Lim 1 Wei Shan, Lim (Terence) - CMU Contributed Webserver

Wei Shan, Lim (Terence) 

Ms. Patricia Rich 

76-‐101 Contribution paper 

6 December 2010 

Abstract 

There are many reasons and benefits that make it appropriate for us to go 

vegetarian. This begs the question: which reason is the most appropriate?” 

Authors in the moralists, environmentalists and naturalists camp have 

argued respectively that moral, environmental and health reasons make it 

most appropriate for us to do so. However, one aspect has been largely 

overlooked in their argument, and that is safety. Eating meat may be unsafe 

because it can cause food borne illnesses, which could eventually lead to 

death. Thus, through this paper, the focus will be on why food safety is an 

important issue that makes it very appropriate for us to go vegetarian, and it 

ought not be left out in the conversation. Through the use of models laid out 

by scholars in the field of food safety and case studies, the potential dangers 

of eating meat will be highlighted, hence making it more persuasive for 

people to understand the unsafe nature of eating meat and eventually 

abstain from it. 

Lim 1

Our safety is also at stake 

Lim 2 

On the night of 31 July 2001, Kevin Kowalcyk, a two-‐year-‐old boy awoke with 

diarrhea and a mild fever. Within 2 days, his condition worsened, as he suffered 

from serious dehydration and bloody stools, and was subsequently hospitalized. His 

kidneys started failing later that afternoon as he developed Hemolytic Uremic 

Syndrome (HUS). By the end of that week, his blood pressure and heart rate 

required numerous medications to be stabilized. In the evening of 11 August, his 

helpless parents and doctors could do nothing but only witness his death as he 

slipped away at the mercy of the bacteria in his body (cspinet.org). All these 

downturn of events led by the bacteria occurred merely within days. Subsequent 

investigations subsequently proved that Kevin suffered from food borne illness 

caused by the bacteria, Escherichia coli, or E. coli for short, that came from a 

hamburger, which eventually led to his death (Food, Inc., DVD). Similar to Kevin, 

thousands of others in America have suffered the same fate after consuming meat. 

Despite having such a significant and detrimental impact in our lives, safety reasons 

have been neglected when it comes to the discussion of the most appropriate 

reasons for us to go vegetarian. Instead, authors in the moralists, environmentalists 

and naturalists camp have argued respectively that moral, environmental and health 

reasons make it most appropriate for us to do so, without mentioning about the 

unsafe nature of consuming meat. In fact, food safety is very important, and it ought 

not be left out of the conversation. This is done through examining why it is unsafe 

to eat meat due to the potential of contracting food borne illness, and the dangerous


consequences of food borne illness on our wellbeing. Before explaining why this is 

so, we would first examine the other authors’ point of view. 

From the other authors’ point of view 

The naturalists claimed that health reasons make it most appropriate for us 

to go vegetarian. For example, Freeman highlights the numerous health degradation 

effects of consuming meat in his article “Having It His Way”. She cautions us that 

eating too much meat and too little vegetables increases the “risk of contracting 

diseases like cancer, heart disease, and diabetics” (Freeman 280). She also argues 

that meat produces lack “fiber” (Freeman 280), yet comprise of “cholesterol and 

saturated fat” (Freeman 280). Likewise, Michael Pollan argues in his article 

“Unhappy Meals” that we should “eat mostly plants, especially leaves” (Pollan, 

Unhappy Meals, 14) due to health concerns. This is because eating meat is 

detrimental to our health. The naturalists have therefore emphasized their stand 

that health reasons make it most appropriate for us to abstain from meat. However, 

they did not mention that safety reasons are also imperative, which can help to 

strengthen their argument to a great extent, as I will elaborate on later in the paper. 

The moralists, on the other hand, argue that morality is the most appropriate 

reason for us to abstain from meat. An example of a moralist is Michael Pollan, a 

food activist, who believes in going vegetarian not only for health reasons, but also 

for moral reasons. Pollan mentioned in his article “An Animal’s Place”, that the 

operations in a factory farming is cruel to animals, causing them pain and suffering. 

For instance, animals were placed in “battery-‐cages -‐ stacked wired cages so small

(that) the birds cannot stretch their wings” (Pollan, An Animal’s Place, 1) with “a 


half-‐dozen other hens” (Pollan, An Animal’s Place, 5). Also, he brought up the point 

that “Beef cattle…(are) standing ankle deep in their own waste eating a diet that 

makes them sick” (Pollan, An Animal’s Place, 11). Due to such unhygienic and 

uncomfortable conditions that can also cause physiological stress, many animals fell 

sick and died. Pollan has explained that the practices used to treat these animals are 

cruel and immoral using the above examples. The moralists have thus argued their 

stand that moral reasons make it most appropriate for us to abstain from meat. 

