Add another 5 pages

User Generated

7nef

Humanities

Description

follow the same information on the previous request and add another 5 pages on the same assignment.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Surname 1 Name Instructor Course Date Why We Are Against the People Whom Are Not Vegan Most of the consumers worldwide have shown great concern in the safety of the food they consume, the animal welfare as well as the impact of animal production on the environment and individual health. Vegans are the people who do not consume food that has been processed using animal products like eggs, meat and milk and any other animal ingredients. Various controversies have risen in regards to animal agriculture. The escalating food demands in the U.S have shown to expose controversies on environmental pressures. In the U.S the constantly escalating consumption of beef has been reported to be the driving factor of food-born GHG emissions, reduction of water quality and land occupation in the country’s diet. There have been proposed environmental benefits of substituting beef with equivalent plant-diets. Additionally, some have associated consumption of processed meat with health risks like cancer. Therefore, people are against the non-vegans based on claims that consumption of animal products, and especially beef causes environmental degradation, risks people’s health by causing cancer, and shows a lack of empathy and moral concern for animals. Most of vegans are against the non-vegans claiming that meat and other animal products cause environmental degradation. Goldstein et al. assert that the environmental footprint that is associated with food in the United States is among the leading in the world per capita and is Surname 2 significantly driven by animal-sourced food products (13). For instance, “beef has been reported to be the highest environmentally taxed in the normalized and sector per unit mass in the total global impacts” (Goldstein et al. 14). It has been listed as the chief driver of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions through deforestation and enteric fermentation, usage of water through feed irrigation and hydration as well as the land occupation on the rangelands. Based on the fact that beef in the U.S is the staple food it opens an opportunity to diminish the environmental effects of the food consumption in U.S. The environmental hotspots that the vegans have always been concerned about in the U.S include biodiversity, climate, the quality of water that is put at risk through soil erosion due to overgrazing and feed crop production and the direct GHG emissions from management of manure and enteric fermentation (Goldstein et al. 15). Vegans have also been concerned about the high costs of raising animals including the required protein mass and energy in their feeds than is produced in the end products (meat). Hall et al. argue about the high cost of red meat in South Africa (325). They contend that the “environmental intensity of that would be significantly lowered by use of the crops or plants that are not apt for humans” (Hall et al. 326). The beef production in the U.S has also been reported to employ high-quality feed as well as concentrated feeding operations of an approximate stock of 97% which further escalate the costs (Hall et al. 330). They have argued that intro- methods or technologies would be employed to produce plant-diets that have an equal amount of nutrients as the animal products. This as they contend would help in curbing the environmental burden caused by beef and animal product consumption. For instance, they have suggested that “the plant-based burger (PBB) would be used as a substitute for the ground beef to help in reduction of GHG emissions” (Goldstein et al. 336). Surname 3 Nevertheless, these early studies have only revealed theoretical finding that the technologies would produce the beef substitutes at the environmental and resource costs that are a fraction of the traditional beef (Goldstein et al. 17). Therefore, the approaches or deemed technologies hardly represent practical commercial operations that are market-ready where most realistic environmental gains (short-term and long-term) exist. For instance, very few studies have addressed a complete life cycle of inputs as well as downstream processing that is agricultural-related while the existing studies were performed on a bench-scale in-vitro approach. Goldstein et al. assert that “there is a very narrow portfolio of food that would be practically or realistically be considered as a plant-based correspondent to the grounds beef” (15). Moreover, two of the studies on the in-vitro cultured meat production depending on the estimates for production inputs show that there are barely any published environmental assessments that apply primary data exist. Lastly, these hypothetical impacts of the plant-diet substitution at the U.S aggregate level have remained unknown. People are against the non-vegans with claims that it is a risk to their health, whereby processed meat or red meat