Jordi Casamitjana, author of the book “Ethical Vegan”, discusses some of the lesser-known differences between veganism and vegetarianism.
A cousin is not a sibling.
They may all be family members, but the genetic relatedness is distinctly different, especially considering that we can be talking about second, third, or fourth cousins. Full siblings share 50% of their gene variations (meaning that, although humans share 99.9% of their DNA with any other humans, siblings have the exact variations in 50% of their genes), while first cousins share 12.5%, second cousins 3.2%, and third cousins 0.8%. In fact, if we go into fourth cousins, they will share about 0.2% of their gene variations, which is roughly the same percentage you will find between complete strangers of the same race born in the same city. In other words, if you live in a regular average city not known for being very cosmopolitan, you could treat pretty much every citizen you encounter as your cousin — and you would be more right than wrong than if you don’t.
However, it’s not all about genetics, is it? Family is something more than sharing genes. It’s sharing surnames, homes, traditions, identities, experiences, etc. A sixth cousin could be more of a member of your family than a fourth cousin if you share more of these traits. The significant differences may not necessarily be the obvious differences.
The same occurs between vegetarians and vegans. Meat-eating carnists may categorise both into the same group (the non-meat eaters), so they would treat both as closely related — and possibly equally annoying. For some vegans like me, though, a vegetarian may indeed be a cousin, but not a sibling, but perhaps the vegetarian would consider the vegan a symbolic sibling because the feeling of proximity may not be equal. We know the basic definition that splits them: vegans don’t willingly consume any animal product, but vegetarians willingly consume any that they do not define as animal flesh. Vegans and vegetarians both reject meat, but vegans also reject eggs, dairy, honey, and any other animal product. These are, though, the obvious differences (like the genetic relatedness in the family examples above). I find the less obvious differences more interesting, though, because combined would determine if carnists are right in lumping vegans and vegetarians in the same “family”, or if strict vegans are right in pointing out that vegetarians are not their siblings in that context (only cousins, and perhaps distant ones). Let’s explore the less obvious differences I identified.
1. Veganism has an official definition, but vegetarianism does not
Beyond what dictionaries may have written about the word, veganism has an official, widely accepted definition, created by the Vegan Society in England, which coined the word “vegan” in 1944 (when the society began as a splinter group from the Vegetarian Society). The Vegan Society has, therefore, the legitimate, implicit “authority” on this matter, as it is the legally recognised institution that introduced this millennial-old philosophy to the modern world and made it accessible to everyone. For decades, the society worked on the definition, finalising it in 1988: “Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practicable — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms, it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.”
This definition provides clarity and consistency for those who identify as vegan (and those who follow it to the letter — like me— often refer to themselves as “ethical vegans” — which is another term for “true vegan” or “original vegan”), and it is referenced by activists, writers, legal systems, and organisations worldwide. Those who only follow the diet vegans eat but do not adhere to the definition beyond diet are normally called plant-based people (or dietary vegans if they insist on using the ‘vegan’ term), but proper vegans should follow the definition to the full — or go even beyond it by excluding even more products/activities, as is the case of abstinent vegans who do not consume tobacco, alcohol, or recreational drugs, like me.
By contrast, vegetarianism does not have a single, official, universally recognised definition (if you go to the Vegetarian Society website, the first ever created in 1847, you will not find any official definition there). While most people understand vegetarians as those who do not eat animal flesh, there are many variations — lacto-ovo vegetarians, lacto-vegetarians, ovo-vegetarians, and even pescatarians (who are not vegetarians, but some people include them in the group, precisely for the lack of an official definition). The term “vegetarian” is generally used in this wider way without much protest from any of these sub-groups. This lack of a clear definition can lead to confusion and inconsistency, making it harder for vegetarians to present a unified identity or philosophy.
2. Veganism is always a philosophy, but vegetarianism is often only a diet
Veganism is, by its very nature (and definition), a philosophy. It is rooted in the ancient philosophical principle of ahimsa (do no harm) and is underpinned by a set of ethical convictions about how humans should treat other sentient beings. For vegans, the decision to avoid animal products is not just about diet or health, but about living in alignment with a moral worldview. As with all philosophies, veganism has axioms believed by those who subscribe to it, and I have identified at least five major ones: 1. Ahimsa, 2. Animal sentience, 3. Anti-exploitation, 4. Anti-speciesism, and 5. Vicariousness.
Vegetarianism, on the other hand, can be motivated by a variety of reasons — health, religious beliefs, or simply personal preference. While some vegetarians do adopt the lifestyle for ethical reasons, many do not. This means that vegetarianism is not inherently a philosophy, but rather a dietary or lifestyle choice that may or may not be informed by ethical considerations. The general public mostly regards vegetarianism as a diet rather than a philosophy (although there are ethical vegetarians), which explains why carnists often assume that veganism must be a diet too, without realising that it is much more.
3. Veganism is now a sociopolitical movement, while vegetarianism is not
Veganism is a philosophy which developed into a lifestyle, which in the 1940s, evolved into a dynamic sociopolitical movement still growing today. This movement advocates for systemic change in how society views and treats nonhuman animals (and also humans). Ethical vegans work to challenge institutions, industries, and cultural norms that perpetuate animal exploitation, often engaging in activism, lobbying, and public education. Collectively, vegans challenge carnism (the prevailing ideology opposite to veganism) and are constantly building the Vegan World of the future where the exploitation of all non-human animals has been abolished — and in consequence, humans also live in harmony with each other, not only with other creatures and the environment. Like most social movements, veganism tries to fight social injustices and improve human society. In many respects, veganism can also be considered the ultimate peace movement.
Vegetarianism, while it can be a stepping stone toward veganism, is generally less politicised. Vegetarians may advocate for animal welfare, but their focus is typically more individualistic, centring on personal dietary choices rather than broader societal transformation. This difference in scope and ambition sets veganism apart as a social movement with the potential to effect widespread change.
4. Veganism aims to change the entire world, but vegetarianism is less ambitious
The vegan philosophy is inherently outward-looking. It seeks not only to change individual behaviour but to transform society as a whole, ending harm to all sentient beings and promoting justice for humans, other animals, and the environment. Vegans are motivated by a vision of a world where the exploitation of others has been abolished. The Vegan World is a concept often used in vegan narratives, as the main objective to achieve. It may still be utopian and very far from our current carnist world, but it is very present in the minds of many vegans. Veganising different aspects of the modern world is seen as a step to building this vegan world paradigm. Vegans also try to veganise vegetarians, but vegetarians do not try to “vegeterianise” vegans because they don’t even recognise this verb.
There is no such thing as the Vegetarian World in the minds of vegetarians. Vegetarianism often remains focused on personal health, religious observance, or lifestyle preferences, perhaps looking more at the present than at the future, and inward rather than outward. While it can have positive effects, it does not typically aspire to the same level of global transformation or systemic change as veganism. This difference in ambition is one of the less obvious but most significant distinctions between the two.
5. Veganism is a protected philosophical belief, but vegetarianism is not
In some jurisdictions, veganism has been recognised as a protected philosophical belief under equality legislation (what in the US is referred to as a protected class). For example, in 2020, Great Britain recognised ethical veganism as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 (because of a judge ruling in a litigation I initiated two years earlier), meaning that vegans are entitled to legal protection against discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. This recognition acknowledges the depth and seriousness of the vegan philosophy. The judge in this case wrote that “ethical veganism” (using this term to mean the veganism of the official definition of the Vegan Society, not to be confused with just the diet vegans follow) satisfies overwhelmingly all the conditions set up by British law to pass the test of protection of non-religious philosophical beliefs. These conditions (known as the Grainger test) are: 1. The belief must be genuinely held; 2. It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; 3. It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; 4. It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and 5. It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Vegetarianism, however, is not recognised in the same way. Because it is not always underpinned by a coherent philosophical or ethical framework, and because it can be motivated by a variety of reasons, it does not qualify for the same legal protections. In fact, when vegetarianism was tested to see if it was a protected belief using the same legal system I used in my legal case, the very same judge who ruled for the protection of veganism ruled that vegetarianism does not qualify as protected because it fails some of the necessary conditions. However, vegetarian practices may indirectly be protected if they are part of a protected religion, but it is the religion that is protected rather than vegetarianism. This distinction highlights the unique status of veganism as a philosophical belief system.
6. Vegetarianism is less consistent than veganism
The lack of a clear definition of vegetarianism accepted by all vegetarians leads to inconsistency in practice. Some vegetarians may consume eggs but not dairy, others dairy but not eggs, others dairy and eggs but not honey, and even some people who define themselves as vegetarians may include fish in their diet — and some, astonishingly, may avoid only red meat — because they may have a different interpretation about what “meat” is. Many vegetarians would care about a cow being killed for meat, but not about a cow being exploited for milk and then killed in the same way, which clearly makes no sense, as both are killed when they are still young. Also, many vegetarians would only care for animals killed for food but not for animals killed for fibres (such as leather or wool), even if they may be killed in the same slaughterhouses, or for other purposes such as research, sport, or entertainment. This inconsistency and variability of views can make it difficult to identify what “counts” as proper vegetarianism, and it can lead to confusion and debate within the community.
