essay vegetarianism vs meat eating

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.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 28). Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/

"Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating." IvyPanda , 28 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating'. 28 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/.

1. IvyPanda . "Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Vegetarian vs. Meat-Eating." February 28, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/vegetarian-vs-meat-eating/.

• Meat Consumption: Why Should It Be Discouraged?
• Vegetarian or Meat Eaters
• Benefits of Vegetarianism
• Vegetarianism Relation with Health and Religion
• Vegetarian and Non Vegetarian Healthier Diet
• Why You Should Not Be a Vegetarian
• Consumer Behavior Theory: Vegetarianism
• 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

98 Statistics About Vegetarians vs. Meat Eaters You Should Know

The health, environmental and social benefits of plant-based eating have been getting a significant amount of attention these days, which could leave you wondering if a vegetarian or vegan diet is right for you.

Advertisement

If you are, you're in good company: In January 2023, over 700,000 people signed up for the Veganuary challenge, where people follow a vegan diet for the month of January, per the official Veganuary website.

Video of the Day

With interest in these diets at an all-time high, we dove into the statistics of vegetarians versus meat eaters, so you can see how vegetarianism is showing up in the world today and what the effects may be compared to a more meat-heavy diet.

Variations of a Vegetarian Diet

Global Vegetarian Stats

There are 1.5 billion vegetarians worldwide, but only 75 million exclude meat by choice, according to an older but frequently cited January 2010 estimate from the Economic and Social Research Institute .

The other 1.4 billion are vegetarians out of necessity but would eat meat if they could afford it. Many vegetarians also avoid meat because it's part of their religion.

• 79% of India's population is Hindu and 14% is Muslim, according to the Pew Research Center . Hinduism encourages vegetarianism and followers traditionally avoid beef; followers of Islam traditionally avoid pork.
• ‌ India: ‌ 24%
• ‌ Mexico: ‌ 19%
• ‌ Brazil: ‌ 14%
• ‌ Finland: ‌ 12%
• ‌ Denmark: ‌ 10%
• ‌ Philippines: ‌ 5%
• ‌ China: ‌ 5%
• ‌ Russia: ‌ 1%
• People spent $28 billion globally on plant-based meat, seafood, milk, yogurt and cheese in 2022, according to the Good Food Institute (GFI) 's 2022 State of the Industry Report .
• Global sales for plant-based milk , cheese and yogurt hit $21.6 billion — up 7% from 2021, per the 2022 GFI report.
• Plant-based food is expected to make up 7.7% of the global protein market by 2030, according to Bloomberg Intelligence .
• About 20% of the food and drink products launched in 2020 in Germany had a vegan claim, according to the M intel Group .

Vegetarians in the U.S.

The percentage of people following a vegetarian diet in the United States is low compared to the percentage of people who regularly eat meat. Approximately 6 percent or 15.48 million adults in the U.S. are vegetarian, according to a 2022 YouGov poll published by the Vegetarian Resource Group .

This number may sound surprising, as so many plant-based alternatives have hit store shelves over the past several years. Plant-based milk , cheese and meat aren't just for vegans or vegetarians — many meat eaters are now experimenting with at least a small amount of plant-based eating.

• Up to 65% of Americans ate plant-based meat alternatives in 2021, and 42% eat meat alternatives at least once a week, according to a June 2022 National Consumers League report.
• Total U.S. retail plant-based food dollar sales reached $8 billion in 2022, while plant-based meat dollar sales decreased 1% from the previous year, per the GFI's 2022 State of the Industry Report.
• An estimated 86% of households that purchased meat alternatives also purchased conventional meat in 2022, per the GFI's 2022 State of the Industry Report.
• 39% of consumers choose plant-based options because they believe they're healthier than animal-based products.
• About half of vegetarians are also vegans — approximately 7.74 million U.S. adults.

Vegetarians in the U.S. by Age

Veganism and vegetarianism have become more popular among younger people: Millennials and Generation Z have the highest rates of plant-based eating. Here is a breakdown of vegan and vegetarian diets by age in the U.S., according to the Vegetarian Resource Group :

• 5% of Americans between the ages of 18 to 34 are vegan.
• 5% of Americans between the ages of 18 to 34 are vegetarian.
• 3% of Americans between the ages of 35 and 54 are vegan.
• 2% of Americans between the ages of 35 and 54 are vegetarian.
• 1% of Americans over 55 are vegan.
• 1% of Americans over 55 are vegetarian.

A Note on Language

We make deliberate choices about the language we use here at LIVESTRONG.com. For accuracy, we have used the terms for race, ethnicity, sex and gender used by the primary sources throughout this article.

Vegetarian Statistics in the U.S. by Race and Ethnicity

According to the Vegetarian Resource Group , about 6 percent of Latino, Asian and Black Americans follow a vegetarian diet, including vegan. The same survey found going meat-free was largely driven by the motivation to improve health and reduce costs.

• 5% of Black Americans are vegan.
• 1% of Black Americans are vegetarian.
• 3% of Latino Americans are vegan.
• 3% of Latino Americans are vegetarian.
• 1% of Asian Americans are vegan.
• 6% of Asian Americans are vegetarian.
• 56% of Hispanic/Latino Americans and 51% of Black/African Americans believe there is a stigma in their culture around people who eat plant-based foods, according to a Danone North America study.
• 7.4% are Mexican American.
• 5.8% are other-Hispanic.
• 56.2% are non-Hispanic white.
• 7.6% are non-Hispanic Black.
• 23% are other ethnicities.

U.S. Vegetarians by Sex

The number of female and male vegans and vegetarians in the U.S. is still quite small compared to those who are meat eaters. Here is the sex and gender breakdown of vegetarians, including vegans, in the U.S., according to the Vegetarian Resource Group .

• 67.3% identify as female.
• 32.7% identify as male.
• 3% of American male adults are vegan.
• 2% of American male adults are vegetarian.
• 3% of American female adults are vegan.
• 3% of American female adults are vegetarian.

Reasons Americans Go Vegan and Vegetarian

People choose to eat vegetarian or vegan for a variety of reasons. In 2014, the Human Research Council surveyed 11,000 U.S. adults, giving insight into why people chose a vegetarian or vegan diet and why they may have gone back to an omnivore diet.

Here are some of the most common reasons people stopped eating animal products:

• 69% for health reasons
• 68% for animal protection
• 63% because of negative feelings about meat and animal products
• 59% because of environmental concern
• 52% for taste preferences
• 29% for social justice
• 22% for religious or spiritual convictions
• 21% to eat less expensively
• 11% are influenced by peers
• 7% to follow food trends

What Is the Success Rate of the Vegetarian Diet?

Unsurprisingly, not everyone who starts a vegetarian or vegan diet sticks to the meat-free path. Many people start eating animal products again or may go through several vegetarian phases. The Human Research Council's poll addresses the success rate of vegetarians.

• 34% of former vegetarians and vegans quit before 3 months
• 53% of former vegetarians or vegans quit before 1 year

Global Meat Consumption Stats

Meat consumption worldwide is estimated to increase by 14 percent from 2018 to 2030, according to the 2021-2030 Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) Outlook .

Here is the estimated yearly consumption of popular meats from the 2021 FAO data .

Meat Consumption by Country (kilograms per person)

Worldwide, people eat meat from a variety of animals, including chicken, beef, pork and turkey. In some countries, camel, duck and horse meat are common protein sources, too.

Here's how much meat was produced worldwide in 2021, according to the 2021 stats from the FAO .

• Chicken and poultry: 152.01 million tons
• Pork: 132.69 million tons
• Beef and buffalo: 84.6 million tons
• Lamb and goat: 18.03 million tons

Environmental Effects of Eating Meat

Plant-based meat is often viewed as a more environmentally friendly option compared to the resources needed to produce meat. Efficient water use is one environmental concern. Here's the amount of water needed to produce one pound of meat and poultry, according to The Water Footprint of Food Guide :

• 1,850 gallons of water per pound of beef
• 720 gallons of water per pound of pork
• 520 gallons of water per pound of chicken

Over 40 countries participate in the global initiative known as Meatless Monday to help reduce the environmental and health effects of meat-centered diets. This movement encourages people to reduce their meat intake one day a week or more. Here are some of the other environmental effects of eating meat, per the Meatless Monday initiative:

• 14.5% of all global greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are produced from livestock production.
• If meat was eliminated globally for one day per week, it could reduce diet-related global greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 1.0 to 1.3 Gigaton (Gt) per year, which would be equivalent to taking 273 million cars off the road.

Global Accessibility of Meat

While some countries have low meat intake because of religious dietary restrictions, low-income nations have the lowest meat intake per person because of affordability, according to the World Atlas .

