Ethics of eating meat
Part of a series on |
Animal rights |
---|
Conversations regarding the ethics of eating meat are focused on whether or not it is moral to eat non-human
Individuals who promote meat consumption do so for a number of reasons, such as health, cultural traditions, religious beliefs,[2] and scientific arguments that support the practice.[3][4] Those who support meat consumption typically argue that making a meat-free diet mandatory would be wrong because it fails to consider the individual nutritional needs of humans at various stages of life, fails to account for biological differences between the sexes, ignores the reality of human evolution, ignores various cultural considerations, or because it would limit the adaptability of the human species.[5]
People who abstain from eating
"
In a 2014 survey of 406 US philosophy professors, approximately 60% of
Overview of arguments for and against meat eating
Conversations regarding the ethics of meat eating have been ongoing for thousands of years, possibly longer.
"Aye, and when others pray for a good wheat harvest, he, presumably, would pray for a good meat supply." The young man, guessing that these remarks of Socrates applied to him, did not stop eating his meat, but took some bread with it. When Socrates observed this, he cried: "Watch the fellow, you who are near him, and see whether he treats the bread as his meat or the meat as his bread."
Rene Descartes, a 17th-century French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist, disagreed with the aforementioned stances. He argued that animals were not conscious. As a result, he asserted that there is nothing ethically wrong with consuming meat or causing animals physical pain. Immanuel Kant also argued that there is nothing ethically wrong with meat consumption. He claimed that it was personhood that distinguished humans from animals and that, since animals are not actual persons, there was nothing wrong with killing or consuming them.[14]
Many other modern thinkers have questioned the morality not only of the double standard underlying speciesism but also the double standard underlying the fact that people support treatment of cows, pigs, and chickens in ways that they would never allow with pet dogs, cats, or birds.[17]
Ethical vegetarians say that the reasons for not hurting or killing animals are similar to the reasons for not hurting or killing humans. They argue that killing an animal, like killing a human, can only be justified in extreme circumstances, such as when one's life is threatened. Consuming a living creature just for its taste, for convenience, or out of habit is not justifiable. Some ethicists have added that humans, unlike other animals, are morally conscious of their behavior and have a choice; this is why there are laws governing human behavior, and why it is subject to moral standards.
Some have described unequal treatment of humans and animals as a form of speciesism such as anthropocentrism or human-centeredness. Val Plumwood (1993, 1996) has argued that anthropocentrism plays a role in green theory that is analogous to androcentrism in feminist theory and ethnocentrism in anti-racist theory. Plumwood calls human-centredness "anthropocentrism" to emphasize this parallel. By analogy with racism and sexism, Melanie Joy has dubbed meat-eating "carnism". The animal rights movement seeks an end to the rigid moral and legal distinction drawn between human and non-human animals, an end to the status of animals as property, and an end to their use in the research, food, clothing, and entertainment industries.[26][27]
Animal consciousness
Ethologist Jane Goodall stated in the 2009 book The Inner World of Farm Animals that "farm animals feel pleasure and sadness, excitement and resentment, depression, fear and pain. They are much more sensitive and intelligent than we ever imagined."[28] In 2012, a group of well known neuroscientists[29] stated in the "Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human Animals" that all mammals and birds (such as farm animals), and other animals, possess the neurological substrates that generate consciousness and are able to experience affective states.[30] Eugene Linden, author of The Parrot's Lament, suggests that many examples of animal behavior and intelligence seem to indicate both emotion and a level of consciousness that we would normally ascribe only to our own species.
Philosopher Daniel Dennett counters:
Consciousness requires a certain kind of informational organization that does not seem to be "hard-wired" in humans, but is instilled by human culture. Moreover, consciousness is not a black-or-white, all-or-nothing type of phenomenon, as is often assumed. The differences between humans and other species are so great that speculations about animal consciousness seem ungrounded. Many authors simply assume that an animal like a bat has a point of view, but there seems to be little interest in exploring the details involved.[31]
Philosophers Peter Singer (Princeton), Jeff McMahan (Oxford) and others also counter that the issue is not one of consciousness, but of sentience.[32]
Pain
A related argument revolves around non-human organisms' ability to feel pain. If animals could be shown to suffer, as humans do, then many of the arguments against human suffering could be extended to animals.
