vegetarianism argumentative thesis statement

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

Vegetarian Diet: An Overview through the Perspective of Quality of Life Domains

Shila minari hargreaves.

1 Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Brasilia (UnB), Campus Darcy Ribeiro, Asa Norte, Brasilia, DF 70910-900, Brazil; rb.bnu@zpataner

António Raposo

2 CBIOS (Research Center for Biosciences and Health Technologies), Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias, Campo Grande 376, 1749-024 Lisboa, Portugal

Ariana Saraiva

3 Department of Animal Pathology and Production, Bromatology and Food Technology, Faculty of Veterinary, Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Trasmontaña s/n, 35413 Arucas, Spain; tp.kooltuo@32_anaira

Renata Puppin Zandonadi

Associated data.

The study did not report any data.

Vegetarianism has gained more visibility in recent years. Despite the well-described effects of a vegetarian diet on health, its influence on the quality of life of the individuals who follow it still needs to be properly investigated. Quality of life relates to a subjective perception of well-being and functionality, and encompasses four main life domains: physical, psychological, social, and environmental. The adoption of a vegetarian diet, despite being a dietary pattern, could potentially influence and be influenced by all of these domains, either positively or negatively. This review aims to present an overview of the background, conceptualization, features, and potential effects of vegetarianism in all quality of life domains. The choice of adopting a vegetarian diet could have positive outcomes, such as better physical health, positive feelings related to the adoption of a morally correct attitude, an increased sense of belonging (to a vegetarian community), and lower environmental impact. Other factors, however, could have a negative impact on the quality of life of those choosing to abstain from meats or other animal products, especially when they go beyond one’s control. These include the environment, the social/cultural group in which a person is inserted, gender-based differences, economic aspects, and a limited access to a wide variety of plant-based foods. It is important to understand all the effects of adopting a vegetarian diet—beyond its nutritional aspects. Not only do studies in this area provide more consistent data, but they may also contribute to mitigating all factors that might prevent individuals from adopting a vegetarian diet, or that may have a negative impact on the quality of life of those who already follow it.

1. Introduction

Vegetarianism has its origins in 3200 BC, when ancient Egyptian civilizations started adopting vegetarian diets based on the belief that abstaining from meat consumption would facilitate reincarnation [ 1 ]. In India, another important cradle of vegetarianism, this practice was also associated with the fact that Hindus see cows as sacred and uphold nonviolence principles [ 2 ]. Later, Greek philosophers also adopted a vegetarian diet, with Pythagoras being a leading figure among them—indeed, for many centuries, vegetarianism was known as the “Pythagorean” diet [ 3 , 4 ]. In the Christian Era, vegetarianism lost its strength, gaining some visibility again only in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when Darwin’s theory of evolution challenged the Church’s views that animals had no souls, and that their only purpose on Earth was to serve human beings [ 1 , 5 ].

Throughout history, the expansion of vegetarianism has been associated with religions that preach respect for all living beings and adopt nonviolence principles, such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, the Hare Krishna movement, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. In addition, in the 20th and 21st centuries, science has observed several health benefits potentially associated with the reduction in meat consumption. Such benefits have strengthened the practice of vegetarianism around the world, and attracted more and more followers [ 4 ].

Currently, the worldwide prevalence of vegetarianism is not uniform. Asia is the continent with the highest prevalence, with 19 percent of the population adopting this practice [ 6 ]. India, the single country with the highest prevalence in the world (almost 40 percent of the population), contributes to the results of the Asian continent [ 7 ]. The prevalence in Africa and the Middle East is about 16 percent; and in Central and South America, 8 percent. The lowest prevalence of vegetarianism is found in North America (about 6 percent of the population are vegetarians) and Europe, where vegetarianism is adopted by only 5 percent of the population.

Vegetarianism encompasses different types of diets, classified according to how restrictive they are. Generally, vegetarianism is understood as the exclusion of meat from one’s diet, but other less restrictive eating patterns can also be classified within the scope of vegetarianism. These include, for example, flexitarians, who consume meat sporadically, or even once a week; pescatarians, who avoid all meat, except fish and seafood; and ovolactovegetarians, who banish all types of meat but consume products of animal origin, such as eggs and dairy products. A strict vegetarian diet, on the other hand, excludes all foods of animal origin. Veganism is a broader concept, which involves the adoption of a strict vegetarian diet, as well as the exclusion of other consumer items made from animal products, or which rely on animal exploitation, such as cosmetics and clothing items [ 8 , 9 ]. For didactic purposes, a strict vegetarian diet is often referred to as a vegan diet.

Different motivations can lead to adopting a vegetarian diet [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 ]. Ethical concerns are the main reasons, building on the idea that animal slaughter for human consumption is morally inappropriate. Another important motivation is health and the potential beneficial effects of vegetarianism. Religions that encourage abstaining from meat consumption and concerns about the environmental impacts of meat production are also important motivators for adopting vegetarianism [ 7 , 9 ].

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), quality of life (QoL) is a subjective concept that comprehends physical, psychological, social, environmental, and spiritual aspects [ 14 , 15 ]. Changes in eating patterns can influence individuals’ QoL, both positively and negatively [ 16 ]. A systematic review study assessed the nutritional quality of vegetarian diets, and found—based on data from 12 surveys—higher nutritional quality levels among vegetarians than omnivores [ 17 ]. According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics [ 18 ], vegetarian diets are nutritionally adequate for all stages of life, as long as they are well planned. However, some precautions need to be taken to minimize the risk of nutritional deficiencies.

In view of the recent growth in the number of individuals adopting a vegetarian diet, as well as the wider interest in the topic in recent years, it is critical to understand the different effects of vegetarianism on one’s QoL. Therefore, this review aims to present an overview of the background, conceptualization, features and potential effects of vegetarianism considering all QoL domains.

2. Historical Background of Vegetarianism

Over most of their 24 million years of evolution, humans’ anthropoid ancestors were almost exclusively vegetarian, except for the occasional ingestion of insects and larvae. Anatomically, both humans and their ancestors present significant features that distance them from meat-eating animals, including, for example, wide flat teeth and more mobile jaws, which facilitate the chewing of grains and seeds, as opposed to sharp teeth and jaw movements on a vertical axis, which are characteristic of carnivores. In addition, carnivorous animals have shorter intestines, which enable the rapid elimination of toxins, unlike humans and other predominantly herbivorous animals, with long intestines that allow longer digestion, fermentation and absorption processes [ 19 , 20 ].

However, possibly due to other reasons linked to survival, self-defense and territorial protection, hominids began hunting other species, which led to the introduction of meat in the diet of Homo erectus , considered the first hunters. Humans’ ability to survive on different types of food was an essential factor in our evolution, which allowed our species, Homo sapiens sapiens , to adapt to the most diverse conditions and spread throughout the planet [ 19 , 20 ].

During the Paleolithic era, different food types were consumed, such as wild plants, seafood, reptiles, birds, and mammals. After the emergence of agricultural practices (about 13,000 years ago), there is no evidence that humans were essentially vegetarian, and the domestication of animals, including for consumption, became a routine activity by that time. However, it is speculated that many farmers lived primarily as vegetarians due to the wider availability of crops [ 19 ].

It is not known for certain when people started voluntarily abstaining from meat. However, the first reports date from 3200 BC in ancient Egypt, when the practice was motivated by religious factors, based on the belief that not consuming meat would facilitate reincarnation [ 1 ]. Another important region that is part of the history of vegetarianism is India, where the practice is also linked to religious issues. Hinduism has two basic principles among its foundations: ahimsa, or the principle of nonviolence (which includes violence against humans and other animals); and the recognition of the cow as a sacred animal [ 2 ].

Some of the philosophers of the pre-Christian era also contributed to the spread of vegetarianism. The practice was adopted at that time for health reasons as well as for religious, ecological, and philosophical reasons. It was believed that the act of killing another living being for food would have a brutal influence on one’s mind, negatively affecting one’s body and soul [ 3 ]. The supporters of vegetarianism included big names like Plato, Prophyry, Diogenes and Plutarch. The most prominent philosopher in this field was Pythagoras, who lived in the 6th century BC. Due to his influence, vegetarianism was known as the “Pythagorean” diet over many centuries, a name that lasted until the middle of the 19th century in Europe and the Mediterranean region [ 4 , 19 ].

In Ancient Greece, it was believed that animals could think and communicate, and that humans should be responsible for their lives. In addition, the Greeks believed that eating meat would be harmful to one’s health and mind [ 21 ]. Vegetarianism was also present during the Roman Empire, influenced by the Greek culture. However, with the rise of Christianity, abstaining from animal consumption lost its importance. Famous Christian thinkers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine sought to provide rational justifications for the exploitation and consumption of animals, spreading the idea that, unlike animals, human beings have souls and free will, and that animals are inferior beings, placed on Earth at the service of humans [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Only a few monks still maintained the practice, based on the belief that meat consumption would hinder their spiritual progress in some way because it was linked to impulsive behaviors [ 5 ].

In the 15th century, vegetarianism was advocated by Leonardo da Vinci, who believed that there was no distinction between the murder of humans and animals. However, it was only after the spread of Darwin’s theory of evolution that vegetarianism gained strength again in the late 18th century and early 19th century. Darwinism refuted the idea that human beings are fundamentally different from other animals—therefore, there were no plausible justifications for meat consumption [ 5 ]. At that time, the first vegetarian societies also began to emerge, and some Christian groups began to preach in favor of abstaining from meat based on the belief that animals should also be worthy of pity. It was only then that the term “vegetarianism” came to be used. Despite the general belief that it refers to “eating vegetables”, the term actually derives from “vegetus”, a Latin word that means “active” or “vigorous” [ 22 ]. An important name in the history of vegetarianism, in addition to the various vegetarian groups and societies that emerged in the 20th century, was Mahatma Gandhi, who contributed to its dissemination [ 19 ].

Albert Einstein believed that humanity’s evolution toward a vegetarian diet would be fundamental for the survival of life on Earth [ 21 ]. In Europe, the first International Vegetarian Union was founded in 1908, after other vegetarian societies had already emerged in several countries. From the 1960s onwards, a greater concern with food and health, associated with evidence of the potential benefits of a vegetarian diet for disease prevention, contributed to the spread of vegetarianism. Religious practices that preach respect for life and adopt nonviolence principles, such as Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Buddhism, the Hare Krishna movement, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church, were also fundamental to this growth. Therefore, the world has seen a significant rise and expansion of the practice since the mid-20th century [ 4 ].

In recent years, vegetarianism has gained more visibility and a greater number of followers. Rosenfeld [ 23 ] describes a great expansion in the scientific literature on the psychological and social effects of choosing a vegetarian diet. Some topics started to attract more attention, such as motivations; barriers to adopting such diets; differences between vegetarians and vegans; morality; and gender differences. New research lines have emerged to explore issues associated with personal identity and social and cultural experiences [ 23 ].

Adherence to a vegetarian diet goes beyond food. Vegetarianism can be considered a social identity, as it reflects the motivations, feelings, and attitudes of those who choose to adopt it [ 24 ]. The main motivations for choosing a vegetarian diet are related to ethical and health aspects. Animal welfare is the main motivator, followed by concerns with major environmental impacts caused by the production and consumption of food of animal origin. Regarding health, general well-being and weight maintenance are the factors that most motivate the adoption of vegetarianism [ 23 ]. In addition, religious aspects can lead individuals to adopt a vegetarian diet, and religions such as Hinduism, Adventism and Spiritism preach abstaining from meat. Other less frequent factors, such as aversion to the taste of meat, food intolerances and allergies, and the influence of other people (family members, for example) can also be considered motivators for adopting a vegetarian diet [ 4 , 7 , 9 , 21 ].

There are several types of vegetarian diets commonly described in the literature. The most consensual classification consists of four different types, namely: (1) flexitarian or semivegetarian diet, in which people consume meat sporadically (up to once a week) or exclude red meat, but consume white meat; (2) pesco-vegetarian or pescatarian diet, which excludes all meats, except fish and seafood; (3) ovolactovegetarian diet, which excludes all types of meat, but allows products of animal origin, such as dairy products and eggs; and (4) strict vegetarianism, which excludes all products of animal origin [ 8 , 25 ].

In addition to these categories, other diets can be considered subclassifications of vegetarianism, namely: (1) raw vegan diet, which is mostly based on food in its most natural (raw) state, with an emphasis on the choice of organic and self-grown products; (2) frugal or frugivorous diet, which is similar to the raw vegan diet, but with 70–80 percent of the diet being composed of fruits, with a small proportion of nuts, seeds and some vegetables; and (3) macrobiotic diets, which encompass various degrees of restriction but are primarily composed of whole grains, soybeans, algae and some vegetables [ 25 , 26 ].

3. Quality of Life

According to the WHO, QoL is a multifactorial concept that includes the following domains: physical (physical state), psychological (affective and cognitive state), social (interpersonal relationships and social roles in the lives of individuals) and environmental (quality of the environment in which individuals live). Conceptual, pragmatic and empirical dimensions, as well as spiritual and religious aspects, can also contribute to people’s QoL and their ability to perform certain activities, or “functionality”. Building on that, QoL is defined as “individuals’ perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns” [ 14 , 15 ].

The terms “quality of life” and “well-being” are often used to indicate how well an individual feels. There is, however, a problem of interpretation resulting from the subjectivity of these concepts, which may acquire a broader or more specific connotation depending on the context. QoL can be subdivided into: the quality of the environment in which one lives, involving the physical structure of the environment and people’s integration in the society in which they live; physical and mental health, encompassing a wide range of individual capacities; usefulness, which involves the feeling of “being useful”, contributing to the welfare of other people, society, and the environment; and the appreciation of life, which is associated with tangible (wealth, for example) and intangible (such as life satisfaction and happiness) aspects [ 27 ].

Although it is difficult to group all these qualities into a single concept, the best general indicator of QoL would be how happy you feel and how long you live. The concept of “well-being”, in turn, usually denotes QoL in a wider sense, as well as a positive subjective assessment of life, or an appreciation of life. However, sometimes the concepts of “well-being” and “quality of life” are used interchangeably [ 27 ].

The connection between vegetarianism and QoL may be analyzed through different perspectives [ 14 , 15 ]. In the context of vegetarianism, each QoL domain proposed by the WHO (physical, psychological, social, and environmental) may be influenced by the adoption of a vegetarian diet. The opposite may also be said, that is, specific aspects of each domain might influence one’s decision to adopt a vegetarian diet. Moreover, these influences could be either positive or negative. The possible connections between vegetarianism and QoL domains are illustrated in Figure 1 .

Connections between aspects of vegetarianism and quality of life domains. The arrows indicate the direction of the influence, that is, whether a given domain influences or is influenced by certain aspects of vegetarianism. The plus (+) and minus (−) symbols indicate positive and negative influences, respectively. NCD: noncommunicable diseases; VD: vegetarian diet.

3.1. Physical Domain

The physical domain refers to aspects as pain, discomfort, energy, fatigue, sleep, and rest. Aspects that positively contribute to a general feeling of physical well-being are therefore relevant for understanding QoL. These include better general health, lower rates of chronic and inflammatory diseases, and lifespan [ 28 ].

3.1.1. Influence of Adopting a Vegetarian Diet on the Physical Domain

Positive influence.

Following a vegetarian diet may lead to better health outcomes and a lower risk of noncommunicable diseases, which could positively influence the QoL physical domain ( Figure 1 ). A nutritionally adequate diet is essential to achieving and maintaining good overall health. A systematic review published by Parker and Vadiveloo [ 17 ] compared the quality of vegetarian and nonvegetarian diets based on diet quality indexes. That review included 12 studies and showed that vegetarians have better diet quality results than omnivores. Furthermore, among vegetarians, vegans achieved the best results. Although different indexes were used in the studies, several common points allowed a combined analysis of the results. Higher consumption of fruits, green vegetables, whole grains, and vegetable sources of protein—and lower consumption of saturated fat and sodium—contributed to the best results found among vegetarians [ 17 ].

A cross-sectional study carried out with vegetarians in Brazil (n = 3319) observed that vegetarians have better diet quality markers than the general Brazilian population, according to parameters used in a national annual survey carried out by the Ministry of Health [ 29 , 30 ]. It was observed that a higher proportion of vegetarians had a more adequate daily consumption of fruits and vegetables [ 29 ] compared to the general Brazilian population (38.1 percent versus 23.1 percent), based on WHO recommendations (five servings a day) [ 31 ]. In addition, a lower regular weekly consumption of soft drinks and artificial juices was also observed among vegetarians (3.9 percent versus 14.4 percent). Of the different types of vegetarians, vegans showed the best results. It was also observed that vegetarians in Brazil follow the recommendations set out in the Dietary Guidelines for the Brazilian Population with regard to consuming more fresh foods and fewer processed and ultraprocessed foods [ 32 ].

Vegetarian diets, including strict vegetarianism (veganism), are considered healthy and nutritionally adequate, and can supply people’s nutritional needs at all life stages, as long as such diets are well planned [ 18 ]. Moreover, the benefits related to the prevention and better control of chronic diseases among vegetarians have already been described, and could also lead to positive outcomes in their QoL.

The role of intestinal microbiota in the regulation of several biological functions and in the prevention of chronic diseases is well known, as well as the fundamental role of the diet in the microbiota and intestinal health of individuals [ 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Excessive protein consumption could alter intestinal microbiota patterns by stimulating the proliferation of bacteria capable of fermenting amino acids. Such fermentation results in the production of molecules responsible for increased intestinal permeability, inflammation, and even cancer [ 36 ]. The consumption of vegetable sources of protein, on the other hand, is not associated with such adverse effects, possibly because they contain carbohydrates and fibers, which could mitigate the potentially deleterious effects observed in the intestine caused by the ingestion of proteins [ 36 ]. The intake of saturated fats, present mainly in animal foods, is another factor that contributes to an increase in systemic inflammation, possibly through the activation of Toll-like receptors (TLR), which, once activated, trigger a proinflammatory intestinal and systemic immune response [ 37 ]. The activation of TLRs and the subsequent inflammatory cascade result in an increased risk of metabolic disorders and chronic diseases, such as cancer, insulin resistance, and cardiovascular diseases [ 37 ].

Vegetarian diets usually have a higher content of carbohydrates and fibers, in addition to lower levels of proteins and fats—in particular saturated fats. Studies comparing the microbiota of vegetarians and nonvegetarians show that a plant-based diet can benefit the diversity and profile of the bacteria that make up the intestinal microbiota. In addition to differences observed in the microbiota, with a more favorable bacterial profile, a vegetarian diet (with high consumption of whole foods, fruits, and vegetables) leads to increased production of metabolites from the fermentation of prebiotics and phytochemicals by these bacteria, which also have a positive effect on the host’s health, both at intestinal and systemic levels, contributing to the prevention of chronic diseases [ 38 ].

Among chronic diseases, cardiovascular diseases account for 43.6 percent of deaths worldwide [ 39 ]. Positive results in the control of cardiovascular disease risk factors were observed in clinical trials that promoted lifestyle changes, including adopting vegetarian, vegan, and plant-based diets [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 ]. A review of observational studies conducted in 2018 assessed cardiovascular risk factors in vegans. In most countries, vegetarian diets were associated with a lower intake of energy and saturated fat, and a better cardiovascular profile (lower body weight, LDL cholesterol levels, blood pressure, fasting glucose, and triglycerides) [ 44 ].

A 2019 review study conducted by the Diabetes and Nutrition Study Group (DNSG) of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) associated vegetarian eating patterns with a 28 percent reduction in the incidence of coronary heart disease, and a 22 percent drop in mortality from such conditions. That study gathered data from systematic reviews with meta-analyses correlating different dietary patterns and cardiometabolic outcomes in diabetic patients [ 45 ]. Following a balanced vegetarian diet can reduce systemic inflammation and the risk of diabetes, two factors that are closely linked to the onset and progression of cardiovascular disease [ 46 ].

The consumption of refined carbohydrates, saturated fats, processed meats, and sugary drinks increases the risk of type-2 diabetes, especially when combined with low consumption of dietary fibers. On the other hand, a low-calorie plant-based diet has a protective effect [ 47 ].

The prevalence of diabetes among vegetarians is 1.6 to 2 times lower than among omnivores [ 48 ]. In a 24-week controlled trial with diabetics, the individuals who followed a vegetarian diet showed greater weight loss (6.2 kg versus 3.2 kg, on average), better insulin sensitivity (30 percent versus 20 percent), greater reduction in visceral fat and medication use, in addition to a better hormonal profile (increased adiponectin and reduced leptin) and better levels of antioxidants, as compared to the ones following a standard diet for diabetes control [ 49 ].

Several factors contribute to the reduction in risks and a better control of diabetes. The first one is vegetarians’ better weight control. It is known that both obesity and the accumulation of visceral fat are linked to increased insulin resistance, which contributes to the onset of diabetes [ 47 ]. Vegetarians’ lower intake of saturated fats [ 17 ] also contributes to reducing the risk of diabetes. It has been shown that reducing the consumption of saturated fats or replacing them with unsaturated fats may contribute to improving insulin sensitivity [ 50 ]. Other factors, such as higher fiber intake [ 51 ], lower ferritin levels and lower intake of heme iron [ 52 ] among vegetarians are also related to better insulin resistance and lower risk of diabetes.

A vegetarian diet may also contribute to improving inflammation control. Foods of plant origin—when consumed in their most natural form—are rich in antioxidants, which can assist directly in the control of free radicals in the body (as in the case of antioxidant vitamins C and E), or even through several signaling pathways that modulate our immune response and the production of antioxidant compounds and enzymes, suppressing inflammatory responses [ 48 , 53 , 54 ]. Therefore, a plant-based diet that is rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, seeds, and nuts can help to control inflammatory processes.

A vegetarian diet may also bring benefits regarding cancer prevention. In addition to vegetarians’ better weight control results [ 55 ], which can be considered a protective factor against cancer [ 56 ], their higher consumption of dietary fibers could have protective effects due to the modulation of the intestinal microbiota. In addition, as previously described, excessive protein consumption can lead to an increased production of inflammatory metabolites by the intestinal microbiota [ 36 ], and the consumption of saturated fats (found mainly in foods of animal origin) is capable of activating Toll-like receptors in immune system cells. This stimulates the production of proinflammatory cytokines [ 37 ], and all these factors together can create a cancer-promoting environment.

