Annotated Bibliography On Eating Meat

Animal meat has all necessary nutrients, especially protein that is necessary for the human body to grow and function properly. Besides, it plays a vital role in brain development. As suggested by Smil (2013), “Killing animals and eating meat have been significant components of human evolution…have inevitably contributed to the evolution of human intelligence…” (p.1). According to the findings of the University of Colorado (2012), anthropologists have excavated a toddler’s “skull fragment” in Tanzania that is the abnormally tiny size of skull, due to a protein deficiency in the diet and led to youth mortality; this condition was very rare in 1.8 million years ago. This indicates that animal meat is a paramount in the human body, without the essential amino acids that exists in animal meats; human evolution cannot happen (p.1).

In “The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A natural history of four meals,” Michael Pollan examines American eating habits. The book is divided into three pieces. The first piece focuses on industrial farming, the second analyzes organic food, and the third discusses hunting and gathering of our own food.

Replacing all the meat in the human diet with vegetables and fruit is difficult. At the expense of refraining from eating meat, we are expected to partake in excessive

In almost every culture, one of the most cherished pass times is food. We eat to sustain or health, to celebrate, to morn, and sometimes just to do it. Yet, how often do we question were that food comes from? Most everyone purchases their meals from the grocery store or at a restaurant but have you ever wondered where that juicy steak grazed? How about how those crisp vegetables? Where were those grown? The Omnivore 's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan, analyzes the eating habits and food chains of modern America in an attempt to bring readers closer to the origin of their foods. Not only where it comes from, but where it all begins, as well as what it takes to keep all of those plants and animals in

The world has a need for meat, and it is almost obsessive. Most cultures typically consume some sort of domesticated animal in agriculture. Whether it is cows, chicken, lamb, deer, turkey, or fish, many people are not educated to the fact that the alternative diets are better for their health. There are different animal products for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Hundreds if not thousands of diverse chain restaurants dedicated to meat consumption.There are also many different holidays around the world such as Thanksgiving and Christmas where meat is consumed. With affordable prices and an acquired taste, it is likely to be a lifelong habit. There are vast miles of subsidized agricultural land dedicated to the cultivation of animals. According to Amir Khan, staff writer for U.S.News, reporting on the American Meat Institute, Americans consume, “57 pounds more meat than they were in the 1950s”(Khan).

​In conducting a rhetorical analysis of the two articles, "Joel Salatin: How to Eat Animals and Respect Them, Too" by Madeline Ostrander and "Humane Meat? No Such Thing" by Sunaura Taylor, both articles stand in stark contrast in terms of the viewpoints of meat that they present. In order to gain a better understanding of these viewpoints, it's important to understand the persuasive techniques that both authors use in the article for the reader. More specifically, the ethos, pathos, and logos that they employ, as well the way in which the evidence and support is presented will further elucidate upon the arguments that appear in both articles.

Thesis statement: There should be meat free alternatives and more awareness of the benefits of choosing a vegetarian lifestyle as eating less meat is better for an individual’s health and the environmental.

“Meats, Dairies, and Eggs, Oh Why” (2014) is an argumentative essay written by Rebecca Dent that explains the benefits of eating a plant-based diet and advocates for the better treatment of the animals affected by the meat industry. Dent supports her assertions by discussing the negative health effects of an omnivorous diet, addressing reasons some might be hesitant to convert to a plant-based diet, describing the advantages of substituting meat for vegetables for both the consumers and the animals, and finally, by including expert opinions and statistical facts. Dent’s purpose for this essay is to highlight the benefits of vegetarianism in order to convince readers to convert to a plant-based diet. The intended audience for this argument is those who currently eat an omnivorous diet so that they would assess and change their eating habits.

Brahic, Catherine. "Neanderthal Chefs Spiced Up Their Diet." New Scientist 226.3017 (2015): . Academic Search Complete. Web. 20 Apr. 2016..

