There is resistance to change in production and consumption of animal- and plant-based nutrition. Especially to the decreased intake of meat, fish and dairy. Why is that? And who will lead the change and explain the urgency? Or will we do it ourselves?
Sounds interesting? Then continue reading – it has developed into quite a long story, but if I have managed to put it down correctly it will change your life and lifestyle forever.
Being open to and managing personal lifestyle changes were in the centre of my previous posts; the first (change of insulin therapy) was top-down and the last one (change of diet) was bottom-up. As a follow-up, I here describe how a change in lifestyle can be perceived when it concerns the production and consumption of animals and plants, resulting in a lifestyle with less animal-based and more plant-based food: feel good with plant food.
Obviously, I have used my personal experience as described in blog 5, as well as my change-management-experience in the industry, and of course common sense! The common-sense approach is actually something you should always use, whatever you do or see!
You can find a lot about the topic in books and on the internet. Not surprisingly, because companies are continuously changing processes or reorganizing, especially those on competitive markets. A simple example: a leader, the Chief Executive Officer, the boss so to say, plans to change something within the organisation and starts to communicate a compelling story, for instance using the ‘look-because-so’ principles. Look, the clients and shareholders are unsatisfied, because our operating costs are too high, so we will make a change to work more efficiently.
Even the most successful changes have initially been met with any kind of resistance – ANY change ALWAYS elicits (some kind of) resistance. In preparing for a change it is vital to acknowledge resistance upfront and plan for actions how to deal with it. You can find quite some information on the internet about resistance to changes. I could, for instance, agree with Torsen Rick’s blog summarizing the most frequent/typical reasons for resistance to change.
I oppose the change because:
- I do not understand the need for the change
- I fear the unknown consequences of the change
- I do not know if I am capable to participate in the change – am I competent?
- I like to stick to the way we used to do it
- I do not believe the change will be managed properly
- I am afraid the change is another temporary fad
- My opinion has never been asked
- I have not been informed – poor communication
- I do not want to break my routine: I have been doing it like this forever
- I have had it with all changes
- The change will affect the status-quo, favouring others
- I do not know what the benefits and rewards will be
Because of the importance, once more: with ANY change you will ALWAYS have to expect and plan for the resistance of (groups of) people that will ALWAYS arise to some extent, for some time.
What kind of resistance should be expected to a drastic change in the production and consumption of livestock and plants, resulting in less animal-based and more plant-based nutrition?
1) The reason for the change is unclear:
As I have disclosed in the personal blogs (4 and 5), I started to understand the reasons why we should produce and consume less animal-based and more plant-based products – and a lot of people led the way before me. Still, it is only close to 1 percent of the world’s population that eats mainly plant-based or vegan.
Personally, it took 50 years to ‘see’ the reasons behind the change; once being open to it you find all kinds of information and ‘you get it’. What the consequences are of intensive animal agriculture for animal well-being, for the environment, and what the health benefits are of plant-based products compared to what meat, fish and dairy do to your body. At the end of this post, under ´Further Reading’ I have listed more extensively the reasons (including some website links). It only makes sense to read everything if you are open to it, or to say it like the Dutch (soccer) grandmaster, Johan Cruijff used to say: “you can only see it when you get it!” And I add to that, when you get it, you want to see that it stops or gets better:
- less animal cruelty – in the Netherlands alone, we butcher over 500 million animals per year for consumption, which is 1.5 million per day!!;
- recovery of the earth – animal agriculture is one of the largest contributors to the emission of greenhouse gases and causes of deforestation and ocean destruction;
- a longer healthy life – plant food products contain all essential nutrients without the damaging effects of animal-based products (heart and vascular diseases, obesity, cancer, …).
Kip Andersen managed to give me a wake-up call pointing out the health aspects in his What The Health documentary, which made me see/realize/understand the other two reasons as well. Presentation obviously is really important. Who can wake up the Netherlands, who the world? Someone using a provocative approach? I wonder if one would give the change more thought when it would be presented by someone with the personality of for instance, Geert Wilders. He is a Dutch, right-wing politician, who is notorious for addressing sensitive topics, provoking the established administration.
