User:Kellen/crits

Steven Davis, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that following Tom Regan's "least harm principle" may not necessarily require the adoption a vegan diet. Davis suggests that there are non-vegetarian diets which "may kill fewer animals" than are killed in the intensive crop production necessary to support vegetarian diets. In particular, Davis argues that adopting a diet based upon "forage-ruminant-based agriculture" in the United States would kill an estimated 380-450 million fewer animals annually than a vegan diet and therefore that "humans may be morally obligated to consume a diet from plant-based plus pasture-forage-ruminant sysems."

Gaverick Matheny, a Ph.D. candidate in agricultural economics at the University of Maryland, counters that Davis' reasoning contains several major flaws, including miscalculating the number of animal deaths based on land area rather than per consumer, and incorrectly equating "the harm done to animals [&hellip;] to the number of animals killed." Matheny notes that Davis' proposal is "a world apart" from agriculture "prevalent in the United States" which would "greatly improve the lives of farmed animals," but argues that per-consumer, a vegan diet would kill fewer wild animals than a diet adhering to Davis' model, and that vegetarianism "involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist."

Matheny notes that "the type of ruminant production Davis proposes is a world apart from the omnivorism prevalent in the United States," and that it would "greatly improve the lives of farmed animals now intensively confined."

Matheny says that "After correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet."

"animals killed in production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does not count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing"