Researching Vegan-Style

One of the requirements for Junior English in high school is a research paper. My teacher recommended choosing a topic you feel strongly about, so I chose veganism. It really wasn't much of a shocker for those who know me even the slightest. My teacher actually liked my paper very much, and was actually surprised at the amount of evidence I was able to offer, particularly towards the ethics side of it. Those who know much about veganism, animal rights, etc. probably would not have been so surprised. Within the 1350 word limit, my paper touches on why veg*nism is superior to eating meat in 3 different areas. Trust me, if it weren't for that word limit, I would have taken the time to wax eloquent. Here is my junior English research paper (left in the required format, and original word limit.)

Be a Happy Herbivore

It is said that what a person does not understand, he will either fear or hate because most people are raised with biases and prejudices. With controversial subjects, generally even those who are relatively uninformed wish to opine. Veganism and vegetarianism fall in this category. However, a surprising number of people do not know the difference between vegetarianism and veganism. Veganism began as an offshoot of vegetarianism. Like vegetarians, vegans do not consume meat. They also do not use any products made from or tested on animals. Avoiding animal products has a beneficial impact that makes vegetable-based diets physically, globally, and ethically superior to omnivorous diets.

Vegetable-based diets are more healthful than omnivorous diets. Eating meat contributes to diseases. Not only are animal products inefficient to produce, but they are unhealthful because “we take a crop. . . rich in protein, fiber, and carbohydrates. . . and totally devoid of cholesterol and artery-clogging saturated fat. . . . We feed it to [animals] to create a product with no fiber or complex carbohydrates at all, but with mega doses of cholesterol and saturated fat.” (Newkirk [1]). There are other hidden dangers in meat. According to Freston, achidonic acid, which causes inflammation and leads to Alzheimer’s and a plethora of other diseases, is unavoidable in meat (“A Few” [1]). A more frightening reality is that “one sausage a day increases our chance of bowel cancer by 20%. It only takes 1.8oz (50g) of processed meat daily to significantly increase our risk of this deadly type of cancer” (Walters [1]). Meat in diets is not the only animal source of problems. According to Dani Veracity, milk worsens asthma cases by stimulating mucus production, and many are allergic to milk proteins or the antibiotics found in it. Milk allergies, which are extremely common, manifest themselves in worsened acne and eczema, as well as diarrhea, asthma, ear infections, rashes, and hives. ([1-2]) Certainly all of these illnesses are plenty of cause to avoid meat and animal products.

Herbivorous diets provide essential nutrients and reduce risk of illness. Many people have qualms with giving up eggs, milk, and meat for fear of deficiencies; however, Veracity explains that broccoli and tofu provide calcium just as well as milk. ([2]) Other deficiency fears include vitamin B12 and protein. However, “Any food that gets dirty develops B12 from bacteria. . . . we get our B12 from meat because its dirty. And our need for B12 is tiny. . . akin to four grains of rice in our lifetime” (Rivera [1]). When it comes to consuming proper amounts of protein, “most people on a standard meat diet are actually protein deficient. . . . Vegetarians actually grow muscle mass at a faster rate with a diet of fruits, vegetables and whole grains.” (Rivera [1]). Not only do plant diets provide essential nutrients, but “a new study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition suggests that people of all ages, including children, that adhere to a vegetarian diet. . . are generally leaner than their meat-eating counterparts” (Huff [1]). Those who maintain healthy weights are less likely to suffer from heart disease and other diseases linked to obesity. In fact, “Dean Ornish, M.D. was the first person to prove that heart disease can be reversed, and he did so by feeding his patients a vegetarian diet” (Rivera [2]). Abstaining from meat protects from reduces cancer risk. “[Researchers] found that the lifetime risk of developing cancer was 14 percent lower in vegetarians than in the general population. The protective effect was greatest for stomach cancer, bladder cancer, Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and blood cancers. Vegetarians were less than 50 percent as likely to develop lymph and blood cancers as nonrestricted eaters, while their risk of. . . multiple myeloma was 75 percent lower” (Gutierrez [1]). Vegetable-based diets obviously are more healthful because of their lowered risk of disease.