Veganism, with its clear and consistent definition, is more straightforward. All vegans seek to avoid all animal products (as far as possible and practicable within their circumstances), making their choices more predictable and easier to understand. They don’t have to choose which animal matters, or which type of exploitation matters, because, for us, all animals are sentient beings that should not be exploited in any way. From bees exploited for honey to horses exploited for leisure, vegans consistently reject all forms of exploitation of animals (human or otherwise, of any species, genus, family, order, or class). In this regard, veganism is much more black-and-white and therefore clearer. Although it is true that some people who define themselves as vegans may still try to eat some animal products such as honey, insects, or oysters, these are not accepted by the vegan community and are considered non-vegans (sometimes called post-vegans for having abandoned veganism). This consistency explains why veganism has become a sociopolitical movement and makes it more effective as a force for change.
7. Vegetarians can be pre-vegans, but vegans cannot be pre-vegetarians
Many vegans began their journey as vegetarians — not me, I jumped from meat-eater to vegan overnight on the 1st of January 2002 — using vegetarianism as a stepping stone toward a fully vegan lifestyle. In this sense, some vegetarians can be seen as “pre-vegans” — individuals who are moving toward a more ethical and consistent way of living. Some “typical” octo-lacto vegetarians who do not want to change even when they are now properly informed about the wrongs of the dairy, eggs, and honey industries may stay as vegetarians for life, but many, with time, would indeed progress toward veganism, so these can be considered pre-vegans.
Everyone has the potential to become vegan because veganism is a philosophy everyone can choose to adhere to, even if they manifest it differently according to their circumstances. But before they become vegan, they are “nuts”, keeping their vegan potential hidden inside, waiting for the right conditions. They are pre-vegans who, when they get what they need, will hopefully grow to become full vegans. Different cultures, nationalities, ethnologies, genders, or even education may create different types of pre-vegans who may need different amounts of nourishing “ingredients” to germinate their veganhood. Some may respond better to nonhuman animals, others to the environment, others to health, others to social justice, and others to spirituality (what I call the five gateways to veganism). Vegetarianism can be seen as an advanced form of pre-veganism, not as advanced as plant-based people but more advanced than pescatarians, reducetarians, and flexitarians—who in turn are more advanced than typical omnivorous and carnist meat-eaters.
The reverse route, using veganism to become vegetarian, does not exist. Vegans, by definition, have already committed to avoiding all animal products (including flesh). There is no logical or ethical pathway from veganism back to vegetarianism, unless someone abandons their ethical convictions or only “tried” some aspects of veganism as a temporal experiment. This one-directional relationship underscores the progressive nature of veganism, making it, in many respects, a more “modern”, evolved, and informed approach.
8. Many major religions advocate for vegetarianism, but none directly for veganism
Several major religions — including Jainism, and some schools of Buddhism and Hinduism — promote vegetarianism as a virtuous or spiritually beneficial practice. These traditions often emphasise compassion for animals and the importance of nonviolence.
Jainism is perhaps the most stringent of all major religions when it comes to dietary rules. For Jains, vegetarianism is not just encouraged — it is mandatory, rooted in the principle of ahimsa that extends to all living beings. Jains avoid all forms of animal flesh, eggs, and even certain plant foods such as root vegetables (like potatoes, onions, and garlic), as harvesting these can harm small organisms in the soil. However, dairy is traditionally permitted, although some modern Jain scholars and activists now advocate for veganism, recognising the violence inherent in contemporary dairy production. Nevertheless, the official religious doctrine is vegetarian because it still allows dairy, and veganism remains a minority position within the Jain community in India.
Buddhist dietary practices vary widely depending on the school and region. In Mahayana Buddhism, vegetarianism is often encouraged as an expression of compassion and the precept against taking life. Some Buddhist texts explicitly prohibit eating the flesh of sentient beings, while others allow the consumption of “pure meats”—those not specifically killed for the consumer. Many Buddhists follow a lacto-vegetarian diet, consuming dairy but avoiding eggs, meat, and fish. However, not all Buddhists are vegetarian, and the rules are often interpreted flexibly, especially among lay practitioners.