risks colorectal cancer (CRC). Pietrzyk brings out that, “consumptions of diets with high energy including red meat, foods that have concentrated glycemic indexes such as carbohydrates and those rich in omega-6 PUFAs that tends to cause an imbalance in the ratio of omega-6 PUFAs to omega-3 PUFAs have been associated with high risks of colorectal cancer” (2323). However, the non-vegans have argued that consumption of plants white meat and fish oil that are rich in omega-3 PUFAs tends to reduce the prevalence of the disease while high consumption of dietary fibre also reduces the CRC prevalence by 50% (Pietrzyk 2325). Surname 4 Nordqvist also argues that being a vegan is associated with the key benefits (48). For instance, reduced consumption of animal products lowers animal fat in the body and lowering the risks of diseases like cancer. Additionally, she claims that being vegan improves heart and bone health and protects against chronic diseases. Vegan is associated with higher benefits that support positive growth as well as a healthy living (Pietrzyk 50). Additionally, Vinnari and Vinnari found out that the Food and Agricultural Organizations have stressed on the current definition of sustainable plant-diets with reference to environmental, economic cultural and social factors. “Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessible, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy” (Nordqvist 376). However, Ruxton has claimed that there are limited data and research concerning the correlation between colorectal cancer and consumption of red meat (41). Additionally, he has argued that “the consumption of processed meat could be regulated to bring out positive results” (Ruxton 44). For instance, patients could consume processed meat to improve their healthy diet and balanced diets, such as the recommended 500g every week by the UK government (Ruxton 45). That means moderate consumption of processed meat would be healthy. Another reason why people are against non-vegans because they associate them with lack of empathy and moral rights for the animals. Some of the activists, for instance, reduce protection of animals to animal welfare and excludes the perception of animal rights which stresses that human should not utilize animals for any purposes using slogans like, “Go vegetarian and save the world" (Van Ryssen 229). Animal advocates who are mainly vegans show persistent apathy to the moral harms the animals face (230). They recommend a remedy of showing empathy as well as promoting the human moral psychology. Some studies show a Surname 5 positive correlation between empathy and the animals’ moral concern (Van Ryssen 230). These studies bring out that possessing a higher empathy capacity leads to better animal treatment. A research by Kasperbauer refutes the claims asserting that, “a higher degree of empathy leads to an increased concern for animal welfare, loving and protection of animals” (817). Vegans have been associated with enhanced empathy construing the argument that it makes them care more about animals. Additionally, vegans contend that “empathy towards animals also depicts one’s empathy towards human beings and cruelty towards them depicts equivalent cruelty to people as well” (Kasperbauer 816). They contended that some people tend to choose animal products and the types of meat to consume based on their religious and ethical backgrounds. Besides the various governments have taken a point of ensuring the public on the safety and health of the food they consume by ensuring the animals are not ill-treated. There are bodies established to work as watchdogs to ensure animals rights are followed as well as contribute towards a healthy and positive livestock industry, for instance, the animal welfare organizations like Animal Feed Manufacturers Association (Van Ryssen 230). Additionally, international organizations like the Food and Drug Administration have made food security and food safety their concern in guiding, protecting and policing both the trading and production of feeds and food worldwide (Van Ryssen 229). As Van Ryssen contends, “these regulations and policies are based on “scientific evidence rather than human emotions on what they believe to be ethical or unethical” (231). In conclusion, people are against the non-vegans based on claims that consumption of animal products, and especially beef causes environmental degradation, risks people’s health by Surname 6 causing cancer, alongside the moral concerns for animals. Vegans argue that meat consumption degrades the environment through emission of GHG like methane in manure and reducing the quality of water by overgrazing and crop production (Goldstein et al. 15). Besides, they contend that raising and maintaining animals for instance by buying feeds, manure management and storage is costly as compared to their end products. As a result, the vegans have come up with suggestions of producing plant-diets that have an equivalent amount of nutrients or proteins as animal products such as the plant-based burger. However, these