Veganism Vs Carnivore: Which Diet Kills More Animals?

The question of whether veganism or carnivorism is more ethical has been a topic of debate for years. Some argue that veganism is based on a naive assumption that it saves the world from animal cruelty. However, the reality is that a plant-based diet may result in the deaths of more animals than a meat-based one. This is due to the fact that farming crops for vegan diets can lead to the destruction of animals living in the soil and the use of pesticides, which are harmful to insects and other wildlife. Additionally, the large-scale production of certain vegan food items, such as almond milk, can have unintended consequences on bee populations.

On the other hand, supporters of veganism argue that the majority of meat consumed is grain-fed, which requires an insane amount of crops and places the additional death of field animals on top of the toll of direct deaths by meat-eaters. They also point out that meat-eaters are not excluded from consuming grains and that not all vegans base their diets on grain products. Furthermore, the ethical weight of the suffering and cruelty inflicted on farm animals, such as branding, dehorning, and castration, is often neglected in these discussions.

The number of animals killed to produce one million calories in eight food categories

Firstly, it is important to acknowledge that the idea of veganism causing more animal deaths than a meat-based diet has been a subject of controversy. This notion has been used as a justification for meat consumption and has added uncertainty to the ethical debate surrounding dietary choices. To address this, estimates and calculations have been made to determine the number of animals killed during the production of one million food calories across eight different categories. These categories include beef, pork, chicken, eggs, dairy, fruits, vegetables, and grains.

The results of these estimations suggest that a diet inclusive of animal products will inevitably result in more animal deaths compared to a plant-based diet containing the same number of calories. Among the food categories, chicken meat production leads to the highest number of animal deaths, followed by eggs. It is worth noting that the majority of animals killed for pork are raised on factory farms, where they endure painful procedures and inhumane living conditions.

When it comes to beef, the number of animals killed may be lower than pork, but it is important to consider the suffering endured by wild animals in the process of harvesting crops to feed the cattle. Additionally, cattle grazing has been associated with negative environmental impacts, including soil erosion, reduced tree seedling survival, and loss of species diversity.

Dairy products, although resulting in a relatively smaller number of animal deaths, entail significant suffering for the cows involved. They are repeatedly inseminated to produce milk, and their calves are taken away, causing trauma for both mother and calf. Dairy cows also often undergo tail docking and suffer from mastitis infections.

On the other hand, the production of fruits, vegetables, and grains does not require the direct killing of any animals. However, there may be some wild animals unintentionally harmed during large-scale planting and harvesting processes. The available data on this topic is limited, and further research is needed to fully understand the impact on wild animal populations.

In conclusion, when considering the number of animals killed to produce one million calories in eight food categories, it is evident that a vegan diet results in the fewest animal deaths. For those aiming to reduce animal suffering and death, eliminating chicken and eggs from their diet would be a significant step, with the most substantial impact achieved by adopting a completely vegan lifestyle.

The impact of pesticides and insecticides on human health

Pesticides are used to control pests such as insects, rodents, fungi, and weeds. They are used in a variety of sectors, including food, forestry, agriculture, and aquaculture. They can be natural or chemically synthesized compounds.

Pesticides can have adverse effects on human health, including both short-term and long-term effects. Short-term effects include irritation of the nose, throat, and skin, causing burning, stinging, and itching, as well as rashes and blisters. They can also cause nausea, dizziness, and diarrhea.

Long-term health effects of pesticides include cancer, birth defects, reproductive harm, immunotoxicity, neurological and developmental toxicity, and disruption of the endocrine system. Children are more vulnerable to the toxic effects of pesticides, as their organs, nervous systems, and immune systems are still developing.

Some pesticides, such as organophosphates and carbamates, are like nerve gas and can interfere with nerve signal transmission. Pyrethroids are synthetic chemicals that are structurally similar to botanical compounds and are toxic to the nervous system. Soil fumigants are applied to the soil and can be toxic to humans living or working nearby.

The ethics of killing animals for food

The case for veganism

Proponents of veganism argue that a plant-based diet is more ethical because it minimises animal suffering and death. They believe that killing animals for food is unnecessary and that it is possible to obtain all the necessary nutrients from plant sources. Additionally, they argue that the meat industry is a major driver of environmental degradation, climate change, and species extinction. By reducing meat consumption, they believe we can minimise our impact on the planet and protect animal life.

