Despite the pressing need to address climate change, a surprising number of individuals at the forefront of sustainability efforts still eat meat. The paradox is perplexing: many highly intelligent and environmentally aware people, from scientists to policymakers, acknowledge that animal agriculture is a leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and biodiversity loss (FAO, 2013). Yet, meat consumption persists, even among those advocating for a more sustainable world.
The reasons for this are varied and complex. Many justify their continued consumption of meat with long-standing arguments about health, tradition, and personal choice. Below are ten of the most common justifications for eating meat—and why these arguments are increasingly difficult to defend.
Top 10 Meat-Eating Arguments and Why They Don’t Hold Up
1. “Humans Are Designed to Eat Meat”
This argument often refers to human evolutionary history, claiming that because early humans ate meat, it is natural and necessary for us to do so today. While it’s true that meat was part of early human diets, it is important to note that our physiology has more in common with herbivores than with carnivores. Our digestive systems are designed to process plant-based foods, and modern nutritional science shows that humans can thrive on a plant-based diet (Milton, 1999; American Dietetic Association, 2009).
2. “Protein Only Comes from Meat”
A common misconception is that meat is the only reliable source of protein. However, numerous plant-based foods such as beans, lentils, quinoa, and soy provide ample protein. Many elite athletes, including bodybuilders and endurance runners, have adopted plant-based diets and still meet their protein needs (Paddon-Jones et al., 2013; Melina et al., 2016). Furthermore, overconsumption of animal protein has been linked to chronic diseases, making plant-based sources the healthier choice (Tuso et al., 2013).
3. “Plants Have Feelings Too”
Some argue that if vegans object to killing animals, they should also object to killing plants. While plants are living organisms, they do not possess a nervous system or brain, which are necessary to experience pain. Ethical veganism is based on reducing harm to sentient beings—those capable of experiencing pain and suffering (Hall, 2011). The “plants have feelings” argument conflates biological responses with sentience and does not address the ethical focus of veganism.
4. “Eating Meat is Natural”
This appeal to nature suggests that because meat-eating is “natural,” it is therefore morally acceptable. However, many things that are natural, such as violence and disease, are not ethically justifiable in modern society. Industrial meat production is far from natural, relying on artificial breeding and factory farming methods that are detrimental to the environment and animal welfare (FAO, 2013). The naturalness of an action does not equate to its morality or necessity (Moore, 2002).
5. “Animals Would Overpopulate Without Meat Consumption”
Some argue that if humans stopped eating animals, livestock would overpopulate the earth. This argument ignores the fact that farm animals are bred specifically for consumption. If demand for meat decreased, so would the breeding of these animals (Singer & Mason, 2006). The idea of overpopulation assumes that livestock are part of natural ecosystems, when in fact their populations are artificially maintained by humans.
6. “Vegan Diets Are Nutritionally Deficient”
A common concern is that vegan diets lack essential nutrients such as vitamin B12, iron, and omega-3 fatty acids. While vegan diets do require more attention to certain nutrients, they can meet all of an individual’s nutritional needs through careful planning and the use of supplements or fortified foods (Craig, 2009). For example, B12 supplements are readily available, and plant-based sources of iron and omega-3s are abundant in foods like flaxseeds and fortified cereals (Melina et al., 2016).
7. “Eating Meat is a Personal Choice”
Many meat eaters claim that their diet is a personal choice and should not be judged. However, the environmental and ethical impacts of meat consumption affect more than just the individual. Animal agriculture is a major driver of climate change, deforestation, and water usage (FAO, 2013). Additionally, the suffering of animals in factory farms raises ethical concerns that extend beyond personal choice (Singer, 1995).
8. “Meat Eating is a Tradition”
Cultural traditions are often cited as reasons for continuing to eat meat. However, many traditions have changed over time as societal values evolve. Practices like slavery and gender discrimination were once defended as traditions but are now widely condemned. Similarly, the tradition of meat consumption can—and should—be reevaluated in light of its ethical and environmental consequences (Joy, 2010).
9. “Meat is Necessary for Health”
While some argue that meat is essential for health, research shows that plant-based diets can provide all necessary nutrients while also reducing the risk of chronic diseases such as heart disease, cancer, and diabetes (Tuso et al., 2013). Leading health organizations, including the American Dietetic Association, have stated that vegan diets are suitable for all stages of life, including during pregnancy and childhood (Melina et al., 2016).
10. “Veganism is Elitist”
Some critics argue that veganism is only accessible to the wealthy, as plant-based foods are often perceived as more expensive or harder to find. However, many staple vegan foods, such as rice, beans, and lentils, are affordable and widely available. While it is true that access to fresh produce can be limited in some areas, this is more a reflection of food distribution issues than an inherent flaw in veganism (Smith, 2015). Efforts to make plant-based diets more accessible are growing, with community programs and organizations working to provide affordable plant-based options in underserved areas (Joy, 2010).
The Declining Justifications for Meat Consumption
As awareness grows around the ethical, environmental, and health impacts of meat consumption, the justifications for eating meat are increasingly scrutinized. The ethical concerns regarding the suffering of animals, combined with the clear evidence of animal agriculture’s role in climate change, make it harder for meat eaters to defend their dietary choices (Singer, 1995). Additionally, advancements in plant-based nutrition and alternatives, such as lab-grown meat, are making the shift to veganism more feasible than ever before.
Conclusion
The arguments used to justify meat consumption are often based on outdated ideas or fallacious reasoning. As the scientific and ethical case for plant-based diets strengthens, it becomes increasingly clear that the choice to eat meat is not simply a matter of personal preference but one with significant consequences for the planet and its inhabitants. By debunking these common arguments, it is possible to move the conversation forward and encourage more people to consider the benefits of a vegan lifestyle.
References
- American Dietetic Association. (2009). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109(7), 1266-1282.
- Craig, W. J. (2009). Health effects of vegan diets. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 89(5), 1627S-1633S.
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2013). Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities.
- Hall, M. (2011). Plants as persons: A philosophical botany. SUNY Press.
- Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs, and wear cows: An introduction to carnism. Conari Press.
- Melina, V., Craig, W., & Levin, S. (2016). Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian diets. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 116(12), 1970-1980.
- Milton, K. (1999). A hypothesis to explain the role of meat-eating in human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews, 8(1), 11-21.
- Moore, J. (2002). Evolution, altruism, and the moral law. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology, 59(3), 133-146.
- Paddon-Jones, D., et al. (2013). Protein and healthy aging. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99(4), 986S-990S.
- Singer, P. (1995). Animal liberation. HarperCollins.
- Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2006). The ethics of what we eat: Why our food choices matter. Rodale.
- Smith, M. (2015). Access to healthy food in food deserts. Public Health Reports, 130(5), 556-561.
- Tuso, P. J., Ismail, M. H., Ha, B. P., & Bartolotto, C. (2013). Nutritional update for physicians: Plant-based diets. The Permanente Journal, 17(2), 61-66.