As noted by John Webster (emeritus professor of animal husbandry at the University of Bristol):
People have assumed that intelligence is linked to the ability to suffer and that because animals have smaller brains they suffer less than humans. That is a pathetic piece of logic, sentient animals have the capacity to experience pleasure and are motivated to seek [it. One] only [has] to watch how cows and lambs both seek and enjoy pleasure when they lie with their heads raised to the sun on a perfect English summer's [day, just] like humans.[34]
Various programs operate around the world that promote the notion that animals raised for food can be treated humanely. Some spokespeople for the factory farming industry argue that the animals are better off in total confinement. For example, according to F J "Sonny" Faison, president of Carroll's Foods:
They're in state-of-the-art confinement facilities. The conditions that we keep these animals in are much more humane than when they were out in the field. Today they're in housing that is environmentally controlled in many respects. And the feed is right there for them all the time, and water, fresh water. They're looked after in some of the best conditions, because the healthier and [more] content that animal, the better it grows. So we're very interested in their well-being up to an extent.[35]
In response, animal welfare advocates ask for evidence that any factory-bred animal is better off caged than free..
Steven Best challenges this notion, and argues that factory farm conditions "resemble the mechanized production lines of concentration camps" where animals are "forced to produce maximal quantities of meat, milk, and eggs—an intense coercion that takes place through physical confinement but also now through chemical and genetic manipulation. As typical in Nazi compounds, this forced and intensive labor terminates in death."[38] David Nibert says that sentient animals are treated as mere inanimate objects and "biomachines" in factory farms, or CAFOs, where they are often confined in darkness with no opportunity for engaging in natural activity, are mutilated to prevent pathological behaviors in overcrowded conditions, and genetically manipulated to the point where many cannot even stand.[39] David Benatar contends that of the 63 billion land animals killed annually to provide humans with meat products, the vast majority of them die painful and stressful deaths:
Broiler chickens and spent layer hens are suspended upside down on conveyor belts and have their throats slit. Pigs and other animals are beaten and shocked to coax them to move along in the slaughterhouses, where their throats are cut or stabbed, sometimes after stunning but sometimes not.[40]
Writing in Current Affairs, Nathan J. Robinson describes the billions of non-human animals that suffer and die at the hands of human beings for consumption as a "holocaust" and, citing Jeremy Bentham's formulation "The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?" contends that it is "morally reprehensible" and "deeply wrong".[43] Conversely, Jan Narveson argues that under certain theories of utilitarianism, positive utility can be increased by having more living organisms to experience it and thus by increasing the animal population so it can later be eaten, these theories could potentially justify raising animals for the purposes of consumption.[44]
Critics of ethical vegetarianism say that there is no agreement on where to draw the line between organisms that can and cannot feel. Justin Leiber, a philosophy professor at
Montaigne is ecumenical in this respect, claiming consciousness for spiders and ants, and even writing of our duties to trees and plants. Singer and Clarke agree in denying consciousness to sponges. Singer locates the distinction somewhere between the shrimp and the oyster. He, with rather considerable convenience for one who is thundering hard accusations at others, slides by the case of insects and spiders and bacteria, they pace Montaigne, apparently and rather conveniently do not feel pain. The intrepid Midgley, on the other hand, seems willing to speculate about the subjective experience of tapeworms ... Nagel ... appears to draw the line at flounders and wasps, though more recently he speaks of the inner life of cockroaches.[45]
There are also some who argue that, although only suffering animals feel anguish, plants, like all organisms, have evolved mechanisms for survival. No living organism can be described as "wanting" to die for another organism's sustenance.[46] In an article written for The New York Times, Carol Kaesuk Yoon argues that:
When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins ... If you think about it, though, why would we expect any organism to lie down and die for our dinner? Organisms have evolved to do everything in their power to avoid being extinguished. How long would any lineage be likely to last if its members effectively didn't care if you killed them?[47]
Supporters of ethical vegetarianism argue that support for plant rights obligates abstaining from meat, due to the use of plants to rear animals.[48][49] For example, the feed conversion ratio for beef can require 4.5–7.5 kg of plant food to be used to produce 1 kg of beef.[50] PETA states that "Whether it can be proved that plants experience pain or not, vegan foods are the compassionate choice because they require the deaths of fewer plants and animals."[49]
