Meat: Health Food or Death Food?

During my first semester at SLU, I took an honors class titled “The Ethics of Food” in which I co-authored the following essay with my partner, Zach Weinzimmer. Unfortunately, this course seemed to touch all and only matters of human animal rights, with the professor skirting around the nonhuman animal question as much as she possibly could. The deliberate effort to limit, undermine, and even silence the lone vegan in this classroom of carnists were so noticeable, several classmates couldn’t help but remark they couldn’t understand what was going on. During the same semester, I also took an advanced ethics course in which I developed the concept of vegephobia, itself inspired by the marginalization many a vegan succumb to in almost every context of their life, both academic and nonacademic. You may view that essay via the following link: https://www.projectanimalfreedom.org/blog/whatisvegephobia.

Since its release on March 7th, the highly controversial documentary, What the Health, has generated a social media firestorm surrounding the healthfulness of animal products. While thousands of vegetarians and vegans have hailed this documentary as the most complete revelation of a long-awaited truth, countless meatatarians have fought against this plant-based tour de force, arguing that animal products are not only healthy, but crucial for human health. Numerous health professionals have also commented on this fiery documentary, developing a perspective that resides somewhere between the “meatatarian perspective” and the “plant-based perspective.” This impassioned debate, fueled not only by this explosive documentary, but also by the seemingly endless stream of articles, books, and conflicting scientific studies, splits into three primary perspectives—the meatatarian perspective, the reducetarian perspective, and the plant-based perspective. Each of these perspectives not only attracts its own proponents, but also renders its own unique answer to the ever controversial question—is meat healthy, or is it not?

Meatatarians extol meat as an exemplary source of vitamins, minerals, and proteins necessary for growth. Since meat contains significant quantities of vitamin B12, vitamin D3, zinc, iron, and other nutrients, a considerable body of scientific evidence validates the meatatarian perspective. Vitamin B12, for example, is essential not only to the production of red blood cells, but also to proper neurological function. Should vitamin B12 levels dip too low, individuals can become weak, fatigued, or even develop neurological disorders. Vitamin D3 also facilitates the growth of bone marrow. Without enough vitamin D3, humans can develop osteoporosis, heart disease, or even cancer. Iron is yet another nutrient crucial to human development. Found readily in many meats, iron, once fused with hemoglobin, transports oxygen throughout the body. Zinc, another crucial mineral, strengthens the immune system and prevents sickness (Andrews). Meat also balances blood-sugar levels, “preventing type 2 diabetes, as well as other chronic diseases,” highlighting meat’s role in chronic disease prevention (Araki).

To counter the growing “health stigma” associated with meat, meatatarians frequently attribute increasing rates of chronic disease to increased sugar consumption, while reducetarians and vegetarians often cite meat as a leading cause of chronic disease. Several studies have indeed established a connection between sugar consumption and chronic illnesses, from heart disease to type II diabetes. High in quickly expended glucose, sugar also disrupts energy levels by causing a quick burst of energy followed by a crash. Since meat contains no sugar, meatatarians often argue that meat consumption does not cause bodily harm. They also criticize meat substitutes for their high sugar content, which elevates the risk of developing chronic disease (Araki). Many meatatarians thus argue that sugar, not meat, is a leading cause of obesity. According to Mcafee and his co-authors, “commonly consumed cuts of beef and lamb were found to contain less than 5% total fat content,” suggesting meat can low in obesogenic fats (6).

Since meat is high in another key nutrient—protein—many meatatarians argue meat is essential for muscle growth. The body uses protein to repair damaged muscle fibers, strengthening and enlarging them (Araki). Meat also contains large quantities of high-quality and meat-specific proteins. According to Givens, “the increased consumption of poultry meat over recent decades has no doubt made an increasing contribution to the intake of high-quality protein” (9). Meat-specific proteins include creatine, carnosine, and casein. Creatine speeds muscle growth, hydrating the muscles and thereby increasing their density, resilience, and strength. Despite the important role creatine plays in muscle growth, creatine is found almost exclusively in meat and only secondarily through supplements. Creatine supplements, however, can be dangerous, as they can lead to severe dehydration in high doses. Carnosine also energizes muscle tissue after it becomes fatigued. Meanwhile, casein, another protein found almost exclusively in animal products, especially dairy, facilitates muscle growth over long periods of time. The near absence of these proteins in plant-based sources, alongside the potential health benefits of consuming these meat-specific proteins, only underscores the meatatarian’s case for animal products as a vital source of high-quality nutrition (Givens 9).