Meat is a high-cost item compared to many plant foods. Many poorer countries produce meat, but export it to other countries, making it too expensive for the people who live there.

Here are the countries where people eat the lowest amount of meat because of affordability and accessibility, and the average amount of meat eaten per year per person:

• ‌ India: ‌ 6.6 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Bangladesh: ‌ 7.5 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Ethiopia: ‌ 10 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Nigeria: ‌ 13 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Tanzania: ‌ 15.4 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Mozambique: ‌ 16 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Ghana: ‌ 19.9 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Indonesia: ‌ 26.4 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Pakistan: ‌ 27.9 pounds of meat per person per year
• ‌ Haiti: ‌ 29.9 pounds of meat per person per year

U.S. Meat Consumption Stats

Between 1999 and 2006, meat consumption in the U.S. averaged 250 pounds per person and increased to 264 pounds per person in 2020, according to a May 2021 report in ‌ FarmDoc Daily ‌.

• The average American spent $1,115 on meat, poultry, fish and eggs in 2021, per the 2021 Consumer Expenditures BLS report .
• Chicken: 127.86 pounds per capita
• Beef: 81.57 pounds per capita
• Pork: 66.13 pounds per capita
• Fish: 48.50 pounds per capita
• Beef: 83 pounds per person
• Chicken: 112 pounds per person
• Pork: 67 pounds per person
• Once a day: 58.4%
• Twice a day: 29.8%
• Three or more times a day: 13.2%
• Once a day: 52.2%
• Twice a day: 33.9%
• Three or more times a day: 13.9%
• Boneless pork chops: $4.31 per pound
• Boneless chicken breast: $4.32 per pound
• Ground beef: $5.19 per pound
• Beef steaks: $9.81 per pound
• 70% of all beef food service purchases came from restaurants and bars in 2018, per the Cattleman's Beef Board and National Cattleman Beef Association.

Vegetarian Diet Health Statistics

The 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines recommend the "Healthy Vegetarian Eating Pattern" as a nutritious diet for vegetarians. Following a proper vegetarian and vegan diet could lead to better health outcomes.

• Carotenoids
• "Consistent" adherence to a vegetarian diet was associated with a 35% lower risk of developing diabetes.
• Those who adopted a vegetarian diet after being non-vegetarian had a 53% lower risk for developing diabetes than non-vegetarians.
• 2.9% for vegans
• 3.2% for lacto-ovo vegetarians
• 4.8% for pescatarains
• 6.1% for semi-vegetarians
• 7.6% for non-vegetarians
• Lower total cholesterol
• Lower LDL cholesterol
• Lower blood pressure
• Lower body weight
• Lower risk of heart disease
• Lower risk of type 2 diabetes
• Lower risk of certain types of cancer, including a 35% lower risk of prostate cancer and a 25% lower risk of colorectal cancer.
• Researchers followed 12,168 middle-aged adults for 29 years and found plant-based diets protected many people from heart disease and heart-disease-related deaths compared to people who ate the most meat, per an August 2019 article in the ‌ Journal of the American Heart Association ‌ .
• People following a plant-based diet had a 31% to 32% lower risk of death from heart disease.
• People following a plant-based diet had an 18% to 25% lower risk of death from all causes.

Health Risks of a Vegetarian Diet

It's no surprise diet affects mental and physical health . Some research suggests vegetarianism may be associated with a higher risk for mental health conditions and nutrient deficiencies compared to a meat-eating diet.

• Vegetarians are twice as likely to experience depressive episodes than meat eaters, according to a January 2023 study in the ‌ Journal of Affective Disorders ‌ .
• Up to 86% of vegetarian adults are deficient in vitamin B12
• Up to 45% of vegetarian infants are deficient in vitamin B12
• Up to 33% of vegetarian children are deficient in vitamin B12
• Anywhere from 7% to 73% of vegetarians are iron deficient, according to a May 2017 study in the ‌ Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism ‌ .

Vegans and vegetarians have a higher risk of vitamin B12 and iron deficiency compared with people who eat meat, according to a December 2016 article in ‌ Nutrients . ‌

Iron from plant-based foods, known as non-heme iron, is not absorbed as well as iron from animal sources, according to a March 2021 article in ‌ Biomolecules . ‌ That means vegetarians need to eat twice the amount of iron to meet their needs.

Talk to your doctor or a registered dietitian before starting any new diet plan, but especially about how to plan a vegetarian or vegan diet that meets all your nutritional needs and dietary preferences. They may also recommend certain supplements if you are low in key nutrients on a vegetarian or vegan diet.

139 Nutrition Statistics You Need to Know

67 Weight-Loss Statistics You Should Know

70 Dieting Statistics You Should Know

9 Ways Healthy Eating Affects Physical, Mental and Social Health

• The Vegetarian Resource Group: How Many Adults in the U.S. are Vegetarian and Vegan?
• Human Research Council: "Study of Current and Former Vegans and Vegetarians"
• American Dietetic Association: Meal Planning for Vegetarian Diets
• Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets
• American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Are Strict Vegetarians Protected Against Prostate Cancer?
• Canadian Cancer Society: Risk Factors for Prostate Cancer
• Dietary Guidelines 2015-2020: Daily Nutritional Goals for Age-Sex Groups Based on Dietary Reference Intakes and Dietary Guidelines Recommendations
• American Journal of Clinical Nutrition: Risk of Hospitalization or Death From Ischemic Heart Disease Among British Vegetarians and Nonvegetarians: Results From the EPIC-Oxford Cohort Study
• Pew Research Center: "Key findings about the religious composition of India"
• FAO Agricultural Outlook: "Meat"
• Vomad: "Why People Go Vegan: 2019 Global Survey Results"
• American Diabetes Association: "Vegan and Vegetarian Meal Planning for Diabetes and Kidney Disease"
• FarmDoc Daily: "An Overview of Meat Consumption in the United States"
• World Health Organization: "The top 10 causes of death"
• Journal of the American Heart Association: "Plant‐Based Diets Are Associated With a Lower Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiovascular Disease Mortality, and All‐Cause Mortality in a General Population of Middle‐Aged Adults"
• International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health: "Diet and Consumer Behavior in U.S. Vegetarians: A National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Data Report"
• Nutrients: "Vitamin B12 among Vegetarians: Status, Assessment and Supplementation"
• Biomolecules: "Iron Status of Vegans, Vegetarians and Pescatarians in Norway"
• Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism: "Iron Status of Vegetarian Children: A Review of Literature"
• Journal of Affective Disorders: "Association between meatless diet and depressive episodes: A cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from the longitudinal study of adult health (ELSA-Brasil)"
• Veganuary: "A RECORD NUMBER OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE PARTICIPATE IN VEGANUARY 2023"
• Economic and Social Research Institute: "An Estimate of the Number of Vegetarians in the World "
• Journal of Medical Research and Innovation: "Vegetarian Diet: A Boon or Bane for Health? "
• National Consumers League: "Education and Transparency in Labeling Plant-Based Meat Alternatives "
• Vegetarian Resource Group: "HOW MANY BLACKS, LATINOS, AND ASIANS ARE VEGAN AND VEGETARIAN IN THE USA?"
• John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future: "Meatless Monday Goes Global"
• World Atlas:"10 Countries That Consume The Least Meat"
• U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics:"Average Retail Food and Energy Prices US and Midwest Region"
• BLS: "2021 Consumer Expenditures"
• World Population Review: "Vegetarianism by Country 2023"
• Wanderlust: "7 of the best countries for vegetarian travelers"
• Bloomberg Intelligence: "Plant-Based Foods Market to Hit $162 Billion in Next Decade, Projects Bloomberg Intelligence"
• Cision PR Newswire: "Danone North America Shares Insights from One of the Largest Studies on Multicultural Consumers and their Relationship with Plant-Based Food & Beverage - Finds Over 60% Are Open to Plant-Based Alternatives"
• Public Health: "How Americans eat red and processed meat: an analysis of the contribution of thirteen different food groups"
• Beef It's What's For Dinner: "Beef Remains Foodservice Mainstay"
• Nutrition and Diabetes: "Vegetarian diet, change in dietary patterns, and diabetes risk: a prospective study"
• Diabetes Care: "Type of Vegetarian Diet, Body Weight, and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes"
• Vegetarian Resource Group: "How Many Vegetarians and Vegans Are There?"
• Mintel Group: "The Future of Plant-Based Food and Drink in Europe"
• 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

Report an Issue

Screenshot loading...

Henry Bloomfield ( Flickr Creative Commons )

The ethical arguments against eating meat

A recent BBC comedy written by Simon Amstell imagined life in 2067 when society has become vegan and people flock to support groups to cope with their guilt about their meat-eating past.

