Sarah Teppen

RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

Vegetarianism: A Means to an End of Factory Farming
I. Introduction
The production of meat and animal by-products within the United States and across the
world raises significant ethical dilemmas. The issues revolving around meat consumption are
unknown to some people, repressed by others, and overlooked for the sake of convenience by
many. One instance of information suppression recently occurred in Idaho; the state legislature
passed a new ag-gag law that will limit animal advocates from exposing factory farm cruelty,
making it illegal to film animal treatment and abuse (as reported by Elana Pisani). This
legislation was introduced following an investigation by the non-profit animal activism
organization, Mercy for Animals, in which they exposed brutality towards cows on an Idaho
dairy farm. It may come as news to some, but this factory farming trend has essentially
overrun the meat industry within America and across the world. However, this vicious process is
horribly cruel both in life and in slaughter towards the animals who are eventually packed up
and served on our dinner tables. Additionally, factory farming has serious environmental
consequences, as discussed below. As a society of consumers, the best way to conscientiously
protest modern meat production in the name of morality is by relinquishing meat altogether;
vegetarianism is truly the only ethically-sanctioned diet in todays day and age.
As Michael Allen Fox states, vegetarianism involves a great deal more than a simple
change in diet; the vegetarian outlookraises a broad range of philosophical issues
connected with the moral, social, and political spheres of our existence. Thus it is proper to think
of vegetarianism as helping to shape a way of life and to effect a shift in conscious awareness
(xix). To adopt a vegetarian diet is to adopt a lifestyle. In doing so, we must educate ourselves
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

about the vicious nature of meat production within our society and the place it holds alongside
several ethical issues. I advocate vegetarianism not so much as a staunch principle but rather
from a stance against factory farming; it is a lifestyle that needs to be adopted as a combatant
against the immorality of modern meat production surrounding animal welfare and its effect on
our environment.
II. Types of Vegetarianism
For the purposes of this discussion, vegetarianism referred to herein is a diet with
restrictions to meat. However, that is not to say that other restrictions do not exist, nor that they
are just as (if not more) noble. For example, as Fox defines in Deep Vegetarianism, Vegans eat
no meat, dairy products, or eggs (and generally forgo honey as well)macrobiotic vegetarians
live on whole grains, sea and land vegetables, beans and miso [and] raw foodists eat only
uncooked and nonmeat foods. (55). As more and more people are hopping on the meatless
bandwagon, some are able to adopt these stricter and more rigid diets, arguing that the industry
for harvesting animal by-products is just as ethically indefensible. A vegan diet is arguably more
humane than simple vegetarianism. However since vegan options are quite limited for the
masses, the scope of this discussion will focus on the more broadly acceptable meat-restricting
definition of vegetarianism.
III. A Glimpse at Factory Farming
Unfortunately, many misconceptions surround the processes of modern meat production
in our world today. Our field of vision is skewed by pervasive advertisements and illusions, so
the ideal of the quaint family farm still prevails within the minds of most meat consumers:
[They] still believe animals are raised in arboreal dells of bucolic tranquility, where the
sheep are herded by Timmy and Lassie, where the chickens scamper playfully outside the
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

front porch and peck at Gramps feet as he tosses them their feed, and where the cows are
tenderly milked by Mom. (Braunstein 114).

The quaint family farm is being replaced by the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
(factory farming, or CAFO for short) as the face behind modern meat production. The demand
for meat in our global context (with growing populations, decreasing land space, etc.) has greatly
surpassed the supply available from family farms. Supply of meat and other animal products has
become a mechanized process, and countless animals are tortured and exploited on a daily basis
because of it. Due to corporate and media power, many details of the processes are withheld
from the general public; this is the reality that is not only faced in Idaho, but one that occurs all
across the country on a regular basis. The flesh industry is all too aware of what its consumers
want to eat and what not to see of what they eat. (Braunstein 119). The fight for information
exists just as much as the fight against misinformation. Many people are veiled in blissful
ignorance when it comes to the origins of the food they eat. However, from what information
has been divulged (or otherwise obtained), factory farm animals are constantly put under such
stresses as overcrowding, untreated infections, debeaking (in the cases of chickens) and
dehorning (in the cases of cows and livestock), brutal castration, plus numerous other intended
and unintended atrocities (Hill 41-44).
IV. Animal Welfare
Two predominant arguments that attempt to justify vegetarianism are the classifications
of animals as having equal rights with humans versus deserving equal consideration as fellow
beings. For the purposes of this argument, I will be siding with the idea that animals deserve
equal consideration for their rights against pain and suffering. I introduce this principle of equal
consideration as a facet of animal rights, however I do not venture to claim that animals
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

