Veg*n why vegetarian?

Well I know that people who eat meat have a much higher chance of getting cancer in their digestive tract, like stomach cancer for example. I also know that the way in which our digestive tract is designed (very long) is like the arrangement of most herbivores. Also, animals who eat meat in the wild, generally do it because it is their main food source; they do it for survival. Every vegetarian stands as proof that humans obviously don't need meat to survive. So if not out of necessity why would one kill another living creature? It's just food.

I'm a vegetarian, and decided to be about 8 years ago. There were certain types of meat (ham, ground beef...etc) that I never really liked the taste of. I eventually stopped eating all meat because I was repulsed by the actual act of eating something that was once living. I know that there are people who do eat meat, but are animal lovers-and this just doesn't make sense to me. How can one pick and choose what type of animal should be our companion and what type should be slaughtered for our consumption? Even if there was such a thing as a "humane" slaughter house I still would not eat meat. There really isn't any reason to. My health has improved drastically since I became a vegetarian, and I know that an innocent animal didn't have to die for me to live. Obviously this is just my opinion, I would never try to force anyone into being a vegetarian because not everyone has the same beliefs. However, I will talk freely about the horrors of Factory Farms, speak for the animals because they can not speak for themselves, and hope that I can make an impact of some kind. Most people are just not educated on where the meat they are eating comes from...yeah they know it comes from cows, chickens, pigs...but people are under the assumption that the meat they are eating came from a happy pig, a free-range chicken, and a pasture grazing cow. We all can really only hope that after seeing the reality of Factory Farms and Slaughter houses that people would freely become Vegan or atleast help inprove the handling and deaths of these animals.

Sorry about the long post...I guess I kind of rambled.

Sparky said:

i'm not a vegetarian, but i have respect for people who are.

i was however wondering why you do it. animals eat each other, it seems part of the natural process. surely it makes sense to campaign for organic and free-range farming, or at least support it by only buying meat from animals raised in such a way.

sorry i dont mean to offend, i've just never actually had somebody try and convince me of vegetarianism...

Click to expand...

Oh, don't worry--we've all been there before. It's all a part of marketing schemes to blind the general populace as to what's on their plates in the first place, so it's no surprise you've never heard why.

I see where you're coming from, and if meat wasn't bad for our health and the environment, I'd say YES.

However, meat production is cutting down the rainforest, using huge quantities of water, and producing tons of waste (literally). Also, meat-eating is attributed to a plethora of diseases every year, and not just cancer, heart disease and high cholesterol--it's things like asthma, diabetes, arthritis, and osteoporosis, too.

Useful links:

(broken link removed)
https://www.goveg.com
https://www.goveg.com/feat/enviro.html for the environment.

Oh yeah, over 40% of our crops going to fattening up livestock. We could be feeding more people with that. Ive found the solution to world hunger! haha.

Actually, the idea is quite feasible. I'm not sure if you meant that genuinely or in mockery, but it's true nonetheless. (Sorry, you can't tell sometimes on an internet forum).

kalrik said:

Oh yeah, over 40% of our crops going to fattening up livestock. We could be feeding more people with that. Ive found the solution to world hunger! haha.

Click to expand...

That's right. If people didn't feel the need to eat meat, then another 40 plus % of the world would be fed. But the way things are going now I don't see the world ever completly changing there ways. So that means there are always going to be people dieing of starvation.

Aww, you have to keep at least a partly optimistic view on things! There are people changing every day, you know--we're getting that much closer every day.

Not liking the taste of meat is a great reason not to eat it and it's not nescarry to kill animals to survive, so not killing them simply because they don't need to be is cool and all, but I doubt anyone or everyone not eating meat would do anything to change world hunger. World hunger is a mater of "haves" and "have nots", not the logistics of food distribution. That 40% of crops that is given to animals is only made because there is a demand for it. If livestock didn't eat the 40% of crops there wouldn't be a demand for it and the supply would go down. The farmers who grow that 40% of the crops woudln't just give it away for free to the hungry, they need to make a living and also buy things they want.

One may argue that people who don't eat that meat would raise the demand for the crop because they no longer have meat to fill their apetite. Which would be true, but then the supply that is made to meet that demand is given to the people who would have eaten the meat, not soley to the communities of people who die of starvation. The communities who die of starvation are no doubt poor and malnourished. Protein is an essential nutrience to human growth and survival. They DO need meat to live because they, like earlier humans are not in the cosey situations of us in the US. They don't have soy products convientently located at the corner store. Supposing they would find a way to have soy products, soy products would be relatively expensive considering no one would any longer eat meat and the demand and therefore price of soy products would go up. World hunger is a matter of money and greed, not the ratio of grain that goes into the feeding of livestock.

I have also heard of many claims that human GI tracks are more like herbivores' than carnivores'. Which makes sense considering we evolved from herbivores and never needed to to form a perfect carnivorist GI track to survive long enough to procreate. The protein we ate from meat aided in the growth of our brains which was the prominent determinent of our species survival, not our ability to digest food. I doubt eating fish and skinless whitemeat will kill ya though. I really doubt it'll give you high cholesterol along with many other ailments listed above.