In addition to the most common chronic diseases mentioned above, adopting a vegetarian diet can help to prevent and treat other inflammatory diseases. A healthier microbiota, higher consumption of antioxidants and lower consumption of potentially inflammatory compounds, in addition to better weight control, are important factors that positively contribute to the health of vegetarians. In fact, how long an individual has been following a vegetarian diet may have an important influence on their results—which depend on continuous exposure to this type of dietary pattern. In a study that evaluated only individuals who had been on a vegetarian diet for at least 15 years (n = 45), lower levels of oxidative stress markers were observed compared to omnivorous individuals (n = 30) [ 57 ].

Furthermore, promising results have already been achieved with the adoption of a vegetarian diet by individuals suffering from fibromyalgia, for example, including improvements in pain symptoms, QoL, sleep quality, and anxiety depression [ 58 ]. In autoimmune diseases, such as rheumatoid arthritis, a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and legumes—and low in animal foods—can help to control some of the symptoms [ 59 ]. A vegetarian diet could also be a beneficial tool to prevent other autoimmune diseases, such as multiple sclerosis [ 60 ], due to its role in the health of the intestinal microbiota [ 61 ].

Several factors related to lifestyle may influence the emergence of diseases and how long an individual can live. Habits such as regular physical activities, stress control, good personal relationships, and a balanced diet have a positive impact on longevity [ 62 ]. A more detailed analysis of the dietary patterns followed by the world’s longest-living populations, who live in regions known as Blue Zones, can help us understand important food-related aspects that might contribute to improving people’s health and life expectancy. The five regions considered Blue Zones are: Loma Linda (California—United States), Nicoya (Costa Rica), Sardinia (Italy) Ikaria (Greece), and Okinawa (Japan). In all of them, individuals adopt a predominantly plant-based diet, with sporadic meat consumption (on average five times a month, in small portions). On the other hand, the consumption of legumes is frequent in all of them, being part of their daily diet, in addition to vegetables, tubers, cereals, fruits, and other regional foods, including dairy products [ 63 ].

The increased consumption of fruits and vegetables—rich in phytochemicals—may contribute to longevity through several mechanisms. The control of low-grade inflammation provided by antioxidant protection can prevent cell structure damage, slowing down the aging process [ 64 ]. On the other hand, prioritizing the consumption of proteins from animal sources could have a negative impact on one’s life expectancy. The profile of the amino acids found in these foods, with a higher content of methionine and branched-chain amino acids, leads to greater stimulation of IGF-1 and mTOR, in addition to greater cell proliferation. This contributes to the cellular senescence process and, consequently, to aging [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ].

These potential health benefits of consuming a mostly or strictly plant-based diet can contribute to better physical health and well-being, resulting in better QoL. In fact, a cross-sectional study conducted with a total of 4628 individuals in the United Kingdom (with a wide range of diseases and conditions) showed that people who were ill had lower QoL scores than those feeling well. Post hoc comparisons indicated higher differences in the physical domain, especially among patients with musculoskeletal conditions (arthritis/arthroplasty, chronic pain), and those with cardiovascular disease awaiting a heart transplant [ 69 ]. Therefore, a diet that helps to prevent chronic and inflammatory diseases could also reduce the negative effects of these conditions on people’s QoL.

Negative Influence

Despite the potential health benefits from adopting a vegetarian diet, special attention should be given to the adequacy of iron, zinc, vitamins B12 and D, calcium, iodine, omega-3, and protein in adults [ 70 ], and especially in infants [ 71 ]. Low intake of such nutrients could lead to nutritional deficiencies and impair an individual’s health [ 70 , 72 ], with a negative impact on their QoL.

Vitamin B12 deficiency should be highlighted, as this nutrient can only be found in animal-origin foods. Vegetarians (especially vegans) have been shown to have lower levels of serum vitamin B12. In addition, increased homocysteine levels [ 73 , 74 , 75 ] are observed, a metabolite that is elevated due to deficiency of vitamin B12 (and other nutrients), and which is associated with increased inflammation. B12 deficiency and increased homocysteine can lead to neurological problems, anemia and developmental delay in children, in addition to increasing the risks of cardiovascular disease, dementia, osteoporosis and death [ 73 , 75 ]. For this reason, it is necessary to monitor and supplement vitamin B12 levels among this groups, and possibly encourage the intake of fortified foods.

Iron, an essential mineral used for hemoglobin formation and oxygen transport in the body, also needs to be carefully adjusted. Vegetarians have been shown to have lower serum ferritin levels, a protein responsible for storing iron in the body. Lower levels of iron could increase the risk of developing anemia [ 76 ], which might also be caused by vitamin B12 deficiency [ 75 ]. In this scenario, an inadequately planned vegetarian diet could negatively affect aspects related to “energy and fatigue” in the physical domain of QoL [ 28 ].

Bone health should also be addressed when considering the potential negative effects of a vegetarian diet. A systematic review published in 2019 showed that vegetarians and vegans had lower bone mineral density than omnivores, and vegans also had higher fracture rates. Such results were unlikely explained only by lower calcium intake, as bone health encompasses many complex mechanisms and depends on different nutrients [ 77 ]. A recent cross-sectional study also found lower bone health in vegans when compared to omnivores (measured using quantitative ultrasound—QUS) [ 78 ], which reinforces the need for proper diet planning and careful bone health monitoring among vegetarians.

3.1.2. Influence of the Physical Domain on the Adoption of a Vegetarian Diet

Seeking health improvement is one of the reasons why people chose to adopt a vegetarian diet [ 7 ]. According to Hopwood et al. [ 79 ], health was the most common reason why nonvegetarians considered adhering to a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is currently being more widely studied, and a growing number of scientific papers about the topic have been published over the past few years [ 80 ]. Consequently, the topic has received more attention from the media, and more information is reaching the general population. As more people are informed about the health benefits of adopting a vegetarian diet, the need or desire to improve their health might serve as a trigger. A study conducted in Germany with 329 vegans showed that more than two-thirds of them (69.6 percent), despite having more than one motive for following the diet, included health and well-being among them [ 81 ].

In this sense, following a vegetarian diet is both the cause and consequence of the positive outcomes related to the physical domain. People who seek health improvement may be prone to adopting a vegetarian diet; and, once they do it, the physical benefits may serve as further motivation for maintaining their new diet.

3.2. Psychological Domain

The psychological domain is related to positive or negative feelings, self-esteem and body image/appearance, and thinking/learning/memory/concentration. Different aspects of vegetarianism can either influence or be influenced by psychological factors ( Figure 1 ) [ 28 ].

3.2.1. Influence of Adopting a Vegetarian Diet on the Psychological Domain

Avoiding meat and other animal products can enhance positive feelings arising from the fact that person is adopting an attitude that confirms their beliefs. The positive psychological impact goes beyond the individual sphere, as it can also increase social connections with others adopting similar ideas and behaviors. According to Rosenfeld and Burrow [ 24 ], being a vegetarian goes beyond the choice of a dietary pattern, as it gives individuals a new social identity, which influences their way of thinking, behaving, and socializing. The adoption of a plant-based diet can have a positive effect on well-being and contentment, which could positively impact someone’s QoL [ 82 ].

The different motivations for adopting vegetarianism are also able to influence individuals psychologically. Those who adopt vegetarianism for ethical reasons tend to create more aversion to meat due to the association between its consumption and animal suffering. Such individuals also exclude more animal foods and tend to adopt stricter diets than those who become vegetarians for health or environmental reasons [ 23 ]. That does not necessarily implicate a negative outcome, though. As it has been shown by Cruwys et al. [ 83 ], vegetarians and vegans are more likely to report no barriers to diet adherence (25.2 percent of vegans and 15.6 percent of vegetarians) when compared to individuals following a gluten-free, paleo, or weight-loss diet. Indeed, both vegans and vegetarians had higher diet adherence when compared to the other groups, which might be connected to positive psychological effects related to the social identification within the vegetarian/vegan community.

Potentially negative outcomes of vegetarianism in the psychological domain could be related to mental health impairment. The data related to the effect of vegetarianism on mental health are conflicting. Adopting a vegetarian diet was positively associated with a better mood in a cross-sectional study with Seventh-day Adventists [ 84 ]. A study of South Asians living in the United States found that the likelihood of depression was 43 percent lower among vegetarians [ 85 ]. However, a contrary association has also been observed: in the United Kingdom, a positive association of depressive symptoms was found in men, even after adjusting for confounding factors such as nutritional deficiencies and sociodemographic data [ 86 ]. Similar results were found among adolescents in a study conducted in Turkey, in which higher levels of anxiety, as well as eating disorders, were observed. That study raises the possibility that a vegetarian diet might be adopted among young people as a way of limiting food intake, and that it might be related to preexisting eating disorders [ 87 ].

Discrepant results have already been observed in a study that evaluated mental health in representative population samples from Germany, Russia, and the United States, in addition to samples from students in China and Germany. An increase in anxiety and depression was observed only in the sample from China, but the result was considered mild since a vegetarian diet would explain only 1 percent of the variance in cases of depression and anxiety. In addition, the motivations that led Chinese students to adopt a vegetarian diet differed from those of the other groups studied, being more related to cultural and economic factors [ 88 ]. A study with Chinese elderly people also found a positive association between adopting a plant-based diet and depression compared to a meat-based diet. However, the correlation was observed only in men [ 89 ].

A French cohort’s cross-section study carried out a separate analysis by types of vegetarian diets, and identified a positive association between depressive symptoms and a fish diet and an ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet. However, no association was found with a vegan diet, which contradicts the idea that a stricter diet (excluding more or all animal products) would lead to more severe symptoms of depression [ 90 ]. The authors claim that differences in motivation (between vegans and other vegetarians) may have contributed to this group’s lack of association. In addition, the same study found a positive association between depressive symptoms and the exclusion of items from the diet, both for foods of animal and vegetable origin. That is, the more items excluded (not types of food, but number of products excluded), the greater the symptoms. Such a result could indicate that the higher levels of depression found in vegetarians in several studies could reflect an increase in risk related to diet restriction, and not necessarily to vegetarianism itself [ 90 ].

Another point that needs to be considered is that studies on depression in vegetarians are predominantly transversal, and therefore do not enable the determination of a cause-and-effect relationship. A study that evaluated mental disorders and adopting a vegetarian diet in the previous 12 months (through interviews with a population sample in Germany) also found a positive association between the two variables. However, the time difference between the beginning of both suggests that mental disorders preceded the change in diet, thus refuting the hypothesis that vegetarianism might cause mental disorders [ 91 ].

A systematic review study carried out by Medawar et al. [ 92 ] points out that, despite several health benefits related to adopting a vegetarian diet, its effect on mental health has yet to be properly studied. It is possible that nutritional deficiencies, such as lower levels of vitamin B12, contribute to worsening the nervous system’s health. On the other hand, a diet that favors a more balanced intestinal microbiota, such as a vegetarian diet, positively contributes to the maintenance of neurological functions due to its importance in modulating the gut-brain axis [ 92 ]. In a meta-analysis study published in 2016, it has also been observed that the consumption of fruits and vegetables is inversely associated with the risk of depression [ 93 ]. Vegetarians consume more fruits and vegetables than omnivorous individuals [ 17 ], and also tend to have better health markers and lower risk of other chronic diseases [ 94 ]. In view of this, the conflicting results on the relationship between vegetarianism and depression may reflect a lack of standardization with regard to diet quality and adequate intake (or supplementation) of nutrients in some of the studies, as well as the possibility already raised of reverse causality.

3.2.2. Influence of the Psychological Domain on the Adoption of a Vegetarian Diet

The main reason individuals decide to adopt a vegetarian diet is because of ethical/moral reasons [ 7 , 9 ], which is related to compassion and empathy towards the animals. Since some people feel that eating animal products is wrong, abstaining from their consumption could contribute to a better psychological state. Adopting a vegetarian diet can bring about positive feelings, such as altruism and a sense of purpose, while the pursuit of such guilt-free peace of mind could also positively influence one’s choice to adopt a vegetarian diet. A study conducted by Antonetti and Maklan [ 95 ] showed that experiencing either guilt or pride could change consumers’ behavior and their intention to purchase more sustainable products. Building on that, feeling guilty about eating animal products could lead to a behavioral change, and feeling proud of doing it could reinforce the maintenance of a vegetarian diet.

Moreover, some individuals adopt a vegetarian diet due to spiritual or religious reasons [ 7 ]. Spirituality is a concept related to people’s quest for the meaning in life and a connection to a higher or sacred power. On the other hand, religiousness is related to the degree in which an individual believes, follows, and practices a religion, which might influence how one chooses to live their lives [ 96 ]. An individual who follows a religion that preaches abstention from animal products might feel encouraged to adopt a vegetarian diet. Good adherence to the diet could, in this case, be a positive psychological reinforcement, as it would be in line with their own beliefs. As it has already been demonstrated, high levels of spirituality and religiosity are associated with better social, psychological, and environmental QoL outcomes [ 96 ].

Despite the positive outcomes related to the adoption of a vegetarian diet, some challenges can be found. For many, the barriers to adopting vegetarianism outweigh the possible benefits, and may prevent them from taking that step. Studies corroborate the evidence that attachment to the taste of meat constitutes an obstacle to adopting vegetarianism [ 97 , 98 ]. In addition, other barriers may be considered, such as the fear that a vegetarian diet could be nutritionally inadequate or monotonous, or that it may not favor satiety; the belief that preparing vegetarian meals is harder; difficulties in finding options when eating in restaurants; living with people who eat meat; and a lack of knowledge about meat-free eating [ 97 , 99 , 100 , 101 ]. Especially among men, meat is considered a “comfort food”, and its intake is associated with strength, muscle building, and masculinity. These beliefs represent a barrier to reducing meat consumption, as demonstrated by a study with soldiers from Norway who evaluated their perception of the implementation of the “Meatless Monday” program [ 97 ]. The program is a worldwide campaign, adopted in more than 40 countries, which aims to make people aware of the advantages of reducing meat consumption [ 102 ].

These results are in line with older studies conducted by Lea et al. [ 103 , 104 ]. Having a taste for meat was considered the main barrier for the adoption of a vegetarian diet, but other important factors have also been described, such as, for example, difficulties in changing one’s eating pattern; the fact that family and friends may still eat meat; little knowledge about the subject; and difficulties in finding vegetarian options when eating out [ 103 ].

Moreover, according to another study from Lea et al. [ 104 ], some of the factors that prevent or hinder the adoption of a plant-based dietary pattern are related to one’s family (family members or close people do not adopt this eating pattern); convenience (difficulty finding options or preparing food); health (fear of iron, protein and other nutrient deficiencies); cost and lack of options for eating out; and lack of information about vegetarianism. The low prevalence of adopting a plant-based diet among the participants demonstrates that several factors discourage its adoption—even though it is a more flexible dietary pattern than a vegetarian diet.

All these barriers interconnect with the social domain, as they are influenced by the social context in which an individual is inserted. Nevertheless, the negative psychological effects refer to how individuals react to these fears or barriers, which might negatively affect their choice of adopting a vegetarian diet. As described by Schmitt et al. [ 105 ], the perception of discrimination, both about an individual and a group, has an impact on well-being, with potential psychological consequences (contributing to mental stress, anxiety, depression) and affecting other aspects, such as self-esteem, humor, and satisfaction with life [ 105 ].

3.3. Social Domain

The social domain related to QoL includes personal relationships and social support [ 28 ]. In fact, having good social connections is essential for mental health and well-being, positively influencing one’s QoL. In this case, the consequences of adopting a vegetarian diet have to be analyzed based on the social and cultural group in which an individual is inserted, as well as the attitudes of close people towards vegetarianism.

3.3.1. Influence of Adopting a Vegetarian Diet on the Social Domain

Unlike other dietary patterns, vegetarianism goes beyond the definition of one’s food choices. Rather, it is defined as a social identity, which consists of how a person identifies themselves in terms of the social group in which they believe to belong. A study conducted with young vegan women revealed that not only did they identify with the diet, but they also passionately engaged in a “vegan lifestyle”. The choice of becoming a vegan had positive effects in many different ways, including social relationships, and identification and sense of connection with the vegan subculture [ 106 ]. Therefore, the choice of following a vegetarian diet can enhance one’s connection with other people who share the same life philosophy [ 107 ], strengthening social bonds and positively influencing one’s QoL ( Figure 1 ).

Many of those who decide to adopt vegetarianism suffer rejection from others and are victims of stereotyping and discrimination. Such negative attitudes towards vegetarians and vegans are known as “vegaphobia” or “veganophobia”, a term already spread in the scientific literature. A possible explanation for the discrimination against vegetarians and vegans is related to the cognitive dissonance suffered by individuals who eat meat. In this context, cognitive dissonance refers to the contradiction experienced by individuals who like animals and feel compassion for them, but, at the same time, consume meat. Therefore, individuals who eat meat may discriminate against vegetarians not out of fear or dislike, but because they represent an affirmation that eating meat is not necessary and is, therefore, unjustified [ 108 ].

In order to avoid conflict and embarrassment, many vegetarians prefer to omit their dietary choice. In fact, social aspects are so relevant that the greatest reason why vegetarians make exceptions and eat meat is due to pressure from friends, family, and coworkers. According to Rosenfeld and Tomiyama [ 109 ], in a qualitative study that evaluated dieters’ motivations to break their diet, 51 percent of individuals reported having already eaten meat after adopting vegetarianism. In general, their justifications do not involve missing meat itself, but rather an attempt to avoid uncomfortable situations in a social context. The fear of being rude or offending some family culture or tradition, the need to make a good impression, or the fear of being stigmatized are some of the most important factors that lead vegetarians to stop following their diets momentarily. Such a study reinforces the idea that vegetarianism goes far beyond a dietary choice, creating a social identity that influences the entire context in which an individual is inserted [ 109 ].

The negative consequences of a vegetarian identity usually have a stronger impact on vegans than vegetarians because the former suffer more rejection and are viewed more negatively by omnivores [ 23 ]. Such discrimination comes not only from nonvegetarian people, but also from the media, as demonstrated by Cole and Morgan [ 110 ] in a study that evaluated how veganism was reported in UK newspapers. Such a study concluded that the media tends to present vegans as sentimentalists, fanatics and extremists, in addition to mocking veganism and considering it impossible to maintain in practice.

3.3.2. Influence of the Social Domain on the Adoption of a Vegetarian Diet

Vegetarians and vegans also showed more adherence to their diet when compared to individuals who follow a paleo, gluten-free, or weight-loss diet. Social identification was an important predictor of adherence in both quantitative and qualitative analyses. According to Cruwys et al. [ 83 ], vegetarians and vegans described their diet not as an individual choice, but as a manifestation of their social ethics. Ethical and moral concerns were considered the most important facilitators of diet adherence, and a lack of adherence would go against the group’s moral code. Feeling part of a social group can also positively influence how strictly one sticks to a dietary pattern. The sense of belonging and the in-group social reinforcement could make it easier for individuals to maintain their dietary patterns, provided they feel supported by the group.

Vegetarians that have a close circle of vegetarian contacts (friends, family or coworkers) have been shown to have higher QoL than those who do not [ 13 ]. In this case, they can be positively influenced by their social environment. Moreover, just as the social context in which vegetarians are inserted may influence their adherence to the diet, individuals who eat meat may also be influenced by living with vegetarians. In their study, Geerts, Backer, and Erreygers [ 108 ] described some characteristics of meat-consuming individuals, with emphasis on the fact that meat consumption is considerably lower among those living with vegetarians in the same household. In addition, discrimination against vegetarians was less common among individuals who had vegetarians in their household or circle of friends. Thus, greater acceptance and lower levels of veganophobia among meat consumers (resulting from their close contacts with vegetarians) may have a positive influence on other individuals’ feeling more comfortable when adopting a vegetarian diet.

Cultural aspects are relevant predictors of meat consumption. The consumption of different species of animals varies between cultures. Animals considered suitable for consumption in some countries may not be seen in the same way by individuals of other nationalities. As demonstrated by Ruby [ 111 ], in countries considered individualistic (such as the United States and Canada), a feeling of disgust is the primary attitude of certain individuals when faced with the idea of eating certain animals. On the other hand, in more collectivist nations, such as China and India, cultural norms influence individual emotions and the sense of morality, being the greatest predictor for not consuming meat.

Moreover, gender differences may also influence one’s choice of eating or avoiding animal products. Meat consumption is usually seen as a symbol of masculinity and dominance over other species in several cultures where meat is considered a proper food for men [ 23 , 97 ]. In addition, men tend to eat less fruits and vegetables; care less about the nutritional properties of the food they eat; and agree more with the belief that a healthy diet needs to include meat [ 7 , 112 ]. According to Rosenfeld and Tomiyama [ 98 ], men are more resistant to adopting a vegetarian diet, mainly because they believe that a meatless diet would not be tasty. In addition, women are more likely to believe that meat consumption is harmful to the environment and that adopting vegetarianism is a plausible and healthy choice [ 113 ]. In fact, large population studies such as the Epic-Oxford [ 114 ] and the Adventist Health Study 2 [ 115 ] identified a higher proportion of females among vegetarians, with 78 percent and 65 percent of the sample consisting of women.

Such gender differences may influence the adoption of vegetarianism depending on the sociocultural context in which an individual is inserted. A study by Ruby et al. [ 116 ] with participants from Argentina, Brazil, the United States, and France (countries that are among the largest consumers of beef in the world) revealed that men consume beef more frequently and enjoy the taste of it more, while women show more negative attitudes towards the consumption of red meat, such as disgust. The same study also demonstrated that there are cultural differences related to the acceptance of vegetarianism. American women showed greater admiration for vegetarianism, while French women were the ones who admired vegetarians the least. Participants from Brazil and Argentina, considering the entire sample, demonstrated more positive attitudes toward beef consumption, followed by participants from France and, finally, from the United States [ 116 ].

3.4. Environmental Domain

The environment in which an individual is inserted also exerts an important influence on their QoL. Living in a safe and healthy environment, with proper social care and an efficient transport system, opportunities for acquiring new information and skills, as well as recreation/leisure areas, are all relevant factors. Moreover, having good financial resources can positively contribute to a good QoL. On the other hand, factors that have a negative impact on the environment, such as pollution and climate change, could also negatively affect one’s QoL [ 28 ].

