Podcast Summary:

New Books Network – Animal Studies Channel
Episode: Josh Milburn, Food, Justice, and Animals: Feeding the World Respectfully (Oxford UP, 2023)
Date: February 21, 2026
Host: Kyle Johansen
Guest: Dr. Josh Milburn (Lecturer in Political Philosophy, Loughborough University; Host of Knowing Animals podcast)

Overview: Main Theme and Purpose

This episode features a conversation between host Kyle Johansen and philosopher Dr. Josh Milburn about Milburn’s new book, Food, Justice, and Animals: Feeding the World Respectfully. The discussion explores the case for a non-vegan but animal rights–respecting future food system, challenging standard assumptions in animal activism and political philosophy regarding veganism as the ideal. Milburn articulates a vision where humans and animals can co-exist with respectful interdependence, especially when it comes to the ethics of food production and consumption.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. About Dr. Josh Milburn and the Book’s Motivations

• Background: Milburn’s work focuses on moral and political philosophy, particularly animal rights and food ethics ([02:27]).
• Motivation for the Book: Arises from serious engagement with nuanced arguments against veganism and a desire to explore what a “just” human-animal food relationship could look like ([06:05]).
• Two Foundations: Combines rigorous examination of veganism’s “edge cases” with political theories on animals’ inclusion as members of society ([06:05]).

2. Critical Perspective on Veganism

• Clarification: The book is “critical of veganism, but in a very specific way” ([11:21]).
  • Milburn argues for animal rights as foundational but suggests there may be principled reasons for a non-vegan, rights-respecting ideal society.
  • “A vegan food system is not a panacea,” and may not solve every problem from an animal rights perspective ([11:21]).
• Key Distinction: Commitment to animal rights may lead to different conclusions than commitment to veganism; sometimes, respecting animal rights could include non-vegan elements ([11:21]–[14:39]).
  • “There might actually be a gap between a commitment to animal rights and a commitment to veganism. And when those are in tension, my commitment is to animal rights, not to veganism.” — Josh Milburn ([14:39])

3. Flipping the Conventional Veganism vs. Idealism Paradigm

• Standard View: Many see veganism/abolitionism as the ideal, and compromise only for pragmatic, non-ideal reasons.
• Milburn’s Argument: In ideal theory, a non-vegan (but animal rights-respecting) food system could be the true ideal; veganism is optimal mainly under current, non-ideal conditions ([16:03]).
  • “The ideal that we're aiming for should be ... a non-vegan system. But this is a non-vegan system that is very, very far removed from the non-vegan system that we currently have.” ([16:03])
• Practical Implication: Calls for abolishing animal agriculture as currently practiced, but leaves room for animal products when produced via rights-respecting, non-exploitative methods ([16:03]–[20:31]).

4. Options for Ethical Animal Products and Future Food Systems

Milburn outlines four “gaps” or opportunities for animal products in a just future:

• 1. Non-sentient animals: (e.g., oysters, jellyfish) can be used without rights violation;
• 2. Plant-based analogues: (e.g., plant-based meats);
• 3. Cellular agriculture: Producing animal products at a cellular level without harm (cultivated meat, milk, etc.);
• 4. Respectful co-production: Hypothetical models where animals are treated as protected “workers,” e.g., egg-laying hens with full rights ([16:03]–[20:31]).

5. Liberal Pluralism and Conceptions of the Good

• Accommodation Argument: Non-vegan, rights-respecting systems better accommodate diverse, reasonable conceptions of the good within liberal democracies ([23:55]–[28:42]).
  • Many people’s meaningful experiences (e.g., religious, cultural, aesthetic, professional) are intertwined with animal products.
  • State should not “cut off someone’s route to their good life without a very good reason” ([23:55]).
• Important Caveat: This argument never justifies rights violations; only “rights-respecting” animal products are permissible ([23:55]).
  • “All they do is they offer us a very good reason to try to find a rights respecting way for them to realise the things that are important to them.” — Josh Milburn ([33:00])

6. On Reasonableness and Justice

• Reasonableness of Conceptions of Good: Challenges arise over whether animal-product-reliant conceptions are reasonable. Milburn introduces the distinction between “contingently unreasonable” and “necessarily unreasonable” notions—sometimes, social context makes a conception problematic, but it could be rendered reasonable in a just society ([29:39]–[33:00]).
• Justice vs. Mere Morality:
  • Justice / Rights: Those duties that can rightly be enforced by the state—concerns with rights violations ([37:51]).
  • Mere Morality: Non-enforceable duties, potentially important but not matters of justice; e.g., individual religious dietary practices ([40:28]).
  • It’s plausible and appropriate for individuals to observe “stricter” standards than what justice enforces ([40:28]).

7. Invertebrate Ethics & Uncertainty

• Sentience Trichotomy:
  • Probably sentient (e.g., octopus)—deserve full rights.
  • Probably not sentient (e.g., oysters, jellyfish)—no rights; permissible for consumption.
  • Plausibly sentient (e.g., insects, ambiguous cases)—require cautious, suffering-avoidant treatment ([43:10]–[49:22]).
• Psychological Continuity: For plausibly sentient animals with low “psychological continuity” (no persistent self), suffering is more ethically significant than killing ([51:10]).

