Vegetarianism : A Lifestyle

Leo Tolstoy, Martina Navratilova, Plutarch, Steve Jobs, Mary Shelley, Sylvester Graham, Upton Sinclair, Thomas Edison, Natalie Portman, Benjamin Franklin, Prince, Rosa Parks, Paul McCartney, Mike Tyson, and Ellen DeGeneres. What are the correlation between these people when they range through different time periods and areas of fame, one may ask? The common factor among them all was vegetarianism. A vegetarian is a person who does not eat meat, and sometimes other animal products, especially for moral, religious, or health reasons. The term “vegetarian” in itself is a very broad one for a non-meat eater, in that there are no technical restrictions merely a focus on plant-based foods, which is why there are different types of vegetarians. First, there is the plain vegetarian whose diet consists of absolutely no meat. The strictest of them all, Vegan, can be defined as a diet or a lifestyle in that vegans don’t eat any animal products whatsoever including dairy and try to avoid animal products overall. One may argue that vegan is a separate form of vegetarianism, even it’s own category; in the broad scope of the hierarchy, however, vegan is a category within vegetarianism and not vice versa. The smaller categories within vegetarianism include : pesco-vegetarian or pescetarian whose diet allows fish; pollo-vegetarian or pollotarian whose diet allows poultry; ovo-vegetarians whose diet allows eggs; lacto-vegetarians whose diet allows dairy; lacto-ovo vegetarians who are a combination of lacto-vegetarians and ovo-vegetarians; and semi-vegetarians who eat meat less than once a week. There are more terms floating around the world of vegetarianism due to the increase in popularity and media, but these are the most common smaller divisions for types of vegetarians. The primary concerns involving vegetarianism are the health decisions through the diet, questions of morality and animal rights, great turbulence of the meat industry, and impact on the environment. Of course there are two sides to each issue, however, the pros outweigh the cons in this topic. Vegetarianism as a whole has numerous health benefits, higher morality towards animals, deconstruction of the absurd meat industry, and superior aide to our planet.

Vegetarianism can be traced to roots in ancient India and ancient Greece, over two thousand five hundred years ago. “It is likely that some ancient populations engaged in a vegetarian diet as necessary, simply because meat was not available; however, the examples documented in ancient India and Greece refer specifically to the avoidance of meat as a moral stand against violence toward animals.” (“Vegetarianism”). For India this moral issue is still withstanding, as well as an aspect of Hinduism, thus maintained it’s popularity. Disappearance of vegetarianism from Europe occurred after ancient times and did not surface again until the Renaissance era.  “Prominent artist and inventor Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519) was among the new wave of vegetarians who emerged in the Renaissance period. From the fifteenth century onward, Europe contained a small but slowly growing population of vegetarians. Passages in various religious books, including the Bible, were often used to support a belief in the vegetarian lifestyle… Beginning in the seventeenth century, Europeans shifted their views on animals in a way that encouraged vegetarianism. While animals were still considered items of property, new laws were passed that outlawed acts of cruelty against animals. By the nineteenth century, the practice of avoiding meat became less about religious observance and more about an ethical choice to not participate in the killing of animals.” (“Vegetarianism”). The supporters of this ethical upraise were associated themselves with a more humane lifestyle, thereby supporting the vegetarian lifestyle. “The ethical basis of vegetarianism formed the core of the movement well into the twentieth century,” (Vegetarianism”), with Mohandas Gandhi and Albert Einstein as its significant figures, essentially bringing “the issue to mainstream American culture.” (“Vegetarianism”). In conjunct relation to the animal rights movement, vegetarianism increased heavily in the media. “Some scholars note the importance of the modern entertainment industry in indirectly advancing these movements. Many books, films, and television shows aimed at children depict animals as sympathetic creatures with human traits; this technique… is known as anthropomorphism.” (“Vegetarianism”). This background in repetitive waves of supporting vegetarianism and then it slowly falling off the grid, comes into perspective once the issues at hand are being discussed, after all, history is the greatest teacher.