3.4.1. Influence of Adopting a Vegetarian Diet on the Environmental Domain

Following a more sustainable diet, which will contribute to a healthier environment, could positively influence QoL ( Figure 1 ). In general, plant-based diets are more sustainable than those based on animal foods, as they require fewer natural resources for food production and have a lower impact on the environment. An omnivorous diet is estimated to require 2.9 times more water, 2.5 times more energy, 13 times more fertilizers, and 1.4 times more pesticides than a vegetarian diet [ 117 ]. In addition, meat and dairy production contribute 80 percent of all gas emissions from food production, and 24 percent of total greenhouse gases coming from food. Livestock production uses about 70 percent of all agricultural land globally, and consumes 29 percent of all water spent on agriculture [ 118 ].

Regarding the analysis of different types of diets, the data from 34 articles gathered in a systematic review showed that the more a diet is plant-based, the more sustainable it is. The vegan diet was considered the most sustainable of all, with the lowest greenhouse gas emissions and the least environmental impact, especially when based on locally produced foods and with a lower consumption of ultraprocessed meat substitutes. Ovolactovegetarian diets have a greater environmental impact than vegan diets, and it has been shown that 40 percent of greenhouse gases from ovolactovegetarian diets are attributed to the consumption of dairy products [ 118 ].

The production of animal-origin food is very inefficient in terms of energy, as it requires the use of many resources (water, energy, land, food) to keep animals alive. The animals themselves use much of the energy and nutrients in the form of food to maintain their metabolism, whereas only a small part of it is actually stored and converted into food for humans in the form of meat. This amount of energy wasted during production, standardized through the rate of the conversion of energy into protein, varies considerably from one animal to another. Whereas 4 calories from fossil fuels are required for each calorie of chicken protein that is produced, 40 calories are required for the production of 1 calorie of beef protein. For pork and dairy production, the rate is 14 fuel calories for each calorie of protein. In the case of eggs, the value is similar to that of beef (39 calories). On average, the energy used to produce each gram of animal protein (25 kcal/g) is 11 times greater than that used to produce vegetable proteins (2.2 kcal/g) [ 119 ].

In general, in the case of plant-origin foods, the higher the protein concentration, the greater the energy efficiency (which means that such foods need less energy to provide greater amounts of protein, as they are more concentrated in protein). Such an association does not exist for foods of animal origin, as their energy demand is very high—in fact, a decline in energy efficiency is observed as protein concentration increases (that is, foods with a higher protein concentration are those that demand more energy) [ 120 , 121 ].

According to Aleksandrowicz et al. [ 122 ], the change from a typical Western diet to more sustainable food patterns could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and land use related to food production by up to 80 percent, in addition to a 50 percent reduction in water use. In that study, all diets involved reducing or replacing animal foods with others of plant origin (such as, for example, vegetarian, vegan, Mediterranean and pescatarian diets), in addition to replacing the consumption of ruminant animals with monogastric animals [ 122 ]. Similar results were observed in a study by Rosi et al. [ 12 ] in Italy, which showed that vegetarian diets (ovolactovegetarian and vegan) had a lower ecological footprint in the three aspects assessed: CO 2 production, water consumption, and land use. Corroborating these data, a global analysis of different dietary strategies to reduce the environmental impact and improve health estimated that, in developed countries, the replacement of animal foods with plant-origin foods could reduce the number of premature deaths by up to 12 percent, and greenhouse gas emissions by up to 84 percent [ 123 ].

3.4.2. Influence of the Environmental Domain on the Adoption of a Vegetarian Diet

Environmental issues are part of the motivations that lead individuals to reduce meat consumption or adopt a vegetarian diet. The concept of sustainability applied to food refers to a diet that, in addition to being nutritionally adequate and healthy, respects biodiversity and ecosystems, is accessible, culturally accepted, and contributes to preserving natural resources [ 124 ].

A motivation to live in a healthier and more sustainable environment may positively influence people to adopt and maintain a vegetarian diet, as it has already been proved that a more plant-based diet has a lower environmental impact when compared to animal-based diets [ 122 ]. Individuals who are naturally engaged in sustainability and environmental issues are more likely to have positive feelings related to a sense of altruism achieved from adopting a vegetarian diet. The possibility of protecting their own environment and contributing to a better world can bring a sense of purpose in life [ 125 ], which could positively influence diet adherence and QoL.

Adopting a vegetarian diet may depend on other factors beyond an individual’s will. Economic aspects, both at the global level (economic situation of the country) and the individual level (income and social status), could influence food choices. In general, the lower the income, the greater its influence on food. People with higher income suffer less from fluctuations in food prices and are more demanding in their choices. Likewise, in poorer countries, the consumption of certain foods is highly influenced by their prices, which does not occur with the same intensity in developed countries [ 126 ]. The influence of economic aspects on the nutritional quality of a diet is quite variable. For example, it has been shown that increased income leads to a higher intake of fruit. However, the same increase might lead to eating out more often, or consuming more processed foods, in addition to eating more meat and fewer legumes [ 126 ]. Moreover, a cross-sectional study carried out in the United States showed that lower income levels were associated with poorer quality of food—in particular, lower consumption of fruits and vegetables and higher consumption of sugary drinks and frozen desserts [ 127 ].

The economic context is one of the factors that may influence the adoption of vegetarianism. On the one hand, the price of animal-origin foods may cause individuals to reduce their consumption. A study carried out in Canada found that an increase in meat price led 37.9 percent of individuals to reduce or eliminate their consumption. Still, as it is a food that is part of local culture, individuals value meat consumption more than any other food group. Therefore, despite economic issues, cultural aspects may also be considered an important barrier to reducing meat consumption [ 128 ]. In Australia, it has been shown that price increases are the biggest motivators for reductions in meat consumption, a factor that was considered more relevant than health, religious, ethical, and environmental aspects, among others [ 129 ]. Therefore, understanding the economic context in which individuals live is essential for understanding the motivations that lead them to reduce their meat consumption and possibly adopt vegetarianism.

Reducing meat consumption also depends on access to various plant-origin foods, which is also limited by economic issues. In Brazil, for example, the consumption of fruits and vegetables is influenced by prices and family income, with the cost burden being indicated as the primary barrier [ 130 ]. Data from the Brazilian Household Budget Survey (POF) showed that individuals from lower income groups spend a higher percentage of their budget on food. Families with a monthly income of up to BRL 1908.00 spend 22.6 percent of their household budget on food, compared with only 7.6 percent among families whose monthly income exceeds BRL 23,850.00 [ 131 ]. One of the barriers to adopting a vegetarian diet is the perception that it would be more expensive [ 98 ]. However, a vegetarian diet could be considered cheaper than an omnivorous diet, since meat is often the most expensive food item. In Brazil, a national survey from 2017–18 revealed that over 20 percent of all household food expenses were spent on “meats, viscera and fish”, a percentage higher than to any other food item [ 131 ]. Still, a vegetarian diet could become more expensive when more meat-substitute foods (which are less accessible) are consumed [ 132 ].

Another factor that could hinder the adoption of a healthy vegetarian diet is the logistics involving access to fresh fruits and vegetables. As they are perishable foods and are usually eaten fresh (unlike meats and other foods, which are often frozen and stored for longer), many types of fruits and vegetables require more frequent trips to the market, and adequate storage to minimize losses. Therefore, the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables could be affected by people’s lack of time to purchase these foods frequently, and by losses resulting from inadequate storage. In other words, the perishability of fruits and vegetables could generate a cost increase. In addition, especially among low-income individuals, a more restricted access to fresh food is a factor that negatively influences its consumption [ 133 ]. Moreover, lower education levels could also negatively influence one’s decision to adopt a vegetarian diet, as a positive association has been demonstrated between higher educational levels and the adoption of a vegetarian diet [ 114 , 134 ]. In view of this, educating individuals to make healthier and more economically viable choices could encourage more people to adopt vegetarianism. Public policies that help reduce prices and facilitate access to fruits, vegetables, and other plant-origin foods could also help more people to reduce their meat consumption.

4. Vegetarians’ Quality of Life

A vegetarian diet’s effect on QoL was assessed in a cross-sectional study carried out with runners. A convenience sample was selected from German-speaking countries, namely Germany, Switzerland and Austria, and a total of 281 individuals (158 vegetarians and 123 omnivores) participated in the study. The instrument used to assess QoL was the WHOQOL-BREF, which was applied virtually to the study subjects. The results showed that all participants scored high on QoL, regardless of the type of diet adopted, with no difference between groups. Therefore, it was concluded that runners have high levels of QoL, and that a vegetarian diet was as good as an omnivorous diet for this population segment [ 135 ].

In Brazil, a specific questionnaire to evaluate the QoL of vegetarians was developed and validated, since other studies used only general questionnaires or others that were not specific to vegetarians [ 13 ]. The responses showed that vegetarians have satisfactory levels of QoL (average scores between 70 and 80 on a 100-point scale). Among the different types of vegetarians, vegans were the ones with the highest scores. Other factors that had an influence on participants’ QoL included their age, how long they had been following a vegetarian diet, and whether they had other vegetarians in their close circle of contacts [ 13 ].

In a clinical trial conducted with diabetic patients, the effect of a vegetarian diet on their QoL and eating behavior was compared to a standard diet used to treat type 2 diabetes. QoL was assessed using the Obesity and Weight-Loss QoL questionnaire (OWQOL) and Weight-Related Symptom Measure questionnaire (WRSM). Both diets led to positive effects on QoL and mood, but the effect was stronger in the group that followed a vegetarian diet, demonstrating that such a dietary pattern can have positive effects not only on the physical health, but also on the mental health of patients with type 2 diabetes [ 136 ].

Older studies [ 137 , 138 , 139 ] show similar results, with positive QoL outcomes when individuals were exposed to a vegetarian diet. Katcher, Ferdowsian, Hoover, Cohen, and Barnard [ 137 ] developed a workplace study in a US-based company as part of a health promotion program, in which volunteers adopted a vegan diet for 22 weeks. At the beginning and the end of the period, individuals answered the Food Acceptability Questionnaire—FAQ (SF) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire (WPAI). The responses to the questionnaires showed that individuals who adopted the vegan diet reported improvement in general health, physical fitness, mental health, vitality and overall satisfaction with the diet, in addition to the reduced cost of food items. However, they reported more difficulty in finding options when eating out. Still, the vegan diet was effective in improving the participants’ QoL. QoL was also assessed in a study conducted at a health institute in the United States that offers a raw vegan diet to visitors and guests. Participants who remained at the institute for at least a week and who would maintain the raw vegan diet after leaving the institute were selected. A QoL analysis was performed at the beginning of the study and 12 weeks after the intervention, with a questionnaire that evaluated individual satisfaction with taste, food cost, convenience (ease of buying, planning and preparing food), and self-care perception. Individuals who followed the raw vegan diet for 12 weeks were compared to those who did not. There was an improvement both in the parameters of general QoL (assessed by SF-36), as well as in the QoL associated with changes in the diet, cost aspects and the perception of self-care. This shows the positive effect that this type of food can have in QoL, when used as a clinical treatment [ 138 ]

A study conducted in the United States by Barnard, Scialli, Bertron, Hurlock, and Edmonds [ 139 ] assessed the acceptability of a low-fat vegan diet in women. The study was carried out with 35 nonmenopausal women divided into two groups: one adopting the diet for a period equivalent to two menstrual cycles, and the other group not following any diet, with a crossover design. The low-fat vegan diet had high adherence and good acceptability, although the participants reported that maintaining the diet required more effort. They also reported weight loss and improved sleep, digestion and energy levels, which can positively contribute to improving QoL.

5. Summary of Knowledge and Future Directions

Adopting a vegetarian diet can have a positive influence on all four QoL domains. Better health outcomes and lower rates of noncommunicable diseases have a positive impact on the physical domain. Positive feelings associated with doing something good, together with a feeling of belonging or stronger in-group bonds created with the vegetarian community, have a positive effect on the psychological and social domains, respectively. Finally, the lower environmental impact of vegetarian diets benefits the environmental domain.

On the other hand, negative effects on QoL might also result from adopting a vegetarian diet. Despite better overall health, a nonbalanced vegetarian diet could lead to nutritional deficiencies that would be detrimental to health, affecting the physical domain. As vegetarians are still a minority group, rejection and stigmatization from nonvegetarians may have a negative impact on the social domain. The psychological and mental effects of a vegetarian diet are not clear, although some studies point to an increased risk of depression.

Several aspects of different QoL domains can also have an impact on one’s decision whether or not to adopt a vegetarian diet. Improving one’s health can be an important motivator to try a vegetarian diet. Ethical/moral and religious/spiritual reasons are important psychological aspects that can lead to the adoption of vegetarianism, while an attempt to reduce one’s environmental impact can motivate someone to adopt such a diet. Becoming part of a social group and achieving a sense of belonging can also be a trigger for someone to become vegetarian.

Just as some individuals might feel motivated to follow a vegetarian diet for a number of different reasons, others might feel discouraged due to psychological, social, or environmental factors. A fear of being stigmatized or excluded from their social group could hinder one’s intention of becoming a vegetarian. Moreover, cultural aspects that enhance meat consumption could have the same effect, together with the connection that people make between meat and masculinity. Finally, since the adoption of an alternative dietary pattern also relies on environmental factors, such as food availability and economics, individuals may face difficulties when adopting a vegetarian diet if they lack a good supply of plant-based food options.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, vegetarianism can either influence or be influenced by different QoL domains. The choice of adopting a vegetarian diet can have positive consequences, such as better physical health, positive feelings related to the adoption of a morally correct attitude, an increased sense of belonging (to a vegetarian community) and lower environmental impact. On the other hand, factors that go beyond an individual’s control, such as the environment and social/cultural group in which they are inserted, as well as gender-based differences, economic aspects, and limited access to a wide variety of plant-based foods, can negatively impact the QoL of those choosing to abstain from meats or other animal products. Despite the low number of studies on vegetarianism and quality of life, the existing evidence points toward a more positive impact. It is important to understand all the effects of adopting a vegetarian diet—beyond its nutritional aspects. Not only do studies in this area provide more consistent data, but they may also contribute to mitigating all factors that might prevent individuals from adopting a vegetarian diet, or that may have a negative impact on the quality of life of those who already follow it. Further studies are necessary to understand how strongly these connections between QoL domains and vegetarianism can influence the individuals who adopt this dietary pattern.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknoledge the “Programa de Pós Graduação em Nutrição Humana da Universidade de Brasília (PPGNH/UnB)” and Luiz Eduardo S. Hargreaves for the support.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M.H. and R.P.Z.; methodology, S.M.H. and R.P.Z.; investigation, S.M.H. and R.P.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.H. and R.P.Z.; writing—review and editing, S.M.H., A.R., A.S. and R.P.Z.; visualization, S.M.H., R.P.Z., A.R.; supervision, R.P.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Moral Vegetarianism

Billions of humans eat meat. To provide it, we raise animals. We control, hurt, and kill hundreds of millions of geese, nearly a billion cattle, billions of pigs and ducks, and tens of billions of chickens each year.

To feed these animals, we raise crops. To raise crops, we deforest and use huge quantities of water. To quench these animals, we use still more water.

In turn, these animals produce staggering amounts of waste, waste that poisons water sources and soil. They produce staggering amounts of greenhouse gasses.

To raise these animals and produce this meat, farmers and slaughterhouse workers labor in conditions from onerous to brutal.

If controlling, hurting, or killing animals is wrong or if the production of these environmental effects or effects on people is wrong or if consuming the meat produced is wrong, then a breathtaking level of wrong-doing goes on daily.

Many fewer than a billion humans are vegetarian, have diets excluding meat. They are vegetarian for various reasons: because it’s healthy, because their parents make them be vegetarian, because they don’t like meat. Some are vegetarian on moral grounds. Moral vegetarianism is the view that it is morally wrong—henceforth, “wrong”—to eat meat.

The topic of this entry is moral vegetarianism and the arguments for it. Strikingly, most contemporary arguments for moral vegetarianism start with premises about the wrongness of producing meat and move to conclusions about the wrongness of consuming it. They do not fasten on some intrinsic feature of meat and insist that consuming things with such a feature is wrong. They do not fasten on some effect of meat-eating on the eater and insist that producing such an effect is wrong. Rather, they assert that the production of meat is wrong and that consumption bears a certain relation to production and that bearing such a relation to wrongdoing is wrong. So this entry gives significant space to food production as well as the tricky business of connecting production to consumption.

§1 introduces relevant terminology and an overview of the main positions. §2 explains meat production, the main moral arguments against it, and some responses to those arguments. That section—like the rest of the entry—focuses on medium-sized land animals. Yet fish and insects are killed in a number that dwarfs the number of land animals killed. Some issues these killings raise are covered in §3.

None of the foregoing is about consuming animals. §4 covers moral arguments from premises about meat production to conclusions about meat consumption. §5 considers some extensions of the arguments in §2. It wonders about which arguments against meat production can, if sound, be extended to show that animal product production or even some plant production is morally wrong. This last idea is relatively new. §6 briefly summarizes some other new issues in the moral vegetarian literature.

1. Terminology and Overview of Positions

2.1 animal farming, 2.2.1 suffering, 2.2.2 killing, 2.2.3 harming the environment, 2.2.4 general moral theories, 3. fish and insects, 4.1 bridging the gap, 4.2 against bridging the gap, 5.1.2 dairy, 5.2.1 plants themselves, 5.2.2 plant production and animals, 5.2.3 plant production and the environment, 5.3 summary of animal product and plant subsections, 6. conclusion: where the debate about vegetarianism stands and is going, other internet resources, related entries.

Moral vegetarianism is opposed by moral omnivorism, the view according to which it is permissible to consume meat (and also animal products, fungi, plants, etc.).

Moral veganism accepts moral vegetarianism and adds to it that consuming animal products is wrong. Whereas in everyday life, “vegetarianism” and “veganism” include claims about what one may eat, in this entry, the claims are simply about what one may not eat. They agree that animals are among those things.

In this entry, “animals” is used to refer to non-human animals. For the most part, the animals discussed are the land animals farmed for food in the West, especially cattle, chicken, and pigs. There will be some discussion of insects and fish but none of dogs, dolphins, or whales.

Primarily, this entry concerns itself with whether moral vegetarians are correct that eating meat is wrong. Secondarily—but at greater length—it concerns itself with whether the production of meat is permissible.

Primarily, this entry concerns itself with eating in times of abundance and abundant choices. Moral vegans need not argue that it is wrong to eat an egg if that is the only way to save your life. Moral vegetarians need not argue it is wrong to eat seal meat if that is the only food for miles. Moral omnivores need not argue it is permissible to eat the family dog. These cases raise important issues, but the arguments in this entry are not about them.

Almost exclusively, the entry concerns itself with contemporary arguments. [ 1 ] Strikingly, many historical arguments and most contemporary arguments against the permissibility of eating meat start with premises about the wrongness of producing meat and move to conclusions about the wrongness of consuming it. That is, they argue that

It is wrong to eat meat

By first arguing that

It is wrong to produce meat.

The claim about production is the topic of §2.

2. Meat Production

The vast majority of animals humans eat come from industrial animal farms that are distinguished by their holding large numbers of animals at high stocking density. We raise birds and mammals this way. Increasingly, we raise fish this way, too.

Raising large numbers of animals enables farmers to take advantage of economies of scale but also produces huge quantities of waste, greenhouse gas, and, generally, environmental degradation (FAO 2006; Hamerschlag 2011; Budolfson 2016). There is no question of whether to put so many animals on pasture—there is not enough of it. Plus, raising animals indoors, or with limited access to the outdoors, lowers costs and provides animals with protection from weather and predators. Yet when large numbers of animals live indoors, they are invariably tightly packed, and raising them close together risks the development and quick spread of disease. To deal with this risk, farmers intensively use prophylactic antibiotics. Tight-packing also restricts species-typical behaviors, such as rooting (pigs) or dust-bathing (chickens), and makes it so that animals cannot escape each other, leading to stress and to antisocial behaviors like tail-biting in pigs or pecking in chickens. To deal with these, farmers typically dock tails and trim beaks, and typically (in the U.S., at least) do so without anesthetic. Animals are bred to grow fast on a restricted amount of antibiotics, food, and hormones, and the speed of growth saves farmers money, but this breeding causes health problems of its own. Chickens, for example, have been bred in such a way that their bodies become heavier than their bones can support. As a result, they “are in chronic pain for the last 20% of their lives” (John Webster, quoted in Erlichman 1991). Animals are killed young—they taste better that way—and are killed in large-scale slaughterhouses operating at speed. Animal farms have no use for, e.g., male chicks on egg-laying farms, are killed at birth or soon after. [ 2 ]

Raising animals in this way has produced low sticker prices (BLS 2017). It enables us to feed our appetite for meat (OECD 2017).

Raising animals in this way is also, in various ways, morally fraught.

It raises concerns about its effects on humans. Slaughterhouses, processing this huge number of animals at high speed, threaten injury and death to workers. Slaughterhouse work is exploitative. Its distribution is classist, racist, and sexist with certain jobs being segmented as paupers’ work or Latinx work or women’s (Pachirat 2011).

Industrial meat production poses a threat to public health through the creation and spread of pathogens resulting from the overcrowding of animals with weakened immune systems and the routine use of antibiotics and attendant creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Anomaly (2015) and Rossi & Garner (2014) argue that these risks are wrongful because unconsented to and because they are not justified by the benefits of assuming those risks.

Industrial meat production directly produces waste in the form of greenhouse gas emissions from animals and staggering amounts of waste, waste that, concentrated in those quantities, can contaminate water supplies. The Böll Foundation (2014) estimates that farm animals contribute between 6 and 32% of greenhouse gas emissions. The range is due partly to different ideas about what to count as being farm animals’ contributions: simply what comes out of their bodies? Or should we count, too, what comes from deforestation that’s done to grow crops to feed them and other indirect emissions?

Industrial animal farming raises two concerns about wastefulness. One is that it uses too many resources and produces too much waste for the amount of food it produces. The other is that feeding humans meat typically requires producing crops, feeding them to animals, and then eating the animals. So it typically requires more resources and makes for more emissions than simply growing and feeding ourselves crops ( PNAS 2013.