Likewise, they did not mention that safety reasons are also very important, which 

can also help to strengthen their argument if they had done so. 

The environmentalists, however, strongly believe that environmental 

reasons are more important for us to abstain from meat. According to Devra 

Gartenstein in his book, The Accidental Vegan, “A United Nations report early in 

2007 fingered livestock as the single largest source of greenhouse gases, 

contributing more toward global warming than even transportation” (Gartenstein 

Preface). This means that Gartenstein, who represents the environmentalist group, 

is emphasizing that we are contributing a lot to degradation of the environment by 

eating meat, and thus making it appropriate for us to go vegetarian so as to protect 

our environment. In fact, he supports this with the statement, “Every meal that 

doesn’t include meat lessens … the toll it takes on our planet” (Gartenstein Preface 

vi). This is because livestock releases a great amount of methane gas, and thus 

contributing to the greenhouse effect and global warming. The environmentalists 

have thus argued their stand that environmental reasons make it most appropriate


for us to abstain from meat. Similarly, the environmentalists also did not mention 

that safety reasons are substantial, which can support their argument. 

So, why is it unsafe to eat meat? 

Now that we have examined what the other authors have discussed, we shall 

now analyze the reasons why eating meat is unsafe, and thus should not have been 

left out from their conversation. According to the journal, “E. Coli Exposed!” by W. 

Conard Holton, “A primary source of E. coli 0157:H7 is the gastrointestinal tract of 

cattle (Holton, A588)”. Holton then went on to explain that, “as few as 10 E. coli 

0157: H7 bacteria can cause (food borne) illness” (Holton, A588). Hence, this shows 

that the E. coli 0157: H7 bacteria from cattle are so deadly that just a few strains of it 

can impair us greatly and cause illness. In other words, eating the meat of cattle 

greatly increases the chance of us contracting food borne illnesses due to the E. coli 

bacteria. If this still does not sound frightening enough, Holton also emphasizes that 

outbreak of E-‐coli and its related food borne illnesses is not contained within a 

country or state. Rather, “Outbreaks of E. coli 0157: H7-‐related diseases have been 

recorded worldwide” (Holton, A588). According to statistics, “The CDC estimates 

that the overall number of people sickened in the United States each year by E. coli 

0157: H7 is approximately 73,000” (Holton, A588). From these facts and figures, this 

shows that E. Coli originates from cattle, and not only does it cause food borne 

illness should we consume meat, it is also a widespread problem, and hence could 

potentially affect anyone who consumes meat.


Similarly, according to the medical journal “0157 Kills Five People In Scotland” 

by British Medical Journal (BMJ) Publishing Group, E. coli is one of the causes of food 

borne illnesses. This is evident from the fact that those victims who died had eaten 

“cold and cooked meat products sold by a butcher, John Barr and Son”. It was later 

traced back that they had “eaten a steak pie supplied by John Barr, and tests have 

since confirmed the presence of harmful E. coli bacteria in the gravy” (0157 Kills 

Five People In Scotland, 2). So how does this prove that eating meat is unsafe? As a 

matter of fact, E. coli is a bacterium that is present in the intestines of many animals. 

Moreover, as also stated in the journal, “cattle are the principal source of the 

organism” (0157 Kills Five People In Scotland, 2). In other words, this shows that 

the bacteria, E. coli, which cause food borne illnesses, originate from cattle, and 

hence there is a very high chance of infection if we consume meat. Likewise, 

according to Cheleste M. Thorpe in her article “Shiga-‐Toxin – Producing Escherichia 

coli Infection”, “the number of outbreaks linked to consumption of ground beef has 

increased” (Thorpe, 2). This proves my above arguments that eating meat causes 

food borne illness, due to bacteria such as E. coli that originates from cattle. 

Also, according to the documentary, Food Inc., factory farming is used in 

industrial farming by agribusiness, such as Monsanto, Perdue, Tycon and Smithfield. 

In factory farming, a large concentration of animals is placed in a very small space. 

In the documentary, Maryland chicken farmer Carole Morison expressed her 

revulsion towards her company’s farming practices. As such, she took the risk of a 

potential retaliation from the food companies as she presented to us the conditions 

in a typical chicken farm, where thousands of chickens are enclosed and crowded

together in dark, warm, dusty and small sheds. Within the sheds, the chickens 


struggled for space, food, and water, and also lived among their droppings, which 

contained many bacteria, such as E. coli. As a result, diseases and bacteria were 

rampant among the chickens (Food, Inc., DVD). And in such intensive farming, 

conditions are optimum for bacteria to mutate and transmit. At the end of the food 

chain, we contract food borne illnesses should we consume these sickened or 

diseased poultry. More dangerously, bacteria such as E. coli can survive in an 

environment with or without air, and hence can be transmitted to others easily, 

causing widespread infection (Food, Inc., DVD). Hence, from the above reasons, 

eating meat (especially those from factory farming due to its intense nature) can 

potentially cause us to be infected with food borne illness that can be fatal, and 

potentially spread to other people easily to cause an epidemic. This is because 

bacteria such as E. coli, which originates from cattle, cause food borne illness. 