Vegetarianism in Hinduism is deeply connected to the principle of ahimsa and is especially prevalent among certain castes and regions. While not all Hindus are vegetarian, abstaining from meat is considered spiritually purifying and is most strictly observed by Brahmins and other priestly classes. Dairy is widely consumed and even considered sacred, with products like milk, ghee, and yoghurt playing important roles in religious rituals. The practice of vegetarianism varies greatly, with some Hindus eating fish or meat on special occasions, while others maintain a strict plant-based diet.
However, no major religion explicitly advocates for veganism. While some religious groups may encourage the avoidance of certain animal products, and some do follow vegan diets during some special days or months of the year (like some Eastern Orthodox Christians) the comprehensive avoidance of all animal exploitation at all times that defines veganism is not mandated by any current major faith (although throughout history there have been minor religious groups or cults that advocated for what we would call today veganism, like the Dorrelites, the Grahamites or the Concordites). This distinction highlights the unique, secular nature of veganism as a modern ethical philosophy which came about when the Vegan Society split from the Vegetarian Society, maintaining its mostly secular nature (The Vegetarian Society was conceived as a secular organisation, but started by several religious groups, while the founders of the Vegan Society were mostly secular).
9. Vegetarians gatekeep less than vegans
Gatekeeping — the act of defining who does or does not belong to a group — is more common among vegans than vegetarians. Vegans, particularly those who have become activists, may be more stringent in their expectations of what constitutes true veganism, and may be more likely to challenge others who do not meet those standards. However, vegans can engage in good or bad gatekeeping.
Bad vegan gatekeepers keep “the gate” closed to anyone, even to those pre-vegans who genuinely want to try veganism and aim to become vegans for life. For instance, those gatekeepers who say that you are not vegan if you do not do activism; or those who say you are not vegan if the dimension of veganism that first attracted you to it is the environment, health, spirituality, or social justice; or that you are not vegan if you are not antinatalist; or that you are not vegan if you are intersectional.
On the other hand, good vegan gatekeepers can help you to find out what is vegan and what is not. They are vegans who have done the research that would take you ages to do, and give you the results for free. Vegans who teach new vegans about the philosophy and all the dimensions of veganism that they did not know. Vegans who politely point out to you the relics of carnism you may still carry, and need help to get rid of. Vegans who identify new cognitive dissonances you may have, so you can become a better vegan every day. Vegans who teach you how to veganise others better, and build the vegan world together. Without good gatekeeping, veganism would have become flexitarianism by now.
Vegetarians, by contrast, tend to be less concerned with strict definitions and therefore may appear to be more tolerant of diversity of opinion — which could be said to have caused the dilution of the concept and the acceptance of wide inconsistencies. Although the term “vegan police” is often used to joke about the attitude of some vegans, there is no such concept as “vegetarian police”. However, this “laissez-faire” approach may also be responsible for the higher number of vegetarians.
10. There are many more vegetarians than vegans
Globally, the number of vegetarians far exceeds the number of vegans. Precise statistics are difficult to obtain because polls often confuse both concepts and count vegans in the vegetarian cohort, but the ratios vary considerably. According to a 2024 report from the World Animal Foundation, approximately 1.5 billion people worldwide are vegetarian, while around 88 million are vegan (a ratio of about 17:1). A 2018 Ipsos Mori poll across 28 countries estimated that 5% of respondents were vegetarian, while 3% were vegan (5:3 ratio). In a 2018 Gallup poll from the US, 5% of American adults identified as vegetarian, and 2% as vegan (ratio 5:2). A 2023 Gallup poll reported 4% of Americans as vegetarian and 1% as vegan (ratio 4:1). All polls show more vegetarians than vegans.
This difference may reflect the compulsion to be vegetarian that some religions have, the broader appeal and accessibility of vegetarianism, as well as the greater commitment required to hold the vegan philosophy and adopt a fully vegan lifestyle. It also explains why many people think that veganism is a diet, because the chance is that they have already encountered a vegetarian and formed their prejudgment of vegans from that experience.
However, in many countries, the number of vegans is growing faster than the number of vegetarians, mostly because many people transition to veganism from vegetarianism, so for any new vegetarian created from a carnist, there may be several vegetarians who become vegan. Despite their smaller numbers, vegans often have a higher impact on public discourse, policy, and cultural change, due to the clarity and strength of their philosophy and their tendency to be more vocal and expressive about it.
11. Vegans are seen as more radical than vegetarians
Since the second half of the 20th century, vegans have been widely perceived as more radical than vegetarians — a perception that is both shaped and amplified by media portrayals, even though veganism’s comprehensive avoidance of all animal products represents a more ethically consistent and morally sound position. This perception arises from the all-encompassing nature of veganism, which extends beyond diet to every aspect of life, rejecting all forms of animal exploitation. The association of veganism with activism and social change further cements its image as a radical movement. History shows that revolutionaries and visionaries who challenge the status quo are often labelled as radical by the mainstream before their ideas become widely accepted.
