Analyzing the Pro Veganism

Pro Veganism

A strictly vegetarian diet is best suited to the human body's needs, mankind's ability of survival on earth, and our inherent compassion. Switching to such a diet is fairly simple and creates the opportunity to lead a healthier, happier, and gentler life (Marcus, xi).

For numerous reasons, humanity has been increasingly taking to veganism since the last few years. Some vegan supporters assert their participation in a dietary regimen wherein consuming or utilizing animal products is unethical, according to their religious beliefs or values. Meanwhile, others put forward the argument of animal consciousness's ethicality and the industrial farming process. Those who claim to be vegans most probably do so owing to environmental, animal rights, or personal health concerns, which can alter with time. Several vegans begin as vegetarians, gradually ceasing consumption of milk, eggs and other animal by-products. Meanwhile, others turn purely vegan right from the outset. In Maurer's (2002) view, numerous vegan and vegetarian leaders are in agreement that vegetarianism isn't any static state. Rather, it represents a developing process characterized by individual motivational change and increase in commitment. (11) Donald Watson, who is credited with coining the word 'veganism' in 2005, stated that veganism represents the ultimate stage in a vegetarian's journey (as cited in Steele 11).

I. (Ethics) Veganism advocates maintain that industrial livestock production is absolutely intolerable, atrocious, and outdated.

In Immanuel Kant's (1997) opinion, cruel treatment of animals is unethical and demeans humanity. According to another view, cruel treatment of animals is intolerable as it will likely make one insensitive and spiteful towards fellow human beings (as cited in McPherson 3). A key reason for the adoption of veganism is usually a person's discomfort with consuming a being that breathes and feels. Barbara McDonald's 2000 study on turning vegan reveals that most non-vegan-turned-vegan individuals claim they already possessed compassionate feelings for animals prior to turning vegan. They confessed to "compartmentalizing" animals; that is, they maintained compassionate feelings towards cats, dogs and other pet animals, but attempted to ignore similar feelings for the farm animals they consumed (Steele 11).

The term "ethical vegan" has been utilized for describing those who turn vegan with an ethical motive in mind. Their main concern deals with exploitation of fellow humanity and animals. Their belief is that utilizing animal parts as food, or in household items and clothing, is unethical. They oppose the act of torturing and taking the lives of animals, to make products, or for medical research or entertainment. They are worried about the effects of the torture and violence witnessed in animal processing factories, by human beings. The controversies surrounding ethical vegan individuals are more complex. They take into account issues surrounding utilization of products originating from animals (e.g., wool, which doesn't claim the sheep's life). However, ethical vegans assert that shearing is a damaging and occasionally painful activity for the animal. They refrain from wearing leather as it clearly involves killing and skinning an animal. They ruminate on how far they must take their beliefs. For instance, they might consider not consuming processed white sugar, which is usually filtered using animal bones. But completely avoiding animal exploitation in product processing is very hard. Even 'organic' crops are fertilized using animal manure (Steele 11).

The activity of intensive animal farming was introduced during the latter part of the previous century, in industrialized nations. That half-century witnessed maximum production of cheaply-priced milk, meat, and eggs. By the century's end, this system began to spread far and wide, with most agricultural policymakers perceiving industrial production of animals to be an ordinary component of economic growth and an undisputed necessity (Jacqui 5). Ever since the start of this activity, an unprecedented worldwide growth has ensued, in the proportion of farm animals utilized for producing eggs, milk, meat, and, more recently, fish, as well as in the quantity of produce yielded from individual animals (Jacqui 10).

The colossal growth in industrial animal farming which would be essential for doubling the present livestock production level threatens farmed animals' genetic diversity on a global scale. High-yielding breeds of cattle were typically developed for utilization in comparatively high-input agricultural systems and temperate climates, while developing nations' native breeds were adapted for coping with poor-quality feed and local environmental conditions (drought, heat, parasites (e.g., ticks) and disease). The above conditions can intensify chances of production-related failures and bring about intense suffering to ill-adapted animal breeds. Animal scientists are of the view that it is imperative that we keep on farming indigenous and less commercial breeds, since these might carry important genes linked to disease resistance or resilience in the face of changing environment (Jacqui 11).