8. Cellular Agriculture and the Future of Food

• Definition: Production of animal products at the cellular, not organism, level. Includes cultivated (“lab-grown”) meat, milk, etc. ([53:21]).
  • “Cellular agriculture could produce animal products that are able to replicate that almost exactly ... from the consumer’s perspective ... these products are basically the same.” ([53:21])
• Ethical Upside: Can satisfy the needs of humans (and non-human carnivores, e.g., cats) for animal products without rights violation ([57:24]–[58:48]).
• Relevance for Activists: Vegans may be less interested in cultivated meat for themselves, but much more supportive when it comes to animal food (e.g., cat food) ([58:48]).

9. Animals as Rights-Bearing ‘Workers’

• Cultivated Meat Models:
  1. “Pig in the backyard” (pets donate cells directly).
  2. Mail-order cells (disembodied cell lines).
  3. Animal worker model (animals as protected “workers”) ([60:15]).
• Worker Model Details:
  • Animals retain “genuine protections as workers”—right to safety, leisure, even “pay,” and the possibility (for, e.g., chickens) of retirement and health care ([60:15]; [64:52]).
• Concrete Example: Chickens and Eggs:
  • Current breeds sometimes suffer due to being bred for high productivity (e.g., ovarian cancer). Proposed system: short, well-protected periods of egg-laying, followed by retirement with full care ([64:52]).
  • Contraception might be used post-retirement to prevent illness. This model aims to let humans “have our cow and eat her, too”: combine animal welfare and meaningful human-animal relationships ([64:52]–[70:37]).

10. Implications for Animal Activism

• No Single Activist Approach Mandated: Milburn’s framework is compatible with a range of activist strategies (abolitionist, welfarist, pro-technology), but encourages openness to new technologies like cellular agriculture ([70:51]).
• Activism Today: While advocating a non-vegan ideal, Milburn stresses there are still “very good reasons” to promote vegan activism under current conditions; his vision is about the direction, not immediate tactics ([70:51]–[73:23]).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the book’s challenge to veganism:

  • “A vegan food system is not a panacea. It's not going to solve all of our problems or it's not immediately clear that it will. There are questions that we should raise about a vegan food system.” — Milburn ([11:21])

• On animal rights vs. veganism:

  • “There might actually be a gap between a commitment to animal rights and a commitment to veganism. And when those are in tension, my commitment is to animal rights, not to veganism.” — Milburn ([14:39])

• On liberal pluralism:

  • “Every time we cut off someone's route to their good life without a very good reason, that's a tragedy. And even when we cut it off with a very good reason, that too is a tragedy.” — Milburn ([23:95])

• On the importance of ideal theory:

  • “We can't really do rigorous non ideal theory ... without having done some ideal theory first. We don't know ... where we're going, [so] we can't have a very good conversation about how to get there.” — Milburn ([22:07])

• On animal rights as justice:

  • “I'm saying it is unjust for us to kill animals. ... If you think it’s okay to kill animals and you actually act upon that, the state should step in and prevent you.” — Milburn ([33:00])

• On sentience and policy for invertebrates:

  • “Because there's so much uncertainty with these animals ... [they] should have a right to protection from those treatments that our best estimates suggest would lead to them suffering.” — Milburn ([49:22])

• On the future of animal food for pets:

  • “Vegans and vegetarians aren’t particularly interested in purchasing cultivated meat for themselves, but they are very interested ... for their companion animals. … The market for cultivated meat as pet food could actually be quite different.” — Milburn ([58:48])

• On animals as workers:

  • “Animals are welcome in our future society ... and can contribute to our society, provided that contribution carries with it the sorts of protections and assurances that we give each other.” — Milburn ([60:15])

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [02:27] – Dr. Milburn introduces his background and motivation for the book.
• [06:05] – Origins of the project: “why write this book?”
• [11:21] – What the book does and does not challenge about veganism.
• [14:39] – Flipping the relationship between veganism and the ideal.
• [16:03] – Introducing alternative models for just food systems.
• [23:55] – Accommodating plural conceptions of the good in food policy.
• [29:39] – Differentiating reasonable and unreasonable conceptions of the good.
• [33:00] – On justice, state intervention, and non-justifiable rights violations.
• [37:51] – Justice vs. mere morality explained.
• [43:10] – Sentience trichotomy and policy implications for invertebrates.
• [51:10] – Role of psychological continuity in animal ethics.
• [53:21] – What is cellular agriculture? How could it transform food systems?
• [58:48] – Cultivated meat for pets and implications for vegan consumers.
• [60:15] – Treating animals as workers—models for cultivated meat.
• [64:52] – Practical example: egg-laying chickens as protected workers.
• [70:51] – Implications for activism in light of the book’s arguments.
• [73:43] – Milburn’s current and future projects.

Conclusion

This episode offers a comprehensive and provocative exploration of what an animal rights–respecting future for human food systems could look like. Dr. Milburn emphasizes the importance of nuanced, pluralist, and pragmatic approaches, challenging the assumption that veganism alone is the sharpest expression of justice for animals. With deep dives into the distinctions between justice and morality, the potential of new technologies like cellular agriculture, and the complexities of sentience, the conversation provides fresh “food for thought” for ethicists, activists, and all who care about animals and our shared future.