James O'Callaghan writes:

Subject: In response...

This is going to be a long 2-part comment. This is part one:

I would like to take the time to respond to this article, because it contains a plethora of factual errors, misinformation, and logical fallacies. I do not demand it of others that they eat a vegan diet, but it is important that all are informed that it is a healthy, feasible diet which is successful in curbing environmental problems, increasing efficiency in food production, and reducing suffering in sentient beings.

Already this article begins by discrediting the vegetarian mindset as a "belief", (note the quotation marks) rather than anything anyone would adopt based on rational thought. The article consistently demonstrates a biased view against those interested in vegetarianism, suggesting that their decision is not made based on any logical principles, but mere pathos. I cannot speak for all vegetarians, but in my experience, it is typically the result of rational inquiry.

To move on, in a linear fashion, through this article... Where is the foundation for the claim that "without a lot of knowledge an planning, trying to live exclusively on fruit and vegetables is sure to lead to nutritional deficiencies"? What constitutes "a lot" of knowledge and planning? Any healthy diet requires some knowledge and planning; that is a given. In absence of that, unhealthy practices will result in either an omnivorous or vegetarian diet. Is it also then a subtle form of child abuse that feeding one's child red meat will drastically increase their risk of heart disease, diabetes and liver cancer?

The media making claims "without any proof whatsoever?" I think it has more to do with empirical evidence and rigorous, repeatable health studies. And if any media source claimed that vegetarianism was the cure-all for everything, it was certainly in a tiny and bizarre minority. The kinds of sweeping statements and hyperboles this author makes (without any citation!) suggest we should hold his outlandish claims suspect. Words like "cult-like" suggest a directly biased view of vegetarian communities. Where is the justification for this claim? And which of the claims that these societies have made have been unfounded? Why?

There have been some animal activists who have engaged in terrorist or terrorist-like activities. Can this be extended to the radical claim that all vegans "often use militant and terrorist tactics?" There are militant sects of many different groups. In most cases, their militant actions do not represent aspects of the belief system of which they are apart, and the majority of members in those groups disassociate themselves from the militant minority. People have used terrorist tactics to fight for democracy. Does that mean democracy is bad or that democrats inherently "often use militant or terrorist tactics?" No. This is a clear example of the logical fallacy of argument by association. "But vegans say a resounding "no" to all of the above except for soy products.

Well, what about soy? Now that's a whole other category discussed in a separate report." What about soy? Soy is not an exception from this list of animal foods. It is not an animal food product. Moving on... Once again, the insertion of the word "emotional response" suggests that the response is made only because of pathos. Many vegetarians arrive at their conclusions as the result of a logical imperative, and not because of sensationalism. And what of the notion that meat has formed a part of one's diet since birth? Once it was common for slavery to form a part of one's lifestyle since birth. Whether someone has "always done something" has no bearing on the value or facility of such a thing.

"Vegans claim that the high-quality grain which is fed to the animals which are then fed to us, would be used more efficiently if we did without the animals and ate the grain instead." This is true. 85% of the world's soybean crops are being used to feed cattle. For every ten pounds of soy protein invested, we receive roughly one pound of animal protein in return.

"The only way of converting that grass into food for Man is by using it to raise edible animals." is an unsubstantiated claim. And the vast majority of animal agriculture is not grass-fed. It instead relies on vast fields of arable land which could be used more efficiently to supply humans. So is the solution simply to convert all our crop-fed animals to grass-fed animals? That solution would not sustain a tenth of the livestock currently used in animal agriculture and would not meet the present demand for meat in industrialized nations. And so, switching to the non-industrialized farming methods necessary to use this land for grazing would demand a drastic reduction in livestock, resulting in a drastic reduction in meat consumption. Environmentally, this is the same imperative which vegetarians advocate.

If we all became vegans, 100% of the crops used would be used to feed people instead of farm animals, instead of only 15%. If 30% of the world's population is now starving, the situation would be changed as such that we would have over five times the amount of food available we have now. More than enough to feed the population of the world, even if it will soon multiply by 2.5 as this article suggested earlier. Correct me if my math is wrong, but this is certainly in the correct ballpark. Whether the planet can sustain such an enormous population in other ways is an important and separate question.