I didn't mean it in actual feasibility, but it does evidence that our cows are being fed so we can eat them while people arent getting fed at all. I dont think it's the protein of chicken and fish that powers our brains, I think it's something else in the fish. That statement is not 100 percent true anyway, scientists are unsure. Also, fish harbor many diseases that can cause illness.

I was raised vegetarian, never have had a piece of meat in my life, not throughout adolescence, childhood growth times or anything and I am fine and quite tall (for my race, haha). . . And I am smart too!

I really dont think that fish and chicken for the brain thing is true.

Every meat can carry disease if not cooked, if its cooked thoroughly, its not very likely to have a disease in it. Sushi is usually not cooked, so people eating that are taking a chance. I'm pretty sure if you find a credible sushi chef, that chance of the sushi having disease is lessoned.

I didn't mean fish and chicken help our brains develop as we grow older. What I meant was the protein from all meat that homosapiens ate as they became a new species was a major contributer to the evolution of their increased brain size. I'm sure vegatarianism is a very healthy practice today in all respects, even for babies, as long as the protein and iron that would normal found in meat are replaced by an alternative food source. I am a vegatarian myself and wouldn't be if i thought it had a significant health cost. Its awesome that you're taller than many and you haven't ever eaten meat. You should tell vegatarians that alot, its a good testament to vegatarianism.

2boar1sow said:

The communities who die of starvation are no doubt poor and malnourished. Protein is an essential nutrience to human growth and survival. They DO need meat to live because they, like earlier humans are not in the cosey situations of us in the US. They don't have soy products convientently located at the corner store.

Click to expand...

I understand this, but I still think it is a goal we should strive towards. Perhaps, one day. this will no longer be the case. Until then, I can only hope those who have the options available chose to make the most of it.

2boar1sow said:

Supposing they would find a way to have soy products, soy products would be relatively expensive considering no one would any longer eat meat and the demand and therefore price of soy products would go up.

Click to expand...

No more expensive than meat is now. Think about it; soy takes LESS time, LESS money, LESS land (in the long run, because of grains eaten by the livestock), LESS water (again, in the long run), etc. etc.

2boar1sow said:

I really doubt it'll give you high cholesterol along with many other ailments listed above.

Click to expand...

It has been proven that meat has played a part in all of those ailments I listed. High cholesterol--think about comparing the cholesterol in meat to that in a soy product. You'll notice a large difference. Now, I'm not suggesting that it is always due to meat consumption, but I think it is a contributing factor.

2boar1sow said:

I doubt eating fish and skinless whitemeat will kill ya though. I really doubt it'll give you high cholesterol along with many other ailments listed above.

Click to expand...

Sorry if that's not proper pronoun/antecedent agreement. Meat does have unhealthy things about it, but so do nonmeat foods. All meat with different names, have different names for a reason, it is different meat. There are chemicals that are different in a grilled salmon than in a piece of bacon or undercooked steak. Just like steamed broccoli is different than french fries.
Do you have reason to believe that fish is linked to high cholesterol, heart disease and cancer? I was under the impression that fish helped prevent cancer. Yes I know that there is more than on type of cancer.

It is easy for us who have sympathy for animals to generalize all meat into an unhealthy food group, but when you do that it opens up errors or loose ends to arguements that make what you're saying less credible. Maybe a person has tried being a vegatarian, but it wasn't working out for them health wise and they need to eat meat again. If that person understands there are different health benefits from different meat, maybe they can not eat the unhealthy meat and have healthier meat as infrequently as possible.

I do not know that fish and chicken don't cause high cholesterol and cancer. This could have been verified in studies. I have just heard countless times that chicken and fish are much healthier than red meat. So when people generalize all meat to cause a health disease that I have heard atrributed to red meat in the past, I wonder if they might not be distinguishing red meat from poultry and fish. I would never say cows, sheep, pigs and whatever deserve to die less than fish and chicken, but offering an arguement for the health benefits of vegatarianism requires some knowledge that I don't think is common to the vegatarian public. Which is why I remain skeptical. If anyone knows any studies that have shown chicken and fish to negatively affect health I'd like to know about it so I can offer people that information when they're considering becoming a vegatarian.

I presume that we are not counting the high levels of antibiotics, steroids and carcinogens that are contained in meat? If not, then besides that, all animal products have cholesterol and saturated fat – but the levels of that vary depending on the source. Rather than spewing out the information, I will direct you to a terrific article that can answer your questions about chicken. The statement that chicken is the better meat – is a myth. Just like the statement that you must have milk for calcium is a myth (off topic a bit --- but actually, milk contains so much protein, which actually leaches calcium from your bones, thus defeating the purpose of drinking milk. Advice: drink soymilk!) A word of advice: don’t believe everything you hear on the news. A lot of people believe that milk is necessary and that chicken is healthy, which means that the dairy and meat industries have terrific marketing devices!

https://www.globalhunger.net/chickhaz.pdf

(broken link removed)
(interesting article about the milk in California)


Fish is probably the least harmless of the animal products, IF it were not for the fact that our oceans and lakes are severely contaminated with deadly chemicals.