The case for meat-eating

On the other hand, defenders of meat-eating argue that veganism is not as ethical as it seems. They claim that crop production for vegan diets results in the deaths of billions of animals, including rodents, snakes, birds, and insects. They also argue that meat-eating is a natural part of human evolution and that our ancestors relied on meat as a source of protein for brain development. Additionally, they claim that hunting wild animals for food is more ethical than factory farming and that it is not feasible for the entire human population to shift to a plant-based diet.

The complexities and limitations

Both sides of the debate have valid points, and it is important to recognise the complexities and limitations of each argument. While veganism may reduce the number of animals directly killed for food, it is true that crop production can also result in animal deaths. However, it is important to note that the majority of crop production is used to feed animals, not humans, so these deaths can also be attributed to the meat industry. Additionally, the scaling issues of meat production, especially factory farming, are significant, and it is not environmentally sustainable to raise enough animals to meet current meat consumption rates.

In conclusion, the ethics of killing animals for food is a complex issue that involves considerations of animal welfare, environmental impact, and human health. While both veganism and meat-eating have their limitations, it is clear that reducing meat consumption, especially from factory farms, can lead to a more ethical and sustainable food system.

The environmental impact of different diets

It is often assumed that veganism is the most environmentally-friendly diet. However, some people argue that veganism kills more animals and is therefore worse for the environment than a carnivorous diet. This claim has been made by various commentators, including Joe Rogan and Ted Nugent, and has been widely debunked.

The Argument

The argument is that, in the process of harvesting crops, vegan and vegetarian diets carry a higher body count and environmental cost than omnivorous diets. This is because the soil tilling process destroys all life in the soil, and farmers also use pesticides to kill insects, which are also harmful to human health.

The Counterargument

However, the majority of crops are used to feed livestock, so most of these deaths can be attributed to the meat industry. In the US, 67% of all crops are used for animal feed, and globally, 77% of agricultural land is used for producing meat. Therefore, non-vegans consume more than ten times the plant matter of vegans, compounding the deaths of meat animals with those of field animals.

Furthermore, pasture-raised livestock is not environmentally sustainable. While it is preferable to feedlots in many ways, it requires an incredible amount of space. In the US, 41% of all land is used for cattle farming, and transitioning to grass-fed beef would require 270% more land.

No diet is without negative implications for the environment and the animals that inhabit it. However, consuming less meat and using fewer animal products will always be better for the environment.

The nutritional value of different diets

The Vegan Diet

The vegan diet has gained popularity in recent years, especially among younger people. It has been associated with a reduced risk of cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. However, it has also been linked to adverse health outcomes, including nervous, skeletal, and immune system impairments, hematological disorders, and mental health problems. Vegans have a greater prevalence of mental health issues, which may lead to a poorer quality of life.

A well-planned vegan diet must include adequate calories and nutrients, as well as supplements such as vitamin B12, vitamin D, and EPA/DHA. Vitamin B12 deficiency is common among vegans, and it has been linked to neurologic and hematologic problems. Vegans also have greater iron needs than other diets, and they tend to have a zinc deficit.

Vegan diets are rich in dietary fiber, which has a range of physiological benefits, including the modulation of digestion, absorption of nutrients, and impact on gut microbiota.

The Carnivore Diet

The carnivore diet consists entirely of meat and animal products, excluding all other foods. It is a restrictive and likely unhealthy diet in the long term. It is claimed to aid weight loss, mood issues, and blood sugar regulation, but no research backs these claims.

The carnivore diet is high in fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and it may lead to excessive sodium intake, which has been linked to an increased risk of high blood pressure and kidney disease. It also lacks fiber, which is only found in plant foods, and beneficial plant compounds.

The carnivore diet may be especially problematic for certain populations, including those with chronic kidney disease, those who are cholesterol hyper-responders, and those with special nutrient needs, such as children, pregnant people, and those who are lactating.

Both the vegan and carnivore diets have their pros and cons when it comes to nutritional value. While the vegan diet may provide more variety and plant-based nutrients, it also has the potential to cause nutrient deficiencies. On the other hand, the carnivore diet may provide adequate protein and certain nutrients, but it lacks fiber and beneficial plant compounds, and it may be unsafe for some people.

Frequently asked questions