Industrial animal farming raises concerns about the treatment of animals. Among others, we raise cattle, chickens, and pigs. Evidence from their behavior, their brains, and their evolutionary origins, adduced in Allen 2004, Andrews 2016, and Tye 2016, supports the view that they have mental lives and, importantly, are sentient creatures with likes and dislikes. Even chickens and other “birdbrains” have interesting mental lives. The exhaustive Marino 2017 collects evidence that chickens can adopt others’ visual perspectives, communicate deceptively, engage in arithmetic and simple logical reasoning, and keep track of pecking orders and short increments of time. Their personalities vary with respect to boldness, self-control, and vigilance.

We farm billions of these animals industrially each year (Böll Foundation 2014: 15). We also raise a much smaller number on freerange farms. In this entry “freerange” is not used in its tightly-defined, misleading, legal sense according to which it applies only to poultry and simply requires “access” to the outdoors. Instead, in the entry, freerange farms are farms that that, ideally, let animals live natural lives while offering some protection from predators and the elements and some healthcare. These lives are in various ways more pleasant than lives on industrial farms but involve less protection while still involving control and early death. These farms are designed, in part, to make animal lives go better for them, and their design assumes that a natural life is better, other things equal, than a non-natural life. The animal welfare literature converges on this and also on other components of animal well-being. Summarizing some of that literature, David Fraser writes,

[A]s people formulated and debated various proposals about what constitutes a satisfactory life for animals in human care, three main concerns emerged: (1) that animals should feel well by being spared negative affect (pain, fear, hunger etc.) as much as possible, and by experiencing positive affect in the form of contentment and normal pleasures; (2) that animals should be able to lead reasonably natural lives by being able to perform important types of normal behavior and by having some natural elements in their environment such as fresh air and the ability to socialize with other animals in normal ways; and (3) that animals should function well in the sense of good health, normal growth and development, and normal functioning of the body. (Fraser 2008: 70–71)

In this light, it is clear why industrial farming seems to do less for animal welfare than freerange farming: The latter enables keeping animals healthy. It enables happy states (“positive affect”) and puts up some safeguards against the infliction of suffering. There is no need, for example, to dock freerange pigs’ tails or to debeak freerange chickens, if they have enough space to stay out of each other’s way. It enables animals to socialize and to otherwise lead reasonably natural lives. A freerange’s pig’s life is in those ways better than an industrially-farmed pig’s.

Yet because freerange farming involves being outdoors, it involves various risks: predator- and weather-related risks, for example. These go into the well-being calculus, too.

Animals in the wild are subjected to greater predator- and weather-related risks and have no health care. Yet they score very highly with regard to expressing natural behavior and are under no one’s control. How well they do with regard to positive and negative affect and normal growth varies from case to case. Some meat is produced by hunting such animals. In practice, hunting involves making animals suffer from the pain of errant shots or the terror of being chased or wounded, but, ideally, it involves neither pain nor confinement. Of course, either way, it involves death. [ 3 ]

2.2 The Schematic Case Against Meat Production

Moral vegetarian arguments about these practices follow a pattern. They claim that certain actions—killing animals for food we do not need, for example—are wrong and then add that some mode of meat production—recreational hunting, for example—does so. It follows that the mode of meat-production is wrong.

Schematically

X is wrong.

Y involves X . Hence,

Y is wrong.

Among the candidate values of X are:

• Causing animals pain for the purpose of producing food when there are readily available alternatives.
• Killing animals for the purpose of…
• Controlling animals…
• Treating animals as mere tools…
• Ontologizing animals as food…
• Harming humans….
• Harming the environment…

And among the candidate values of Y are:

• Industrial animal farming
• Freerange farming
• Recreational hunting

Space is limited and cranking through many instances of the schema would be tedious. This section focuses on causing animals pain, killing them, and harming the environment in raising them. On control, see Francione 2009, DeGrazia 2011, and Bok 2011. On treating animals as mere tools, see Kant’s Lectures on Ethics , Korsgaard 2011 and 2015, and Zamir 2007. On ontologizing, see Diamond 1978, Vialles 1987 [1994], and Gruen 2011, Chapter 3. On harming humans, see Pachirat 2011, Anomaly 2015, and Doggett & Holmes 2018.

Some moral vegetarians argue:

Causing animals pain while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives is wrong.

Industrial animal farming involves causing animals pain while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives. Hence,

Industrial animal farming is wrong.

The “while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives” is crucial. It is sometimes permissible to cause animals pain: You painfully give your cat a shot, inoculating her, or painfully tug your dog’s collar, stopping him from attacking a toddler. The first premise is asserting that causing pain is impermissible in certain other situations. The “when there are readily available alternatives” is getting at the point that there are substitutes available. We could let the chickens be and eat rice and kale. The first premise asserts it is wrong to cause animals pain while raising them for food when there are readily available substitutes.

It says nothing about why that is wrong. It could be that it is wrong because it would be wrong to make us suffer to raise us for food and there are no differences between us and animals that would justify making them suffer (Singer 1975 and the enormous literature it generated). It could, instead, be that it is wrong because impious (Scruton 2004) or cruel (Hursthouse 2011).

So long as we accept that animals feel—for an up-to-date philosophical defense of this, see Tye 2016—it is uncontroversial that industrial farms do make animals suffer. No one in the contemporary literature denies the second premise, and Norwood and Lusk go so far as to say that

it is impossible to raise animals for food without some form of temporary pain, and you must sometimes inflict this pain with your own hands. Animals need to be castrated, dehorned, branded, and have other minor surgeries. Such temporary pain is often required to produce longer term benefits…All of this must be done knowing that anesthetics would have lessened the pain but are too expensive. (2011: 113)

There is the physical suffering of tail-docking, de-beaking, de-horning, and castrating, all without anesthetic. Also, industrial farms make animals suffer psychologically by crowding them and by depriving them of interesting environments. Animals are bred to grow quickly on minimal food. Various poultry industry sources acknowledge that this selective breeding has led to a significant percentage of meat birds walking with painful impairments (see the extensive citations in HSUS 2009).

This—and much more like it that is documented in Singer & Mason 2006 and Stuart Rachels 2011—is the case for the second premise, namely, that industrial farming causes animals pain while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives.

The argument can be adapted to apply to freerange farming and hunting. Freerange farms ideally do not hurt, but, as the Norwood and Lusk quotation implies, they actually do: For one thing, animals typically go to the same slaughterhouses as industrially-produced animals do. Both slaughter and transport can be painful and stressful.

The same goes for hunting: In the ideal, there is no pain, but, really, hunters hit animals with non-lethal and painful shots. These animals are often—but not always—killed for pleasure or for food hunters do not need. [ 4 ]

Taken together the arguments allege that all manners of meat production in fact produce suffering for low-cost food and typically do so for food when we don’t need to do so and then allege that that justification for producing suffering is insufficient. Against the arguments, one might accept that farms hurt animals but deny that it is even pro tanto wrong to do so (Carruthers 1992 and 2011; Hsiao 2015a and 2015b) on the grounds that animals lack moral status and, because of this, it is not intrinsically wrong to hurt them (or kill or control them or treat them like mere tools). One challenge for such views is to explain what, if anything, is wrong with beating the life out of a pet. Like Kant, Carruthers and Hsiao accept that it might be wrong to hurt animals when and because doing so leads to hurting humans. This view is discussed in Regan 1983: Chapter 5. It faces two distinct challenges. One is that if the only reason it is wrong to hurt animals is because of its effects on humans, then the only reason it is wrong to hurt a pet is because of its effects on humans. So there is nothing wrong with beating pets when that will have no bad effects on humans. This is hard to believe. Another challenge for such views, addressed at some length in Carruthers 1992 and 2011, is to explain whether and why humans with mental lives like the lives of, say, pigs have moral status and whether and why it is wrong to make such humans suffer.

Consider a different argument:

Killing animals while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives is wrong.

Most forms of animal farming and all recreational hunting involve killing animals while raising them for food when there are readily available alternatives. Hence,

Most forms of animal farming and all recreational hunting are wrong.

The second premise is straightforward and uncontroversial. All forms of meat farming and hunting require killing animals. There is no form of farming that involves widespread harvesting of old bodies, dead from natural causes. Except in rare farming and hunting cases, the meat produced in the industrialized world is meat for which there are ready alternatives.

The first premise is more controversial. Amongst those who endorse it, there is disagreement about why it is true. If it is true, it might be true because killing animals wrongfully violates their rights to life (Regan 1975). It might be true because killing animals deprives them of lives worth living (McPherson 2015). It might be true because it treats animals as mere tools (Korsgaard 2011).

There is disagreement about whether the first premise is true. The “readily available alternatives” condition matters: Everyone agrees that it is sometimes all things considered permissible to kill animals, e.g., if doing so is the only way to save your child’s life from a surprise attack by a grizzly bear or if doing so is the only way to prevent your pet cat from a life of unremitting agony. (Whether it is permissible to kill animals in order to cull them or to preserve biodiversity is a tricky issue that is set aside here. It—and its connection to the permissibility of hunting—is discussed in Scruton 2006b.) At any rate, animal farms are in the business of killing animals simply on the grounds that we want to eat them and are willing to pay for them even though we could, instead, eat plants.

The main objection to the first premise is that animals lack the mental lives to make killing them wrong. In the moral vegetarian literature, some argue that the wrongness of killing animals depends on what sort of mental life they have and that while animals have a mental life that suffices for hurting them being wrong, they lack a mental life that suffices for killing them being wrong (Belshaw 2015 endorses this; McMahan 2008 and Harman 2011 accept the first and reject the second; Velleman 1991 endorses that animal mental lives are such that killing them does not harm them). Animals could lack a mental life that makes killing them wrong because it is a necessary condition for killing a creature being wrong that that creature have long-term goals and animals don’t or that it is a necessary condition that that creature have the capacity to form such goals and animals don’t or that it is a necessary condition that the creature’s life have a narrative structure and animals’ lives don’t or… [ 5 ]

Instead, the first premise might be false and killing animals we raise for food might be permissible because

[t]he genesis of domestic animals is…a matter…of an implicit social contract—what Stephen Budiansky…calls ‘a covenant of the wild.’…Humans could protect such animals as the wild ancestors of domestic cattle and swine from predation, shelter them from the elements, and feed them when otherwise they might starve. The bargain from the animal’s point of view, would be a better life as the price of a shorter life… (Callicott 2015: 56–57)

The idea is that we have made a “bargain” with animals to raise them, to protect them from predators and the elements, and to tend to them, but then, in return, to kill them. Moreover, the “bargain” renders killing animals permissible (defended in Hurst 2009, Other Internet Resources, and described in Midgley 1983). Such an argument might render permissible hurting animals, too, or treating them merely as tools.

Relatedly, even conceding that it is pro tanto wrong to kill animals, it might be all things considered permissible to kill farm animals for food even when there are ready alternatives because and when their well-being is replaced by the well-being of a new batch of farmed animals (Tännsjö 2016). Farms kill one batch of chickens and then bring in a batch of chicks to raise (and then kill) next. The total amount of well-being is fixed though the identities of the receptacles of that well-being frequently changes.

Anyone who endorses the views in the two paragraphs above needs to explain whether and then why their reasoning applies to animals but not humans. It would not be morally permissible to create humans on organ farms and harvest those organs, justifying this with the claim that these humans wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the plan to take their organs and so part of the “deal” is that those humans are killed for their organs. Neither would it be morally permissible to organ-farm humans, justifying it with the claim that they will be replaced by other happy humans. [ 6 ]

Finally, consider:

Harming the environment while producing food when there are readily available alternatives is wrong.

Industrial animal farming involves harming the environment while producing food when there are readily available alternatives. Hence,

A more plausible premise might be “egregiously harming the environment…” The harms, detailed in Budolfson 2018, Hamerschlag 2011, Rossi & Garner 2014, and Ranganathan et al. 2016, are egregious and include deforestation, greenhouse gas emission, soil degradation, water pollution, water and fossil fuel depletion.

The argument commits to it being wrong to harm the environment. Whether this is because those harms are instrumental in harming sentient creatures or whether it is intrinsically wrong to harm the environment or ecosystems or species or living creatures regardless of sentience is left open. [ 7 ]

The argument does not commit to whether these harms to the environment are necessary consequences of industrial animal farming. There are important debates, discussed in PNAS 2013, about whether, and how easily, these harms can be stripped off industrial animal production.

There is an additional important debate, discussed in Budolfson 2018, about whether something like this argument applies to freerange animal farming.

Finally, there is a powerful objection to the first premise from the claim that these harms are part of a package that leaves sentient creatures better off than they would’ve been under any other option.

Nothing has been said so far about general moral theories and meat production. There is considerable controversy about what those theories imply about meat production. So, for example, utilitarians agree that we are required to maximize happiness. They disagree about which agricultural practices do so. One possibility is that because it brings into existence many trillions of animals that, in the main, have lives worth living and otherwise would not exist, industrial farming maximizes happiness (Tännsjö 2016). Another is that freerange farming maximizes happiness (Hare 1999; Crisp 1988). Instead, it could be that no form of animal agriculture does (Singer 1975 though Singer 1999 seems to agree with Hare).

Kantians agree it is wrong to treat ends in themselves merely as means. They disagree about which agricultural practices do so. Kant ( Lectures on Ethics ) himself claims that no farming practice does—animals are mere means and so treating them as mere means is fine. Some Kantians, by contrast, claim that animals are ends in themselves and that typically animal farming treats them as mere means and, hence, is wrong (Korsgaard 2011 and 2015; Regan 1975 and 1983).

Contractualists agree that it is wrong to do anything that a certain group of people would reasonably reject. (They disagree about who is in the group.) They disagree, too, about which agricultural practice contractualism permits. Perhaps it permits any sort of animal farming (Carruthers 2011; Hsiao 2015a). Perhaps it permits none (Rowlands 2009). Intermediate positions are possible.

Virtue ethicists agree that it is wrong to do anything a virtuous person would not do or would not advise. Perhaps this forbids hurting and killing animals, so any sort of animal farming is impermissible and so is hunting (Clark 1984; Hursthouse 2011). Instead, perhaps it merely forbids hurting them, so freerange farming is permissible and so is expert, pain-free hunting (Scruton 2006b).

Divine command ethicists agree that it is wrong to do anything forbidden by God. Perhaps industrial farming, at least, would be (Halteman 2010; Scully 2002). Lipscomb (2015) seems to endorse that freerange farming would not be forbidden by God. A standard Christian view is that no form of farming would be forbidden, that because God gave humans dominion over animals, we may treat them in any old way. Islamic and Jewish arguments are stricter about what may be eaten and about how animals may be treated though neither rules out even industrial animal farming (Regenstein, et al. 2003).

Rossian pluralists agree it is prima facie wrong to harm. There is room for disagreement about which agricultural practices—controlling, hurting, killing—do harm and so room for disagreement about which farming practices are prima facie wrong. Curnutt (1997) argues that the prima facie wrongness of killing animals is not overridden by typical justifications for doing so.

In addition to pork and beef, there are salmon and crickets. In addition to lamb and chicken, there are mussels and shrimp. There is little in the philosophical literature about insects and sea creatures and their products, and this entry reflects that. [ 8 ] Yet the topics are important. The organization Fish Count estimates that at least a trillion sea creatures are wild-caught or farmed each year (Mood & Brooke 2010, 2012, in Other Internet Resources). Globally, humans consume more than 20 kg of fish per capita annually (FAO 2016). In the US, we consume 1.5 lbs of honey per capita annually (Bee Culture 2016). Estimates of insect consumption are less sure. The UN FAO estimates that insects are part of the traditional diets of two billion humans though whether they are eaten—whether those diets are adhered to—and in what quantity is unclear (FAO 2013).

Seafood is produced by farming and by fishing. Fishing techniques vary from a person using a line in a boat to large trawlers pulling nets across the ocean floor. The arguments for and against seafood production are much like the arguments for and against meat production: Some worry about the effects on humans of these practices. (Some workers, for example, are enslaved on shrimpers.) Some worry about the effects on the environment of these practices. (Some coral reefs, for example, are destroyed by trawlers.) Some worry about the permissibility of killing, hurting, or controlling sea creatures or treating them merely as tools. This last worry should not be undersold: Again, Mood and Brooke (2010, 2012, in Other Internet Resources) estimate that between 970 billion and 2.7 trillion fish are wild-caught yearly and between 37 and 120 billion farmed fish are killed. If killing, hurting, or controlling these creatures or treating them as mere tools is wrong, then the scale of our wrongdoing with regard to sea creatures beggars belief.

Are these actions wrong? Complicating the question is that there is significantly more doubt about which sea creatures have mental lives at all and what those mental lives are like. And while whether shrimp are sentient is clearly irrelevant to the permissibility of enslaving workers who catch them, it does matter to the permissibility of killing shrimp. This doubt is greater still with regard to insect mental lives. In conversation, people sometimes say that bee mental life is such that nothing wrong is done to bees in raising them. Nothing wrong is done to bees in killing them. Because they are not sentient, there is no hurting them. Because of these facts about bee mental life, the argument goes, “taking” their honey need be no more morally problematic than “taking” apples from an apple tree. (There is little on the environmental impact of honey production or (human) workers and honey. So it is unclear how forceful environment- and human-based worries about honey are.)

This argument supporting honey production hinges on some empirical claims about bee mental life. For an up-to-date assessment of bee mental life, see Tye 2016, which argues that bees “have a rich perceptual consciousness” and “can feel some emotions” and that “the most plausible hypothesis overall…is that bees feel pain” (2016: 158–159) and see, too, Barron & Klein 2016, which argues that insects, generally, have a capacity for consciousness. The argument supporting honey production might be objected to on those empirical grounds. It might, instead, be objected to on the grounds that we are uncertain what the mental lives of bees are like. It could be that they are much richer than we realize. If so, killing them or taking excessive honey—and thereby causing them significant harms—might well be morally wrong. And, the objection continues, the costs of not doing so, of just letting bees be, would be small. If so, caution requires not taking any honey or killing bees or hurting them. Arguments like this are sometimes put applied to larger creatures. For discussion of such arguments, see Guerrero 2007.

4. From Production to Consumption

None of the foregoing is about consumption. The moral vegetarian arguments thus far have, at most, established that it is wrong to produce meat in various ways. Assuming that some such argument is sound, how to get from the wrongness of producing meat to the wrongness of consuming that meat?

This question is not always taken seriously. Classics of the moral vegetarian literature like Singer 1975, Regan 1975, Engel 2000, and DeGrazia 2009 do not give much space to it. (C. Adams 1990 is a rare canonical vegetarian text that devotes considerable space to consumption ethics.) James Rachels writes,

Sometimes philosophers explain that [my argument for vegetarianism] is unconvincing because it contains a logical gap. We are all opposed to cruelty, they say, but it does not follow that we must become vegetarians. It only follows that we should favor less cruel methods of meat production. This objection is so feeble it is hard to believe it explains resistance to the basic argument [for vegetarianism]. (2004: 74)

Yet if the objection is that it does not follow from the wrongness of producing meat that consuming meat is wrong, then the objection is not feeble and is clearly correct. In order to validly derive the vegetarian conclusion, additional premises are needed. Rachels, it turns out, has some, so perhaps it is best to interpret his complaint as that it is obvious what the premises are.

Maybe so. But there is quite a bit of disagreement about what those additional premises are and plausible candidates differ greatly from one another.

Consider a productivist idea about the connection between production and consumption according to which consumption of wrongfully-produced goods is wrong because it produces more wrongful production. The idea issues an argument that, in outline, is:

Consuming some product P produces production of Q .

Production of Q is wrong.

It is wrong to produce wrongdoing. Hence,

Consuming P is wrong.

Or never mind actual production. A productivist might argue:

Consuming some product P is reasonably expected to produce production of Q .

It is wrong to do something that is reasonably expected to produce wrongdoing. Hence,

Consuming P is wrong. (Singer 1975; Norcross 2004; Kagan 2011)

(The main ideas about connecting consumption and production that follow can—but won’t —be put in terms of expectation, too.)

The moral vegetarian might then argue that meat is among the values of both P and Q : consuming meat is reasonably expect to produce production of meat. Or the moral vegetarian might argue that consuming meat produces more normalization of bad attitudes towards animals and that is wrong. There are various possibilities.

Just consider the first, the one about meat consumption producing meat production. It is most plausible with regard to buying . It is buying the wrongfully-produced good that produces more of it. Eating meat produces more production, if it does, by producing more buying. When Grandma buys the wrongfully produced delicacy, the idea goes, she produces more wrongdoing. The company she buys from produces more goods whether you eat the delicacy or throw it out.

These arguments hinge on an empirical claim about production and a moral claim about the wrongfulness of producing wrongdoing. The moral claim has far-reaching implications (DeGrazia 2009 and Warfield 2015). Consider this rent case:

You pay rent to a landlord. You know that he takes your rent and uses the money to buy wrongfully-produced meat.

If buying wrongfully-produced meat is wrong because it produces more wrongfully-produced meat, is it wrong to pay rent in the rent case? Is it wrong to buy a vegetarian meal at a restaurant that then takes your money and uses it to buy wrongfully-produced steak? These are questions for productivists’ moral claim. There are further, familiar questions about whether it is wrong to produce wrongdoing when one neither intends to nor foresees it and whether it is wrong to produce wrongdoing when one does not intend it but does foresee it and then about whether what is wrong is producing wrongdoing or, rather, simply producing a bad effect (see entries on the doctrine of double effect and doing vs. allowing harm ).

An objection to productivist arguments denies the empirical claim and, instead, accepting that because the food system is so enormous, fed by so many consumers, and so stuffed with money, our eating or buying typically has no effect on production, neither directly nor even, through influencing others, indirectly (Budolfson 2015; Nefsky 2018). The idea is that buying a burger at, say, McDonald’s produces no new death nor any different treatment of live animals. McDonald’s will produce the same amount of meat—and raise its animals in exactly the same way—regardless of whether one buys a burger there. Moreover, the idea goes, one should reasonably expect this. Whether or not this is a good account of how food consumption typically works, it is an account of a possible system. Consider the Chef in Shackles case, a modification of a case in McPherson 2015:

Alma runs Chef in Shackles, a restaurant at which the chef is known to be held against his will. It’s a vanity project, and Alma will run the restaurant regardless of how many people come. In fact, Alma just burns the money that comes in. The enslaved chef is superb; the food is delicious.

