attempt to create alternative-capitalist and non-capitalist work relations next to capitalist ones. While analyses of work relations in CSA abound, it remains uncertain how such diversification is made possible and how it is shaped by the micro-politics of and power relations in these initiatives. This paper addresses this gap by analysing how power shapes transformations to postcapitalist work relations in CSA. It provides substantial empirical evidence of multiple manifestations of power enabling or constraining postcapitalist work relations through a comparative case study of three CSA initiatives in Portugal. Results show that while CSA creates postcapitalist work relations that are non-alienated, non-monetised and full of care, they insufficiently unmake unbalanced power relations established in capitalist work relations. This paper argues that, when establishing postcapitalist work relations, the selected CSA initiatives could benefit from actively deconstructing internal hierarchies, de-centralising decision-making power from farm owners and addressing oppressive power relations that are ossified in their local and cultural context.
Article
Full-text available
Modelled dietary scenarios often fail to reflect true dietary practice and do not account for variation in the environmental burden of food due to sourcing and production methods. Here we link dietary data from a sample of 55,504 vegans, vegetarians, fish-eaters and meat-eaters with food-level data on greenhouse gas emissions, land use, water use, eutrophication risk and potential biodiversity loss from a review of 570 life-cycle assessments covering more than 38,000 farms in 119 countries. Our results include the variation in food production and sourcing that is observed in the review of life-cycle assessments. All environmental indicators showed a positive association with amounts of animal-based food consumed. Dietary impacts of vegans were 25.1% (95% uncertainty interval, 15.1–37.0%) of high meat-eaters (≥100 g total meat consumed per day) for greenhouse gas emissions, 25.1% (7.1–44.5%) for land use, 46.4% (21.0–81.0%) for water use, 27.0% (19.4–40.4%) for eutrophication and 34.3% (12.0–65.3%) for biodiversity. At least 30% differences were found between low and high meat-eaters for most indicators. Despite substantial variation due to where and how food is produced, the relationship between environmental impact and animal-based food consumption is clear and should prompt the reduction of the latter.
Article
Full-text available
This forum for dialogue and reflection invites empirical and theoretical inquiries that critically interrogate plantations in their myriad forms through the conceptual analytic of the Plantationocene. In doing so, we understand, and invite attention to, the Plantationocene, both as a key for interpreting histories of local to global development and for understanding the role of plantationlogics today. Not all contributors need agree that the Plantationocene is a useful concept. Rather, we envision the forum as providing opportunity for constructive debate and for highlighting the role of plantations across historical and contemporary sites, scales, and subjects.
Article
In this article, I will argue that ethical veganism can be understood as a form of quietism, as a quiet retreat from a world burdened by human moral failings and animal suffering. I will also show how this retreat, although quiet in nature, is both a legitimate and valuable form of genuine resistance to animal oppression. Positing ethical veganism as a form of sociopolitical resistance to animal exploitation is not new, but thinking of it as a quietist retreat and a legitimate and valuable form of quiet resistance is a different matter.
Article
A decade ago, veganism was a fringe radical movement. It was also largely absent from the geographical discipline, despite a rich history of vegan scholarship being present in disciplines such as Sociology and Psychology. However, veganism has recently seen a surge in popularity, with more people than ever before becoming vegan for a mixture of animal welfare, environmental, and health‐based reasons. With this mainstreaming, veganism has become contentious and fiercely defended. As veganism has become a growing social and political force, geographers have started to take notice of this previously fringe movement, which is gaining economic, ecological, and cultural power as investment flows into ‘plant‐based’ products and new markets are emerging. In this commentary, we look at how veganism has recently been taken up in Geography via several distinct trends that all stake a claim in defining an emerging geographical sub‐discipline, vegan geographies. We note the importance of scholarly pluralism and attention to establishing geographical sub‐disciplines more broadly.
Article
This commentary is a reflection on cultured meat and, more generally, food innovation, articulated from the perspective of political ecology (for a proposal around the ‘political ecology of food’ see Moragues-Faus and Marsden, 2017). This approach allows to critically investigate the status and role of novel foods in the context of the ecologic crisis, highlighting the complex entanglements of power, labour and value that subtend processes of food innovation and shape imaginaries of future food systems, as well as pathways of sustainability. As such, political ecology also calls for a reflection on food politics at large, envisioning transformative practices that question current arrangements of gender, class, race, species. In its unwillingness to ‘solve’ or close down the vast problem of food innovation, political ecology highlights ambiguities, risks, but also opportunities, as tools to guide a radical political imagination around food in the context of the contemporary ecological crisis. This stands in contrast with the polarising and partial way in which cultured meat tends to be represented in present public debates. The Italian ‘ban’ on cultured meat that is likely to be introduced is particularly interesting and it will serve as a starting point for this commentary.
Article
This empirical paper explores the transition to a vegetarian or a vegan diet, at the meeting point of individual biographies and their social context. It is based on 13 interviews conducted with 14 participants in the province of Quebec, Canada. It mobilises a conceptual framework that couples a social practice approach (SPT) with the concept of ‘fractures’ as developed by O’Neill and colleagues (2019). The results show that the transition to a vegetarian or a vegan diet involves tastes, ethical concerns and skills that were formed since childhood, and that it also depends on the interaction of elements specific to a social context such as a supportive social environment or the availability of meat replacement products. The participants’ experiences also suggest that transitions can be sparked by life events such as a new friendship, a new relationship or moving out of the parents’ house, all of which have in common a transformation in the social relations and networks central to everyday life. The conclusion discusses the role played by time, social relationships and space in the participants’ accounts and how it can be read through the lens of SPT and ‘fractures’, to understand how individual experience can be tied to change on a larger scale.
Article
A substantial body of scholarship now exists describing an agricultural ethics of care. This work has integrated insight from feminist ethicists into research on food production, human–nature relations, and agricultural land use. As scholars elsewhere in the humanities have discussed, though, there is often a violence committed in care's name. In the case of food production and farming, I argue that the focus on affect, local multispecies relations and a proximal encounter-based ethics risks obscuring ethically significant and potentially violent food system dynamics that unfold beyond the farm gate. To better accommodate these remote yet important outcomes, I argue that scholars deploying an ethics of agricultural care should pay greater attention to the metabolisms of the farms, labs, nurseries, gardens, and allotments they study. Such an approach can accommodate those things that enter the case study site (fertilizer, animal feed, seed, etc.) and those things that leave it (vegetables, grain, pollution, etc.) as well the more-than-human transformations and interactions that take place within it. By being attentive to these material inflows and outflows, new ethical responsibilities emerge to act in the speculative hope that violence can be minimized, and care can flourish across a broader spatial range.