Skylar Munsch

October 22, 2013

Vegan vs. Meat: The Big Debate

Prof. Wolcott

This annotated bibliography is intended for anyone who has interest in the debate

between the vegan-vegetarian diets versus a diet rich in red meat. Included in this are various

academic sources found mostly via the Academic Search Premier, a general research database. The

overall purpose of this annotated bibliography is to cite information based on the two fore

mentioned diets and the risks and benefits of each, specifically focusing on the benefits for those

with preexisting conditions or simply want to improve overall health. It is a document dedicated to

the contrasting elements of the diets with cited sources that act solely for the purpose of allotting

the reader further information on the subject material. Also, included in this annotated

bibliography are a series of studies that have been conducted by those ranging from medical

professionals at universities to those who are employed by the government. The studies presented

have been based on both scientific data as well as observational data. Numbers are very important

when dictating the methods along with association between the risk of illness and the two diets that

will be discussed. The studies performed have been down within the past ten years and are

extremely valuable to this annotated bibliography; because this debate over the vegetarian-vegan

and red meat diets and the risks and benefits to the human body of both have only really been of

interest with the growing population of vegetarians and vegans. Those having these conversations

have varied, but several of those have stayed true to this discourse community. Dieticians along

with specialized medical professionals other than dieticians, such as those involved in sports

medicine, food scientists, and fitness experts have been involved in this discussion. There are

several conventions devoted solely to nutrition, a few namely conventions are as follows: MDA

Annual Nutrition Convention and Exposition, Food and Nutrition Conference and Expo, and

International Nutrition Diagnostics Conference.

American Dietic Association. “Position of the American Dietic Association: Vegetarian Diets”.

Journal of the American Dietetic Association. Jul2009, Vol. 109 Issue 7, p1266-1282. Up to

this point this annotated bibliography has strictly focused on the positive and negative

affects of both diets, however what about the usage of each diet, as in what community

gains the most out of following? This scientific article doesn’t have one particular author but

instead lists the American Dietic Association in its entirety. The focus of this article is to give

insight into a study performed by this society in which they proposed that with a carefully

planned vegetarian diet which included the total vegetarian or total vegan diets can be

beneficial, provide adequate nutritional intake and can aid in the prevention and or

treatment of chronic diseases, diabetes for example. Research conducted on the nutritional

intake of vegetarian and vegan foods has provided valuable resources for nutrients such as

the use of plant protein in order to supply a full day’s worth of amino acids required to

synthesize an adequate amount of protein for growth and maintenance of muscles. Also, the

risk for contracting both CVD (Cardiovascular Disease) and Ischemic Heart Disease was

lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians, partially due to the lower blood lipid level

which can be attributed to the higher amounts of fiber, soy, nuts and plant sterols in

accordance to lower levels of saturated fatty acids present in most meats. Vegetarians and

vegans both consume large amounts of flavonoids and phytochemicals, both plant based

and both have the same protective effects of antioxidants, which can protect against CVD by

reducing blood clots. The closing statement of this article gave a summarization that those

previously afflicted with CVD, Hypertension, or diabetes can use a vegetarian diet as a more

natural treatment. Therefore the community of those at risk or already effected by this

disease can utilize the benefits of a vegetarian or vegan diet to aid in the decrease of

cholesterol (LDL), the lipids in the bloodstream or decrease in blood sugar.

Barnard, Neal D., Katcher, Heather I., Jenkins, David J.A., Cohen, Joshua., Turner-McGrievy, Gabrielle.,

“Vegetarian and Vegan Diets in Type 2 Diabetes Management”. Nutrition Reviews. Vol. 67

Issue 5, p255-263.