More than just hindering muscle growth, a lack of high-quality protein can lead to critical neurotransmitter imbalances. According to Araki, neurotransmitters are “chemical messengers that regulate many of our functions, including physical, cognitive, and mental performance, as well as our sleep cycles, weight, and emotional states” (Araki). Since meat contains the necessary amino acids for neurotransmitter formation and maintenance, regular meat consumption can prevent neurotransmitter imbalances. Without these essential amino acids, however, neurotransmitter imbalances can lead to depression, anxiety, and hyperactivity. A concerning study from the University of Graz even found that vegetarians with neurotransmitter imbalances are 2-3 times more likely than meat-eaters to suffer from these disorders, supporting the meatatarian’s claim that meat is essential for neurological well-being (Araki).

Pointing to significant anthropological evidence, meatatarians argue that since humans evolved eating meat, meat must be healthy; otherwise, meat-eating would not have conferred the evolutionary advantage hunter-gatherers needed to survive. On this historo-carnistic view, it only makes sense that meat is healthy, given the enormous role it played in human evolution. Equipped with canine teeth, humans can tear into meat, from steak to sushi; the human digestive tract can then assimilate the nutrients therein. Human evolutionary history, coupled with anatomical and digestive features, establishes the healthfulness of human omnivorism on the meatatarian view (Araki). Due to advances in animal production, breeding, and butchery, meat safety has also improved over the past few decades. Certain fats found in meat, moreover, may not be as harmful as previously assumed. A recent study even found that trans fat has “no effect on total cholesterol.” Found in nearly all meat products, trans fat can be stored and used for energy, just like other energy-yielding nutrients, from carbohydrates to protein (Mcafee 7).

While the meatatarian perspective affirms the dietary significance of animal products, two further perspectives—the reducetarian perspective and the plant-based perspective—deemphasize the importance of animal products in our diet. Becoming popular over the past few years, reducetarianism refers to the reduction of one’s animal product consumption, especially meat consumption. Though reducetarians cite a diverse array of reasons for reducing their animal product consumption, several studies show that concern for one’s health provides the most significant motivation for embracing reducetarianism, with roughly 64-71% of reducetarians citing health as their primary motivation. A significant number of reducetarians, however, cite the environment, ethics, and even economics as secondary motivations for switching to a less animal-intensive diet (Cooney 76-77). Even so, Nick Cooney, former Director of Education at Mercy For Animals, argues that in their ideological persuasions, most reducetarians are closer to meatatarians than vegetarians; most reducetarians, for example, view the raising, killing, and eating of animals as morally permissible, while many vegetarians would disagree with this view. Despite these ideological differences, Cooney encourages fellow vegetarians and vegans to welcome reducetarians into the plant-based movement, writing that vegetarians and vegans should not “miss the forest for the trees” (78).

Brian Kateman, author of The Reducetarian Solution, also embraces this open-armed approach, arguing that anyone who reduces animal product consumption is a reducetarian. As Kateman implores, reducetarianism is not an all-or-nothing diet; unlike vegetarianism or veganism, reducetarianism does not prescribe an exact way of eating, nor does it entail a particular set of beliefs. Instead, reducetarianism extends to include everyone who reduces their animal product consumption, regardless of motivation. Although Kateman’s approach includes everyone who reduces their meat, egg, and dairy consumption, from the most ambivalent of semi-vegetarians to the most committed of vegans, Kateman does identify four primary motivations for embracing reducetarianism: improving long-term health, reducing environmental harm, alleviating animal suffering, and advancing human welfare. Kateman, alongside leading animal rights charities, from The Humane League to Animal Equality, even organized the first-ever reducetarian summit at the City University of New York this summer, emphasizing the role of reducetarianism in saving lives, reducing suffering, and rebranding the animal rights movement as pragmatic rather than merely idealistic or even dogmatic (“Why We Do It”). Hillary Rettig, author of The Lifelong Activist, embodies this sentiment perfectly. As she argues, convincing every American to reduce their animal product consumption by just 5% would save 450 million lives annually, the equivalent of 4.5 million Americans going vegan based on the oft-cited statistic each vegan saves 100 lives per year (Rettig).

