A large body of scientific literature suggests that the consumption of a diet of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, nuts, and fruits, with the avoidance of meat and high-fat animal products, along with a regular exercise program is consistently associated with lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, less obesity and consequently less heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer, and mortality

dry beans and lentils. These take the place of meat and fish as the major source of protein

A major report published by the World Cancer Research Fund in 1997 recommended we lower our risk of cancer by choosing predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, legumes and minimally processed starchy staple foods, and to limit the intake of grilled, cured and smoked meats and fish

Over 200 studies have revealed that a regular consumption of fruits and vegetables provides significant protection against cancer at many sites. People who consume higher amounts of fruits and vegetables have about one-half the risk of cancer, especially the epithelial cancers

About three dozen plant foods have been identified as possessing cancer-protective properties. These include cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower), umbelliferous vegetables and herbs (carrots, celery, cilantro, caraway, dill, parsley), other fruits and vegetables (citrus, tomatoes, cucumber, grapes, cantaloupe, berries), beans (soybeans), whole grains (brown rice, oats, whole wheat), flaxseed, many nuts, and various seasoning herbs (garlic, scallions, onions, chives, ginger, turmeric, rosemary, thyme, oregano, sage, and basil) (9).

Regular fruit and vegetable consumption reduces the risk of ischemic heart disease

Anthocyanin pigments, the reddish pigments found in fruits, such as strawberries, cherries, cranberries, raspberries, blueberries, grapes, and black currants, are very effective in scavenging free radicals, inhibiting LDL [bad] cholesterol oxidation and inhibiting platelet aggregation.

Healthy volunteers who consumed a vegetarian diet (25% of calories as fat) that was rich in green, leafy vegetables and other low-calorie vegetables (tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots, bell peppers, celery, green beans, etc.), fruits, nuts, sweet corn and peas experienced after two weeks decreases of 25, 33, 20 and 21 percent in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and total/HDL cholesterol ratio, respectively (15).

Various factors exist in fruits and vegetables that provide possible protection against cardiovascular disease. These factors include folic acid, dietary fiber, potassium, magnesium, carotenoids, phytosterols, flavonoids, and other polyphenolic antioxidants. Typically, vegetarian diets are also somewhat lower in saturated fat and cholesterol. Vegetarians typically have lower blood cholesterol levels

In another study, lifelong vegetarians had a 24 percent lower incidence and lifelong vegans (those who eat no eggs or dairy products) had a 57 percent lower incidence of coronary heart disease compared to meat eaters

Epidemiological studies have consistently reported that frequent nut consumption is associated with a 30-60% reduction in the risk of coronary heart disease

While nuts are high in fat, they are naturally low in saturated fat and most are quite rich in monounsaturated fat. Nuts also contain a number of vitamins, minerals and other substances important for cardiovascular health, such as potassium, magnesium, vitamin E, folic acid, copper, and dietary fiber. In addition, most nuts contain phytosterols, tocotrienols, and protective polyphenolics such as ellagic acid and flavonoids

Data from two prospective studies supports a protective relationship between fruit and vegetable consumption and risk of ischemic stroke

Data from the NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] study revealed that consuming fruit and vegetables three or more times a day compared with less than once a day was associated with a 27% lower incidence of stroke, a 42% lower stroke mortality, a 27% lower cardiovascular disease mortality, and a 15% lower all-cause mortality

The consumption of a generous supply of whole grains, legumes, nuts, fruits and vegetables provides protection against chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. A plant-based diet is rich in its content of health-promoting factors such as the many phytochemicals.

Craig, Winston. "Plant-Based Diets Provide Many Health Benefits." Vegetarianism. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Health Benefits of Vegetarian Diets." 2008. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

300 million turkeys are killed each year in the US. Before this, their beaks and toes burned off with a hot blade, they are then crammed into filthy sheds.

Every year in the laying industry, 280 million newly hatched male chicks—who can't produce eggs themselves—are thrown into garbage bags or grinders, to suffocate or be crushed or hacked to death.

