# Need Fact-Based or Solid Rational Reasons Against Ethical Vegetarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 7, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416 "2012-06-07T19:03:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![gms453](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@gms453](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gms453)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2013, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/101 "2013-01-13T23:38:38Z")
Next time your “friend” gets preachy: roll your eyes, shake your head and order a hot dog. If he doesn’t take the hint, suggest he may want to start looking for people who recognize just how special he is. Life is too short to waste on pompeous asses. ---
**Author:** ![orthohedron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ba8739/32.png) [@orthohedron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/orthohedron)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/102 "2013-01-14T00:09:45Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > My main response to the ethical vegetarian’s argument: “I don’t care” I agree as long as soylent green isn’t on the menu pass the A-1. Keeping religion out of it, humans are animals of the mammal variety. Other animals eat meat all the time, so why is ok for them but not for us? As long as we aren’t killing meat for sport, all game should be fair game. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/103 "2013-01-14T14:14:21Z")
There are [perfectly good and tasty pastries that are totally Vegan](http://www.vegantreats.com/). Tell your friend to stop pussyfooting around with hypocrisy and do the right thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ferret\_Herder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e47774/32.png) [@Ferret\_Herder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ferret_Herder)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/104 "2013-01-14T14:29:13Z")
The OP asked for advice several months ago, so hopefully she’s shut up his preaching by now. (And I say that as a non-proselytizing vegetarian.) ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/105 "2013-01-14T20:14:18Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Beware unsourced graphics. > > [MMWR Report 1971 to 2000](http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5304a3.htm). Graphs on the site. > [Since then:](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db49.htm) > > Not sure where that graph got its information but there does not seem to have actually been any explosion of fat intake in 1999. I found the graph in [this blog post](http://www.graphoftheweek.org/2012/06/body-weight-in-united-states-part-3.html) (Graph of the Week), it doesn’t give any sources but [this source](http://www.endotext.org/obesity/obesity7.2/obesity7-2.html) seems to confirm what the graph shows with respect to fats, sweeteners and grains, including the big jump in added fats around 2000 (whether that is real or not, the magnitude reported here is less than the 31% jump you cite, there is not much question that people are eating more now than they used to): > [@](#): > > In 2000 the average daily calorie consumption was 12 percent, or approximately 300 kcal, more than that consumed in 1985 (25). Of that 300 kcal increase, grains (mostly refined) accounted for 46%; added fats, 24%; added sugars, 23%; fruits and vegetables, 8%; and meat and dairy consumption declined 1%… > > …However, between 1997 and 2000, consumption of added fats rose dramatically, jumping 16% from 56 to 61 g per day on average, which was in addition to the fat that occurs naturally in foods (25)… > > …Another major change in the American diet over the past 30 years is the consumption of refined sugars. The per capita consumption of all refined sugars in the United States in 1970 was 55.5 kg, and by 2000 this number rose to 69.1 kg (28). In any case, considering that the RDA for total fat is 65 grams, added fats alone nearly equal that value, leaving room for only a few grams of fat from other foods (some processed foods can also have a lot of saturated fat, much more in terms of percent of total fat than many natural foods, and of course trans fat); similarly, added sugars accounted for 189 grams per day of carbs (out of 300) in 2000. Actually, this data suggests that things are even worse than the graph I posted, since 189 grams of sugar has 757 calories, and 61 grams of fat 549 calories, for a total of 1,306 calories a day from added fats and sugars, about 30% more than the graph (the discrepancy is mainly sugar). ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/106 "2013-01-14T20:40:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Some more stats on [American meat consumption](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/). > I’d love to see processed meat intake broken out further than its percent (22%) of total intake. Any trend over time? This is also something I’d like to see too, since some recent studies indicate that processed meat is a major risk factor for heart disease, with a whopping 40+% increase in risk from eating just 2 ounces a day according to the study cited [here](http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20100517/processed-meat-linked-to-heart-disease-risks), which is a very significant increase considering how common heart disease is, as opposed to a similar increase for some obscure disease that affects only one in 100,000 people (also, no link was found for unprocessed meat, and red meat at that; of course, the article notes that this isn’t an excuse to eat a big steak every day). [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_nitrite#Nitrosamines) also cites a significant drop in gastric cancer following changes in meat curing practices (less nitrites, but not completely eliminated). Which is to say, any study that examines the risk of disease between meat-eaters and vegetarians will be unfairly biased against meat-eaters unless processed meat is factored in, and even then, I’m sure that people who eat (unprocessed) meat have a lower risk of certain diseases even as they have a higher risk of others, just as the overall advantage of dairy appears to be [positive](http://www.jacn.org/content/27/6/723S.abstract) (note that both of the studies mentioned here were based on analysis of many other studies, thus are much more likely to be reliable). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/107 "2013-01-14T22:05:14Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > I found the graph in [this blog post](http://www.graphoftheweek.org/2012/06/body-weight-in-united-states-part-3.html) (Graph of the Week), it doesn’t give any sources but [this source](http://www.endotext.org/obesity/obesity7.2/obesity7-2.html) seems to confirm what the graph shows with respect to fats, sweeteners and grains, including the big jump in added fats around 2000 (whether that is real or not, the magnitude reported here is less than the 31% jump you cite, there is not much question that people are eating more now than they used to): Unfortunately I can’t get to their references so the identity of source 25 is a mystery - sort of. They state “according to food availability data.” [Here is a link](http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system.aspx) to the actual data set - click on food type, such as fats, to get to a series of spreadsheets. The jump was 1999, _available_ added fats increasing from 46.9 g/d to 57.9g/d in one, when reporting standards changed. Also note - if added fat was 24% of the increase, and baseline was 32 to 36% of calories from fat, then there was a lesser percent of fat as a total of the diet. > [@](#): > > In any case, considering that the RDA for total fat is 65 grams, added fats alone nearly equal that value, leaving room for only a few grams of fat from other foods (some processed foods can also have a lot of saturated fat, much more in terms of percent of total fat than many natural foods, and of course trans fat); similarly, added sugars accounted for 189 grams per day of carbs (out of 300) in 2000. > > Actually, this data suggests that things are even worse than the graph I posted, since 189 grams of sugar has 757 calories, and 61 grams of fat 549 calories, for a total of 1,306 calories a day from added fats and sugars, about 30% more than the graph (the discrepancy is mainly sugar). Again, those actually are available fats, not what is actually consumed. Fine for trending if appropriately interpreted, but not reflective of intake. We [waste a lo](http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/22/40-of-u-s-food-wasted-report-says/)t of what we have available. (How about just an examination of the ethics of that? The vegan who insists on the cosmetically perfect fruit or vegetable?) RDA for fat is about 30% of total daily energy intake (which comes to 65 g for a 2000 KCal diet). Under 10% of energy intake from saturated fat is officially advised. Indeed, per the survey data, Americans are overshooting those numbers but really not by much and the trend relative to those as goals has been improving since 1971. The problem is that they are slices out of bigger pies. Mind you, I am not disagreeing with your point: too many of our calories are coming from junk, and if we were not eating junk we would be much less likely to overeat so much. Junk appeals by being sweet, salty, fatty, and calorie dense. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2013, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/108 "2013-01-14T22:11:04Z")
> [@orthohedron](#): > > I agree as long as soylent green isn’t on the menu pass the A-1. If Soylent Green IS on the menu, we’re going to need lots of A-1. Have you ever actually TASTED that stuff? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416.md?page=5)