IndexWhat is vegetarianism? (essay)Advantages and Disadvantages of Vegetarian DietsConclusionsWorks CitedWhat is vegetarianism? (essay) To discuss vegetarianism, this essay first provides an introduction to the topic. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay To begin with, vegetarianism is the limitation of one's diet to only plants, vegetables, grains, and fruits, without eating any food derived from an animal. There are different extremes of vegetarianism, where you can eat dairy products, but not eggs, only milk, etc. And the reasons why people convert to this diet are different. Health, religion, compassion for animals, usually varies. Vegetarianism has existed for centuries, starting with the peaceful Hindu and Buddhist religions, but recently we have seen the explosion of a more militant vegetarianism inspired by the “animal rights” movement. Today, vegetarian activists throw pies at Ronald McDonald and the Pork Queen, scribble “meat is murder” in prominent places, commit terrorist acts of arson, and run media campaigns that equate meat eating with cannibalism. Vegetarianism is becoming more of a trap than a healthier diet. Advantages and disadvantages of vegetarian diets The guidelines of the US Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services recommend 2 to 3 daily servings of milk, which vegetarians do not drink, and the same quantities of foods such as eggs, meat, poultry and fish. They recommend 3 to 5 servings of vegetables, 2 to 4 of fruit and 6 to 11 servings of bread, cereals, rice and pasta. In other words, 11 to 20 plant foods, but only 4 to 6 animal foods. Vegetarians are, on average, much healthier than those who eat the typical Western diet and have a lower incidence of many chronic diseases. Vegetarians consume less cholesterol and fat than carnivores. Vegetarian diets offer disease-protecting benefits due to their low content of saturated fat, cholesterol and animal protein. However, it has not been proven that you need to eliminate meat from your diet to be healthy. It has been aptly proven that the typical Western diet contains too much fat. Eliminating meat from your diet is one way to reduce fat, but it's not the only way. Eating meat responsibly and adding more carbohydrates to your diet can also reduce fat. Vegetarian diets are known to cure and/or prevent disease. For example, soybeans contain high concentrations of substances now known as cancer preventers, and several studies show that soy consumption can reduce both colon and rectal cancer. And according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, a vegetarian diet can prevent 97 percent of coronary artery blockages. But vegetarian diets have also been shown to increase the risk of nutritional deficiencies. Children are particularly vulnerable and can lead to growth problems. Vegetarian children often fail to grow up like their omnivorous peers. Adults who choose to become vegetarians in later life are less susceptible to the diet's negative health effects. But young children growing up in a vegetarian household lack the nutrients needed for proper growth. Vegetarians who do not eat animal meat or dairy products risk a vitamin B12 deficiency, which can cause irreversible nerve deterioration. The need for vitamin B12 increases during pregnancy, breastfeeding and the adolescent growth period. Vegetarians with high nutritional needs, such as athletes and pregnant women, haveparticularly need these deficient vitamins. And not taking all these vitamins can be harmful to your health. Additionally, ovo-vegetarians, who eat eggs but not dairy or animal meat, may be deficient in vitamin D and calcium. A vitamin D deficiency can cause rickets in children, while a calcium deficiency can contribute to the risk of osteoporosis in later years. These vegetarians are prone to iron deficiency anemia because they only lack the most easily absorbable iron from animal flesh. A vegetarian diet must be considered with extreme caution, so as not to endanger your health. The ecological arguments against omnivorous and carnivorous eating habits are little more than an attempt by those in the less popular "animal rights" movement to ride the wave of the more popular environmental movement. In some cases, warnings of an impending environmental cataclysm are used to promote an ethical agenda. However, arguments that meat eating is destroying the planet overlook the fact that the planet has not yet been destroyed despite millions of years of omnivorous and carnivorous eating by millions of individuals from a multitude of species. Carnivores make up the majority of the food chain, both human and animal. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that some energy will inevitably be lost as you move up the food web. Therefore, arguments about how “X” pounds of plant protein are needed to generate “Y” pounds of meat have a solid theoretical basis. However, these arguments are often overstated. These arguments incorrectly assume that pork chops and steaks are the only products of animal agriculture. They falsely assume that a pound of animal foods is nutritionally and energetically equivalent to a pound of plant foods. These arguments also ignore the energy content and opportunity cost of replacing animal by-products, which is considerable. The animal's excrement is also a valuable resource. Some animal products, such as fetal calf serum, collagen and laminin, are critical to medical research using cell cultures and have no alternatives available. Is saving a cow worth letting a human die? You can say “yes”, but what if he was the sick human? And if some practices associated with animal agriculture turn out to be ecologically harmful, this does not merit blanket opposition to meat consumption. While not practical for everyone, hunting and fishing bypass any potential ecological destruction associated with plant or animal agriculture. They are therefore two of the most ecologically valid ways to earn one's livelihood. Those who oppose even limited exploitation of these alternatives have ethical concerns disguised as environmental concerns. The most false ecological ploy implemented by “ethical” vegetarians is the argument “…we could feed X starving people with Y% of the resources allocated to animal agriculture…”. First, it falsely implies that humans are starving due to insufficient production capacity. World hunger is the result of poor food distribution, not poor food production capacity. Our capacity to produce grain is so vast that we effectively pay farmers not to produce. Second, if the argument were valid, the resulting increase in human population would worsen rather than remedy ecological concerns regarding the human population. Please note: this is just an example. Get a personalized document now come on/12-085