We by default act against the interests of others in ensuring our survival

How do we draw the line and decide that animals have some inherent right to life versus, say, a fruit or vegetable

he majority of us do not want animals to suffer, ... [but we seem to be able to] detach from reality when the subject at hand has anything to do with our appetites.

I say cannibalism and you say gross. Therefore we can clearly and quite easily place it in the "wrong" column. I say "dog meat" or "horse meat" and most of us have the same reaction. "Yuck" becomes equivalent to "wrong."

I say ribs, bacon cheeseburger, or tandoori chicken, and our reaction is completely different. Our moral opposition drains away in direct proportion to our salivation levels. And while I presume the majority of us do not want animals to suffer, it seems we have an internal on/off switch that allows us to detach from reality when the subject at hand has anything to do with our appetites.

We simply cannot truly respect and bless these animals, and by default their lives themselves, when the depth of our connection is a plastic wrapped, Styrofoam container full of hamburger, whose origin or journey we couldn't possibly fathom.

[Animal rights activist and photographer] Linda McCartney once said, "if slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian."

The second concept has to do with the moral question. Under what moral prerogative are we able to apply the tenets of equality, justice, and right to life to humans, and some animals (such as dogs, cats, and horses), but not the remainder of the animal kingdom?

[philosopher and author] Peter Singer: "The animals themselves are incapable of demanding their own liberation, or of protesting against their condition with votes, demonstrations, or bombs. Human beings have the power to continue to oppress other species forever, or until we make this planet unsuitable for living beings. Will our tyranny continue, proving that we really are the selfish tyrants that the most cynical of poets and philosophers have always said we are? Or will we rise to the challenge and prove our capacity for genuine altruism by ending our ruthless exploitation of the species in our power, not because we are forced to do so by rebels or terrorists, but because we recognize that our position is morally indefensible?"

articulated criticism against vegetarians that they claim to respect life but nonetheless eat plants, and plants are living organisms too

The argument about right to life does not define life as merely "alive," but rather as sentience and consciousness

The first statement of Buddhism is "do not kill."

Hindu scriptures recognize spirituality in all living things.

The sixth commandment: "thou shalt not kill."

Genesis: "To man and all creatures wherein is a living soul."

The Bible also says that "man has dominion over the animals." But think of the meaning of the word "dominion." The Bible spends the majority of its words imparting a reverence for life. Kings and queens have dominion over their people, but I do not believe this imparts in them permission to torture, kill, eat, wear, or experiment on their subjects.

360 million acres of forest in the US alone have been cleared for cropland for farmed animals. The Smithsonian says seven football fields of land on earth are bulldozed every minute to create room for farm animals.

It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of meat, but only 25 gallons to produce a pound of wheat.

Audubon estimates that 50% of the water used in the US is to raise animals for food.

A vegetarian diet requires 300 gallons of water per day.

55 square feet of rain forest needs to be razed to produce a quarter pound hamburger.

Of all agricultural land in the US, 80 percent is used to raise animals for food

I think we could all agree that there is an ethical responsibility on all of us to help those who cannot help themselves.

1/3 of the fossil fuels in the US go into the production of meat.

To eat a hamburger,

Grow tons of grain (tilling, irrigation, etc)

Transport grain on 18 wheelers to feed mills

Operate feed mills

Transport feed to factory farms

Operate factory farms

Truck animals to slaughter

Operate slaughterhouses

Transport meat to processing plants

Operate processing plants (There is an entirely additional, energy intensive process to create all the packaging needed)

Transport meat to grocery stores

Keep meat refrigerated or frozen until ready for use (Then there's the waste of all the packaging) Meat animals of the world alone consume food equal to calorie needs of 9 billion people.

Animals raised for food are fed more than 70 percent of the grains the US produces. It takes 22 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat.

Meat animals of the world alone consume food equal to calorie needs of 9 billion people

There are estimates that the world currently produces enough vegetarian food to feed 15 billion people. 1.4 billion people could be fed with the grain and soybeans we feed US cattle alone. 40,000 children die of hunger every day.

is it okay to engage in a behavior that wastes resources, when it is widely known that people are suffering and dying because of a lack of those very same resources?

