In a thought-provoking interview, I sat down with Tobias Leenaert, co-founder of ProVeg and author of How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach. Tobias believes that progress, not purity, is the most effective way to save animals, sparking fierce debate within the animal advocacy community. Some applaud his pragmatism, while others accuse him of watering down the vegan movement. Is Tobias a vegan realist or a vegan sellout?
David: Take us back to your childhood. What was it like growing up with both pet animals and farm animals?
Tobias: So we always had cats and dogs, and every year we had 30 chickens for our own consumption, and then there were cows around the house from farmers. At some point while I was eating chicken, I was also very concerned about chickens that looked sick, and I would take them inside the house and put them in a box. I didn’t know what I was doing, but I was trying to help them. At some point I said I don’t want to eat these chickens anymore. And then after some time, my father said okay, we’re going to stop eating them as well, and we’re not going to raise them anymore.
David: So if you can imagine yourself back then, where you had a dog and a chicken, was there any one particular moment of realisation where you looked at them and said, "I see no difference"?
Tobias: It was with a cow, actually. Our garden was bordered by a pasture where there were cows, and the cows often came up to the fence. I remember looking in their eyes a lot, and at one point wondering what is the difference between you and my dog? And what justifies that I kill and eat you, or eat you, at least, and just pet the dog and cuddle with him. And I couldn’t find the difference. So at that moment, I said okay, I have to stop eating animals. I became active in animal rights groups, and I got more and more interested in that.
And then I had to choose the topic for my master’s thesis, and I chose the human-animal relationship. By the time I finished, I was so enthralled by this topic, and I was so convinced that this can have such an impact. This is such an important cause, that at that moment I decided, okay, this is what I’ll spend the rest of my life on.
David: Your book, How to Create a Vegan World: A Pragmatic Approach, I mean it’s in the title, it’s promoting a pragmatic approach to vegan activism, animal rights advocacy, animal advocacy. What does pragmatic vegan advocacy actually mean in practice?
Tobias: Pragmatic means you’re going to do things that work. You’re going to do things that are possible. You’re not going to do things according to a set of rules that tells you how to do something. So it’s not a matter of orthodoxy or belief or of ideology, it’s a matter of what works. I distinguish in this book a couple of ways to be pragmatic.
The first one is in our ask - I say we don’t necessarily always need to ask people to go vegan; we can also ask them to reduce. That’s one thing.
The second thing is we don’t always have to talk about the animals; we can talk about whatever works in terms of motivations or arguments. So it can be health, it can be environment, whatever works.
The third is in terms of the environment in which we live. So you can try to motivate a person to change, but you can also help change their environment so that the environment facilitates change.
And the last, and the most controversial point maybe, is in the definition of veganism, where I say let’s not make it too hard, please.
David: You say the last one you find to be the most controversial. The one I’ve seen most people find to be controversial is about reduction. And in the book, you do emphasise encouraging reduction as opposed to insisting on full veganism. You mention how it can be more effective for change if we tell people that just reducing is enough. Aren’t we basically saying that factory farming and animal suffering is acceptable in moderation? What are we saying if we’re not saying that?
Tobias: I think that the concern for what am I saying is kind of an egocentric concern— you’re concern is about is this the right thing, am I doing the right thing here. But what I want to look at is what is the effect with people. That’s the only thing I’m interested in. I’m not interested in, like, am I following the rules, am I saying something wrong. No, I’m interested in what will people do with this message. We know from research that more people seem to be following up on small asks than on bigger asks.
That’s not just true for diet change, but that’s true in general. So if you ask a person to stop flying, then you might be less successful than if you tell them stop flying short distances, for instance. So that is one reason why you could use this message of reduction.
I’m not saying you always have to use that message, but I think the principle that I have that trumps all the other principles is to be flexible in your approach and to adapt yourself and to see who you have in front of you and to understand that this person might require a different message and a different argument than another person. And that is pragmatism. And I oppose that to a certain idealism or dogmatism where you think, no, it always has to be about the animals, it always has to be about go vegan—those are rules, that’s an orthodoxy, that’s something that we tell ourselves that’s right, but that’s not necessarily, or not always, effective. So flexibility over rigidity.
David: So you’re less concerned about the kind of external ideas of this—and you’re more concerned about the outcome of it. So, for example, the ideas that may come with telling people to reduce, it might end up making people think, well, I guess animal farming is okay in moderation. You’re okay with that as long as they actually reduce, because the outcome is less animals are going to be bred into existence and killed?
