DOCSLIB.ORG

Consequences of Meat Consumption: a Study of Conditions for Social Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Consequences of Meat Consumption: a Study of Conditions for Social Change Consequences of meat consumption: A study of conditions for social change Alma Mayo Richart BA thesis Liberal Arts and Sciences; Social Sciences University College Tilburg Supervised by Dr. E. Dreezens June 28th, 2018 1 To Nora. For a compassionate, healthy, and beautiful future. 2 Index Abstract……………………………………………………….….5 Chapter 1 Introduction…………………………………….……..6 Chapter 2 Literature review……………………………….……..9 2.1Theory of Carnism…………………………….....…….9 2.1.1 Schemas and perception………………..……9 2.1.2 Cognitive dissonance…………….….............10 2.1.3 Defence mechanisms of Carnism…………....11 2.1.3.1 Denial……………………………...12 2.1.3.2 Justification………………………..13 2.1.3.3 Cognitive distortion…………….….15 2.1.4 Model theory of Carnism………………...….17 2.2. Conditions for change…………………………….......17 2.2.1 Awareness……………………………….…..17 2.2.2 Dissonance…………………………….…….19 2.2.2.1 External Dissonance……………….20 2.2.2.2 Internal dissonance………………...20 2.2.2.3 Cultural Change………………..….21 2.2.2.4 Former ideologies, dissonance and meat consumption...22 2.3 Hypothesis…………………………………….....……24 Chapter 3 Methodology………………………………………….25 3.1 Dataset and sample selection…………………...……..25 3.2 Variables……………………………...………...……..25 3.3 Method: experimental design…………………...……..27 Chapter 4 Data Analysis…………………………..………...…...28 4.1 Descriptive statistics…………………………….…….28 4.2 Factor analysis and Combach’s alpha……………...…29 4.3 Hypothesis 1………………………………………......31 3 4.4 Hypothesis 2…………………………………………..32 4.5 Hypothesis 3……………………………..……………33 Chapter 5 Conclusion……………………………….…..………..35 5.1 Conclusion……………………………….……………35 5.2 Limitations and recommendations………………….…37 Appendix……………………………………….......……….....…39 Bibliography…………………………………………………......41 4 Abstract Animal agriculture is the leading cause of animal suffering, species extinction, deforestation and climate change. It is also directly associated with heart attack, cancer and diabetes. A decrease in meat consumption could help solve many of these problems. However, vegetarians and vegans are still a minority. The central question of this research is: How aware are individuals of the impact of eating meat and how does this awareness affect their meat consumption? In this paper, Carnism is presented as the cause of people’s resistance to a more sustainable plant based diet. Carnism is a belief system that hides the truth behind meat production, normalizes meat composition, and conditions people to eat certain animals. 145 people participated in this research through questionnaires. This research shows that making people aware of the consequences of meat consumption by exposing them to information makes them more likely to stop eating meat. Awareness about the consequences of meat consumption is a great tool to make people decrease or eliminate meat from their diet, and thus, decrease animal suffering, climate change and health issues. 5 Chapter 1: Introduction Global warming, animal cruelty, species extinction, the increase in childhood obesity, heart attacks and diabetes are problems that society faces today (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2015; Greger & Stone, 2016). These problems are directly related with livestock production — which includes meat, dairy and eggs — and the overconsumption of these products in developed countries. Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation (Steinfeld, 2016). Livestock covers 45% of the earth’s total land (Thornton, Herrero, & Ericksen, 2011). And, animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction (Beaty, 2015). Meat and dairy products also affect people's health. A report by the World health organization has classified bacon and sausages as carcinogenic to humans (International Agency for research on cancer, 2015), and The American journal of clinical nutrition stated that one serving of processed meat per day increases the risk of developing diabetes by 51% (Pan, 2011). These problems do not only affect animals or people as individuals, but it concerns all species, the planet we inhabit and future generations. It seems evident that the production and consumption of animal products poses a wide range of environmental, ethical, and health issues. Why, even with increasing scientific understanding of the harm this behaviour causes, do many people continue to consume animal products? Dr. Melanie Joy studied this phenomenon for 15 years and her research concluded that the reason why people do not change their behaviour is due to an ideology called Carnism. Carnism is an invisible belief system that conditions us to eat certain animals including dairy products (Joy, 2011). Carnism has three defence mechanisms to conceal the truth behind meat consumption. The first is Denial, people deny the reality behind meat and dairy production which makes the victims of livestock production invisible: the animals killed, the workers in slaughterhouses working under harsh conditions, the meat eaters that suffer diseases caused by meat and dairy products, and the planet's climate which is undergoing severe changes. The second defence mechanism is Justification. People justify their actions with three different myths about meat composition: eating meat is normal, natural, and necessary for humans. Lastly, the third defence mechanism 6 is Cognitive distortion in which individuals objectify, de-individualise, and dichotomise animals in order to make the process of slaughtering animals and eating meat easier. Even though there are ideologies