While the reducetarian perspective emphasizes reducing animal product consumption, the plant-based perspective introduces a third possibility—drastically reducing or eliminating animal product consumption altogether. Although many casual observers conflate “plant-based” with “vegan” due to the growing identification of the vegan lifestyle with plant-based living, plant-based diets include both diets that consist largely and wholly of plant-based foods, including fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds. Vegetarianism, veganism, and stringent reducetarianism thus present variations on the theme of plant-based living. Even so, a growing number of vegetarians and vegans identify as plant-based (Nixon). Just like reducetarians, plant-based enthusiasts list three primary motivations for embracing a plant-based lifestyle—ethics, health, and the environment (Cooney 65). Unlike reducetarians, however, plant-based enthusiasts are significantly more likely to identify ethics as their primary motivation, with roughly half of vegetarians identifying ethics as such. This figure jumps to nearly three-quarters for vegans, the most ideologically homogeneous group considered in this paper (Cooney 73). Depending on the study, health can even surpass ethics as the primary motivation for embracing a vegetarian lifestyle. Concern for the environment also plays a growing role, with up to 1 in 4 vegetarians identifying environmentalism as their primary motivation for switching from a meat-laden diet to a plant-based diet. Younger Americans, especially millennials, are the most likely to cite concern for the environment as a major motivating factor behind their vegetarianism. Meanwhile, disliking the taste of meat or caring about other social justice issues, from food security to worker’s rights, provides the primary motivation behind vegetarianism in fewer than 10% of all vegetarians and vegans surveyed (Cooney 66-68).

Concern for health, as opposed to concern for animals, can also individuate various strands of the plant-based perspective. A growing number of Americans identify as plant-based to avoid the often negative connotations of veganism, including a radical concern for the rights, lives, and well-being of nonhuman animals. Though the average American has positive perceptions of vegetarianism, with many Americans viewing vegetarians as more ethical than the standard American omnivore, perceptions of veganism remain largely negative despite marked improvements over the past several years; only 40% of Americans view vegans favorably, while 30% Americans view vegans unfavorably (Cooney 48-49). To escape what sociologist Dr. Matthew Cole deems the “derogatory discourses of veganism,” many plant-based enthusiasts dissociate themselves from veganism by identifying as plant-based as opposed to vegan. St. Louis Plant-Centered Living, a new startup dedicated to promoting healthy, plant-based lifestyle, fits this trend; rather than brandishing the word “vegan,” they substitute the word “plant-based” to avoid the negative connotations of veganism, from heated tirades to poor health. 

This tendency to dodge the word “vegetarian” or “vegan” also reflects a major division within the plant-based community—“ethical” vegetarianism as opposed to “health” vegetarianism. Ethical vegetarians embrace plant-based living primarily because of their aversion to supporting animal cruelty. This aversion to animal cruelty is often so strong, ethical vegetarians frequently experience not only physical disgust upon the ingestion of meat, but also moral disgust upon the very thought of meat. Whereas most ethical vegetarians would feel disgusted after accidentally ingesting meat, most health vegetarians would not react with such emotional intensity (Cooney 69). The primary motivation for remaining vegetarian also wavers more frequently among health vegetarians; while health remains the primary motivation for just 6% of health vegetarians, ethics remains the primary motivation for 92% of ethical vegetarians. However, nearly a quarter of health vegetarians later adopt ethics as their primary motivation for remaining vegetarian. Ethical vegetarians also take stronger stances on a diverse range of other ethical issues, from nuclear proliferation to capital punishment, though both ethical and health vegetarians are, on average, more progressive than the typical American (Cooney 69-70).

Despite these divisions in the plant-based community, plant-based enthusiasts consistently agree that a plant-based diet high in fresh fruit, vegetables, and whole grains and low in salt, sugar, and fat can prevent several chronic diseases. As the Academy of Dietetics and Nutrition concludes in their 2016 position paper on vegetarian diets, “appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases,” adding that well-planned vegetarian and vegan diets are healthful for every stage of the life cycle, from infancy to old age. Updating their 2008 position paper on vegetarian and vegan diets, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics remarks that plant-based diets are not only sufficient for high-performance athletes, but also more environmentally sustainable than meat-laden diets (Melina).

