Should incarcerated people receive plant-based food?
A few months ago, the Munich Higher Regional Court in Germany ruled that German prisons do not need to provide incarcerated people with plant-based options. In this case, the plaintiff was not even requesting that the prison provide the food for free, only the opportunity to purchase the food himself to be able to maintain a plant-based diet. This is a tough ruling for vegans, especially those who avoid animal products for ethical reasons. It also has raised awareness of the lack of accommodations for ethical diets in prisons in the United States.
In the United States, prisons are not required to provide plant-based options to incarcerated people. The only exception to this is California, which in 2018 passed Senate Bill 1138, which requires hospitals, psychiatric facilities, and prisons to provide plant-based options to patients and incarcerated people. Maryland introduced similar legislation in 2021, but it stalled in a legislative committee and has not progressed. In California, incarcerated people are still not necessarily guaranteed plant-based options as they must fill out the proper paperwork and be approved by a committee to receive the meals. Still, California is ahead of the rest of the United States, where incarcerated people are not guaranteed plant-based options.
Cases of incarcerated people requesting and being denied plant-based food in prison are occasionally brought up in the United States. Often, though, the examples that make headlines involve high-profile and widely disliked figures like Sam Bankman-Fried or Ghislaine Maxwell. In Maxwell’s case, PETA wrote a letter urging the Federal Bureau of Prisons to provide her plant-based meals. Unsurprisingly, because of their crimes, it is hard for the public to sympathize much with their plight and their wealthy backgrounds further an image that eating plant-based is a luxury, not an ethical commitment. All of this raises a bigger question: should incarcerated vegans be given plant-based options?”
Research routinely shows that veganism is not just another diet - it forms a key part of people’s identity. In a survey of 491 vegans and vegetarians that I conducted, I found that many experience social isolation, criticism from friends and family, and even physical violence to remain committed to their beliefs. The United States recognizes in principle the importance of respecting human dignity and conscience, even for incarcerated people. However, accommodations for incarcerated people to exercise their conscience tend to be centered around religion.
Because ethical veganism is not a religion, people tend to dismiss the requests of incarcerated vegans as unimportant. However, in a thorough analysis, legal scholar Lisa Johnson argues that ethical veganism meets the definition of religion according to U.S. laws and judicial precedent and should be taken seriously. Some people may balk at this assertion because veganism is not theistic, and vegans may belong to a wide variety of religions. However, U.S. law is clear that non-theistic beliefs are included in definitions of religion. The Seeger Test and later the Welsh Test, which expanded on the Seeger test, concluded that religion includes “moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong that are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.” Research consistently shows that this is the case for vegans.
Additional legal precedent came from a case 9 years later (Malnak v Yogi 1979) and the Adams Test, where judge Adams proposed that whether a belief system was religious or not should be evaluated on three criteria:
The belief system must address life’s ultimate questions (e.g. topics like life and death, right and wrong, etc.).
The belief system must be broad in scope, not just address isolated issues.
It should have structure and organization, efforts at propagation etc.
Veganism clearly meets the first two criteria. On the third point, this is less clear because veganism lacks a clearly defined organizational structure or explicit efforts at propagation. However, this point also highlights a very Western conception of religion, where religion is organized around churches and hierarchical structures. Many Eastern Religions including Buddhism, Confucianism, and Daoism do not have rigid structures and are more about personal morals and ethics.
Ethical veganism is a sincerely held moral belief that informs behaviors. These are daily behaviors that require deep personal commitment. Every time a vegan picks up a food product to check the ingredients label they must make a choice and either reaffirm their commitment or not. In my survey of 491 vegans and vegetarians, 13.5% admitted to sometimes eating meat, with the majority of these saying they only ate meat once per year. Compare this to prayer among the religiously affiliated. Prayer is perhaps the lowest barrier to entry religious behavior that can be easily practiced, yet only 58% of religiously affiliated people in the United States pray daily. Ethical veganism also goes beyond what food people eat, it informs what clothes they wear, which cosmetics they use, what entertainment they consume, and more.
Whether we call it a non-theistic religion or something else entirely, veganism is a deeply held belief system that is central to the identity of its practitioners. Regardless of crimes committed, all human beings are guaranteed certain rights and protections, even while incarcerated. Vegan food is not a luxury, it is a commitment to nonviolence against animals. Its practitioners may not always live up to its lofty ideals, but this does not mean they should be stripped of the ability to try to reduce harm and live more consistently with their professed ethics. There is a clear existing precedent that vegans should receive plant-based foods because of their deeply held beliefs, but why should foods that cost less, are more environmentally friendly and healthier be limited only to people who can pass through a gauntlet? Vegetarians, pescatarians, and many other people would likely opt for plant-based meals if provided, thereby reducing the harm to animals, the planet, and their health. Plant-based food should be guaranteed for all incarcerated people in the United States.
Choosing a plant-based lifestyle is one of the most impactful choices you can make for animals, the environment, and your own well-being. Take Species Unite’s 30-Day Plant-Powered Challenge and become part of a movement that's changing the world for the better.
Written by Michael Briscoe
Michael Briscoe, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Colorado State University Pueblo. He is the author of the book Stocks or Stakeholders: The Benefits of Considering Animal Interests. His research and teaching focus on the interconnections of human, animal, and environmental well-being.
Want to write for Species Unite? We are looking for well-written stories focusing on content that informs, inspires, and engages our audience with topics surrounding animal rights.
We Have A Favor To Ask…
Species Unite amplifies well-researched solutions to some of the most abusive animal industries operating today.
At this crucial moment, with worldwide momentum for change building, it’s vital we share these animal-free solutions with the world - and we need your help.
We’re a nonprofit, and so to keep sharing these solutions, we’re relying on you - with your support, we can continue our essential work in growing a powerful community of animal advocates this year.