The largest factor involved in pro-vegetarianism or anti-vegetarianism deals with the true health benefits of the diet. Several studies have been published throughout the years indicating that the vegetarian diet is healthier than that of the diet including meat. Organizations such as the British Medical Association, World Health Organization (WHO), and American Dietetic Organization have admitted to vegetarian’s being in overall healthier conditions than those not partaking in the lifestyle. Recent findings reveal that instead of a meat-focused diet, one should at least consider a plant-based one since “people who eat a plant-based diet live longer, have less cancer and heart disease, weigh less…  They even have a lower carbon footprint.” (Palmer). A recent example of this occurrence is the Adventist Health Study. “AHS-2 is the culmination of more than 50 years of research conducted at Loma Linda University on members of the Seventh-day Adventist religious denomination. The Adventists garnered interest among researchers due to their healthful lifestyle, which includes abstinence from cigarettes and alcohol, and high rates of vegetarianism - 35 percent are vegetarian, compared to about four percent in the general population.” (Palmer, “A Plant-Based Diet Has Impressive Benefits”). The unique study allowed for a wide range of participants including vegans, lacto-ovo vegetarians, pesco-vegetarians, semi-vegetarians, and nonvegetarians, “making this group a researcher's dream—scientists are able to study the effects of dietary patterns without the impact of other factors, such as smoking and alcohol.” (Palmer, “A Plant-Based Diet Has Impressive Benefits”). Before this study, there was little knowledge of the daily intake of plant-eaters. “Gary Fraser… who led the AHS-2 research team at Loma Linda University, spoke about the study findings... He reported that for many years, researchers were convinced that various types of vegetarian diets were responsible for only moderate differences in health outcome, because there was inadequate research on plant-based diets.” (Palmer). Ultimately, vegan’s presented the best results compared to non-vegetarian and the study provided significant differences in food intake including : plant protein, omega-3 fatty acids ALA and higher levels of EPA and DHA in body fat, micronutrients, beta-carotene, vitamin C and calcium in certain types vegetarians. (Palmer, “A Plant-Based Diet Has Impressive Benefits”). Fraser noted that the more plant-based the diet, the greater the benefit including several elements of their health: lower weight and BMI (body mass index), less chances of cardiovascular diseases, half the prevalence of type two diabetes, reduced risk of cancer, greater life longevity, and overall health behaviors enrichment. For example, “compared to non-vegetarians, vegans and vegetarians watch less television, sleep more, and consume more fruits, vegetables, and low-glycemic foods and less saturated fat.” (Palmer, “A Plant-Based Diet Has Impressive Benefits”). The greatest significant challenges for one participating in a vegetarian diet are finding sources of protein and micronutrients such as vitamin B-12, Iron, and Calcium. (Victoria Anisman-Reiner, “A Vegetarian Diet Can Be Hazardous if It’s Not Nutritionally Balanced”). Therefore, health experts recommend extensive research and knowledge to maintain a well-balanced and healthy diet.

While the health benefits outweigh the health risks in the diet, the morality of saving animals lives tends to be the primary reason people become vegetarian. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is a well-known animal rights advocacy group with a good percentage of its members being vegan or vegetarian, In fact there are several job positions through this organization where being vegan is a requirement. Bruce Friedrich, vice president of International Grassroots Campaigns for PETA, states that “A vegan lifestyle is necessary to stop the mistreatment of animals.”. A theologian at Oxford University, Dr. Andrew Linzey, “ points out that animals were designed with certain needs, desires, natural behaviors, and inclinations, just as human beings were, and that animals have the capacity for pain and suffering, just as human beings do.” (Friedrich, “A Vegan Lifestyle Is Necessary to Stop the Mistreatment of Animals”). Essentially, Linzey argues for the animal rights perspective that “ animals have a right, just as human beings do, to be free from pain and suffering.” (Friedrich, “A Vegan Lifestyle Is Necessary to Stop the Mistreatment of Animals”). Similarly, according to Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the Utilitarian movement, stated “Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is based on race or gender or religion—or on species.” and that “if we're talking about a being's right to be free from pain and suffering, then the morally relevant variable is not whether that being can think or talk or how we relate to that being's life, but rather his or her capacity to feel pain and to suffer.” (Friedrich, “A Vegan Lifestyle is Necessary to Stop the Mistreatment of Animals”). Albert Einstein said that nothing would benefit humanity more than the general adoption of a vegetarian diet and Leo Tolstoy stated, "Vegetarianism is the taproot of humanitarianism." The essence of what they were saying was that eating habits is what makes humans who they are. As well developed and mentally creative creatures, humans have an understanding that eating another animal with similar emotions to ours is morally and ethically wrong. With no help from the meat industry, the conditions in which animals who are eaten are held is despicable and heartbreaking.

The modern slaughtering methods of animals are not simply inhumane, but rather, borderline barbaric. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) oversees the treatment of animals in meat corporations, however, the actual enforcement and surveillance of the laws put in place regulate variously throughout the nation. “Although the Humane Slaughter Act dictates that farm animals must be stunned before they are killed to minimize pain, it has been documented that, due to improper stunning and handling, some farm animals are butchered alive, piece by piece. Due to relaxed oversight and enforcement of the Humane Slaughter Act, these violations often go unpunished. Making matters worse, the U.S. Department of Agriculture no longer tracks violations of the Humane Slaughter Act, enabling slaughtering plants to continue to harm animals.” (Warrick, “Modern Slaughtering Methods are Inhumane).