Dangers and consequences of food borne illnesses and E. coli 

Now that we have analyzed that eating meat is unsafe as it can cause food 

borne illnesses due to E. coli, let us now examine the its significance and dangers. 

According to the journal, “E. Coli Exposed!” by W. Conard Holton, “the (E. coli) 

bacterium produces toxins that result in abdominal cramps, vomiting, often bloody 

diarrhea, and sometimes fever” (Holton, A588). Indeed, some of the symptoms of 

food borne illness may sound mild. However, “in some acute cases, the infection will 

develop into hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which is characterized by the 

destruction of red blood cells, kidney failure, and potentially seizures, stroke, and


death” (Holton, A588). In fact, once infected by HUS, “all doctors can do is to try to 

keep the child’s body alive while the disease runs its course” (cspinet.org). Similarly, 

Thorpe explained, “10% of those who develop HUS (due to E. coli) will die or have 

permanent renal failure, and up to 50% of those who develop HUS will develop 

some degree of renal impairment (Thorpe, 2). With the above mentioned, we can 

see that food borne diseases are very deadly, and there is no cure for it. Like in 

Kevin’s case, doctors could do nothing to stop the rampage of the disease. Also, 

children and the elderly who have weaker immune system are more susceptible to 

these bacteria such as E. coli. Once infected, the fates of these individuals lie in the 

hands of the bacteria, hence making it very dangerous. 

As much as it may sound impossible that eating meat can cause death, it is in 

fact very real and can occur to any of us, and this can be proven with a few case 

studies. As mentioned earlier in this paper, Kevin died after 12 days from E. coli 

0157:H7 poisoning and Hemolytic-‐uremic syndrome (HUS) after consuming a 

hamburger. This led his mother, Barbara Kowalcyk, to subsequently investigate the 

truth behind the profit-‐oriented food industry, of which she discovered that the 

focus of these industries was on efficiency and profit rather than safety, hence 

leading to the cause of E. coli. She is now a food safety advocate, and aims to help the 

government stop these industries’ complacent practices and shut down those who 

do not comply with safety standards for food handling. 

Also, it was reported that “E. coli 0157:H7 achieved notoriety in 1993, when 

undercooked contaminated hamburger from the Jack In The Box restaurant chain 

caused over 700 people, primarily children, to become ill and 4 people to die”


(Holton, 2). Besides all these cases of reported deaths as mentioned above, there are 

also many incidences of people dying due to consuming meat contaminated with 

bacteria all over the world. Another example would be the two deaths that have 

been reported that are associated with Beef from Fairbank Farms in November 

2009 (cdc.gov). From these examples above, it is evident that eating meat is unsafe 

because it can cause food borne illness if contaminated with bacteria E. coli 

Putting the conversation together 

While the naturalists have provided strong evidences above to show that 

eating meat may be detrimental to our health, they overlooked the fact that eating 

meat can also be unsafe, even to the point that it can cause food borne illnesses 

which can eventually lead to death. As explained above, food borne illnesses 

originates from cattle, and can cause detrimental damage to our wellbeing. Since 

health and safety are closely related to our well-‐being, and that our health and 

safety can be compromised from eating meat, the naturalists will generally agree 

with my argument, that safety reasons ought to be mentioned to strengthen their 

argument. This is because eating meat is not only detrimental to our health, it can 

also cause food borne illnesses and even death in more serious scenarios. 

Similarly, the moralists have strongly argued their stand that morality makes 

it most appropriate to abstain from meant, they have overlooked the fact that eating 

meat can also be unsafe. The moralists have explained clearly the harsh and 

unhygienic conditions of how these animals are raised and slaughtered, and hence it 

is cruel and immoral to eat meat. However, they can increase their persuasiveness

to convince people against eating meat if they had also mentioned that the 

unhygienic conditions makes it unsafe for us to eat meat. This is because, like as 

farmer Carole Morison presented the conditions in a typical chicken farm earlier, 

the unhygienic conditions promotes the spread of diseases that cause food borne 

illness, which can be harmful to us should we consume such animals that are not 

properly handled. Moreover, according to “Stephanie Maxine Ross” in her article 

“Foodborne Illness and Factory Farming”, “stress hormones can increase (the)… 

systematic spread of infection in chickens” (Ross, 171). Hence, the moralists can 

argue likewise that the stressful and unhygienic conditions these animals are 


subjected to also causes the spread of diseases, besides the fact that it is cruel, hence 

making their argument more persuasive. Nonetheless, since morality and safety are 

similar in terms of the conditions of how these animals are raised, the moralists will 

not disagree with my argument that safety reasons are also very important reasons 

for us to abstain from meat, and should not have been left out of their conversation. 

