Animal Products Is An Integral Part Of Society

Ever since the dawn of industrialization, humans have caused serious, irreversible damage to the biosphere. And as the world progresses and Canadians looks on, they realized the impact of their environmental damage. Sometimes new ecofriendly technology enters the market and replaces the old environment damaging one. But that is not enough, human society as a whole must completely rethink and change themselves individually to so that their actions causes minimal environmental backlash.

In “The Psychology of eating Animals,” published in 2014 issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science, Steve Loughnan, Brock Bastion, and Nick Haslam argues the psychological process of “meat paradox”(104). Loughnan and Haslam earned their degree in Psychological Science from University of Melbourne and Bastian also earned his degree in Psychological Science from University of Queensland(104). Many people have different thought process when eating meat, they explain, “to understand the psychology of eating animals by examining characteristics of the eaters (people), the eaten (animals), and the eating (the behavior)”(104). In the another study that they cites shows; that vegetarians have moral concerns for animals that are being used

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.

Animal agriculture is one of the largest contributors to climate change; however, this fact goes unacknowledged by most people. Livestock and their byproducts produce monstrous amounts

More than ever before, our planet is one filled with meat eaters. In fact, the average American consumes 270.7 pounds of meat per year. And, as one might have guessed, the question of where this food set before them on the table came from is often unregarded or ignored altogether. As more media forms commercialize extremely unhealthy versions of double cheeseburgers and meat lover’s supremes, the consumer’s demand for meat spikes up and companies in the food industry are faced with the ethical dilemma of benefiting themselves, their companies, increasing profits...and doing right by the animals- who without, they would not even be where they are today. Needless to say that animal rights and the humane treatment of their precious lives have been disregarded. Why do we, as a

Introduction (Attention Step): What do you think is the greatest cause of emission pollution? What do you believe is harming our planet? Well if you guessed that fossil fuel emissions are the biggest emission polluters, then you are completely wrong (attention getter). Animal Agriculture is actually the number one Greenhouse Gas emitter in the planet. Yes, cow farts are destroying the environment. It sounds crazy, but ever since the mid 60’s, agriculture associations have been spreading across the Americas and dominated the industry. The most destructive of all Ag corps are Livestock Corporation. These associations include IBP, Conagra, Perdue, Farmland National Beef, Cargill, etc … Animal Agriculture is effecting every single person in this room because we all breathe in the same air, drink the same water, and eat the same (credibility). The buildup of Animal Agriculture is a great destruction to our planet and our species because it is creating

One of the biggest controversies with livestock production is that the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that get released into the atmosphere. Its assumed that cars produce most if not all the greenhouse gas emissions however livestock has a big say in air pollution. According to Cassandra Brooks, writer for the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, 18 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestock production. This is nearly 20% and can be greatly reduced if people reduced their demand for meat. The Environmental Working Group used a tangible variable for Americans stating “if everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would be like not driving 91 billion miles – or taking 7.6 million

Florida Atlantic University, Dept. of Psychology, Davie, FL 33314 USA [E-mail: wmckibbi@fau.edu, tshackel@fau.edu] The Omnivore’s Dilemma is the latest book by Michael Pollan, best known for his previous best‐ selling work, The Botany of Desire. Here, Pollan has crafted a well‐written and enjoyable  exploration of humans’ relationship with food. The book is written for a lay audience, but is  appreciable by all.    Pollan begins by focusing on a seemingly simple question,

Jonathan Foer, the author, uses “Eating Animals is Making us Sick” to illustrate his goal of how dangerous food is to the audiences health. Foer explains how there is a large quantity of zoonotic diseases in the food Americans consume and shows how much it can actually affect the consumer. Jonathan Foer argues animal consumption is hazardous to the health of Americans successfully because he uses the rhetorical appeals ethos, pathos, and logos to show how much zoonotic diseases are in the meat. Jonathan Foer’s intended audience includes: parents, Americans, and people who have/ are sick due to a “food borne illness.” Everyone is not aware enough of how bad meat is treated before it hits the table.