necessarily deserve equal rights as humans; this less-radical stance is easier to grasp in modern
society while still strongly supporting the argument against animal cruelty. As a major
proponent of this outlook, Peter Singer states No matter what the nature of the being, the
principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering in so
far as rough comparisons can be made of any other being (36). This consideration must
extend to a limit of sentience the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness
(Singer 36) as opposed to an arbitrary measure of intelligence, cognitive abilities, etc. Singer
offers the term speciesism (coined by Richard Ryder) to describe this way that we naturally,
however illogically, raise ourselves above other animals in the world on these scales of
importance. Not only is our dominance an unjust assumption, but we take it as justification to
exploit the numerous species with which we share this world.
With the idea in mind that sentient creatures deserve this sort of consideration, the
necessity to worry about animal welfare within factory farms comes into play. In many farms
across America today, farm animals are unquestionably and severely mistreated; not only is the
slaughterhouse process unnecessarily brutal, but the way these animals are raised is
unquestionably inhumane. To offer an illustration, 9 billion chickens are slaughtered each year
in the United States for meat; they are treated simply as a means to human ends, selectively
bred and fed for the abnormally fast growth without consideration for their well-being (Factory
Farming). This emphasis on market weight results in chickens reaching full size within 42
days, an alarming growth rate that is four times that of 50 years ago. The rapid growth of meat
(especially the breast) overwhelms the rest of the chickens body, contributing to heart and lung
failure, deformities, lameness, and even difficulty standing up. Furthermore, these chickens are
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

so crowded in their warehouse-like buildings that each occupies an average area as small as this
sheet of letter-size paper.
Such brutality escalates with larger livestock. Pregnant sows are confined in gestation
crates only slightly larger than their bodies; it is nearly impossible to comfortably lie down or
turn around, and many exhibit abnormal behaviors such as biting the bars and chewing with an
empty mouth caused by intense tedium and frustration. Piglets are taken away from their
mothers when only 17-20 days old, when they undergo mutilations such as castration and tail
dismemberment without pain relief. The pigs are then raised in cramped pens until they meet
market weight (feasible after only 6 months), when they are shipped off to slaughter. Calves
too are separated from their mothers at a very young age and then fattened in crowded feedlots to
1,200 pounds in just 6 months (Factory Farming). In addition to the physical sufferings of
these animals, our ethical considerations extend to the emotional pain of both mother and baby
when these fellow mammals are separated too soon. Though rudimentary regulations of factory
farming practices exist (case in point: the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act stipulates that
livestock be rendered insensible to pain before shackling and slaughter, but ensuing
investigations discovered that many are still painfully conscious), the rules are often poorly
monitored and easily evaded (USDA Animal Welfare Information Center).
Vegetarianism offers an immediate way that we can retaliate against this sort of
exploitation and mistreatment of animals. Although other forms of animal brutality certainly
exist in the world, the meat industry is a disturbingly tolerated example. The meat industry is
only in place to serve our diet preferences, as opposed to serving a basic need for survival; in this
case, it is our moral duty to refrain from supporting this cycle and do what we can to prevent
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

further animal suffering. Equal consideration for sentient creatures such as the animals raised for
slaughter requires us to reevaluate and reject the system entirely. At the very least it is morally
indefensible to raise our covetous diets above the well-being of millions of other fellow animals,
no matter how high or low they may be considered.
V. Environmental Concerns
The dangerous and destructive effects of the meat industry on the Earths environment is
another cause for concern. In the United States alone, the billions of animals raised and
slaughtered for human consumption each year strains our natural resources like land, water, and
fossil fuel. This input greatly outweighs the relative output of factory farms, while significantly
contributing to such problems as deforestation, desertification, pollution of air and water, global
warming, and habitat destruction; these consequences of factory farming are wide-ranging and
globally devastating.
One illustration is the staggering quantities of waste and greenhouse gases produced by
these farm animals. In the U.S., animals raised on factory farms generate more than 1 million
tons of manure per day, roughly three times the amount generated by the countrys human
population. Most of this manure is stored in large, open-air lagoons which are prone to leaks and
spills, grossly contaminating water supplies (one Illinois hog farm in 2011 spilled 200,000
gallons of manure into a nearby creek, killing over 110,000 fish). Methane gas emissions from
farm animals are also a source of concern; ruminants such as sheep, cattle, and goats account for
nearly one-third of this important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, contributing significantly to
climate change (Factory Farming).
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