On the other hand, just like what the environmentalists believe, as we raise 

cattle in a farm or factory, we also contribute to environmental degradation as the 

wastes from the farms and factories are drained into the ground or into rivers, 

hence “tainting the water” (Holton, A588). In fact, this not only causes harm to the 

environment, it can also cause a potential harm to our health, hence making it 

unsafe. This is because most of the waste from raising cattle (due to our demand for 

meat) contains bacteria that cause food borne illness, and these bacteria when 

leaked into the ground or rivers, contaminate crops and fishes respectively. 

Moreover, there are also many other food items that have been contaminated when

it “came in contact with (cattle’s) manure” (Holton, A588). As such, we are 


potentially at risk of food borne illnesses should we consume these contaminated 

crops or fishes. As the environmentalists argued strongly that environmental 

reasons make it most appropriate for us to abstain from meat, they failed to mention 

safety reasons, which is also an important aspect that should not be left out of the 

conversation. By arguing that eating meat is not only detrimental to environment, as 

well as a potential safety breach to our health, the environmentalists can make a 

more persuasive argument. 

From the critics’ point of view 

Some critics may argue that going vegetarian may not necessarily be safe, 

because there have also been many food borne outbreaks with vegetable and non-‐ 

meat products, most notable and recently tomatoes, spinach, and peanut butter. 

While this is true, we need to examine the cause of how bacteria end up in these 

food products. Tracing back these outbreaks, it was later revealed that the bacteria 

originated from animals, whereby it was exposed to animal fecal material (Holton, 

A588). Some of these bacteria spread to other sources of food, because they are 

leaked into rivers, due to mishandling of factory waste materials. On the other hand, 

going vegetarian reduces the demand for animals, and hence reduces the number of 

animals raised in factories and the chance of the spread of food borne illness-‐ 

causing bacteria. 

Also, some critics may argue that fully cooking meat before consumption will 

be safe. This is however a misconception, and is not necessarily true according to a

conversation, it can make their argument even more persuasive. This is because 


many of our assumptions, such as the way factory farming today handles animals, 

are similar. Also, there are issues that we agree on and value for; one of such is our 

overall well-‐being. Nevertheless, we all share the same value that there are many 

benefits of going vegetarian, and we hope that with our reasons, we can persuade 

more people to do so, and enjoy the benefits from it.

Works Cited 


“0157 Kills Five People In Scotland” BMJ: British Medical Journal, Vol. 313, No. 7070 

(Dec. 7, 1996), p. 1424. Print. 

“CDC E. Coli”. cdc.gov. Web. 25 November 2010. 

“Center for Science in the Public Interest.” cspinet.org. Web. 25 November 2010. 

Cheleste M. Thorpe. “Shiga Toxin-‐Producing Escherichia coli Infection.” Clinical 

Infectious Diseases, Vol. 38, No. 9 (May 1, 2004), pp. 1298-‐1303. Print. 

Food, Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Magnolia Pictures, 4 June 2009. DVD. 

Freeman, P. Carrie, and Merskin, Debra. “Having It His Way: The Construction of 

Masculinity in Fast-‐Food TV Advertising.” Food For Thought: Essays on 

Eating and Culture. Ed. Lawrence C. Rubin. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2008. 

277-‐91. 

Gartenstein, Devra. The Accidental Vegan. Berkeley and Toronto: Celestial Arts, 

2009. Print. 

Pollan, Michael. “Unhappy Meals.” The New York Times 28 January 2007. Print. 

Pollan, Michael. “An Animal’s Place.” The New York Times 10 November 2002. Print. 

Richard L. Vogt and Laura Dippold. “Escherichia coli O157:H7 Outbreak Associated 

with Consumption of Ground Beef.” Public Health Reports (1974-‐), Vol. 120, 

No. 2 (Mar. -‐ Apr., 2005), pp. 174-‐178. Print 

Stephanie Maxine Ross, “Food for Thought, Part I: Foodborne Illness and Factory 

Farming”. 2006. Print. 

W. Conard Holton. “E. coli Exposed!” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 110, 

No. 10 (Oct., 2002), pp. A586-‐A589. Brogan & Partners. Print

Lim 1 Wei Shan, Lim (Terence) - CMU Contributed Webserver

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?