We have clearly evolved to the point where a vegetarian diet is not only easy to come by, but better for the earth.

However, it is clear that we have more in common with herbivores than carnivores, including our intestinal length, the strength of our stomach acid, the shape and size of our teeth and nails, the existence of sweat glands, and other features. And we have clearly evolved to the point where a vegetarian diet is not only easy to come by, but better for the earth, more sustainable for the environment and the long run survival of our species, and more justifiable on pretty much any moral basis.

If you do think we are truly carnivorous by nature, imagine a wolf or lion stumbling upon a day old cow carcass in the woods. Imagine the profound joy that this animal would feel upon its discovery. Now imagine how you'd react, were you to stumble across the same thing.

I not only think our omnivorous nature served us well in our evolution, but actually didn't contain the volume of moral issues that it does today

Organic farmers often, but not always, treat the animals with more respect and dignity, and actually offer them some quality of life

Most of the time, the environmental impacts are far less pronounced

it will always take more land, water, and resources to produce an animal for food then it would to produce a vegetarian alternative. The other reality that remains is that we have to consciously make the moral decision that the life of an animal is not as meaningful as the life of a human.

Farmed animals produce 130 times the excrement of the entire US human population—without sewage treatment. About 86,000 pounds per second. Much of it ends up in our water and soil. The EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] estimates that chicken, hog, and cattle excrement have polluted 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states.

Solomon, Brian. "Vegetarianism Is the Right Moral Choice for Many Reasons." Vegetarianism. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Ethics and Vegetarianism: Why What We Eat Matters." Progressive Cogitation Mar. 2006. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

The best way to ensure you're getting food from non-industrial farms is to buy from sources with full transparency, those where you can see how the animals are raised, and what they were fed, as well as learn from what farm or farms the food actually came. If I can't get the basic information about how the farm animals were raised, I just don't buy it.

Few people these days ask where the food comes from when at grocery stores or restaurants

Food labels are helpful but imperfect. Knowing what they mean (and do not mean) is important. For example, the term "free range" has one connotation with eggs and another with poultry meat

Supermarkets' primary appeal is convenience,

Independently owned grocery stores tend to be more willing to work with traditional farmers

Organic is very good (but the label isn't perfect).

The popularity of farmers markets has exploded in recent past decades, going from about 350 in the late 1970s to more than 4,400 today.

US government authorities barely police imported food's safety nor the validity of its label claims

more American farmland is occupied by real farms and ranches instead of factory farms

All animals, not just grazing animals, benefit tremendously from being outdoors daily on natural vegetation

Certain animals, including cattle, goats and sheep, have evolved as grazing or browsing animals. Their bodies are designed to spend their waking hours slowly foraging and walking to gather their food over many hours

In other words, cattle—both those raised for beef and those raised for milk—should live on grass

Animal based foods labeled organic must be fed only organic feeds (which has at least 80 percent organic ingredients and does not contain slaughterhouse wastes, antibiotics, or genetically modified grains)

The organic standards also provide some assurance about how the animals are housed and handled. They require that organic livestock and poultry be provided: "living conditions which accommodate the health and natural behavior of animals,"

Thus, much organic milk (and other dairy products) comes from cows that are housed in enormous metal sheds and spend most of their days on cement floors, having no access to pastures

When "free range" is used on poultry meat, USDA requires that the birds have some access to the outdoors. However, there are no standards for what type of outdoor area it must be, and therefore might be a small cement patio

Arguably, then, companies could label their eggs "free range" even without providing any outdoor access

Niman, Nicolette Hahn. "People Will Increasingly Boycott Factory-Farmed Meat and Animal Products." Vegetarianism. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Avoiding Factory Farm Foods: An Eater's Guide." The Huffington Post. 2009. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

2. Urban Cowboys

New use for ex-ranch land? Inexpensive vacation homes; reforested parks; fields of green products like hemp or bamboo. Hot new city job? Techies and designers for In-Vitro Meat factories.

