Thus begins a double feature inspired by the recent firestorm of debate over Farmkind’s anti-Veganuary campaign. This post brings readers from across the world up to speed on the best arguments from both sides, along with a related controversy from the year prior. In part 2, I share my own thoughts on “Forget Veganuary” and on the troubled relationship between animal welfare and veganism. One of my most edgy and unique opinions about the animal rights movement is that Infighting Is Bad™. Whether it’s cancelling people for having the wrong political views or carving the movement up into illusory factions like welfarist vs. abolitionist or grassroots vs. professional, I think the movement wastes a lot of energy on pointless infighting. Yet even I must admit that not all infighting is pointless. In some instances, our movement has suffered from a lack of substantive strategic debates. For years, as abolitionists and pragmatists feuded over cage-free campaigns, there was no forum for systematic public debate between the leaders of each faction. That left grunts like me stewing in resentment, unable to properly evaluate the other side’s position. (When I finally got the chance, I found it surprisingly persuasive.) I write about how animal activists can focus on what matters, and avoid getting distracted by what doesn’t matter. Subscribe for free. So today, we’re going to learn about two master classes in constructive infighting, two campaigns that forced the movement to wrestle with big strategic questions. Both case studies came out of the London activist scene, cementing its status as the top animal rights city in the world. Each story is rich with lessons, but a few commonalities jump out right from the get-go: * Each debate was sparked by an actual campaign– that is, people weren’t just running their mouths on social media, they were doing something bold in the real world. * In each case, proponents and opponents maintained an open line of communication and engaged in vigorous public debate, preserving friendships without pulling any punches in their criticisms. * While some observers changed their minds, all this public debate failed to clearly resolve the question one way or the other. But it pushed both sides to gather better evidence and become more rigorous versions of themselves. I know what you all came here for, so I’ll start with the more recent story first, and we’ll see in the course of that how it couldn’t avoid bringing up an old wound. Case #1: Farmkind says VEGANUARY IS F*****G LAME On December 27, 2025, the movement awoke from its post-Christmas reverie to stories in right-wing British tabloids with headlines like “Veganuary champion quits to run meat-eating campaign.” At first, it seemed like the same familiar “Why I’m no longer vegan” story we’ve all read a hundred times. But this one was different. Toni Vernilli was renouncing veganism. She was joining hands with some of the most prolific meat eaters in the country– the second, third, and fourth-ranked national competitive eating champions. But while she was telling people to eat whatever they want, her message didn’t end there. People who care about animals but still want to eat meat, she said, can offset the harm of eating meat by donating to charities that oppose factory farming. Specifically, they should go to forgetveganuary.com, use a handy calculator to determine what size monthly donation is needed to offset their meat consumption, and let the organization Farmkind distribute that donation across the most effective animal charities. The first thing a sympathetic meat eater will see once arriving on the site is this comparison mocking Veganuary participants for annoying their loved ones and craving meat (an earlier version mentioned “feeling bloated from plant protein.”) Next, they’re faced with an impossibly hard flash game testing their ability to survive 31 days as a vegan, navigating a frowning carton of oat milk through challenges like “vegan meat processed ingredients” and “iron deficiency.” Finally, they reach the donation calculator. This is meant to be a relief– there’s something I can do besides be vegan! The user inputs their weekly serving of different animal products, and the calculator spits out a recommended monthly donation sufficient to offset the suffering it causes. For an average omnivore in the UK, the donation is £17, or $23, a small fraction of what they pay into the industry for consumption. (The calculator is based on something like suffering-adjusted days, where for each animal you eat, you need to offset an equivalent amount of suffering by helping several animals. For instance, Farmland argues chickens raised according to the Better Chicken Commitment suffer around 50% less, so you need to pay for campaigns worth two BCC chickens for every chicken you eat.) The vegans react Veganuary, of course, did not take this lying down. Quoted in the