Have you ever stopped and asked yourself: what are you really eating? Recently, I’ve come to the realization of what I’m eating on a daily basis isn’t entirely healthy for me. Michael Pollan, who is the author of the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, has opened my mind. While reading the first couple of chapters of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, I’ve realized that I don’t know much about the food I eat daily. For example, I didn’t know that farmers not only feed corn but also antibiotics to their animals (Walsh 34). In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Pollan makes a strange statement, “You are what what you eat eats, too” (Pollan 84). Pollan continuously emphasizes this remark through various examples and he’s right, because strangely enough the food that our food eats not only affects them but us as well.

By exploiting a president’s promise and several specific facts and comparing the emissions between car and animal cultivation, Freston raises her claim that calls for people should be worrying about their diet rather than their car. First, the author adopts an honest report from the United Nations: “The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global” (800). In this way, Freston makes her audiences believe that raising

How much do you think about the food you choose to eat? In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan weaves through personal anecdotes, scientific studies, and thought-provoking questions about ethics and the human condition in order to force readers to think more critically about their meals. The book’s overarching theme, addressed directly and indirectly over and over again, is that America is afflicted with a “national eating disorder.” As omnivores and citizens of a highly developed nation, we are confronted with an inescapable mass of complicated information and ideas about food that we need to constantly comprehend, categorize, and evaluate, ultimately culminating in a series of choices every time we eat a meal. This information includes messages from doctors, family, and peers, from marketers and media, and from our own ideas about preferences and priorities.

In his journalistic investigation into the depths of industrial agriculture, Michael Pollan analyzes “what it is we’re eating, where it came from, how it found its way to our table, and what it really cost” in an effort to provide both himself and his readers with an educated answer to the surprisingly complex question of “what should we have for dinner?” (Pollan 411, 1). However, what appears as a noble attempt to develop a fuller understanding of the personal, social, and environmental implications of food choices soon reveals itself as a quest to justify Pollan’s own desire to continue eating meat despite its undeniable detriments to animals, human health, and the environment. Indeed, the mere title of Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma as well as his assertion in the book’s introduction that “omnivory offers the pleasures of variety,” exposes the author’s gustatory preferences that prompt him to ask which meat to eat, rather than if to eat meat at all (Pollan 4). This preemptive refusal, due to mere gastronomic pleasure, to consider methods of eating responsibly that do not involve meat renders Pollan’s investigative endeavor essentially meaningless why would he take the time and effort to thoroughly examine the consequences of his food choices if he vowed at the outset to not allow his discoveries to truly shift his eating habits? Why would he write an entire book delving into the minute details of industrialized food production only to advise himself and his audience

Animal cruelty continues to plague the meat and dairy industry and a policy to reverse this is enacting stricter regulations on meat and dairy labels that explicitly state the additives and preservatives used on the product. Moreover, my policy will persuade people to purchase meat and dairy that is ethically raised and is not made with preservatives or additives, this is my value of health. Moreover, my policy is for those who eat meat and dairy and are unaware of the health side affects of consuming it and the animal cruelty that goes into producing a piece of meat or glass of milk, which encompasses my value of compassion. We are a compassionate species who turns the channel during an ASPCA commercial. We root for Nemo, Babe and Bambi yet we watch the movie whilst eating fish, pork or venison. The hypocrisy is unbelievable yet not talked about. Most Americans do not recognize this link between our compassion and the animals we eat and the hypocrisy that surrounds it. In this essay I address the compassion humans posses and how it is being wiped out through eating meat and dairy. I also address how we have the potential to rid the meat and dairy industry of the abuse. I will also discuss how meat and dairy is detrimental to our health.

The issue: We’re eating the planet. All of us - and not in the fun, culinary sense of exploring international cuisine. The amount of food Americans eat exceeds the amount they actually need. Our food choices are high in calories, high in fat, high in sugar, high in resource and energy input, high in everything. The average American eats 258 lbs. of meat every year. That’s roughly 1/10 of a cow, half a pig, one turkey, and 26 chickens. Maybe this doesn’t sound that much to you – but it is 30 times more meat than the average Indian consumes yearly.