that go against Carnism such as Vegetarianism (the abstention from eating meat) and Veganism (exclusion of all forms of animal cruelty or exploitation to animals for food, clothing or any other purpose) (The Vegan Society, 2008), which demand for cultural change, the impact meat composition has on the animals, health, and environment is a controversial topic which most people do not want to know or talk about. The demand for cultural change occurs when the fundamental pillars of an ideology or culture are doubted and questioned. Two conditions for change which could be the solution for Carnism are presented. The first is awareness. According to Joy, awareness about the consequences of meat consumption gives people the opportunity to fully understand the problems livestock production and meat consumption bring. The second one is Cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is a conflict between attitudes (a psychological tendency which is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour), and behaviour (Eagly & Chaiken, 1995). This discomfort created by cognitive dissonance, leads individuals to reconsider their values and beliefs to mitigate this discomfort. Joy’s research measured the defence mechanisms of Carnism, however, her study did not encompass the causation between more awareness and no meat intake. Therefore, this research follows up on Joy’s research by testing if awareness on the impact of meat consumption increases the possibility of stopping individuals consuming meat. Participants are also exposed to information about the consequences of meat consumption to analyse if this information affects their cognitive dissonance and attitudes toward meat consumption. Could awareness be the solution for Carnism? The central question of this research is: How aware are individuals of the impact of eating meat and how does this awareness affect their meat consumption? Three hypotheses are drawn in this research: People that are more aware of the impact of eating meat are less likely to eat meat. 7 People that are exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption will experience more cognitive dissonance than people who did not receive this information. People that are exposed to information on the consequences of meat consumption will have more negative attitudes toward meat consumption than those that did not received this information. The structure of the paper is as follows: The second chapter will extensively explain Melanie Joy’s theory of Carnism. This is followed by two conditions for ideology change: Awareness, which is presented as a mechanism against Carnism, and Cognitive Dissonance. In the third chapter the experimental design and procedures are explained. During chapter 4 the analysis is conducted and presented in tables. Chapter 5 includes a conclusion, limitations and recommendations. 8 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Theory of Carnism Joy, apart from being the author of the Carnism theory, is a professor of psychology and sociology at the university of Massachusetts Boston, and at the end of her lectures Joy often asks her students why they eat cows but not dogs, or why they eat meat at all? The most prominent answer she hears is “It is just the way things are”. Joy was intrigued by the observation that people do not really know the reason of their meat eating habit. It seemed as if people were avoiding confronting the reason behind why they eat meat. And even though most people spend much time deciding what clothes to buy, most do not spend time thinking about what animal species they eat and why. People's choices as meat and dairy consumers are affecting the planet we inhabit, the animals we share this planet with and our own health (Robbins, 2012). In the last 6 years, veganism and vegetarianism have becoming increasingly more popular, however, 96% of the world’s population still chooses to support the meat industry with their
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Evaluation of Others' Deliberations
    CHAPTER FOUR An Evaluation of Others’ Deliberations 4.1 Introduction If ethics is a search for rules of behaviour that can be universally endorsed (Jamieson 1990; Daniels 1979; Rawls 1971), the values underpinning my own deliberation on the issues explored in this book must be compared with the values underlying the deliberation of others. By considering the challenges raised by others’ views, qualified moral veganism might either be revised or, if it survives critique, be corroborated. Though some scholars who work in ani- mal ethics have defended views that are—to a reasonable degree—similar to my own (e.g. Milligan 2010; Kheel 2008; Adams 1990), many people consume animal products where they have adequate alternatives that, in my view, would reduce negative GHIs. This raises the question whether qualified moral vegan- ism overlooks something of importance—the fact that so many people act in ways that are incompatible with qualified moral veganism provokes the follow- ing question in me: Am I missing something? The ambition of this chapter is twofold. Its first aim is to analyse the delib- erations of two widely different groups of people on vegetarianism, veganism, and the killing of animals. By describing the views of others as accurately as I can, I aim to set aside my own thoughts on the matter temporarily—to the extent that doing so is possible—to throw light on where others might be coming from. The second aim of the chapter is to evaluate these views. By doing so, I hope that the reader will be stimulated to reflect upon their own dietary narratives through critical engagement with the views of others.
