There is a strong enough moral argument for vegetarianism. However, it does seem that if applied globally, such a standard would cause a loss of livelihood (e.g for African nations that export tons of beef to Europe). In the dramatic event that a panel of EU ethicists decided to ban all non-vegetarian commodities (leather, meat, some forms of milk) on the grounds that these were borne from the undue suffering of animals, would the inevitable suffering of human beings that would result from such a move (through job losses, economic stagnation, etc. - assuming that in countries that thrive on the meat industry, e.g. Botswana, alternative livelihoods are virtually unsustainable, due to the poor agricultural space) provide a suitable argument for the continued non-vegetarianism of human beings on Earth, or is this a mere technicality?