The Suffering of Animals Aspect of Vegetarianism

[cmhllama]

Since the nutrition issue was mentioned above, let me add: after being a vegetarian for 7 years who is very conscious of nutrition, I firmly believe a vegetarian diet is NOT as healthy as a meat-eating diet. This is primarily due to the lack of quality protein. No natural vegetarian sources of protein exist without harmful baggage–either excess calcium of fiber. For example, dairy has very good protein, but includes calcium at levels that have been shown in long-term studies to be harmful to ones health (highly correlated to breast and prostate cancer imparticular), especially if one used calcium-containing sources as one’s only protein sources. For another example, grains or beans containing protein are also invariably very high in fiber, and to get a reasonable amount of protein from such sources requires getting 30+ grams of fiber from those sources alone (an uncomfortable experience at the least!). For the past 5 years, I have been making use of protein supplements to meet my goals, but these are unhealthy for their own reasons (whey protein has a very high glycemic load, and soy protein has been shown to have unhealthy effects, in addition to being more highly processed than twinkies).

In addition to difficult sources of protein, and B vitamin deficiencies already mentioned above, vegetarian diets are always low in iron and zinc. While this can be remedied by multivitamins, every dietitian would tell you that multivitamins are far from ideal sources for essential nutrients.

This, of course, does not mean that vegetarian diets are immoral.

So it’s not immoral, but it’s unhealthy? OK, to again address nutrition:

The American Dietic Association has said that a properly planned vegetarian or vegan diet is just as healthful as a diet that includes meat. The AMA also says that veg*n diets are healthful options and that adopting a vegetarian diet puts one at a lower risk for heart disease, cancer and stroke.

Vegan diets lack vitamin B-12 (and therefore need supplementation or fortified foods) because now we actually clean our water and food. Therefore, there is less bacteria on the food we eat (and less insects). For the record, everyone, veg*n or not, who is eating processed food is eating bug parts. That’s unavoidable.

Vegetarians and vegans typically have lower stores of iron, but lower stores don’t necessarily mean deficiency. In the industrialized world, zinc and iron deficiency are not more common among veg*ns than among those who eat meat. Protein deficiency usually happens in places where there’s a famine.

Also, as I’ve mentioned, the human body is able to adapt. The body does eventually adapt to the higher fiber of plant-based diets. 30g of fiber is high, but not excessive to the point where it’s harmful for the “average person” (whoever that is). Also, there are different types of fiber that affect the body differently

It’s true that plant-based foods are incomplete proteins, but as long as one eats a variety of protein throughout the day or even throughout the week, the body will combine proteins to make the necessary amino acids. Also, for example, although a serving of beans is lower in protein than a serving of beef, they are a “good source” (according to WHFoods) of manganese, magnesium, phosphorous, iron and thiamin. They also have antioxidants (which can help prevent cancer) and don’t have saturated fat or cholesterol. One cup of cooked beans does give about 1/3 of the daily requirement for protein, by the way. It looks like meat has much more unhealthy “baggage” (cholesterol, saturated fat, hormones, sterols…) than kidney beans…

Dairy isn’t the best source of calcium (contrary to what the dairy industry has said for 100 years) for the reasons stated above. Calcium can be obtained through leafy greens and other plant-based sources (like fortified non-dairy milk). And it’s true that supplements are not the best sources of vitamins and nutrients because nutrients compete for absorption in the body. It’s better to eat nutrient-dense foods and just supplement for nutrients you might be lacking. I don’t rely on “protein shakes” for my protein because as was mentioned, processed-anything is often worse than eating a whole food. Edamame and tofu are good soy foods, soy protein bars not so good.

To address the spiritual aspects I mentioned, if I’m eating an animal that was treated and slaughtered inhumanely, I’m contributing to suffering. The catechism does mention how we are to be stewards and not cause unnecessary suffering. By eating meat, particularly meat from a factory farm, I’d be contributing to needless animal suffering. But it’s true, if I went to Confession and said, “I ate factory farmed chicken yesterday,” the priest might say, “So what, me too.” Also, yes Adam and Eve wore animal skins, but that was after they found out they were naked (which was after they ate the fruit). According to Genesis, the use of animals for our own purposes happened after the Fall and eating meat became necessary when the Great Flood wiped out the vegetation. My point in referencing the Bible was that the Bible can be used to support a vegetarian diet. Others have mentioned the various Christian groups that adopt vegetarianism which I think is a testament to the spiritual benefits. Also, some people said Jesus never ate meat (usually PETA-affiliated groups, of course) while others say he did and both use the Bible to back up their claims. Well, Jesus never said outright that slavery was wrong but most countries have outlawed that. Jesus did call his followers to a radical nonviolence and compassion. Avoiding the consumption of dead animals is actually one of the easiest ways to adopt a more compassionate, nonviolent life.

