Did you not read it?
It seemed to me her main bones of contention were
1. Promoters using vegan to mean healthy
2. The notion of pledging / signing up, which she characterized as hard sell
3. The risk that a vegan diet as promoted to people with eating disorders may end up exacerbating the disorder
4. That veganism is promoted as something to adopt wholesale and this may put people off. She feels it's presented as all-or-nothing, when many people would be happy to make some effort this is considered hypocritical or insufficient.
5. Graphic adverts are unnecessary and counter productive.
I didn't consider point 5 to be her main argument. And none of the above are my arguments.
thanks
1. of course promoters are going to use the best bits, you can be an unhealthy vegan of course but the vast majority agree it is a healthy thing to do, even they and people on this thread do
2. so what? just don't sign up, some posters in a tube station or on buses is not hard sell, people stopping you in the street to sign you up or phoning you is 'hard sell'
3. errr then that is a risk with anything then, people with eating disorders need to be careful with any change in their diet, nothing to do with veganism. And is there any actual evidence of this other than "it could so shouldn't be promoted"?
4. How is getting people to try it for a month, ONE MONTH making people adopt it "wholesale", if it was all or nothing it would be "go vegan" and not encouraging people to do it for just a month. And again why the fuck do people care what the campaign says if it's not for them ignore it.
5. do Veganuary do any graphic adverts then?? or is this the lumping of every vegan org into one thing to point and sneer at, hypocrisy hunt and catch out??
lots of people have done it in the past and felt benefits, lots of people have continued to be vegan after the month, some have gone back to eating meat and everything they used to do in December or before, whoopee