The productivist idea does not imply it is wrong to buy food from or eat at Chef in Shackles. If that is wrong, a different idea needs to explain its wrongness.

So consider instead an extractivist idea according to which consumption of wrongful goods is wrong because it is a benefiting from wrongdoing (Barry & Wiens 2016). This idea can explain why it is wrong to eat at Chef in Shackles—when you enjoy a delicious meal there, you benefit from the wrongful captivity of the chef. In outline, the extractivist argument is:

Consuming some product P extracts benefit from the production of P .

Production of P is wrong.

It is wrong to extract benefit from wrongdoing. Hence,

Moral vegetarians would then urge that meat is among the values of P . Unlike the productivist argument, this one is more plausible with regard to eating than buying. It’s the eating, typically, that produces the benefit and not the buying. Unlike the productivist argument, it does not seem to have any trouble explaining what is wrong in the Chef in Shackles case. Unlike the productivist argument, it doesn’t seem to imply that paying a landlord who pays for wrongfully produced food is wrong—paying a landlord is not benefiting from wrongdoing.

Like the productivist argument, the extractivist argument hinges on an empirical claim about consumer benefits and a moral claim about the ethics of so benefiting.

The notion of benefiting, however, is obscure. Imagine you go to Chef in Shackles, have a truly repulsive meal, and become violently ill afterwards. Have you benefit ted from wrongdoing? If not, the extractivist idea cannot explain what is wrong with going to the restaurant.

Put so plainly, the extractivist’s moral claim is hard to believe. Consider the terror-love case, a modification of a case Barry & Wiens 2016 credits to Garrett Cullity:

A terrorist bomb grievously injures Bob and Cece. They attend a support group for victims, fall in love, and live happily ever after, leaving them significantly better off than they were before the attack.

Bob and Cece seem to benefit from wrongdoing but seem not to be doing anything wrong by being together. Whereas the productivist struggles to explain why it is wrong to patronize Chef in Shackles, the extractivist struggles to explain why it is permissible for Bob and Cece to benefit from wrongdoing.

A participatory idea has no trouble with the terror-love case. According to it, consuming wrongfully-produced goods is wrong because it cooperates with or participates in or, in Hursthouse’s phrase, is party to wrongdoing (2011). Bob and Cece do not participate in terror, so the idea does not imply they do wrong. The idea issues an argument that, in outline, goes:

Consuming some product P is participating in the production of P .

It is wrong to participate in the production of wrongful things. Hence,

Consuming P is wrong. (Kutz 2000; Lepora & Goodin 2013)

Moral vegetarians would then urge that meat is among the values of P . Unlike the productivist or extractivist ideas, the participatory idea seems to as easily cover buying and eating for each is plausibly a form of participating in wrongdoing. Unlike the productivist idea, it has no trouble explaining why it is wrong to patronize Chef in Shackles and does not imply it is wrong to pay rent to a landlord who buys wrongfully-produced meat. Unlike the extractivist idea, whether or not you get food poisoning at Chef in Shackles has no moral importance to it. Unlike the extractivist idea, the participatory idea does not falsely imply that the Bob and Cece do wrong in benefiting from wrongdoing—after all, their failing in love is not a way of participating in wrongdoing.

Yet it is not entirely clear what it is to participate in wrongdoing. Consider the Jains who commit themselves to lives without himsa (violence). Food production causes himsa. So Jains try to avoid eating many plants, uprooted to be eaten, and even drinking untreated water, filled with microorganisms, to minimize lives taken. Yet Jaina monastics are supported by Jaina laypersons. The monastic can’t boil his own water—that would be violent—but the water needs boiling so he depends on a layperson to boil. He kills no animals but receives alms, including meat, from a layperson. Is the monastic participating in violence? Is he participating because he is complicit in this violence (Kutz 2000; Lepora & Goodin 2013)? Is he part of a group that together does wrong (Parfit 1984: Chapter 3)? When Darryl refuses to buy wrongfully-produced meat but does no political work with regard to ending its production is he party to the wrongful production? Does he participate in it or cooperate with its production? Is he a member of a group that does wrong? If so, what are the principles of group selection?

As a matter of contingent fact, failing to politically protest meat exhibits no objectionable attitudes in contemporary US society. Yet it might be that consuming certain foods insults or otherwise disrespects creatures involved in that food’s production (R.M. Adams 2002; Hill 1979). Hurka (2003) argues that virtue requires exhibiting the right attitude towards good or evil, and so if consuming exhibits an attitude towards production, it is plausible that eating wrongfully produced foods exhibits the wrong attitude towards them. These are all attitudinal ideas about consumption. They might issue in an argument like this:

Consuming some product P exhibits a certain attitude towards production of P .

It is wrong to exhibit that attitude towards wrongdoing. Hence,

Moral vegetarians would then urge that meat is among the values of P . Like the participatory idea, the attitudinal idea explains the wrongness of eating and buying various goods—both are ways of exhibiting attitudes. Like the participatory idea, it has no trouble with Chef in Shackles, the rent case, the food poisoning case, or the terror-love case. It does hinge on an empirical claim about exhibition—consuming certain products exhibits a certain attitude—and then a moral claim about the impermissibility of that exhibition. One might well wonder about both. One might well wonder why buying meat exhibits support for that enterprise but paying rent to someone who will buy that meat does not. One might well wonder whether eating wrongfully-produced meat in secret exhibits support and whether such an exhibition is wrong. Also, there are attitudes other than attitudes towards production to consider. Failing to offer meat to a guest might exhibit a failure of reverence (Fan 2010). In contemporary India, in light of the “meat murders” committed by Hindus against Muslims nominally for the latter group’s consumption of beef, refusing to eat meat might exhibit support for religious discrimination (Doniger 2017).

The productivist, extractivist, participatory, and attitudinal ideas are not mutually exclusive. Someone might make use of a number of them. Driver, for example, writes,

[E]ating [wrongfully produced] meat is supporting the industry in a situation where there were plenty of other, better, options open…What makes [the eater] complicit is that she is a participant . What makes that participation morally problematic…is that the eating of meat displays a willingness to cooperate with the producers of a product that is produced via huge amounts of pain and suffering. (2015: 79; all italics mine)

This seems to at least incorporate participatory and attitudinal ideas. Lawford-Smith (2015) combines attitudinal and productivist ideas. McPherson (2015) combines extractivist and participatory ideas. James Rachels (2004) combines participatory and productivity ideas. And, of course, there are ideas not discussed here, e.g., that it is wrong to reward wrongdoers for wrongdoing and buying wrongfully produced meat does so. The explanation of why it is wrong to consume certain goods might be quite complex.

Driver, Lawford-Smith, McPherson, and James Rachels argue that it is wrong to consume wrongfully produced food and try to explain why this is. The productivist, extractivist, participatory, and attitudinal ideas, too, try to explain it. But it could be that there is nothing to explain.

It could be that certain modes of production are wrong yet consuming their products is permissible. We might assume that if consumption of certain goods is wrong, then that wrongness would have to be partly explained in terms of the wrongness of those goods’ production and then argue that there are no sound routes from a requirement not to produce a food to a requirement not to consume it (Frey 1983). This leaves open the possibility that consumers might be required to do something —for example, work for political changes that end the wrongful system—but permitted to eat wrongfully-produced food.

As §4.1 discusses, Warfield raises a problem for productivist accounts that they seem to falsely imply that morally permissible activities like paying rent to meat-eaters or buying salad at a restaurant serving meat are morally wrong (2015). Add the assumption that if consumption is wrong, it is wrong because some productivist view is true, and it follows that consumption of wrongful goods need not be wrongful. (Warfield does not assume this but instead says that “the best discussion” of the connection between production and consumption is “broadly consequentialist” (ibid., 154).)

Instead, we might assume that an extractivist or participatory or attitudinal view is correct if any is and then argue no such view is correct. We might, for example, argue that these anti-consumption views threaten to forbid too much. If the wrongness of producing and wrongness of consuming are connected, what else is connected? If buying meat is wrong because it exhibits the wrong attitude towards animals, is it permissible to be friends with people who buy that meat—or does this, too, evince the wrong attitudes towards animals? If killing animals for food is wrong, is it permissible merely to abstain from consuming them or must one do more work to stop their killing? The implications of various arguments against consuming animals and animal products might be far-reaching. Some will see this as an acknowledgment that something is wrong with moral vegetarian arguments. As Gruen and Jones (2015) note, the lifestyle some such arguments point to might not be enactable by creatures like us. Yet they see this not as grounds for rejection of the argument but, rather, as acknowledgment that the argument sets out an aspiration that we can orient ourselves towards (cf. §4 of Curtin 1991 on “contextual vegetarianism”).

A different sort of argument in favor of the all things considered permissibility of consuming meat comes from the idea that eating and buying animals actually makes for a great cultural good (Lomasky 2013). Even if we accept that the production of those animals is wrong, it could be that the great good of consuming justifies doing so. (Relatedly, it could be that the bad of refusing to consume justifies consumption as in a case in which a host has labored over barbequed chicken for hours and your refusing to eat it would devastate him.) Yet this seems to leave open the possibility that all sorts of awful practices might be permissible because they are essential parts of great cultural goods. It threatens to permit too much.

5. Extending Moral Vegetarian Arguments: Animal Products and Plants

Moral veganism accepts moral vegetarianism and adds to it that consuming animal products is wrong. Mere moral vegetarians deny this and add to moral vegetarianism that it is permissible to consume animal products. An additional issue that divides some moral vegans and moral vegetarians is whether animal product production is wrong. This raises a general question: If it is wrong to produce meat on the grounds adduced in §2 , what other foods are wrongfully produced? If it is wrong to hurt chickens for meat, isn’t it wrong to hurt them for eggs? If it is wrong to harm workers in the production of meat, isn’t it wrong to harm workers in the production of animal products? If it is wrong to produce huge quantities of methane for meat, isn’t it wrong to produce it for milk? These are challenges posed by moral veganism.

But various vegan diets raise moral questions. If it is wrong to hurt chickens for meat, is it wrong to hurt mice and moles while harvesting crops? If it is wrong to harm workers in the production of meat, isn’t it wrong to harm workers in the production of tomatoes? If it is wrong to use huge quantities of water for meat, isn’t it wrong to use huge quantities of water for almonds?

5.1 Animal Products

As it might be that meat farming wrong, it might be that animal product farming is wrong for similar reasons. These reasons stem from concerns about plants, animals, humans, and the environment. This entry will focus on the first, second, and fourth and will consider eggs and dairy.

Like meat birds, egg layers on industrial farms are tightly confined, given on average a letter-sized page of space. Their beaks are seared off. They are given a cocktail of antibiotics. Males, useless as layers, are killed right away: crushed, dehydrated, starved, suffocated. As they age and their laying-rate slows, females are starved so as to force them to shed feathers and induce more laying. They are killed within a couple years (HSUS 2009; cf. Norwood & Lusk 2011: 113–127, which rates layer hen lives as not worth living).

Freerange egg farming ideally avoids much of this. Yet it still involves killing off young but spent hens and also baby roosters. It often involves painful, stressful trips to industrial slaughterhouses. So, as it is plausible that industrially and freerange farming chickens for meat makes them suffer, so too is it plausible that industrially and freerange farming them for eggs does. The same goes for killing.

The threat to the environment, too, arises from industrial farming itself rather than whether it produces meat or eggs. Chickens produce greenhouse gas and waste regardless of whether they are farmed for meat or eggs. Land is deforested to grow food for them and resources are depleted to care for them regardless of whether they are farmed for meat or eggs.

In sum, arguments much like arguments against chicken production seem to apply as forcefully to egg production. Arguments from premises about killing, hurting, and harming the environment seem to apply to typical egg production as they do to typical chicken production.

Like beef cattle, dairy cows on industrial farms are tightly confined and bereft of much stimulation. As dairy cows, however, they are routinely impregnated and then constantly milked. Males, useless as milkers, are typically turned to veal within a matter of months. Females live for maybe five years. (HSUS 2009; cf. Norwood & Lusk 2011: 145–150).

Freerange milk production does not avoid very much of this. Ideally, it involves less pain and suffering but it typically involves forced impregnation, separation of mother and calf, and an early death, typically in an industrial slaughterhouse. So far as arguments against raising cows for meat on the basis that doing so kills them and makes them suffer are plausible, so are analogous arguments against raising cows for dairy.

The threat to the environment is also similar regardless of whether cattle are raised for meat or milk. So far as arguments against raising cows for meat on the basis that doing so harms the environment are plausible, so are analogous arguments against raising cows for milk. Raising cows for meat and for milk produces greenhouse gas and waste; it deforests and depletes resources. In fact, to take just one example, the greenhouse-gas-based case against dairy is stronger than the greenhouse-gas-based case against poultry and pork (Hamerschlag 2013).

In sum, arguments much like arguments against beef production seem to apply as forcefully to dairy production. Arguments from premises about killing, hurting, and harming the environment seem to apply to typical dairy production as they do to typical beef production.

As it might be that animal, dairy, and egg farming are wrong, it might be that plant farming is wrong for similar reasons. These reasons stem from concerns about plants, animals, humans, and the environment. This entry will focus on the first, second, and fourth.

Ed drenches Fatima’s prized cactus in pesticides without permission. This is uncontroversially wrongful but only uncontroversial because the cactus is Fatima’s. If a cactus grows in Ed’s yard and, purely for fun, she drenches it in pesticides, killing it, is that wrong? There is a family of unorthodox but increasingly common ideas about the treatment of plants according to which any killing of plants is at least pro tanto wrongful and that treating them as mere tools is too (Marder 2013; Stone 1972, Goodpaster 1978, and Varner 1998 are earlier discussions and Tinker 2015 discusses much earlier discussions). One natural way to develop this thought is that it is wrong to treat plants this way simply because of the effects on plants themselves. An alternative is wrong to treat the plants this way simply because of its effects on the biosphere. In both cases, we can do intrinsic wrong to non-sentient creatures.

The objection raises an important issue about interests. Singer, following Porphyry and Bentham, assumes that all and only sentient creatures have interests. The challenge that Marder, et al. raise is that plants at least seem to do better or worse, to flourish or founder, because they seem to have interests in a certain amount of light, nutrients, and water. One way to interpret the position of Porphyry, et al. is that things are not as they seem here and, in fact, plants, lacking sentience, have no interests. This invites the question of why sentience is necessary for interests (Frey 1980 and 1983). Another way to interpret the position of Porphyry, et al. is that plants do have interests but they have no moral import. This invites the questions of when and why is it permissible to deprive plants of what they have interests in. Marder’s view is that plants have interests and that these interests carry significantly more moral weight than one might think. So, for example, as killing a dog for fun is wrong, so, too, is killing a dandelion. If killing a chicken for food we don’t need is wrong, so, too, is killing some carrots.

If it is impermissible to kill plants to provide ourselves food we don’t need, how far does the restriction on killing extend: To bacteria? Pressed about this by Gary Francione, Marder is open-minded: “We should not reject the possibility of respecting communities of bacteria without analyzing the issue seriously” (2016: 179).

Marder’s view rests on a controversial interpretation of plant science and, in particular, on a controversial view that vegetal responses to stimuli—for example that “roots…are capable of altering their growth pattern in moving toward resource-rich soil or away from nearby roots of other members of the same species” (2016: 176)—suffice to show that plants have interests, are ends in themselves, and it is pro tanto wrong to kill them and treat them as tools.

Uncontroversially, much actual plant production does have various bad consequences for animals. Actual plant production in the US is largely large scale. Large-scale plant production involves—intentionally or otherwise—killing a great many sentient creatures. Animals are killed by tractors and pesticides. They are killed or left to die by loss of habitat (Davis 2003; Archer 2011). The scope of the killing is disputed in Lamey 2007 and Matheny 2003 but all agree it is vast (cf. Saja 2013 on the moral imperative to kill large animals).

The “intentionally or otherwise” is important to some. While these harms are foreseen consequences of farming, they are unintended. To some, that animals are harmed but not intentionally harmed in producing corn in Iowa helps to make those harms permissible (see entry on doctrine of double effect ). Pigs farmed in Iowa, by contrast, are intentionally killed. Chickens and cows, too. (Are any intentionally hurt? Not typically. Farming is not sadistic.)

The scale is important, too. Davis (2003) and Archer (2011) argue that some forms of meat production kill fewer animals than plant production and, because of that, are preferable to plant production.

The idea is that if animal farming is wrong because it kills animals simply in the process of producing food we don’t need, then some forms of plant farming are wrong for the same reason. More weakly, if animal farming is wrong because it kills very large numbers of animals in the process of producing food we don’t need, then some forms of plant farming are wrong for the same reason.

An outstanding issue is whether these harms are necessary components of plant production or contingent. A further issue is how easy it would be to strip these harms off of plant production while still producing foods humans want to eat at prices they are willing to pay.

A final objection to the permissibility of plant production: There are clearly environmental costs of plant production. Indeed, the environmental costs of plant farming are large: topsoil loss; erosion; deforestation; run-off; resource-depletion; greenhouse gas emissions. To take just the last two examples, Budolfson (2016: 169) estimates that broccoli produces more kilograms of CO 2 per thousand calories than pork and that almonds use two and a half times the water per thousand calories that chicken does.

If some forms of animal farming are wrong for those environmental reasons, then some forms of plant farming are wrong for those reasons (Budolfson 2018).

Again, an outstanding issue is whether these harms are necessary components of plant production or contingent. A further issue is how easy it would be to strip these harms off of plant production while still producing foods people want to eat at prices they are willing to pay.

Moral vegetarian arguments standardly oppose treating animals in various ways while raising them for food that we do not need to eat to survive. This standardly makes up part of the arguments that it is wrong to eat animals.

These arguments against meat production can be extended mutatis mutandis to animal product production. [ 9 ] They can be extended, too, to some forms of plant production. This suggests:

The arguments against industrial plant production and animal product production are as strong as the arguments against meat production.

The arguments against meat production show that meat production is wrong. Hence,

The arguments against industrial plant production and animal product production show that those practices are wrong.

One possibility is that the first premise is false and that some of the arguments are stronger than others.

Another possibility is that the first premise is true and all these arguments are equally strong. We would then have to choose between accepting the second premise—and thereby accepting the conclusion—or denying that meat production is wrong.

Another possibility is that the argument is sound but of limited scope, there being few if any alternatives in the industrialized West to industrialized plant, animal product, and meat production.

A final possibility is that the parity of these arguments and evident unsoundness of an argument against industrial plant production show that the ideas behind those arguments are being misexpressed. Properly understood, they issue not in a directive about the wrongness of this practice or that. Rather, properly understood, they just show that various practices are bad in various ways. If so, we can then ask: Which are worse? And in which ways? The literature typically ranks factory farming as worse for animals than industrial plant farming if only because the former requires the latter and produces various harms—the suffering of billions of chickens—that the latter does not. Or consider the debate in the literature about the relative harmfulness to animals of freerange farming and industrial plant farming. Which produces more animal death or more animal suffering? Ought we minimize that suffering? Or consider the relative harmfulness of freerange and industrial animal farming. Some argue that the former is worse for the environment but better for animals. If so, there is a not-easy question about which, if either, to go in for.

Given length requirements, this entry cannot convey the vastness of the moral vegetarian literature. There is some excellent work in the popular press. Between the Species , Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , Journal of Animal Ethics , Environmental Ethics , and Journal of Food Ethics publish articles yearly. Dozens of good articles have been omitted from discussion.

This entry has omitted quite direct arguments against consuming meat, arguments that do not derive from premises about the wrongness of producing this or that. Judeo-Islamic prohibitions on pork, for example, derive from the uncleanliness of the product rather than the manner of its production. Rastafari prohibitions on eating meat, for another example, derive in part from the view that meat consumption is unnatural. Historically, such prohibitions and justifications for them have not been limited to prohibitions on consuming meat. The Laws of Manu ’s prohibition on onion-eating derives from what consuming onion will do to the consumer rather than the manner of onion-production (Doniger & Smith (trans.) 1991: 102). The Koran’s prohibition on alcohol-drinking derives from what consuming alcohol will do to the consumer rather than the manner of alcohol-production (5:90–91).

Arguments like this, arguments against consumption that start from premises about intrinsic features of the consumed or about the consumed’s effects on consumers, largely do not appear in the contemporary philosophical literature. What we have now are arguments according to which certain products are wrongfully produced and consumption of such products bears a certain relation to that wrongdoing and, ipso facto , is wrong. Moral vegetarians then argue that meat is such a product: It is typically wrongfully produced and consuming it typically bears a certain relation to that wrongdoing. This then leaves the moral vegetarian open to two sorts of objections: objections to the claims about production— is meat produced that way? Is such production wrongful?—and objections to the claims connecting consumption to production— is consuming meat related to wrongful production in the relevant way? Is being so related wrong? Explaining moral vegetarian answers to these questions was the work of §2 and §4 .

There are further questions. If moral vegetarian arguments against meat-consumption are sound, then are arguments against animal product consumption also sound? Might dairy, eggs, and honey be wrongfully produced as moral vegetarians argue meat is? Might consuming them wrongfully relate the consumer to that production? Explaining the case for “yes” was some of the work of §5 .

Relatedly, some plants, fruit, nuts, and other putatively vegetarian foods might be wrongfully produced. Some tomatoes are picked by workers working in conditions just short of slavery (Bowe 2007); industrial production of apples sucks up much water (Budolfson 2016); industrial production of corn crushes numerous small animals to death (Davis 2003). Are these food wrongfully produced? Might consuming them wrongfully relate the consumer to that production? Explaining the case for “yes” here, too, was some of the work of §5 .

Fischer (2018) suggests that the answers to some of the questions noted in the previous two paragraphs support a requirement to “eat unusually” and, one might add, to produce unusually. If meat, for example, is usually wrongfully produced, it must be produced unusually for that production to stand a chance of being permissible, perhaps as faultless roadkill (Koelle 2012; Bruckner 2015) or as the corpse of an animal dead from natural causes (Foer 2009) or as a test-tube creation (Milburn 2016; Pluhar 2010; see the essays in Donaldson & Carter (eds.) 2016 for discussion of plant-based “meat”).

