That’s a weird graph. It’s not saying omnivores are 100% at risk of diabetes, it’s just saying that vegans are half as likely to get diabetes than omnivores. I get that this is a pro-vegan post, and I’m not doubting it’s benefits in this area, but there are less manipulative ways to display information. A better way would have been to peg omnivores at 7.6% according to the tonstad 2009 study they’re citing and make it clear the graph does go higher by making the highest amount 10%. It would be readable but less obviously biased and give more information about actual risk with each diet.
I mean, the source article specifically points out a second time that it’s not a 100% chance for omnivores (and I’m hoping no one would believe so anyways), so I doubt it was intended to be manipulative.
And I do think this is a worthwhile graph. You’re half as likely to develop diabetes, that’s the relevant info here.
Assuming people don’t get mislead to think 100% of omnivores get diabetes, I don’t think the majority of people would be any wiser by knowing it’s specifically 7.6%. These percentages are hard to conceptualize, especially since various factors are at play.
“Compared to 100% of an omnivore’s risk” is an interesting way to display this data