The premise might sound far-fetched to many viewers, but there an Oxford University philosopher says there are serious ethical arguments for giving up meat.

In a guest post, Julian Savulescu, the Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford, says that cutting down on our consumption of meat and animal products is "one of the easiest things we can do to live more ethically".

Here, he gives five ethical arguments for giving up meat:

1. The environmental impact is huge

'Livestock farming has a vast environmental footprint. It contributes to land and water degradation, biodiversity loss, acid rain, coral reef degeneration and deforestation.

Nowhere is this impact more apparent than climate change – livestock farming contributes 18% of human produced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. This is more than all emissions from ships, planes, trucks, cars and all other transport put together.

Climate change alone poses multiple risks to health and well-being through increased risk of extreme weather events – such as floods, droughts and heatwaves – and has been described as the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century.

Reducing consumption of animal products is essential if we are to meet global greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets – which are necessary to mitigate the worst effects of climate change. 

2. It requires masses of grain, water and land

Meat production is highly inefficient – this is particularly true when it comes to red meat. To produce one kilogram of beef requires 25 kilograms of grain – to feed the animal – and roughly 15,000 litres of water. Pork is a little less intensive and chicken less still.

The scale of the problem can also be seen in land use: around 30% of the earth’s land surface is currently used for livestock farming. Since food, water and land are scarce in many parts of the world, this represents an inefficient use of resources.

3. It hurts the global poor

Feeding grain to livestock increases global demand and drives up grain prices, making it harder for the world’s poor to feed themselves. Grain could instead be used to feed people, and water used to irrigate crops.

If all grain were fed to humans instead of animals, we could feed an extra 3.5 billion people. In short, industrial livestock farming is not only inefficient but also not equitable.

4. It causes unnecessary animal suffering

If we accept, as many people do, that animals are sentient creatures whose needs and interests matter, then we should ensure these needs and interests are at least minimally met and that we do not cause them to suffer unnecessarily.

Industrial livestock farming falls well short of this minimal standard. Most meat, dairy and eggs are produced in ways that largely or completely ignore animal welfare – failing to provide sufficient space to move around, contact with other animals, and access to the outdoors.

In short, industrial farming causes animals to suffer without good justification.

5. It is making us ill

At the production level, industrial livestock farming relies heavily on antibiotic use to accelerate weight gain and control infection – in the US, 80% of all antibiotics are consumed by the livestock industry.

This contributes to the growing public health problem of antibiotic resistance. Already, more than 23,000 people are estimated to die every year in the US alone from resistant bacteria. As this figure continues to rise, it becomes hard to overstate the threat of this emerging crisis.

High meat consumption – especially of red and processed meat – typical of most rich industrialised countries is linked with poor health outcomes, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes and various cancers.

These diseases represent a major portion of the global disease burden so reducing consumption could offer substantial public health benefits.

Currently, the average meat intake for someone living in a high-income country is 200-250g a day, far higher than the 80-90g recommended by the United Nations. Switching to a more plant-based diet could save up to 8 million lives a year worldwide by 2050 and lead to healthcare related savings and avoided climate change damages of up to $1.5 trillion.'

This article takes extracts from a longer article by Professor Savulescu and Francis Vergunst of the University of Montreal, which was first published in The Conversation .

About Arts Blog

The latest news and views in the arts, humanities and culture at Oxford University. Curated by Sarah Whitebloom, Media Relations Manager (Research and Innovation).

Contact: Sarah Whitebloom, [email protected]

• Entertainment
• Environment
• Information Science and Technology
• Social Issues

Home Essay Samples Life Vegetarianism

Vegetarian vs. Meat Eater: A Comparative Analysis

Table of contents, health considerations, ethical perspectives, environmental impact, cultural and lifestyle factors.

• Craig, W. J., & Mangels, A. R. (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(7), 1266-1282.
• McCarthy, M. (2016). Environment: The meat of the matter. Nature, 533(7603), S120-S122.
• Springmann, M., Wiebe, K., Mason-D'Croz, D., Sulser, T. B., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2018). Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(10), e451-e461.
• Wright, N., Wilson, L., Smith, M., Duncan, B., & McHugh, P. (2017). The BROAD study: A randomised controlled trial using a whole food plant-based diet in the community for obesity, ischaemic heart disease or diabetes. Nutrition & Diabetes, 7(3), e256-e256.
• Willett, W. (2012). Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy: The Harvard Medical School Guide to Healthy Eating. Simon and Schuster.