It could sound like this (I have used ‘typical’ Geert Wilders’ expressions, which may be lost in translation):
Dear madam Speaker, it looks like this country has gone insane, yes truly insane! There are more pigs living in the Netherlands, in the province Brabant that is, than hardworking Dutchmen. These poor and intelligent four-legged creatures are crammed into stables so tight that their guts pop out their butts and are subsequently butchered. And for what, madam speaker? For dead meat, decaying in our bodies, with bacteria secreting toxins. For ‘meat-for-cheap’ exported to countries like Italy. Dear madam speaker, how can the prime minister sit there, do nothing and approve that the innocent, hardworking Brabant-folks are let down, yes literally let live with the stink?
Or someone with a totally different personality, Barack Obama, more inspiring, in analogy to the victory speech in front of his home in Chicago in 2008:
Hello, Chicago. If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the importance of a healthy life, living peacefully among each other, preserving this beautiful earth, its life-providing forests and the animals that habituate it, then tonight is your answer. I think about the times that we were told that we can’t change the way we treat the earth, the oceans, the fish and our livestock; that we can’t change our health and dietary habits: Yes we can!
2) Fear of the unknown
This might be the most important reason that people oppose an announced change. I would be scared too when a world-leader would announce, top-down, to reduce the number of livestock, to utilize agriculture merely for our own consumption and all in order to eat more plant-based food and less animal-based. Definitely when no detailed plan has been prepared listing all potential consequences and concomitant solutions. And there are many more consequences than simply summarizing the facts that
- we shall all live healthier lives,
- we shall save the planet after all, and
- we will cause less cruelty to animals.
Just thinking about the world economics’ effects, for instance, will give you lots of concerns and headache. You can often hear activists (including my ‘hero’ Kip Andersen; WTH documentary) say not to understand that the government does not interfere, or that the industrial agriculture (meat, fish, dairy), pharma-companies, doctors and patients’ associations conspire to prevent their products and services to get a bad, unhealthy label, that funds will dry up, etc.
I find this and the fear not surprising at all and can understand it. It is quite a big deal! To give an example: consequently, the pig stables in the Netherlands (or the intensive piggeries in North Carolina, USA, to give another) will all be closed. Only a few small farmers remain, raising pigs a pig-worthy way to provide for the small remaining meat demand. Alternatives for this export product will have to be found, for the farmers concerned, the package companies, the transport companies, for treasury, etc. And this is only a small example, in a relative small country – just consider what this would mean worldwide! Concerns and headache. Big headache, don’t you agree?!
Like in many other countries, the Netherlands promotes milk: “milk, it does a body good”; well-intended and good for economics and the industry: in the fifties there was a surplus of milk, and the government granted subsidy for school milk. And to go into this example a little further, I am not surprised that the dairy industry sponsors studies demonstrating positive health effects of milk – it is part of marketing! One believes in the product. When someone else publishes negative results about it you make sure that there are positive results to be shown as well. On American websites I found interesting quotes relating to so-called checkoff programmes from the USDA (Unites States Department of Agriculture) promoting animal products: “incredible, edible egg”, “beef, it’s what’s for dinner”, or “pork, the other white meat”. Checkoff programs help to expand markets, increase demand and more. It all makes sense from an economics’ perspective.
