James Perlas

Rhet 130
Vegetarian Speech
11/7/11

Intro
3 Main Points
Summary of what I feel
Conclusion. What they feel and what I feel

Meat eaters have been attacked by many claims such as how a diet without meat

is healthier, more environmentally friendly, and more humane towards animals. Despite

these herbivorous claims, I believe that eating meat is good and attention should

instead be directed towards stopping animal cruelty in the slaughterhouses. I’d like to

take this time to explain the reasons some people are against eating meat and then

dispute their line of thinking. I’d like to start now with the first claim they make about a

non-meat diet.

One claim made in support of not eating meat is that it is healthier. Some studies

show results that vegetarians have lower rates of: coronary artery disease,

hypertension, obesity, and some forms of cancer. However, I’d like to argue how a diet

without meat doesn’t automatically mean it is the healthiest option. There isn’t really

any evidence that shows that a healthy non-meat diet is healthier than a healthy meat-

based diet. Statistical surveys suggest that people who don’t eat meat live longer and

healthier lives than people who do. However, these statistics fails to explore the

different factors that can influence the health differences between meat eaters and non-

meat eaters. Most people who don’t eat meat choose their diet because it is common

knowledge that it is a healthier alternative. People who are willing to cut out meat for

health reasons are most likely making other lifestyle choices for health reasons, which
may include smoking less, drinking less, and exercising more. On the other hand,

people who aren’t willing to make sacrifices for the good of their health will be more

likely to eat meat than those who will make those sacrifices. Not eating meat could be

healthier, but meat cannot be considered as harmful as some argue because meat is

still a primary source for the eight essential amino acids, vital minerals, and trace

elements. Either way, the meat free way of life has yet to establish its case with

sufficient evidence to be able to justify any health claims made on its behalf. This

brings me to the second claim.

Supporters for a non-meat diet talk about how avoiding meat helps the

environment. According to them, this helps the environment by: lowering gas emissions,

using less land, and saving billions of gallons of water. If everyone turned to a non-

meat diet, the U.S. would save enough water to supply all the homes in New England

for 4 months. Another thing that would be saved is 3 million acres of land, which is an

area more than twice the size of the state of Delaware. However, a study conducted by

Cranfield University found that a considerable amount of meat alternatives such as soy,

chickpeas, and lentils were actually more harmful to the environment because they

were imported into Britain from overseas. The study goes on with results that show how

substitute products require large amounts of foreign land and result in the destruction of

forests. Meat alternatives were also found to be highly processed, meaning it requires

a lot of energy to produce. On a larger scale, switching to meat substitutes will actually

harm the environment more. This brings me to the next issue raised against meat

eaters which is about the cruelty inflicted towards animals being slaughtered.
 The next point that is made in support of a non-meat based diet would be how

eating meat causes animal cruelty. One of the reasons they say its cruel is because

one is indirectly participating in the killing of an animal by eating meat. Another case

they present is the inhumane treatment of animal cruelty. Animals suffer terrible

conditions which can include: caging chickens into tight spaces, as well as clipping the

beaks off the chickens. However, attention should be directed towards taking action

against the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses instead of putting the blame on just

meat-eaters. There are free range chickens that are treated significantly better than the

factory chickens, so a better alternative would be promoting buying from free range

farms. Another example of animals being treated better would be Kobe beef which is

made from cows that were massaged to increase food quality. On a natural level,

animals already eat other animals and as long as there is life on earth, the cycle of

animals killing one another will continue. Another thing to consider is: if the entire

population of a country, let’s say Australia didn’t eat meat; the demand for fruits and

vegetables will increase, which means that more water would be used to grow them.

Animals are also living things that need water to survive, and since the water the

normally would be used for them are now being used for the fruits and vegetables there

would be less water for the livestock, which means that many of them will die from thirst.

A question I want to ask is which would be more humane? Animals dying quickly and

painlessly in the slaughterhouses? Or...Allowing the animals to die of thirst, which is a

slower and more agonizing death?

Eating meat may have its negatives such as an increase of gas emissions and

allowing instances of animal cruelty to take place; however, completely taking it out will
have a far greater consequence. Instead of putting the blame entirely on meat a better

alternative would be to start raising awareness of how some factories treat their

animals. Also, promoting products from free range farms would be a step forward in

combatting the inhumane treatment that some animals are put through. It is not the

meat-eaters that are at fault, but rather the slaughterhouses that allow animals to

undergo dreadful conditions. I believe that the act of eating meat in itself should not

viewed as a wrong from a herbivorous standpoint, and action should instead be taken

against stopping cruelty inflicted on animals by some slaughterhouses.