Peter Singer[51] has pointed out that the ethical argument for vegetarianism may not apply to all non-vegetarian food. For example, any arguments against causing pain to animals would not apply to animals that do not feel pain. It has also often been noted that, while it takes a lot more grain to feed some animals such as cows for human consumption than it takes to feed a human directly, not all animals consume land plants (or other animals that consume land plants). For example, oysters consume underwater plankton and algae. In 2010, Christopher Cox wrote:
Biologically, oysters are not in the plant kingdom, but when it comes to ethical eating, they are almost indistinguishable from plants. Oyster farms account for 95 percent of all oyster consumption and have a minimal negative impact on their ecosystems; there are even nonprofit projects devoted to cultivating oysters as a way to improve water quality. Since so many oysters are farmed, there's little danger of overfishing. No forests are cleared for oysters, no fertilizer is needed, and no grain goes to waste to feed them—they have a diet of plankton, which is about as close to the bottom of the food chain as you can get. Oyster cultivation also avoids many of the negative side effects of plant agriculture: There are no bees needed to pollinate oysters, no pesticides required to kill off other insects, and for the most part, oyster farms operate without the collateral damage of accidentally killing other animals during harvesting.[52]
Cox went on to suggest that oysters would be acceptable to eat, even by strict ethical criteria, if they did not feel: "while you could give them the benefit of the doubt, you could also say that unless some new evidence of a capacity for pain emerges, the doubt is so slight that there is no good reason for avoiding eating sustainably produced oysters." Cox has added that, although he believes in some of the ethical reasons for vegetarianism, he is not strictly a vegan or even a vegetarian because he consumes oysters.
Influences on views of animal consciousness
When people choose to do things about which they are ambivalent and which they would have difficulty justifying, they experience a state of
Environmental argument
Some people choose to be vegetarian or vegan for environmental reasons.
According to a 2006 report by LEAD
Livestock production is the biggest human use of land, and it accounts for around 25% of the global land surface, or two-thirds of all agricultural land.
Many developing countries, including China and India, are moving away from traditional
Animals that feed on grain or rely on grazing require more water than grain crops.[68] Producing 1 kg (2.2 lb) of meat requires up to 15,000 liters of water.[69] According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), growing crops for farm animals requires nearly half of the US water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Animals raised for food in the US consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and 70% of its grain.[70] However, where an extensive farming system (as opposed to a feedlot) is used, some water and nutrients are returned to the soil to provide a benefit to the pasture. This cycling and processing of water and nutrients is less prevalent in most plant production systems, so may bring the efficiency rate of animal production closer to the efficiency of plant based agricultural systems.[71] In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk, and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1.[72] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds, and fruits.
There are also environmentalist arguments in favor of the morality of eating meat. One such line of argument holds that sentience and individual welfare are less important to morality than the greater ecological good. Following environmentalist Aldo Leopold's principle that the sole criterion for morality is preserving the "integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community", this position asserts that sustainable hunting and animal agriculture are environmentally healthy and therefore good.[73][74] Jay Bost, an agroecologist and winner of The New York Times' essay contest on the ethics of eating meat, supports meat consumption, arguing that "eating meat raised in specific circumstances is ethical; eating meat raised in other circumstances is unethical" in regard to environmental usage. He proposes that if "ethical is defined as living in the most ecologically benign way, then in fairly specific circumstances, of which each eater must educate himself, eating meat is ethical." The specific circumstances he mentions include using animals to cycle nutrients and convert sun to food.[75]
Religious traditions of eating meat
In
Shinto has a concept of kegare, which means a state of pollution and defilement, and traditionally eating animals is thought to be one of them.[76] Eating animals having more legs is thought to be worse (i.e., eating mammals is worse than eating chickens or fish). This concept leads to discrimination against slaughtermen and people who work with leather, who are called burakumin.[77][78] Shinran, the founder of the Buddhist sect Jōdo Shinshū, taught that lower class who had to kill beings could enter nirvana even though killing animals was thought to be immoral.