claims have been deemed impractical as there is hardly any empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of plant-diet substitution for beef (Goldstein et al. 17). Additionally, two of the studies on the in-vitro cultured meat production depending on the estimates for production inputs have revealed that there are barely any published environmental assessments that apply primary data exist. Second, processed meat or red meat alongside other animal products have been associated with the risk of colorectal cancer. To counter the argument studies have shown that moderate consumption of the red meat would cause a healthy and balanced diet for the patients. Again, there has been limited empirical evidence to prove the correlation between colorectal cancer and red meat consumption (Pietrzyk 2323). Lastly, vegans have claimed that consumption of animal products depicts lack of empathy for the animals and therefore non-ethical. However, Van Ryssen’s study has rejected the argument claiming that all types of food are tested for safety and to ensure animals are hardly ill-treated (230). Surname 7 Works Cited Goldstein, Benjamin, et al. “Potential to Curb the Environmental Burdens of American Beef Consumption Using a Novel Plant-Based Beef Substitute.” Plos One, vol. 12, no. 12, 2017, pp. 1–17., web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=1b52fe778d82-40af-aad0-d0aa654a2562@pdc-v-sessmgr05. Accessed 29 Sept. 2018. Hall, N., et al. “Changes in the Composition of South African Red Meat.” South African Journal of Animal Science, vol. 45, no. 3, 2015, pp. 325–338., web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=d68484d9-1316-4eca8518-8b734a62b275@sessionmgr120. Kasperbauer, T. J. “Rejecting Empathy for Animal Ethics.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 18, no. 4, 2014, pp. 817–833., web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=e55a892c-593b-4badb217-37c857417dbd@pdc-v-sessmgr04. Accessed 29 Sept. 2018. Nordqvist, Christian. “What to Know about Eating Vegan.” 15 Nov. 2017, www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/149636.php. Pietrzyk, Łukasz. “Food Properties and Dietary Habits in Colorectal Cancer Prevention and Development.” International Journal of Food Properties, vol. 20, no. 10, 2017, pp. 2323–2343., web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=d0c6e92e- ff9f-42d2-9f56-238b20533574@pdc-v-sessmgr05. Accessed 29 Sept. 2018. Ruxton, Carrie. “The Role of Red Meat in a Balanced Diet.” Nursing Standard, vol. 26, no. 7, 2011, pp. 41–48., Surname 8 web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=0be6761b-8cae-4991-bf72c463d4c348df@sessionmgr120. Ryssen, J.B.J Van. “A Balanced Perspective on Animal Production, from Environment to Human Health: Editorial.” South African Journal of Animal Science, vol. 43, no. 3, 2013, pp. 229–231., web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=817b7bc21f91-4347-8512-af195af038dd@pdc-v-sessmgr05. Vinnari, Markus, and Eija Vinnari. “A Framework for Sustainability Transition: The Case of Plant-Based Diets.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 27, no. 3, 2013, pp. 369–396., web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=cf1e4af1-879d-4a96-b4aec5856f1219ab@pdc-v-sessmgr03. Guidelines for final argument or 11 pages long 10 (1 at least 12 sources, including 1 print source book (10 (2 points), 1 print source periodical (magazine, journal, newspaper) (10 points), and 1 Primary Research- to (be discussed in class 10/29 !! (20 points otherwise, focus on the comments I made on your (3 !!!midterm argument. If you need help, ask Don't forget to include the URL for all your internet sources in Works (1 Cited (even if the MLA style doesn't ask for it, put it at the end of your Works Cited citation). If I look for the source, and can't find it, You will get !!points deducted When you read over your paper, if you notice any factual material that (2 !!isn't documented, find a source for it!! If not, it constitutes plagiarism Make sure every text cite has a Works Cited entry, and vice versa, or (3 !!otherwise, it will be partial plagiarism Make sure all direct quotes are cited properly: 4 lines or less in lote (4 marks, punctuation after the citation; 5 or more lines in block quote, with no quote marks, and punctuation before the citation, and indented 10 spaces. Make sure all in-text cites have page or !!paragraph numbers .Alphabetize the citations in Works Cited (5 Indent the 2nd and all subsequent lines of each Works Cited citation 5 (6 .spaces Double space every line in the entire paper. Use size 12 font only, (7 !!throughout. 1" margins on every side, including bottom Number every page of your paper. If you are in doubt about the (8 formatting of your paper, see the guidelines in Purdue OWL http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/. If you are in doubt about the formatting of the Works Cited page, see the Lguidelines on http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/05
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Surname 1

