The Argument Under Analysis : Should We Be Healthier With A Vegan Diet?

Vegan or Go Home!”, Sarah Breslaw asserts veganism as the answer to curbing environmental concerns. Breslaw makes a clear argument in her thesis and explains both negative and positive aspects of veganism but ultimately succumbs to logical fallacies, faulty sourcing and evident subjectivity which weaken her claim.

As one can see a person can eat meat and enjoy a healthy life as long as they exercise moderately and stay away from an excessive amount of saturated fats. The problem with the Lyman’s premise B is he overlooks the impossibility of all 6 billion people on this planet transferring to a vegan lifestyle. Only 3% of earths land is suitable for crop production, 10% of that is land based. Roughly 2/3 of the land is not suitable for crop production due to cites, swamps, snow, deserts etc. Of the 35% that can be donated to crop production less than 1/3 can be cultivated to produce products that can be digested by humans, leaving the rest to be covered by shrubs, grass etc. It is for this reality that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) promotes the use by humans of both plants and animals. “Domestic farms are crucial for food and agriculture, providing 30 to 40 percent of the agricultural sector’s global economic value. Around 2 billion-one third the global population-depend at least partly on farm animals for their livelihoods.

In the short story of Margaret Lundberg ‘’Eating Green’’ Margaret has grown up being a vegetarian because her mother fed up with healthy foods, that included vegies in her meal and plain yogurt for breakfast. As the time passed by, she became a mother and transported a vegetarian diet to her family as well as she was accustomed to its lifestyle. Margaret had realized that if everyone becomes a vegan it could make a huge impact and contribute to benefit on saving the planet we live on. The purpose of the argument is to encourage others to consider taking a vegetarian diet; It will likely reduced badly effects in our health. By considering/ taking in mind a vegetarian diet it could decrease the percent of people suffering from obesity, diabetes,

First off, in regards to a better diet, what would be considered “healthy” in the perspective of these authors? Explicitly stated by Pollan, “the most important fact about any food is not its nutritional content but its degree of processing” (Pollan 423). With this in mind, it can be determined that contrary to popular belief, how healthy something is does not depend on the nutritional facts printed on the package, but rather the amount of times the food has been processed before reaching the hands of a customer. Moreover, Pollan does not stand-alone in this belief. Zinczenko expresses that “complicating the lack of [alternative food suppliers] is the lack of information about what, exactly, we’re consuming” (Zinczenko 463).

Barnard himself has published scientific papers showing that, although his diet leads to increased intakes of many nutrients, primarily from fruits and vegetables, it also leads to decreased intakes of vitamin B12, vitamin D and selenium, and fails to guarantee an adequate intake of zinc… Vitamin B12, for example, synergizes with key amino acids found most abundantly in meat, bones, and skin. Is it possible to design an adequate diet that does not include the meat of animals with faces? In his argument, Masterjohn effectively provides a point in favor of his own argument, and utilizes the rhetorical device logos by conveying several facts regarding the nutrients found in meat. Another important rhetorical device used in this side of the debate is pathos, to utilize this device Masterjohn and Salatin tell stories that are meant to appeal to the audience and establish an emotional connection.

In the article, “Escape from the Western Diet” by Michael Pollan, he argues that, “people that eat the Western diet are prone to a complex of chronic diseases.” Since meat is available everywhere in the United States, everyone is able to get their hands on meat and processed meat on a daily basis. We can eat more than double our weight of meat in the entire year, that just shows us that we tend to eat a heavy meat diet on a daily basis but we are too stubborn to change that. Pollan also states that, “the flood of refined carbohydrates has pushed important micronutrients out of the modern diets.” We live in a world that wants stuff to be done as fast as possible and well that includes food. Since we mass producing meats with the use of drugs and other forms of processing it causes some of the important nutrients that we need to leave the food. In Pollan’s article, it states that, “since healthcare is an industry, it stands to make profit on new drugs and procedures to treat chronic diseases than people changing their eating habits.” Not only are we harming ourselves in not making the proper eating choices but the healthcare industry will stay idly by in order for them to release a new drug to make money. In order for us to improve our health we have to take the first move into that direction

Michael Pollan talks about how the food industry on one side and nutritional science on the other side, but both stand to gain much from widespread confusion about what to eat. Pollan, said, "Yet the professionalization of eating has failed to make