Second, vegetable-based diets reduce and discourage the animal cruelty caused by omnivorous diets. Eating meat promotes the unjust treatment of food-animals. The cruelty in factory farms exists from the beginning of animals’ lives. According to Matt Ball, animals live their whole lives with “the confinement and overcrowding, the stench, the racket, the extremes of heat and cold, the attacks and even cannibalism, the hunger and starvation, the illness, the mutilation, the broken bones and failing organs etc. Indeed, every year, hundreds of millions of animals. . . actually suffer to death” (“A Meaningful” [3]). Law requires that the animals lucky enough to survive until they reach the slaughterhouse be stunned before slaughter to desensitize them, but “it’s not uncommon for an animal to suffer one or two failed stuns. . . . Unconscious animals whose necks are not cut soon enough may regain their senses after being hung on the bleed rail” (Ball, “If Slaughterhouses” [1]). These stuns are supposed to be the humane way of killing animals, however, when they are unsuccessful, pigs “are dunked in tanks of hot water after they are stunned. . . . A botched slaughter condemns [them] to being scalded and drowned” (Ball [4]). Even worse, kosher and other ritual slaughterhouses are not even legally required to desensitize animals before they begin the butchering process.

Additionally, Herbivorous diets reduce the suffering of innocent animals by promoting ethical eating. A single person’s asceticism may not seem to have an impact, but the laws of supply and demand explain that when demand for a product decreases, the supply of the product decreases. The result would be the slaughter of fewer animals. Causing the suffering of sentient beings is ethically wrong, so if one reduces the number of animals who suffer, his action is ethically praiseworthy. Animals “are not things. They can feel pain. They can suffer frustration and boredom. They have lives of their own” (Mason, 122). According to “Vegetarian 101,” an article published by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 27 billion food-animals are slaughtered annually, but every year, an individual vegetarian saves approximately 100 of those animals (“Vegetarian 101” [1-2]). If more people would become vegetarians or vegans, the number of animals saved from the torture and slaughter would be astronomical.

Last, vegetable-based diets are environmentally friendly than omnivorous diets. Eating meat encourages environmental degradation caused by inefficient factory farms. These commercialized farms traffic millions. Their “livestock accounts for 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions” (Klein [1]). For example, “‘manure lagoons’. . . [are] acres of animal excrement that sit in the sun steaming nitrous oxide into the atmosphere” (Klein [1]). Additionally, Inefficiency continues because “we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country. Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels. . . as does a calorie of plant protein” (Freston, “Vegetarian” [1]).

Herbivorous diets promote a more efficient use of natural resources. It is commonly known that plant-based diets require approximately only a tenth of the crops that are required to create animal products. Because of this vast difference, “Americans and Europeans can't raise all the feed domestically that is needed to sustain their meat addictions. . . . Agribusiness has started cutting down the rain forest. . . . If more people went vegetarian, we would need far less land to feed people” (Freston, “A Few” [2]). Veganism also conserves water resources because “it takes about four times as much water to feed a vegetarian as it does to feed a vegan and 14 times as much water to feed a meat-eater. And, if you have to feed animals, you have to irrigate the crops that you feed to them and you have to give them water too. You have to hose down the factory farms and slaughterhouses with water” (Newkirk [2-3]). Clearly, going vegan is the most responsible lifestyle choice.

Meat-free diets are undeniably physically, globally, and ethically superior to eating meat. Many Americans believe in a right to eat meat, classifying it as part of their right to the pursuit of happiness. However, consuming meat is not a right, and trying to ignore the facts will not make them any less true. Those in wealthier countries should implement ways to reduce their use of animals products. Failure to do so is clearly irresponsible.

Works Consulted

Adams, Mike. “Red Meat Consumption Doubles Risk of Colon Cancer, Says Study, Is It Time to Go Vegetarian Yet?” Natural News. 2005. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Ball, Matt. “A Meaningful Life.” Vegan Outreach. n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Ball, Matt. “If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls.” Vegan Outreach. n.d. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Douglas, Jerome. “Smart Kids More More Likely to Go Vegetarian Later in Life.” Natural News. 2006. Web. 24. Jan. 2012.

Evans, Kim. “New Study — Whole Food Vegetarian Diets Reverse and Eliminate Many Serious Illnesses.” Natural News. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Evans, Kim. “Wild Grass Makes Many Vegetarian Diets Work.” Natural News. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Fox, Michael W. Eating With Conscience: The Bioethics of Food. Troutdale, OR. NewSage. 1997.

Freston, Kathy. “A Few More ‘Inconvenient Truths.’” Huffington Post. 2007. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.

Freston, Kathy. “Vegetarian Is the New Prius.” Huffington Post. 2007. Web. 24 Jan 2012.

Gutierrez, David. “Vegetarians Have Lower Cancer Risk Than Meat Eaters.” Natural News. 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Huff, Ethan A. “Study: Vegetarian Diet May Help Children Stay Fit, Avoid Obesity.” Natural News. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Jones-Shoeman, Cindy. “Four Reasons Why People Become Vegetarian.” Natual News. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Jones-Shoeman, Cindy. “Vegan Vitamin B12 Deficiency is a Myth.” Natural News. 2010. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Klein, Ezra. “Gut Check: Here’s the Meat of the Problem.” Washington Post. Washington Post, 29 July 2009. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.

