LAL Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 From an ethics point of view, could it be possible that an omnivorous diet (which includes grass-fed cattle, chickens etc and no/little grain-based vegetarian foods) results in fewer animal deaths than a full vegetarian diet that includes plenty of grains? Reason being grain fields are not devoid of animals (rabbits, rodents etc) which are killed when grains are harvested. Vegans/potential vegans should also be cognisant of the increased risk of depression if certain nutrients namely, omega-3 fatty acids, from animal foods are not replaced. Some sources say that even then, plant-based omega-3 is not as easily converted and absorbed by the human body. Not saying that the lack of omega-3 is the sole reason for depression but is a potential factor. This is also from personal experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted May 22, 2007 Report Share Posted May 22, 2007 From an ethics point of view, could it be possible that an omnivorous diet (which includes grass-fed cattle, chickens etc and no/little grain-based vegetarian foods) results in fewer animal deaths than a full vegetarian diet that includes plenty of grains? Reason being grain fields are not devoid of animals (rabbits, rodents etc) which are killed when grains are harvested. That does not seem plausible to me, but that is a gut reaction. In any event, when I was a vegan it was for environmental reasons (primariliy but not exclusively energy efficieny/global warming issues) rather than concern over animal deaths (of which I have very little). While I met many vegans who were "animal rightists", I also met a great many who shared my views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.