    [Show full text]
  • Derogatory Discourses of Veganism and the Reproduction of Speciesism in UK 1 National Newspapers Bjos 1348 134..152
    The British Journal of Sociology 2011 Volume 62 Issue 1 Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK 1 national newspapers bjos_1348 134..152 Matthew Cole and Karen Morgan Abstract This paper critically examines discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers in 2007. In setting parameters for what can and cannot easily be discussed, domi- nant discourses also help frame understanding. Discourses relating to veganism are therefore presented as contravening commonsense, because they fall outside readily understood meat-eating discourses. Newspapers tend to discredit veganism through ridicule, or as being difficult or impossible to maintain in practice. Vegans are variously stereotyped as ascetics, faddists, sentimentalists, or in some cases, hostile extremists. The overall effect is of a derogatory portrayal of vegans and veganism that we interpret as ‘vegaphobia’. We interpret derogatory discourses of veganism in UK national newspapers as evidence of the cultural reproduction of speciesism, through which veganism is dissociated from its connection with debates concerning nonhuman animals’ rights or liberation. This is problematic in three, interrelated, respects. First, it empirically misrepresents the experience of veganism, and thereby marginalizes vegans. Second, it perpetuates a moral injury to omnivorous readers who are not presented with the opportunity to understand veganism and the challenge to speciesism that it contains. Third, and most seri- ously, it obscures and thereby reproduces
    [Show full text]
  • Britain's Failing Slaughterhouses
    BRITAIN’S FAILING SLAUGHTERHOUSES WHY IT’S TIME TO MAKE INDEPENDENTLY MONITORED CCTV MANDATORY www.animalaid.org.uk INTRODUCTION 4,000 0 SERIOUS BREACHES slaughterhouses SLAUGHTERHOUSES OF ANIMAL filmed were IN FULL COMPLIANCE WELFARE LAW breaking the law WHEN AUDITED More than 4,000 serious breaches of animal welfare laws in British slaughterhouses were reported by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the two years to August 2016.1 The regulator’s audit showed that not one UK slaughterhouse was in full compliance when the data was analysed in June 2016.2 Yet together, these are just a small sample of the breaches that actually occur inside Britain’s slaughterhouses. We know this because Animal Aid and Hillside Animal Sanctuary have placed fly-on- the-wall cameras inside 15 English slaughterhouses and found how workers behave when they think they are not being watched. Fourteen of the slaughterhouses were breaking animal welfare laws. From small family-run abattoirs to multi-plant Some of these slaughterhouses had installed CCTV, companies, all across the country, and in relation to which shows that the cameras alone do not deter all species, slaughterhouse workers break the law. law-breaking, and that unless the footage is properly Their abuses are both serious and widespread, and monitored, Food Business Operators (FBOs) do are hidden from the regulators. not detect – or do not report – these breaches. It is unknown whether FBOs fail to monitor their When being secretly filmed, workers punched and cameras properly or they monitor them and choose kicked animals in the head; burned them with not to report the abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Full Report
    As we look back over the four years since we announced the Perdue Commitments to Animal Care, it has been a journey of listening, learning and evolving. The Perdue Commitments to Animal Care was shaped with input from diverse stakeholders – including some of our harshest critics – and we continue to seek their input. We learn from a wide range of perspectives, whether they be farmers, our associates, advocates, customers or consumers, in formal and informal ways. Cumulatively this has resulted in 65 initiatives designed to address one of the Five Freedoms or one of the other three pillars of our program. And perhaps more importantly, these initiatives have moved from studies or intentions to programs and best practices that are now embedded in how we do business every day. We’re proud of our progress and eager to continue our journey. The following pages report on the most recent and core ongoing initiatives as well as our future goals. Highlights of our recent progress include: • Expanding the number of farms with free-range, outdoor access • Testing the feasibility and benefits of on-farm hatching to improve early chick care • Collaborating on animal welfare research with Mercy for Animals • Conducting our second farmer contest to tap into their experience and expertise in raising chickens • Opening our third Poultry Learning Center, viewing farms which offer a transparent, interactive experience to learn about poultry farming and proper animal care • Holding our fourth Animal Care Summit, bringing together animal care experts and advocates, customers, farmers, and our leadership, in July 2019. Our next summit will be held in October 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • How Is Food Produced?
