RCL Issue Brief

...........
Making the Case for

Vegetarianism: Saving Lives
by Choosing Forks Over
Knives
Emma Behr
April 11, 2015
The Pennsylvania State University
Schreyer Honors College
Class of 2018
aking the Case for Vegetarianism Saving Lives by Choosing Forks Over Knives
1 M
...........
Executive Summary
This issue brief makes the case for vegetarianism for four reasons. First, the meat
industry is largely responsible for the degradation of the environment. Second, a meatfree diet is much healthier than an omnivorous or carnivorous diet. Third, the meat
industry takes a large toll on the domestic and global economies and much money could
be spent on other important institutions but is instead spent on the meat industry. Finally,
many see the killing and treatment of animals in the meat industry to be unethical and
morally wrong. Cutting down even a little bit on meat consumption would reduce each of
these four problems substantially.
2 M
...........
Table of Contents
Executive Summary .. Page 2

Table of Contents .. Page 3
Introduction .. Page 4
The Stakeholders (not Steakholders) . Page 5
A Brief History of American Vegetarian Awareness .. Page 6
Environmental Impacts of Meat Industry .. Page 7
Health Complications of Omnivorous Diet .. Page 10
Economic Consequences of Meat Market.. Page 11
Ethics of Animal Welfare .. Page 12
Policy Possibilities .. Page 14
Conclusion .. Page 16
References .. Page 17
3 M
...........
Introduction
The world is an increasingly carnivorous place. Vegans and vegetarians make up

