Desai 1

Vishal Desai
Professor Campbell
UWRT 1103
April 12, 2016

Vegetarianism
A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats
meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is
immoral.
Vegetarianism is a diet excluding all meat and fish. One should live this lifestyle because
of many benefits. Vegetarianism is a better alternative of eating habits and should become
universal for the good of the animals, the environment, and also human well-being
A majority of the population confuses the difference between a vegan and a vegetarian
diet. A vegan diet is when a person does not eat or use animal products such as dairy products
and a vegetarian is a diet where the person does not eat meat or fish. It is a popular
misunderstanding that vegetarianism is the new fad lifestyle, but it is not. According to
Ingredient Helpers, 22.8 million Americans follow a vegetarian inclined diet and 57.1 percent
have been a vegetarian for over ten years, thus proving that the idea that vegetarianism is the new
fad is a myth (Ingredient Helpers). Not only do Americans follow a vegetarian lifestyle,
countries such as Brazil and India have a high percentage of vegetarians in their countries.
Brazil has nine percent of its population vegetarians and India has the highest percentage
resulting in 40 percent of their population as vegetarians (Target Map). There are many reasons
why one might choose this vegetarian lifestyle, but the top reasons are animal welfare,

Desai 2

environmental concerns, natural approaches to wellness, food safety concerns, weight loss and
maintenance (Ingredient Helpers).
One of the top reasons in choosing a vegetarian lifestyle is the morality of animals.
Mentioned earlier in the quote by Leo Tolstoy, killing animals for food is immoral. It degrades
the value of an animal, which is a living and breathing being. The main moral problem is that it
is wrong in principle to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish (BBC
News. All humans have an equal right to life, one right that we cannot acquire or have granted to
us, and one that we all are supposed to have just because we are human beings. On what basis
then, might it be alleged that all and only humans possess this right to an equal extent (Regan).
Tom Regan is the philosophical leader of the animal rights movement and has a strong viewpoint
upon the killing of animals. The data, main moral problem is that it is wrong to raise and kill
animals simply for human appetite, relates to the claim because as stated by BBC and Tom
Regan, it is not only humans that have the equal right to life, but animals as well Raising and
killing animals for food is morally wrong.
Not only is killing animals for food immoral, the way they are treated is unacceptable.
For egg-laying hens and swine, these faculties confine the animals to cages or pens barely larger
than the animal itself. Gestating sows are confined to stalls so small that they prohibit the animal
from turning around, and laying hens are allotted 67 square inches of space at most, despite the
fact that the hen needs 75 square inches to stand comfortably and 144 square inches to spread its
wings (Lusk, Norwood). The way the animals are treated in some food farms and factories is
unacceptable.

It violates their right to life and their living condition is very hazardous for their

health and has no benefit to them in anyway.

Desai 3

From a contradicting viewpoint, many can argue that animals are just animals. You
cannot outweigh an animals life to a human life. By outweighing, humans are more beneficial to
the society as a whole and therefore, it cannot be compared to an animals life. Utilitarianism is
a doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. In other words,
the greater good for the greater amount of people. The majority of the population is nonvegetarian and there must be a way to provide food for them. It is very clear that a large
percentage of the worlds population eats meat. Since a large portion of the world consumes
meat products, one simply cannot take away meat from their daily diet. Humans are at the top of
the food chain and it is a matter of a predator and prey relationship. This predator and prey
relationships maintain the balance in nature. Also, outweighing an animals worth over a
humans life is immoral in that case because a humans life is much more valuable; they have the
potential to change the society. Finally, programs such as the Slaughter Improvement Program
are trying to improve conditions and trying to make it more moral. The Slaughter Improvement
Program was a three year $60 million program designed to strengthen the competitiveness of the
red meat industry by providing interest-free, conditionally repayable contributions to support
investments that improved and modernized slaughter operations and capacity, as well as those
which improved environmental and animal welfare conditions (Government of Canada).
Although it is true that a majority of the worlds population are meat consumers, the
concept of deontology states that each individual has his own rights and any means to take those
rights away is immoral. In refutation to the statement about improving slaughter house
conditions, trying to improve slaughter house conditions is virtually impossible because there is
an exponential growth for the demand of meat worldwide and there is not enough space. Meat
is like oil, because the global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years. In 2008, the