 

[cmhllama]

Militant vegetarianism does fall into idolatry of animals and thus falls afoul of:

by tending to elevate animals to that of persons.

Also some forms of protests by animal lovers can and do cause harm to people and thus are immoral.

Well that’s true, but those are militants, not every vegetarian. I don’t know any vegetarian who would condone harming people on behalf of animal rights.

With respect, most of the arguments suggesting that humans are not true omnivores are from people who want everyone to be vegan.

That’s often true, but I have seen information regarding what we’re biologically wired to eat from other sources too.

Basic facts.

1. The ancestors of humans have been eating meat for at least 2 million years and many paleo-anthropologists believe that our meat eating is what allowed our brains to grow so large.

For the record, bigger brains don’t mean more intelligence…

In addition, our nearest living relative, the Chimpanzees do occasionally eat meat, and its been 6 million or so years since our more recent common ancestor, so it is possible that meat eating amongst human ancestors go back at least that far.

One of the great things about evolution is we know now that we can get everything we need from non-animal sources. As the saying goes, “When you know better, you do better.” Also, chimpanzees occasionally eat meat. They aren’t eating meat 3 times a day every day of their lives.

1. Humans cannot get all the nutrients they need from vegetable sources. In particular a vegan diet will be lacking in Vitamin B12. I am not attacking those who choose a vegan life style, but that is just a basic fact.

Yes we can get all we need. I talked about it in an above post. Ask the ADA and AMA.

1. Human beings are not very good at digesting… well hardly anything. There is a reason we cook everything.

Actually, one of the characteristics about us that makes us more similar to herbivores is our very long digestive system. Nutrients are less bioavailable in plants than meat, which is why we have such a long intestine. Carnivores, in contrast, have short digestive systems to get the decaying meat out their bodies as quickly as possible. However, carnivores also have more acidic stomachs than we do.

If you ate like our nearest primate relatives ate, you would have to eat virtually constantly (like they do), and still wouldn’t get enough calories or nutrients to thrive. Cooking makes it a lot easier to access the calories and nutrients in foods.

Cooking does help, hence why I am not a raw foodist. And actually, more research is coming out that suggests eating small meals throughout the day is better than eating 3 big meals a day. Leaving a big gap between meals can cause overeating once you do sit down to eat. Remember, it takes about 20 minutes for your brain to figure out you’re full.

 

[camerong]

Just to address my thoughts on the nutrition side briefly, though I recognize this is getting off-topic of my own thread!

So it’s not immoral, but it’s unhealthy? OK, to again address nutrition:

The American Dietic Association has said that a properly planned vegetarian or vegan diet is just as healthful as a diet that includes meat. The AMA also says that veg*n diets are healthful options and that adopting a vegetarian diet puts one at a lower risk for heart disease, cancer and stroke.

But not as healthy as a well-planned diet that includes meat. Besides, the ADA and AMA are not the only voices in this area, and they endorse the FDA’s recommendations, which are completely bogus and highly influenced by agricultural industries. The FDA recommendations, for example, call for a person with a 2,000 calorie/day diet to consume 1,300 calories of carbs. To get this many carbs from whole fruit, vegetables, and whole grain sources, one would be consuming over 40 grams of fiber per day, whereas the recommended amount is 25 grams. The FDA, in fact, does not recommend all our grains come from whole grains, because the majority of food products in the US are not whole grain–this, despite an avalanche of evidence showing that one should consume very very little non whole grain carbs. The head of Harvard’s Nutrition and Epidemiology Department has written that non-whole grain grains (like white bread) is as bad for us as candy. I digress. But the point is, FDA recommendations–and anyone who follows them, such as the ADA–are to highly be questioned, and are as much the result of politics as science.

As I indicate above, I would generally disagree about the amount of protein a person should be consuming. Sure, if one is only shooting for 40-50 grams, and doesn’t mind incomplete protein (20 grams of half a complete protein and 30 grams of the other half is not the same as 50 grams of complete protein), some beens and dairy will do you. But again, growing science indicates that adults should avoid dairy entirely, since even RDA amounts of calcium have been linked to greatly increased risks of breast and prostate cancer in women and men, respectively. Further, the evidence indicates that very little calcium is needed for strong bones, and that instead, vitamin D is most important in preventing osteperosis (low levels of hip breakage are not correlated with calcium intake but with vitamin D intake).

