Sensationlism?
PETA, like all good advocacy groups, focuses on a narrow range of the problem and extrapolates it to an entire sector or industry in order to bring attention. Their pieces move out of context. The bit about university research is a good example. They focus on a very narrow idea - say, a single specific practice that takes place within supervision - and then extrapolate it as an abuse issue by callous or negligent staff. The truth is nowhere near their portrayal of it.
This is a common misconception. Many cultures historically where or are vegetarian out of necessity, as growing livestock is very demanding on water and land resources. The ancient inhabitants of Mexico, for example, lived off beans and maize for lack of the various "meat" animals that Europeans have always taken for granted, such as pigs and chickens. It's not as nutritious, but you can live off meat.
Today with artificial suplements available you can have a well-rounded diet based on vegetables and vitamins.
No, that is the misconception.
Many cultures have lived off a low-meat diet, but that is not to say that they were properly nourished. One need only look at the dramatic drop in disease and dramatic increases in longevity that have accompanied the introduction in balanced nutrition over the last century for an example.
Even with artificial supplements, it is not possible to get and maintain a healthy balance of nutrients without a meat component in the diet. Sure, you can easily live on a diet without meat but that doesn't mean its healthy. Several components of our immune systems are derived directly from meat products and cannot be artificially supplemented. Over and above that, our musculature is dependent upon large quantities of pre-processed animal protein.
Humans are omnivores. Truth be told, many Westerners actually eat considerably more meat than they need and should be eating more vegetative matter (particularly fresh vegetables and fruits and not grains). But to cut it out entirely? It's not a feasible option for a healthy lifestyle.
Even the healthiest of vegetarians are lacking in critical dietary material which they attempt to supplement artificially (but again, not all dietary components can be). And most vegetarians aren't that healthy to begin with - many make their dietary choices for political reasons and fail to properly balance their intake, cutting out protein and hormonal components entirely. This is especially common in young adults.
So yeah, it's possible to live without meat but its not necessarily good for you, no matter what you take by way of supplements. The biggest detraction is to the immune system and to overall system growth. This is part of the reason that cultures without a regular supply of meat (which does not have to be red; it can be poultry or fish too) tend to have shorter lifespans and physically diminutive stature.
Vegetarianism is a political rebellion against the physical nature of the human body, which is why it is fundamentally impractical and foolhardy. Reduction in levels of meat consumption to sustainable levels is a good idea; elimination of all meat from one's diet is idiotic.
In fact, for the really hardcore, in theory you could process petroleum into various organic compounds and survive without eating anything that once "lived".
No, you couldn't; you lose the mineral elements, pre-processed and complete protein fragments, antibodies, and hormonal elements that are derived from plants and animals in our diet.
We aren't plants - we can't take base elements are assemble them into food. The human digestion system has evolved to use whole pieces of what we eat in our own bodies - we break only a fraction of what we eat down into simple sugars and short amino acid chains. Our bodies regularly absorb whole proteins and hormones.
