Williams 1

Morgan Williams
Writing 2
S. Kneece, Mon-Wed at 11
9 May 2016
Veganism is a controversial topic that has grown in popularity within the last decade.
AJust as with any controversial topic, there is an entire spectrum of opinions about plant-based
vegan diets about veganism, and people choose to love, hate, or feel indifferent about it for
various reasons.. On one extreme end, there are Raw Till Four vegans who eat only raw,
uncooked plants until four PM in the evening and swear by the diets health benefits. On the
opposite end, there are meat lovers who see vegans as ignorant hippies and reject the slightest
notions that meat and dairy are not essential to the human diet. What determines if an individual
will adopt beliefs like these about veganism is how persuasive and credible a source seems. A
group of nutritionists headed by Jakub Sobiecki conducted a study on the health advantages and
disadvantages of veganism that generated overly qualified and inconclusive results, while L.
Baroni and his team of environmentalists produced a straightforward study with widely
applicable findings about the worldwide benefits of plant-based vegan diets. It is important for
individuals to educate themselves on the benefits of veganism when deciding whether or not to
support or adopt the diet. Looking at the benefits of a vegan diet from L. Baronis environmental
approach is more valuable than Jakub Sobieckis nutritionist perspective. Sobieckis flawed
methodology renders the findings useless, while Baronis study elicits a strong emotional
response from readers with his compelling argument about how veganism is a movement that is
much more than just a fight animal rights and healthy lifestyle.
Although the two studies academic journals have extremely similar layouts, they differ in

Williams 2
their approach and the argumentative rhetoric of their discussions, they have extremely similar
layouts that set a foundation for their overall argument. SobieckisThe nutritionists High
Compliance with Dietary Recommendations in a Cohort of Meat Eaters, Fish Eaters,
Vegetarians, and Vegans: Results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer
and NutritionOxford studyEuropean Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition
Oxford study, begins with a brief abstract that explains introduces the researchers the
hypothesis. They hypothesized thatgroups characterized by varying degrees of animal
product exclusion [will] have significantly different intakes of [nutrients], with possible
implications for dietary adequacy, (Sobiecki 464). In other words, they were looking for generic
nutrition differences between vegans and non-vegans. This lack of specificity in their hypothesis
lead to their inconclusive results because the hypothesis set the nutritionists up with a near
impossible task to complete. In order to search for significant differences they had to collect data
on the nutrient and vitamin intakes of thousands of people. After organizing this data, they then
needed to search for trends and see if any of the nutrition differences increased or decreased risk
for certain diseases. Their vague hypothesis required research so extensive and intricate that
multiple systemic issues arose.
The complications caused multiple fallacies in the studys results, which are addressed in
the discussion. and the studys findings. Baronis study, Evaluating the Environmental Impacts
of Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems was briefer.
They begin with stating the researchers objective, followed by a short description of the design
of the experiment. Both of these are useful in their own ways. Since Sobieckis study is directed
more towards individuals researching the health benefits of nutrition, the abstract provides a
synopsis of the study for readers to either immediately know their results, or let them get an idea

Williams 3
of whether or not they want to read the study.Baronis study, Evaluating the Environmental
Impacts of Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems was
briefer. They begin with stating the researchers objective, followed by a short description of the
design of the experiment. Baronis research is more focused on providing accurate, reliable
information. The objective and experimental overview immediately tell their readers their
approach for people to decide if they trust their methodology.
Both have the same layout of an introduction, followed by an in depth description
of their method, collected or observed data organized in tables, written out results, and finally a
discussion. For instance, Sobieckis nutrition research was conducted by surveying 30 thousand
people, statistically analyzing the data, then interpreting the information and deducing a
conclusion. However, the study have several main weak points. Bland language, limitations of
the method used to collect the data, and the lack of specificity with their hypothesis together
made reading tedious and the results questionable.
While the nutritionist approach is trying to be straight forward for their readers, their
writing comes across as dull. The paragraphs of the discussion seemed to drone on, each one
starting with a phrase like Another important consideration is--, followed by extensive lists of
evidence, ideas, or possible limitations. As a result, the writing came across as inexpressive. It
reads as if the author wanted to just get their information down and be done with it. The
discussion also contains some confusing series of statements, where possible errors or limitations
were addressed, but afterwards waved off without a real explanation as to why they should not
be concerning. For example, in the first paragraph of the Limitations of Dietary Adequacy
Assessment section, the author states that certain nutritional data on dietary supplements were
not available, so their results show dietary inadequacies evidence of possible deficiencies

Williams 4
caused by lack of nutrition from a a specific diet-- for certain vegans and vegetariansdiets that
are not necessarily accurate (Sobiecki 473). For readers, this is the first major red flag. It can be
beneficial to identify certain limitations of results so the audience can better understand the
studys findings. However, saying that their study produced false evidence that suggests serious
claims of nutritional inadequacy about veganism instead severely damaged the studys
credibility. Afterwards these mistakes are waved off without a real explanation as to why they
should not be concerning. To conclude the first paragraph of their limitation assessment, the
researchers nonchalantly advise that their results They continue on to say their results should be
interpretbe interpreted ed with caution,. before moving on to the next topic (Sobiecki 473). The
authors should have made an attempt to explain why their information is still valuable despite
the skewed data.There were multiple grey areas like this that ultimately rendered their data and
conclusions somewhat unreliable or false. It was an awkward section to read though that
definitely did not help the researchers case.
Furthermore, the discussion addresses several other limitations that discredit the studys
findings. In fact, the not only did the limitations seem to invalidate parts of the findings, but the
amount of limitations for the study was borderline excessive. After addressing the problem with
dietary supplement data, they say that their evidence suggests underreporting of [energy intake]
was present across all sex and diet groups. (Sobiecki 473). Due to the inaccuracies in this
particularn their data, the authors did not address include results deduced from thefrom this
specific data at all in their conclusion. Their list of limitations continues withd on to say the
method they used for measuring the adequacy of each diet. They state, a, a FFQ, is seldom
appropriate for assessing the adequacy of dietary intake of a group, and that only validated
FFQs can be deemed acceptable. After highlighting that only validated FFQs are credible, they

Williams 5
admit that the They go on to say that the FFQ they used was not actually validated, but was
based on a validated FFQ used in the past (Sobiecki 473). Addressing these issues brings the
entirety of their findingsall of their data into question and shows that the researchers are not
confident in the information they are delivering. Therefore, the Even though their findings do
highlight large differences in the risk of disease and general health of vegans and non-vegans that
their findings show are, their method, and therefore results, are both not trustworthy.
Comparatively, Baronis environmentalist study has a much more compelling argument
and stronger confidence in the delivery of information. His The study, Evaluating the
Environmental Impacts of Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production
Systems, explores the hypothesis that plant based diets have a less significant environmental
impact thant meat-based diets. The researchers intended to accomplish this by [comparing]
different environmental impacts resulting from different dietary patterns (omnivorous,
vegetarian, vegan) and methods of production, (Baroni 279). Their hypothesis is considerably
more direct and specific than the nutritionists. The explicit objective set them up with clear-cut
task that was less likely to develop complications. Additionally, the environmentalists study was
designed for anyone curious about food productions effect on the environment. They needed the
reader to be intrigued and engaged right off the bat. Presenting their their research question and
approach in their objective immediately tells their readers what they need to know about the
study in order for them to decide if they want to continue reading.
After conducting the experiment and finding that plant based diets do use less resources
and emit less greenhouse gases, they move onto their discussion. Instead of sticking to a purely
scientific approach and simply reporting the information thenand discussing its validity, the
authors connect their findings to the issue of world hunger and sustainability. This , a way of

Williams 6
interpreting scientific data that is unique to the environmental studies discipline and required the
authors to be much more persuasive with their argument.. Thus, the environmentalists were very
thoughtful with their
Baroni is much more persuasive with his argument, using better organizationorganization
of the study and approach to persuading their readers., appeals to logic and emotion in the
discussion, and concluding with a reasonable call to action for the readers to consider. Up until
the discussion, the academic journal has a similar plain style of writing at Sobieckis entire
journal, but Baronis is much more organized. Each section is broken down into smaller
subsections, that is each given their own title (Baroni 280). This structural organization makes
the complex portions of the procedure easier to read and follow, as well as refer back to later..
Within each section, information terms are defined and each step of the method is presented
alongside data tablesstated and phrases and categories are defined (Baroni 281). The authorsThis
juxtaposition ensures that the purpose of every partbit of their methodology is well clearly
explained and cited with evidence of the procedure being accurate. Which d. Thus making sure
the audience understands the procedure, while increasing the readers understanding, gaining
theirin turn gains some trust, from the readers and establishinges credibility.
Unlike Sobieckis the nutritionists study, the environmentalists methodology was
straightforward with no major limitations to y do not discredit their method, and presentfindings.
their So the researchers are able to resultspresent their results as evidence that is then used to
further a larger argument: will the human race need to adopt these more sustainable plant-based
diets in order to combat the exponentially increasing world population? Because tThey address
this question is addressed in their discussion, so that that portion of their writing study is very
different from their previous procedure, data, and results sections. First, the discussion begins