Furthermore, the necessity of land for livestock pasture is one of the driving forces
behind deforestation across the globe, and it is simply unsustainable if the current trends
continue. Factory farming is horrendously environmentally inefficient. As John Hill notes,
Presently, as much as 90 percent of all land put to agricultural use in the United States today is
utilized either for the production of livestock the growing, grazing, and housing of the
hundreds of millions of cattle, sheep, pigs, and other common fare for the American diet or for
land used to grow the crops that will feed these animals (105). To further emphasize these
inefficiencies, it is reported that we need 21 lbs. of crop protein to produce 1 lb. of protein in the
form of beef or veal, with the average ratio for all livestock falling around 1:8 (Lapp 8). All of
these statistics alone should be enough to persuade a population to use land resources for human
food as opposed to greatly reducing the protein available for human consumption by routing the
food through an animal first. For those who refuse to grant consideration or rights to animals,
this point brings human rights into the ethical justification for vegetarianism. Suppose that I
currently eat 100 pounds of meat per year, and I also eat many other non-meat foods. My annual
meat consumption would require roughly 800 pounds of grain to feed the meat animals. If I were
to become a vegetarian and could thrive on 200 pounds of grain while keeping the rest of my
non-meat diet intact, then I would be freeing up 600 pounds of grain that could be diverted to
help feed several other hungry people. Thus, vegetarianism is not only for animal welfare, but it
is a way to help alleviate human hunger.
For the sake of our Earth, not to mention our own future as living organisms on this
Earth, it is necessary to take caution and be wary of consequences of our actions in the present.
The disastrous effects of factory farming within our meat industry are painfully apparent. For
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

moral reasons alone, it makes sense to eradicate such behavior. This can begin one person at a
time in the form of vegetarianism; the commitment against eating meat is a starting point for
bringing about change. The industry meets the demands of society; if we can transform into a
primarily vegetarian-based society, the damaging effects on our environment could be halted and
even reversed.
VI. Related Objections
Some object to vegetarianism on the grounds that humans are naturally omnivores. This
defense conflates arguments that stem from ability, personal preference, and enculturation within
our society of long-time meat-eaters. With our modern understanding of biochemistry,
omnivores are not able to argue that humans need meat in their diet to survive:
[At mealtimes] we treat [other species] purely as a means to our ends. We regard their
life and well-being as subordinate to our taste for a particular kind of dish. I say taste
deliberately this is purely a matter of pleasing our palate. There can be no defense of
eating flesh in terms of satisfying nutritional needs, since it has been established beyond
doubt that we could satisfy our need for protein and other essential nutrients far more
efficiently with a diet that replaced animal flesh by soy beans, or products derived from
soy beans, and other high-protein vegetable products. (Singer 36).

The meat industry exists for pleasure and profit rather than for human survival. I do not wish to
deny anyone the privilege of eating meat; the purpose of this paper is to argue for the boycott of
factory-farmed meat out of consideration for the well-being of our Earth and billions of sentient
creatures.
This raises the question of how other forms of animal agriculture (free-range farming, for
instance) play into the vegetarianism-to-protect-animal-welfare argument. Free-range farming
grants a relatively fulfilled and free life to the animals prior to their being killed for meat,
generally in stark comparison to the lives that factory farm animals lead. Although free-range
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

farming seems generally acceptable from the welfare standpoint we have adopted, it and other
similar systems are completely unrealistic at this time on a global scale. In a strikingly honest
defense of CAFOs and the modern meat industry, Wayne Swanson and George Schultz (authors
of Prime Rip) judge that the possibility of reducing corruption is essentially nonexistent:
No matter how much new technology is developed, and no matter how nicely meat is
packaged, the central facts of the meat business cannot be changed. This is an industry
built around noisy, foul-smelling animals whose fate is to have an eight-inch-long-pin
fired into their foreheads at point-blank range. Their blood and guts will spill forth on the
killing floor, and their carcasses will be stripped and carved and chopped during a
process that, although it is governed by humane slaughter laws, can be nothing other
than gross and brutal (qtd. in Schleifer 230).

This assertion only further supports the necessity of vegetarianism as a combatant against the
atrocities of factory farming. Other, more humane possibilities are highly improbable and
unrealistic. If our meat industry were to convert to any other mode of production, corporate food
titans would have to risk and relinquish their monopolistic power. In addition, prices for the
supplied meat would increase dramatically, there would undoubtedly be an inadequate supply of
meat to meet todays demand, and economic competition (along with resulting exploitation)
would likely prevail once again.
Furthermore, there exists a lot of controversy over the soundness of the claims of free-
range, all-natural, organic, and the like. Oftentimes consumers are more comfortable when
they see these descriptions, but the terms are unregulated and often an illusion a marketing tool
effectively used to divert attention from the reality behind the foods production. USDA
regulations do not in fact specify the amount, duration, quality of outdoor access provided to
free-range animals (Factory Farming). Thus, thousands of hens contained in a warehouse
with one door opening to a small outdoor area could be considered free-range. Likewise,
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

grass-fed labels are not limited in use of antibiotics, hormones, or pesticides by the USDA all
of which are harmful to the environment and human health. In an ideal setting a world within
which labels told the truth and people were more willing to give up economic power meat-
eating as a practice could be morally acceptable if the animals were raised and slaughtered
properly. However, this system is quite simply unsustainable and realistically incapable of
serving the Earths carnivorous population.
VII. Conclusion
One of the main issues we face in arguing for vegetarianism is humans stubborn and
traditional nature; we are creatures of habit, so it is oftentimes hard to find the motivation for
change. Likewise, meat tastes good, and the industry encourages this blissful ignorance so
people dont have to face the mutilated carcass of a cow (for instance) every time they chow
down on a burger. Braunstein compares our resistance to vegetarianism to the resistance Galileo
encountered with his support of the heliocentric theory of the solar system. Like many mid-
millennium Europeans relating to astronomy, most of us are set in our ways when it comes to
diet especially when no easy alternative presents itself. Meat is reliable, consistent, and we as
humans reap the tasty benefits while easily ignoring the unpleasant truths. However, it is
undeniable that factory farming is a destructive system, thus if more and more people can be
converted to vegetarianism, humanity can evolve into a more peaceful existence with nature.
This is morally defensible as well as environmentally defensible going forward.
Vegetarianism is the primary way within our modern society that an individual can
discourage and hopefully contribute to the elimination of these practices. By adopting a meatless
diet, we not only lower the demand for mistreated farm animals prepped for slaughter, but we
Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014

indirectly help save the environment from the industrys destruction and carelessness, no matter
in how small of a way. Furthermore, vegetarianism is a way to help save our fellow people from
hunger. Hill claims that With surprising regularity, vegetarians support such a change in their
own psychological outlook after they made the transition to a meatless diet (146). Widespread
vegetarianism could inspire reformed socio-political mindsets around the world in relation to
nature and each other; with an adoption of vegetarianism as the general choice for our human
diet, we as a society will lead more morally and socially conscious lifestyles.















Sarah Teppen
RCAH 112
Yoder
April 23
rd
, 2014


Works Cited
Braunstein, Mark M. Radical Vegetarianism: A Dialectic of Diet and Ethic. Los Angeles:
Panjandrum Books, 1981. Print.
Factory Farming. Farm Sanctuary. Farm Sanctuary, Inc. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
<http://www.farmsanctuary.org/learn/factory-farming/>.
Fox, Michael A. Deep Vegetarianism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1999. Print.
Hill, John L. The Case for Vegetarianism: Philosophy for a Small Planet. Lanham, Md:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1996. Print.
Lapp, Frances . Diet for a Small Planet. New York: Ballantine Books, 1982. Print.
Pisani, Elana. "Idaho Ag-Gag Law Muzzles Activists." Global Animal. Global Animal, 3
Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Mar. 2014.
Singer, Peter. "A Utilitarian Defense of Animal Liberation." Environmental Ethics: Readings
in Theory and Application. Ed. Louis P. Pojman. Wadsworth, 2001. 33-40. Print.
USDA Animal Welfare Information Center. United States Department of Agriculture. Wed. 8
Apr. 2014. <https://awic.nal.usda.gov/>.