And beside all this, food shortage is a social problem. Not a quantity problem. Developed nations throw out an enormous portion of the food they produce. The current food production does exceed the needs of the world's population, but it is not fairly dispersed.

James O'Callaghan writes:

Subject: Part 2 of response...

Part 2: Irrigation does have problems of its own, but as discussed earlier, the need for land cultivation will be drastically reduced, as it takes less than a third of the amount of land to sustain a vegan diet than it does an omnivorous one. On to the idea of 'animal rights'... Most non-human animals do not have the capacity to act as moral agents. Humans can make reasoned moral choices about the food they eat; lions can't. Does this distinction mean that we have no moral obligation to most non-human animals as they are not moral agents themselves? No. Children and the mentally disabled are not moral agents either, and yet we still have obligations to them. This obligation stems from the fact that they are able to hold preferences and can experience pain and suffering. The same is true of animals. The argument from nature is radically flawed. Whether it is one's natural inclination to do something does not suggest that it is right. All kinds of behaviours witnessed in the animal kingdom, such as rape, murder and cannibalization, are 'natural', but that does not mean that it is morally correct to engage in these behaviours for a rational moral agent. The argument that "man is not a vegetarian species" is dubious. It is fruitless to discuss whether human beings originally practiced an herbivorous or omnivorous diet; there is physiological evidence for both. What is most likely is that the eating of meat evolved as an adapted trait. But this is irrelevant, as it is clearly demonstrable that a human being can sustain his or her dietary needs on a plant-based diet with facility. The only question, then, is whether the pleasure we receive from eating meat is more valuable than the suffering the animals experience in order for us to do so. It is ridiculous to assert that it is. And given that it is possible to eat healthily and eat delicious meals without eating meat, the answer is clear.

The argument that plant agriculture kills animals in its process is an argument more for vegetarianism than it is against. For, as mentioned earlier the amount of agriculture required to sustain a vegan diet is magnificently less than it is to sustain an omnivorous one, and so the amount of field animals killed in agricultural processes is magnificently less, on top of the removal of animal slaughter for food.

And.. "The Bible says" is never a compelling argument rationally. In the same book of the bible, God demands that Abraham kill his own son to demonstrate his faith. If we are to respect a carnivorous diet for biblical reasons, we must also respect infanticide. As well as genocide and rape and all the other lovely things that we are asked to do in the Old Testament.

More on physiology... In what way is the Man's digestive system closer to the Lion's than the Gazelles? In some ways, the opposite is true. Carnivorous species like lions have very short intestinal tracts, whereas herbivorous species have much longer ones. Guess which category ours fits into? And could you conceivably kill a cow with your bare hands? The physical features of humans are not honed as such that we are biologically well suited to a predatory lifestyle. That only comes with the higher brain functions required to make tools needed to hunt. And so.. it seems as though it was an adapted trait to eat flesh. But once again, the argument from biology is not convincing which ever way it makes us look. What is plainly evident is that man can survive on both omnivorous and plant-based diets, and so the question of which we have traditionally consumed is completely irrelevant to whether it should be a part of our diet. "No seed, nut, grain, or vegetable contains the fats that are essential for human brain development." I'm not sure how this claim is substantiated in any way. If he is talking about essential fatty acids, the vegetable sources for these are plentiful: flaxseed, hemp, canola oil, pumpkin seeds, walnuts, and plenty of the leafy vegetables like spinach, kale and chard. B12 doesn't come from animals, it comes from bacteria. Herbivorous animals get their B12 from the bacteria in the dirt on the plants they eat. Because we (thankfully) live in a sanitized world, this is not an option for us; and so vegans require supplements for this and this alone, which doesn't mean popping a pill, necessarily, as most plant-milks and nutritional yeast are fortified with B12. Not so scary. The 'calcium problem' is another myth. It is perfectly simple to derive the necessary calcium from a variety of plant sources such as leafy vegetables, beans, quinoa, amaranth, broccoli, oranges and so on. The list is nearly inexhaustible. In fact, the over-consumption of protein evident in many omnivorous diets causes the excess protein to enforce calcium excretion. And so, it is most often those who consume large quantities of meat who are in danger of calcium deficiency.