The clearest area in which eating animals is better is fish oil, which is nearly a miracle food, and non-fish oil with the same nutrients is prohibitively expensive at the amounts we can benefit from consuming.

Anyway, I’m still making up my mind on this. The wife was a bit shocked when I said I was considering making the switch, as she joined me.

Thanks for everyone’s thoughts!

 

[Newbie2]

I hate seeing cows and chickens crammed flank to flank (or wing to wing) into small areas, wallowing in their own filth, sick from the conditions, and mistreated “for fun” in some cases. I hate it.

Um…sick animals don’t produce well. Smart producers know that. Maybe we have to look into what’s smart production and what is not.

So does this mean that, for a faithful Catholic, vegetarianism is wrong? I’m not sure it does. I have, for a long time, never said it was illegitimate to eat meat, but merely that it is better to not eat meat than to eat it. Does the passage you quoted provide something like a minimum standard, or is it a comprehensive statement?

Of course it is not wrong for a catholic to be a vegitarian.
It is also not wrong for a catholic to be a meat eater.

Just read what it says…
It is legitimate meaning it is OK to use animals for food and clothing.
It does not say it is required

Peace
James

Vegetarianism can be wrong though if followed for the wrong reasons, or if the vegetarian is militant enough to cause harm to a meat eater who is not doing anything per se immoral by eating meat.

***Militant vegetarianism does fall into idolatry of animals ***and thus falls afoul of:

by tending to elevate animals to that of persons.

Also some forms of protests by animal lovers can and do cause harm to people and thus are immoral.

Excellent point.

BTW, from what I’ve read of Andrew Linzey, he tends toward the starting point of “Animals have inherent rights”, and muddies the waters in equating the value of animals and humans. Although he is well-written, I don’t think his POV always squares with Catholic theology. Same with what I’ve read about Deborah Jones, who seems to think along the same lines although not as “radical” on the concept of “animal rights”, at least from what I’ve read of her work.

 

[puzzleannie]

Haha, this is interesting because I was just listening to the author of The Vegetarian Myth say exactly the same thing (although as a self-professed radical feminist and open lesbian, I imagine her other politics differ significantly!).

Is the production of livestock better, however? I can see that Bison grazing on plains would be better, but what about cows, chickens, pigs? Is there an actually sustainable solution for producing their meat?

yes that is the latest place I have seen the concept raised, in a review of her book (on the protein power blog, list of 10 best books). She sounds like a pip, but even fanatics can say something true once in a while. I introduce it to enlarge the discussion of the moral aspect. Short answer, yes, every animal God has given us for food can be raised and slaughtered in a humane way, which begins by allowing it to live and eat as God intended.

Again returning to the moral issue raised, it is not a sin for me to buy and eat meat from a supermarket that comes from an animal treated inhumanely (may not be prudent but that is another discussion). It is not a sin for me to eat a whole grain product raised on land that was stolen from a family by a large agri-corporation and farmed in a way that harms the environment. That is at most remot cooperation, and quite frankly for most families the option to choose organic etc. is simply not in the budget, or the foods are not widely available even if they could afford them.

 

[camerong]

Again returning to the moral issue raised, it is not a sin for me to buy and eat meat from a supermarket that comes from an animal treated inhumanely (may not be prudent but that is another discussion). It is not a sin for me to eat a whole grain product raised on land that was stolen from a family by a large agri-corporation and farmed in a way that harms the environment. That is at most remot cooperation, and quite frankly for most families the option to choose organic etc. is simply not in the budget, or the foods are not widely available even if they could afford them.

Now I think that raises an interesting question. Would it not be immoral to choose meat from a source which you know made the animals suffered terribly, even if you had an alternative from one of these free range farms, and you could afford the alternative? Or what about eat veal, i.e. calfs stuck inside tiny cages their whole lives, as opposed to normal meat? Perhaps it would not rise to the level of sin, but couldn’t we say such a thing is immoral or unethical (although, no that I say it, I’m not sure where behavior that is unethical in the abstract becomes concrete sin…)

 

[puzzleannie]

