They can at least help, says Peta in an article on its Web site:

Meat means misery for the world’s hungry

Grain is used to fatten animals instead of people, the article says, claiming it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of meat for human consumption.

Therefore if fewer animals were being bred for burgers and chicken nuggets, there would be more grain to spread around. Right?

Here’s the problem: we live in a capitalist country. If less people eat meat, less people will raise cows, chickens, pigs, etc… If less people are raising animals to eat, less grain will be purchased, and thus less grain will be grown.

Would farmers really continue to grow pounds and pounds of grain so poor starving people can eat it? Seems this article is missing this vital point.

Over the past few months, my husband and I have drastically reduced the amount of meat we consume for many reasons, and after spending some time on the Peta Web site over the past week, I’ve seriously considered nixing it from my plate altogether.

And as a Christian, though granted the Bible does condone eating meat, I find feeding the poor to be a compelling argument for believers to choose meat alternatives.

But is there a way around the capitalism complication? Would becoming vegetarian really help the poor? Or do we need to focus more on changing hearts rather than stomachs to make a difference here?