By STAN MADDUX

Indiana Correspondent

VALPARAISO, Ind. — Meat vs. vegetables has been a growing point of contention among agriculture advocates, environmentalists and animal rights activists.

Two Indiana high school debate teams recently brought the issue to the debate stage.

The March 18 debate was hosted by the Valparaiso Chain of Lakes Watershed Group at the Porter County Administration Building in Valparaiso. Group President Walt Breitinger said the students did an outstanding job with their research and in delivering the pluses and minuses of a more vegetarian society.

“They came across as very knowledgeable and they seemed very sincere,” he said.

No winners were declared in the friendly competition, which was designed to draw attention to the issue – but many of the 100 people in attendance seemed uncomfortable at the thought of fully giving up meat.

It was the 11th annual high school debate hosted by the Watershed Group, whose mission primarily involves the environment. Breitinger said the topic was chosen because health, the economy, and animal rights with respect to food are linked to the condition of the Earth – and it’s an issue that seems to be gaining attention.

“The debate about vegetarian diet has been a hot topic for decades, and it seems to be accelerating. More people seem to be concerned for health and environmental reasons, and oftentimes the counter argument about the economy crops up,” he noted.

Student  Anna Lavalley, wondered if farm animals would become extinct if there was not another good purpose for them to serve, should the diet of society became nothing but vegetables. “What would the world do with all of this livestock?” she asked.

The side taken by the squad from Chesterton High School in the northwestern part of the state was for humanity to feed off nothing but vegetables, while their peers from nearby Valparaiso argued the benefits of consuming meat, fish, and poultry.

Grace Whah, a junior from Chesterton, argued billions of dollars in the United States alone would be saved on health care costs, from dramatic reductions in heart disease, stroke, and cancer from phasing out consumption of meat.

 “A study of more than 11,000 people in Germany concludes the consumption of meat increases your risk of a stroke by 47 percent. As a result, the World Economic Forum concludes the United States, in particular, could save $250 billion in health care costs by switching to a plant-based economy,” she explained.

Her opponents didn’t argue that eating too much meat was unhealthy, but pointed to research to argue eating less meat or leaner cuts lowers medical risks and even improves health. Lavalley, a VHS junior, also said global unemployment would skyrocket from the loss of jobs tied to the production and consumption of meat, poultry, and fish.

Her opponents, though, said these jobs would be replaced by ones created by demand from a more vegetarian society. The environment would also benefit from less livestock waste in storm runoff polluting the water, and fewer greenhouse emissions from methane produced by cows.

Students arguing in favor of beef said emissions contributing to global warming would actually increase, from ranchers forced out of business putting land usually not suitable for crops into production of oil and other fossil fuels. The pro-meat squad from Valparaiso also hinted many vegetarians might not be as healthy as they seem as a result of deficiencies of vitamin B-12 and protein contained in meat.

“If B-12 levels are just slightly lower than they should be, you may have symptoms such as poor memory, depression, and fatigue,” said Elli Bezotte, a VHS senior.

Azeez Lakhani, a CHS senior, argued that taking dietary supplements could make up for any loss of meat-derived nutrients if much of the world turned more toward vegetables. Malnutrition, though, would increase especially among the poor without the money to pay for those supplements, Bezotte countered.