Similar to the previous article this scientific article supports the idea that vegetarian and

vegan diets are beneficial in health management, however this article is specifically

designed around managing Type 2 Diabetes. Methods used in this study were observational

encounters performed by medical researchers at George Washington University of

Medicine, Washington Center for Clinical Research and at the School of Nutrition and School

of Public Health at the University of North Carolina. Dr. Neal Barnard, the main researcher

and author of this scientific article found that the risk and or management of type 2 diabetes

decreased substantially due to a vegetarian or vegan diet. The diet primarily effected weight

loss because of the reduction of saturated fat and high-glycemic-index food consumption

and a higher intake of dietary fiber and vegetable protein. However, the weight loss directly

correlated with the improvement of plasma lipid concentrations. Also it has shown to

reverse atherosclerosis, which is the build up of plaque in the arteries of the heart.

Biesalski, H. K. "Meat as a component of a healthy diet – are there any risks or benefits if meat is

avoided in the diet?" Meat Science 70 (2005): 509-524. Academic Premier. 9 Oct. 2013. To

simply state the positive effects of a vegan diet and offer no other viewpoints would make

this a biased conversation, which is why this scholarly article is included, to balance the

controversy of vegan-vegetarian diets and the consumption of red meat and the health

benefits and risks of each choice. Biesalski analyzed the argument of whether the exclusion

of meat from a diet would aid in the prevention of cancer and diabetes. His methods were

research conducted by many in the nutrition field. His findings were that meat is beneficial

for adequate protein and vitamin intake of which cannot be achieved via a vegan or

vegetarian diet. He concludes, “Meat as a component of a mixed and healthy diet contains

important and essential micronutrients. The adequate intake ensures a normal function of

the immune system, the mucous membranes and the general metabolism of substrates”

(Biesalski 524).

Daniel C.R. Cross A.J Koebnick C., Sinha R. Public Health Nutrition [Public Health Nutr] 2011 Apr;

Vol. 14 (4), pp. 575-583. This article is the turning point in this annotated bibliography for

its purpose is to address the rising percentage of meat consumption in the United States. It

explains via statistics initially gathered by Carrie Daniel, an researcher at the NIH (National

Institute of Health) and her statistics are expanded upon by Daniel, Koebnick and Sinha all

of whom are active in the fields of Nutritional Epidemiology, and the Department of

Research and Evaluation. What was discovered by the data collected by the FAO and US

Agriculture was that the meat intake type (red, white, and processed) continues to rise not

only in the US but also in the rest of the developed world. The consumption of the different

classifications of meat is also related to socioeconomic factors, since red meat has a

reputation of having a higher cost. To connect this with the other articles cited, red meat

and its effects could be contributed to socioeconomic factors. The conclusion of the article

discusses the correlation between the increase in consumption of the cheaper processed

meats and cancer and how the epidemiological evidence can corroborate this fact.

Therefore those who consume more processed meat than the average population could be

at a higher risk than those who do not due to constraints previously mentioned.

S. Stanner, et al. "Red Meat In The Diet: An Update." Nutrition Bulletin 36.1 (2011): 34-77. Academic

Search Premier. Web. 16 Oct. 2013. This is an updated article from the previous publication

of the 2005, “Red Meat in The Diet”. The evidence gathered for this article was

epidemiological based, meaning it is based upon the patterns and risks of disease in a

controlled population. This study investigated the associations between meat intake and the

possible health and or disease outcomes. Gathering accurate epidemiological data is spoken

of in depth in this article, leading into the quality of the data. Basically data must be of both

quality and accuracy in order to determine anything of value. This matters especially when

comprising data of meat consumption. This article focused quite a bit on separating

aggregated data, meaning the amount of meat consumed separated from other components

such as meat pies or pasta and meatballs. It continues on to say that meat has high

micronutrient and protein levels which is why it has been shown in studies to be more

beneficial to the human body. However meat contains a variety of fatty acids, especially

those saturated fatty acids, which can be harmful in large quantities. Also of import in

analyzing this article is the breakdown of fatty acids in different types of meat. If the species

is ruminant, meaning the animal was a cow or a sheep, then the majority of the meat is

hydrogenated, which allows it to be easily digested by the stomach and intestines,

hydrogenated vegetable oils are also used to produce the solid and semi-solid meats that

are manufactured. The article concludes with classifying the two types of meat, processed

and unprocessed and lists that it has grown increasingly difficult to separate the risks of red

meat consumption alone, that rather assigning risks to meat consumption that it be divided

by whether the meat is or is not processed.