The media frequently frames vegans as “militant,” “hostile,” or “overly sensitive,” reinforcing negative stereotypes and distancing the general public from the movement. Research confirms that the broader public tends to stereotype vegans far more harshly than vegetarians, often viewing them as moralistic, inflexible, or even as a “cult”. These perceptions are not accidental: they serve to protect the dominant carnist narrative and discourage others from adopting veganism.
Vegetarians, by contrast, are typically seen as more moderate and less confrontational. Vegetarianism has become more mainstream, partly because it is embedded in some major religions and because its dietary restrictions are less comprehensive. This mainstream acceptance means vegetarians are less likely to be stigmatised or viewed as threatening to the status quo. Their dietary choices are often framed as personal or health-related, rather than as a challenge to societal norms.
The difference in perception has real-world consequences. Vegans often face more social exclusion, ridicule, and discrimination than vegetarians (with veganphobia having become a real problem). Policymakers and the media may be more reluctant to engage with vegan advocacy, seeing it as “extreme” or “divisive,” while vegetarian initiatives are more likely to be welcomed or even celebrated. This can make it harder for vegans to gain traction in public debates, even when their arguments are more consistent and well-supported by evidence.
12. Vegans are generally healthier than vegetarians
Research suggests that, compared to vegetarians, vegans tend to have lower rates of certain chronic diseases, such as heart disease, hypertension, and type 2 diabetes. This is likely because vegans avoid not only meat but also dairy and eggs, which can be high in saturated fats and cholesterol.
While both vegetarians and vegans have a lower risk of ischaemic heart disease compared to meat-eaters, some studies suggest that vegans may have an edge. For example, a 2017 meta-analysis published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition found that both vegetarian and vegan diets were associated with lower body mass index, cholesterol, and glucose levels compared to omnivorous diets, but vegans often displayed more pronounced benefits in these areas. In 1987, a UK study concluded that the differences in cholesterol concentration suggested that the incidence of cardiovascular disease may be 24 % lower in lifelong British vegetarians and 57 % lower in lifelong vegans than in meat eaters. As far as cancer is concerned, a 2013 study showed that, for all cancers combined, the incidence of cancer in comparison with omnivorous was 0.98 for flexitarians, 0.88 for pescatarians, 0.93 for lacto-vegetarians and 0.84 for vegans (the lowest).
Note that in this last study, the vegetarians performed worse than the pescatarians. This may be because, although consuming meat leads to many health problems, switching the meat to lots of cheese and eggs is not a very good move, because although you may get rid of some carcinogenic substances, you are replacing them with big portions of high-cholesterol, salty and fatty foods that are not healthy either.
However, it is important to note that not all vegan diets are equally healthy. Vegan junk food with lots of highly processed foods that imitate animal-based dishes (such as meat and cheese) with lots of fat, sugar, and salt, is not necessarily healthier than vegetarian food, so the difference may only show up clearly when the vegan diet is compared with what food is known as WFPB (Whole Food Plant Based). A wholefood vegan — arguably the healthiest of all — is a vegan who mainly eats unprocessed and unrefined vegan food (such as whole grains, legumes, berries, seeds, nuts, fruits, greens, colourful vegetables, etc.) — and I have been one of them since 2012.
I only found 12 differences between veganism and vegetarianism because I stopped looking — I am sure there are more. These less obvious differences show that, while both concepts may be related, they are far from being similar. Although one could say that veganism is a type of vegetarianism if we only define vegetarianism as the avoidance of the consumption of flesh, veganism is much more than a dietary choice for particularly picky vegetarians. Veganism is a well-defined radical philosophy that developed a consistent lifestyle that became a transformative socio-political movement aiming to completely change the world. Most vegans share aspirations, goals, challenges, and identities that are different from those of most vegetarians.
Like a second or third cousin, veganism is related to vegetarianism, both part of a larger family of mindsets that lead to questioning the meat-eating carnist paradigm, but that relationship is not close — at a sibling or offspring level — because there are many more than 50% of defining traits that differentiate both concepts. Becoming vegetarian is not “close enough” to address the animal rights, environmental, health, and social justice problems that are plaguing this planet. Veganism is the only ethical choice that can provide the solutions we need. If you are a vegetarian and disagree, perhaps you should read the letter I wrote to you in 2024.
Vegetarians are not vegans, but they all should become one.