Daily Mail, they likened Farmkind’s approach to “deliberately setting a fire and then donating to the fire brigade,” dismissed it as “a symbolic gesture designed to generate headlines,” and insisted that no donation can offset the harm of paying for an animal to be brought into the world and slaughtered for your consumption. Across vegan group chats and message forums, other negative reactions poured in, including from many individuals who have previously expressed skepticism of the movement’s focus on veganism. Maya Pardo (Communities Against Factory Farms): I find it offensive and misguided. Surely there is another way to raise money for animal welfare without sabotaging another campaign through infighting? It’s a publicity stunt which comes very close to encouraging hating on vegans. Alistair Stewart (former head of Plant-Based Unis): I worry that the money and people this FarmKind campaign will bring into the animal movement won’t be enough to justify a) the infighting the campaign may cause in the movement and b) the harm it may do to the public’s perception of veganism… there are probably good reasons why the pro-Palestine movement doesn’t tell people not to bother doing BDS and instead donate, and the anti-abortion movement doesn’t tell people it’s okay to get abortions as long as they donate. At worst this approach misunderstands human psychology. Most of the comments on the Mail article are criticising her for some combination of hypocrisy, bad faith, and seeking attention and money. One benefit of veganism is that even lots of anti-vegans recognise that there is some degree of logical consistency and personal/social costliness to it, which is admirable. Anonymous: Most people dislike factory farming, yet they still pay for it because it’s cheaper/more convenient. Are we really expecting those people to start spending £15 more on charity every month? Realistically, they’re more likely to use this campaign as an excuse to continue eating animals whilst also not donating. Some commenters saw the potential, but worried about execution. Billy Nicholles (Bryant Research): Instinctively, is this the sort of “infighting” that could be effective? Farmkind is targeting a very different part of society to Veganuary, and so it may be ok for them to pit themselves against each other (if it results in more donations for Farmkind without significantly damaging veganuary’s campaign). I do find it pretty cool that an article in the Daily Mail just introduced their anti-vegan readership to effective animal welfare giving… I also find the idea of paying competitive eaters to eat excessive amounts of meat uncomfortable. I get the theory of change, and if it works in getting hype/donations, then that’s good, but I’m still worried that this endorses/encourages excessive/thoughtless animal product consumption. Zuzana Sperlova (Animal Charity Evaluators): I don’t know if this specific article would do a lot of harm, intuitively I’d think not because of the audience, but that’s a guess. The majority of the article was about leaving Veganuary and veganism itself behind, and it might be that people skim it or see the headline and make a negative conclusion without getting to the mention of FarmKind and offsetting. And some were even supportive: Cam: I lowkey think on a meta level it’s good there are new strategies being tried, and also that we have to meet meat eaters where they are. Most people don’t go vegan overnight (I know I didn’t) and donating is a lot more palatable of a first step. The twist: Team Veganuary was maybe on board with the whole approach? As the angry reactions spread, the Farmkind team arrived to announce: this is not what it seems. Veganuary has been so successful establishing itself in the UK media ecosystem that every December sees predictable backlash from right wing tabloids. The Farmkind team saw in this an opportunity for a unique 4-dimensional chess move: if an anti-vegan backlash is going to happen anyway, can we grab hold of it and redirect it to help animals? As co-founder Thom Norman explained: We let Veganuary know about our intention to launch this campaign at the very start of our planning process and have kept them informed throughout. Our campaign provides them with another opportunity to put forward the benefits of diet change. We are all on good terms and there is absolutely no infighting… The goal of this campaign is to get the question of ‘should you do Veganuary’ more media attention, and shift the focus from ‘is eating animals bad’ to a focus on the question of which solution(s) to factory farming an individual will choose to participate in. In other words, we want the debate to be about whether to choose diet change or donating, rather than whether factory farming is a problem worth dealing with or not… The campaign encourages people to offset their meat this January by donating to help fix factory farming. As part