If consuming meat is usually wrong because it usually bears a certain relation to production, it must be consumed unusually to stand a chance of being permissible. Some people eat only food they scavenge from dumpsters, food that would otherwise go to waste. Some people eat only food that is given to them without asking for any food in particular. If consuming is wrong only because it produces more production, neither of these modes of consumption would be wrongful.

As some unusual consumption might, by lights of the arguments considered in this entry, turn out to be morally unobjectionable, some perfectly usual practices having nothing to do with consumption might turn out, by those same lights, to be morally objectionable. Have you done all you are required to do by moral vegetarian lights if you stop eating, for example, factory-farmed animals? Clearly not. If it is wrong to eat a factory-farmed cow, it is for very similar reasons wrong to wear the skin of that cow. Does the wrongful road stop at consumption, broadly construed to include buying, eating, or otherwise using? Or need consumers do more than not consume wrongfully-produced goods? Need they be pickier in how they spend their money than simply not buying meat, e.g., not going to restaurants that serve any meat? Need they protest or lobby? Need they take more direct action against farms? Or more direct action against the government? Need they refuse to pay rent to landlords who buy wrongfully-produced meat? Is it permissible for moral vegetarians to befriend—or to stay friends with—meat-eaters? As there are questions about whether the moral road gets from production to consumption, there are questions about whether the road stops at consumption or gets much farther.

As discussed in §5 , the moral vegetarian case against killing, hurting, or raising animals for food might well be extended to killing, hurting, or raising animals in other circumstances. What, if anything, do those cases show about the ethical treatment of pets (Bok 2011; Overall (ed.) 2017; Palmer 2010 and 2011)? Of zoo creatures (DeGrazia 2011; Gruen 2011: Chapter 5; Gruen 2014)?

What, if anything, do they show about duties regarding wild animals? Palmer 2010 opens with two cases from 2007, one of which involved the accidental deaths of 10,000 wildebeest in Kenya, the other involving the mistreatment and death of 150 horses in England. As Palmer notes, it is plausible that we are required to care for and help domesticated animals—that’s why it is plausibly wrong to let horses under our care suffer—but permissible to let similar harms befall wild animals—that’s why it is plausibly permissible to let wildebeest suffer and die. And yet, Palmer continues, it is also plausible that animals with similar capacities—animals like horses and wildebeest—should be treated similarly. So is the toleration of 10,000 wildebeest deaths permissible? Or do we make a moral mistake in not intervening in such cases? Relatedly, moral vegetarians oppose chicken killing and consumption and yet some of them aid and abet domestic cats in the killings of billions of birds each year in the United States alone (Loss, et al. 2013; Pressler 2013). Is this permissible? If so, why (Cohen 2004; Milburn 2015; Sittler-Adamczewski 2016)? McMahan (2015) argues that standard moral vegetarian arguments against killing and suffering lead (eventually) to the conclusion that we ought to reduce predation in the wild.

What, if anything do moral vegetarian arguments show about duties regarding fetuses? There are forceful arguments that if abortion is wrong, then so is killing animals for food we don’t need (Scully 2013). The converse is more widely discussed but less plausible (Abbate 2014; Colb & Dorf 2016; Nobis 2016).

Finally, in the food ethics literature, questions of food justice are among the most common questions about food consumption. Sexism, racism, and classism, are unjust. Among the issues of food justice, then, are how, if at all, the practices of vegetarianism and omnivorism or encouragement of them are sexist (C. Adams 1990) or racist (Alkon & Agyeman (eds.) 2011) or classist (Guthman 2011). Industrial animal agriculture raises a pair of questions of justice: It degrades the environment—is this unjust to future generations who will inherit this degraded environment? Also, what makes it so environmentally harmful is the scale of it. That scale is driven, in part, by demand for meat among the increasingly affluent in developing countries (Herrero & Thornton 2013). Is refusing to meet that demand—after catering to wealthy Western palates for a long stretch—a form of classism or racism?

The animals we eat dominate the moral vegetarian literature and have dominated it ever since there has been a moral vegetarian literature. A way to think about these last few paragraphs is that questions about what we eat lead naturally to questions about other, quite different topics: the animals we eat but also the animals we don’t; eating those animals but also eating plants; refusing to eat those animals but also raising pets and refusing to intervene with predators and prey in the wild; refusing to eat but also failing to protest or rectify various injustices. Whereas the questions about animals—and the most popular arguments about them—are very old, these other questions are newer, and there is much progress to be made in answering them.

• Abbate, Cheryl E., 2014, “Adventures in Moral Consistency”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 18(1): 145–164. doi:10.1007/s10677-014-9515-y
• Adams, Carol, 1990, The Sexual Politics of Meat , New York: Continuum.
• Adams, Robert Merrihew, 2002, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195153715.001.0001
• Alkon, Alison Hope and Julian Agyeman (eds.), 2011, Cultivating Food Justice: Race, Class, and Sustainability , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Allen, Colin, 2004, “Animal Pain”, Noûs , 38(4): 617–643. doi:10.1111/j.0029-4624.2004.00486.x
• Andrews, Kristin, 2016, “Animal Cognition”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2016/entries/cognition-animal/>.
• Anomaly, Jonny, 2015, “What’s Wrong with Factory Farming?”, Public Health Ethics , 8(3): 246–254. doi:10.1093/phe/phu001
• Archer, Michael, 2011, “Ordering the Vegetarian Meal? There’s More Animal Blood on Your Hands”, The Conversation , 15 December 2011, Archer 2011 available online .
• Barnhill, Anne, Mark Budolfson, and Tyler Doggett (eds.), 2016, Food, Ethics, and Society: An Introductory Text with Readings , New York: Oxford University Press.
• ––– (eds.), 2018, The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Barnhill, Anne and Tyler Doggett, 2017a, “Food Ethics I: Food Production and Food Justice”, Philosophy Compass 13(3): e12479. doi:10.1111/phc3.12479
• –––, 2017b, “Food Ethics II: Consumption and Obesity”, Philosophy Compass 13(3): e12482. doi:10.1111/phc3.12482
• Barron, Andrew and Colin Klein, 2016, “What Insects Can Tell Us About the Origins of Consciousness”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 113(18): 4900–4908. doi:10.1073/pnas.1520084113
• Barry, Christian and David Wiens, 2016, “Benefiting from Wrongdoing and Sustaining Wrongful Harm”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 13(5): 530–552. doi:10.1163/17455243-4681052
• Beauchamp, Tom L. and R.G. Frey (eds.), 2011, The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195371963.001.0001
• Bee Culture, 2016, “U.S. Per Capita Consumption of Honey Drops 3%, Imports Climb to 80% of Consumed Honey and Prices Drop 4%”, Bee Culture , 31 March 2016, < available online >.
• Belshaw, Christopher, 2015, “Meat”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 9–29. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0002
• BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), 2017, “Average Retail Food and Energy Prices, U.S. and Midwest Region”, available online .
• Bok, Hilary, 2011, “Keeping Pets”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 769–795.
• Böll Foundation, 2014, Meat Atlas: Facts and Figures About the Animals We Eat , second edition, Berlin: Böll Foundation. [ Böll Foundation 2014 available online ].
• Bowe, John, 2007, Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy , New York: Random House
• Bradley, Ben, 2015, “Is Death Bad for a Cow?”, in Višak and Garner (eds.) 2015: 51–64. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.003.0004
• Braithwaite, Victoria, 2010, Do Fish Feel Pain ?, New York: Oxford University Press.
• Bramble, Ben and Bob Fischer (eds.), 2015, The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.001.0001
• Bruckner, Donald W., 2015, “Strict Vegetarianism is Immoral”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 30–47. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0003
• Budolfson, Mark Bryant, 2015, “Is It Wrong to Eat Meat from Factory Farms? If So, Why?”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 80–98. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0006
• –––, 2016, “Consumer Ethics, Harm Footprints, and the Empirical Dimensions of Food Choices”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2016: 163-181. [ Budolfson 2016 associated Excel workbook available online ]
• –––, 2018, “Food, the Environment, and Global Justice”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 67–94.
• Callicott, J. Baird, 2015, “The Environmental Omnivore’s Dilemma”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 48–64. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0004
• Carruthers, Peter, 1992, The Animals Issue , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511597961
• –––, 2007, “Invertebrate Minds: A Challenge for Ethical Theory”, Journal of Ethics , 11(3): 275–297. doi:10.1007/s10892-007-9015-6
• –––, 2011, “Animal Mentality: Its Character, Extent, and Moral Significance”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 373–406.
• Cerulli, Tovar, 2012, The Mindful Carnivore: A Vegetarian's Hunt for Sustenance , New York: Pegasus Books.
• Chignell, Andrew, Terence Cuneo, and Matthew C. Halteman (eds.), 2015, Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments About the Ethics of Eating , New York: Routledge.
• Clark, Stephen, 1984, The Moral Status of Animals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Cohen, Carl, 2004, “A Critique of the Alleged Moral Basis of Vegetarianism”, in Sapontzis (ed.) 2004: 152–166.
• Colb, Sherry F. and Michael C. Dorf, 2016, Beating Hearts , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Crisp, Roger, 1988, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy , 4(1): 41–49. doi:10.5840/ijap19884118
• Curnutt, Jordan, 1997, “A New Argument for Vegetarianism”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 28(3): 153–172. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.1997.tb00393.x
• Curtin, Deane, 1991, “Toward an Ecological Ethic of Care”, Hypatia 6(1): 60–74. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.1991.tb00209.x
• Davis, Steven, 2003, “The Least Harm Principle May Require that Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 16(4): 387–394. doi:10.1023/A:1025638030686
• DeGrazia, David, 2009, “Moral Vegetarianism from a Very Broad Basis”, Journal of Moral Philosophy , 6(2): 143–165. doi:10.1163/174552409X402313
• –––, 2011, “The Ethics of Confining Animals: From Farms to Zoos to Human Homes”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 738–768.
• Delon, Nicolas, 2016, “The Replaceability Argument in the Ethics of Animal Husbandry”, in Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics , Living Edition, Paul B. Thompson and David M. Kaplan (eds.), Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-6167-4_512-1
• Diamond, Cora, 1978, “Eating Meat and Eating People”, Philosophy , 53(206): 465–479. doi:10.1017/S0031819100026334
• Doggett, Tyler and Seth M. Holmes, 2018, “Food Labor Ethics”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 494–520.
• Dombrowski, Daniel, 2004, “A Very Brief History of Vegetarianism”, in Sapontzis (ed.) 2004: 22–33.
• Donaldson, Brianne and Christopher Carter (eds.), 2016, The Future of Meat Without Animals , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
• Doniger, Wendy, 2017, “Hinduism and Its Complicated History with Cows (and People Who Eat Them)”, The Conversation , 16 July 2017, Doniger 2017 available online .
• Doniger, Wendy and Brian Smith (eds.), 1991, The Laws of Manu , Hamondsworth: Penguin Classics. Translation of the Manavadharmasastra .
• Driver, Julia, 2015, “Individual Consumption and Moral Complicity”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 67–79. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0005
• Engel, Mylan Jr, 2000, “The Immorality of Eating Meat”, in Louis P. Pojman. (ed.), The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature , first edition, New York: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2015, “Vegetarianism”, in Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics , Henk ten Have (ed.), Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2925–2936. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-09483-0_434
• Erlichman, James, 1991, “Cruel Cost of Cheap Pork and Poultry: The Meat Factory”, The Guardian , 14 October 1991, p. 4.
• Estabrook, Barry, 2011, Tomatoland , Kansas City, MO: Andrews McMeel.
• Fan, Ruiping, 2010, “How Should We Treat Animals? A Confucian Reflection”, Dao , 9(1): 79–96. doi:10.1007/s11712-009-9144-7
• FAO, 2006, Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options , Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [ FAO 2006 available online ]
• –––, 2013, Edible Insects: Future Prospects for Food and Feed Security , FAO Forestry Paper 171, Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [ FAO 2013 available online ]
• –––, 2016, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016: Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All , Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [ FAO 2016 available online ]
• Fischer, Bob, 2016, “Bugging the Strict Vegan”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 29(2): 255–263. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9599-y
• –––, 2018, “Arguments for Consuming Animal Products”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 241–266.
• Foer, Jonathan Safran, 2009, Eating Animals , New York: Little, Brown.
• Francione, Gary L., 2009, Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation , New York: Columbia University Press.
• Fraser, David, 2008, Understanding Animal Welfare: The Science in its Cultural Context , Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Frey, R.G., 1980, Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals , Oxford: Clarendon.
• –––, 1983, Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Goodpaster, Kenneth, 1978, “On Being Morally Considerable”, Journal of Philosophy , 75(6): 308–325. doi:10.2307/2025709
• Gruen, Lori, 2011, Ethics and Animals: An Introduction , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511976162
• ––– (ed.), 2014, The Ethics of Captivity , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199977994.001.0001
• Gruen, Lori and Robert Jones, 2015, “Veganism as an Aspiration”, in Bramble and Fischer (eds.) 2015: 153–171. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199353903.003.0010
• Guerrero, Alexander A., 2007, “Don’t Know, Don’t Kill: Moral Ignorance, Culpability, and Caution”, Philosophical Studies , 136(1): 59–97. doi:10.1007/s11098-007-9143-7
• Guthman, Julie, 2011, Weighing In: Obesity, Food Justice, and the Limits of Capitalism , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Halteman, Matthew C., 2010, Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation , Washington, DC: Humane Society of the United States.
• Hamerschlag, Kari, 2011, The Meat-Eater’s Guide to Climate Change and Health , July, Environmental Working Group, Washington, DC. [ Hamerschlag 2011 available online ]
• Hare, R.M., 1999, “Why I Am Only a Demi-Vegetarian”, in Jamieson (ed.) 1999: 233–246.
• Harman, Elizabeth, 2011, “The Moral Significance of Animal Pain and Animal Death”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.), 2011: 726–737.
• Harris, Craig K., 2016, “Seafood Ethics: The Normative Trials of Neptune's Treasure”, in Rawlinson & Ward 2016: 315–328.
• Herrero, Mario and Philip K. Thornton, 2013, “Livestock and Global Change: Emerging Issues for Sustainable Food Systems”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 110(52): 20878–20881. doi:10.1073/pnas.1321844111
• Hill, Jr., Thomas. E, 1979, “Symbolic Protest and Calculated Silence”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 9(1): 83–102.
• Holmes, Seth M., 2013, Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies: Migrant Farmworkers in the United States , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Hsiao, Timothy, 2015a, “In Defense of Eating Meat”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 28(2): 277–291. doI:10.1007/s10806-015-9534-2
• –––, 2015b, “A Carnivorous Rejoinder to Bruers and Erdös”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 28(6): 1127–1138. doi:10.1007/s10806-015-9582-7
• –––, 2017, “Industrial Farming is Not Cruel to Animals”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 30(1): 37–54. doi:10.1007/s10806-017-9652-0
• [HSUS] Humane Society of the United States, 2009, “An HSUS Report: The Welfare of Animals in the Meat, Egg, and Dairy Industries”, Humane Society of the United States. [ HSUS 2009 available online ]
• Hurka, Thomas, 2003, Virtue, Vice, and Value , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195137167.001.0001
• Hursthouse, Rosalind, 2011, “Virtue Ethics and the Treatment of Animals”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 119–143.
• Jamieson, Dale (ed.), 1999, Peter Singer and His Critics , Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• –––, 2008, Ethics and the Environment: An Introduction , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511806186
• Kagan, Shelly, 2011, “Do I Make a Difference?”, Philosophy and Public Affairs , 39(2): 105–141. doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01203.x
• Kant, Immanuel, 1775–1780, Lectures on Ethics , in Louis Infield (trans.), Kant: Lectures on Ethics , London: Methuen, 1930.
• Keller, Julie C., Margaret Gray, and Jill Lindsey Harrison, 2016, “Milking Workers, Breaking Bodies”, New Labor Forum , 26(1): 36–44. doi:10.1177/1095796016681763
• Kemmerer, Lisa, 2011, Animals and World Religions , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199790678.001.0001
• Koelle, Alexandra, 2012, “Intimate Bureaucracies: Roadkill, Policy, and Fieldwork on the Shoulder”, Hypatia , 27(3): 651–669. doi:10.1111/j.1527-2001.2012.01295.x
• Korsgaard, Christine, 2011, “Interacting with Animals: A Kantian Account”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 91–118.
• –––, 2015, “A Kantian Case for Animal Rights”, in Višak and Garner (eds.) 2015: 154–177. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.003.0010
• Kutz, Christopher, 2000, Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511663758
• Lamey, Andy, 2007, “Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef”, Journal of Social Philosophy , 38(2): 331–348. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00382.x
• Lawford-Smith, Holly, 2015, “Unethical Consumption and Obligations to Signal”, Ethics and International Affairs , 29(3): 315–330. doi:10.1017/S089267941500026X
• Lepora, Chiara and Robert E. Goodin, 2013, On Complicity and Compromise , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199677900.001.0001
• Lipscomb, Benjamin J. Bruxvoort, 2015, “‘Eat Responsibly’: Agrarianism and Meat”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2015: 56–72.
• List, Charles, 2018, “Local Food and the New Hunters”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 170–188.
• Lomasky, Loren, 2013, “Is It Wrong to Eat Animals?”, Social Philosophy and Policy , 30(1–2: 177–200. doi:10.1017/S0265052513000083
• Loss, Scott R., Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra, 2013, “The Impact of Free-Ranging Domestic Cats on Wildlife of the United States”, Nature Communications , 4: 1396. doi:10.1038/ncomms2380 [ Loss, Will, and Marra 2013 available online ].
• Marder, Michael, 2013, Plant Thinking: A Philosophy of Vegetal Life , New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 2016, Grafts: Writings on Plants , Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
• Mares, Teresa, forthcoming, The Other Border: Sustaining Farmworkers in the Dairy Industry , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Marino, Lori, 2017, “Thinking Chickens:A Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior in the Domestic Chicken”, Animal Cognition , 20(2): 127–147. doi:10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4
• Matheny, Gaverick, 2003, “Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis’s Omnivorous Proposal”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 16(5): 505–511. doi:10.1023/A:1026354906892
• McMahan, Jeff, 2008, “Eating Animals the Nice Way”, Daedalus , 137(1): 66–76. doi:10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.66
• –––, 2015, “The Moral Problem of Predation”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2015: 268–293.
• McPherson, Tristram, 2015, “Why I Am a Vegan (and You Should Be One Too)”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2015: 73–91.
• –––, 2018, “The Ethical Basis for Veganism”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 209–240.
• Meyers, C.D., 2013, “Why It Is Morally Good to Eat (Certain Kinds of) Meat: The Case for Entomophagy”, Southwest Philosophy Review , 29: 119–126. doi:10.5840/swphilreview201329113
• Michaelson, Eliot and Andrew Reisner, 2018, “Ethics for Fish”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 189–206.
• Midgley, Mary, 1983, Animals and Why They Matter , Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
• Milburn, Josh, 2015, “Rabbits, Stoats, and the Predator Problem: Why a Strong Animal Rights Position Need Not Call for Human Intervention to Protect Prey from Predators”, Res Publica , 21(3): 273–289. doi:10.1007/s11158-015-9281-2
• –––, 2016, “Chewing Over In Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social Progress”, Res Publica , 22(3): 249–265. doi:10.1007/s11158-016-9331-4
• Nefsky, Julia, 2018, “Consumer Choice and Collective Impact”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2018: 267–286.
• Nobis, Nathan, 2016, “Review of Sherry F. Colb and Michael C. Dorf, Beating Hearts: Abortion and Animal Rights (2016)”, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews , 2016.06.25. [ Nobis 2016 available online ].
• Norcross, Alastair, 2004, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases”, Philosophical Perspectives , 18(1): 229–245. doi:10.1111/j.1520-8583.2004.00027.x
• Norwood, F. Bailey and Jayson L. Lusk, 2011, Compassion, by the Pound: The Economics of Farm Animal Welfare , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199551163.001.0001
• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2017, “Meat Consumption (Indicator)”, Paris: OECD, available online .
• Overall, Christine (ed.), 2017, Pets and People: The Ethics of Companion Animals , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190456085.001.0001
• Pachirat, Timothy, 2011, Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Palmer, Clare, 2010, Animal Ethics in Context , New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 2011, “The Moral Relevance of the Distinction Between Domesticated and Wild Animals”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 701–725.
• Parfit, Derek, 1984, Reasons and Persons , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/019824908X.001.0001
• Plato, c. 380 BCE, Republic , in Plato: Complete Works , J. Cooper and D. Hutchinson (eds.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997.
• Pluhar, Evelyn, 2010, “Meat and Morality: Alternatives to Factory Farming”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 23(5): 455–468. doi:10.1007/s10806-009-9226-x
• PNAS ( Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences of the United States of America ), 2013, Special issue on sustainable intensification, December 24, 2013.
• Porphyry, c. 300 CE [2000], De abstinentia , translated by Gillian Clark as On Abstinence from Killing Animals , London: Bloomsbury, 2000.
• Pressler, Jessica, 2013, “Must Cats Die So Birds Can Live? Inside an Animal-Lover Civil War”, New York June 8, 2013. [ Pressler 2013 available online ]
• Rachels, James, 2004, “The Basic Argument for Vegetarianism”, in Sapontzis (ed.) 2004: 70–80.
• Rachels, Stuart, 2011, “Vegetarianism”, in Beauchamp and Frey (eds.) 2011: 877–905.
• Ranganathan, Janet, Daniel Vennard, Richard Waite, Brian Lipinski, Tim Searchinger, Patrice Dumas, Agneta Forslund, Hervé Guyomard, Stéphane Manceron, Elodie Marajo-Petitzon, Chantal Le Mouël, Petr Havlik, Mario Herrero, Xin Zhang, Stefan Wirsenius, Fabien Ramos, Xiaoyuan Yan, Michael Phillips and Rattanawan Mungkung, 2016, Shifting Diets for a Sustainable Food Future , Working Paper, Installment 11 of Creating a Sustainable Food Future , Washington, DC: World Resource Institute. [ Ranganathan et al. 2016 available on-line ].
• Rawlinson, Mary and Caleb Ward (eds.), 2016, Routledge Handbook of Food Ethics , New York: Routledge.
• Regan, Tom, 1975, “The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy , 5(2): 181–214. doi:10.1080/00455091.1975.10716107
• –––, 1983, The Case for Animal Rights , Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
• Regenstein, J.M., M.M. Chaudry, and C.E. Regenstein, 2003, “The Kosher and Halal Food Laws”, Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety , 2(3): 111–127. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00018.x
• Rossi, John and Samual A. Garner, 2014, “Industrial Farm Animal Production: A Comprehensive Moral Critique”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics , 27(3): 479–522. doi:10.1007/s10806-014-9497-8
• Rowlands, Mark, 2009, Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice , New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230245112
• Saja, Krzysztof, 2013, “The Moral Footprint of Animal Products”, Agriculture and Human Values , 30(2): 193–202. doi:10.1007/s10460-012-9402-x
• Sandler, Ronald, 2017, Environmental Ethics: Theory in Practice , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sapontzis, Steve (ed.), 2004, Food for Thought: The Debate over Eating Meat . Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
• Schlottmann, Christopher and Jeff Sebo, forthcoming, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An Ethical Approach . New York: Routledge.
• Scruton, Roger, 2004, “The Conscientious Carnivore”, in Sapontzis (ed.) 2004: 81–91.
• –––, 2006a, Animal Rights and Wrongs , Revised Edition, London: Continuum.
• –––, 2006b, “Thoughts on Farming, Hunting, and Fishing”, in Scruton 2006a.
• Scully, Matthew, 2002, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy , New York: St Martin’s.
• –––, 2013, “Pro-Animal, Pro-Life: The Conscience of a Pro-Life, Vegan Conservative”, National Review , 7 October 2013. [ Scully 2013 available online ]
• Singer, Peter, 1975, Animal Liberation , New York: Harper Collins.
• –––, 1999, “A Response”, in Jamieson (ed.) 1999: 269–335.
• Singer, Peter and Jim Mason, 2006, The Ethics of What We Eat , Emmaus, PA: Rodale.
• Sittler-Adamczewski, Thomas M., 2016, “Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals”, Journal of Practical Ethics , 4(2): 94–102. [ Sittler-Adamczewski 2016 available online ]
• Sorabji, Richard, 1993, Animal Minds and Human Morals , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Stone, Christopher D., 1972, “Should Trees Have Standing?”, Southern California Law Review , 45: 450–501.
• Tännsjö, Torbjörn, 2016, “It’s Getting Better All the Time”, in Barnhill, et al. (eds.) 2016: 362–366.
• Tinker, Tink, 2015, “The Irrelevance of Euro-Christian Dichotomies for Indigenous Peoples: Beyond Nonviolence to a Vision of Cosmic Balance”, in Irfan A. Omar and Michael K. Duffey (eds.), Peacemaking and the Challenge of Violence in World Religions , Malden, MA: Wiley, pp. 206–225.
• Tye, Michael, 2016, Tense Bees and Shell-Shocked Crabs: Are Animals Conscious? , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Varner, Gary E., 1998, In Nature’s Interests? Interests, Animal Rights, and Environmental Ethics , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Velleman, J. David, 1991, “Well-Being and Time”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly , 72(1): 48–77. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0114.1991.tb00410.x
• Vialles, Noëlie, 1987 [1994], Le sang et la chair : les abattoirs des pays de l'Adour , Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme. Translated by J.A. Underwood as Animal to Edible , New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994.
• Višak, Tatjana and Robert Garner (eds.), 2015, The Ethics of Killing Animals , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.001.0001
• Wallace, David Foster, 2004, “Consider the Lobster”, Gourmet , August 2004, pp. 50, 55–56, 60, 62–64. [ Wallace 2004 available on-line ]
• Warfield, Ted, 2015, “Eating Dead Animals: Meat Eating, Meat Purchasing, and Proving Too Much”, in Chignell, et al. (eds.) 2015: 151–162.
• Zamir, Tzachi, 2007, Ethics and the Beast: A Speciesist Argument for Animal Liberation , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Adamson, P., 2012, “ King of Animals: Porphyry ”, podcast Episode 92 of History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps , LMU/Munich and Kings College London.
• Adamson, P. and J. Ganeri, 2016, “ Mostly Harmless: Non-Violence ”, podcast Episode 15 of History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps , LMU/Munich and Kings College London.
• Hurst, Blake, 2009, “ The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals ”, in The American , 30 July 2009, American Enterprise Institute.
• CIW (Coalition of Immokalee Workers), 2010, “ Slavery in the Fields and the Food We Eat ”.
• Kaplan, David, Philosophy of Food Project , University of North Texas
• Mood, A. and P. Brooke, 2010, “ Estimating the Number of Fish Caught in Global Fishing Each Year , at fishcount.org.uk.”
• –––, 2012, “ Estimating the Number of Farmed Fish Killed in Global Aquaculture Each Year ”, at fishcount.org.uk.