Williams 7
with a review of the results. Studies from the past are cited with each resultfinding to to show
the audience which of their findings are already widely confirmed (Baroni 282). From there on,
the authors begin to interpret their results, looking at what specific foods of the omnivorous diet
have the largest environmental impacts. Meat is identified as the food group that puts the largest
strain on the environment, with beef being the most costly meat type to raise, feed, kill, and clean
(Baroni 283). Identifying meat and dairy as the two most impactful food groups was crucial to
their argument. The predominant factor that differentiates vegans from omnivores is their
exclusion of meat and dairy. Highlighting the drastic negative impacts of these two foods guides
the audience to reflect on their own eating habits.Statistical data and evidence from other studies
are used to explain how this is so. Factual content is used as logos, to convince the reader of the
validity and importance of the problem.
Moreover, the environmentalists use their evidence about meat and dairy to
simultaneously appeal to logic and emotion in the discussion. Factual content is used as logos to
convince the readers of the validity and importance of the problem, while pathos is created when
showing the negative environmental effects of consuming meat and dairy. Pathos is used in the
discussion to make the Rreaders are lead to consider reflect on their own values , and consider a
whether or not they should change in their diet.. Instead of using short stories or inspirational
quotes to appeal to the readers emotion, they authors use their findings and other cited statistical
data to invoke this self-reflection within their readers. cited facts to maintain their credibility.
The data ensures the readers aduience that world hunger and global depletion of resources is not
an exaggerated anecdotal story used to manipulate their emotions. They show it is a pressing
issue that needs to be focused on and elicit a deep emotional response within the reader that leads

Williams 8
them to direct their attention to their own morals when it comes to being environmentally
conscious of their actions.
As their final push for plant-based diets, the paper is concluded with a reasonable call to
action. Instead of demanding people immediately become strict, devoted vegans to save the
planet, Baroni and his teamthe environmentalists state, A shift in eating habits towards the
increase of the direct consumption of plant foods seems to be a desirable objective. The authors
show their awareness of the human condition.y know Pthat people do not enjoy others
antagonizing them and making them like people to make them feel guilty. Being harshly
critiqued can cause an audience to become frustrated with the speaker for pointing out something
they should feel guilty about, leading them to be less open to the authors suggestions. Instead,
they ask their viewers to consider a shift in their diet, which is much more appealing, and grants
them the power to choose. .
Compared to the nutritionists Sobieckis self-contradicting study with narrow, qualified
results onf dietary nutrition, Baronis environmentalistst journal is more valuable. They appeals
to their audiences logic, morals, and emotion in an organized, easy to understand fashion. While
the . nutritionistsSobieckis journal study contained multiple awkward parts inaddressed all the
limitations of their method in their discussion, but that left the reader questioning the validity of
their results. why the study was even published. Thus the study by Baroni and his team of
environmentalistsBaronis is piece was much more effective.e at arguing their case.

Williams 9

Abstract
After reading these two studies, I know that veganism is a healthy diet that has amazing
environmental benefits. Tthe main question I have is how realistic is it for people in developed
nations to switch to a more plant based diet. I would choose to search for answers for this
questions through more environmental science studiesist papers, which seemed to have a far
more compelling argument than eating plant based foods for personal nutrition. I think it would
also be interesting to see if there are any psychological approaches to answer similar questions. I
know people in developed countries love to exercise their free will and more often than not,
people decide to continue to do environmentally damaging practices because switching to
something more eco-friendly is too inconvenient for them. So I am curious to see how a
psychologist thinks environmentalists should go about encouraging plant-based diets in order to

Williams 10
appeal to the most people. I would hope to find some method to effectively educate and persuade
mass amounts of people to decide to alter their diets and eat better balanced plant-based meals
and less meat and dairy products on a daily basis.

Works Cited
Baroni, L., L. Cenci, M. Tettamanti, and M. Berati. "Evaluating the Environmental Impact of
Various Dietary Patterns Combined with Different Food Production Systems." European
Journal of Clinical Nutrition Eur J Clin Nutr 61.2 (2006): 279-86. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
Sobiecki, Jakub G., Paul N. Appleby, Kathryn E. Bradbury, and Timothy J. Key. "High
Compliance with Dietary Recommendations in a Cohort of Meat Eaters, Fish Eaters,
Vegetarians, and Vegans: Results from the European Prospective Investigation into
Cancer and NutritionOxford Study." Nutrition Research 36.5 (2016): 464-77. Web. 24
Apr. 2016.