*minimum deadline

Cite this Essay

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below

• Reconstruction

Related Essays

Need writing help?

You can always rely on us no matter what type of paper you need

*No hidden charges

100% Unique Essays

Absolutely Confidential

Money Back Guarantee

By clicking “Send Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails

You can also get a UNIQUE essay on this or any other topic

Thank you! We’ll contact you as soon as possible.

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.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• Find Student Housing
• 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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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
• Student Housing
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

Decreasing House Sizes Essay

Apr 06, 24 10:22 AM

Latest IELTS Writing Topics - Recent Exam Questions

Apr 04, 24 02:36 AM

IELTS Essay: English as a Global Language

Apr 03, 24 03:49 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.

Home — Essay Samples — Life — Vegetarianism — Why Vegetarianism Is Better Than Meat Eating: Health, Environmental, And Ethical Reasons

Why Vegetarianism is Better than Meat Eating: Health, Environmental, and Ethical Reasons

• Categories: Vegan Vegetarianism

About this sample

Words: 1458 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 1458 | Pages: 3 | 8 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Life

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 533 words

3 pages / 1464 words

2 pages / 946 words

6 pages / 2860 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Vegetarianism

There is a common misconception that vegetarians eat animal crackers. However, this is not the case. In fact, vegetarians do not consume any animal products, including animal crackers. The confusion may arise from the name of [...]

Would you be willing to give up meat just once a week to heal the world? In this essay I’m going to explain why it is a good idea. If everyone in the world gave up meat even for just one day in every seven, we [...]

Davis, B., & Melina, V. (2014). Becoming Vegetarian: The Complete Guide to Adopting a Healthy Plant-Based Diet. Book Publishing Company.Flynn, R. W. V. (2017). Vegetarianism in Western Europe: A Study of Vegetarianism in France, [...]

Vegetarianism used to be an unusual lifestyle choice. Today, it is becoming more common and widely accepted by mainstream society. Healthy lifestyles have become more prevalent in the minds of many people in contemporary [...]

While the great physicist Albert Einstein and the civil rights leader Mahatma Gandhi shared the characteristics of a lifelong dedication to a plant-based diet, each of these figures did so for different reasons. Gandhi made his [...]

If you are food lover and looking for international food trends, Bravojoy is the place for you. The South Korean novel ‘The Vegetarian’ is a feast of chilling violence, nightmares and simmering tensions. Before the dark dreams. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Vegetarianism vs meat eating; health, environment and animal cruelty

A vegetarian's fight.

Sample details

Vegetarianism

Related Topics

• Organic Food

Vegetarians vs Meat-eaters Comparison

Grammar mistakes

Redundant words

Readability

Vegetarian VS. Meat Diet I’ve been a vegetarian for 5 years. For some, being vegetarian can come with a lot of social struggles. The difference between a vegetarian and omnivore is that the vegetarian does not include meat or fish in their diet. 5% of the population is vegetarian. Body builders eat lots of meat to increase their protein levels. However, organic fruits and vegetables are more easily consumed than meat products. On the other hand, vegetables can contain pesticides and other growing chemicals that are harmful to the body. Vegetarians and meat eaters are very different, but they have many similarities as well.

Many ask if a vegetarian diet can help you stay slim while others ask if you can even get the right amount of calories when you eat no meat. Many researches have shown that vegans and vegetarians have a lower average BMI than omnivores. This is because vegetarians tend to watch their diets closer and eat healthier, wholesome foods. However, this isn’t always the case. Just because someone is vegetarian, doesn’t mean they will eat healthy. Vegetarians have a higher risk of developing nutritional deficiencies from lack of animal protein. Omnivores do not, because a lot of the essential vitamins they need are found in meat. I’m a good example for this. When I first went vegetarian five years ago, I didn’t necessarily just eat fruits and vegetables. I lived off of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, chips and snack foods that contained no nutritional value. When I had to go to the doctor’s for a check-up, I got a blood test. The results showed that I had a few vitamin deficiencies. It took research on finding out the right types of foods to eat to fulfill all the nutritional values I needed. I changed my diet and included the right foods, and I became deficiency-free.

ready to help you now

Without paying upfront

Meat is a protein source that contains all of the essential amino acids. Humans need to eat around 50 grams of protein a day. Meat is also an excellent source of iron, which is needed to support human life. Iron makes our bones strong and healthy. Red meat and poultry are rich in vitamin A, B, and D. These vitamins help produce energy from food to support the nervous system. Many of the essential minerals we need to survive are all found in meat as well. These keep our organs functioning well. Since vegetarians don’t eat meat, they need to find other sources of these vitamins and minerals. They can be found in protein sources such as quinoa and soy.

