@Tony Lavis:

Heme iron is not in plant-based sources but iron is – so iron is not a problem on a vegan diet. If it is for some individuals with particularly high iron requirements, people can take a (vegan) supplement – many people, particularly females, vegans and non-vegans, take iron supplements.

B12 is available in vegan supplements and fortified foods. I get mine mainly from (fortified) soy milk. It is also present in some savoury yeast flakes, mock meats etc. Once again, if people are not getting enough from what they eat and drink, there are vegan B12 supplements.

Cholesterol: our body produces all the cholesterol we ever need, so while only animal products have cholesterol, this is a positive aspect of the vegan diet, as cholesterol can lead to health problems. So I should rephrase the question to ask if there are any nutrients that we actually need that we can’t get through vegan sources.

While other animals may not understand their own mortality in the same way as us, they certainly struggle to avoid death. This is clear if you watch any slaughterhouse footage. See this (non-graphic) video for example: http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3DaHTNq33cXBQ

Also, animal behaviourist Jonathan Balcombe explains this point about other animals valuing their own lives from 34.52-36.44 of this interview: http://animalvoices.ca/2011/03/29/unpacking-the-animal-umwelt/

Cheers,
Nick

@Therzal:

I don’t think the issue is how we evolved; the important thing is what should we do right now in terms of what (or who in the cases of animals) we eat, wear etc? And of course animals should not be mistreated in slaughterhouses, but I think we also need to challenge why they are in the slaughterhouse in the first place, especially when they don’t have to be. Enjoyment (‘meat tastes good’) surely isn’t a very good reason to take someone else’s life and isn’t accepted as a valid excuse for other actions that harm and kill others.

Human nature is unevolved. It is not intelligent to eat one animal and act as if it is cruel to eat another. That is self delusion and unsustainable. Unfortunately that's where we are, on an unsustainable slippery slope. But truth always comes home in some way, so it works out in the end. Pain, the usual catalyst of change.

The way I see it the question is not whether we should eat meat (etc) but whether we can go on putting money before love. If you put money first, as our society is fundamentally based on, you can justify anything at all, as we do.

What can you do if you put love first? Love? :) I know, too simple for the ever complicating mind - of present human nature.

It's intelligent to love, even the cow or carrot. :)

Just treat and eat it with respect, if you have to.

I concurred with the initial thesis - it isn't fair to give dogs special treatment, as opposed to pigs, particularly given the fact that pigs have proven their intelligence through scientific testing.

My conclusion however, is that we should be free to eat dog. Provided it tastes good. This I am skeptical of, having once consumed dog myself. (I wasn't aware I was eating dog at the time, but it didn't faze me all that much).

I wouldn't want to eat an animal I'd gotten to know personally, be it dog, cow or pig.

But I do see the hypocrisy in claiming it's wrong to eat one kind of animal, but OK to eat others.

Nick Prendergast -Thank you for responding individually to posters comments.

1. People eat initially simply to stay alive, first and foremost, not for pleasure per se. Nevertheless, the fact that eating IS pleasurable is hardly a negative. If we had no liking of protein the human race would have long since vanished. I'm sure animals like the taste of other animals as well, this does not mean they kill primarily for pleasure. Ridding oneself of hunger is pleasurable.

2.Your logic would see lions being converted to vegetarianism on moral grounds simply to prevent cruelty. The killing of one animal by another is still a very painful process and far less preferable to being killed in the abattoir under sedation and it is pain and suffering you are (supposedly)concerned about rather than the cause of it. This reaches the logical but ludicrous conclusion that no healthy animal should be killed merely to feed another animal. Yet, you don't think the pain and suffering caused by other animals is relevant? Why?

3. Here is a link to an article which explains why your suggestions about diet is a form of cruelty, especially to babies. Here, parents are convicted of manslaughter for NOT providing their baby with appropriate nutrition due to a vegan diet. You are encouraging this form of madness,think about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html

4. David Broom, the person you quote may be a Professor, but he has never heard of anthropomorphism of which he is exceedingly guilty. There is no evidence that cows have friendships particularly in the human sense. Its almost humorous except that he has a posting at Cambridge which is quite alarming in itself. David Broom may well be Dr. Doolittle in disguise.

5. It is, according to you, ethical for humans to not be cruel but not ethical for humans to stop other animals from inflicting pain and suffering. This only makes sense if you about controlling human behaviour (which I suspect) and not preventing cruelty per se.

This is an activist/moral crusade born from the false belief that one is living a superior life to others.

*But surely, the worst thing anyone can do to an animal, whether we're talking about a farm animal or a dog, is to kill them against their will.*

Well not really, Nic. I think that your philosophy is flawed here.
If we farm animals, we are are responsible for their wellbeing.
That means that they should not suffer needlessly, because concious
suffering, such as starving to death slowly, is far worse than death
itself. If you are dead, you don't know that you are dead, so it
hardly matters.

So if my dog is old and sick, is the worst thing that I can do, to
have it put down? I don't think so.

I run around a thousand ewes on my hobby farm. They live happy lives,
grow no wool, have lambs, they are treated for worms, treated for
diseases where possible, fed through droughts, protected from predators etc.
The rams get to have sex with lots of willing females,
hey its a pretty good life for them really :) No mortgage, no stress,
no getting up to rush to work.

Yet all cannot survive, that is the reality of nature. There is only
food for so many. Some go to err sheep heaven, but they don't know
a thing about it. Given that you too will be devoured by the worms
and bacteria one day, why should they be any different?

Now in a vegan world, none of those animals would have had a life
at all, or perhaps as in nature, simply starve to death with
overcrowding or old age. Why is that the better option?