The choice to convert to a vegetarian diet negatively impacts the environment because of the mass production of popular healthy foods are resulting in pollution, contributing to the death of millions.
The conversion of a vegetarian diet negatively impacts the environment because it contributes to pollution, as a result, can cause a food shortage.
Bo R. Döös. (1994). Environmental Degradation, Global Food Production, and Risk for Large-Scale Migrations. Ambio, 23(2), 124–130. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4314178
This source identifies the effects of global food production on the environment. The global food production system is causing degrading factors to our planet, ranging from erosion, salinization, climate change, and chemical & Biotic stresses. The previous factors will be an ongoing problem because of the surplus production of food in developed countries. Brown has conducted a study that evaluates the losses of grain caused by the environment. If global warming is in the upper range of the projected 1.5-4.5 celsius for doubling C02, then there will be a severe impact on agriculture. Global warming can contribute to increased floods and droughts. Overall these factors can lead to a decline in global food production.
Lea, E. (2005). Food, health, the environment and consumers’ dietary choices. Nutrition & Dietetics: The Journal of the Dietitians Association of Australia, 62(1), 21+. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A131287764/AONE?u=rowan&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=baaba0ff
There are environmental problems worldwide, including global warming, pollution, and decreased air, water & soil quality. Western farming mainly focuses on high yields, so the ethical production of food isn’t a priority. Making a lot of agricultural foods contain pesticides and herbicides. There is also a contribution of soil erosion, salinity, desertification, and greenhouse gases contributing to negative environmental factors. And food distribution doesn’t make it any better because there is an increase in food miles to important cheap foods across the world. And the massive amount of imports are resulting in increased carbon emissions.
N. Künzli, S. Medina, R. Kaiser, P. Quénel, F. Horak, Jr., M. Studnicka. (2001a, June 1). Assessment of Deaths Attributable to Air Pollution: Should We Use Risk Estimates based on Time Series or on Cohort Studies? | American Journal of Epidemiology | Oxford Academic. OUP Academic; Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/153/11/1050/64 login=true
This study focuses on how air pollution is contributing to lives lost. Of course, at the moment, air pollution isn’t a direct cause of death. But there is a correlation that air pollution is contributing to death to people with underlying health conditions. There is evidence that the days before a person’s death, air pollution is associated with the probability of dying. And studies also suggest that the longer someone is exposed to air pollution increases chronic health problems.
Ward, K., & Fox, N. (n.d.). Health, ethics and environment: A qualitative study of vegetarian motivationsScienceDirect. ScienceDirect.Com | Science, Health and Medical Journals, Full Text Articles and Books. Retrieved October 10, 2021, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01
This study evaluates the motives of vegetarians for why they chose their diets. There is a range of concerns when choosing to be vegetarian, and participants in this study suggested multiple reasons. Some being concerns with the abuse of animals and a range of environmental factors. A vegetarian diet has positive implications for the environment and will decrease the impact on pollution. Creating a hyperawareness of choices for those who choose to be vegetarian. Most participants can agree that environmental factors play a big role in their choice to eat green.
Harold J Marlow, William K Hayes, Samuel Soret, Ronald L Carter, Ernest R Schwab, Joan Sabaté, (2009 April 1). Diet and the environment: does what you eat matter? | The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition | Oxfor Academic. OUP Academic; Oxford University Press. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/89/5/1699S/45
The goal of this study is to compare the environmental effects of a nonvegetarian diet to a vegetarian diet. What are the influences in agriculture production, and how have they contributed to overall soil, air, and water pollution. The effects of modern agriculture are to increase the yield of the production of food. But the mass production of foods comes with negative consequences. It reviews that the more energy put into the agricultural system, the greater the chance of negative environmental factors. In-depth, this paper goes over the effects of our water resources, energy consumption, chemical usages, waste, and land degradation.
I feel as though I now have a solid hypothesis and i’m satisfied in the direction it is going in. i was able to go more in depth with my pervious hypothesis. I found all the resources i need for the foundation of the essay but i might look for one or two more in order to make small connections with it. I also have two different specified resources to argue both of my hypothesis. I might need to find at least one more article that has a lot more written information instead of being completely focused on the numbers. But Overall i’m good. Thumbs up.
It’s not easy to tell from the sources you’ve gathered which hypothesis might be easier to support, Tacos. Clearly, there are connections between our food choices and the environment, but your sources don’t appear to draw strong conclusions, certainly not ethical conclusions, about whether plant-based or meat-based diets would be preferable overall.
Your summaries seem thorough but not Purposeful. If they conveyed your Purpose, we’d be able to tell from your summaries what argument they supported.
For example, your final summary:
Your description, that it will “compare the environmental effects of a nonvegetarian diet to a vegetarian diet” sounds very promising. NOW we’ll learn whether the author of this paper (YOU) concurs with the common knowledge that meat production agriculture is an environmental and nutritional catastrophe, or that there are unfamiliar disadvantages to massive produce farming that we need to calculate before we draw and rash conclusions. That’s the promise of the article. But your summary doesn’t take a side, which every Purposeful Summary must do. Your key sentences: “The effects of modern agriculture are to increase the yield of the production of food. But the mass production of foods comes with negative consequences” could apply equally well to either meat or plant production.
Before you export these summaries to your Annotated Bibliography, you’ll need to revise them to more clearly indicate HOW YOU USED the sources to support a specific argument.