George Reynolds (The war on vegans, the long read, 25 October) conflates eating less meat, being vegetarian and being vegan. When he says Veganism, of course, is rooted in social justice, it is likely that phrase should apply to vegetarianism.

At root, vegetarianism poses philosophical and moral issues. We are, by nature and evolution, fitted to a mixed diet, but at scale have a cruel and brutal way of putting meat on the table. Many people dont like being reminded of this. It makes them uncomfortable, and they take it out on the messenger. But there is something more going on, and that is specifically about veganism.

Georges article contains much of the answer to his question. He points out veganism is replacing one kind of industrialised system with another and that intensive industrialised farming of soya, maize and grains comes at a significant carbon cost, too as does flying in the ingredients to keep berries and nut butters on aa bowls or avocado on toast. He doesnt mention the impact of almonds, palm oil and quinoa on indigenous people, water resources or forests.

Veganism has always been a smaller grouping within a broader movement. It has to face greater dietary challenges. From necessity it attracts the most committed people and inevitably some of them proselytise with the fire of justice in their bellies. When you mix an uncompromising stance on diet with an absolute insistence on the moral high ground you very quickly annoy people.

When veganism is scaled up in the hands of global capital, it becomes vastly more complicated. So, in addition to reminding us of the structure of animal cruelty, and triggering a blame the messenger response, the messianic certainty of some vegans can also attract hatred because it makes a difficult, complex structural issue into one of personal consumer choice.Brian FishChapel Allerton, Leeds

George Reynolds may have overlooked the main reason that vegans upset people. Preparing and sharing food is so central to human culture that it has ritual significance. Strict veganism undermines the fundamental social rite of eating together.

When vegans cook for omnivores, the interaction is generally successful. The guests eat what they are given and compliment the cooking. The etiquette of food-sharing has been preserved. But when strict vegans are fed by omnivores, there is tension. The hosts face a daunting list of exclusion and must try new recipes. For practical reasons, the vegan menu may be imposed on the whole gathering. This offends our deep-rooted belief that guests should adapt to the host culture, gratefully accepting whatever food they are given. The alternative option of the vegans bringing their own food is even more offensive: the social bond of food-sharing will not be achieved.

Historically, religious dietary taboos were used as a tool to prevent social interaction with others outside the sect. Unconsciously, vegans may be causing grave offence by othering their families and community. This has implications for the best strategy to reduce meat-eating and save the planet. Gradualism, flexitarianism and reinforcement rather than undermining of traditional food-sharing culture will result in greater societal change.Dr Quentin ShawShrewsbury, Shropshire

Your long read falls into the trap of tarring all vegans with the same brush, like cyclists or other groups that seem to arouse irrational hatred. Like many vegans, I dont engage in internet warfare, or mention my dietary choices on social media. Where my new diet has been met with consternation by friends and family, Ive won them over by cooking for them, which habitually ends with them asking for seconds and for recipes. Some dont even notice theyre eating coconut yoghurt or ice cream, aquafaba meringues etc.

Where the article falls down is seeing beyond the issues associated with eating less meat, essentially lumping vegans in with vegetarians. It is worth looking with more scrutiny at animal products. Rearing cows for dairy has a serious environmental impact; the data (for example in the Oxford university study referenced in the article) makes this perfectly clear. The piece also perpetuates the mythical dangers of soy farming; around 90% of soy is grown to feed livestock. If we ate more of it as a protein source instead of meat, wed need to grow much less of it.Matt KanerLondon

Join the debate email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

Read more Guardian letters click here to visit gu.com/letters

Do you have a photo youd like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and well publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition

Read the rest here:

Vegans, vegetarians and the meat of the matter - The Guardian