Mason, Jim and Peter Singer. Animal Factories. New York. Crown Publishers. 1980.

Minton, Barbra L. “Buckwheat: Gluten-Free Grain Substitute Offers Complete Vegetarian Protein.” Natural News. 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Moritz, Andreas. “Eating Meat Kills More People than Previously Thought.” Natural News. 2009. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Newkirk, Ingrid E. “Saving the Planet One Meal at a Time.” In City Times. 2010. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.

Rivera, Duran. “Vegetarian Truths Empower.” Natural News. 2011. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Singer, Peter and Jim Mason. The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. n.p: Rodale, 2006.

“Vegetarian 101.” PETA. n.d: Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Veracity, Dani. “Asthema Explained by Common Allergy to Milk and Dairy Products.” Natural News. 2005. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Walters, Sheryl. “Eating One Sausage Per Day Causes Cancer.” Natural News. 2008. Web. 24 Jan. 2012.

Have a Happy St. Patrick's Day!

Share this photo, compliments of PETA2, with all your friends to remind them that meat's not green! Meat is incredibly bad for the environment because raising it wastes water, causes land degradation, adds to the global food shortage, adds to air pollution, and wastes fossil fuels!

If you liked going vegan for the day, try going for a week! Follow this link to pledge to be vegan for 7 days!

Animal Rights

I decided to take debate class this year, and so far, it has been one of the best classes I have ever taken. As a veg*n, you can't even imagine how happy I was when I learned that the first National Forensics League Lincoln-Douglas Debate topic was about animal rights! (At the time, I was just a very strict vegetarian, but switched to full veganism not long after.) I had always lucidly believed in animal rights, but it wasn't until studying that topic that I really became an animal rights activist. I really found it was something that I was incredibly passionate about. I think that the passion I felt with that topic was part of what kicked off a really successful competitive debate career for me. I have honestly lost track of the amount of 1st place trophies that I took at tournaments, particularly with the animal rights topic. I'm not trying to brag, because I really think that the name I made for myself was all due to the fire I had for animal rights, which paved the way to future success. So without further adieu, I present to you, my Affirmative Animal Rights Case (left in debabte format, and original length for debate time regulations.)

“Intelligence is irrelevant on deciding rights. And what’s more relevant is whether these animals are sentient, whether they feel pain. For example, if you—I’ve heard this before, if you punch someone in the stomach, the fact that they are very intelligent doesn’t mean anything. It’s still going to hurt.”

Because I agree with David Blatte’s statement from “Peace Kingdom: Animal Rights,” I am resolved: Morality demands equal recognition of animal rights.

Because justice is “the administering of deserved punishment or reward” (Dictionary.com) and morality is “a social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character” (Cambridge Dictionary Online), my value premise is morality. This value is important to the resolution of animal rights because the majority of our society accepts morality to be a good overarching standard.

My value criterion is equality. Ever since the American and French revolutions, equality has been part of our society’s morés which being a subset of morality is a good criterion for the evaluation thereof.

Definitions:
Demands: to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary (Dictionary.com)
Equal: like or alike in quantity, degree, value; of the same rank, ability, merit. (Dictionary.com)
Recognition: the acknowledgment of something as valid or as entitled to (Dictionary.com)
Animal Rights: the rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes (American Heritage Dictionary)

I will first show that causing suffering in another sentient being is immoral. Second, Discriminating against animal rights is morally wrong by two arguments: 1. Denying animals rights because they don’t have all the same qualities as humans is speciesist. 2. The existence of marginal humans requires that we acknowledge animal rights.

Contention I: Intentionally causing suffering in another sentient being is immoral. Because animals are sentient they deserve the right not to suffer. We know by observation that an animal being abused will try to move away from the abuser. Animals will also avoid things that caused pain in the past.

As Doris Lin wrote in Basic Tenets of Animal Rights (2011), “Sentience is the ability to suffer. As philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, ‘the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they suffer?’ Because a dog is capable of suffering, a dog is worthy of our moral consideration. A table, on the other hand, is incapable of suffering, and is therefore not worthy of our moral consideration. Although harming the table may be morally objectionable if it compromises the economic, esthetic or utilitarian value of the table to the person who owns or uses it, we have no moral duty to the table itself.”

Lin claims that sentience is the ability to suffer. The impact is that if an entity is capable of suffering, it is worth our moral consideration. The warrant can be inferred to be that the treatment of sentient beings deserves moral consideration.

Animal mistreatment leads to violence against humans.