Our food is not safe to eat anymore, our world is too polluted… even our vegetables and grains are subjected to pesticides and other harmful chemicals. All we can do is the best we can.. and hope for the best

heabrook said:

Rather than spewing out the information, I will direct you to a terrific article that can answer your questions about chicken.

https://www.globalhunger.net/chickhaz.pdf

(broken link removed)

Click to expand...

The chicken link mostly listed problems with undercooking nonorganic meat. It did say white meat is 18% saturated fat, so if thats too much fat for you, don't eat it.

Also I don't know if the article is taking information from the sites that are listed at the end of it or if the author is just reccommending the sites, because there was no form of citation, but one of the articles from the National Cancer Institute said something about cooking chicken at "high temperatures", not saying how high, would cause carcinigens to form. As most people who cook meat know, you want to cook it at a LOW temperatures so the inside is fully cooked greatly reducing chance of harmful pathogens. Then the NCI article goes on about linking RED MEAT to stomach and other forms of cancer. I also happen to know that when you start to burn meat, like make it black and crispy that carcinogens form. That usually happens when you're cooking it at high temperatures. I don't know if they are referring to that or not.

The milk site said landscapes are being polluted by rocketfuel. Of course cows eat plants that have been growing in a polluted area will yield polluted milk. If we eat vegatables from a polluted area we won't be any better off.

Meat and milk companies will have large sums of money to market with because many people buy their products. Their information is obviously bias. It is quite possible the same can be true with people who are against eating meat.

Although I have not actually researched this personally, here are a few articles that may help you:

(broken link removed)
(broken link removed)
(broken link removed)

Just a start; I'd find more but don't have the time at the moment.

OK so, you can either do a study to test how much mercury is in the fish where your supplier gets their fish, or you can find your own non polluted place to fish. Pollution is a huge problem, but the world is 2/3's water. Have fish been exposed to polution over the entire earth, or are just certain places contaminated including certain fishing sites?

What I'm hearing from alot of these sites is people need to be more responsible with how their decisions are affecting nature. Its not that there is something essential to the fish and chicken that is unhealthy, but that we have to stop causing harmful chemicals to come in contact with them. Isn't that the real problem? We're just irresponisbly introducing chemicals into nature and of course its going to find its way back to us.

Another problem having to do with fish and the environment is that salmon are having a harder and harder time swimming upstream (where they lay their eggs) because rivers are becoming shallower from soil eroision from trees being cut down.

(broken link removed)

seems like a credible that seems to explain the mercury thing well. It does say almost all fish have mercury in them as a result of the air being polluted with mercury and then it dropping into rivers and lakes and other bodies of water. Mercury is nasty to get inside you, so I'd head the warnings. The site says almost all smaller fish have very little mercury in them though and aren't a hazard at all...the bigger stuff like shark and swordfish are trouble though. Shrimp, salmon, and other small stuff like that should be fine though.

2boar1sow said:

The chicken link mostly listed problems with undercooking nonorganic meat. It did say white meat is 18% saturated fat, so if thats too much fat for you, don't eat it.

Click to expand...

Ah.. you took from the article what you wanted to hear
The article was mostly about health hazards of non-organic meat, such as antibiotics, bacteria, etc. You made a point earlier that chicken is healthy to eat, my point is that it's not healthy to eat, organic or not. If eating organic meat makes you feel better, that's good I guess.
18% saturated fat really isn't the point of the article, and I don't have to consider whether that is too much saturated fat for me, as I was born a vegetarian. The point is, people try to convince themselves that eating meat is the right thing to do, because they don't want to have to stop. People don't like having to realize that eating meat is bad for your health and is immoral. But--- everyone has freedom of choice.

And even if bacterial contamination were eliminated, we still have the tremendous problems of heart disease and cancer, the leading causes of death in the United States. Repeated efforts to lower cholesterol levels through switching from beef to chicken have ended in failure. Chicken is somewhat lower in fat than beef, but it still contains quite a bit of fat and even more cholesterol per calorie than does beef or pork.

Also----- meat which is lower in fat is always higher in protein, and excess protein is damaging to health just as is excess fat. Chicken which has 29% of its calories as fat contains 71% of its calories as protein, while ground beef which has 49% of calories of fat has 51% of its calories as protein. In terms of excess protein consumption chicken is worse than beef or pork. Problems caused by or related to excess protein consumption include kidney stones, kidney disease, osteoporosis, bladder cancer, and lymphoma. Chicken meat also completely lacks fiber; lack of fiber is linked to a variety of digestive disorders ranging from constipation to colon cancer. The three basic problems with our American-style diet—too much fat, too much protein, and lack of fiber—are thus all made worse by chicken consumption. Those who switch from beef to chicken are at best trading one set of health hazards for a different set.

Chicken has done little for the nation's health. In the past twenty-five years, we have seen a huge increase in poultry consumption; but health care expenditures during the same period showed phenomenal growth, now costing us hundreds of billions of dollars each year in the United States. The "switch" from beef to chicken has evidently had little, if any, effect on rising medical costs.