merely 0.96% and 2.64% of the American population respectively.1 According to a
nationwide telephone survey conducted from June to July of 2007, animal welfare is
ranked low on scale of importance when compared with other social issues like health
care, poverty, and food safety.2 Such issues were ranked as five times more important
than farm animal welfare.3 Consumers think that the financial well being of farmers is
more important than food prices and the welfare of farm animals.4 81% of respondents
believed that animals and humans have the same capacity to feel pain, but said that
human suffering should take precedence over animal suffering.5 Although 62% said that
animal suffering should still be addressed, even if humans were suffering simultaneously,
they also said that they would be willing to let 11,500 animals suffer if it meant relieving
the pain of one humans suffering.6
Many Americans are willing to pay for improved animal welfare because they
know that there is a correlation between increased animal welfare and raised meat prices.
40% of those surveyed said that ethics should be primarily taken into consideration when
determining how to treat farm animals while 45% thought that scientific opinions should
be used instead.7 However, it is possible that many respondents falsified their preferences
in order to present themselves favorably, so it is quite possible that even fewer Americans
than projected care deeply for the well being of animals. In response to such a possibility,
this issue brief is being constructed in order to garner support and raise awareness about
the often misleading world of the meat industry in the United States and abroad.
4 M
...........
The Stakeholders (not Steakholders)
In order for change to occur, all stakeholders must be motivated and involved.8
The stakeholders are comprised of everyone, groups and individuals alike, because
everyone is affected by the meat industry in some way.9 This issue brief was meant for
those who were in the dark about the consequences of the meat industry and who could
be inspired to adopt a modified, more meat-free (if not vegetarian) diet after reading the
materials.
5 M
...........
A Brief History of American Vegetarian Awareness
Since prehistoric times, humans have been interacting with their fellow animals.
We were threatened by those more powerful than us, and managed to domesticate some
species to our advantage for food, work, and even companionship. Accompanying the
domestication of animals, many rules, regulations, and laws were put into place by
various cultures in order to properly deal with these animals.10 Ancient Kosher and Halal
customs of slaughtering animals were meant to minimize the pain and suffering of the
animals.11 The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was founded in Great
Britain in 1824.12 The Animal Welfare Act was signed into law in the United States in
1966. This law regulates the treatment of animals in research, transport, exhibition, and
by dealers. It poses a minimum acceptable standard of codes of conduct towards animals.
It has been amended several times, most recently in 2008.13
While codes of conduct toward animal welfare have been in place for hundreds of
years, over the past twenty years, consumers, primarily in industrialized nations, have
shed light on the topic of animal welfare.14 Typically, the wealthier someone is, the surer
they are of the quantity of the food they will receive, so they can begin to focus on the
quality of the food, including food safety, how it is produced, and what its impacts on the
environment, labor, and animal welfare are.15 Some consumer movements that have
arisen in response to increased awareness of and attention on the meat industry have
included movements that advocate for the absolute abolition of all use of animals except
for economic gains.16 Other groups have made efforts to improve the treatment of
animals in the meat industry.17 In the European Union, these groups have attracted the
attention of the government as well as the general population.18 Consequentially,
numerous laws have been enacted that regulate how farm animals are to be treated.19
These laws can regulate domestic production but not production abroad.20 This is
problematic because the United States has few regulations or laws in place to protect
animal welfare.21
6 M
...........
Environmental Impacts of Meat Industry
Factory farms, run by corporations, replaced small family farms with massive
industrial complexes and free-grazing herds with warehouses to feed and house
thousands of pigs, chickens, or turkeys in a single facility.22 The number of animals
produced for consumption in the United States has greatly increased over the last 30
years, but the number of livestock and poultry producing facilities has greatly
decreased.23
The global meat production industry is one of the largest contributors to the
destruction of the environment.24 Factory farms consume water, land, and resources at
rates that are unsustainable.25 They contribute to the degradation of the environment, air
and water pollution, large-scale fish deaths, depletion of the soil, and disappearing
biodiversity.26 The meat industry is more resource-intensive than other forms of food
production. Meat livestock use 30% of ice-free land globally, 80% of global freshwater,
and produce 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions which is more than the global
transportation sector.27 The meat industry is also largely responsible for habitat loss and
deforestation.28 34% of the global greenhouse gas emissions of the meat industry are
from deforestation, methane emissions, and manure management.29
Figure 1 NPR.org
7 M
Grain that is fed to livestock instead of humans creates huge energy loss.30
Furthermore, as Peter Singer wrote in his 1975 book, Animal Liberation: A New Ethics
for Our Treatment of Animals, the crops used to feed the livestock of the American meat
industry could feed the world three times over. Demand for meat in the United States has
increased astronomically since the 1970s, so imagine how much of the world could be
fed just by American livestock crops in 2015. The global meat industry was expected to
double between 1999 and
2050, which will also double
the meat industrys
environmental impacts unless
a more sustainable method of
meat production is found, if
people insist upon consuming
it.31
Factory farms create a
serious waste problem by
creating an astronomical
amount of waste each year
weighing in at approximately
500 million tons per year,
which is three times the
amount of all human waste in
Figure 2 Tuomisto and De Mattos
the United States.32 The
waste is stored in lagoons, giant concrete or earthen pits.33 When the lagoons are full,
the remaining waste is sprayed untreated on nearby fields as fertilizer.34 These lagoons
are prone to spills and collapses and pose health risks to workers, nearby residents, and
the environment, they have been outlawed in some states but still remain quite
common.35 Animal waste has high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, so it poses
a major risk to groundwater and surface water. When it gets into streams and rivers, it
stifles oxygen in water, suffocating fish and causing algal growth.36
The air pollution caused by factory farms has recently been recognized as
dangerous.37 Not only do the odors affect the moods and quality of life of nearby people,
but studies have found hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, and
particulate matter concentrations at unsafe levels in and around factory farms.38 Workers
and residents exposed to this pollution suffer nausea, breathing trouble, nervous system
impairment, and chronic lung irritation.39 While factory farm workers and neighbors are
most at risk of compromised health and environmental dangers, pollution from factory
farms endangers the entire population as a whole. Smog and contaminated urban drinking
water supplies are among the complications that endanger society.40 Furthermore, the
antibiotics added to animal feed in factory farms could make human diseases harder to
treat and cure.41
8 M
Factory farms pollute because of pricing pressure, advances in technology and