“Statistics show that those with a history of cruelty to animals are more inclined to abuse their families and commit violent crimes against strangers,” Jennifer Copely says in her article “Animal Cruelty Linked to Violence Against People” (2008) as she cites statistics from the FBI.

Because animals are sentient and can feel pain just as humans do, they deserve equal treatment and rights equivalent to those of humans. Causing pain or failing to alleviate pain is usually considered immoral in most cultures.

Doris Lin later says, (Basic Tenets of Animal Rights, 2011)

“Most people recognize that we should not engage in activities that cause pain and suffering to other people. Inherent in that recognition is the knowledge that other people are capable of pain and suffering. If an activity causes undue suffering to someone, the activity is morally unacceptable. If we accept that animals are capable of suffering, it is therefore morally unacceptable to cause them undue suffering.”

Unless we are willing to allow humans to be abused or endure suffering of this magnitude, equality demands that animals are not treated in such a way either.

Contention II: Discriminating against animal rights is morally wrong.

Sub-Argument 1: Denying animals rights because they don’t have all the same qualities as humans is speciesist.

Speciesism is discriminating against animals and failure to recognize the rights of non-humans. Our societies morés have evolved such that discriminating against the rights of women or those of different ethnic backgrounds is wrong. Tom Regan’s Philosophy of Animal Rights reminds us that:

“The same is true of speciesism – the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to one’s own (the “superior”) species. For there is no “superior” species. To think otherwise is to be no less prejudiced than racists or sexists.”

Regan is saying that speciesism is just the same as any other form of biased discrimination.

Doris Lin, in Basic Tenets of Animal Rights, (2011) gives us a definition of speciesism.
“To treat animal suffering differently than human suffering is speciesist.”

Denying similar treatment between two beings based on the beings’ inherent qualities is a form of inequality. As Ingemar Nordin so aptly summarizes in “Animals Don’t Have Rights: A Philosophical Study,”

“Just as society’s moral view of rights has widened to include poor people, slaves and women, it is now time to widen it further to include the right of the animals. The animals, he thinks, also have an inviolable right to life. It is now only a question of recognizing this fact, and of really starting to respect their rights. We, humans as well as animals, all have a consciousness and a psychological identity over time. That makes us all a ‘subject-of-life,’ as Tom Regan calls it. And to be such a subject-of-a-life gives us an intrinsic value that demands unconditional respect.”

Nordin claims that Animals should have their rights recognized. The impact is that those who are subject of a life should be given respect. Saying that animals are subject to life warrants this claim. Failure to discourage discrimination between animal rights and human rights would make discouraging sexism and racism hypocritical because they are all essentially the same concept. Discrimination in any form, particularly speciesism, is denying equal treatment. Just as it is immoral to treat someone of the opposite sex or ethnicity unequally, it is wrong to deny rights based on species.

Sub-Argument 2: The existence of marginal humans requires that we acknowledge animal rights. As James Linemann Nelson said in “Animals, handicapped children and the tragedy of marginal cases,”

“There are human beings whose psychological capacities are rivaled or exceeded by many non-human animals; such humans are often referred to as ‘marginal cases.’ R. G. Frey has argued that there is no secure, non-arbitrary way of morally distinguishing between marginal humans and non-human animals.”

A marginal case is either a severely handicapped person such as someone with extreme mental disability or a person in an extended comatose or vegetative state. Scientific ethics find it hard to discriminate between marginal human cases and more “intelligent” animals because the cognitive abilities of said animals often exceed those of marginal cases. In Basic Tenets of Animal Rights, Doris Lin affirms that,

“Animal rights is based on the belief that treating a non-human animal differently just because the animal belongs to a different species is arbitrary and morally wrong. Of course there are differences between human and non-human animals, but those differences are not morally relevant. For example, many believe that humans have some cognitive abilities that are different from or higher than other animals, but cognitive ability is not morally relevant. If it were, the smartest humans would have more moral and legal rights than other humans who were deemed intellectually inferior. Even if this difference were morally relevant, this trait does not apply to all humans. A person who is profoundly mentally retarded does not have the reasoning capabilities of an adult dog, so cognitive ability cannot be used to defend speciesism.”

Lin claims here that cognitive ability is not morally relevant. If it were, the impact would be varying rights even between people of different intelligence levels. Warranting the claim: The differences between animals and humans are not morally relevant. If we are not willing to recognize animal rights, then we have no moral reason not to euthanize mentally handicapped persons. So long as we say that euthanasia or mistreatment of the mentally handicapped is immoral, the higher cognitive abilities of more advanced animals demand that abuse or unnecessary killing of animals is also immoral. Because the cognitive differences between marginal humans and more intelligent animals are clouded at best, equality is the only logical choice. Therefore, I urge the judge to vote Affirmative.