Personhood
It has been argued by a number of modern philosophers that a
Benjamin Franklin describes his conversion to vegetarianism in chapter one of his autobiography, but then he describes why he (periodically) ceased vegetarianism in his later life:
...in my first voyage from Boston...our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food... But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you." So I din'd upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.[81]
Zoonotic diseases and antibiotic resistance
Opponents of eating meat argue that meat production foments
Critics of this line of reasoning state that while widespread adoption of vegan diets would reduce the fomenting of zoonotic diseases, antibiotic resistance, and pandemics, vegan food production still often involves antibiotics[85] and does not eliminate these problems altogether.[85][86][87]
Animals killed in crop harvesting
Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the least harm principle does not require giving up all meat. Davis states that a diet containing beef from grass-fed ruminants such as cattle would kill fewer animals than a vegetarian diet, particularly when one takes into account animals killed by agriculture.[88]
This conclusion has been criticized by
Christopher Bobier maintains that arguments against the consumption of factory-farmed meat can also apply to vegetables produced under factory conditions due to animals killed in the production process (arguing that alternative sources of vegetables mean factory-produced vegetables are not necessary) and thus does not represent a prima facie argument for vegetarianism.[91]
Non-meat products
One of the main differences between a vegan and a
To produce milk from dairy cattle, most calves are separated from their mothers soon after birth and fed milk replacement in order to retain the cows' milk for human consumption.[95] Animal welfare advocates point out that this breaks the natural bond between the mother and her calf.[95] Unwanted male calves are either slaughtered at birth or sent for veal production.[95] To prolong lactation, dairy cows are almost permanently kept pregnant through artificial insemination.[95] Although cows' natural life expectancy is about twenty years,[92] after about five years the cows' milk production has dropped; they are then considered "spent" and are sent to slaughter for meat and leather.[96][97]
Battery cages are the predominant form of housing for laying hens worldwide; these cages reduce aggression and cannibalism among hens, but are barren, restrict movement, and increase rates of osteoporosis.[98][99][100] In these systems and in free-range egg production, unwanted male chicks are culled and killed at birth during the process of securing a further generation of egg-laying hens.[101] It is estimated that an average consumer of eggs who eats 200 eggs per year for 70 years of his or her life is responsible for the deaths of 140 birds, and that an average consumer of milk who drinks 190 kg (420 lb) per year for 70 years is responsible for the deaths of 2.5 cows.[102]
See also
References
- ISBN 978-1-135-04547-0. Retrieved 11 February 2018.
- ^ "Easter Symbols and Traditions". HISTORY. Retrieved 24 December 2021.
- PMID 32071794.
- ^ "Are we supposed to be vegetarian?". Medical News Today. 15 November 2017. Retrieved 24 December 2021.
- ^ Paxton George, Katherine (21 July 1991). "So Animal a Human..., or the Moral Relevance of Being An Omnivore" (PDF). Journal of Agricultural Ethics: 172–186.
- S2CID 7906168.
- ^ a b Harvey, Fiona (29 April 2019). "Antibiotic resistance as big a threat as climate change – chief medic". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 May 2021.
- ^ Doggett, Tyler (2018), "Moral Vegetarianism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 24 December 2021
- ^ "Life after Veganuary: the ethical guide to eating meat, eggs and dairy". the Guardian. 4 February 2020. Retrieved 24 December 2021.
- S2CID 144304490.
- ^ Justin Weinberg (1 November 2021). "What Philosophers Believe: Results from the 2020 PhilPapers Survey". Daily Nous. Retrieved 31 December 2021.
- ^ "We Ignore Urgent Global Warnings At Our Peril". HuffPost. 15 January 2018. Retrieved 31 December 2021.
- ^ "The Animal Kill Counter << ADAPTT :: Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow". adaptt.org. 24 December 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- ^ a b McGregor, Joan (7 August 2018). "What philosophers have to say about eating meat". The Conversation. Retrieved 24 December 2021.
- ^ a b "Xenophon, Memorabilia, Book 3, chapter 14, section 4". www.perseus.tufts.edu. Retrieved 27 December 2021.
- S2CID 147281222.
- ^ a b Mark Rowlands (2013). Animal rights: All that matters. Hodder & Stoughton Archived 1 July 2014 at the Wayback Machine
- ISBN 9781441199157.