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Why We Are Against the People Whom Are Not Vegan
Most of the consumers worldwide have shown great concern in the safety of the food
they consume, the animal welfare as well as the impact of animal production on the environment
and individual health. Vegans are the people who do not consume food that has been processed
using animal products like eggs, meat and milk and any other animal ingredients. Various
controversies have risen in regards to animal agriculture. The escalating food demands in the U.S
have shown to expose controversies on environmental pressures. In the U.S the constantly
escalating consumption of beef has been reported to be the driving factor of food-born GHG
emissions, reduction of water quality and land occupation in the country’s diet. There have been
proposed environmental benefits of substituting beef with equivalent plant-diets. Additionally,
some have associated consumption of processed meat with health risks like cancer. Therefore,
people are against the non-vegans based on claims that consumption of animal products, and
especially beef causes environmental degradation, risks people’s health by causing cancer, and
shows a lack of empathy and moral concern for animals.
Most of vegans are against the non-vegans claiming that meat and other animal products
cause environmental degradation. Goldstein et al. assert that the environmental footprint that is
associated with food in the United States is among the leading in the world per capita and is

Surname 2

significantly driven by animal-sourced food products (13). For instance, “beef has been reported
to be the highest environmentally taxed in the normalized and sector per unit mass in the total
global impacts” (Goldstein et al. 14). It has been listed as the chief driver of GHG (greenhouse
gas) emissions through deforestation and enteric fermentation, usage of water through feed
irrigation and hydration as well as the land occupation on the rangelands. Based on the fact that
beef in the U.S is the staple food it opens an opportunity to diminish the environmental effects of
the food consumption in U.S. The environmental hotspots that the vegans have always been
concerned about in the U.S include biodiversity, climate, the quality of water that is put at risk
through soil erosion due to overgrazing and feed crop production and the direct GHG emissions
from management of manure and enteric fermentation (Goldstein et al. 15).
Vegans have also been concerned about the high costs of raising animals including the
required protein mass and energy in their feeds than is produced in the end products (meat). Hall
et al. argue about the high cost of red meat in South Africa (325). They contend that the
“environmental intensity of that would be significantly lowered by use of the crops or plants that
are not apt for humans” (Hall et al. 326). The beef production in the U.S has also been reported
to employ high-quality feed as well as concentrated feeding operations of an approximate stock
of 97% which further escalate the costs (Hall et al. 330). They have argued that intro- methods or
technologies would be employed to produce plant-diets that have an equal amount of nutrients as
the animal products. This as they contend would help in curbing the environmental burden
caused by beef and animal product consumption. For instance, they have suggested that “the
plant-based burger (PBB) would be used as a substitute for the ground beef to help in reduction
of GHG emissions” (Goldstein et al. 336).

Surname 3

Nevertheless, these early studies have only revealed theoretical finding that the
technologies would produce the beef substitutes at the environmental and resource costs that are
a fraction of the traditional beef (Goldstein et al. 17). Therefore, the approaches or deemed
technologies hardly represent practical commercial operations that are market-ready where most
realistic environmental gains (short-term and long-term) exist. For instance, very few studies
have addressed a complete life cycle of inputs as well as downstream processing that is
agricultural-related while the existing studies were performed on a bench-scale in-vitro approach.
Goldstein et al. assert that “there is a very narrow portfolio of food that would be practically or
realistically be considered as a plant-based correspondent to the grounds beef” (15). Moreover,
two of the studies on the in-vitro cultured meat production depending on the estimates for
production inputs show that there are barely any published environmental assessments that apply
primary data exist. Lastly, these hypothetical impacts of the plant-diet substitution at the U.S
aggregate level have remained unknown.
People are against the non-vegans with claims that it is a risk to their health, whereby
processed meat or red meat risks colorectal cancer (CRC). Pietrzyk brings out that,...


Anonymous
Really helped me to better understand my coursework. Super recommended.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags