Eating both non-vegan and vegetarian diet for ethical reasons is hippopotamus.

Now that we are off the silly train I will address your points. First, 249,825 Australian individuals are employed in the farming industry. Affiliated industries such as meat packing, milk and egg production, distribution, retail and fast food employment grow the employment numbers exponentially. In the meat packing sector there are 148,000 full-time jobs that contribute 16.2 billion dollars to the Australian economy annually. $37 billion of the fast food industry contributes annually with 156,186 jobs; McDonald's, Burger King, Subway and the like. The meat industry as a whole, chicken, beef, and lamb contributes $18 million dollars a day to the Australian economy. The food animal industry contributes $16.2 billion in gross domestic product or 1.3% of total GDP. Now, you may feel that 1.3% of the GDP can be sacrificed in the name of animal ethics but, percentages do not reflect value of product. Mining and ore exports hold higher monetary value per pound than meats and animal products. But, meat production, animal products and associated industries attribute to 58% of all jobs held in Australia. In the name of animal ethics would you put that many people out of work? The unemployment and social services payouts would break the nation financially. With more than half of the Australian population unemployed, hungry and some homeless as a result; do you think a vegetarian or vegan diet is in balance with people out of work and starving? Where do animal ethics draw a line? I will not repute that cruelty exist in the farming of animals, but the sources you referenced are biased. These are organizations whose" goal are explicit toward vegetarianism or vegan life styles and animal ethics. They do not provide statically rich information regarding cause and effect from an economic standpoint. Though their claims have some merit, upon examining economic repercussions, one must ask does animal welfare supersede human hunger due to unemployment? It is conceivable that over time that natural resource use proves that meat production and affiliated industries are too intensive to be sustainable as the global populations grows. But, given the data presently available, animal ethics and morality places human populations at greater risk for suffering if applied. Second, I believe we have defined hippopotamus. Stating that "Some Lacto vegetarians proudly state "I am not responsible for any animal deaths." That's hippopotamus!" This statement is false. Hippopotamus is under an undisputed definition: A hippopotamus one is who is faking eating egg and cheese but in fact strictly vegan. Your comment is contradictory to the definition. Lacto vegetarians that eat eggs and cheese are not hippopotamus. I will not argue that a vegetarian diet is healthy or in practice attainable for human heath but, you fail to connect that such practice is ethical. Presently you tout animal ethics is preferable without regard to the cascading effects that would precipitate greater harm against the human that is also an animal. http://www.aph.gov.au... http://www.ampc.com.au... http://www.primeskills.com.au... http://www.chicken.org.au... http://www.chicken.org.au... http://www.ibisworld.com.au... http://www.ibisworld.com.au... http://www.abs.gov.au... http://www.tradingeconomics.com...