In a poll conducted by TIME magazine, ten million Americans identified themselves as vegetarians, while an additional twenty million claimed to have experimented with vegetarianism at some point (Corliss). Apparently, people subscribe to a vegetarian diets for a surprising number of reasons; one vegetarian invented an imaginary character as a child to help explain her distaste for meat-products to her family (Decker). According to Richard Corliss, the author of an article from TIME magazine entitled Should We All be Vegetarians?, vegetarianism is on the rise.
Corliss believes that as our knowledge of nutrition and disease continues to increase and our pressing environmental concerns continue to mount, contentious Americans looking for solutions will increasingly turn to a vegetarian diet in order to achieve better health, embrace responsible ethics, and contribute to the efforts for environmental conservation.
In his article, Corliss acknowledges that vegetarianism has become, "trendy." Throughout various issues of debate that he explores, Corliss repeatedly references the idea that the popularity of vegetarianism is not only prevalent among the young or successful, but that it also reflects a shift of sentiments in an increasingly aware and ethical society. Corliss does however punctuate his article by mentioning of a variety of celebrity vegetarians including, " the rock star Moby and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich." Corliss strategically utilizes the impact that Hollywood has on the American public; his piece even concludes with a quote from vegetarian television icon Mary Tyler Moore: "It may take a while, but there will probably come a time when we look back and say, 'Good Lord, do you believe that in the 20th century and early part of the 21st, people were still eating animals?'"
Emma Decker, author of another article, Becoming a Vegetarian, prefers to adopt a position of neutrality stating, "I do not have an opinion on whether or not it's a good choice to become a vegetarian. Both sides have their pros and cons." Ironically, Decker makes this proclamation after having rattled off an imposing list of the meat-related diseases and health conditions she avoids as a vegetarian. Corliss elaborates much further on how vegetarianism relates favorably to health by providing clinical studies which show evidence of an impressive array of benefits ranging from reversing age-related dementia to a longer-than-average life expectancy.
Where health is concerned, Corliss' apparent position is neatly summarized by a quote from Dr. Joan Sabate, chairman of the Loma Linda nutrition conference: "for the average sedentary adult living in a Western society, a vegetarian diet meets dietary needs and prevents chronic diseases better than an omnivore diet." Additionally, Corliss appears to be interested in giving a responsible depiction of how, if poorly-executed, vegetarianism, more specifically veganism, can potentially have negative affects on one's health; he dedicates a generous portion of his article to naming possible nutritional complications of the diets. Likewise, based on her personal experiences, Decker acknowledges that finding alternate sources of nutrition can be a challenge.
Unlike Decker's article, Corliss' piece provides a generous number of credible sources from within the medical community, both pro-vegetarian and otherwise. Despite the fact that he consults multiple experts who disapprove of vegetarian diets, Corliss himself maintains a modest tone of approval, even describing vegetarians to be, "conscientious" and, "smart." Aside from making vegetarianism look cool and healthy, Corliss also manages to portray its adversaries as being fanatical, angry, or unintelligent; he includes an interview with cattle rancher Jody Brown who happens to run an anti-vegetarian website which promotes slogans such as, "Vegetarians don't live longer, they just look older" and "If animals weren't meant to be eaten, then why are they made out of meat?" Contrary to the thoughtful vegetarian community he describes, "Jody admits to at least one liberal sympathy. 'If a vegetarian got a flat tire in my community,' he says, 'I'd come out and help him'" (Corliss).
Both articles mention the positive environmental impact of vegetarianism. Decker's article simply deduces that younger generations are, "more conscious about subjects such as animal rights, global warming and environmental health." However, Corliss features an in-depth perspective, detailing the specific points of vegetarianism which make it a more ethically responsible and environmentally sound choice. Corliss establishes reliable evidence for his claims by citing David Pimentel, an ecologist at Cornell University and Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest located in Washington.
Pimentel explains how, in addition to its health and environmental benefits, vegetarianism could potentially feed the hungry and even support the economy: "In terms of caloric content, the grain consumed by American livestock could feed 800 million people-and, if exported, would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year." Expanding on these benefits, Corliss notes that, "Grain-fed livestock consume 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food they produce, compared with 2,000 liters for soybeans." He continues by revealing that, " Animal protein also demands tremendous expenditures of fossil-fuel energy-eight times as much as for a comparable amount of plant protein." A quote from Pimentel provides a meaningful comparison for a modern audience that is generally alarmed by excessive fuel consumption:
The average omnivore diet burns the equivalent of a gallon of gas per day-twice what it takes to produce a vegan diet. And the U.S. livestock population-cattle, chickens, turkeys, lambs, pigs and the rest-consumes five times as much grain as the U.S. human population.
Of the two articles, only Corliss approaches the question of animal rights among his final points. Aside from the animals being slaughtered, the readers are informed that shocking numbers of rabbits, mice, pheasants and other field animals are routinely killed by tractors and other plowing equipment (Corliss). Corliss points to Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, who estimates that even replacing poultry and pork production with beef, lamb and dairy products, "would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually."
Each article provides thoughtful insights into vegetarianism and attempts to evaluate the merits of a vegetarian lifestyle. In the case of Decker's article, her personal experiences as a vegetarian proves to be interesting yet far less persuasive than Corliss' evaluation. By way of his many, varied and reputable expert sources, Corliss establishes credible evidence for the benefits of a vegetarian diet. Moreover, his reasonable tone and inclusion of dissenting views of vegetarianism effectively create a sense of fairness for the reader. By building a better argument model, Corliss has obviously crafted a more complete and compelling article supporting a vegetarian diet.
Corliss, Richard. "Should We All be Vegetarians?" TIME. July 2007.
Retrieved on July 14, 2008
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020715/story.html>
Decker, Emma. "Becoming a Vegetarian" The Oregonian. April 2008.
Retrieved on July 14, 2008.http://blog.oregonlive.com/oregonianopinion/2008/04>
The Case for Vegetarianism; Should Everyone Choose to Be a Vegetarian? a Comparison of Two Articles Investigating the Reasons People Choose to Become Vegetarians - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
link: http://voices.yahoo.com/the-case-vegetarianism-everyone-choose-2969931.html
No comments:
Post a Comment