Desai 4

president of Brazil announced emergency measures to halt the burning and cutting of the
countrys rain forests for crop and grazing land. In the last five months alone, the government
says, 1,250 square miles were lost. The worlds total supply of meat was 71 million tons back in
1961 (Bittman). Given the statistics, it is impossible to improve conditions for slaughter houses
because of land restrictions. As mentioned earlier, hens and other animals barely have enough
space to fit themselves and with an exponential growth of demand for meat, it is impossible for
conditions to improve. In refutation to the predator and prey argument, nature maintains the
balance itself, humans might be at the top of the food chain, but it is essential to acknowledge
that everything is interconnected. Humans do not have to interfere because in different
ecosystems, there are going to be predator and prey relationships among the animals. Moving
on, as a result of the land restrictions, the environment is greatly impacted by the consumption of
meat.
The environment is greatly impacted by the production and consumption of meat
products, therefore transitioning into the lifestyle of vegetarianism is greatly beneficial to the
environment. According to Autonomie Projects Blog, Statistics on Vegetarianism, movies such
as Food Inc. expose the way food and specifically meat is produced in the US and this creates the
fear of global warming. Growing meat uses so many resources that its a challenge to enumerate
them all. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, they estimate
that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the worlds greenhouse gases more than
transportation. If Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent, it would be as
if we all switched from a standard sedan to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year
by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds
of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average

Desai 5

European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20
days (Bittman). The data given relates to the claim mentioned earlier because of the fact that
people are unaware of how much pollution is produced by simply producing and consuming
meat. Also mentioned in the data, an example of a transition to a vegetarian lifestyle was also
given and therefore was supporting the claim, consumption and production of meat harms the
environment drastically.
By converting to vegetarianism, there would be fewer crop acres planted and hence less
pollution from fertilizer runoff and pesticides. Furthermore, a portion of the acres no
longer needed to feed Americans could be used to feed less fortunate parts of the world
(Lusk). In the only paper on the issue, Risku-Norja and Maenpaa constructed an inputoutput model of the Finnish agricultural and food production system and forecasted that
an increase in vegetarianism would reduce the need for agricultural land and lead to
positive environmental outcomes such as lower greenhouse gas emissions(Lusk). It is
clearly evident that switching to a vegetarian lifestyle would result in fewer crop acres
being planted and therefore resulting in the decreased use of fertilizers and pesticides.
Also, the acres not used could be used to feed the less fortunate parts of the world and
this would definitely be a win-win situation both environmentally and internationally.

With the technological advancements that are emerging into society, countries such as
Israel, Korea, and the US are constantly trying to make efforts to eliminate pollution produced
from meat production. The United Nations estimates that they account for 31 percent of global
farm income. Improved farming practices would help, too. Mark W. Rosegrant, director of
environment and production technology at the nonprofit International Food Policy Research -

Desai 6

footprint needed to produce any given level of meat (Bittman) - . Israel and Korea are among
the countries experimenting with using animal waste to generate electricity. Some of the biggest
hog operations in the United States are working, with some success, to turn manure into fuel
(Bittman). With the evidence provided, the use of technology has the potential to significantly
improve the environment and with the help of top countries and their abundance of resources,
they can reduce the pollution and overall help the environment rather than hurting it.
Although there is technology we can depend on to help the environment, with technology
comes the usage of energy which would be even more detrimental to the environment. The
usage of energy has significantly increased over the past years. While the domestic demand for
meat has leveled off, the industrial production of livestock is growing more than twice as fast as
land-based methods, according to the United Nations (Bittman). As mentioned earlier, yes there
is technology but with that comes the extensive use of energy which would only be contradicting
the point of helping the environment by actually destroying the earth from its natural resources.
Energy requires the use of fossil fuels which there is a very dangerously low supply of. Now,
that morality of animals and the environment have been stated, the human benefits are now going
to be stated.
Becoming a vegetarian has many benefits, but the main benefit would include improving
the human body. The reasons vary from religious, environmental, cruelty towards animals, to
just the desire for a healthier lifestyle. A predominantly non-vegetarian diet poses many health
risks. Being vegetarian is a natural way to detox the body, because a vegetarian diet is richer in
fiber, vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants, which help to cleanse the body's system. Meat and
fish contain a lot of residue from toxic chemicals. Dr. Richa Anand, nutritionist, says that
according to a study, it has been observed that the bodies of carnivorous animals contain 10

