This piece is part of my “Arguments” series. In this collection of posts, I examine and respond to some of the most common arguments used to defend the exploitation of animals or to criticise veganism.
These articles are not intended to be exhaustive treatments of each topic. Rather, they are designed as practical reference pieces, helping readers reflect on these arguments more carefully and respond to them in a thoughtful, informed way.
You can find other entries in this series here.
The Claim
This argument is often used to justify continued support for animal agriculture. By choosing not to buy animal products, it is claimed, vegans threaten farmers’ livelihoods and risk damaging the wider economy.
At first glance, this concern appears reasonable. Farming is a major source of income in many regions, and changes in consumer demand do affect producers.
However, this argument overlooks how economies actually adapt to social and technological change.
The Short Answer
Moving away from animal agriculture may cause short-term disruption for many farmers, but it does not threaten the economy in the long run.
When demand for animal products declines, spending shifts to plant-based foods and new industries. Jobs change, rather than disappear, as global supply-chains adapt. History shows that economies regularly adapt to ethical, technological, and environmental change.
With appropriate public investment, retraining, and support, farmers can transition to more sustainable forms of agriculture.
Protecting livelihoods does not require continuing harmful practices. We do not need to choose between supporting farmers or supporting animals. With thoughtful policy, it is possible to support workers, strengthen food security, and reduce animal suffering at the same time.
The Detail
Short-Term Disruption Does Not Mean Long-Term Harm
It is true that reduced demand for animal products can affect farm incomes in the short term (1). Some producers may experience financial pressure during periods of transition, but this does not imply permanent job loss or economic collapse.
Economic research consistently shows that when demand declines in one sector, it increases in others (2). Consumers do not stop eating. They replace animal products with plant-based alternatives, shifting spending rather than eliminating it. Markets, and the labour sector itself, adjust accordingly.
Agricultural Transitions Are Already Underway
Around the world, farming systems are changing in response to climate pressures, consumer preferences, and technological innovation.
Many dairy producers have diversified into plant-based alternatives (3). Large food companies and traditional agricultural brands have invested heavily in alternative proteins and crop-based products (4).
These shifts demonstrate that adaptation is possible and already occurring – they are no longer hypothetical.
Supporting Farmers Through Transition
Most vegans do not want to see farmers lose their livelihoods.
Surveys consistently show strong public support for “just transition” policies that provide financial assistance, training, and infrastructure for workers affected by environmental reforms (5).
Policy analysts argue that public funding currently used to subsidise livestock production could be redirected to support sustainable agriculture, agroecology, and plant-based farming (6). This approach protects workers and creates new jobs while reducing environmental harm.
Livestock Farming Is Already Heavily Subsidised
In many countries, animal agriculture depends on substantial government support. Even under the current system, many farmers struggle to make a profit, and small family farms are already being bought out or pushed out of the sector by large corporations.
In the UK, EU, and US, billions of pounds and dollars are spent annually subsidising livestock production (7). These payments often exist to compensate for low profit margins and environmental damage.
If animal agriculture were fully exposed to market forces, many operations would already be unviable, and animal products would be even more unaffordable for most of us than they already are. Protecting jobs through subsidy is therefore a political choice, not an economic necessity.
Food Security and Economic Resilience
Research on food systems consistently finds that producing food directly for human consumption is far more efficient than feeding crops to animals (8). Plant-based food systems:
- Require less land
- Use less water
- Produce more calories per hectare
- Reduce vulnerability to supply shocks
This improves national food security and economic stability (9). In a world facing increasing climate disruption, resource scarcity, and geopolitical instability, these factors are becoming increasingly important.
Jobs Alone Do Not Justify Harmful Industries
The central tenet of this argument is the notion that employment and/or economic output justifies continued support for a harmful industry. This reasoning is rarely accepted elsewhere. Historically, similar arguments were made to defend:
- Tobacco production
- Fossil fuel extraction
- Polluting manufacturing industries
- Child labour
Economic historians show that societies regularly phase out harmful industries while creating new forms of employment (10). Job creation does not require moral or poltiical stagnation.
Lessons from Economic History
Industrial economies have repeatedly adapted to major structural changes:
- Mechanisation of agriculture
- Decline of coal mining
- Digitisation of workplaces
- Automation of manufacturing
In each case, critics warned of economic collapse. In practice, labour markets adjusted through retraining, new industries, and policy support (11). There is no evidence that agriculture is uniquely incapable of adaptation.
Ethics Should Shape Markets, Not the Reverse
Markets are social systems, not natural laws. They respond to laws, subsidies, public values, and consumer behaviour. Political economists already argue that economic systems should serve social and ethical goals, not dictate them (12).
If public concern for animals and the environment increases, markets will adjust accordingly. This is how social progress has always occurred.
Summary
Reducing demand for animal products does affect parts of the agricultural sector, but this does not justify maintaining harmful practices.
- Economies adapt to changing demand
- Farmers can be supported through transition
- Sustainable agriculture creates new opportunities
- Food security improves with plant-based systems
- History shows that markets adjust to ethical change
Protecting livelihoods and protecting animals are not opposing goals. With appropriate policy and investment, both are well within our power.
Bibliography
- OECD. “Rebuilding Better: Policies for a Just Transition.”
https://www.oecd.org/environment/cc/climate-action-and-just-transition.htm - Krugman, P., & Wells, R. Macroeconomics. Worth Publishers.
- BBC News. “Why Dairy Farmers Are Turning to Plant-Based Milk.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53043196 - Good Food Institute. “State of the Industry Report.”
https://gfi.org/resource/plant-based-meat-state-of-the-industry-report/ - International Labour Organization. “Guidelines for a Just Transition.”
https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/green-jobs/publications/WCMS_432859 - IPES-Food. “From Uniformity to Diversity.”
https://www.ipes-food.org/pages/from-uniformity-to-diversity - European Court of Auditors. “Common Agricultural Policy and Climate.”
https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/cap-and-climate-16-2021/en/ - Cassidy, E. et al. “Redefining agricultural yields.” Environmental Research Letters, 2013.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015 - FAO. “Sustainable Food Systems.”
- https://www.fao.org/sustainability/en/
- Mokyr, J. The Lever of Riches. Oxford University Press.
- Frey, C., & Osborne, M. “The Future of Employment.” Technological Forecasting, 2017.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162516302244 - Raworth, K. Doughnut Economics. Random House.
Support independent, research-based advocacy
Helping keep free, educational content online