animal: cognition | animal: consciousness | animals, moral status of | doing vs. allowing harm | double effect, doctrine of | ethics: in Indian Buddhism | moral status, grounds of

Acknowledgments

Surveys of the moral vegetarian literature are common. I have greatly benefited from reading, among others, Engel 2015, Fischer 2018, McPherson 2018, and Stuart Rachels 2011.

I have benefited, too, from helpful comments, criticisms, and suggestions. For them, I thank Anne Barnhill, Selim Berker, Mark Budolfson, Terence Cuneo, Bob Fischer, Rachelle Gould, Matthew C. Halteman, Elizabeth Harman, Oscar Horta, James John, Robert C. Jones, Jeff McMahan, members of the Vermont Ethics Group, Kate Nolfi, Clare Palmer, L.A. Paul, Tina Rulli, Jeff Sebo, Peter Singer, Sarah Stroud, Mark Timmons, Amy Trubek, and Alisha Utter.

Some material in this entry started life in Barnhill & Doggett 2017a and 2017b.

Copyright © 2018 by Tyler Doggett < tyler . doggett @ uvm . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• General Training
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Vegetarianism Essay

This is a model  vegetarianism essay .

As I always stress, you should  read the question very carefully  before you answer it to make sure you are writing about the right thing.

Take a look at the question:

Every one of us should become a vegetarian because eating meat can cause serious health problems.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Staying on topic

If you rush to start writing and don't analyse the question and brainstorm some ideas you may include the wrong information.

There are religious or moral arguments for not eating meat, but if you discuss those you will be going off topic .

This question is specifically about the health problems connected to eating meat.

So you must discuss in your answer what some of these problems are and if you think there are real health risks or not.

Knowing about the topic

And don't get worried that you do not know much about diet and health.

As part of your IELTS study it will help if you know the basics of most topics such as some health vocabulary in this case, but you are not expected to be an expert on nutrition.

Remember, you are being judged on your English ability and your ability to construct an argument in a coherent way, not to be an expert in the subject matter. So relax and work with

Organisation

In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

The essay has been organised in the following way:

Body 1: Health issues connected with eating meat (i.e. arguments in support of being a vegetarian Body 2: Advantages of eating meat

Now take a look at the model answer.

Model Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay - Sample Answer

Vegetarianism is becoming more and more popular for many people, particularly because of the harm that some people believe meat can cause to the body. However, I strongly believe that it is not necessary for everybody to be a vegetarian.

Vegetarians believe that meat is unhealthy because of the diseases it has been connected with. There has been much research to suggest that red meat is particularly bad, for example, and that consumption should be limited to eating it just a few times a week to avoid such things as cancer. Meats can also be high in saturated fats so they have been linked to health problems such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

However, there are strong arguments for eating meat. The first reason is that as humans we are designed to eat meat, which suggests it is not unhealthy, and we have been eating meat for thousands of years. For example, cavemen made hunting implements so that they could kill animals and eat their meat. Secondly, meat is a rich source of protein which helps to build muscles and bones. Vegetarians often have to take supplements to get all the essential vitamins and minerals. Finally, it may be the case that too much meat is harmful, but we can easily limit the amount we have without having to cut it out of our diet completely.

To sum up, I do not agree that everyone should turn to a vegetarian diet. Although the overconsumption of meat could possibly be unhealthy, a balanced diet of meat and vegetables should result in a healthy body.

(264 words)

You should begin by intoducing the topi c. The introduction in this vegetarianism essay begins by mentioning vegetarians and the possible harm of eating meat .

It then goes on to the thesis statement , which makes it clear what the candidate's opinion is.

The first body paragraph has a topic sentence which makes it clear that the paragraph is going to address the possible health issues of eating meat.

Some reasons and examples are then given to support this.

The second body paragraph then has a topic sentence which makes it clear that the main idea is now about the arguments for eating meat .

The conclusion in this vegetarianism essay then repeats the opinion and gives the candidates final thoughts.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Human Cloning Essay: Should we be scared of cloning humans?

Human cloning essay - this is on the topic of cloning humans to use their body parts. You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts, and what reservations (concerns) you have.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Before you go...

Check out the ielts buddy band 7+ ebooks & courses.

Would you prefer to share this page with others by linking to it?

• Click on the HTML link code below.
• Copy and paste it, adding a note of your own, into your blog, a Web page, forums, a blog comment, your Facebook account, or anywhere that someone would find this page valuable.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• All Lessons
• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Key Phrases for IELTS Speaking: Fluency and Coherence

May 26, 24 06:52 AM

Useful Language for IELTS Graphs

May 16, 24 04:44 AM

Taking a Gap Year

May 14, 24 03:00 PM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

• Essay Database >
• Essay Examples >
• Essays Topics >
• Essay on Diet

Argumentative Essay On Health and Ethical Reasons for Vegetarianism

Type of paper: Argumentative Essay

Topic: Diet , Human , Animals , Health , Vegetarianism , Nutrition , Food , Ethics

Words: 1600

Published: 01/06/2020

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

Vegetarianism, in essence, is the voluntary abstinence of a person from eating meat products. Vegetarianism has been shown to have tremendous health benefits as a practice, and is often employed as a more ethical and sustainable diet than carnivorous diets. It is a preferable lifestyle compared to being carnivorous or omnivorous, as it also means taking a stand against animal slaughter.

There are many different facets of vegetarianism, but the activity itself has been found in many cultures throughout human history. In Western cultures, in particular, it is finding significant support, as more and more people in America and other countries choose to eat only vegetables (and optionally dairy products). There are many different kinds of vegetarianism; in essence, many people fall along a spectrum of vegetarianism that extends from semi-vegetarian (infrequent eating of meat) to pescetarian (eating only fish, seafood and vegetables) to full vegetarian. Other types of vegetarianism that exist are, ovo vegetarianism (eating eggs, but no dairy products, and vice versa to laco vegetarianism). Veganism is one particularly popular type of vegetarianism, in which milk, honey, eggs and all other animal products are strictly avoided. Raw veganism focuses strictly on uncooked fruits and vegetables. These types of vegetarianism, in particular, emphasize a prohibition on processed foods, other products that use animal ingredients. Figure 1 denotes the difference in servings one requires in order to get proper nutrition, based on these alternative types of vegetarianism:

(Dept. of Nutrition, 2008)

The practice of vegetarianism itself has many health benefits. For instance, due to the restriction of foods to vegetables and fruits, wiser and more selective food choices are made overall, thus increasing the nutrient intake. Fruits and vegetables add color to the plate, are rich in fiber and less expensive than meat. Vegetarianism has been shown to dramatically decrease rates of death from ischaemic heart disease by as much as 30 per cent (Key et al. 516). Those who participate in vegetarian diets also have lower saturated fat levels, as well as lower cholesterol, high blood pressure and more. Statistically, there are a significant number of conditions and diseases that are less likely to occur in vegetarians than in carnivores: heart disease, hypertension, renal disease, diabetes and more are found in fewer incidences among those who are vegetarian (White and Frank 465). Women who have become vegetarians have had significantly fewer incidences of gall stone development (Pixley et al. 12). Therefore a vegetarian diet brings with it good health and many benefits.

The particular makeup of a vegetarian diet leads to an intake of rich nutrients and minerals in those who follow it. Vegetarians, on the whole, consume fewer calories in food energy than omnivores, due to the smaller levels of fat and protein that are taken in their overall diet (White and Frank, 466). Vegetarians have been shown to have substantially adequate vitamin intake for most essential vitamins, including riboflavin, thiamine, and vitamins A, C and E (466). However, some potential deficits for vegetarian diets include levels of iron and zinc, which are typically provided through meat, but, these can also be acquired through some vegetarian food sources and supplements. So as far as nutrients are concerned, a vegetarian diet has a good rating.

Besides health reasons, there are those who become vegetarians for moral or ethical reasons also. Modern vegetarianism, as it is understood, is thought of as a means of achieving hypothesized nutritional superiority (Worsley and Skrzypiec 151). In essence, people believe that it is more ethical and nutritional to become a vegetarian. Animal cruelty is perpetuated by the prevalence of carnivorism in the human diet. In order to meet this demand, the food industry has started performing dubious practices including corralling of chickens, cows and pigs into inhumane environments and conditions. Many vegetarians feel that the means of production for meat is bad and unethical, and as a result do not engage in that part of the supply cycle in buying meat. Furthermore, many believe that this meat production is also bad for the environment, due to the changing of land to accommodate large populations of animals (Worsley and Skrzypiec 163). Animal slaughter causes environment pollution and waste, thus leading many to stick with their vegetarian diet.

The moral center of vegetarianism may stem from the utilitarian perspective; there is a huge connection between the two philosophies (Singer 325). According to the utilitarian philosophy, all actions must be taken to achieve the greatest level of happiness, emphasizing actions taken towards things of the greatest use, or utility. Animals are given moral standing through the principle of utilitarianism; "no being should have its interests disregarded or discounted merely because it is not human" (Singer 329). Even if one does not subscribe to the idea that animals should be treated with the same care and respect that is afforded to people, there is a practical reason for wanting to stop animal cruelty. Many vegetarians believe animals, as sentient beings, which do not deserve to be killed if there is a way to avoid it. The ethics surrounding eating meat, and of killing to acquire food for survival (bioethics), often inspire vegetarians, as they object either to the act itself, or how the meat industry produces meat in an inhumane way. Furthermore, they believe that not contributing to the meat market and meat industry, will help the environment, provide greater support for one's health, and make a political statement toward more human practices for animals (Worsley and Skrzypiec 163).

Of course, there are aesthetic reasons for taking up the vegetarian lifestyle as well. Many people believe that, due to the lower fat and protein intake that a vegetarian diet has, they will be able to lose weight and stay thin in a better way, thus improving their appearance (Worsley and Skrzypiec 166). This attitude, while not necessarily tied to any specific health or ethical concern, is still a chief guiding reason for adopting this lifestyle.

Counterarguments for the vegetarian lifestyle are many, and some of them carry valid points. For example, it can be quite dangerous to engage in a fully vegetarian diet without figuring out alternative means for acquiring proteins and vital nutrients which are not present in a vegetarian diet alone. Many human beings get their protein and fatty acids (needed nutrients for human health) from meats. Traditional concerns about the vegetarian diet include the possible inadequacy of the intake of protein and eight essential amino acids. However, according to research, vegetarians typically receive adequate protein through the eating of grains, nuts, legumes and other protein-rich vegetarian foods (White and Frank 466).

Furthermore, it is stated that it would be quite difficult for vegetarianism to make the mark on the meat industry that its community desires. Meat consumption in the United States, for example, is still extremely high, as Figure 2 below illustrates:

(Vegan Outreach, 2012).

However, given these figures, it is easy to see that the need for stricter and less meat-centric diets is strongly recommended. If for no other reason than at least to get meat consumption down to maintain sustainable numbers for land animals that are normally raised and slaughtered for food. Furthermore, since 2008 there have been 1.1 billion fewer land animals slaughtered for meat, due to the spread of vegetarianism and its increased awareness (Vegan Outreach, 2012). Towards that end, it is possible to foster better practices in meat production and consumption through the acquisition of a vegetarian lifestyle.

In conclusion, vegetarianism is a viable and extremely beneficial diet, both for human health and ethical reasons. Those who engage in vegetarian diets consume less fat and calories, while also having reduced saturated fat and cholesterol levels, accumulating to an overall better level of health than that experienced by omnivores. Furthermore, the actualization of a vegetarian lifestyle is seen as a greater moral imperative, keeping in mind the welfare of those animals that are slaughtered and mistreated to provide meat products to humans. Despite the concerns that vegetarians lack proper protein, vegetarians can still get all the proper nutrition they require, while still maintaining ethical practices in cultivating and selecting their food.

Works Cited

Appleby, P.; Thorogood, M.; Mann, J.; Key, T. "Low body mass index in non-meat eaters: the possible roles of animal fat, dietary fibre and alcohol". Journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity 22 (5): 454–460. 1998. Department of Nutrition. The Vegetarian Food Pyramid. Department of Nutrition, 2008. Fessler, Daniel M.T., Arguello, Alexander P., Mekdara, Jeanette M., and Ramon Macias. "Disgust sensitivity and meat consumption: a test of an emotivist account of moral vegetarianism." Appetite vol. 41, pp. 31-41. 2003. Key et al. "Mortality in vegetarians and non-vegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies." American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 70 (3): 516S. Pixlet, Fiona, Wilson, David, McPherson, Klim and Jim Mann. "Effect of Vegetarianism on development of gall stones in women." British Medical Journal vol. 291, 1985. pp. 11- 12. Singer, Peter. "Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism." Philosophy and Public Affairs vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 325-337. 1980. Vegan Outreach. "1.1 Billion, and Counting" Vegan Outreach. January 18, 2012. <http://www.veganoutreach.org/enewsletter/20120118.html>. White, Randall, and Erica Frank. "Health Effects and Prevalence of Vegetarianism." West J Med vol. 160, pp. 465-471. 1994. Worsley, Anthony and Grace Skrzypiec. "Teenage Vegetarianism: Prevalence, Social and Cognitive Contexts." Appetite vol. 30, pp. 151-170. 1998.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 936

This paper is created by writer with

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Church personal statements, shoot book reviews, craft book reviews, canal book reviews, clone book reviews, exile book reviews, turnover book reviews, delay book reviews, loop book reviews, counterpart book reviews, brokaw essays, entrances essays, dumex essays, cruzi essays, coxs essays, astral essays, furniss essays, braunwald essays, fili essays, kla tencor essays, ego defense essays, ans 1 considered as major elements for any agricultural companies essay 2, movie review on ted videos, case study on internal swot analysis on the kraft foods group, why are spain ireland greece and italy sometimes referred as the euro zones book review example, global warming and its effects argumentative essay examples, example of case study on quot into the mouths of babes quot by james traub nytimes magazine 7 24 88, sample essay on love as a theme in different texts, name research paper samples, free competition and society argumentative essay sample, good example of literature review on the story of an hour, single sex vs coed education essay, othello term papers examples, free hypertension essay example, free data standards and security course work example, good nursing admission questions admission essay example, criminal law essay examples 7, annotated outline essays examples, good essay on economic impact of tourism in the united kingdom.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating Research Paper

Introduction, a case for vegetarianism, arguments supporting meat eating, works cited.

Food is the most basic need of man and all people have to eat in order to live. Obtaining something to eat is therefore an integral activity of the human experience. Naturally, human beings can live on meat and vegetables since they are omnivores. Eating meat and vegetables provides the required nutrition for a healthy body.

However, it is possible to obtain all the required nutrition from a diet that does not consist of animal or fish flesh. People who abstain from eating animal or fish flesh are known as vegetarians and they practice vegetarianism. On the other hand, people who supplement their vegetable diet with meat products are called meat-eaters. Majority of the human beings on earth are meat-eaters. In the past few decades, there has been a move towards the promotion of vegetarianism.

This move has been prompted by the alleged benefits of a vegetarian diet. This paper will set out to argue that being a vegetarian is more beneficial for the individual and the environment and as such, more people should adopt this practice. To reinforce this claim, the paper will highlight the many advantages attributed to vegetarianism and contrast them with the negative effects of meat eating.

Adopting a vegetarian diet will help a person avoid some diseases caused or promoted by meat consumption. Diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and heart disease can be caused or exacerbated by meat consumption. Researchers reveal that while genetic factors contribute to the contraction of these diseases, the dietary habits of a person increase or decrease an individual’s risk of developing the diseases (Hart 64).

People who eat mean are more likely to develop obesity and heart disease than those who practice vegetarianism. In addition to this, a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves the body’s blood circulation and actively prevents cardiac diseases. Vegetarians are therefore less likely to suffer from heart diseases compared to meat eaters. Practicing a meat-free diet will therefore improve the health outcomes of the individual.

A vegetarian diet offers protection from the numerous public health risks associated with meat eating. Meat consumption exposes a person to many risks due to the diseases and medication offered to animals. Modern food manufacturing undermines the healthiness of meat. Unlike in the past where livestock was reared in a natural manner, farmers today engage in the indiscriminate use of antibiotics and food supplements to their farm animals.

Henning explains that farmers engage in this practice in x order to reduce the susceptibility of their animals to diseases and promote growth (1086). While these practices achieve these desirable results, they do so at a major cost to meat eaters. Consuming the meat of animals that have been pumped full of antibiotics increases antibiotic-resistant human bacterial illnesses therefore creating a significant public health threat.

A person can avoid these risks associated with meat consumption by becoming a vegetarian. A vegetarian diet is associated with greater longevity. Studies indicate that a meat-free diet significantly decreases the risk of death leading to longer life for the individual who practices vegetarianism. This relationship between vegetarianism and long life is due to a number of reasons.

Singh and Sabate highlight that a vegetarian diet assists in the maintenance of a healthy weight and this contributes to long life by preventing the person from developing lifestyle diseases that lead to early deaths (265). A vegetarian diet also keeps a person safe from the many toxic components present in meat products. Singh and Sabate warn that animals reared for meat ingest large quantities of commercial feedlot additives (266).

In addition to this, the meat contains saturated fat and consuming this is a risk factor for fatal diseases. Meat eaters are therefore likely to die earlier due to complications caused by their dietary practices. A vegetarian diet can help mitigate the adverse environmental impacts caused by meat eating. Meat consumption in the world has increased exponentially in the last 6 decades.