Factory farming-related knowledge is generally the catalyst for individuals embarking on a journey to veganism. Concentrated Animal Feeding Lots or factory farms have emerged as the leading approach to animal rearing as food, across the globe. Factory farms house chickens, cows, goats, sheep, pigs, turkeys, etc. together in heavily packed facilities in which they are dosed constantly with antibiotics. Through hormones and breeding, the animals become so large that they are hardly able to bear their weight and usually end up breaking their legs. Their breeders treat them as commodities, frequently meting out extremely brutal treatment to them (e.g., bashing their heads to the walls, poking them with red-hot sticks, slitting their throats open, etc. all when the animals are still conscious). Calves, chicks and other animals' babies are separated right from birth, from their mother. Calves, in particular, are deprived of their mother's milk, with the males typically put into small, dark crates to make them anemic -- this gives rise to the white veal preferred by consumers. Some individuals turn vegan as they are guilt-ridden and saddened by the idea of consuming anything that is a product of torture. This guilt and sadness typically results from the knowledge of how the food processing industry and farms treat animals (Steele 12).

A. Mankind is the sole species having moral consciousness of its actions and decisions, and hence, has a choice to behave unethically or ethically.

One among the many ethical explanations for adopting veganism contends that such a lifestyle represents the sole coherent awareness of the ethical truth that killing animals is wrong (Gelderloos 4). Although animal science is able to account for the close resemblance between human and animal physiology, and whether or not animals experience suffering and pain the way humans do, science alone is not able to reveal whether animals and humans possess an equal moral status. This issue is more philosophical in nature, hinging on whether an animal is a "moral person," akin to man. We come under this category of 'moral persons' as we possess moral rights, a moral position, and moral worth. We have moral obligations towards each other and are required to treat one another in a way that is morally responsible. This moral personhood enables mankind to conclude, for instance, that attacking, abducting, torturing, or killing fellow human beings is wrong. Science informs us that considerable differences exist between humans' and animals' cognitive skills. In fact, even among animals, cognitive skill levels differ. Therefore, the claim that animals and man possess equal moral value appears to be an unsound one. Increased self-awareness and ability of sentience will increase moral worth. However, the challenge lies in modifying business practices and animal laws such that animals' varying moral worth levels are considered (Fieser, 2008).

Ultimately, the choice rests with us, since cattle is probably the sole capital asset for a large number of poverty-ridden individuals, and is crucial in providing food, draught power, fuel and fertilizer. Rich nations, however, are in an entirely different situation, as they overproduce as well as over-consume animal products. Uncontrolled animal product manufacture and utilization in developed nations, accompanied by tremendous wastage of food grains in the form of animal feed, constitutes a key driver of the worldwide rise in food prices, which negatively affects poor people. Lowered animal product consumption (especially meat) would bring about a significant decrease in resources required for feeding the earth's swiftly climbing human population. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) remarked in the year 2001 that, a move from meat-to-plant products as food, wherever feasible, would be able to decrease emission of greenhouse gases and boost energy efficiency (Jacqui 5).

B. Research performed on animal consciousness and trans-marginal inhibition confirms that animals indeed experience suffering, pain, and premature death (in some instances).

Sensitive persons feel the vibes emanating from one who is close to them. They are able to feel the agony experienced from the cows and chickens slaughtered for their food. The issue is not about the cessation of cattle grazing, but about them being injected with antibiotics and hormones that make them extremely sick -- we ultimately eat these 'sick animals' (Harper 122-123).

The above explanation from the 2000 book, Sacred Women briefly, but clearly, portrays animal suffering and pain. The aim of intensive livestock production is creation of a "high-input, high-output" production system. The system treats animals as machines of production instead of breathing-and-feeling beings having their own unique needs for psychological and physical well-being. Productivity maximization entails encouraging extremely rapid growth and high yields through selection for the above traits and giving animals soy protein-concentrate feeds and nutrient-rich cereal. Feed additives and growth boosting treatments such as antibiotics are normally utilized in several nations for encouraging high yield. Effective animal welfare incorporates protection of animals from hunger, thirst, pain, suffering, injury, weather, disease, fear and distress, as well as ensuring the animal isn't frustrated with its inability to behave naturally like others of the same species. 'Intensive' livestock production intends to maximize individual animals' cost-effectiveness and output, even in instances where this opposes the welfare needs of animals (Jacqui 10).