Vegetarians are more likely to have lower cholesterol levels than meat-eaters. Meat-eaters have a higher risk for heart disease. Our bodies usually create that right amount of cholesterol we need to live. Eating animals can add more cholesterol than we need in our bodies. However, this is not always true. Some people naturally develop more cholesterol than they need. It is proven that vegetarians also have a lower risk of developing cancer.

There’s also a social tie-in for vegetarians. When I tell someone I’m vegetarian and they aren’t educated on the lifestyle, they usually ask me a lot of questions, such as, “You don’t eat meat? How do you live?” or “Do you just live off carrot sticks?” Some people even think I starve myself. This will always be a struggle that omnivores don’t usually have.

In conclusion, vegetarians and meat-eaters both have their pros and cons. Vegetarians take the cake on having more health benefits than meat-eaters. However, they also lack some vitamins that omnivores usually don’t. In my opinion, I believe vegetarians have the advantage over omnivores, health-wise. Omnivores usually have the advantage over vegetarians when it comes to eating out. Restaurants and fast food places offer huge varieties of meat dishes, and few vegetarian dishes. However, both vegetarians and omnivores have equally endless varieties of recipes they can create at home. Some people enjoy the taste of meat, while others don’t. It’s all a personal decision. I believe vegetarians and omnivores should both educate themselves on each other’s diets and lifestyles.

Cite this page

https://graduateway.com/vegetarians-vs-meat-eaters/

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers

• Healthy Food
• Energy drink
• Genetically modified food

Check more samples on your topics

Conventional elements of literature poem analysis: the bean eaters.

The poem consists of three stanzas with each four lines. The poem is written in plain language. There are no dialogues and it is written in the third person, the narrator tells a descriptive story about two present characters at dinner time. The ‘theme’, ‘symbolism’ and ‘setting’ are the most important elements of literature used in

The Dog-Eaters and A Night in the Hills Analysis

Even though it takes them to kill anybody they didn't mind. Alih's afraid to kill for whom he knows it not always right to kill but for Omar he is willing to kill just to get revenge for what he believe in their Moro legend that " If a moro should kill someone and be

“Beowulf” and “Eaters of the Dead” Literature Analysis

Beowulf Epic Hero

Heroes are the main focus of many stories, the stories revolve around them and the struggles that they face in order to save those around them. Although they are very similar Beowulf is written as an epic poem and Eaters of the Dead is written as a novel. The evil forces that they face are

Informative Speech/Outline Vegetarians

Informative Speech

Topic: Vegetarians. General purpose: To inform. Specific Purpose: To inform my audience about two top types of Vegetarians. Central Idea: There are two top types of Vegetarians: vegetarian and vegan. Introduction There are vegetarians all over the world. They just want what most people want: good food and a choice. And some people become vegetarians

Food guide Pyramid for Vegetarians: Article analysis

 Food guide Pyramid for Vegetarians: Article analysisIn the article ‘modified food guide pyramid for lacto vegetarians and vegans’, the writers have discussed in details about the proposed food guide pyramid for vegetarians. I concur with the authors that the vegetarians are a special group which should recognized due to their different dietary intake from the

Should We All be Vegetarians

Vegetarian is someone who does not eat meat or fish. (Longman 5TH Edition) Vegetarianism can be divided into two main sub groups; Lacto-Vegetarianism, Veganism. Lacto-Vegetarianism is a diet without meat and fish whereas Veganism is the complete abstinence of animal foods, including dairy products and eggs. The act of Vegetarianism is practiced in accordance to a

Advantages and Disadvantages of Vegetarians Diets

Abstract This paper analyzes advantages and disadvantages of vegetarian diets for Asians based on three typical health issues associated with Asian vegetarians. As the number of Asian vegetarians is expanding, more and more scholars focus on to find correlations between vegetarian diets and breast cancer incidence, bone health, and Vitamin B12 intake of Asians. This paper

