Mapping the world's opinions

Not eating meat could prevent world hunger

We make more than enough food to feed the entire world population, however world hunger is still a huge issue because of the high demand for meat and huge economic gain of selling meat to high income countries. If less people ate meat then the more efficient crops would take their place and feed the entire world.

Context

Enter the background of the argument here ...

The Argument

Raising animals for food (including land for grazing and growing feed crops) currently uses over one-third of the planet’s landmass. If the land was used instead for farming crops, we could potentially end world hunger. This is because crops are much more land efficient than any animals in regards to the amount of calories produced. Even just by redirecting the feed that goes to animals (for meat and dairy) to humans we could end world hunger. According to PETA - ‘We produce enough calories globally to feed 10 to 11 billion people, yet the majority of this food is directed to animals of farms, not humans in need.' The 3 billion people in need of food today would be accounted for if the world went vegetarian due to the fact that about 7 pounds of crops are used to make 1 pound of cow

Counter arguments

Distribution is arguably the biggest challenge that needs to be solved in order to prevent World Hunger. While we produce enough food to feed the entire planet, global distribution methods are not yet effective enough to ensure everyone is well fed.

Premises

Enter the formal premises of the argument here ...

Rejecting the premises

Enter the technical rejections of the premises here ...

References

Content references here ...

Proponents

Do you agree?

Sign up or log in to record your thoughts on this argument

Explore the next argument

This page was last edited on Friday, 28 Jun 2019 at 10:56 UTC