I look forward to discussion of these issues. I do not demand of people that they become vegan, but I want to ensure that people are informed of the issues surrounding the diet. It is not unsafe,

it is not a fad, and it is not difficult. It is healthful, it is environmentally sound, it is efficient, and it does dramatically reduce suffering. Once this is understood, the only question is: Is it morally justifiable to contribute to the suffering of millions of animals, to one of the largest contributions toward global warming, to radical inefficiency of food production in a world where millions starve, and to the health problems associated with a meat-heavy diet, just because "meat is tasty"?

Luigi Kleinsasser writes:

Subject: commrnt

All I can say is that just as those who WANT religious artifacts in public schools against the wishes of those who don't, Vegans can only see their side of the story. I have nothing against veganism or vegetarianism (which WERE cults through the 20th Century - I lived on a vegan community farm!) but vegans always exaggerate their perceived BAD side of meat eating and falsely inflate their supposed proofs against meat eating.

We must decide for ourselves based on real evidence NOT emotional hoopla.

James O'Callaghan writes:

Subject: Rational Veganism

Yes, like any social process, it is not the position of a minority group to enforce their ethics on the population. And so, that is why I think the idea of enacting a 'vegan law' at this stage in our culture is absurd. Because animals are not and, for the most part, can not be members of the social contract, it is unfortunately true that they do not have 'rights' in the same way that you and I do, and so the issue of the ethical front of widespread veganism requires a cultural change, which is a gradual process. Based on the evidence that I have been made aware, the process of arriving at the conclusion of veganism is made rather simple through rational inquiry, and not sensationalism. Here's a simple syllogism for one of the arguments: 1. Animals have the capacity to suffer. 2. Unnecessary suffering should be avoided. 3. The farming of animals for food causes suffering. 4. The farming of animals for food is unnecessary. ---- 5. Therefore, The farming of animals for food should be avoided. This argument (which is entirely valid) depends on its premises to be 'true'. The premises are supported by evidence I have laid out in my previous response. If you believe I have inflated or misinterpreted any evidence, please let us discuss it. The argument against this syllogism you have presented in your article lies mostly within the realm of questioning the premise, "The farming of animals for food is unnecessary." However, given the successful healthy lives of many vegans through the past and present, I do not see how anyone could believe that the consumption of animal products is necessary for survival. I hope you can see that I have based my belief in this matter on rational thought, and not sensationalism. It is a slander to say that it is based in "emotional hoopla", and to assume that that is the basis for any given vegan's belief. I am perfectly open to discussion of all the points I have raised, and am ready to be convinced of any opposing views if they are rationally persuasive. Maybe your bad experience with a 'cultish' community has poorly coloured your perception of vegetarians, but please know that that is not a mainstream element of vegetarianism, and that many who follow this diet are reasonable people, and they follow it precisely because of rational inquiry, not sensationalism. I agree that this is a matter to be decided on an individual basis. If you don't find my arguments convincing, don't accept them. But please tell me where you see the flaws, as I am always interested in lively discourse and the mutual benefit we can receive from it.

Luigi writes:

Subject: comment

No, I'm afraid you're using circular logic which proves nothing. You claim "evidence" without evidence. And while YOU personally may have converted to veganism after much research, if it was the same circular logic research then your choice was, again, emotional. and every vegan I know (I lived in a vegan community) made the switch based on the cruelty logic or on religious beliefs, NOT of the health logic. the health one came afterwards to bolster their choice.

You obviously have not read the article with an open mind, have not considered the medical ramifications (proven), have avoided confronting indisputable facts and that IS your choice. But to use circular logic to prove nothing is as absurd as becoming a vegan on emotional grounds.

Luigi writes:

Subject: comment

As an ex-vegetarian, I'd like to ask where you get your cholesterol from? Or do you believe that a vegan diet will eliminate cholesterol from your system?