A well-planned vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all vital nutrients, including protein, omega-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. However, use of supplements or fortified foods may be helpful to boost intake of important nutrients in certain cases.

The American Dietetic Association contends that carefully planned vegetarian diets, including vegan diets, are healthful and nutritionally sufficient for individuals of all ages, including pregnant or lactating women, infants, children, adolescents, and athletes. During pregnancy, adherence to a nutritionally adequate vegetarian diet can lead to positive health outcomes for both the mother and infant.

Furthermore, well-constructed vegetarian diets may offer health benefits in terms of preventing and treating certain chronic diseases, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, and diabetes. Vegetarian diets are linked to lower risk for death from ischemic heart disease, according to findings of an evidence-based review. In addition, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and body mass index appear to be lower in vegetarians than in nonvegetarians, as do rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and cancer.

So far as I can see, much of your argument boils down to “Its my choice, and who are you to tell me what to do?” Personally, I find this unsatisfactory, because its the same argument that Jeremy Clarkson uses to drive Humvees at great expense to the environment. When the entire discussion is about the various arguments people give for (positive) vegetarianism or (negative) anti-meat-eating, then I don’t think its enough to simply say “its my choice, how dare you question it” without rebutting some of those arguments. If you don’t want to engage, then there’s no need to take up bandwidth saying so.

Efficiency in food production does vary, it’s true, but that’s no reason to only endorse the single most efficient way. Otherwise, we’d only be able to justify growing the single one most efficient crop. And probably it would have to be GM, if efficiency is all. So I just don’t think efficiency is a very good argument.

My understanding of the argument, is that the disparity between arable and pastoral farming land-use is such that we could grow a pretty diverse set of crops, and still sustain the world’s growing population. That, vegetarians say, is a better and sensible approach than meat-eating. Of course, one could be more extreme. But just because they do not recommend the most extreme policy choice, it doesn’t mean that what they do recommend is worthless or invalid as a moral choice.

I think sensible vegetarians probably recommend GM as part of the mix, too, although there will be others who advocate purer forms.

Surely “sustainability” is the concept at issue here. If we’re threatened with a food-shortage, exacerbated by global warming, then surely the onus is on us to come up with ideas for sustainable food production. Personally, I think the argument that says that we can’t do this without resorting to an almost exclusively plant-based diet, is the most persuasive argument for vegetarianism.

I do think that our sentience means we have to make moral choices too, but explaining why that should apply to a concern for the souls of farm animals, as Seth Freedman seems to, is a much more difficult argument.

Still, at least we are getting on to the meat of things (pardon the pun).

The thing is, Rob, meat-eaters don’t presume to tell vegetarians what to eat, and they don’t (on the whole) refuse to eat vegetables. So we are not stopping vegetarians from being able to make their own personal choices about what to eat or not eat. Efficiency in food production does vary, it’s true, but that’s no reason to only endorse the single most efficient way. Otherwise, we’d only be able to justify growing the single one most efficient crop. And probably it would have to be GM, if efficiency is all. So I just don’t think efficiency is a very good argument.

Everybody’s choices affect everybody else in some way, but that is a fact of life. It’s no reason to deny them.

I do not presume to tell other people what they should or shouldn’t eat, and as such, my personal diet choices are mine, and mine alone, requiring no supporting arguments whatsoever.

Hold on, Clarice. A huge part of the vegetarian argument is that diet choices do affect everyone else in a very real way. As Freedman pointed out, its pretty much accepted that vegetarian is many times more efficient in terms of land-use, which will become a major issue before the end of the 21st century. So I don’t think you can use such a solipsistic, personal argument any more than a car driver can say that his burning of fossil fuels is only a ‘personal’ choice.

And as to your last comment, your memory is short.
Better to be clever than a hypocrite :-)