veterinary antibiotics, and industry consolidation.42 The environmental and health risks
from factory farms call for government action, sufficient regulation of factory farms is
lacking.43 This is because there is a lack of historical data on factory farms emissions and
because public opposition has failed to lead to regulation.44 It is a game of power politics
in which small rural residents and farmers are harmed but huge corporations are
benefitted by factory farms.
Because factory farms, or confined animal feeding operations, (CAFOs) are
detrimental to regional air and water quality, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), states, and environmental groups have recently tried to bring more attention to
CAFOs.45 However, it is difficult to formulate regulation for CAFOs because of politics,
scientific obstacles, and the time and costs required.46 Because American environmental
laws have been in existence longer than factory farms, the factory farms are largely
exempt from emissions regulations. Farms, especially factory farms, are among the last
industries to function outside of regulations.47 Only recently have legislators and
regulators been paying attention to the demands to regulate CAFOs. In recent history, a
series of lawsuits let to the Clean Air Act of 2003 and the Clean Air Act of 2005, in
which the EPA agreed to start testing the factory farms air emissions, hopefully
ultimately restricting emissions.48 The Sierra Club led a number of civil suits against
major meat producers for disobeying federal emissions reporting requirements. Such
steps focus on the production and reporting of emissions information. The provision of
information means more regulation and better awareness and behavior of factory farm
polluters.49 The Department of Justice and the Sierra Club will enforce such regulations
and policies.50 These steps are not enough to fix the overwhelming problem of CAFO
pollution, but serve as hopeful turning points.
An interesting alternative to traditional factory farmed meat is a new phenomenon
called cultured meat. Cultured meat is meat produced in vitro using tissue engineering
techniques; animal tissue will be grown in vitro instead of growing entire animals.51 The
overall impacts of cultured meat are much lower than those of conventionally produced
meat.52 Cultured meat can prevent the spread of animal-borne diseases such as Mad Cow
Disease.53 The texture, taste, and nutrition of cultured meat can be manipulated using
controlled conditions.54 This means that nutrition-related diseases caused by meat eating
could be reduced if not eliminated. Results show that cultured meat production produces
far fewer emissions and requires only a fraction of the land and water required than
traditionally produced meat.55 Cultured meat, despite having been begun in the 1950s, is
still only at the research stage.56 It is currently grown small-scale in labs.57 Large-scale
production would require more research and about $160 million in investments in order
to commercialize it as a product.58
9 M
...........
Health Complications of an Omnivorous Diet
Vegetarian diets are comprised primarily of cereals, legumes, nuts, fruits, and
vegetables, possibly including eggs and dairy products.59 Vegans do not consume any
animals or animal products. A vegetarian diet has less saturated fat and more starch,
fruits, and vegetables than a non-vegetarian diet.
Much research and many studies support the notion that eating a vegetarian or
vegan lifestyle is healthier than an omnivorous or carnivorous diet. Western vegetarians
have, on average, a lower body mass index (BMI) than non-vegetarians, lower average
cholesterol, and a lower mortality rate by approximately 25%.60 Being a vegetarian also
lowers the risk of diseases like constipation, gallstones, appendicitis, and diverticular
disease.61 Studies show that in Britain alone, beginning a vegetarian diet could prevent
about 40,000 deaths per year from cardiovascular disease.62 Vegetarians are, on average,
thinner than non-vegetarians.63
Animal fat is the culprit behind many chronic degenerative diseases, especially
cardiovascular disease and some cancers; diets high in fat and low in fiber could lead to
colon caner.64 The pesticides used in and the pollution caused by the meat industry are
associated with higher risks of cancer among both workers and consumers of the meat
industry.65 Hunger and food insecurity are not currently due to lack of food resources, but
because of insufficient political will or moral imperative to change the way food is
allocated.66 The developing world alone is producing enough food to provide every
person with more than 2,500 calories per day, yet millions of people continue to starve
as the resources are spent on the meat industry.67 If the meat industry continues like this,
food scarcity could soon become a prominent problem.68 It is imperative that food
producers realize and recognize that resources are finite and that long-term interests must
be pursued and addressed. Even slight reductions in meat consumption could improve the
health of individuals, the quality of the environment, and the lives of many livestock.
Figure 3 - Key and Davey
10 Making the Case for Vegetarianism Saving Lives by Choosing Forks Over
Knives
...........
Economic Consequences of Meat Market
In 1996, the United States government spent $68.7 billion on agricultural

subsidies.69 Our food does not come inexpensively, contrary to what we are led to believe
by the cheap food prices at the grocery store. This generates a false sense of security;
these costs do not even include the costs of cleaning up pollution.
Many consumers in industrialized nations are willing to pay more for products
that were produced under conditions of higher animal welfare. In a survey of British
consumers, it was shown that consumers would pay between six and 30% more for eggs
if the inhuman towers of battery cages would be banned for hens.70 If the amount that
people are willing to pay for products of higher animal welfare is great enough, then
producers have sufficient incentive to produce such goods.71 This could also create
incentive to mislead consumers, however. Firms have an incentive to disclose desirable
information and details, but not the undesirable qualities.72
Consumers, acting independently, will act selfishly, without concern about the
external ramifications such as noise, pollution, decreased animal welfare, and other
costs.73 The government may then step in to regulate costly behavior and encourage or
subsidize the less costly behavior.74 Governments might try to measure the costs and
benefits of animal welfare regulations in the form of studies or surveys to ensure that the
views and values reflect those of society as a whole.75 If the private benefits of consumers
do not outweigh the animal welfare costs, the government must step in and decide
whether the individual and the collective benefits outweigh the costs of imposing
regulation.76 Animal welfare laws typically cost a lot because they increase production
costs.77

Figure 4 - www.global.issues.org
Knives
...........
Ethics of Animal Welfare
In the past thirty years or so, food has become a means of personal expression.
People use it to convey their identity, opinions, and moral convictions. This has led
people to express concern over the treatment of livestock and the methods of
slaughtering. New activist groups have emerged with animal welfare and rights as the
central issue.78 The way animals are treated in a society speaks volumes about the
morality of such a society.79
Ethical vegetarians choose not to eat meat because they believe it is morally
wrong. Although they recognize that eating meat is also detrimental to their health,
ethical vegetarians understand that vegetarianism is an encompassing commitment to a
way of life.80 They are upset by others who eat meat because they see vegetarianism as a
moral imperative.81 This is entirely different from vegetarianism who abstain from
eating meat for health or religious reasons.
Moralization is the process where a preference is converted into a value.82
Moralization is both an individual and a societal process that transforms certain objects or
actions from morally neutral to having moral qualities.83 Multiple reasons are sought to
justify a conviction when something becomes moralized. In terms of the anti-factoryfarming movement, the justifications that are usually used include the destruction of the
small family farm, environmental degradation, animal welfare concerns, and disgust at
the un-natural methods of breeding and raising animals.84
Farm animal welfare is controversial and complicated. For example, in factory
farms, many animals are kept in crates or cages. This is controversial because while it
protects them from predators and each other, it is also a confining, uncomfortable
environment for an animal to spend its life in.85 Three overlapping ethical concerns of
animal rights activists for the quality of life of animals are: 1. Animals should lead
natural lives using their natural abilities and adaptations, 2. Animals should be free of
prolonged intense fear, pain, and other negative states, and should experience normal
pleasures, 3. Animals should be healthy, grow, and function normally both behaviorally
and physiologically.86
Although much concern about animal welfare from activist and industry groups
has been heeded, the group of people most affected, the consumers, have largely not been
heard on the issue.87 Vegetarianism is largely comprised of females.88 Teenage
vegetarians are typically white, from a higher socio-economic class, practice methods of
weight-control and weight-loss, and have an increased concern for the environment,
animal welfare, and gender equality when compared to their meat-eating peers.89 Moral
vegetarianism is often viewed as an extreme example of the general public opinion
Knives
regarding farming practices.90 This general opinion is typically concerned with a

combination of animal welfare, human health, and environmental issues.91
Livestock producers should greatly take into consideration this gender-oriented
advocacy of vegetarianism because women currently and will most likely continue to
have a strong, disproportionate influence on the purchasing of food for households.92
Knives
...........
Policy Possibilities
Science is usually used as the foundation of public policy, but in the case of
animal welfare protestations, it is often coupled with morality.93 However, as of recently,
media has been the most influential platform for the raising of awareness of animal rights
issues and for the expression of concern and questions over such treatment.94 Media sets
up the political agenda by playing up or marginalizing people and issues.95 Media
coverage can both help and harm animal rights special interest groups.96
It has been proposed that supporters of the regulation of factory farms instead
consider a different approach that focuses on something called reflexive law.97
Reflexive law is a set of information-based tools that decide which and how much
information is to be disclosed to the public.98 This information is in the form of raw
data, hazard warnings, or environmental labels.99 It shames polluters and provides an
outlet for consumers, business partners, and shareholders to express their dismay at the
pollution caused by the meat industry.100 Reflexive law is also faster and less expensive
to put into place than command-and-control regulation.101
The number of interest groups that take part in political lobbying has exploded
since 1970. In the United States, the number doubled between 1955 and 1990, doubled
again from 1970 to 1990, and reached 20,000 official interest groups in 1995.102
Recently, new social interest groups have emerged that no longer rely on political
lobbying and legislative to achieve their political goals. They instead use media to
influence marketing and consequentially the decisions of consumers. This is effective for
three reasons: the passing of legislation is slow and blocked, consumers are increasingly
affluent, and targeting the food market is now easier because it is more concentrated.103
Decisions made by the government regarding food safety, farming practices, and
animal welfare increasingly reflect the view of the people as a whole.104 Moralization
transforms personal preferences into societal values, which are more likely than
preferences to be institutionally and legally supported.105 An example of this is Bill C-22,
which is an amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code to protect animals, which resulted
from moralization.106 A wide variety of potential policy outcomes exist to deal with farm
animal welfare, and all of them are rooted in moralization.107 Legislation enforcing
minimum standards combined with subsidy payments as incentives would be the best
policy approach.108 Considering societal trends, it may be prudent if decision makers in
livestock production methods were to take into consideration or at minimum
acknowledge factors other than science in a long-term vision of sustainable and ethically
supportable agricultural production systems.109
The United States is behind on factory farm regulation and animal welfare laws,
but some other countries have stepped ahead. In Swiss society, animal welfare is an
Knives
important issue. Swiss policy makers have reacted with strict animal protection
legislation and two programs to promote animal-friendly farming.110 Also, the European
Union adopted the Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals.111
However, the construction of policy regarding animal welfare is challenging. The
government must carefully weigh costs and benefits when making legislative and
regulatory changes and decisions.112 Good welfare provides private productivity benefits
to producers and some level of positive external benefits to people who care about animal
welfare status.113

