And you make many totally fair points, Tristen – several I need to pay close attention to. Thank you, for discussing this intelligently and reasonably. I hate when these things spiral into total negativity and judgment. I’m sorry if anything I’ve said has appeared that way (or has downright BEEN that way), or hasn’t been qualified carefully enough as a personal view.

Humans are adapted to be able to eat meat. Yes. 100%, we CAN eat it. The ability to derive nutrients from many food sources has probably been a great evolutionary advantage for humans – it likely allowed us to survive in the pre-civilized times, in a variety of environments.

So, you’re right, me saying we have digestive systems closer to those of herbivores isn’t proof that we should eat that way. Just because I do have a digestive tract that resembles a herbivore’s doesn’t mean I need to eat that way, because it IS possible for me to eat another way. While I think the many resemblances we have to herbivores that are in direct contradiction to carnivores are important, they are really not “THE” defining point. I shouldn’t have made it sound like they were. To me, it is sort of like, “Well… LOOK at us. We look just like herbivores, so that’s probably best for us!” but you’re right in saying that’s not proof. It’s not.

The “proof” then would come not from a comparison of what our innards look like, but from defining what “best” means for a species in terms of diet.

I would think a general agreement could be reached by saying, “Which way of eating leads to longer lives coupled with higher quality of life (i.e. less diseases/chronic conditions that shorten life), and a sustainable environment in which to live?”

*I* would think that would work as a universal goal of a species – to have longer, healthier lives via a diet that prevents disease and that will make the landscape of Earth habitable for a longer time. That would seem like success to me.

Basing it on THAT (which I’ll readily admit you or others may not agree with), I think scientific studies have shown that a vegan/vegetarian (henceforth I’ll say veg*n to shorten it up!) lifestyle is a great way to go, and is better than eating as an omnivore.

There are countless studies on this sort of thing, though more are always needed! I’ll give a few examples. For one thing, these studies are not new. The Oxford Vegetarian Study was done back in the 1980s and there was a 12-year follow up which showed that death rates in the veg*n groups were lower for ALL mortality endpoints they studied (including various heart diseases and cancer) and had a few interesting health benefits as well (for instance, veg*ns had half the risk of meat-eaters of needing emergency emergency appendectomies). Here’s one about current disease… “A low-fat vegan diet and a conventional diabetes diet in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled, 74-wk clinical trial” (Am J Clin Nutr 89: 1588S-1596S, 2009). This study showed that a low-fat vegan diet was superior in improving glycemia and plasma lipids among diabetics. So that is one example of a vegan diet improving a current medical condition above and beyond what adherence to the medically recommended diabetic diet can do.

The most sweeping collection of science about eating animal products and links to diseases including (but not limited to) a dozen forms of cancer, obesity, brain diseases, diabetes, and autoimmune diseases, is probably the China Project. (There is a book that discusses these findings called The China Study.) The New York Times has called it “the Grand Prix” of epidemiological studies. And while it faces criticism (as virtually every statistically driven study does), I think there are valuable points to be taken away from it.

I haven’t read Eat To Live, but I hear it’s a good one as well. The author doesn’t specifically call for a vegan diet or anything, but his book is well cited and compiles information about how lowering the consumption of animal products is better for human health.

The other thing, the “environment” thing… Is more straightforward, I think. The amount of water that goes into creating meat DRASTICALLY outweighs the amount of water that goes into making any plant product. Water figures are all over the internet, and are easily found on google. (I’ll have to go look this up again, but as far as I can remember, when you use the concept of “virutal water” – meaning the water that goes into making, refining, transporting, etc. something (oh, and, this concept of virtual water is an interesting one in general, and was put forth by John Anthony Allan in the early 90s. He also won the Stockholm Water Prize from the Stockholm International Water Institute) – anyway, when you talk about virtual water, for every gallon of water used to make wheat, we get about 28 calories worth of food. However, for every gallon of water used to make beef, we get less than a single calorie – about three-quarters of a calorie.) The water issues on the planet are very, very important and frequently ignored. I was just listening to a discussion about it on NPR. Water is crucial, it’s a worsening issue, and we waste SO much of it by producing and consuming meat.

