wever, these arguments are often overstated. These arguments falsely assume that pork chops and steak are the only products of animal agriculture. They falsely presume that a pound of animal foodstuffs is nutritionally and energetically equivalent to a pound of plant foodstuffs. These arguments also ignore the energy content and opportunity cost of replacing animal by-products, which is considerable. Even the animal's excrement is a valuable resource. Certain animal products, such as fetal calf serum, collagen and laminin are crucial for medical research using cell cultures, and have no available alternatives. If certain practices associated with animal agriculture are found to be ecologically unsound, it does not merit a general opposition to eating meat. Though not practical for everyone, hunting and fishing bypass any potential ecological destruction associated with plant or animal agriculture. They are thus two of the most ecologically sound ways to obtain one's sustenance. Those who would oppose even limited exploitation of these alternatives have ethical concerns masquerading as environmental concerns. The most disingenuous ecological ploy made by "ethical" vegetarians is the "...we could feed X starving people with Y percent of the resources devoted to animal agriculture..." argument. First, it falsely implies that humans are starving because of insufficient production capacity. World hunger is a result of deficient distribution of food, not deficient capacity for production of food. Our capacity to produce grain is so vast that we actually pay farmers not to produce. Secondly, if the argument were valid, the resultant increase in human population would exacerbate rather than remedy ecological concerns regarding human population.Though vegetarianism does offer clear health benefits, one need not become vegetarian in order to have a healthy diet. Diet is only one important aspect of health. The avoidance of harmful habits such...