Although the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics supports plant-based living, large swathes of the plant-based community believe that such statements from mainstream health organizations routinely understate the evidence. Plant-based nutritionists, from Dr. Michael Greger to Dr. Neal Barnard, best embody this view, arguing that a “whole food, plant-based diet” can prevent, treat, and, in some cases, reverse chronic disease, from diabetes to heart disease. In his 2015 bestseller, How Not to Die, Dr. Michael Greger amasses hundreds of studies to support his hypothesis that a whole food, plant-based diet—that is, a diet rich in unprocessed and minimally processed fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds while excluding meat, eggs, and dairy and minimizing salt, sugar, and fat—significantly lowers the risk of developing no fewer than fifteen chronic diseases, many of them top killers in the US. In perhaps the most stunning demonstration of the role of plant-based nutrition in significantly reducing the risk of chronic disease, Dr. Greger cites a landmark study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. This study concludes that lapsed vegetarians who began eating meat at least once a week experienced a “146 percent increase in the odds of heart disease, a 152 percent increase in stroke, a 166 percent increase in diabetes, and a 231 percent increase in odds for weight gain” (Greger 5). Despite the impressive results of this single study, one must wonder whether they are representative of the typical health outcomes of all nonvegetarian diets.

As proponents of each perspective gather ever more evidence to support their respective views, the debate between meatatarians, reducetarians, and vegetarians seems only to intensify. Despite the substantive differences between each of these perspectives, each strives to answer the enigmatic and increasingly fraught question—how ought we to eat? Are animal products paragons of nutritional excellence, a driving cause of chronic disease, or something in between? Meatatarians argue animal products are essential for proper growth, neurological function, and even human survival, citing a significant body of scientific evidence that suggests animal products confer substantial health benefits. Meanwhile, plant-based enthusiasts, vegetarians and vegans chief among them, continue to amass a growing body of scientific evidence as well, suggesting that animal products, far from preserving human health, seriously jeopardize it. Despite these seemingly irreconcilable differences, reducetarians advance yet another perspective, suggesting that while animal products can confer numerous health benefits, we should still reduce our animal product consumption for the sake of human health, the environment, the ethical treatment of animals, and other social justice issues. Through all the fog of these differing, often conflicting views, we can nevertheless appreciate each perspective on its own merits. Perhaps only by embracing this open-minded approach can truly answer the controversial, age-old question—is meat healthy, or is it not?

Works Cited

Andrews, Ryan. “All About Vitamins & Minerals.” Precision Nutrition, 1 Aug. 2017, www.precisionnutrition.com/all-about-vitamins-minerals.

Araki, Kadya. “Why All Humans Need to Eat Meat for Health.” Breaking Muscle, 24 Oct. 2017, breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health.

Givens, D. I. “Milk and Meat in Our Diet: Good or Bad for Health?” Animal, vol. 4, no. 12, 2010, pp. 1941–1952., doi:10.1017/s1751731110001503.

Greger, Michael. How Not to Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease. Flatiron Books, 2015.

Mcafee, Alison J., et al. “Red Meat Consumption: An Overview of the Risks and Benefits.” Meat Science, vol. 84, no. 1, 2010, pp. 1–13., doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.08.029.

Melina, Vesanto, et al. “Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets.” Eat Right Pro, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Dec. 2016, http://www.eatrightpro.org/~/media/eatrightpro%20files/practice/position%20and%20practice%20papers/position%20papers/vegetarian-diet.ashx.

Nixon, Lindsay S. “What Is a Plant-Based Diet?” Happy Herbivore, 16 July 2013, happyherbivore.com/2013/07/what-is-plant-based-diet-difference-from-vegan/#plant-based-same-as-vegan.

Rettig, Hillary. “Compromise Isn't Complicity.” The Vegan Strategist, 6 Nov. 2015, veganstrategist.org/2015/11/06/compromise-isnt-complicity-four-reasons-vegan-activists-should-welcome-reducetarianism-and-one-big-reason-reducetarians-should-go-vegan/.

“Why We Do It.” REDUCETARIAN, The Reducetarian Foundation, reducetarian.org/why/.