Due to the improved economic wellbeing of most people, the demand for meat has grown in countries all over the world. Animal product producers have therefore increased their scale of production in order to satisfy this demand. The environment has been significantly affected as cattle ranches have expanded. Henning illustrates that cattle ranching has led to widespread deforestation and it has contributed to “soil erosion, degradation of stream habitat, and desertification” (1087).

Animal production has also contributed to the unsustainable use of water resources. Huge water reserves have to be dedicated to animal production leading to the depletion of water resources. In addition to this, animals produce vast amounts of waste and in most cases, this effluent is allowed to leak into the environment thus polluting water reservoirs and degrading the environment. A vegetarian diet would ensure that this negative environmental impacts attributed to animal production are alleviated.

A vegetarian diet can help increase the global food security. At the moment, the food production is able to satisfy the food demands of the human population. However, the high rate of population increase is raising concerns about the ability of the Earth to produce enough food for the entire human population. Because of meat consumption, high pressure is being put on the global food supply (McCarthy 122).

Meat production requires large areas of land to be dedicated to livestock rearing. This puts a strain on the limited land resources of the world. A lot of water is also needed to sustain the high level of meat production required by the modern world. Animals reared for food also consume products that can be eaten by human beings. Brown reveals that farm animals consume more cereal products that human beings do (28).

If the current rate of meat-consumption is pursued, the world will not be able to produce enough food for everyone. A vegetarian diet is more sustainable since it does not over-stretch the available land and water resources. In addition to this, vegetarianism will lead to higher cereal production since farm animals will not be fed on cereals that can be used to feed people.

This will promote sustainable production and consumption of food products leading to global food security. A vegetarian diet is more cost-effective than meat eating. A person uses less money to maintain a vegetarian diet than to engage in a meat-based diet. Even through the cost of meat has reduced significantly over the decades, meat is still more expensive than non-meat products.

Lusk and Norwood confirm that “it is significantly more expensive to produce a pound of meat (or milk) than a pound of commodity crops” (112). McCarthy documents that the low cost of meat can be attributed to heavy government subsidization to meat producers (132). The final cost of these subsidies is incurred by citizens through taxation. Vegetarianism also helps a person to save money by promoting health.

The meat-eater is forced to incur recurring medical expenses due to the numerous health issues promoted by meat consumption. Meat eating also leads to income reduction as the productivity of the meat-eater is reduced due to illness. These negative economic impacts can be overcome by adopting a vegetarian diet. This diet will ensure that the harmful effects of meat eating on an individual’s health are avoided.

Meat plays a role in social events as people in a group setting enjoy it. People are able to celebrate and develop relationships as they consume meat communally. This unique role of meat in social events occurs because meat fulfills a deeper role than just providing the necessary nutrition and satisfying hunger among human beings. Meat has traditionally held a central position in global food culture.

Holm asserts that meat is “the most highly prices, the most sacred and powerful” food in many cultures (277). The cultural significance of meat makes it a special meal that plays a crucial role in interactions among people. There is no disputing the fact that meat holds a dominant position in our culture. However, culture is not static and it is constantly changing to suit the circumstances of the time.

The modern society does not have to perpetuate the dietary patterns utilized in the past. People can therefore take action to override the dominant meat-eating culture. Meat eating is a sign of affluence in many societies. While the price of meat has significantly reduced over the decades, it is still higher than the price of most vegetable products.

In a typical meal, meat produce are the minor component while the major components of the meal is vegetables. The association between mean-eating and prosperity results in meat being considered a food above all others. By consuming meat, humankind is able to demonstrate power and dominance over the rest of the natural world.

Fiddes explains that historically, meat has always been the favored food of the wealthy and powerful elites in society (277). Meat therefore acts as a luxury good that human beings are motivated to acquire. While it is true that meat eating is seen as a sign of affluence, a vegetarian diet can also demonstrate affluence. In the western world, the vegetarian diet is mostly practiced by the well-educated and elite members of the society.

On the other hand, meat is consumed by most people since it is widely available. Meat plays an integral role in human development by providing some essential nutrients to the consumer. Singh and Sabate document that meat is the most important source of the essential proteins required by the human body (266). A study by a team of nutritional experts revealed that meat consumption ensures that a person gets the recommended level of essential minerals (EBLEX par. 3).

Meat eating therefore ensures that the person’s immune system is boosted since essential minerals are acquired through the consumption of meat products. Critics of vegetarianism declare that meat is “an important source of high-quality protein and essential micronutrients” (EBLEX para. 4). Meat is a rich source of iron, key vitamins, and minerals such as potassium, selenium, and zinc, which contribute to long-term health.

While meat is a rich source of essential minerals and vitamins, it also results in many adverse effects to the human body. Meat consumers are negatively predisposed to diseases such as diabetes and obesity. On the other hand, is a person obtains all the necessary minerals and vitamins from non-meat products, he/she will achieve overall health without the health risks associated with meat consumption.

This paper set out to argue that a vegetarian diet is preferable to meat eating. The paper began by defining vegetarianism and showing that this practice has gained prominence in the recent years. The paper then highlighted that vegetarianism can help prevent chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity and heart disease. A vegetarian diet will also contribute to the reduction in the environmental damages caused by meat eating and increase global food security.

The paper has also provided some of the arguments in support of meat eating. It has shown that meat eating has some social and cultural attachments and contributes to the developing of society. Meat eating plays a role in social events and it is also associated with affluence. In addition to this, meat consumption contributes to overall health by providing the body with essential vitamins and minerals.

In spite of these positive attributes of meat, the evidence presented in this paper suggests that meat eating is detrimental to the well being of the individual and the society. Considering the numerous merits associated with vegetarianism, all development-minded citizens should take steps to adopt a vegetarian diet and encourage the abolishment of the meat-eating culture.

Brown, Lester. “How to feed 8 billion people.” The Futurist 44.1 (2010): 28-33.

EBLEX. ‘Seven ages’ study shows red meat benefits. Mar. 2013. Web.

Fiddes, Nick. Social aspects of meat eating. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 53.1 (2001): 271-280.

Hart, Jane. “The Health Benefits of a Vegetarian Diet.” Alternative and Complementary Therapies 15.2 (2009): 64-68.

Henning, Brian. “Standing in Livestock’s ‘Long Shadow’ The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet.” Ethics & The Environment 16.2 (2011): 1085-1133.

Holm, Leo. “The role of meat in everyday food culture: an analysis of an interview study in Copenhagen.” Appetite 34.1 (2000): 277-283.

Lusk, Jayson and Norwood Bailey. “Some Economic Benefits and Costs of Vegetarianism.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 38.2 (2009): 109–124.

McCarthy, Kerry. Plant-Based Diets: A solution to our public health crisis . Washington: World Progressive Foundation, 2010. Print.

Singh, Pramil and Sabate Joan. “Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans?” Am J Clin Nutr 78.3 (2003): 265-325.

• Vegetarianism and Its Causes
• Can Vegetarian Diets Be Healthy?
• Vegetarian Diet and Proper Amount of Vitamins Issue
• A Typology for foodservice menu development
• Diet Food Center at the University of California
• Nutrition in Pocatello High Schools
• Today’s Society Should Move toward Adopting Vegetarian Diet: Arguments For
• Fish as a Staple of the Human Diet
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, July 3). Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/

"Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating." IvyPanda , 3 July 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating'. 3 July.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating." July 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/.

1. IvyPanda . "Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating." July 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating." July 3, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/.

• Environment
• Information Science
• Social Issues
• Argumentative
• Cause and Effect
• Classification
• Compare and Contrast
• Descriptive
• Exemplification
• Informative
• Controversial
• Exploratory
• What Is an Essay
• Length of an Essay
• Generate Ideas
• Types of Essays
• Structuring an Essay
• Outline For Essay
• Essay Introduction
• Thesis Statement
• Body of an Essay
• Writing a Conclusion
• Essay Writing Tips
• Drafting an Essay
• Revision Process
• Fix a Broken Essay
• Format of an Essay
• Essay Examples
• Essay Checklist
• Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Research Paper
• Write My Research Paper
• Write My Essay
• Custom Essay Writing Service
• Admission Essay Writing Service
• Pay for Essay
• Academic Ghostwriting
• Write My Book Report
• Case Study Writing Service
• Dissertation Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Lab Report Writing Service
• Do My Assignment
• Buy College Papers
• Capstone Project Writing Service
• Buy Research Paper
• Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

• Free Essay Samples

Vegetarianism

Updated 13 October 2022

Subject Lifestyle

Downloads 52

Category Life ,  Sociology

Topic People ,  Vegetarianism

There is a heated debate in the public area of whether people should be or have to not be vegetarians? The article “Why I Stopped Being a Vegetarian” by Laura Fraser makes clear arguments regarding this question. The article focuses on the flaws that vegetarians create for themselves. Laura arguments are primarily based on her personal experience as a vegetarian, and she manages to convince her target market about what she talks about. A better example: People are not likely to pay interest to a person who makes an argument about taking part in a marathon or his/her thoughts about coaching for one if he/she has never participated in a marathon. However, if people listen to a person who has trained and taken part in a marathon, they are likely to believe in what he/she says. Due to her Vegetarian past, Laura arguments are more credible in the discussion about vegetarianism, however, at the end of her case, she fails to answer the question on whether people should be vegetarians or not. In the article, Fraser begins by stating that she had to be a vegetarian for 15 years (p.937). This shows that she has all it takes to make an argument on the subject of being a vegetarian. Making an immediate start about here past is a good move else she stood a higher chance of losing her audience before they can even complete the first paragraph. In her argument, Fraser introduces pathos when she chooses to share with her readers the reasons why she opted to be a vegetarian in the first place. The pathos gives the readers an Opportunity to make analysis and draw a mental picture about the whole idea of being a vegetarian. Using pathos provides the article with a more significant impact as compared to the concept of not eating meat because it is unfair to the animals. Laura manages to hold the readers' attention by sliding in humor within the story as well as vital information altogether. She makes a comparison of being a vegetarian to being a lesbian and the love of meat like having an attraction to men, and this is tied to the fact that a high percentage of men are meat-loving carnivores while a good number of lesbians are vegetarians. This style of writing gives the reader a new view of the society through food lifestyles that one creates for themselves. Through comical statements, Laura lightens the mood and keeps the reader focused and ready for the next giggle. The use of Logos dominates this article. Fraser continually argues about the merits of being a Vegetarian. She explains that vegetarians tend to live a longer life and have low levels of cholesterol compared to the meat eater, however she notes that vegetarianism did not have the effect of her level of cholesterol. These are reliable facts that make the reader think that being a Vegetarian has a lot of benefits and it is a good thing. Ethos plays a significant role in this article but is not the primary method of persuasion utilized. Ethos is used to show the fact that opting to be a Vegetarian is a personal decision based on the inner emotions, not necessarily points. Fraser effectively makes use of ethos, pathos as well as logos to draw out her point. However the overall theme of the article” that people should stop being Vegetarians "is not portrayed. Laura was funny when crossing from some of her main points. The only problem is that she focuses too much on the merits of being a vegetarian more; which would be okay if only she would have made a supportive conclusion those arguments in such a way that the readers would not be able to argue against her statement. But she did not; she left them open. Indeed, the only sound reason why Fraser had to stop being a Vegetarian was that she was never committed to being a real Vegetarian, to begin with. She is always coming up with different exceptions. Not because was terrible for her, or she doesn't believe in it anymore, but it was influenced by her love for meat and which she proudly justified eating it. This is not a convincing argument. I think becoming a more vegetarian and using moderation in all food groups is the safest and healthiest way to treat your body. Nutritionists always say listen to your body, and it will tell you to want it needs. Being well balanced and healthy is what an individual needs most. I agree with Laura Frasier and why she became a vegetarian to be more robust, and I believe it was a good idea she stopped and made her diet full of moderation in all things. While being a vegetarian Frasier experienced deficient levels of cholesterol, so low that if she had heart disease, her body might be able to start fighting it off. Taking care of one's health is essential to living a long and healthy life.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Related Essays

Related topics.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Type your email

By clicking “Submit”, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy policy. Sometimes you will receive account related emails.

• Use Messenger
• Send us an email

Vegetarianism: Pros & Cons

As the recent studies showed, more than 3% of the US adult people are vegetarians ; 10% of others claim that they got used to follow vegetarian diet; 5% of them claim they are interested in vegetarian diet sometime in the future. Usually people become vegetarians because of a number of set reasons. Almost all of them are related to the state of their health . 53% of people who gave up meat say that they follow vegetarian diet in order to improve their health condition. Among the rest of the reasons there are: animal safety, environmental cases, weight loss, weight upholding, etc. The point is that along with the fans of such lifestyle there are also those people who are very critical about vegetarianism.

What about experts and doctors? What do they say about vegetarian way of life ? Is it a good way of health improving? Can it cause any harm to our health? Or is it something in between? Let’s first take a look at the advantages of being vegetarian.

A lot of experts claim that there’s nothing bad in having vegetarian way of life. According to them, it is even good. As it was claimed by the American Dietetic Association, once you decide to follow vegetarian diet , you get a guarantee of heart diseases’ low rate, get an opportunity to avoid high blood pleasure, diabetes and some cancer forms. Moreover, vegetarians usually do not have problems with the cholesterol level and overweight. Vegetarian diet is the right way to strong immune system. The most important fact, however, is – vegans live up to 10 years longer than the people who eat meat.

Thus, we may draw a conclusion that people can live without meat . It is possible to get all the necessary food elements from the meatless products and substances.

Arts and Museum

Introduction Taking a break from the monotonous life routine is necessary to keep going. Activities like visiting museums can help in refreshing yourself. Expanding your horizons is the most significant benefit that visiting a museum can provide you with. In my museum tour, I will introduce you to pieces of art of a different variety,…

Between Homeland and Motherland Africa

The book illustrates the dynamic ideas that shape black politicians, intellectuals, and social movement activists’ behavior as they participate in U.S foreign issues towards Africa. The author is an African descendant interested in knowledge on racism. This is because of the rich and reassuring conversations he had on race relations from his immediate family and…

Essay Example on Cultural Theory

Question 1 This argument is rather pedestrian, especially considering that the modern society is based on co-existence. Taking the United States as an example, multi-cultural societies are inevitable in the contemporary world, where globalization is the force behind the destiny of the human race. Race should not be the determining factor as far as what…

Our Services

• Academic ghostwriting
• Admission essay help
• Article writing
• Assignment writing
• College paper writing
• Coursework writing
• Dissertation writing
• Homework writing
• Online classes
• Personal statement writing
• Report writing
• Research paper writing
• Speech writing
• Term paper writing
• Writing tips
• Write my paper

50 Argumentative Essay Thesis Statement Examples

A thesis statement in an argumentative essay needs to present a point of view . The biggest mistake you can make is to provide a thesis statement that doesn’t demonstrate what your argument will be. So, your thesis statement should set a clear argument, perspective, or position in relation to a debate. Check out the examples below.

Thesis Statements for Argumentative Essays

1. mandatory school uniforms.

For: “School uniforms should be mandatory as they promote equality and reduce distractions, fostering a better learning environment.”

Against: “Mandatory school uniforms infringe on students’ freedom of expression and fail to address the root causes of bullying and social stratification.”

Read More: School Uniform Pros and Cons

2. School Should Start Later

For: “Schools should start later in the morning to align with adolescents’ natural sleep cycles, resulting in improved mental health, increased academic performance, and better overall student well-being.”

Against: “Starting school later in the morning disrupts family routines, poses logistical challenges for after-school activities and transportation, and fails to prepare students for the traditional workday schedule.”

Read More: School Should Start Later Arguments | School Should Start Earlier Arguments

3. College Athletes Should be Paid

For: “College athletes should be compensated for their contributions to the multi-billion dollar collegiate sports industry, as their commitment and efforts generate significant revenue and marketing value for their institutions.”

Against: “Paying college athletes undermines the spirit of amateurism in collegiate sports, complicates the primary focus on education, and poses significant financial and regulatory challenges for universities.”

Read More: Why College Athletes Should be Paid

4. Homework should be Banned

For: “Excessive homework can lead to student burnout, reduce family time, and is not always effective in enhancing learning.”

Against: “Homework is essential for reinforcing learning, fostering independent study skills, and preparing students for academic challenges.”

Read More: 21 Reasons Homework Should be Banned

5. Nature is More Important than Nurture

For: “Genetic predispositions play a more critical role in shaping an individual than environmental factors, highlighting the importance of nature in personal development.”

Against: “Environmental factors and upbringing have a more significant impact on an individual’s development than genetic factors, emphasizing the role of nurture.”

Read More: Nature vs Nurture

6. The American Dream is Unattainable

For: “The American Dream is an outdated and unachievable concept for many, masked by systemic inequalities and economic barriers.”

Against: “The American Dream is still a relevant and attainable goal, symbolizing hope, opportunity, and hard work in a land of limitless potential.”

Read More: Examples of the American Dream

7. Social Media is Good for Society

For: “Social media is a vital tool for modern communication, fostering global connectivity and democratizing information dissemination.”

Against: “Social media platforms contribute to mental health issues, spread misinformation, and erode quality face-to-face interactions.”

Read More: Social Media Pros and Cons

8. Globalization has been Bad for Society

For: “Globalization leads to the exploitation of developing countries, loss of cultural identity, and increased income inequality.”

Against: “Globalization is beneficial, driving economic growth, cultural exchange, and technological advancement on a global scale.”

Read More: Globalization Pros and Cons

9. Urbanization has been Good for Society

For: “Urbanization is a positive force for economic development and cultural diversity, offering improved opportunities and lifestyles.”

Against: “Rapid urbanization leads to environmental degradation, overpopulation, and heightened social inequalities.”

Read More: Urbanization Examples

10. Immigration is Good for Society

For: “Immigration enriches the social and economic fabric of the host country, bringing diversity and innovation.”

Against: “Uncontrolled immigration can strain public resources, disrupt local job markets, and lead to cultural clashes.”

Read More: Immigration Pros and Cons

11. Cultural Identity must be Preserved

For: “Maintaining cultural identity is essential to preserve historical heritage and promote diversity in a globalized world.”

Against: “Excessive emphasis on cultural identity can lead to isolationism and hinder integration and mutual understanding in multicultural societies.”

Read More: Cultural Identity Examples

12. Technology is Essential for Social Progress

For: “The advancement of technology is crucial for societal progress, improving efficiency, healthcare, and global communication.”

Against: “Over-dependence on technology leads to privacy concerns, job displacement, and a disconnection from the natural world.”

13. Capitalism is the Best Economic System

For: “Capitalism drives innovation, economic growth, and personal freedom, outperforming socialist systems in efficiency and prosperity.”

Against: “Capitalism creates vast inequalities and exploits workers and the environment, necessitating a shift towards socialist principles for a fairer society.”

14. Socialism is the Best Economic System

For: “Socialism promotes social welfare and equality, ensuring basic needs are met for all citizens, unlike the inequalities perpetuated by capitalism.”

Against: “Socialism stifles individual initiative and economic growth, often leading to governmental overreach and inefficiency.”

Read More: Socialism Pros and Cons

15. Pseudoscience has no Value to Society

For: “Pseudoscience is harmful as it misleads people, often resulting in health risks and the rejection of scientifically proven facts.”

Against: “Pseudoscience, while not scientifically validated, can offer alternative perspectives and comfort to individuals where mainstream science has limitations.”

Read More: Pseudoscience Examples

16. Free Will is Real

For: “Individuals possess free will, enabling them to make autonomous choices that shape their lives and moral character, independent of genetic or environmental determinism.”

Against: “The concept of free will is an illusion, with human behavior being the result of genetic and environmental influences beyond personal control.”

Read More: Free Will Examples

17. Gender Roles are Outdated

For: “Rigid gender roles are outdated and limit individual freedom, perpetuating inequality and stereotyping.”

Against: “Traditional gender roles provide structure and clarity to societal functions and personal relationships.”

Read More: Gender Roles Examples

18. Work-Life Ballance is Essential for a Good Life

For: “Achieving a work-life balance is essential for mental health, productivity, and personal fulfillment.”

Against: “The pursuit of work-life balance can lead to decreased professional ambition and economic growth, particularly in highly competitive industries.”

Read More: Work-Life Balance Examples

19. Universal Healthcare

For: “Universal healthcare is a fundamental human right, ensuring equitable access to medical services for all individuals.”

Against: “Universal healthcare can be inefficient and costly, potentially leading to lower quality of care and longer wait times.”

Read More: Universal Healthcare Pros and Cons

20. Raising the Minimum Wage

For: “Raising the minimum wage is necessary to provide a living wage, reduce poverty, and stimulate economic growth.”

Against: “Increasing the minimum wage can lead to higher unemployment and negatively impact small businesses.”

Read More: Raising the Minimum Wage Pros and Cons

21. Charter Schools are Better than Public Schools

For: “Charter schools provide valuable alternatives to traditional public schools, often offering innovative educational approaches and higher standards.”

Against: “Charter schools can drain resources from public schools and lack the same level of accountability and inclusivity.”

Read More: Charter Schools vs Public Schools

22. The Internet has had a Net Positive Effect

For: “The internet is a transformative tool for education, communication, and business, making information more accessible than ever before.”

Against: “The internet can be a platform for misinformation, privacy breaches, and unhealthy social comparison, negatively impacting society.”

Read Also: Pros and Cons of the Internet

23. Affirmative Action is Fair and Just

For: “Affirmative action is necessary to correct historical injustices and promote diversity in education and the workplace.”

Against: “Affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination and undermine meritocracy, potentially harming those it aims to help.”

Read More: Pros and Cons of Affirmative Action

24. Soft Skills are the Most Important Workforce Skills

For: “Soft skills like communication and empathy are crucial in the modern workforce, contributing to a collaborative and adaptable work environment.”

Against: “Overemphasis on soft skills can neglect technical proficiency and practical skills that are essential in many professional fields.”

Read More: Examples of Soft Skills

25. Freedom of the Press has gone Too Far

For: “Unregulated freedom of the press can lead to the spread of misinformation and biased reporting, influencing public opinion unfairly.”

Against: “Freedom of the press is essential for a democratic society, ensuring transparency and accountability in governance.”

Read More: Free Press Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 10 Conditioned Response Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 25 Humanistic Psychology Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 17 Behaviorism Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 25 Positive Psychology Examples

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *