Skip to main content
VegEco

Food & Nutrition

Vegan vs vegetarian

Vegetarianism removes the animals from your plate; veganism removes them from your supply chain. The gap between the two is mostly dairy and eggs, and that gap turns out to carry most of the welfare and climate difference. Here is what actually changes when you cross it.

Side by side

Vegan compared with Vegetarian
CriterionVeganVegetarian
What is excludedAll animal products, including dairy, eggs, honey, gelatine and animal-derived additives.Meat and fish only; dairy and eggs remain.
Animal impactRemoves demand from the dairy and egg systems, which involve calf separation and male-chick culling.Leaves those systems intact — laying hens and dairy cows still enter the meat supply at the end of production.
Nutrients to watchB12 (supplement required), vitamin D, iodine, omega-3 DHA/EPA, iron, zinc.Iron, zinc and omega-3 still need attention; B12 is partly covered by dairy and eggs.
Eating outImproving fast, but still requires checking butter, cheese and egg-glaze in many cuisines.Widely catered for on almost every menu.

Questions people ask

Is being vegetarian enough to help animals?
It helps, but dairy and egg production still depend on breeding, separation and slaughter — dairy cows and laying hens are killed once productivity drops. Dropping those two categories is where most of the remaining welfare impact sits.
Do vegetarians need a B12 supplement?
Vegans certainly do. Vegetarians get some B12 from dairy and eggs, but low intake is still common, so testing or a low-dose supplement is a reasonable precaution.

Our reporting on this

Related desks

More comparisons

The criteria this comparison applies to both sides

This comparison weighs two options against the same criteria so the trade-off is visible instead of implied. We do not crown a universal winner: the better choice depends on what you are optimising for — emissions, animal welfare, nutrition, cost, availability or time — and those priorities differ legitimately between readers.

Everything below is drawn from our own reporting in this edition. Where the evidence is genuinely contested, the comparison says so rather than resolving it artificially, and the linked articles show the datasets behind each claim.

How we compare

Both sides are measured against identical criteria and, wherever possible, against figures from the same study or dataset — mixing sources with different system boundaries is the most common way comparisons mislead. Emissions are given per useful unit rather than per kilogram where that changes the ranking, welfare is assessed against the certification scheme actually in force, and nutrition is compared at realistic serving sizes.

What the comparison cannot settle

Local context decides several criteria. Water footprint depends on where a crop grows, not only on what it is. Availability, price and labelling rules vary by country. Personal nutrition needs vary by age, pregnancy, medication and medical history. Treat the comparison as a structured way to think, and check the criteria that are local to you.

Making the decision

Pick the two or three criteria that actually matter to you and ignore the rest — a comparison optimised for everything at once is optimised for nothing. If the two options are close on your priorities, the tiebreaker is usually whichever you will realistically keep doing, because sustained changes outperform theoretically optimal ones that get abandoned.

The criteria this comparison applies to both sides
CriterionWhat we look atWhy it varies
ClimateEmissions per useful unitSystem boundaries and geography
Land and waterUse per unit of outputLocal rainfall and land quality
AnimalsWelfare outcomes, not labelsCertification scheme in force
NutritionRealistic serving sizesIndividual needs and intake
PracticalityCost, availability, effortCountry and household
The criteria this comparison applies to both sides

FAQ

Why is there no overall winner?
Because the criteria trade off against each other. An option that wins on emissions may lose on cost or availability, so a single ranking would hide the decision you are actually making. The comparison shows each criterion separately instead.
Are the figures the same everywhere?
No. Water use, emissions intensity, price and labelling rules all vary by country and by year. We give the region and date for every figure so you can judge whether it applies where you live.
Is this comparison sponsored?
No. VegEco accepts no payment for coverage and no brand placements. Comparisons are brand-neutral and explain what you can verify yourself on a label or in a public dataset.
Should I use this for medical decisions?
No. Nutrition sections describe general evidence, not individual advice. If you are pregnant, managing a condition or taking medication, discuss dietary changes with a qualified clinician.