Desai 7

times more hydrochloric acid than that of herbivorous ones, but the human body should not have
the same amount of hydrochloric acid. This establishes the fact that the human body is basically
meant for a vegetarian diet. So digestion of vegetarian food is easier for our bodies (Antao).
Studies that look at people and their habits have linked vegetarian diets with a decreased risk of
heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and colon cancer. A review of studies
looked at the effects of vegetarian diets among Seventh-Day Adventists, whose religious doctrine
advises against eating animal flesh. The review found that Seventh-Day Adventists had less heart
disease and fewer cases of some types of cancer than most people (Fraser). Data [is] strong
that vegetarians are at lesser risk for obesity, atonic (reduced muscle tone) constipation, lung
cancer, and alcoholism (Higgins). The data relates to the claim because as mentioned earlier, it
is clearly stated that a predominantly non vegetarian diet poses many health risks and with a
vegetarian diet, it is natural detox, it increases longevity and is beneficial in general. There is a
decrease in chances for cancer, heart disease, and as stated before by Antao, a human body is not
meant for a predominantly meat diet, it is meant for a vegetarian diet.
Collaborative analysis [used] original data from five prospective studies. Death rate
ratios for vegetarians compared to non-vegetarians were calculated for ischemic heart disease,
cerebrovascular disease, cancers of the stomach, large bowel, lung, breast and prostate, and for
all causes of death. All results were adjusted for age, sex and smoking. A random effects model
was used to calculate pooled estimates of effect for all studies combined (National Library of
Medicine). From this study that was conducted, it is absolutely clear that vegetarians are clearly
at a reduced risk of heart disease that could potentially lead to death and therefore making the
transition to vegetarian beneficial to the human body and improving their lifespan. However,
being a vegetarian poses many health benefits, it fails to satisfy the main nutrients a body needs.

Desai 8

Vegetarianism fails to provide the main nutrients a body needs to survive and stay
healthy. Assumptions that a vegetarian diet tends to be lower in saturated fat and higher in ber,
but high in carbohydrates and low in protein. A vegetarian diet might not be a healthy diet if the
cooking method is high in fat mainly from deep-fried food items (Tan). With a vegetarian diet,
the high lipid foods such as deep fried soy based products actually are detrimental to the human
body and increase the risk of heart disease.
Mrs. Sarojini Padmanathan became a vegetarian about 10 years ago when a health
screening showed a borderline cholesterol problem (Tan). The reason for the cholesterol
problem was because she was a non-vegetarian. There is protein in lentils and soy beans, and I
take iron-rich food like beetroot, spinach I eat spinach [every day] (Tan). With what the
opposition has stated, it failed to mention any alternatives to the vitamins needed in a healthy
human body. Not all vegetarian food is consisted of deep fried food items. In fact, many of the
cuisine items include nutrient rich items. As mentioned earlier about Saro, she switched to
vegetarianism because of a cholesterol problem and it includes the animal fat in which she used
to consume so in general, the consumption of meat products only increases the risk of heart
disease and many more health complications and therefore making a vegetarian lifestyle ideal for
the human body. Thus, continuing on to the conclusion.
In conclusion, vegetarianism is the healthier alternative compared to the lifestyle of a
person who eats meat and it should become a universal diet because it provides the greater good
for animals, the environment, and humans.