Deckers, Jan. “Obesity, Public Health, and the Consumption of Animal Products.” Journal of

Bioethical Inquiry. Mar2013, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p29-38.

Deckers take more of the ethical approach as to why we should lower consumption of APs (animal

products). He opens his argument with an example of skewed information, “Moreover, many

governments have developed “healthy” eating advice that is skewed toward high consumption of

animal products (APs), even though many APs have been linked with obesity because they are

relatively high in total and saturated fats, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and calories”

(Deckers 29). Not only are these products associated with bodily risk factors, many of the farmed

products have derivatives of antibiotics, pesticides, dioxins, and metal compounds, as mentioned by

Deckers. Also noted in this article is the negative effects of having farm animals and a farm animal

industry, “part from causing disease directly, the farm animal sector also has come under increased

scrutiny because of its contribution to ecological changes that may trigger human disease. A highly

influential study in this regard is Livestock’s Long Shadow, published by the Livestock, Environment,

and Development Initiative, a group coordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations (Steinfeld et al. 2006). The report argues that the farm animal sector puts great

strain on a wide range of environmental resources. These negative impacts include: soil

degradation through compacting by hoofs and agricultural machinery, erosion, the accumulation of

toxic metals, salinization, and nutrient loading (the localized accumulation of nutrients through

excessive use of manure and fertilizers); deforestation; freshwater use; and water and atmospheric

pollution (Steinfeld et al. 2006)” (Deckers 30). So not only are animal products harmful to the

human body but it is also argued from the ecological standpoint in this article as to why animal

farming is harmful to the environment. As mentioned this article differs from that of the previously

listed articles but it does offer valuable insight as to why else animal products are seen as harmful

such as the antibiotics

and even growth hormones that are administered to the animals during farming.

Hood, Sandra. “The Vegan Diet”. Practice Nurse. Vol. 35 Issue 3, p13-17.

Hood, a registered dietician, writes about what a vegan diet consists of and how it affects

the body. In contrast to the other article written by Ruxton which stated the positive effects

of meat consumption this article begins with a common misconception about how vegan

diets can potentially be harmful, “At one time, the case for a vegan diet may have appeared

problematic, but gradually, over time, it has proved to be sound and appropriate for all

stages of life. Indeed, over recent years, research has shown that people who eat a vegan

diet are healthy and may even be healthier than people who eat meat” (Hood 13). She also

includes that any diet has its possible downsides, and that the argument against a vegan diet

is the laundry list of defeciencies that are imminent possibilities, however with proper

planning there shouldn’t be an issue.

Fontana, Luigi, Timothy E. Meyer, Samuel Klein, and John O. Holloszy. "Long-Term Low-Calorie Low-Protein

Vegan Diet and Endurance Exercise are Associated with Low Cardiometabolic Risk. Rejuvenation

Research 10 (2007): 225-34. Academic Premier. 9 Oct. 2013.” In another scholarly article, Luigi

Fontana and others analyzed the long-term effects of consuming a low-calorie and low-protein

vegan diet versus performing regular endurance exercise on cardiometabolic risk factors. The

research methods used was a cross-sectional study and the cardiometabolic risk factors which were

evaluated in 21 sedentary subjects who had be consuming the low-calorie and low-protein vegan

diet for a number of years. This relates to the original topic of whether consuming a vegan diet is

actually beneficial or more harmful than consuming red meat because it evaluates the BMI (body

mass index) of those in both the sedentary and endurance runner groups. The results yielded that

the BMI of both groups was lower. It also suggested that the long-term consumption of this

particular vegan diet in combination with regular endurance exercise both decreased blood

pressure as noted in the introductory article in conjunction with this scholarly article. However

there was no indication of whether the incorporation of red meat consumption affected the

cardiometabolic health, in fact there was no mention of meat of any sort in this article. It wasn’t a

biased article it just spat out the facts of how and why a specific vegan diet functioned during the

cross-sectional study of both sedentary and endurance runners.

Liebman, Bonnie. Nutrition Action Health Letter. Jun2013, Vol. 40 Issue 5, p1-7.

This periodical is more of an overview of what other researchers have said such a Harvard School of

Public Health and Adam Bernstein a research director at the Cleveland Clinic’s Wellness Institute.

This article assigns reasons on why people should consume less meat, but not necessarily remove it

from a diet completely. The first of many is introduced with a quote from Adam Bernstein, "Eating

red meat increases the risk of dying early […] We estimated that 8 percent of deaths in women and

almost 10 percent in men could be prevented if people consumed less than half a serving per day of

red meat," (Liebman 1). This article differs from those that have been included thus far in the sense

that it details what particular meat was used in the study Bernstein performed. It included, “…a

serving was three ounces of cooked steak, hamburger, pork chop, or other unprocessed meat, but

only one ounce of sausage, ham, or other processed meat and half an ounce of bacon” (Liebman 1).

This additional information could potentially allow the reader to make a more accurate conclusion

of the efficiency and value of the study and its results. Another alarming statistic that was included

in this periodical was from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study, it was reported from half a million

people, that after 10 years those who consumed the most red meat (approximately 5 ounces a day)

were 30% more likely to die. Another interesting statistic was included in the article involving the

consumption of lower-fat meats such as a deli-meat contained carnitine. This is a nutrient that has

the ability to accelerate atherosclerosis, or the hardening of the arteries. One might see the word

“nutrient” and question why it is so harmful to the body. Well, in the Cleveland Clinic study, it was

found that when the body further digests this nutrient a byproduct is produced, TMAO. This could

potentially be the culprit in the destruction of the heart and arteries surrounding it. A finding from

Hazen, a chair member of the Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic’s Lerner

Research Institute, “Those who had higher blood levels of TMAO were about 50 percent more likely

to have a heart attack, stroke, or other cardiovascular event over the next three years, once the

researchers took into account risk factors like high blood pressure, smoking, and high LDL

cholesterol” (Liebman 2). The study results coupled with the scientific facts present in this

document as well as in the others that have been collected it would be reasonable to assume that an

enormous amount of energy, money and time has been invested in this plants over meat debate.

McAfee, Alison J.; McSorley, Emeir M.; Cuskelly, Geraldine J.; Moss, Bruce W.; Wallace, Julie M.W.;

Bonham, Maxine P.; Fearon, Anna M. Meat Science. Jan2010, Vol. 84 Issue 1, p1-13.

This article procured via an academic database with authors accredited in their fields of

Biomedical Sciences, Biological Sciences and Food Chemistry. It was said in the abstract of

this article that there have been inconclusive findings that moderate consumption of red

meat can actually lead to severe illnesses such as CVD (cardiovascular disease). The aim of

this paper was to further elaborate on these findings and to debunk the negative

connotation red meat has when associated with long-term health. It was summarized in the

article of how certain studies such as those performed in the past are inconsistent with each

other. For example in one of the studies performed, “…Hu et al. (1999a) found a significant

positive association between servings of red meat and the risk of CHD when age was

adjusted for, but this effect became non-significant after controlling for age, BMI, smoking,

alcohol, physical activity, energy intake and family history of CHD in the multivariate

analysis (RR 1.09, (C.I. 0.9–1.3), p = 0.35). Another study reported a significant association

with beef consumption (⩾3 servings/wk) and the risk of fatal CHD; however this

association was observed only in men (Fraser, 1999). Kelemen et al. (2005) found that red

meat was associated with an increased risk of mortality from CHD, but their classification of

red meat included some processed meats. Similar inconsistencies have been observed in

other studies (Hu et al., 1999a and Steffen et al., 2005), as there is no universal agreement of

which meats can be classed as processed or red (Chao et al., 2005 and WCRF, 2007)”

(McAfee et al., 6). Basically this article concludes that there haven’t been any official studies

to draw accurate conclusions on whether the consumption of meat in general has any

correlation with health risks, aside from the obvious rise of LDL and fatty acids which was

discussed in further detail in the previous annotation.

Rohrmann, Sabine; Overvad, Kim; Bueno-de-Mesquita, H. Bas; Jakobsen, Marianne U.; Egeberg, Rikke;

Tjønneland, Anne; Nailler, Laura; Boutron-Ruault, Marie-Christine; Clavel-Chapelon, Françoise;

Krogh, Vittorio; Palli, Domenico; Panico, Salvatore; Tumino, Rosario; Ricceri, Fulvio; Bergmann,

Manuela M.; Boeing, Heiner; Li, Kuanrong; Kaaks, Rudolf; Khaw, Kay-Tee; Wareham, Nicholas J. BMC

Medicine. 2013, Vol. 11 Issue 1, p1-12.

This scientific article is centered around the effects of red meat on disease and mortality rate in those

without any predispositions to ailments such as cancer, stroke or myocardial infarction. It also

briefly compares the mortality rate of those who eat a diet rich in red meat to those who are

vegetarian. The methods utilized was the analysis of a study composed of 448,568 men and women

who, were all things considered, in relatively decent health. The study revealed that the higher the

consumption of meat there was more of a risk of mortality. Also discussed in this article were the

benefits of consuming red meat. Red meat is high in iron, protein, zinc and B-vitamins. The

bioavailability is also much higher in meat than it is in vegetarian options such as beans and

legumes. However there are associated risks such as a higher content of cholesterol and saturated

fatty acids would be present in the body which have been shown to be positively correlated with

plasma low density lipoprotein (LDL) and coronary heart disease. There were several cohort

studies mentioned in the article stating that the findings of the study revealed vegetarians have an

overall more satisfied lifestyle and the mortality rates are substantially lower compared to those

who consume red meat and have a lower satisfactory rate in lifestyle and higher level of mortality

rates. This article has shown no preference over which diet is more efficient; it listed the

possibilities of both adverse and beneficial effects for the consumption of red meat. Therefore

revealing this article as being objective.

Ruxton, Carrie. “The Role of Meat in a Balanced Diet”. Nursing Standard. Vol. 26 Issue 7, p41-48.

Carrie Ruxton, a freelance dietician, wrote this article based upon research findings showing

only the negative connotation of red meat consumption in a diet and defines that meat can

have a positive role in an healthy and balanced diet and lifestyle. It is included in a Nutrition

textbook. The article details the benefits of meat such as its high bioavailability for nutrients

like iron, protein, vitamin D and so on. However she also briefly includes that meat contains

trans fatty acids, which occur naturally in the meat or could be added by the meat plants to

produce solid fats. This article contains mostly beneficial information for nurses to be aware

of, however there isn’t much mention of the adverse effects of red meat consumption which

leads the reader to believe that Ruxton is an advocate for an omnivorous based diet, but

only in moderate amounts. She does acknowledge the data that has been collected in recent

studies but overlooks it due to lack of evidence and concludes by stating, “When consumed

as part of a balanced die, lean red meat is unlikely to increase the risk of chronic diseases

such as heart disease, obesity or colorectal cancer. These concerns mainly lie with the small

percentage of high consumers, and those who prefer fatty cuts of meat or processed meats”

(Ruxton 47).

S. Stanner, et al. "Red Meat In The Diet: An Update." Nutrition Bulletin 36.1 (2011): 34-77. Academic

Search Premier. Web. 16 Oct. 2013. This is an updated article from the previous publication

of the 2005, “Red Meat in The Diet”. The evidence gathered for this article was

epidemiological based, meaning it is based upon the patterns and risks of disease in a

controlled population. This study investigated the associations between meat intake and the

possible health and or disease outcomes. Gathering accurate epidemiological data is spoken

of in depth in this article, leading into the quality of the data. Basically data must be of both

quality and accuracy in order to determine anything of value. This matters especially when

comprising data of meat consumption. This article focused quite a bit on separating

aggregated data, meaning the amount of meat consumed separated from other components

such as meat pies or pasta and meatballs. It continues on to say that meat has high

micronutrient and protein levels which is why it has been shown in studies to be more

beneficial to the human body. However meat contains a variety of fatty acids, especially

those saturated fatty acids, which can be harmful in large quantities. Also of import in

analyzing this article is the breakdown of fatty acids in different types of meat. If the species

is ruminant, meaning the animal was a cow or a sheep, then the majority of the meat is

hydrogenated, which allows it to be easily digested by the stomach and intestines,

hydrogenated vegetable oils are also used to produce the solid and semi-solid meats that

are manufactured. The article concludes with classifying the two types of meat, processed

and unprocessed and lists that it has grown increasingly difficult to separate the risks of red

meat consumption alone, that rather assigning risks to meat consumption that it be divided

by whether the meat is or is not processed.

Thomas, Ellen, and Suzanne Schlosberg. "Garden of Vegan." Natural Health 37.5 (2007): 37-42.

Academic Premier. Web. 9 Oct. 2013. In this article both Ellen Thomas and Suzanne

Schlosberg examine the benefits of eliminating red meat from a diet and choosing the

option of eating vegan or vegetarian by consulting a Diabetes Research and research

performed by Dr. Neal Barnard, an associate professor of medicine at George Washington

University’s School of Medicine. The research methods performed were mostly self-

research via reading scholarly articles about a particular Diabetes study of which was

published by Diabetes Care and research performed by Neal Barnard. It is mentioned by

that those who participated in the study had beneficial health improvements such as,

“Within the first week [of a vegan diet], blood sugar starts to come down; within the first

month, blood pressure and cholesterol start to fall” (Barnard 32). These results found that

the vegan diet can benefit anyone, especially those with preexisting conditions such as

diabetes. The authors of this article cites mostly unbiased research material that would

allude to the possibility that it is an informational article whose purpose is to simply inform

the reader of the benefits of a vegan diet. However it does not mention the adverse affects of

a vegan diet, so the final result would be that the author has chosen a preference of the

vegan diet over a more omnivorous diet.

Tweed, Vera. Better Nutrition. Jun2013, Vol. 75 Issue 6, p39-42.

This article focuses on the possible solutions to the health risks of being a vegetarian or a

vegan such as vitamin deficiency, advice given from Virginia Messina a registered dietician

and a doctor of public health. She explains that many vegetarians and vegans have the issue

of obtaining adequate amounts of calcium and certain vitamins such as b12 due to the lack

of the bioavailability in plant based foods, but however can achieve sufficient amounts of

iron by consumption of beans, contrary to the articles condemning vegetarianism and

veganism due to inadequate iron intake. As Virginia Messina explains, “According to

Virginia Messina, RD, MPH, author of Vegan for Life, a healthy vegan diet will provide

adequate iron. Beans are a great source: ½ cup contains almost as much iron as 3 ounces of

meat. For calcium, eat plenty of leafy greens, as well as almond butter, tahini, and fortified

juices. Tofu with calcium sulfate is another source” (Tweed 39). Therefore, vegetarians and

the like can still maintain a healthy lifestyle free from meat without being restricted by

deficiencies.