    Supplementary Notes: (PJ Shlachtman): Food Resources How is Food Produced? What Plants and Animals Feed the World? • 15 plant and 8 animal species supply 90% of our food • wheat, rice and corn provide ~50% of the calories people consume; all three are annuals • 2/3 of the world's people live primarily on grains (rice, wheat and corn) The Two Major Types of Food Production • Industrialized agriculture (high-input agriculture) o uses large amts. of fuel energy, water, commercial fertilizers & pesticides • Plantation agriculture (cash crops) • Traditional subsistence agriculture • Traditional intensive agriculture The Green Revolution (1950-1970) Increased yields per unit of area of cropland Involves three steps 1. developing and planting monocultures of key crops 2. lavishing fertilizer, pesticides and water on crops to produce high yields 3. increasing the intensity and frequency of cropping A second green revolution (1967+) began when fast-growing dwarf varieties of rice and wheat were introduced into developing countries Case Study: Food Production in the U.S. • Production doubled since 1940 • Agribusiness – replacing smaller family farms w/ large corporate farms. • Each US farmer feeds about 140 people How Are Livestock Produced? • 10% of the world's land is suitable for producing crops • 20% is used for grazing cattle and sheep • Developed countries consume >50% of the world's grain • Poor developing countries eat mostly grain and live low on the food chain Traditional Agriculture • Interplanting - simultaneously grow several crops on the same plot of land • Common interplanting strategies: 1. Polyvarietal cultivation 2. Intercropping 3. Agroforestry (alley cropping) 4. Polyculture 1 World Food Problems 1950-1990: • amount of food traded in the world market quadrupled • population growth is outstripping food production • Factors leading to the slowdown in the growth of per capita grain production: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Indianapolis Guide
    Nutrition Information Vegan Blogs Nutritionfacts.org: http://nutritionfacts.org/ AngiePalmer: http://angiepalmer.wordpress.com/ Get Connected The Position Paper of the American Dietetic Association: Colin Donoghue: http://colindonoghue.wordpress.com/ http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf James McWilliams: http://james-mcwilliams.com/ The Vegan RD: www.theveganrd.com General Vegans: Five Major Poisons Inherent in Animal Proteins: Human Non-human Relations: http://human-nonhuman.blogspot.com When they ask; http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/jan/poison.htm Paleo Veganology: http://paleovegan.blogspot.com/ The Starch Solution by John McDougal MD: Say What Michael Pollan: http://saywhatmichaelpollan.wordpress.com/ “How did you hear about us” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XVf36nwraw&feature=related Skeptical Vegan: http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/ tell them; Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Caldwell Esselstyn MD The Busy Vegan: http://thevegancommunicator.wordpress.com/ www.heartattackproof.com/ The China Study and Whole by T. Collin Campbell The Rational Vegan: http://therationalvegan.blogspot.com/ “300 Vegans!” www.plantbasednutrition.org The Vegan Truth: http://thevegantruth.blogspot.com/ The Food Revolution John Robbins www.foodrevolution.org/ Vegansaurus: Dr. Barnard’s Program for Reversing Diabetes Neal Barnard MD http://vegansaurus.com/ www.pcrm.org/health/diabetes/ Vegan Skeptic: http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/ 300 Vegans & The Multiple Sclerosis Diet Book by Roy Laver Swank MD, PhD Vegan Scientist: http://www.veganscientist.com/
    [Show full text]
  • Taste and Health Vegetarianism.Pdf
    Appetite 144 (2020) 104469 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Appetite journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/appet Taste and health concerns trump anticipated stigma as barriers to T vegetarianism ∗ Daniel L. Rosenfeld , A. Janet Tomiyama University of California, Los Angeles, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Meat-eaters report that a number of barriers inhibit them from going vegetarian—for example, perceiving ve- Vegetarianism getarian diets to be inadequately nutritious, too expensive, unfamiliar, inconvenient, inadequately tasty, and Barriers socially stigmatizing. However, research identifying which barriers uniquely predict meat-eaters’ openness to Food choice going vegetarian is lacking from the current literature. In the present research, accordingly, we conducted a Identity highly powered, preregistered study (N = 579) to identify which barriers uniquely predict openness to going Stigma vegetarian. We focused specifically on anticipated vegetarian stigma, given recent qualitative evidence high- lighting this attitude as an influential barrier. That is, do meat-eaters resist going vegetarian because theyfear that following a vegetarian diet would make them feel stigmatized? Being of younger age, more politically conservative, White, and residing in a rural community predicted greater anticipated vegetarian stigma among meat-eaters. Frequentist and Bayesian analyses converged, however, to suggest that anticipated vegetarian stigma was not a significant predictor of openness to going vegetarian. The strongest predictors