The list of potential consequences is too long to capture in one blog. I do, however, wish to mention another more positive outcome. Consumption of more plant-based and less animal-based products will result in people living longer healthy lives. Yes, truly, I am convinced! The twenty years that may have been ‘taken’ from me when diagnosed with type I diabetes at the age of 15 (see blog 1) have been given back to me, now being on a plant-based diet. A hundred years, here I come! The demand for cholesterol lowering drugs, blood pressure medication, stents, and the like, will reduce significantly. And I am not just referring to diet-related diseases (like obesity, type II diabetes, cardiovascular diseases), but also to those with a genetic background. Many diseases are caused by mistakes/mutations in the hereditary material, DNA. But there are also so-called epi-genetic components to result in the ‘visible’ disease; epi-genetic components are for instance environmental factors, stress, diet, … I know that my type I diabetes is genetically predisposed; it might be possible that, as an epi-genetic factor, consumption of animal-based nutrition (especially dairy products are mentioned in connection with autoimmune diseases) has been involved. My immune system somehow has been prompted to develop antibodies against my own insulin and/or insulin-producing cells. Anyway, as a positive consequence of less demand for drugs for the currently common diseases, the pharmaceutical industry can focus more on other, rare (mainly hereditary) diseases.
3) Am I capable to participate in this change?; 4) connection to the old way; 9) Changing my routine?: I have been doing it like this for ever
Of course, (almost) everybody has routine, also with respect to shopping, cooking, eating and exercise. Without proper coaching many people will fail to successfully change their diet. There are many countries (the USA for instance) where as a daily routine ‘ready-to-eat-meals’ are on the menu. Processed and often full of animal-based ingredients. Just to be clear, putting such instant meals, TV dinners, in the microwave or oven is not cooking. Not in my world. Plant-based dishes are best when prepared fresh and cooked in the home. Not everybody will be comfortable to change to such a new regime.
When, as a child, I would ask what’s for dinner, then always the meat was mentioned first: “Pork-chops!” And what else? “Potatoes and cauliflower” And for desert? “Yoghurt and fresh fruit.” At lunch my parents drink a glass of milk, every day, and so did my grandparents, and their parents and grandparents, etc. This is how we always did it. We all learned it at our mother’s knee, or more literally, we took it with our mother’s milk; school milk is still being sponsored. This is not something you easily let go of. I can understand the resistance!
Consumption of meat, fish and dairy is a tradition; that tradition and common sense can be two separate topics is demonstrated in the next example. In certain Asian countries the meat of dogs, our favourite pets, is on the menu. Something that is beyond our comprehension and seems to make no (common) sense at all. Still, it is tradition.
“When you keep doing what you always did, you will keep getting what you always got.” This expression is relevant when trying to overcome resistance against change because of routine. Not changing means that we will keep consuming mainly animal products, that we keep being dependent on intensive animal farming, that we keep increasing our impact on the environment, and that we stay on course to destroy the earth … This course is quite scary: with the ongoing increase of prosperity in countries where normally a lot of plant-based food was consumed, the adoption to a more western diet, mainly based on animal products will increase as well. In case all Chinese would adopt the animal-based diet of the Americans then the earth is too small to house all cattle and have sufficient farm land to grow grains to feed all animals.
5) Low trust in the leader managing the change
Who would be capable of leading such a drastic change? Someone above the world? And management of the change would have to happen per country – by the relevant presidents? I watched a short interview of the ‘health-and-environmental-activist’ Leonardo DiCaprio with the president at the time, Barack Obama, discussing climate change due to greenhouse gases; his performance was okay, but not really specific. Obama, no longer in office, could or may want to do it. He has the trust of many, within and outside the US – for sure he is ‘world-minded’ and less ‘America first’.
6) The change is a temporary fad, a hype; 10) the umpteenth change
I found an interesting blog from foodrevolution on the topic whether or not plant food is a hype. It is important to explain that less consumption of animal food is not a hype, is not temporary, but a sustainable solution. It is not the umpteenth change like: “First I had to eat more fish, and now less” or “First I had to watch my carbs, and now animal proteins and fat”. So, important to explain that omega-3 fatty acids were the reason for recommending fish in the first place – I still recommend these fatty acids, but then from plant origin. Remember, also in the new plant diet, fat is fat, so eat with moderation, even when it’s the good kind: fat from avocado and nuts, for instance, is still fat and therefore high-caloric: “don’t go nuts on the nuts!”
