Peer-Reviewed Article of the Vegan Information Community
Tri Blossom
Summary of Peer-Reviewed Article
Brian Henning’s essay, Standing in Livestock’s ‘Long Shadow’: the ethics of eating on a small planet, explores the environmental impact of a society highly dependent on animal products and the consumption of animal meat. By presenting data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, the research will foreshadow the outcome of eating meat on a small planet.
The Author’s Credentials
In 2003, Brian Henning received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Fordham University in New York City. Currently, he is the Professor of Philosophy and Environmental Studies and Faculty Fellow for Sustainability at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington. As far back as 2000, Henning continues to contribute published books, reviews, articles, and chapters, to the field of
…show more content…
By gathering data from an interdisciplinary approach, Henning incorporates the perspectives of new agrarian approaches to animal agriculture, vegans, and meat-eaters—each path will indicate the amount of impact done to the environment and whether or not it is a sustainable method.
Methodology
Utilizing data from shared resources: water, land, and climate, Henning found that a plant-based diet was the only sustainable method that would heal the planet and feed the world at the same time. The meat eating study determined that by 2050, the planet would run out of space and resources to sustain society’s current lifestyle. Thus, by involving the collective data from cross disciplines, and demonstrating the scenarios of “worst case” and “best possible” options, the research proves that our dependence on animal products will continue to apply damage to the planet unless we are willing to change our diet.
The Findings
Animals bred for human meat consumption do not live. According to Henning,
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
People can be classified into two categories, meat eaters and non meat eaters. Meat eaters or carnivores are common in society so there has to be a tremendous amount of meat production to meet these needs. But has anyone ever thought about the amount of fuel and energy it takes to make it and how it would ultimately destroy the Earth? Many have and it revealed to them that the cost of being a vegan or vegetarian is far less than continuing their carnivorous ways. Two authors have their opinions to offer, even if they are on the same side of the argument and want to convert people to being a vegan. In “Eating Green” Margaret Lundberg states why becoming a vegan is healthy, not only for the person, but also the environment. John Vidal’s “10 Ways Vegetarianism Can Help Save the Planet”
Jonathan Safran Foer wrote “Eating Animals” for his son; although, when he started writing it was not meant to be a book (Foer). More specifically to decide whether he would raise his son as a vegetarian or meat eater and to decide what stories to tell his son (Foer). The book was meant to answer his question of what meat is and how we get it s well as many other questions. Since the book is a quest for knowledge about the meat we eat, the audience for this book is anyone that consumes food. This is book is filled with research that allows the audience to question if we wish to continue to eat meat or not and provide answers as to why. Throughout the book Foer uses healthy doses of logos and pathos to effectively cause his readers to question if they will eat meat at their next meal and meals that follow. Foer ends his book with a call to action that states “Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.” when dealing with the problem of factory farming (Foer).
Food, especially meat is such a central part of human society that it cannot be ignored. Just as big minds came together in the 60’s to make a better chicken, they can come together to solve a crisis that harms every person living in this country. Jonathan Safran Foer’s book gives an important look into what goes on behind the scenes of factory farms, and offers logical solutions. However, it will take more than this, and more than just vegetarian encouragement to make any lasting changes. It will take the votes of consumers both in the supermarket and on ballots to evoke a better system. Take a look at what is on your plate next time you sit down for a meal. Did you vote well?
Throughout “Shattering the Meat Myth”, Freston attempts to convince her audience that eating animal protein is detrimental to the health of humans. While most vegetarian diets (if followed with precision) are very healthy, practicing a diet that involves meat is not necessarily as deteriorating as she implies. Freston quotes Dr. William C. Roberts, editor of American Journal of Cardiology, pertaining to subject of saturated fats and cholesterol. He states, “When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us…” (Freston). This statement however is an example of oversimplification and an appeal to bathos, referencing the power of death. In reality, there are a variety of factors that contribute to the overall health of an individual and consuming animal products, in itself, has not been shown by scientific evidence to cause fatality. Kathy Freston also includes a quotation from Dr. Neal Barnard,
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
As healthy lifestyles have come to take over the minds of the general public, people have begun to pay increased attention to the food they eat, which in turn has sparked a renewal in vegetarianism. Vegetarianism is a term used to describe the practice of living on a diet consisting of nuts, grains, fruits, and vegetables, with or without the use of eggs and dairy products. People usually associate vegetarianism with the hippy movement in the 1960’s; however, it was Frances Moore Lappé's iconic book, Diet for a Small Planet, released in 1971 that launched the vegetarian movement. Since 1971 vegetarian cookbooks, restaurants, and food brands have become popular and have enticed the likings of about 7 million Americans. Unfortunately, despite the growing popularity of vegetarianism most people living on a carnivorous diet laugh at the idea of giving up meat. Although omnivores are reluctant to give up their current diets, giving the vegetarian diet a chance even for just a month or two can bring about a number of positive consequences. By adopting a vegetarian diet a person is not only...