Tobias: I do care about the outcome most of all. If the result would be that people are going to eat less meat and think that’s okay, that’s not ideal. But my theory of change is that if a lot of people do that, everything will change because there will be more acceptance of animal rights arguments because they know there’s nothing to sacrifice anymore, they know they have good food. The whole conversation around it will change, maybe policy will change.
I’m not afraid that they will stop there, I’m more afraid that they will never start. I’m more afraid that if we ask them to go vegan in all circumstances and at every moment, that many people will not do anything because they think it’s a bridge too far—or it’s seven bridges too far. But by all means, if you think you have a person in front of you, or you have an audience in front of you, that’s open to that message to go vegan for the animals, by all means, use that. I’m just saying don’t assume that it’s going to be the best and the only way in every circumstance.
David: An important part of the theory of change in the book is that these motivations evolve, right?
Tobias: In every talk I give, I ask, like, who here originally stepped into animal rights or into veganism for another reason than animals. And there’s always people who say yeah, for me it started when I had an allergy, or because of this or because of that health reason. They got into it by that path, by that door, but from there, they evolved to appreciating concerns about animals.
It’s very easy to understand how that happens because if you start eating vegan food, to whatever degree, for health reasons, you will experience all of a sudden, okay, this is feasible, this is doable, this is tasty. And you become less defensive against hearing animal rights messaging. We have to consider always that it’s not just attitudes that lead to behaviour change, but it can be behaviour change first that leads to attitude change or belief change.
David: Has there ever been a time where you haven’t been pragmatic or you’ve not been able to stick to it?
Tobias: I usually can keep my pragmatic attitude, but there was a confrontation not so long ago with hunters here in the area. I saw a person coming up on the meadow, and he had a gun. I asked him, did you hunt? And he said yeah, I was hunting. And I said you backward dickhead or something. He said oh, you probably don’t eat meat, right? I said, no, not in 25 years I’ve eaten meat.
I was so angry, and I went to stand very close to him, and he seemed afraid of me or something. I was shouting, I was screaming, and it was not pragmatic at all. But, I felt good. And that is also the danger, because venting and blowing off steam and being very angry and seeing ourselves as the good guys and the other people as the bad guys—that can feel very, very good. And that’s why we are tempted to do it. But it’s not necessarily the best thing to do for animals.
David: There’s a lot of things said about you, and some pretty harsh things said about you. So I’m curious to know how you would respond to them. Some people would say that you’re weakening this movement—the animal advocacy movement. They’d say that you are making veganism and the plight of the animals less urgent, less radical, and ultimately less effective. Do you agree?
Tobias: Well, no, I don’t agree. And first of all, I speak a lot about animals, and wherever it’s appropriate, wherever I think it’s going to be effective, I speak about the animals, and I emphasise the urgency. I’ve been into this for 25 years, and I know how urgent it is, it’s my life. So if I know that something is not effective or it’s watering down something or is to the disadvantage of the animals, I would never do it. I do these things because I believe they’re good for animals. And what I want to do is basically make this whole thing more accessible.
People might see that as watering down or devaluing or whatever, but I think the problem is that we have an ideology that we want to seduce people into that is quite demanding, you know, for most people—never eating animal products and then maybe also adopting political and ideological beliefs that we want them to accept. That is a tall order, that’s a big ask.
You can compare it to a club. If the membership price is very high, there will not be very many people joining. So I’m in favour of lowering the membership price a little bit so that we have more people that can join, so that we have a bigger movement—that’s not just this 1% of vegans that can participate, but many more people to form and to be a bigger weight on government, on industry, and everything.
David: And part of you doing that is the kind of focus on reduction to make it more accessible, I suppose, and make it more doable for people to kind of join the animal advocacy world?
Tobias: The theory behind reduction is also that if there’s many people reducing, this creates a lot of demand, and this creates a lot of products. And it’s because these products are there that it becomes easier and easier for everybody to go vegan. And if you today have a lot of plant-based milks to choose from, they are there not because of the 1% of vegans; they are there because a much higher percentage of people is drinking plant-based milks now, for whatever reason.
David: Well, one major criticism of that that I’ve seen a lot of times—this is probably the most common critique I’ve heard from people who disagree with promoting reducing eating animal products—they’ll say, "Would you ever tell a racist or a slave owner to reduce by what they’re doing, and then why would you tell people to reduce in this case then?" How do you respond to that?
Tobias: I think that we are comparing very different things—different in terms of social acceptance. Some people say, for instance, you would never have a child-abuse-free Monday like you have a meat-free Monday, because that would show that this child abuse is allowed all the other days. I think that’s a very bad comparison because you are comparing something that 99% of people disapprove of and is illegal—namely, child abuse or slavery or whatever you compare it with—with something that 95% of people celebrate, which is eating meat.