In his journalistic investigation into the depths of industrial agriculture, Michael Pollan analyzes “what it is we’re eating, where it came from, how it found its way to our table, and what it really cost” in an effort to provide both himself and his readers with an educated answer to the surprisingly complex question of “what should we have for dinner?” (Pollan 411, 1). However, what appears as a noble attempt to develop a fuller understanding of the personal, social, and environmental implications of food choices soon reveals itself as a quest to justify Pollan’s own desire to continue eating meat despite its undeniable detriments to animals, human health, and the environment. Indeed, the mere title of Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma as well as his assertion in the book’s introduction that “omnivory offers the pleasures of variety,” exposes the author’s gustatory preferences that prompt him to ask which meat to eat, rather than if to eat meat at all (Pollan 4). This preemptive refusal, due to mere gastronomic pleasure, to consider methods of eating responsibly that do not involve meat renders Pollan’s investigative endeavor essentially meaningless why would he take the time and effort to thoroughly examine the consequences of his food choices if he vowed at the outset to not allow his discoveries to truly shift his eating habits? Why would he write an entire book delving into the minute details of industrialized food production only to advise himself and his audience

In the article “The Insanity of Our Food Policy” (2013), the author Joseph claims that the food policy of U.S. has long been with illogic, because of Congress attempts to pass a long-stalled extension of the farm bill, would cut back the pitiful support from U.S. citizens who in the lowest level of the people and use this money to continue subsidize a small number of wealthy American farmers. Furthermore, Joseph states that small numbers of Americans have grown extremely wealthy, and they get disproportionate size political power. In addition, the author points out American farmers are the most efficient in the world, but there are still millions of Americans suffer from hunger. At the end of the article, Joseph emphasizes Republicans’ food

Statistics are more commonly used to show viewers and readers the truth and reality of the problem. This is why I believe the documentary is very effective because it shows the true side of the story and it includes facts and statistics to back up what the author is saying. The author also includes a large number of opinions from many of those involved in the food industry such as other authors, salesman, workers, and professors. The author uses these opinions to persuade the reader into thinking that if professors with their doctorates say that consuming a diet with less meat is healthier than it must be healthier because they are smart. They also include the opinion of a vegan bodybuilder.

The author uses persuasion frequently in his writing to get his point across to the person reading and to make them agree with his viewpoint. He also brings in points made by people that do eat meat in order to appeal to all aspects of different readers when coming in contact with his article. Tudge wants to prove that a life without meat has a better outcome now and in the long run by using statistics and appealing to his audience with the positive outcomes of making the decision to live life meat-free. Tudge also says how people that do not engage in meat-eating tend to have less diseases and illnesses than people that do eat meat, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes. The rates of getting cancer are also less when eating no meat, as Tudge proclaims in his article. Tudge’s article repetitively shows how the positives outweigh the negatives when eating meat-free. He also continuously shows this to the reader, persuading the reader to also engage in the act of

It talks about many nutritional deficiencies from diets of this kind. The main one’s being Vitamin B12 and Calcium. It mentions that vegetable alternates for vitamin B12 are not same as getting this vitamin from animal sources, as they are just analogs of the true form. The article states that to get the same nutritional value from plant-based food, a significantly more amount is needed to be consumed. The article also engages in the topic of life expectancy, stating that though vegetarians and vegan may live longer, it can also be a result of them being more health conscious in general. This topic will be helpful for my paper as it provides insight about the other side of the argument. It will also help to write my counter argument. The article was written by Chris Kresser, a paleo nutritionist who graduate from UC Berkeley. He teaches and practices functional medicine. The article was written in 2014, so it is still

This essay analyzes the ethical argument for veganism through the lens of philosophy using Utilitarianism defined by John Stuart Mill, and Deontological ethics according to Immanuel Kant. Through the use of these theories, I will justify the moral worth and legitimacy of the animal welfare debate that is often used to promote a cruelty-free and vegan lifestyle by analyzing questions of animal sentience, the worth of an animal’s happiness, and the right humanity supposedly has to the lives of other living creatures. Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics will provide two philosophical insights into the reasoning of a life abstaining from harming animals.

A subject that I have been considering and eager to learn more about lately is plant based diets, and the health benefits that may or may not be associated with them, so I’ve decided to choose an article for critique that broaches the subject, and it is called, “Why Go Veg?” The web address where the article can be found is: http://www.vegetariantimes.com/article/why-go-veg-learn-about-becoming-a-vegetarian/. After careful review, I have deemed this website reliable in an informative sort of way, but it does border on the inflammatory…their passion for the subject is clear. The following paragraphs will detail the five criteria, based on my readings from Whitney and Rolfes, Understanding Nutrition, used in my determination: “Who, When, Where, Why, and What?”

As different crazes and fads are appearing each day, we have come to expect them to simply fade away as the hype passes. However, veganism has stood the test of time in our fad society and is still increasing in popularity. Originally only thought to be a religious lifestyle, many people from different walks of life are becoming vegans. However, this poses many questions and sparks heated debates, mainly from omnivorous people who believe that veganism is against life’s natural order. Vegans, then, argue against an omnivorous lifestyle by bringing up facts about humans’ biological makeup and how humans are, contrary to popular belief, herbivorous by nature, not omnivorous. While both sides present good arguments to some, the veganism lifestyle contains more benefits and less harmful cons than an omnivorous lifestyle.