If you're interested in vegetarianism in general, or are interested in the adverse effects (health and environmental) of eating meat, this is a good source of information:Position of the American Dietetic Association on Vegetarianism source:
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf"
Appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
"Vegetarian diets are often associated with a number of health advantages, including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels, and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes. Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index (BMI) and
lower overall cancer rates. Vegetarian diets tend to be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol, and have higher levels of dietary fiber, magnesium and potassium, vitamins C and E, folate, carotenoids, flavonoids, and other phytochemicals. These nutritional differences may explain some of
the health advantages of those following a varied, balanced vegetarian diet."
Wikipedia on Meat's Adverse Effects source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#IssuesConsumption of
large quantities of meat in a diet has certain adverse effects [59] which can include: obesity, heart disease, and constipation [60]. The large amounts of annual per person meat consumption in society (38 kg/capita-global[61] and 82 kg/capita-U.S.[62]) is a deciding factor in personal health.[63][64][65] The common misconception of "I can't eat unless there is meat" is largely due to cultural attitudes and how one is raised to think about food[66]. In recent years, health concerns have been raised about the consumption of meat causing adverse mutations in DNA.[67] In particular, red meat and processed meat were found to be associated with higher risk of cancers of the lung, esophagus, liver, and colon, among others.[67] Another study found an increase risk of pancreatic cancer for red meat and pork.[68]
"Meat has been correlated to increased risk of heart disease. The risks of heart disease are three times greater for 45-64 year old men who eat meat daily, versus those who did not eat meat, according to one survey.[78]. However, a major Harvard University study[79] in 2010 involving over one million people who ate meat found that only processed meat had an adverse risk in relation to coronary heart disease. The study suggests that eating 50g (less than 2oz) of processed meat per day increases risk of coronary heart disease by 42%, and diabetes by 19%. Equivalent levels of fat, including saturated fats, in unprocessed meat (even when eating twice as much per day) did not show any deleterious effects, leading the researchers to suggest that "differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats."
Livestrock's long shadow (An environmental study on livestock) source:
http://www.earthsave.org/environment/water.htmThe assessment was based on the most recent and complete data available, taking into account direct impacts, along with the impacts of feed crop agriculture required for livestock production. The report states that the livestock sector is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
Based on this report, senior U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization official Dr. Henning Steinfeld stated that the meat industry is “one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems" and that "urgent action is required to remedy the situation."[2]
"that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport."
The Efficiency of eating meat "It was not only Diet For A New America that publicized this particular statement of Dr. Borgstrom’s. The tenth anniversary edition of Diet For A Small Planet by Frances Moore Lappe states, on page 76, “According to food geographer Georg Borgstrom, to produce a 1-pound steak requires 2,500 gallons of water.”
"n 1978, Herb Schulbach (Soil and Water Specialist, University of California Agricultural Extension), along with livestock farm advisors Tom Aldrich, Richard E. Johnson, and Ken Mueller, published extensive research on water use in California agriculture in the journal Soil and Water (no. 38, fall 1978). They concluded that the average pound of beef produced in California required 5,214 gallons of water."
"Currently distributed by the Water Education Foundation, the study concludes that each pound of California beef requires 2,464 gallons of water — a number virtually identical to the 2,500 gallon figure I use in Diet For A New America."
Source:
http://www.earthsave.org/environment/water.htm"It takes 16 pounds of grain to make one pound of beef.(293) That's 94% more land. And 94% more pesticides. All told, livestock eat 70% of all the grain we produce.(292)" -
"More chickens are killed in the U.S. every year than there are people in the world (7.6 billion chickens vs. 6 billion people).(240)"
Source: John Robbins, The Food Revolution: How Your Diet Can Help Save Your Life and Our World
Look at bolded. those points are flawed and imply that all people that eat meat have unbalanced/unhealthy diets. Not true. Well balanced diets that include meat and vegetable > pure vegetarian.
Livestock leads to environmental damage/meat not efficient. If we were all to become vegetarian
1. What do we do with all the livestock? They are the problem after all. Do we kill them?
2. Where will we get the food needed to replace meat?
The increased demand for this food source would probably be more devastating to the environment that the current one inflicted by feed crop/livestock. More wild land would be destroyed for agriculture. More water for plants. More pesticides and fertilizers. More damage to the soil. more damage to the environment. = you are probably worse than before.
You have no case at all.