There are several ways in which intensive livestock production clashes with animal well-being. This system of rearing employs close confinement (crates and cages), bare outdoor feedlots or overfull sheds. Factory farmed pigs and poultry might have never seen the light of day. Typically, breeders utilize high-yield or rapidly-growing breeds and the animals exhibit an increased likelihood of developing usually-painful production-linked disorders. Some of the health issues associated with intensive production and management are high painful lameness levels and heart failures among swiftly-growing chickens reared for meat; heart disease and lameness among pigs reared for large muscles and rapid growth; and mastitis and lameness among high-yielding cows. Layers experience brittle bones because of calcium deficiency, arising from their extremely-high egg output (Jacqui 10).

Animals that are factory farmed and piled in bare barns cannot carry out a number of natural behaviors performed by the rest of their species, like nest-building, exercising, looking for food, and exploring the environment. Caged hens have no space to spread their wings, and sows in farrowing and gestation crates as well as calves imprisoned within veal crates cannot even turn. Deprived of this natural activity, they develop numerous harmful and aberrant behaviors, resulting from social tensions, boredom, and irritation, including body/feather-pecking, vulva-biting, tail-biting, cannibalism, bar-biting, belly-nosing, air-chewing, fighting, and harassing and mounting other captive animals who cannot move away the way they would in their natural environment. For minimizing injuries, breeders partly cut off hens' beaks, and clip the teeth and tails of piglets, all typically without administering pain relief to the animals (Jacqui 10).

C. Human beings are able to maintain a healthy balance without consuming any animal product -- this is an established fact. Thus, animal exploitation merely for pleasure may be considered immoral and unethical.

Vertebrates' bodies comprise of a nervous system, which means they can consciously feel pain. This ability makes them eligible for personhood, implying that not being subject to pain is their natural right as well. Almost every use to which animals are put -- food, entertainment, research, clothing, etc. -- is associated with suffering, and is therefore, inexcusable. Simply having control over lesser beings doesn't authorize mankind to abuse, harm, or torture them. Kings cannot simply shoot their subjects because of their power over them. This holds even in case of inanimate objects, like exceptional artworks and national treasures. A museum owning the original Mona Lisa isn't authorized to damage it. This applies to animals as well: our dominance over them is no excuse for us doing whatever we wish to them.

The inconsequential interests of mankind do not take precedence over key animal interests. If I wish to eat a hamburger, this desire of mine doesn't prevail over a cow's interests to stay alive. Mankind's interest in applying makeup doesn't take precedence over lab animals' interests to be liberated from the agonizing toxicity tests they are subject to. Skinning animals for fancy clothes is absolutely unjustified. In a majority of cases, humanity's specific interests when exploiting animals are rather insignificant, in comparison to animal interests of avoiding pain and staying alive (Fieser 2008). We treat animals as 'prey', tools, or chattel, for our manipulation, rather than as breathing, sentient beings having inherent value. We only assess their value based on how useful they are to our comfort. For defending this callousness on our part, we classify them as "other" beings, on worthy of compassion on impulse or for human convenience (Huse 6-7).

II. (Environment) The scale and rate of animal farming significantly damages the environment.

Industrial livestock production is inefficient and threatens the environment. Further, it pollutes the environment, and damages biodiversity and the habitat. FAO's (Food and Agriculture Organization) 2006 publication -- Livestock's Long Shadow -- is perhaps the most comprehensive analysis ever, of livestock's effects on the environment. The report concluded that livestock farming's effects were so enormous that continuing it intensively was no reasonable long-term option (Jacqui 31).

Industrial animal farming to derive food is an extremely carbon-intensive process. At present, roughly sixty billion mammals and poultry animals are utilized per annum for food production. Lawmakers have broadly predicted that, by the year 2050, worldwide production of meat will increase two-fold. Also, about 150 to 200 million individuals are at risk of permanent displacement by the middle of this century, owing to droughts, rising sea-level, and floods. Armed conflicts may break out over water resources. Somewhere in the current decade, 'Peak Oil' production will be reached, and cheap energy will come to an end. There is a greater likelihood of it being perceived as environmentally vulnerable (Jacqui 6).