    [Show full text]
  • Category Slaughterhouse (For Meat and Poultry) / Breaking Location
    Supply Chain Disclosure Poultry Upstream Snapshot: December 2018 Published: March 2019 Category Slaughterhouse (for meat and poultry) / Breaking location (for eggs) Location Address Country Chicken Abatedouro Frigorifico Avenida Antonio Ortega nº 3604, Bairro Pinhal , Cabreuva – São Paulo – Brasil Brazil Chicken Agrosul Agroavícola Industrial S.A. Rua Waldomiro Freiberger, 1000 - São Sebastião do Caí, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Brazil Turkey Agrosuper Chile Condell Sur 411, Quilpué, Valparaiso, Región de Valparaíso, Chile Chile Chicken Agrosuper LTD Camino La Estrella 401, Rancgua, Chile Chile Poultry Animex Foods Sp. z o.o. Sp. k. Morliny Animex Foods Sp. z o.o. Sp. k. Morliny 15, 14-100 Ostróda, Branch of Iława, Poland Poland Chicken Belwood Lowmoor Business Park Kirkby-In-Ashfield, Nottingham NG17 7ER UK Turkey Biegi Foods GmbH Schaberweg 28 61348 Bad Homburg Germany Poultry BODIN LES TERRES DOUCES SAINTE-HERMINE 85210 France Poultry Bodin et Fils ZA Les Terres Douces, Sainte Hermine, France France Chicken BOSCHER VOLAILLES ZA de Guergadic 22530 Mûr de Bretagne France Chicken Boxing County Economic Development Zone Xinsheng Food Co., Ltd. Fuyuan two road, Boxing County Economic Development Zone, Binzhou China Duck Burgaud Parc Activ De La Bloire 42 Rue Gustave Eiffel 85300 France Turkey Butterball - Carthage 411 N Main Street, Carthage, MO 64836 USA Turkey Butterball - Mt. Olive 1628 Garner's Chapel Road, Mt Olive, NC 28365 USA Chicken C Vale - Paloina Av Ariosvaldo Bittencourt, 2000 - Centro - Palotina, PR Brazil Duck Canards d'Auzan
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Animal Suffering and Vegan Outreach
    Paez, Eze (2016) Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach. Animal Sentience 7(11) DOI: 10.51291/2377-7478.1101 This article has appeared in the journal Animal Sentience, a peer-reviewed journal on animal cognition and feeling. It has been made open access, free for all, by WellBeing International and deposited in the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Animal Sentience 2016.087: Paez Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Wild animal suffering and vegan outreach Commentary on Ng on Animal Suffering Eze Paez Department of Legal, Moral and Political Philosophy Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona Abstract: Ng’s strategic proposal seems to downplay the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals and omit what may be the most effective strategy to reduce the harms farmed animals suffer: vegan outreach. Eze Paez, lecturer in moral and political philosophy at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, studies normative and applied ethics, especially ontological and normative aspects of abortion and the moral consideration of nonhuman animals. He is a member of Animal Ethics. upf.academia.edu/ezepaez Underestimating the importance of wild animal suffering. Ng’s (2016) view is not that animal advocates should focus only on farmed animals, to the exclusion of those that live in the wild. He concedes that our efforts must also be directed toward raising awareness of the harms suffered by animals in nature. Nonetheless, he seems to suggest that these efforts should be minimal relative to those devoted to reducing the harms farmed animals suffer. Ng underestimates the potential benefits of advocacy for wild animals in terms of net reduction in suffering perhaps because he is overestimating people’s resistance to caring about wild animals and to intervening in nature on their behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruelty on Animals and Related Rights
