Re: “Why humans have the right to eat whatever they like”, Have Your Say, February 5.
In defence of eating meat “Dr” (doctor of what?) Frank says we need massive food production to feed seven billion people. But since most plant food is fed to livestock, not humans, raising animals for food is making it more difficult to feed the world. It’s been estimated that just 10 per cent of the grain that is fed to livestock in America would be enough grain to feed 60 million people.
Dr Frank’s claim that we are designed to eat meat is not based on science. For example, if we’re designed to eat meat why don’t we have small intestines like other carnivore species? But I find that argument irrelevant since it’s obvious we don’t need to eat meat, regardless of how we were originally designed.
Finally “Dr” Frank says he respects our right to be vegans, so why can’t we respect his right not to be one. That would be like a mass murderer saying, “I respect your right not to be a murderer so why can’t you respect my right to be one?” If these are the best arguments meat-eaters can come up with then maybe they should consider the possibility that their position can not be morally or intelligently defended.