Also, of course, the greenhouse gasses emitted that are more than all transportation combined -that are detailed by the UN report, Livestock’s Long Shadow.

With the health benefits and the environmental benefits that have been scientifically studied, I feel confident saying the optimum human diet would not include meat, or would include very, very little.

However, there is one personal point that prevents me from taking the “very, very little” route or even from being a lacto-ovo vegetarian who only buys from small farms. And it comes down to the word “humane.” Ethically, I am simply uncomfortable killing or exploiting an animal without any NEED to do so.

I know people argue back and forth about the humane and inhumane methods of killing animals. There are people who will say that NO killing can be humane, but I’m not one of those people. For instance, if my dog gets too old and sick to have any quality of life, I believe getting a vet to euthanize her IS humane. However, I suppose I view humane to be tied to NECESSITY. And, when it comes to killing animals, I think necessity even takes precedence over humane. (Eg. If a rabid fox attacked me in the woods, I will not be looking for the most humane way to kill the animal – I will be looking for the quickest way because it is totally necessary that I kill this animal and kill it now!)

I think many people in many countries CAN adopt vegetarian or vegan lifestyles without compromising their health. (Some can’t, and that’s different. They have TRUE need for animal products and I wouldn’t in a million years suggest they try vegetarianism or anything.) I also think the more people who are able to who DO will promote the idea and it will become a viable option for even larger amounts of people as it gains popularity. The American Dietetic Association approves it as well saying,” appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”

The days of thinking a vegetarian or vegan is an unhealthy diet are (medically) over for the most part, and people actually agree that many health benefits come from it. The average person might still wonder how it can possibly be maintained, of course. (I think the idea of meat eggs and milk being necessary is an easy one to have. The meat, egg, and milk industries exist to sell themselves. Of COURSE they are going to promote themselves through advertisement which will make them appear totally necessary in your life. Every company does that! And a few lucky ones, like milk, eggs, meat, pharmaceutical companies, certain lawyers, etc. get to prey DIRECTLY on humans through their basic human needs.)

Anyway, it’s supported by much research that a well-rounded veg*n diet is healthy and it’s gaining popular support. (I just read an article today that Compass Food Groups – the world’s largest food service company – is promoting “flexitarian” eating. Basically, people actively incorporating veggie days/meals into their lives. So Compass will be offering many meat-free meals now. It’s gaining ground as a responsible choice.)

The point here, for me, is that it is clear that I do not NEED animal products as food or clothing to survive. (I may, however, need them medically, and that’s a whole different conversation!) But, by my own understanding of the concept of humane, I can’t call the killing or exploitation of ANY animal for food “humane” because it is not, in any way, necessary. Killing or exploiting can be humane. But needless killing/exploiting doesn’t ever qualify as humane in my head.

That is obviously a very personal view, and I don’t think people have to agree with me there. It’s just how I see it.

And thankfully, these days? It doesn’t take a lot of work at all to maintain a balanced diet without animal products. Thirty or forty years ago? Yes, it was much worse. I think the dedication there would be pretty intense, and I applaud those people too. But there is no need to applaud the vegans of today for their work at maintaining a balanced diet. These days everyone is encouraged to take a multi-vitamin no matter what their diet is, so I do that (and have long before becoming vegan). The substitutes for milk, yogurt, and meat contain plenty of calcium, iron, B12, and complete proteins. The only work comes from sorting through the animal products used in convenience foods. In fact, to AVOID that work, I have cooked more at home and frozen meals for easier eating without the “What the heck is L-cysteine???” issues.

Lastly, as a thank you… Thinking about your point about me using language that asserts that my view is incontrovertible… Yes, that is valid. I think it comes from the fact that many people I’ve spoke to are not only hesitant to accept that meat eating might not be the best choice, they are (often) downright nasty about it. Not everyone is, of course, but enough are that I have started coming at this with a harsher approach than is appropriate. And thank you, to you (and to Impy) for being among the open-minded. I value that a lot, and it’s worth thinking about how I talk about things so I don’t alienate open-minded people. I don’t want to give vegans a bad name!