Under federal law, the animals are to be stunned through either electric shock or knocked out, however, at several plants, the law goes broken and unpunished with atrocious consequences for both the animals and the workers; records, videos, and interviews reiterate violation of the laws ranging from the smallest to biggest corporations.  (Warrick, “Modern Slaughtering Methods are Inhumane”). Throughout the course of the past fifteen years, with the modification of the meat inspection system, responsibility shifted to the industries and has made it near impossible to catch and report cruelty and misconduct, because “under the new system, implemented in 1998, the agency no longer tracks the number of humane-slaughter violations its inspectors find each year.” (Warrick, “Modern Slaughtering Methods are Inhumane”). Be that as it may, the meat industry, in conjunction with inhumane tendencies, contributes to the destruction of our planet, participating in global-warming; not only is the business slaughter animals and slaughter morality among humans, it is slaughtering our planet’s ecosystem as well.

The livestock connection global warming is understated and concealed to modern society. For instance, how many people know what percentage of fossil fuel use is related to food production?; what percentage of methane and nitrous oxide emissions attribute to livestock?; how much has per capita consumption of meat increased in the past 50 years, and will the trend continue? (Wolfson). Essentially if people worldwide continue the consumption of meat and do not attempt to reduce or eliminate the rates soon, animal agriculture will be a permanent consequence on our planet. "It is too bad that those who are looking for ways to reduce their climate change footprint usually are not informed about the animal food-global warming connection." (Wolfson “Livestock Agriculture Contributes to Global Warming). What Wolfson is alluding to is the environmental organizations advocacy of vegan and vegetarian diets; similar study of Eshel and Martin related that the food people eat is just as important as the cars they drive. As mentioned by the University of Chicago News Office’s Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin stated, “Both the burning of fossil fuels during food production and non-carbon dioxide emissions associated with livestock and animal waste contribute to the problem.”. According to the study of Eshel and Martin, the average American diet requires the production of an extra ton and a half of both carbon dioxide and methane equivalent. “Livestock production and associated animal waste also emit greenhouse gases not associated with fossil-fuel combustion,”, meaning there are more powerful chemicals being released than simply greenhouse gases.  Also in Eshel and Martin’s study was the comparison of energy consumption and greenhouse emission that may be included in five diets: average American, red meat, fish, poultry and vegetarian (including eggs and dairy), all equaling 3,774 calories per day. (University of Chicago News Office). Obviously, the vegetarian diet came out to be the most energy efficient, proving those complying with the diet are more compliable and leave less of a “carbon footprint” (Palmer, “A Plant-Based Diet Has Impressive Benefits”). Patently, environmental care is just another appreciable benefit of vegetarianism.

Nonetheless, there are plenty of negative comments and arguments against vegetarianism, first and foremost dealing with the diet. “Critics of vegetarianism have long used the argument that meat is a necessary part of the human diet, and that vegetarians are not really as healthy as they claim... For example, some studies show that vegetarians are more likely to be deficient in iron and vitamin B-12 than non-vegetarians.” ("Vegetarianism."). Ironically,  even as vegetarianism has become exceptionally evident to nutrition experts as beneficial, the media still paints vegetarians as “health freaks” or in a negative light in comparison to meat eaters. To those against the lifestyle, “to obtain the benefits seen from a vegetarian diet…  a person can simply consume meat in moderation rather than eliminate it from their diet completely.” which is taking a step towards admitting that vegetarianism is greater than meat-involved diets, however neglects the entirety of the idea (“Vegetarianism”). Robert Grillo, founder and director of Free Harm, addresses the “Modern Myths” involved in vegetarianism and excuses rooted in meat-eaters. “Ironically the idea that humans have somehow evolved to eat meat stands in stark contrast to the evolutionary and ethical theory of one of the greatest scientific minds who ever lived, Albert Einstein. Einstein argued that humankind would need to evolve to vegetarianism to essentially save himself and the planet. "Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” (Grillo, “Vegetarianism Is the Only Morally Acceptable Diet”). The fact that human beings have a long history of hunting and eating animals is not the one being disputed; the question involves why follow in their footsteps and why neglect our primarily or entirely herbivorous ancestral relatives? Followed by this reasonable question, Grillo clarifies on the absurdity of seemingly progressive-minded people who are really afraid of change; “Even more ironic still is how otherwise progressive-minded people today continue to support the oppressive forces in our society with their eating habits, the same forces that they have adamantly opposed in other areas of their life—in their political leanings, in their religious and spiritual beliefs, in the kind of media and entertainment they seek, in the sort of books and magazines they read, etc. Still the oppression of animals remains unexamined for most progressives, and their diets reveal a deep denial of this oppression.” (Grillo, “Vegetarianism Is the Only Morally Acceptable Diet”). Shadowing the trend of progressivism, in the words of Victor Hugo, "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come." If those against the diet would recognize the dangers and risk encompassing an animal product lifestyle, they would fathom just how important it is to their health and the environment for them to either reduce or exterminate.