And if you really think that you are treating these things at the same level, then why are you not in the supermarket slamming the meat out of people’s hands as soon as they buy it? You’re not doing that because you understand that public acceptance of that is completely different than with slavery. If you see somebody beating somebody else on the street, you will interfere, but not if you see somebody buying meat. So we accept that these things are different, we accept that we have to use different strategies, different communications. We know that there’s different norms about these things and around these things.
David: Another hot topic that comes up a lot with you is your stance on, and this is the biggest one, even for me, this was a tough one actually to get my head around, social flexibility. You’ve suggested in the book, that sometimes it could be better for a vegan to participate in eating a non-vegan meal in a social setting to avoid reinforcing the idea that veganism is difficult or exclusionary. Isn’t that just proving what people thought already—that animals are, in fact, food, the complete opposite of what we’re trying to say? Or is it something else? And where’s the line between strategy and hypocrisy?
Tobias: The example I always give is: there’s a person, and they’ve cooked a meal, and they’re not vegan. They cooked a meal for you especially, they looked up a recipe, they bought the ingredients, and they made a lasagne. But the lasagne sheets—the pasta dough itself—contains eggs. You’re sitting there, that’s the only thing you can eat, they have put all this work in it—are you going to eat it, or are you going to refuse it? I think in those circumstances, you do more damage by refusing it than by eating it.
There’s no animal going to be saved whether you eat or you don’t eat that lasagne. But you are going to have a big impact on that other person who might say, oh my God, this is so difficult, I could never do this, I’m not going to ever invite this guy again. There’s also other outcomes that are possible, but the important thing here is that, again, this is a matter of pragmatism. Suppose I ask you, what if you absolutely, definitely knew that this situation, if you refuse the lasagne, would be damaging, would set animals back a little bit—would you still stick to your principles?
My answer to that is, my principles are reducing animal suffering. My principle is not eating a certain way. So I’m still consistent with the outcome that I see, which is helping animals. And if this thing helps animals, I want to do it. And I have to add to that that this also, in my case, only goes so far. In case there would be meat in that lasagne, I wouldn’t do it. So it’s also a matter of disgust and what you’re used to. And I’m not saying for people to go out of their comfort zone too much—they don’t have to do that—but just think—think about it.
It’s really important to think about, what are the rules here, why am I doing it, what would happen if I broke the rules this time. I always encourage people to think beyond this rigidity and to think beyond the rules that we have and that maybe we, once we became vegan, never question anymore.
David: I imagine someone in the comments or watching the video shouting this at the screen right now just to say, "But by you eating that—and this person isn’t a vegan or a vegetarian, assumedly—then the next day, the meal that you ate that they could have eaten, they’re going to replace with another animal product, which means trip to the store, which means actually it did potentially cause an issue for animals", did you consider that?
Tobias: You can always think of situations where it would matter or it wouldn’t matter. I think it’s more likely that the effect on this person—and you can fill it in with another person who’s very important and you really should turn off—how are you going to get them along, take them along with you. And maybe the best way is to be principled, but one important meta-issue here is, if people like me say something like this, um, don’t think it’s just to, I don’t know, appease people.
This thought experiment is not because I’m not a real vegan or to get attention or get clicks or whatever. It’s just to make us think and to see if there’s sometimes better ways to help animals than the ways we think are the most obvious ones.
David: I’ve got one more question for you, but before we get to it, I want you just to tell people where we can find you. Is there anything you want to promote, and what are your links?
Tobias: I blog at tobiasleenaert.substack.com, my book is called How to Create a Vegan World. I’m also with ProVeg, which is a big organisation that helps create a vegan world.
David: What’s one thing that you wish more animal advocates understood about how to create change?
Tobias: Maybe the idea that often it starts from a change in behaviour, and that change in behaviour can be for whatever reason, to whatever degree, and that will lead to other steps, and that will lead to attitude change. It’s really important to understand that, the way we changed, and the way many of us change—for instance, by watching Earthlings, and then we said, oh my God, then we got to go vegan—well, the way we change is not necessarily the way other people are going to change.
Let us appreciate different ideas about change that we have, and let’s not attack other people because they have another idea of change and another strategy, because they might have, or they probably have, the very best and the same intentions as you have—they just have another idea about the way to get there. So we can all work together.
Tobias Leenaert’s pragmatic approach challenges the traditional boundaries of vegan advocacy, igniting a conversation about flexibility, effectiveness, and the ultimate goal of reducing animal suffering. Whether you see him as a realist or a sellout, his ideas push the movement to rethink strategy in a world where change is urgent—but not always straightforward.
https://davidramms.substack.com/p/should-vegans-compromise?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