    PJAEE, 17 (6) (2020) CRUELTY ON ANIMALS AND RELATED RIGHTS Maithili Chaudhury1, Nilanjan Chakraborty2 1,2 Asst. Professer, Faculty of Legal Studies, Siksha O Anusandhan Email: [email protected], [email protected] Maithili Chaudhury, Nilanjan Chakraborty: Cruelty On Animals And Related Rights -- Palarch’s Journal Of Archaeology Of Egypt/Egyptology 17(6). ISSN 1567-214x Keywords: Animal Rights, Animal Husbandry, Anti-cruelty ethic, Social Ethic ABSTRACT Businesses and occupations must remain consistent with social ethics or risk losing their freedom. An important social ethical issue that has arisen over the past four decades is animal welfare in various areas of human use. The ethical interest of the society has outgrown the conventional morality of animal cruelty, which originated in biblical times and is embodied in the laws of all civilized societies. There are five major reasons, most notably the substitution of husbandry-based agriculture with industrial agriculture, for this new social concern. This loss of husbandry to industry has threatened the traditional fair contract between humans and animals, leading to significant animal suffering on four different fronts. Because such suffering is not caused by cruelty, it was necessary to express social concerns with a new ethic for animals. Since ethics is based on pre-existing ethics rather than ex nihilo, society has looked for its properly modified ethics for humans to find moral categories that apply to animals. This concept of legally encoded rights for animals has emerged as a plausible vehicle for reform. The paper provides brief summary of the animal welfare board of India, legal capacity in order to possess rights and tries to establish relation between legal personhood and rights.
    [Show full text]
  • 219 No Animal Food
    219 No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909-1944 Leah Leneman1 UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH There were individuals in the vegetarian movement in Britain who believed that to refrain from eating flesh, fowl, and fish while continuing to partake of dairy products and eggs was not going far enough. Between 1909 and 1912, The Vegetarian Society's journal published a vigorous correspond- ence on this subject. In 1910, a publisher brought out a cookery book entitled, No Animal Food. After World War I, the debate continued within the Vegetarian Society about the acceptability of animal by-products. It centered on issues of cruelty and health as well as on consistency versus expediency. The Society saw its function as one of persuading as many people as possible to give up slaughterhouse products and also refused journal space to those who abjured dairy products. The year 1944 saw the word "vergan" coined and the breakaway Vegan Society formed. The idea that eating animal flesh is unhealthy and morally wrong has been around for millennia, in many different parts of the world and in many cultures (Williams, 1896). In Britain, a national Vegetarian Society was formed in 1847 to promulgate the ideology of non-meat eating (Twigg, 1982). Vegetarianism, as defined by the Society-then and now-and by British vegetarians in general, permitted the consumption of dairy products and eggs on the grounds that it was not necessary to kill the animal to obtain them. In 1944, a group of Vegetarian Society members coined a new word-vegan-for those who refused to partake of any animal product and broke away to form a separate organization, The Vegan Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Vegetarianism and World Peace and Justice
    Visit the Triangle-Wide calendar of peace events, www.trianglevegsociety.org/peacecalendar VVeeggeettaarriiaanniissmm,, WWoorrlldd PPeeaaccee,, aanndd JJuussttiiccee By moving toward vegetarianism, can we help avoid some of the reasons for fighting? We find ourselves in a world of conflict and war. Why do people fight? Some conflict is driven by a desire to impose a value system, some by intolerance, and some by pure greed and quest for power. The struggle to obtain resources to support life is another important source of conflict; all creatures have a drive to live and sustain themselves. In 1980, Richard J. Barnet, director of the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that by the end of the 20th century, anger and despair of hungry people could lead to terrorist acts and economic class war [Staten Island Advance, Susan Fogy, July 14, 1980, p.1]. Developed nations are the largest polluters in the world; according to Mother Jones (March/April 1997, http://www. motherjones.com/mother_jones/MA97/hawken2.html), for example, Americans, “have the largest material requirements in the world ... each directly or indirectly [using] an average of 125 pounds of material every day ... Americans waste more than 1 million pounds per person per year ... less than 5 percent of the total waste ... gets recycled”. In the US, we make up 6% of the world's population, but consume 30% of its resources [http://www.enough.org.uk/enough02.htm]. Relatively affluent countries are 15% of the world’s population, but consume 73% of the world’s output, while 78% of the world, in developing nations, consume 16% of the output [The New Field Guide to the U.
    [Show full text]