Only a small proportion of individuals turn to veganism with environmental concerns in mind. Environmental vegans perceive animal utilization for food to be the key cause for fresh water misuse, water pollution, air pollution, global warming, biodiversity loss, and other forms of environmental degradation (Steele 13). Of late, vegetarianism and veganism have emerged as increasingly popular concepts addressed by mainstream media, owing to the prediction that global warming's pace would decline appreciably if all were to shift over to vegetarianism or veganism. The previously-mentioned 2006 FAO study resulted from the LEAD (Livestock, Environment & Development) program supported by leading international organizations including the UNO, European Union, and World Bank. The report documented animal husbandry's highly significant contribution to biodiversity loss, climate change, air pollution, and water, land, and soil degradation (Steele 10).

Leading British newspaper -- The Guardian -- reported water scientists' prediction that we might ultimately have no choice but to turn to vegetarianism/veganism (Steele 8). In comparison to a vegetarian/vegan diet, a non-vegetarian diet consumes 5 times more water. Animals reared for food account for a whopping 33% of the phosphorus and nitrogen contaminating the clean water bodies in the world, at present. Besides water contamination and depletion, factory farming has been proven to contribute to deforestation, greenhouse gas release, and soil erosion. By going vegan, people are making a choice against environmental destruction. Further, ethically, they are opposing the slaughter of as many as seventy billion animals annually, across the globe, for meat, milk, eggs, etc. (Steele 8).

A. Animals and humans naturally give off methane gas, which significantly damages the atmosphere.

Mankind's diet has significant effects on climate change. Animal-based food production almost always emits more greenhouse gases compared to plant-based foodstuff. (15) Animal farming is presently confirmed as a key global climate change contributor. According to the FAO's estimation, cattle accounts for 18% of overall anthropogenic or human-induced greenhouse gas release. On a global scale, this figure is even higher than that of overall emissions by the global transport sector (14%), which includes road, rail, water, and air transport. The factory farming industry accounts for substantial proportions of many greenhouse gas discharges: 65% of overall nitrous oxide release, 37% of overall methane release, and 9% of overall carbon dioxide release. Additionally, animal husbandry accounts for 64% of the world's ammonia emissions, contributing acid rain, ozone layer depletion, and air, water and soil contamination. A considerable share of greenhouse gas releases associated with industrial animal farming stem from animals' natural biological processes -- feeding, digestion and excretion (Jacqui 12-13).

Increased global animal product consumption has increased the world's methane concentration two-fold, over the past twenty years (Steele 14).

B. Livestock rearing at the current pace necessitates earmarking of a massive quantity of resources and land, which could possibly be employed more efficiently elsewhere.

The International Water Management Institute and the FAO claim that approximately 33-40% of overall global cereal yield is consumed in feeding livestock. About 33% of the overall global cropland is utilized in animal feed cultivation. In other words, industrial rearing of animals wastes land resources. Significantly more area is required to grow a kilogram of intensively-manufactured animal products than to grow a kilogram of vegetables, fruit or cereals (Jacqui 18-19).

Normally, food-crop cultivation consumes water in fairly large amounts. Agriculture, overall, makes up roughly 86% of total human water consumption, including irrigation water and rainwater in the soil. A substantial quantity of this water is used up by animal feed. On a global scale, animal farming makes up approximately 23% of total water consumed in agriculture, as per WWF (World Wildlife Fund) estimations, including the precious freshwater utilized for irrigation and rainwater percolated into the soil. Global water consumption for the purpose of animal farming is equal to 1150 liters of water a day, per individual (Jacqui 19).

Factory farming is a waste of precious water. Much of the total water utilized in factory farming goes to the production of animal feed (a whopping 90% in beef production). Irrespective of whether one considers the global average or only that of the U.S., the water footprint of grains is smaller than that of meat, making the former a better food choice for the world's human population. (20) Estimates have revealed that decreasing animal-based foods' share in our diet and increasing plant-based product consumption can lower a person's water footprint by nearly fifty percent! (21) Large quantities of water may be saved on a global scale if we shift from factory farming (Jacqui 27).