Well-intended campaigns like ‘meatless-one-day-a-week’, ‘meatless Monday’ or ‘world meat free day’ run the risk of being considered hypes. Every little bit counts. But it detracts from the seriousness and urgency of the change. People that stick to these campaigns for a while really think they are doing something good. Short-lived and delay of execution; even in the best case scenario that all meat-eaters would refrain from it one day a week, then the problem still keeps growing: in ‘relatively poor’ countries the intake of animal-based nutrition (meat) is growing along with growing prosperity. Consumption of meat, fish and dairy should no longer be the norm, that’s what needs to be emphasized! Therefore, the ‘meat, only-one-day-a-week’ campaign, instead.
7) I was never consulted; 8) poor communication
No such thing as too much communication – often too little is being communicated, too few (groups of) people involved, too little explanations given, too little information about progress of the change-management-process. What is the input of the companies affected by the change? The scientists, the activists, …? All stakeholders, there are many! All of them need to be involved and participate in the change. Not an easy task. Again, more concerns and headache!
11) the change will favour others; 12) the benefits are unclear
The change will not benefit the industry, all companies involved, directly or indirectly, in animal-based nutrition; those involved in horticulture and production of plant-based nutrition most likely will. Not easy, but upfront it should be figured out what the first group will do and what support will be offered. These stakeholders should be involved in the change-management process. Once more, not an easy task to organize.
“You can claim that animal-based nutrition is bad for your health, and increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, but I have also seen different reports…” Who or which study report should you believe? As scientist I think I can distinguish between well-set-up, well-executed studies and those with a more biased design – especially when such a study is being sponsored by the meat or dairy industry, for instance. Still, even thinking of the discussions around smoking, with an evident causal relationship with diseases like lung cancer, it took many years before it was required by law to label cigarette packs with notices of health effects. The tobacco industry has promoted (also through studies) smoking, claiming it would not affect your health.
I like to think that it should be much easier to stop or reduce consuming animal food than to give up smoking – cigarettes contain highly addictive compounds and after stopping you will go through withdrawal. Consumption of meat, fish and dairy is more a matter of habit, an acquired one; it is only cheese that contains casein that may elicit addictive responses. In all honesty, it is cheese, Dutch cheese, the old one, that I still have some craving for. Especially on Friday afternoons enjoying a beer, now with nuts on the side instead of a cheese plate.
All the same, of the three significant consequences of a change to a more plant-based and less animal-based diet, the effect on your health should be the most tangible reward; less animal cruelty and less greenhouse gases (and manure/stink) can easily be overseen, especially when you choose to stick your head in the sand.
Conclusions: we, the consumers, are going to lead and implement the change
My first conclusion: this change will not be led top-down.
Considering all above-mentioned resistance and potential (concerning and headache) consequences, especially those affecting economics: NO world leader will stand up to sit with the countries’ leaders and roll out a plan to reduce the intensive animal farming (including fish farming and fishing), to advise against consumption of meat, fish and dairy. Not Obama. Maybe when he feels empowered by the people, and the proportion of ‘green’ consumers quickly has risen to let’s say 50% (this is discussed below, under ‘what is your role?’). What also won’t happen is that the leader of a single country, like the Netherlands, will implement this change before the others do. Would be unwise – the urgency concerns the planet, the earth: all countries, all people need to get involved, not step-by-step. For comparison, it would be like Theresa May, the prime-minister of the United Kingdom, exclaiming one day: look, there is a problem in our transport branch; because, in almost the entire world the right side of the road is being used, while we drive on the left side; so, we shall use a step-by-step approach to drive on the right-hand side – trucks start tomorrow, cars next month, … Similarly, premier Rutte will encounter quite a few ‘collisions’ when he announces that the Netherlands unilaterally will stop the export of pork, without the other countries embracing this idea. Everybody needs to be on board for a change to be successful.
My second conclusion: this change will be a success when led bottom-up
POWER TO THE PEOPLE! We, consumers, have the power! More demand for plant foods and a decreasing one for animal foods will determine the supply. Consequently, the industry will follow the dollar, without any resistance. Comparing diet to music. We don’t just like to eat, we love to listen to music, and often at the same time. Don’t we?
Years ago, we could choose between long-playing records (LPs) and digital music. An increasing number of people chose digital music over the LP, and a new market developed for streaming services, phones with music gadgets and many more devices and services. We, the consumers, have caused this change – there was no-one who led this top-down; no-one said we should refrain from listening to LPs or use digital music. We simply realized it according to the economics’ rules of demand and supply. Without resistance, not even from the producers of LPs. Listening to digital music is currently the standard, and only a few still listen to LPs.
And in the same way plant-based nutrition should become the standard, animal-based the exception.
What is your role?
Be the leader of your own lifestyle change. Start the experiment tomorrow, like I did and described (blog 5), first of all for your own health. During that time, you will start to dig some more into the subject. Not in the least because you will surf the internet to find recipes how to enjoy plant food. Yes, really this is possible! You will rapidly increase your knowledge, not just of health effects, but also of the wrongs of intensive animal agriculture. I can almost guarantee it that you will say more than once: but that’s insane?! That cannot be true! What the hell are we doing?!! This is exactly what happened to me during the two-week-no-animal-food experiment. The experiment was concluded some 4 months ago, and I still hardly eat any animal-based food.
I really think the same will happen to you. The next step is to have others follow in your footsteps. This can be a fun process. When asked about my abstinence from meat, fish and dairy, my first response is that I do it for my own health. And that I will not try to convince others, uninvited, like a Jehovah’s Witness. Every time, sometimes immediately, other times the next day or the next week, the question is being asked: “can you tell me more about it?” Then they are on the hook and I start telling more. The health aspect is in my experience a very appealing way to continue the discussion.
My fiancé and I got married early June and went on our honeymoon to the Dutch Caribbean island, Bonaire. SCBA diving and enjoying the Caribbean atmosphere and each other, of course. We met a nice couple, shared a few drinks and spoke about all kind of things. At their homecoming they started eating plant-based, having received our help with a shopping-list. I have more examples like these, and I call on everyone reading this to participate. You can do the math and calculate how many people change their diet to a mainly plant-based one, in case every participant manages to inspire three others within two months. Within a year, theoretically, more than half of the world’s population could have changed the dietary lifestyle. Ruud, from the couple at Bonaire, called this the pyramid-scheme-principle.
A matter of action
So, ready for action?
Convince yourself first as described above. Then start speaking with the people with whom you already have a relationship of trust.
Point out that more plant-based and less-animal based nutrition is good for you – preferably with examples if you have any (you lost weight, your arthritic pain sensation reduced, you feel more energetic, …).
Next, that it would also be good for him or her, and that more and more people are doing it.
Finally, admit that the beginning might be hard, but that you managed and that he or she is destined to succeed as well – direct to websites or send a shopping list with plant-based products or something to provide support.
And don’t forget to prepare a delicious plant-based lunch or serve plant-based snacks when friends are coming over to your place.
SHARE this post, this message with as many people possible. Twitter, email or trough whatever medium. Share buttons can be found at the bottom of this post, under ‘further reading’.
We, all of us together, will make it happen! Feel good with plant food. Change. Yes we can!
Reasons for change
There are three (groups of) reasons to produce and consume less animal-based nutrition, without claiming to be exhaustive:
1) Animal cruelty
- In the Netherlands more than 500 million animals are butchered a year
- There is a short video with horrific numbers (you can skip the Dutch narratives): around 30 hogs, 3 calves, 1 cow, 1 lamb and no less than 1100 hens – per MINUTE that is …
- More about pigs as an example for the Netherlands:
- 30 million piglets are born every year, of which 5 million die within the first weeks because of the ‘not-so-nice-circumstances’
- more than half a million adult pigs die because of the ‘not-so-nice-circumstances’
The fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) and the industrial processes are the largest causes of increasing CO2-levels in the atmosphere. Animal agriculture is a solid second (numbers are always subject to discussion, but it could well be around 21% and on the rise). Fortunately, oceans and plants absorb large quantities of CO2 and, to some extent, make up for the emissions, provided that we don’t destroy the oceans and tropical rainforests by intensive fish and cattle farming, respectively. It is great for the environment to switch cars and start driving electrically. Yet not many seem to realize that an even higher impact can be obtained by reducing the consumption of animal products, since the greenhouse gases caused by animal agriculture exceed those of the entire transportation sector!
The Guardian wrote in May 2018: “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, “as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
The reason for chopping down the tropical rainforest (Amazon) is agriculture growing grains to feed livestock! It’s a two-edged sword, because the rainforest can still save us, nut merely by providing oxygen, but also, like mentioned before, by absorbing CO2. Animal agriculture equals an increase in CO2 emission and a decrease in forests. And then there are the oceans to still save us – sadly, also these are being destroyed, simply by over-fishing (caused by too high a demand!), ocean dead zones (read about the role of animal agriculture), pollution and habitat destruction.
Almost everybody agrees that plant-based nutrition is very healthy, albeit, as mentioned in my earlier blog 5, that even vegans can have an unhealthy diet. Daily consumption of French fries with processed soy burgers and a coke, to give an example. A diet consisting of lots of vegetables, fruit, beans, legume, potatoes, wholegrain rice and pasta will give you all nutrients your body needs. There is only one vitamin that you need to supplement. Vitamin B12 (from bacterial origin; still present in meat). Consuming meat, fish and dairy will give you lots of nutrients, and … and more. A lot more. Cholesterol, saturated fatty acids and animal proteins. Scientists seem to have reached agreement on red meat, increasing the risks to develop cancer, cardiovascular disease, … For the other animal products similar risks apply, despite the industry’s efforts to protect its market – understandably. In one of the documentaries I heard a doctor say to the question “should I eat red meat or white meat?”: “it depends, do you want to get shot or be hung?”
Cold water fish is rich in healthy omega-3 fatty acids, but you can also obtain these from plants (this is actually what the fish do): algae, hemp seeds, linseed, … without the intake of the saturated fatty acids and cholesterol from the fish. Plant-based food contains ZERO cholesterol (your liver will make it for you). More about health effects of farm-raised fish and wild sea fish: 4 reasons seafood isn’t as healthy as you think, and don’t take the bait fish is not a healthy food.
In the animal kingdom milk is only consumed by babies; the Netherlands with some other countries are the exception were tradition has it to drink milk after weaning. Cow’s milk. Strange! Foreign! Therefore, increased risk that the body’s immune system responds with antibodies and inflammation. You can read more about Why do Animal Products Cause Inflammation?
In my search for more information about the number of people with a lifestyle with mainly plant-based nutrition, beside above article, I came across an article by Dan Hancox, posted in The Guardian: ‘The unstoppable rise of veganism: how a fringe movement went mainstream’. Worth reading!
It is difficult to come to a reliable number of people, worldwide, that fully or largely comply to a plant-based diet. Surveys are not being done in all countries. The questions are not all the same. The sample size varies and so does the confidence of the outcomes. What is evident is that the number of people interested in plant food and the number of vegans has clearly increased over the last years. A rough estimate of 1% people worldwide that mainly stick to a plant-diet, means that approximately 70 million (world population about 7.6 billion) people are on the right, green track. Theoretically, it should be feasible to change the lifestyle of half of the world’s population quite rapidly.
Let’s say that half of the current green people (35 million) each convince three people to consume more plant and less animal-based food within 2 months, and the new converters do the same, et cetera. The increase takes huge leaps because every cycle has a multiplication factor of 3: starting with a single person means to obtain more than a 1000 green people after six cycles: 1 –> 3 –> 9 –> 27 –> 81 –> 243 –> 729 (sum = 1093); after 19-20 cycles around 5 billion. Even faster when you start with a large group: 35 million –> 105 million –> 315 million –> 945 million –> 2835 million: after 4 cycles 4 billion people will have been convinced to change.