- OCLC 713621604.
- S2CID 236309023.
- S2CID 154844655. Archived from the original(PDF) on 6 January 2014.
- S2CID 145781996.
- ^ Eisnitz, G. A. (2009). Slaughterhouse: The shocking story of greed, neglect, and inhumane treatment inside the US meat industry. Prometheus Books. Chicago
- ^ Hoffman, Beth (16 September 2013). "Food Waste: Key To Ending World Hunger". Forbes.
- ^ Anonymous (17 October 2016). "Food Waste". Food Safety - European Commission. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
- ^ "Manifesto for the Evolution of Animals' Legal Status in the Civil Code of Quebec". animalsarenotobjects.ca. Archived from the original on 21 June 2014. Retrieved 27 March 2018.
- ^ Chazan, David (16 April 2014). "Pets No Longer Just Part of Furniture in France". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 12 January 2022.
- ^ Goodall J (April 2009), The Inner World of Farm Animals. Stewart, Tabori and Chang.
- ^ Halberstadt, Alex (3 July 2014). "Zoo Animals and their Discontents". The New York Times Magazine.
- ^ Low P, Panksepp J, Reiss D, Edelman D, Van Swinderen B, Koch C (July 2012). "The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness".
- Social Research. 62 (3).
- ^ McMahan, Jeff (2002). The Ethics of Killing. Oxford University Press.
- PMID 15948329.
- ^ "The secret life of moody cows", John Webster.
- ^ Scully, Matthew. Dominion, St. Martin's Griffin, 2002, pp. 255–256.
- ^ Matheny, G., & Leahy, C. (2007). Farm-animal welfare, legislation, and trade. Law and contemporary problems, 325–358.
- ^ The Truth Behind The Labels: Farm Animal Welfare Standards and Labeling Practices Archived 6 January 2014 at the Wayback Machine Farm Sanctuary
- ISBN 978-1137471116.
- ISBN 978-0231151894.
- ^ ISBN 978-0199378128.
- ^ Dolsten, Josefin (7 October 2016). "Holocaust survivor likens treatment of livestock to Shoah". www.timesofisrael.com. Retrieved 27 December 2021.
- ^ Gatenby, Alex (23 May 2017). "Vegan Holocaust survivor wants to end the oppression of animals". www.standard.co.uk. Retrieved 27 December 2021.
- ^ Robinson, Nathan J. (17 January 2018). "Meat and the H-Word". Current Affairs. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
- ^ Narveson, Jan. Moral matters. Broadview Press, 1999, page140-141
- S2CID 189835510.
- ^ Natalie Angier (21 December 2009). "Sorry, Vegans: Brussels Sprouts Like to Live, Too". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 February 2017.
- ^ "No Face, but Plants Like Life Too", Carol Kaesuk Yoon, The New York Times
- ISBN 0-7425-3354-9.
- ^ a b "Can plants feel pain?". PETA. 7 July 2010. Retrieved 21 November 2021.
- ^ Dan W. Shike, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Driftless Region Beef Conference 2013 Beef Cattle Feed Efficiency
- ^ Singer, Peter (1975). Animal Liberation, A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals. New York: Random House.
- ^ "It's OK for vegans to eat oysters", Christopher Cox, 2010, Slate
- S2CID 22757046. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- ^ a b Steinfeld, Henning; Gerber, Pierre; Wassenaar, Tom; Castel, Vincent; Rosales, Mauricio; de Haan, Cees (2006), Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (PDF), Rome: FAO
- FAO. 7 May 2020. Retrieved 26 April 2022.
- Science. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
- PMID 26231772.
- ^ Smithers, Rebecca (5 October 2017). "Vast animal-feed crops to satisfy our meat needs are destroying planet". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 January 2018.
- ^ "Tackling climate change through livestock" (PDF). Retrieved 22 November 2019.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 April 2017. Retrieved 16 October 2015.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link) - PMID 28959823.
- hdl:11336/71342.
- ^ Gibbens, Sarah (16 January 2019). "Eating meat has 'dire' consequences for the planet, says report". National Geographic. Archived from the original on 17 January 2019. Retrieved 19 January 2019.
- ISBN 978-1137471116.