Figure 5 Braunig *Note: SCAG = Social collective activist group
Knives
...........
Conclusion
In conclusion, this issue brief makes the case for vegetarianism for four reasons.
First, the meat industry is largely responsible for the degradation of the environment.
Second, a meat-free diet is much healthier than an omnivorous or carnivorous diet. Third,
the meat industry takes a large toll on the domestic and global economies and much
money could be spent on other important institutions but is instead spent on the meat
industry. Finally, many see the killing and treatment of animals in the meat industry to be
unethical and morally wrong. Cutting down even a little bit on meat consumption would
reduce each of these four problems substantially.
Knives
...........
Works Cited
"Animal Welfare Act." Animal Welfare Act. USDA, 8 Apr. 2015. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
<http://awic.nal.usda.gov/government-and-professional-resources/federallaws/animal-welfare-act>.
Barclay, Eliza. "A Nation Of Meat Eaters: See How It All Adds Up." NPR. NPR, 27 June
2012. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-anation-of-meat-eaters>.
Braunig, Warren A. "Reflexive Law Solutions for Factory Farm Pollution Note."
Heinonline. N.Y.U., 2005. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals%2Fnylr80&div=41&g
_sent=1&collection=journals#1534>.
Brown, K. H., and J. Hollingsworth. "The Food Marketing Institute and the National
Council of Chain Restaurants: Animal Welfare and the Retail Food Industry in
the United States of America." Europe PubMed Central, 2005. Web. 09 Apr.
2015. <http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/16358516>.
De Pasille, A.M., and J. Rushen. "Food Safety and Environmental Issues in Animal
Welfare." (2005): 757-59. 2005. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://www22.sede.embrapa.br/snt/piue/Produ%E7%E3o%20Integrada%20na
%20Uni%E3o%20Europ%E9ia/B)%20Comunidade%20Econ%F4mica%20Eu
ropeia/B10)%20BemEstar%20dos%20Animais/B10.3)%20Trabalhos%20T%E9cnicos%20Bem-
Knives
Estar%20dos%20Animais/Pasille%20%20Modern%20food%20production%20systems.pdf>.
Fraser, D., D. M. Weary, E. A. Pajor, and B. N. Milligan. "A Scientific Conception Of
Animal Welfare That Reflects Ethical Concerns." (n.d.): n. pag. Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, 3 Feb. 1997. Web. 8 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/animalwelfare/Fraser1997.pdf>.
Goddard, Ellen, Peter Boxall, Jean Paul Emenu, Curtis Boyd, Andre Asselin, and
Amanda Neall. "RSA Impact Report 2006." RSA Journal 153.5524 (2006): 124. University of Alberta, July 2007. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://rees.ualberta.ca/en/Research/~/media/rees/Research/Documents/Project
%20Reports/PR_07-03.pdf>.
Horgan, R., and A. Gavinelli. "The Expanding Role of Animal Welfare within EU
Legislation and beyond." Livestock Science, 03 Sept. 2006. Web. 08 Apr.
2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2F
S1871141306001983>.
Horrigan, Leo, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "How Sustainable Agriculture
Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial
Agriculture." Research Review (2002): 445-54. May 2002. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240832/pdf/ehp0110000445.pdf>.
Jones, Dena M. "The Media and Policy Decisions Affecting Animals." Latest TOC RSS.
Bloomsbury Journals, 1997. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
Knives
<http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bloomsbury/azoos/1997/00000010/0
0000001/art00003>.
Key, Timothy, and Gwyneth Davey. "Prevalence of Obesity Is Low in People Who Do
Not Eat Meat." Hwadmin. Thebmj, 1996. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://www.bmj.com/content/313/7060/816.short>.
Key, Timothy J., Gwyneth K. Davey, and Paul N. Appleby. "Health Benefits of a
Vegetarian Diet." Cambridge Journals Online. The Nutrition Society, 1999.
Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=8&fid=795576&jid
=PNS&volumeId=58&issueId=02&aid=795568&bodyId=&membershipNumb
er=&societyETOCSession=>.
McVittie, Alistair. "Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from
Stated Preference Studies." Number 3. Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken
Welfare: Evidence from Stated Preference Studies (n.d.): n. pag. Land
Economy. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/45990/2/Work3McVittie.pdf>.
Mitchell, Lorraine. "Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade."
Google Books. Economic Research Service/USDA, n.d. Web. 09 Apr. 2015.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wvZIXf2azKkC&oi=fnd&pg
=PA80&dq=related%3ANAdG6TpH8fkJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F&ots=8
Tr6YBfUs1&sig=nUPvLNxAh3SC3M_rxH2q51DzYbk#v=onepage&q&f=fal
se 80-84.
Knives
Norwood, F. Bailey, Associate Professor, Jayson L. Lusk, and Professor And Willard
Sparks Chair Of Agribusiness. "Consumer Preferences for Farm Animal
Welfare: Results of a Nationwide Telephone Survey." (2007): n. pag.
Oklahoma State University, 17 Aug. 2007. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://asp.okstate.edu/baileynorwood/survey4/files/initialreporttoafb.pdf>.
Phan-Huy, Sibyl A., and Ruth B. Fawaz. "Swiss Market For Meat From Animal-Friendly
Production Responses Of Public And Private Actors In Switzerland." Journal
of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30 Sept. 2001. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://downloadv2.springer.com/static/pdf/288/art%253A10.1023%252FA%253A1022992200
547.pdf?token2=exp=1428559041~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F288%2Fart%25
253A10.1023%25252FA%25253A1022992200547.pdf*~hmac=88fd92bd24d1
2fd3c6728d6606b8ad1ed838c5d77d808b5d5ca74b448deae610>.
Tuomisto, Hanna L., and M. Joost Teixara De Mattos. "Environmental Impacts of
Cultured Meat Production." Environmental Science & Technology.
Environmental Science and Technology, 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es200130u>.
Whiting, Terry. "Animal Welfare Groups Whos Who And Whats What." London
Swine Conference, Apr. 2005. Web. 08 Apr. 2015.
http://www.londonswineconference.ca/proceedings/2005/2005.pdf#page=80.

1 Bailey F. Norwood and Jayson L. Lusk, Consumer Preferences for Farm Animal
Welfare: Results of a Nationwide Telephone Survey, (Oklahoma State
University: 2007).
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
Knives

4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 K.H. Brown and J. Hollingsworth. "The Food Marketing Institute and the National
Council of Chain Restaurants: Animal Welfare and the Retail Food Industry in
the United States of America," (Europe PubMed Central, 2005).
9 Ibid.
10 Lorraine Mitchell. Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade,
(Economic Research Service/USDA) 80-84.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid.
13 "Animal Welfare Act." Animal Welfare Act. (USDA, 8 Apr. 2015).
14 Mitchell, 80.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 Ibid.
22 Warren A. Braunig. Reflexive Law Solutions for Factory Farm Pollution, (NYU,

2005).
23 Ibid.
24 Hanna L Tuomisto and M. Joost Teixara De Mattos. "Environmental Impacts of
Cultured Meat Production." (Environmental Science and Technology, 2011).
25 Leo Horrigan, Robert S. Lawrence, and Polly Walker. "How Sustainable Agriculture
Can Address the Environmental and Human Health Harms of Industrial
Agriculture," (Research Review, 2002) 445-54.
26 Ibid.
27 Tuomisto and De Mattos.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Horrigan, Lawrence, and Walker.
32 Braunig.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
Knives

42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
52 Braunig.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid.
55 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
59 Timothy J. Key, Gwyneth K. Davey, and Paul N. Appleby. "Health Benefits of a
Vegetarian Diet." (Cambridge Journals Online, 1999).
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Horrigan, Lawrence, and Walker.
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 Mitchell.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid.
72 Ibid.
73 Ibid.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid.
77 Ibid.
78 Terry Whiting. "Animal Welfare Groups Whos Who And Whats What," (London
Swine Conference, April 2005).
79 Ibid.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
82 Ibid.
83 Ibid.
84 Ibid.
Knives

85 Norwood and Lusk.
86 Ibid.
87 Ibid.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 Ibid.
91 Ibid.
92 Whiting.
93 Ibid.
94 Ibid.
95 Dena M. Jones. "The Media and Policy Decisions Affecting Animals." (Bloomsbury
Journals, 1997).
96 Ibid.
97 Ibid.
98 Ibid.
99 Ibid.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid.
102 Ibid.
103 Ibid.
104 Whiting.
105 Ibid.
106 Ibid.
107 Ibid.
108 Ibid.
109 Ibid.
110 Sibyl A. Phan-Huy and Ruth B. Fawaz. "Swiss Market For Meat From AnimalFriendly Production Responses Of Public And Private Actors In Switzerland,"
(Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 30 September 2001).
111 Ibid.
112 Alistair McVittie. "Public Preferences for Broiler Chicken Welfare: Evidence from
Stated Preference Studies."
113 Ibid.
Knives

RCL Issue Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RCL Issue Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

...........

Making the Case for

Executive Summary .. Page 2

The world is an increasingly carnivorous place. Vegans and vegetarians make up

The Stakeholders (not Steakholders)

A Brief History of American Vegetarian Awareness

Environmental Impacts of Meat Industry

Factory farms pollute because of pricing pressure, advances in technology and

Health Complications of an Omnivorous Diet

Figure 3 - Key and Davey

Economic Consequences of Meat Market

In 1996, the United States government spent $68.7 billion on agricultural

Ethics of Animal Welfare

regarding farming practices.90 This general opinion is typically concerned with a

You might also like