Online Pre-sessional Programme
Durham Centre for Academic Development
Essay: Vegetarianism
Assess the arguments for vegetarianism.
There is now an increasing demand for meat and other animal protein beyond the West in
China, Brazil, Korea and India (van Huis, 2013; FAO, 2011). This has resulted in an
enormous expansion of intensified livestock production, and a dramatic increase in the
world’s population of farmed animals (Compassion in World Farming, no date). This dietary
trend is having a significant negative impact on our bodies, on animals, and on global land
use and the environment.Thus, it is timely to re-evaluate dietary choices, particularly with
regard to vegetarianism. However, it should be noted that, although vegetarianism involves
the absence of red meat, medical studies have shown that “diets may differ greatly even
when all lack meat” (Fraser, 2009, p.1608). Indeed, according to the University of Maryland
Medical Centre, although a vegetarian diet “contains no animal proteins”, there are also
other forms including, pescatarianism, lacto-vegetarianism, lacto-ovo vegetarianism, and
semi or partial vegetarianism which account for those vegetarians who eat fish and shellfish,
or who eat some or all dairy products, or who eat some kinds of white meat (UMM, no date).
Nevertheless, vegetarianism is popularly understood as a dietary choice which has
significant benefits over meat eating. This essay will assess the vegetarian claims to better
health outcomes, protection of animal rights, and reduced environmental impact and show
that all are flawed. It will argue that to achieve these benefits, innovative change in dietary
and consumer habits and in contemporary large-scale farming is required.
Although vegetarians often argue that their diet is healthy, they face opposition from those
who cite our evolutionary history as omnivores as proof that we need meat in our diets
(Milton, 1999). Indeed, the United States Department of Agriculture includes meat in its
recommended ‘balanced diet’ (United States Department of Agriculture, 1995, p. 8).
Moreover, research has suggested that vegetarians may be deficient in saturated fats,
which are significant for the immune and nervous systems and mental health (Buckert et
al., 2014). However, confusingly, the American Dietetic Association (2009) states all the
protein and amino acids necessary for health can be acquired from a vegetarian diet, and
this is confirmed by the United States Department of Agriculture which declares that a
vegetarian diet can meet “the recommended dietary allowances for nutrients” (United States
Department of Agriculture, 1995). Whilst evidence exists indicating that a vegetarian diet
reduces the risk of death from heart disease (Key et al., 1999), according to Craig (2009),
1
Online Pre-sessional Programme
Durham Centre for Academic Development
this evidence is problematic as a result of the wide variation in interpretations of a vegetarian
diet. The evidence as to the health benefits of a vegetarian diet is thus unclear and research
evidence regarding optimal diet seems confused.
A more useful approach to healthy eating may be to focus on diet diversity and
proportionality of nutritional foodstuffs, regardless of whether these are animal-based or
plant-based. For example, although a vegetarian diet is associated with increased
protection from various cancers (Craig, 2009), it may be the avoidance of certain types of
meat rather than all meat that is significant. As Craig points out (2009), eating red meat and
processed meat in particular increases cancer risk. Similarly, beef, lamb and dairy, which
dominate Western non-vegetarian diets, are particularly high in trans-fatty acids and
increase risk of coronary heart disease (Astrup et al., 2008). However, this health risk is
also caused by industrially produced trans-fat which occurs not only in fast-food meat
products but in a variety of vegetarian biscuits, snacks and potato products, resulting in
unhealthy amounts of trans-fat in many modern diets, including the diets of vegetarians
(ibid). A further complication is the consumption of insects, of which approximately 1,900
species are eaten worldwide (Van Huis, 2013). These have been consistently found to be
nutrient-rich with high quality protein, appropriate fatty acid composition, and with better
fibre content than animal meat (Belluco et al, 2013). Yet insect protein is not included in the
Western definition of foodstuff at all, being largely consumed in developing countries only
(Van Huis, 2013). Thus, the concepts of ‘vegetarian’ and ‘non-vegetarian’ can be misleading
and over-simplistic, and regional and cultural variations in diet must be taken into account.