- ^ Devlin, Hannah (19 July 2018). "Rising global meat consumption 'will devastate environment'". The Guardian. Retrieved 2 October 2019.
- S2CID 49895246.
- ^ Dalton, Jane (26 August 2020). "Go vegetarian to save wildlife and the planet, Sir David Attenborough urges". The Independent. Retrieved 4 February 2021.
- ^ Kirby, Alex (16 August 2004). "Hungry world 'must eat less meat'". BBC News. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- ^ "Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk". unesdoc.unesco.org. Retrieved 22 November 2019.
- ^ "USDA ERS - Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997". United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. Archived from the original on 6 May 2014. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- ^ "Allan Savory: Holistic Management: A New Framework for Decision Making." Thomas J. Elpel's Green University--Our Mission: To Change the World. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 March 2016
- ^ "U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat". Cornell Chronicle. Cornell University. 7 August 1997. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- . Retrieved 6 July 2015.
- ^ Bost, Jay (3 May 2012). "The Ethicist Contest Winner: Give Thanks for Meat". The New York Times (editorial).
- ^ Bost, Jay (3 May 2012). "Give Thanks for Meat". The New York Times. Retrieved 7 April 2013.
- ^ 長谷部, 恵理 (2006). "江戸期における「肉」と「肉食」に関する一考察". 危機と文化: 札幌大学文化学部文化学会紀要. 8. Retrieved 27 March 2021.
- ^ "Japan's hidden caste of untouchables". BBC. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
- ISBN 4-582-84147-3.
- ^ S2CID 143234462.
- ^ "Animals and Ethics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. University of Tennessee. 2 August 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- ^ "The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin - Chapter 4". Earlyamerica.com. 27 February 2007. Retrieved 27 March 2011.
- ^ Carrington, Damian (6 July 2020). "Coronavirus: world treating symptoms, not cause of pandemics, says UN". The Guardian. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- PMID 29155664.
- ^ Enjoli, Audrey (19 March 2020). "What Is Meat's Role In Antibiotic Resistance?". LIVEKINDLY. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- ^ a b Rogers, Kaleigh (15 September 2016). "Vegans, You're Contributing to Antibiotic Resistance, Too". Vice. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- ^ Washington, Michael; Majchrowicz (29 March 2021). "PolitiFact - Moby's claim there would be 'no pandemics' if world were vegans ignores important context". PolitiFact. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- ^ MacBride, Katie (24 March 2021). "Does eating meat cause pandemics?". Inverse. Retrieved 12 February 2022.
- ^ "Should we all be vegetarians?". Time. 2 July 2002. Archived from the original on 19 March 2007. Retrieved 14 June 2010.
- S2CID 52219428.
- SSRN 1253172.
- ^ Bobier, Christopher. "Should Moral Vegetarians Avoid Eating Vegetables?." Food Ethics 5, no. 1-2 (2020): 1.
- ^ ISBN 9781590133446.
- ^ "Ethical Reasons to Give Up Dairy Products". dummies. Retrieved 12 May 2019.
- PMID 25834298.
- ^ a b c d Vegetarian Society. "Dairy Cows & Welfare". Archived from the original on 6 May 2013. Retrieved 18 October 2012.
- ^ Desaulniers, Élise (2013). Vache à lait: dix mythes de l'industrie laitière (in French). Editions Stanké, Québec. Archived from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
- ^ Wolfson, D. J. (1996). Beyond the law: Agribusiness and the systemic abuse of animals raised for food or food production Animal L., 2, 123.
- S2CID 41783559.
- S2CID 88880569.
- ^ Meseret, S. (2016). "A review of poultry welfare in conventional production system". Livestock Research for Rural Development. 28 (12).
- ^ Vegetarian Society. "Egg Production & Welfare". Archived from the original on 16 March 2018. Retrieved 18 October 2012.
- ISSN 0889-048X.
External links
- A Dissertation on the Voluntary Eating of Blood: An 18th-century justification of the eating of meat. Rare WZ 260 D626 1745. Digitized copy hosted by the UCLA Digital Library.
- The moral basis of vegetarianism (1959) e-book by Mahatma Gandhi
- The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh-Eating by Howard Williams M.A. (1837–1931)