Vegetarians Will Save The Environment

Climate Change

Food Industry

In today’s society, only a small percentage of the world’s population leads a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle. This is largely due to most people not realizing what they are actually doing while simply eating a juicy hamburger or chicken strips. They may not know it, but they are supporting the number one cause of global

Low Quality Meat Poulet

Political: The revenue enhancement rates on the merchandises would consequence the costs for the company and be reflected in the income statement. Economic: The demand of an inferior meet like poulet to gripe could potential better gross. Chickens would be easy to care for and maintain costs a small lower compared to cowss. Sociable:

Hi, my name is Amy 👋

In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

Discussion: Vegetarianism vs. Meat Eating

Eating patterns determine the well-being of the population and, consequently, can be viewed as one of the factors which can be used for analyzing people’s health and other areas of life. From this perspective, both vegetarianism and meat-eating have their benefits and drawbacks, which should be examined to allow one to make a well-informed decision in this respect. Even though there is a controversy concerning the health outcomes of these two approaches, they are equal in the provision of vitamins, whereas meat eaters tend to suffer less from mental issues.

The contradicting evidence about the physical well-being of individuals preferring meat and their vegetarian counterparts’ preferences does not allow claiming the feasibility of eating habits of these categories of citizens. According to some sources, the advantages of the latter way include lower cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and a more optimal body mass (Kerr). Nevertheless, research claims that eating meat correlates with fewer risks of chronic diseases and allergies (Kerr). From this standpoint, the lack of clarity indicates the presence of risks in both approaches until the opposite is confirmed.

Another circumstance is the nutritious value of foods consumed by vegetarians and meat-eaters, and, in this case, the former offers greater potential for imbalances and deficiencies. As per the studies, people who adhere to a plant-based diet are reported to be at risk of lacking numerous substances, such as protein, calcium, or iron (Kerr). In this situation, their problem is the need for more careful planning compared to other citizens, who do not limit their eating habits in a similar manner. In contrast to vegetarians, they receive more vitamins due to the availability of a more significant variety of options (Kerr). Therefore, both approaches can be equally beneficial for maintaining the balance of substances in one’s body. Meanwhile, the refusal to eat meat leads to spending more time and effort on ensuring the correspondence of eating habits to healthy norms.

The final consideration when determining the reasonability of the specified diets is their influence on the mental conditions of individuals, and vegetarianism seems more detrimental to this aspect than the consumption of meat. This conclusion is conditional upon the fact that the former representatives suffer from the corresponding conditions more frequently than others without limitations to their eating patterns (Kerr). Thus, they are known for having higher rates of depression, and this fact is connected to the potential deficiencies in minerals and vitamins (Kerr). Compared to them, meat-eaters are reported to have a better mood and overall mental health (Kerr). In this way, vegetarianism can bring harm to this area of life.

To summarize, this approach is worse than unrestricted eating despite the advantages of refusing to consume meat, which include fewer risks connected to blood pressure or cholesterol levels. This stance is underpinned by its complexity in planning and mental health concerns. In turn, the people preferring an inclusive diet appear to have easier access to vitamins and, therefore, are generally more stable in their condition.

Kerr, Gord. “The Statistics of Vegetarians Vs. Meat-Eaters.” Live Strong, 2019, Web.

Cite this paper

Select a referencing style

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

AssignZen. (2023, July 19). Discussion: Vegetarianism vs. Meat Eating. https://assignzen.com/discussion-vegetarianism-vs-meat-eating/

"Discussion: Vegetarianism vs. Meat Eating." AssignZen , 19 July 2023, assignzen.com/discussion-vegetarianism-vs-meat-eating/.

1. AssignZen . "Discussion: Vegetarianism vs. Meat Eating." July 19, 2023. https://assignzen.com/discussion-vegetarianism-vs-meat-eating/.

Bibliography

AssignZen . "Discussion: Vegetarianism vs. Meat Eating." July 19, 2023. https://assignzen.com/discussion-vegetarianism-vs-meat-eating/.

AssignZen . 2023. "Discussion: Vegetarianism vs. Meat Eating." July 19, 2023. https://assignzen.com/discussion-vegetarianism-vs-meat-eating/.

AssignZen . (2023) 'Discussion: Vegetarianism vs. Meat Eating'. 19 July.

This report on Discussion: Vegetarianism vs. Meat Eating was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on Asignzen, request the removal .