Indeed, it appears the only clear link between diet and health is that a diet narrowly based
on certain types of meat and certain meat production methods can be extremely damaging
to our health.
Certainly in the West, vegetarianism is often presented as an ethical lifestyle choice that
rejects harming animals for our own benefit. However, this argument is arguably deeply
personal and cultural, and its force is undermined as many of us, vegetarians included, lack
adequate knowledge of animal-product industries. Although vegetarians frequently cite
animal welfare as part of their motivation for not eating meat, an ethical argument is never
going to persuade all, since ethics are largely historically and culturally bound. The choice
to kill, to make suffer, or to manipulate the life of an animal (and to what degree) is a matter
of rational and moral judgment and therefore unlikely to be settled. Indeed, to argue that
there can be a rational, universally-valid answer to an ethical question such as this is
philosophically problematic (Weber, 1994). Moreover, even to make moral arguments
2
Online Pre-sessional Programme
Durham Centre for Academic Development
regarding animal welfare is to pre-suppose that we have knowledge of the meat-industry
and its practices and it is arguable whether modern consumers possess this knowledge as,
certainly in modern western society, we have very little if any direct experience of the
process of farming and slaughtering animals (Gross, 2015). Large-scale modern animal
agriculture typically takes place not on small family-run farms within rural communities, but
on large remote industrial sites (Compassion in World Farming, no date) and research
shows that many potentially ethically-interested consumers struggle to find meaningful
information about their food (ibid).
However, regardless of our ability to make informed, ethical decisions about the
acceptability of the meat-production industry, there are three reasons why adhering to a
vegetarian diet is not sufficient to protect animals from manipulation and harm. Firstly,
vegetarianism in the West often involves heavy consumption of dairy products, yet current
intensive dairy cow farming techniques severely restrict cows’ ability to engage in natural
behaviour, to mother their young, and to graze outdoors (Compassion in World Farming, no
date). These restrictions result in multiple health complications, and the lifespan of dairy
cows is unnaturally shortened whilst ‘surplus’ calves are routinely slaughtered (ibid).
Secondly, ironically, animals that are valued for their milk may be at greater risk of harm
than those intended for meat production. For example, the growing goat-milk industry in the
UK (where goat meat is not traditionally consumed) routinely involves the mass slaughter
of male kids, (Viva, 2012). Finally, a vegetarian wishing to protect animals needs to make
many other consumer sacrifices. Besides the obvious leather industry, animal by-products
are now used in a wealth of diverse non-foodstuff products including water filters, insulation,
rubber, antifreeze, certain plastics, floor waxes, crayons, chalk, adhesives and fertilizer
(USDA, 2011). Hence, it is argued that only comprehensive veganism, defined as not buying
any products containing animal derivatives whether for food or not, can obey a moral
imperative to not harm animals (Hooley & Nobis, 2015). Clearly, the ethical question of
animal welfare has philosophical difficulties, is obscured by consumer ignorance, and
cannot be tackled effectively by dietary choices.
The damaging environmental impact of the meat industry is increasingly well recognised,
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006). The UN Environment
Programme (2010) concludes that only a “worldwide diet change away from animal
products” will halt the worst effects of global climate change. Some of this damage is caused
by enteric fermentation (the digestive gases of farmed ruminant animals being released into
the atmosphere), which makes up 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions (Stehfest et al,
3
Online Pre-sessional Programme
Durham Centre for Academic Development
2009). Some is the result of land degradation through over-grazing, effluent waste,
transportation, slaughter, and the increasing destruction of rainforest for beef cattle farming
or the growth of crops for cattle-feed (Carlsson-Kanyama and Gonzalez, 2009). Robbins
(2007) reports that, on average, the production of one hamburger requires the destruction
of 55 square feet of rainforest. This raises questions about the global resource efficiency of
land and water. It has been shown that producing 1kg of beef requires 15 times as much
land as producing 1kg of cereals, and 70 times as much land as 1kg of vegetables
(Gerbens-Leenes & Nonhebel, 2005). A detailed report on water use by the global livestock
sector reveals that grazing land, animal drinking water, growth of crops for feed, animal
storage and slaughter, and product processing are highly water-use intensive, and also
result in significant water pollution and depletion (Food and Agricultural Organisation of the
United Nations, 2006).