Vegetarianism has an overall greater outcome in most aspects of life. With various health benefits, higher ethics towards animals, dismantlement of the disastrous meat industry, and support towards a greener planet, the pros outweigh the cons in the argument towards vegetarianism lifestyles and diets. This conscious lifestyle allows for a better life to all on Earth, animals and humans. As a result, the plan of action recommended is to aim towards a reduced meat-diet. This may include simply cutting down or even cutting out. Transitioning from meat eater to full herbivore overnight is an incredible struggle, if not a disaster in itself; therefore, slow development into the diet would be more appropriate. For example, going from meat-eater to pescetarian or pollotarian to lacto-ovo vegetarian to full vegetarian seems to be a reasonable changeover. Concerns for the environment, our world’s global welfare, and animals rights as living creatures should be prominent enough to persuade most to be involved in some way with the annihilation of our world.

Works Cited

“50 Famous Vegetarians - Vegetarian - ProCon.Org.”ProConorg Headlines. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. <http://vegetarian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceid=004527>

Anisman-Reiner, Victoria. "A Vegetarian Diet Can Be Hazardous if It's Not Nutritionally Balanced."Vegetarianism. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Disadvantages of Going Veg: A Guide to those Considering the Health Impact of Vegetarianism." Suite 101: Holistic Nutrition. 2007. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

Archer, Mike. "Vegetarian Diets Cause More Animal Cruelty than Eating Meat." Vegetarianism. Ed. Amy Francis. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Vegetarian Dilemma." newsroom.unsw.edu.au. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

Grillo, Robert. "Vegetarianism Is the Only Morally Acceptable Diet." Vegetarianism. Ed. Amy Francis. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Seven Reasons Why We Have NOT 'Evolved' to Eat Meat." freefromharm.org. 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Nov. 2015.

Gunnars, Kris. "Vegetarian Diets Are Not Healthy." Vegetarianism. Ed. Amy Francis. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "The Top 5 Reasons Why Vegan Diets Are a Terrible Idea." authoritynutrition.com. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

Hayes, Denis, and Gail Boyer. Hayes. Cowed: The Hidden Impact of 93 Million Cows on America's Health, Economy, Politics, Culture, and Environment. Print.

Mcwilliams, James. “Food Miles.” Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics (2014): 904–909. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

Palmer, Sharon. "A Plant-Based Diet Has Impressive Benefits." Environmental Nutrition Newsletter (Jan. 2014). Rpt. in Vegetarianism. Ed. Amy Francis. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

Perez, Joe. "There Is a Moral Middle Ground in the Omnivore vs. Vegetarian Debate." Vegetarianism. Ed. Amy Francis. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Vegetarian v. Carnivore: Beyond False Choices to the Rise of the Conscious Omnivore." ievolve.org. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 Nov 2015.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin Press, 2006. Print.

"Preface to 'Is a Vegetarian Diet Beneficial for Health?'." Vegetarianism. Ed. Amy Francis. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 11 Nov. 2015.

University of Chicago News Office. "A Vegetarian Diet Is More Energy Efficient Than a Meat Diet."Vegetarianism. Ed. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Study: Vegan Diets Healthier for Planet, People Than Meat Diets." 2006. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

"Vegetarianism." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 09 Nov. 2015.

Velayanikal, Malavika. "A Plant-Based Diet Is Healthier than the Standard Western Diet." Is the Western Diet Making the World Sick? Ed. Susan C. Hunnicutt. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. At Issue.Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

Warrick, Joby. "Modern Slaughtering Methods Are Inhumane." Do Animals Have Rights? Ed. Jamuna Carroll. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. At Issue. Rpt. from "They Die Piece by Piece." The Washington Post National Weekly Edition (Apr. 2001): 8-9. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.

Wolfson, Marisa Miller. "Livestock Agriculture Contributes to Global Warming." Global Warming. Ed. David Haugen, Susan Musser, and Kacy Lovelace. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "An Inconvenient Food: The Connection between Meat and Global Warming."USA Today [Society for the Advancement of Education] Sept. 2007. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.