<p>Daniel Dorado has argued that appeals to health in vegan advocacy may harm more animals than they save. This paper accepts the force of that warning when health is made the principal justification for veganism or vegetarianism. Arguments that put bodily or nutritional health first are vulnerable to contested evidence, individual variation, substitution from larger to smaller animals, and the narrowing of animal ethics into a campaign for human benefit. The paper argues, however, that this critique should not be extended to every appeal to health within dietary persuasion. Drawing on the idea of a cumulative case, it defends a limited pluralist strategy in which concern for animals remains central while environmental, humanitarian, feminist, character-based, and prudential considerations play subordinate yet legitimate roles. The paper also situates this strategy within a history of philosophical abstinence, including Pythagorean, Empedoclean, Stoic, Porphyrian, and Plutarchan arguments against meat. Properly framed, health considerations can answer prudential objections and widen entry points into ethical reflection without displacing the suffering, exploitation, and killing of animals, or the human injustices endemic to industrial animal agriculture.</p>