Should everyone go vegan?

Yes, we know you’re a vegan

Veganism is filled with misconceptions, and vegans are assumed to be pretentious because of their strict eating habits. A vegan diet consists of any food that does not contain any animals or animal products (i.e. meat, dairy, eggs, and honey). Created for the Student Animal Alliance and hosted by Manny Rutinel and Unaiza Batool, the event, “Should Everyone Go Vegan?” questioned whether this health choice should be universally followed.

Before the debate, The Tab spoke with one of the hosts, Manny Rutinel. Rutinel explained, “The reason why we’re having this debate is because veganism is extremely important to me and a debate is an excellent structure to present evidence and disprove misconceptions.

“We’re in the midst of destroying our environment, millions of Americans are dying prematurely from preventable diseases, and every year 100 billion innocent sentient beings are suffering and being killed unnecessarily. All of these things can be fixed with a vegan lifestyle.”

Poll: Cheeseburger or kale smoothie?

The Tab spoke with audience members to hear their stances on the subject before and after hearing the debate. Lauren Wilson, senior, said: “I’m not a vegan, but I am very open to it. I am not sure if I can incorporate that into my lifestyle because of how my diet is now. I think the debate will give me new insight on the topic, but I don’t think my opinion will really change.”

After the debate, Wilson’s view did not waver, “I still believe factory farming is wrong and I’m against animal cruelty, but I sided with the anti-vegan team because I agreed with their stance everyone going vegan isn’t the only solution to the problems they brought up about the climate change and carbon footprints.”

On the other hand, Hannah Rosenoff, freshman, argued: “I highly support veganism. I’ve been vegan for five years now and I don’t think this debate will change my view because I’ve always felt this way.”

Danielle Browning, freshman, also stated: “I just converted to veganism a couple weeks ago and I feel very strongly about the subject. I don’t think this debate will change how I feel at all.” Both felt the same after the debate.

Let the (hunger) games begin

With the meeting room full of excited and attentive audience members, the debate began with the opening words from Noah Mason, a debater arguing in favor of the proposition that everyone should go vegan. Mason spoke of how the consumption of meat and dairy products is the leading cause of global warming. Mason spoke of the fact that 75% of deforestation is due to creating grazing grounds for animals and that in 2009, it was recorded that 51% of human-related greenhouse gases come from farm animals.

Manny Rutinel, the second debater arguing in favor of the proposition, brought up more facts about the unhealthiness of a diet that includes meat. Rutinel stated, “In a groundbreaking meta analysis of over 800 studies of world health organizations has classified processed red meat in the same category as asbestos and tobacco in terms of carcinogens.”

Rutinel brought up the issue of the majority of grain going to feed farmed animals rather than starving people around the world. He also explained the terrible conditions for animals and gave a multitude of examples to describe the cruelty. He powerfully ended with: “Information means nothing if it doesn’t lead to knowledge. Knowledge means nothing if it doesn’t lead to action…If you have dirt on your hands, wash your hands with soap and water. If you have blood on your hands, go vegan.”

Praveen Varanasi concluded the side in favor of the proposition with a compelling argument about the use of agricultural land being used mostly for feeding farmed animals rather than for crops to be eaten by humans. Varanasi also brought up the point that ethnocentrism, understanding another’s culture and traditions through the lens of one’s own culture, is not an excuse to allow unethical actions against animals and the environment to ensue.

Varanasi quoted Ellie Wiesel: “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.”

And concluded with: “Protect the innocent, prevent suffering.”

The opposition’s argument

The opposing side arguing against the proposition that everyone should go vegan consisted of Olivia Meadows,
Gloria Li, and Harrison O’Keeffe. Their main arguments included going vegan is an extreme option compared to the many other options that benefit one’s health and end the unethical practices of industrial agriculture such as eating less meat and becoming vegetarian.

Meadows argued that people should have their own choice on what they can eat rather than being told that they must go vegan, especially when many are uneducated on how to balance a vegan diet that satisfies our needs nutritionally. Meadows stated, “The current system we have is toxic…however, the solution cannot be to force everyone to go vegan.”

Gloria Li began by explaining there is a “Human Slaughter Act, an associated animal welfare regulations that address the very issues that animal activists keep bringing up.” Li advised that instead of going vegan, we must “redirect consumer demand into locally sourced, organically grazed options such as free-range poultry and grass-fed beef.”

Li stated that soybean and rice production takes up massive amounts of agricultural land and water, but was later countered that most of these agricultural lands are used to feed farmed animals rather than people. Again, it was reminded that veganism is not the only option and some are unable or unwilling to correctly follow the vegan diet in a healthy way, religious traditions would be overlooked due to the consumption of meat being a big part of some cultures, and the prices of healthy choices for a vegan diet may not be feasible for lower class citizens unable to afford said food.

Harrison O’Keeffe concluded the opposing side’s argument against the proposition that everyone should go vegan. O’Keeffe reiterated how the vegan diet for busy people can prove to be unhealthy if they don’t keep constant attention to what they are eating.

O’Keeffe also stated: “12% of the world’s population depends solely on livestock for its livelihood according to a report by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization.” Many developing countries would suffer due to a majority of people’s regular income being based on sales of meat and dairy products.

O’Keeffe ended with: “Our world’s diverse economic, cultural, moral, and health situations are much too complex and unique to assert that all people should go vegan.”

After the debate ended, there was a vote to see who won the argument. The judges voted that the team arguing against the proposition that everyone should go vegan succeeded in their argument due to their cohesive stances whereas the audience voted that the team arguing in favor of the proposition succeeded in their argument. This extremely controversial topic has valid arguments for each side and as seen through this debate, the diverse opinions of individuals can lead to compelling conversation to help all people gain knowledge to form their own unique position on the subject of going vegan.