In-Vitro Meat will be 100% muscle. It will eliminate the artery-clogging saturated fat that kills us. Instead, heart-healthy Omega-3 (salmon oil) will be added. IVM will also contain no hormones, salmonella, e. coli, campylobacter, mercury, dioxin, or antibiotics that infect primitive meat

3. Healthier Humans

IVM will reduce influenza, brucellosis, TB, and Mad Cow Disease

The globe's water crises will be partially alleviated, due to our inheritance of the 8% of the H2O [water] supply that was previously gulped down by livestock and their food crops. We won't even choke to death because IVM contains no malicious bones or gristle....

4. Healthier Planet

1.5 billion livestock of responsibility for 51% of all human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

cattle crap 130 times more volume than a human, creating 64 million tons of sewage in the United States that's often flushed down the Mississippi River to kill fish and coral in the Gulf of Mexico

There's a hog farm in Utah that oozes a bigger turd total than the entire city of Los Angeles

68% of the ammonia in the world is caused by livestock (creating acid rain), 65% of the nitrous oxide, 37% of the methane, 9% of the CO2 [carbon dioxide], plus 100 other polluting gases. Big meat animals waste valuable land—80% of Amazon deforestation is for beef ranching, clear-cutting a Belgium-sized patch every yea

15,000 liters of H2O produces just one kilogram of beef

40% of the world's cereals are devoured by livestock

5. Economic Upheaval

6. Exotic & Kinky Cuisine.

Yes, ANY ANIMAL, even rare beasts like snow leopard, or Komodo Dragon

Some researchers believe we will also be able to create IVM using the DNA of extinct beasts

7. FarmScrapers.

8. We Stop the Shame

In-Vitro Meat will squelch the subliminal guilt that sensitive people feel when they sit down for a carnivorous meal

Forty billion animals are killed per year in the United States alone; one million chickens per hour

Hyena, Hank. "Lab-Grown Meat Will Positively Impact the Planet." Vegetarianism. Debra A. Miller. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Current Controversies. Rpt. from "Eight Ways In-Vitro Meat Will Change Our Lives." h+ Magazine (17 Nov. 2009). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.

Companies like Clinique, Tarte and Almay have stopped the practice. Other lesser-known brands, like Pixi, Organic Male OM4 (a skin-care line for men) and Dr.'s Remedy, an all-natural nail polish, never started it.

But no such laws exist in the United States

Companies may say their products are ''cruelty-free'' or ''not tested on animals,'' she said, but their claims might refer only to the finished product, and not to specific ingredients

A majority of items made without animal testing are independent brands that are not readily available at chain drugstores, department stores or specialty stores

Ellin, Abby. "Leaving animals out of the cosmetics picture." New York Times 29 Dec. 2011: E3(L). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 9 Mar. 2012.

Although most people assume such activity is necessary to advance medical science, in reality it does very little to improve human health.

even though there may be non-animal research methods available, there are no laws that require researchers to use them instead.

Using animals for medical testing is both unethical and unnecessary.

Each year, more than 100 million animals—including mice, rats, frogs, dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish, and birds—are killed in U.S. laboratories for chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics testing; biology lessons; medical training; and curiosity-driven experimentation.

Before their deaths, some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraint devices for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned off or their spinal cords crushed.

animals in laboratories are deprived of everything that is natural and important to them—they are confined to barren cages, socially isolated, and psychologically traumatized.

those who do accept animal experimentation do so only because they believe it to be necessary for medical progress. The reality is that the majority of animal experiments do not contribute to improving human health, and the value of the role that animal experimentation plays in most medical advances is questionable.

Diseases that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory are never identical to those that occur naturally in human beings

The results of animal experiments can be variable and easily manipulated

Ninety-two percent of drugs—those that have been tested on animals and in vitro—do not make it through Phase 1 of human clinical trials

members of the public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or unknowingly—fund animal experimentation.

Despite the countless animals killed each year in laboratories worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate regulatory measures in place to protect animals from suffering and distress or to prevent them from being used when a non-animal approach is readily available

(mice, rats, birds, reptiles, and amphibians)

Laboratories that use only these species are not required by law to provide animals with pain relief or veterinary care, to search for and consider alternatives to animal use, to have an institutional committee review proposed experiments, or to be inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or any other entity

Experimenters don't even have to count the mice and rats they kill. Some estimates indicate that as many as 800 U.S. laboratories are not subject to federal laws and inspections because they experiment exclusively on mice, rats, and other animals whose use is unregulated.

Even animals who are covered by the law can be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged—no procedures or experiments, regardless of how trivial or painful they may be, are prohibited by law

Human clinical, population, and in vitro studies are critical to the advancement of medicine; even animal experimenters need them

Animal experimenters face the ultimate dilemma—knowing that their artificially created "animal model" can never fully reflect the human condition, while clinical investigators know that the results of their work are directly relevant to people.

"Using Animals for Medical Testing Is Unethical and Unnecessary" by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The Ethics of Medical Testing Tamara Thompson, Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2012. "Animal Experiments: Overview," People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 2011. www.peta.org. Reproduced by permission.

which equals bargain basement medicine

ethical or not, animal experimentation does not work.

animal experimentation cannot predict many of the dangerous side effects caused by new products (drugs, cosmetics, and so on).

by relying on animal research, scientists failed to explore other methods

Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that animal tests are dangerous to human health, and may be the reason that so many 'safety tested' drugs cause so many side effects.

15,000 new drugs are marketed every year, while some 12,000 are withdrawn.

According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 1.5 million Americans were hospitalised in 1978 alone as a consequence of pharmaceutical drugs administered to "cure" them

180,000 medically induced deaths occur each year in the USA..

Although our scientists argue that there are no real alternatives, this attitude is changing.

drugs should be tested using human tissues, cells and organs (known as in vitro cultures).

The truth is that animal testing is the bargain basement of medicine. And we're getting what we pay for.

committed organisations have tried to alert the public to what is first and foremost the inhumanity of these tests

reducing, refining and replacing animal testing can be convincingly argued and won through levelheaded analysis of the scientific research.

Many of the most common life threatening side effects of drugs cannot be predicted by animal tests.

Animals, for instance, cannot let the experimenter know if they are suffering from headache, amnesia, nausea, depression and other psychological disturbances. Allergic reactions, some blood disorders, skin lesions and many central nervous system effects are even more serious examples that cannot be demonstrated by animal models.

Although the stated rationale behind animal testing is that it is done for the greater good of mankind, there is a strong argument that really it is done for legal rather than scientific reasons. Performing the necessary animal experimentation serves as a legal alibi for corporations when their products damage or kill those who use them.

The fact that the laboratory animal is relatively healthy before the experiment means that disease and or trauma has to be induced by artificial and often violent means. This bears no relation whatsoever to the spontaneous ways in which humans develop illness, often through faulty lifestyle and diet.

"Animal Experimentation Hampers Medical Research" by Pat Thomas. Animal Experimentation Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr., Ed. At Issue Series. Greenhaven Press, 2009. Pat Thomas, "Animal Testing—Dangerous to Human Health," WDDTY, What Doctors Don't Tell You, accessed August 1, 2008. Reproduced by permission.

n 1995, he published an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reporting that cotton-topped tamarins, the species of monkey he then worked with, could recognize themselves in the mirror.

Marc Hauser's academic career was soaring when suddenly, three years ago, Harvard authorities raided his laboratory and confiscated computers and records.

One reason, Dr. Seyfarth said, was that he and Dr. Cheney studied animals in natural conditions, where the pace of data collection is much slower, whereas Dr. Hauser had moved into studying captive animals.

The captive animals, a colony of some 40 cotton-topped tamarins, may have contributed to the difficulties in Dr. Hauser's laboratory. It is difficult to get the tamarins to pay attention, especially after the monkeys get used to experimenters.

Wade, Nicholas. "In Harvard lab inquiry, a raid, a staff revolt, and then a 3-year wait." New York Times 14 Aug. 2010: A12(L). Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 13 Mar. 2012.