An intense, aggressive moral scrutiny has sparked interest in the meat eating community. Eating is an activity that we as humans do frequently, and the variety of food is immense. We decide what we are about to eat and how it will affect our bodies. In different societies, controversy has arisen over the morality of eating meat from animals. However, the moral and ethical arguments of eating meat is not a new debate. Roger Scruton’s essay, “A Carnivore’s Credo”, addresses both carnivores and vegetarians by using an appeal to pathos and ethos to persuade people of the need to “remoralize” eating meat, and extrapolating that to mean that human beings have the conscious ability to choose and stand up for moral right and wrong.

Ever since the beginning of time, man has hunted and consumed animals for survival. Because of this, it is been taught for millennials that meat is an essential to our bodies for survival and health. While we are capable of eating meat, the question is, should we? Firstly, humans do not need to eat meat, or any other animal products for that matter, for survival. Modern day humans are not living in the same conditions as early humans were, making it unnecessary for us to consume animal products. We no longer need to rely on animals for consumption, and in fact, it is actually best to leave them absent from your diet. Numerous amounts of studies have been conducted that support the claim that consuming animal products is detrimental

As we can now observe, vegetarianism has become something fashionable, and the number of people who reject eating meat is constantly increasing. In Britain, for instance, over 5 million people have done it so far. It is obviously connected with the recent animal diseases, but this tendency is likely to spread on the other regions of the world. However, it is not only a fashion or fear of illnesses. I myself became a vegetarian about 2 years ago, and I can see a number of reasons why people should stop eating meat. They are mainly of ethic, economic and health type. Those who think in an ecological way should also be aware of how this meat consumption ruins our environment. I don’t have an intention

What is the ideal doneness of a burger? Some may claim that well-done is the best, others may like medium-rare. While this is one of the most common questions asked in regards to meat-eating, there is an even more important one that everyone should be asking. What are the ethical implications of eating meat? This oft-debated question has been obscured, especially in recent years, by the outcry for the humane treatment of animals being raised for food. There have been many recent documentaries, books, and debates about how these animals sometimes never see sunlight before they are slaughtered, among many other abusive treatments. In his essay, “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” Gary Steiner raises this issue of the morality of meat-eating and challenges the readers to question their own views on this topic. Regardless of the morality of eating meat or using animal products, Steiner does not support his claim strongly enough to be accepted.

For human, to master agriculture and trade about 10,000 years ago widely expanded their food options that enable modern human to become a vegetarian (Corliss). A vegetarian does not eat meat not only because it tastes bad, but also it means something to him or her. The more one has faith in vegetarianism, the more one restricts one’s food choice in reality. Henry David Thoreau, who is known as one of the first environmental writers of the 20th century in the U.S. and had lived in woods alone, writes in his essay Walden that hunting and eating animals had bothered him because it seemed as it degraded himself to a beast. For him, eating animals is “not agreeable to [his] imagination” (Thoreau 169) as Thoreau strongly believed that “to leave off eating animals” is “a part of the destiny of the human race” (Thoreau 170). While his belief and the reality he faced had conflicted each other, he tried his best to find a way to live without relying much on meat. Even in a wild, what drove Thoreau was anthropocentric thinking that human can control nature. This dilemma in food choice that bothered Thoreau is what Michael Pollan calls the omnivore’s dilemma. He puts it in his same-titled book in this way: “When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer,

Whether it be because of religion, culture, or personal choice, millions of people worldwide do not eat meat, and the majority of the population, the omnivores, often ridicule these people, the vegetarians, for their choices. This has sadly created a divide between thousands of people, however the cause of this separation is simple. One side, whether it be the omnivores or the vegetarians, feels the need to impose its choices onto the other side. Both sides are at fault here, as the omnivores tell the vegetarians that they cannot get proper nutrients from a plant-based diet, and the vegetarians try to tell the omnivores that they are torturing animals by killing them for food. The omnivores are wrong because, while it does require careful planning, vegetarians can easily get the nutrients they need, and the vegetarians are hypocritical because, as the article will show, farming kills thousands of creatures.