About Gaz Oakley

Another ex-vegan, what now?

An understandable but perhaps ineffective reaction

Many people expressed strong negative sentiment when Gaz Oakley explained why he was no longer vegan. As someone quite fond of his videos, I felt similarly saddened by his decision. While he has surely convinced a lot of non-vegans to start or take steps towards eating a plant-based diet, it does feel pretty bad when someone who I thought understood that there’s no need to exploit animals, starts exploiting them again.

While there were plenty of people with constructive and respectful criticism, I also saw a lot of understandably bitter comments. Clearly to many in the vegan community, it’s obvious why this kind of reaction is justified.

“If someone went back to hitting their partner, wouldn’t you call them an asshole?”

In all honesty, I’d probably use words quite a bit worse than that. While I wouldn’t argue against anyone who thinks it’s right to call an asshole an asshole, is it actually effective? If asking them nicely, “Why do you think it’s moral to hit your partner?” opens up a conversation in which they end up never hitting them again, I think the victim would prefer that over me calling them names, no matter how justified I might be in doing the latter. Gaz doesn’t seem very interested in having such a conversation though, as he hasn’t engaged with any of the comments that don’t call him names.

This brings me to what worries me the most — how this affects non-vegans. While he might never go back to where we want him to be, he could still influence others to take steps towards veganism. We often rightly think people who use the stigma around vegans to refrain from making changes are being unreasonable, but we have to keep in mind the social aspect of being human. As much as we’d like for people to make ethical decisions uncaring about how it affects their social life, many won’t.

If we refused to give Gaz ammo against us, he and other non-vegans would hopefully be a bit more charitable when speaking about the community and veganism in general. To non-vegans, who don’t yet understand everything we stand for, name-calling and shaming someone who went back to some amount of animal exploitation after doing so much for animals seems excessive, and probably pushes them away from our cause.

In defence of an ex-vegan

While I understand and empathise with the anger and frustration felt by people, being unreasonably dismissive of someone’s story is probably more likely to backfire than help liberate animals. Gaz has definitely made a lot of money being a food influencer. The idea that this only happened because he exploited veganism for sales doesn’t seem very plausible. Do we really believe that in a world where 98% of the population isn’t vegan, he wouldn’t have grown his business if he’d included animal products in his recipes?

Another comment I saw come by a few times was that he never actually cared about animals. Understandably, the idea of a person leaving an ethical principle behind is hard to grasp for those still following it. Someone who held the label for many years, knowing the social consequences that come with it, isn’t likely to have never been invested in what animals go through. This seems even more clear given that since dropping the label he has continued to criticise factory farming, advocate for second-hand leather because he knows how horrific the industry is, and still advocates for plant-forward food choices. Despite my disagreement with how much better locally exploiting animals actually is, I don’t think there’s good evidence to say he doesn’t care.

Sadly, he falls for the idea that what’s natural is always what’s better, and while much of his reasoning isn’t very tight for someone who seems to take it seriously, I do think he genuinely believes his new behaviour makes the world a better place. This belief is clearly wrong to those who think their ethics through well enough, but instead of making assumptions about how he was always a narcissistic grifter, we ought to focus on what he’s doing wrong at this very moment, and how our words affect our cause. As another famous atheist ex-vegan once said: “How is this gonna look?”

What’s the difference?

Recently, Billie Eilish stood up against factory farming by posting horrific footage on her Instagram page. Most vegans supported her, but not always without bringing up the fact that she’s not really vegan, as she wears cow skin and rides horses. She, like many other celebrities who label themselves as such, doesn’t completely understand what that label entails. Still, we generally support her.

While I do see a difference between a vegan going back to exploiting animals and a non-vegan on their road to respecting them, I do hope we can still support people like Gaz whenever they’re speaking out against forms of animal exploitation. Does his decision feel like a stab in the back? Perhaps, but that shouldn’t blind us from what’s effective. The animals that are separated from their families, locked in cages, and shot in the head don’t really care about what we consider justified. They simply want their suffering to end. From the animals’ perspective, how different are Gaz and Billie really?

I agree with you

To be very clear, I’m deeply saddened by his “change of heart,” and the only reason my focus lies with the community’s response is because I expect they’re more willing to listen than Gaz. Whenever an ex-vegan brings up health issues regarding a plant-based diet without mentioning the dietitian they probably didn’t go to, I can’t help but disbelieve parts of their story. Listening to your body is fine when you feel like going to bed an hour early, but when considering exploiting innocent animals, you’ll have to base that decision on something at least a little bit stronger than, I don’t know, vibes?

If the day ever comes that I experience health issues with seemingly no solutions except eating animal products, I’d strongly recommend that everyone try their hardest to still eat plant-based. The evidence is overwhelming, and I wouldn’t want my imagined condition to cause even more skepticism and fear in a world where animals are exploited to death by the billions.

Gaz also talked about eating “invasive species” like pigeons and deer. What does it really mean to be invasive though? If he means animals that cause damage to natural ecosystems, humans are obviously the worst offenders. Since this doesn’t always work for those who think humans rank supreme, what about cats? His ethics don’t seem to do much work here, as it’s clear he’s only willing to eat the animals he feels somewhat comfortable eating. I say “somewhat” because he does use the term “invasive” to feel better about his actions. A lot of his reasoning seems to come down to the good old appeal-to-nature fallacy, which I’d hoped someone like him would’ve grown past by now.

Also, bashing tofu? Really? What an asshole.

---