Moreover, factory farming necessitates inputs of enormous quantities of energy from fossil fuels, particularly in manufacturing artificial pesticide and fertilizer for feed crops. Numerous research works have demonstrated factory farming's inefficient energy consumption. (21) Decreasing the share of factory farmed milk and meat in one's diet can lead to appreciable reduction in one's fossil fuel-based energy footprint (Jacqui 22).

III. (Health) Individuals opposed to veganism contend that a diet without animal products will be lacking in nutrients, potentially harming a person's health.

Balanced and well-planned vegan/vegetarian meals can contain adequate nutrients. However, extreme diets (e.g., raw food and strict macrobiotic diets) are typically lacking in macronutrients and energy, and are wholly unsuitable and insufficient for kids (Phillips, 133). A 16-page-long evidence-based analysis of the above issue was taken up by the largest international body of nutrition and food professionals -- the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics -- which referred to hundreds of researches in the fields of nutrition and health. In the Academy's view, properly-planned vegetarian/vegan diets are indeed nutritionally adequate, healthy, and might offer health advantages in curing and preventing specific ailments. Such well-planned diets are suitable in all life stages, including infancy, childhood, teenage, pregnancy, lactation, etc. (Hooley and Nobis 12-13).

However, a strictly vegetarian diet doesn't promote health as such, owing to their inadequacy in supplying essential nutrients like vitamin D, vitamin B12, iron, and calcium. However, these days, one witnesses a greater convergence of purely-vegan and plant-rich diets, as compensating for the important nutrients lacking in purely-vegan diets is possible, via complementation, supplementation, and fortification. Numerous researches suggest that plant-only as well as plant-based diets are more beneficial than omnivorous diets. Vegetarians consume numerous plant-based carbohydrate-rich foods daily, like cereals, nuts, pulses, vegetables, and fruits. Consequently, their diet includes more flavonoids, antioxidant vitamins (beta-carotene, vitamin C, and vitamin E), folic acid, health-promotional non-nutrients, and fiber compared to the dietary regimen followed by non-vegetarians. Furthermore, as they keep away from animal-based foods, their cholesterol and saturated fatty acid consumption is considerably lesser, compared to non-vegetarians (Rauma n.p.).

A few vegan diets curb colon micro-flora that result in decreased formation of injurious bacteria degradation products. Vegans' average daily consumption of flavonols (kaempferol, myricetin, and quercetin) was also twice that of non-vegetarians. Moreover, vegetarians usually engage in more physical activity compared to non-vegetarians, thereby profiting from the innumerable favorable impacts of an active lifestyle. A large number of vegetarians do not drink or smoke -- another factor contributing to their superior health status compared to non-vegetarians (Rauma n.p.).

The key emphasis of health-conscious vegetarians/vegans is scientific proof that states that a vegan diet lowers risks of contracting chronic illnesses and improves general health. While they do not necessarily know of the animal welfare and environmental benefits of the diet system they have opted for, they are, at least unconsciously, promoting animal and environment protection (Steele 13).

A. All the nutrients possibly lacking in a normal vegan diet, including vitamin D, vitamin B12, protein, zinc, iron, and calcium, may be gained from other natural plant-based products.

Barr and Janelle's 1995 work on 22 non-vegetarian and 23 vegetarian (15 lacto-ovo-vegetarians and 8 vegans) females offered corroborating evidence for normally more healthful diets among the latter, in comparison to the former. The vegetarian participants' consumption of vitamin C, vitamin B12, carbohydrate, niacin, folate, and riboflavin was appreciably higher, as was their polyunsaturated-saturated fat ratio. Further, their saturated fat consumption was lower than that of the non-vegetarian participants. The researchers did not find any significant variation in phosphorus or protein consumption levels between the vegan and lacto-ovo-vegetarian participants, but vegans' calcium consumption was considerably lower (as cited in Forbes-Ewan 1-2).

Protein -- Vegetarians' normal protein consumption, although adequate, is usually somewhat lower than that of non-vegetarians, and supports a healthy nitrogen balance (Phillips 138-139). When it comes to the Western world, a majority of Americans acquire no less than two times the amount of protein their body requires, and excess protein, particularly animal protein, which heightens risks of kidney disease and osteoporosis. Nearly all foods are protein-containing, and vegetarians can acquire sufficient protein from oatmeal, whole meal bread, corn, beans, peas, broccoli, mushrooms, etc. (Fieser 2008).