However, Hare’s pro demi-vegetarian argument provides an unequivocal view on the discussion of economic, ecological, and moral topics. While the look into market trends of meat is lacking Hare discusses a reality of the meat industry and its food competitors, that being the cost behind animal rearing and husbandry. While the high costs incurred does not entail permissibility the surrounding circumstances do. If fodder is grown on terrain only suitable for a pasture, then as a result husbandry and animal domestication (and later slaughter) is permissible because the economic consequences of harvesting crops would greatly outweigh the benefits and as such the community improves more from the meat/animal byproduct industry. This economical and ecological argument is one of several that Hare provides in his article Why I Am Only A Demi-Vegetarian, in addition to the market term being coined and reasoning behind
Walters, Kerry S, and Lisa Portmess. Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. Print.
Rachels, J. (2013). The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 617-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
A United Nations report states that land used for animal agriculture, both for grazing and production of crops fed to livestock, takes up an astounding 30% of land on Earth. ("Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources") To meet the industry’s demands, over 260 million acres of forest in the U.S. have been cleared to grow grain fed to farm animals. ("Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources") With that in mind, the meat industry also dumps disease-causing pathogens through animal waste that pollutes water and forces the need for waste lagoons to be constructed, which are susceptible to leaking and flooding. ("Facts about Pollution from Livestock Farms”) Scientists say that about 14% of the world’s greenhouse gases are released by said agriculture industries, which is a growing concern for climate change and global warming. (Silverman) The meat industry uses one-third of all the fossil fuels consumed in the United States. (Moore) There is no question that farming animals has a negative effect on the environment and steps should be taken to mitigate air and water pollution risks and future deforestation. If animal agriculture was phased out, land used for animal grazing could be returned to forest land and some of it converted into fields for cultivating crops for humans. A global shift toward veganism, resulting in the elimination of the meat and animal agriculture industries, would protect the environment from various detrimental effects.
Every person has the ability to make their own choice of whether to eat meat or not. However, eating meat is directly tied to negative health effects, pollution leading to a depletion of ozone, and the depletion of hundreds of thousands of acres of land “wasted” on animal production when they could be used to solve the hunger crisis or lower emission levels. What humans eat is no longer a matter of choice; it has become a matter of life and death. Literally, the future of the whole planet rests on the decision of whether or not to eat meat. If humans chose to eat less meat the world that wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences (outlined above.) Vegetarianism is one possibility, as is Veganism; however the world would be
However, many people still refuse to be a vegetarian for different reasons. Some people prefer the taste of meat, and some people believe that they are born to eat meat. Despite that about 2 billion people in the world live basically on the meat diet, around 4 billion people live mainly on a plant-based diet because of food shortage(Pimentel ＆ Pimentel, 2003, pp660S). As everyone knows, the number of population is growing. For example, the total U.S. population doubled in the previous 60 years, and it may double again in the next 70 years (Pimentel ＆ Pimentel, 2003, pp660S). People won’t have enough meat to eat in the future. On the other hand, a well-planned vegetarian diet offers many health benefits. Therefore, people should become vegetarian because it benefits to huma...
As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention to force anybody to become a vegetarian, but I hope that my argumentation would be strong enough to make some people think about it, at least. In this essay I will try to present this point of view, expressing my personal feelings and showing scientific facts about the problem.
By shifting the focus from beef and livestock production to agriculture that focuses on the production of grains, we could increase the amount of calories in our food supply by three quadrillion additional calories (Foley 65). These calories would go a long way to erasing the global hunger problem. In addition, this potential solution is underscored by the fact that humans do not need to eat meat to survive, “We can survive without it; millions of vegetarians choose to do so...” (Specter). Again, meat is a luxury, a luxury that is expensive in terms of production price and negative consequences.