Now I think that raises an interesting question. Would it not be immoral to choose meat from a source which you know made the animals suffered terribly, even if you had an alternative from one of these free range farms, and you could afford the alternative? Or what about eat veal, i.e. calfs stuck inside tiny cages their whole lives, as opposed to normal meat? Perhaps it would not rise to the level of sin, but couldn’t we say such a thing is immoral or unethical (although, no that I say it, I’m not sure where behavior that is unethical in the abstract becomes concrete sin…)

you would make your decision by applying the classic rules of moral theology and the virtues. You would first determine if the matter was objectively evil, objectively good, or neutral. If the matter was evil you would then determine whether your own act is directly causing or participating in the evil, remote participation, or no participation. You would then look at free will choice, full knowledge and intent. and so forth.

and no, veal was not always raised this way, it was simply a calf who had not yet been weaned, killed to cull the herd, because of failure to thrive or other prudential judgment, or even raised for the purpose, but raised and slaughtered humanely.

the best practical discussion of the animal vs human thing I have ever seen is the movie Babe.

 

[JRKH]

you would make your decision by applying the classic rules of moral theology and the virtues. You would first determine if the matter was objectively evil, objectively good, or neutral. If the matter was evil you would then determine whether your own act is directly causing or participating in the evil, remote participation, or no participation. You would then look at free will choice, full knowledge and intent. and so forth.

and no, veal was not always raised this way, it was simply a calf who had not yet been weaned, killed to cull the herd, because of failure to thrive or other prudential judgment, or even raised for the purpose, but raised and slaughtered humanely.

the best practical discussion of the animal vs human thing I have ever seen is the movie Babe.

This is the best summary I think.
Whatever decision one comes to it needs to square with - Will my action glorify God? Will my action move me closer to or further from God?

There are too many factors to try to cover here. Each one must make their decision personally.

In the end, regardless of how healthy our diets are or are not, we will die. :shrug:Something will get us because God requires that we pass from this life to the next through the protal of mortal death.
The trick is not to strive so much to hang around here, in this life, as to strive to reach up to God, so to be happy with Him in the next.

Peace
James

 

[mchale]

That’s often true, but I have seen information regarding what we’re biologically wired to eat from other sources too.

For the record, bigger brains don’t mean more intelligence…

Maybe not in an absolute sense, but amongst mammals, the ratio of the brain size to the body size is usually a good general indicator of intelligence. Now structural differences have to be taken into account, as well as other factors. That being said, it is hard to imagine us being us, without our rather large brains.

One of the great things about evolution is we know now that we can get everything we need from non-animal sources. As the saying goes, “When you know better, you do better.” Also, chimpanzees occasionally eat meat. They aren’t eating meat 3 times a day every day of their lives.

I never said we should eat that much meat. The evidence I have seen suggests that optimal health occurs when no more 10% of calories come from animal sources.

What I was pointing out is that biologically speaking, Humans and our ancestors have been eating meat a very long time. We know that pretty much all our direct homo ancestors ate meat, and it is likely that earlier hominid genuses also ate meat. So how many human species have to eat meat before we are biological omnivores?

Yes we can get all we need. I talked about it in an above post. Ask the ADA and AMA.

Except for B12 and the evidence about dirty food being a B12 source is I think a bit suspect. Also, it is possible that there are other micro-nutrients that have not yet been identified that might be linked to animal protein.

And mind you, I speaking strictly about vegan diets, not more general vegetarian diets. Add milk and/or eggs (in moderation), and I agree, the vegetarian diet is perhaps the most healthy diet there is (though, perhaps a little fish now and then would be healthy as well).

Actually, one of the characteristics about us that makes us more similar to herbivores is our very long digestive system. Nutrients are less bioavailable in plants than meat, which is why we have such a long intestine. Carnivores, in contrast, have short digestive systems to get the decaying meat out their bodies as quickly as possible. However, carnivores also have more acidic stomachs than we do.

Well, I am claiming we are omnivores, not carnivores. The problem with looking at it strictly from the length of our intestines is that it ignores other factors, such as complexity of the system and specialized organs or other features. Last I checked, our stomachs were much simpler than a cows, and our intestines lacked some of the features that primate relatives have when it comes to processing vegetation.

Cooking does help, hence why I am not a raw foodist. And actually, more research is coming out that suggests eating small meals throughout the day is better than eating 3 big meals a day. Leaving a big gap between meals can cause overeating once you do sit down to eat. Remember, it takes about 20 minutes for your brain to figure out you’re full.

Yes, but keep in mind, I am not talking about multiple small meals here, I am talking about eating absolutely massive amounts of vegetation. Most herbivores spend most of their waking hours finding and eating food.

–
Bill