However, these damaging environmental consequences of animal agriculture do not
automatically justify vegetarianism as a plant-based diet would not avoid negative
environmental impact. Modern commercial crop agriculture has intensified in similar ways
to animal agriculture. In order to increase yield efficiency, monocultural approaches such as
the “mono-forest of roughly 600,000 acres” of almond trees in California have become the
norm (Stromfeldt Christensen, 2015). Industrialised monoculture tends to be heavily reliant
on chemical input and the result is multiple negative impacts on long-term soil quality and
water resources (Bourne, 2015). Another disastrous side-effect of current intensive crop
production practices is the crisis in global bee colony health (Benjamin and McCallum,
2008). Although the exact chain of cause and effect is highly contested, there is little doubt
that bees are suffering the consequences of intensive selective breeding, exposure to
pesticides, and reduced access to diversified plant environments (Benjamin and McCallum,
2008). Given that “over a third of global food production is dependent on animal pollination
for reproduction and managed honey bees are the most important commercial pollinators
of those crops” it seems that current crop agricultural practices constitute a devastating risk
to our environment (Castle, 2013).
Clearly a simple switch to a vegetarian diet is not a direct answer to environmental concerns
if livestock continues to be farmed for use in other products. However, there are other
responses. For example, it must be recognised that meat and dairy wastage is startlingly
high. In Europe and North America, for example, over 20% of meat products are wasted
annually, for which the consumer is largely responsible. There are similar figures for dairy
products and up to 50% of fish and seafood is wasted (FAO, 2011). By eliminating
4
Online Pre-sessional Programme
Durham Centre for Academic Development
this wastage, we could significantly reduce the current meat and dairy sector without
impacting our dietary habits. Another innovative response would be to develop the role of
insects in both our own and our livestock’s diets, as research shows that they are efficient
in their conversion of feed and do not emit significant greenhouse gases (Van Huis, 2013).
Moreover, some species “can be grown on organic side streams, reducing environmental
contamination and transforming waste into high-protein feed that can replace increasingly
more expensive compound feed ingredients”, (ibid). However, to consider insect production
and management for both animal and human food needs a move beyond the traditional
dichotomy of meat-eating versus vegetarian.
This essay has explored the key arguments informing the case for vegetarianism and
exposed them as flawed and too complex to fit our simplistic and conflicted understanding
of vegetarianism and its alternatives. It has shown that in matters of health, animal welfare
ethics, and a healthy, sustainable environment, the choice of vegetarianism is essentially a
false dilemma. This essay has demonstrated that to address these issues effectively we
need to question our definitions of what constitutes food as well as the value we are willing
to place upon it. We need to question our consumer habits and what constitutes sustainable
agriculture. Only then can we make informed dietary choices.
References
American Dietetic Association (2009), ‘Position of the American Dietetic Association:
Vegetarian Diets’, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109:7, 1266-1282.
Astrup, A., Dyerberg, J., Sellek, M., Stender, S., (2008) ‘Nutrition transition and its
relationship to the development of obesity and related chronic diseases’, Obesity
Reviews, 9:1, 48-52.
Belluco, S., Losasso, C., Maggioletti, M., Alonzi, C.C., Paoletti, M.G., Ricci, A., (2013)
‘Edible Insects in a Food Safety and Nutritional Perspective: A Critical Review’,
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 12:3, 296-313.
Benjamin, A., McCallum, B., (2008) A World Without Bees. Guardian Books: London.
Bourne, J.K. Jr., (2015) The End of Plenty – The Race to Feed a Crowded World.
W.W.Norton and Company: New York.
Burkert N, Muckenhuber J, Grosschaedl F, Rasky E, and Freidl W (2014) ‘Nutrition and
Health - The Association Between Eating Behavior and Various Health
Parameters: A Matched Sample Study’ www.plos.org accessed 8/3/2016
Carlsson-Kanyama A and Gonzalez A (2009) ‘Potential contributions of food consumption
patterns to climate change’, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89/5 pp.17041709 http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1704S.short accessed 8/3/2016
5
Online Pre-sessional Programme
Durham Centre for Academic Development
Castle, D., (2013) ‘Factors Affecting Global Bee health: Honey Bee Health and Population
Losses in Managed Bee Colonies’, Croplife International
Craig, W.J., (2009) ‘Health Effects of Vegan Diets’, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
89:5, 16275 – 16335.
Compassion in World Farming (no date), ‘Strategic plan 2013-2017 for Kinder, Fairer
Farming Worldwide’,
www.ciwf.org.uk/media/3640540/ciwf_strategic_plan_20132017.pdf accessed
8/3/2011
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (2006), ‘Livestock’s Long
Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options’. www.fao.org accessed 29/11/2006
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, (2011), ‘Global Food Losses and
Food Waste: Extent, Causes, and Prevention’. www.fao.org accessed 16/05/2016
Fraser, G. E., (2009) ‘Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common
diseases?’ The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 89:5, 1607S-1612S
Gerbens-Leenes, W., Nonhebel S., (2005) ‘Food and land use. The influence of
consumption patterns on the use of agricultural resources’, Appetite 45:24-31.
Gross, A., (2015) ‘Factory Farming’, in Albala, K (ed.) The SAGE Encyclopedia of Food
Issues, London: SAGE Publications
Hooley, D. and Nobis, N., (2015) ‘A Moral Argument for Veganism’, Philosophy Comes to
Dinner: Arguments About the Ethics of Eating, 92.
Key T, Fraser G, Thorogood M, Appleby P, Beral V, Reeves G, Burr M, Chang-Claude J,
Frentzel-Beyme R, Kuzma J, Mann J, and McPherson K (1999) ‘Mortality in
Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians: Detailed Findings from a Collaborative Analysis
of 5 Prospective Studies,’ American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70:3 (supplement)
516-524
Milton, K., 1999. ‘A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution’.
Evolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews, 8:1,11-21.
Robbins, J (2007) ‘The Food Revolution: Once Upon a Planet, Part I’, www.celsias.com,
Nov. 11, 2007, accessed 10/02/2016
Stehfest, E., Bouwman, L., van Vuuren, D.P., den Elzen, M.G.J., Eickhout, B., Kabat, P.,
(2009) ‘Climate Benefits of Changin Diet’, Climactic Change, 95, 83-102.
Stromfeldt Christensen, A., (2015), ‘Bee collapse is the result of their enslavement in
industrial monocultures’, www.theecologist.org, accessed 16/05/2016
UNEP (2010) Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production:
Priority Products and Materials, A Report of the Working Group on the
Environmental Impacts of Products and Materials to the International Panel for
Sustainable Resource Management. Hertwich, E., van der Voet, E., Suh, S.,
Tukker, A., Huijbregts M., Kazmierczyk, P., Lenzen, M., McNeely, J., Moriguchi,
Y.http://www.unep.fr/scp/publications/details.asp?id=DTI/1262/PA accessed
16/05/2016
6
Online Pre-sessional Programme
Durham Centre for Academic Development
UMM (no date) ‘Vegetarian Diet’.
http://umm.edu/health/medical/ency/articles/vegetarianism, accessed 16/05/2016
United States Department of Agriculture (1995) ‘Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary
Guidelines for Americans’, www.cnpp.usda.gov, accessed 8/3/2016
United States Department of Agriculture (2011) ‘Where’s the (Not) Meat? Byproducts
From Beef and Pork Production’, www.ers.usda.gov, accessed 23/05/2016
Van Huis, A., (2013) ‘Potential of Insects as Food and Feed in Assuring Food Security’,
Annual Review of Entomology, 58:1, 563-583.
Viva.org (2012) ‘The Kids are not alright: British Goat Farms Exposed’. www.viva.org.uk,
June 15, 2012, accessed 16/05/2016
Weber, M (1994) Political Writings, Cambridge: CUP
7