Peter Singer What We Eat Argument

In addition to his solutions, Pollan’s modern narrative sheds light on the façade of our food industries; asking us to rethink what we know. Despite the mention of certain inhumane acts in All Animals are Equal, Pollan takes us one step further to uncover the reason for which we continue to purchase our corrupt food. We all know animal abuse exists, but the average consumer like myself is more worried about the best price and the fastest way to get a burger rather than how fairly the animals are treated in the process. Whether it be the confined living space of chickens or the mental and physical torture of pigs, we continue to blind ourselves from reality. Is it purely out of selfishness? Or are we too ignorant to come to terms with our wrong doings? Like Pollan explains, it takes seeing the abuse before the shame of our disrespect can be felt (pg.6). After seeing Pollan’s truth, I might now think twice before eating out and the choice to support organic produce can make a dramatic difference for those farmers who promote the ethical lifestyle.

“For most humans, especially for those in modern urban and suburban communities, the most direct form or contact with non-human animals is at meal time: we eat them. This simple fact is the key to what each one of us can do about changing these attitudes. The use and abuse of animals raised for food far exceeds, in sheer numbers of animals affected, any other kind of mistreatment” (Coats). The most effective method to stop this cruelty is to learn about where the meat comes from, by supporting the organic and family farms which will ultimately lead to the reducing the amount of animals that have to suffer (PETA). More than 95 percent of animal abuse in America occurs in the meat packing industry (Harper & Low). Animals suffer an unimaginable amount, they are raised to be killed, then bought and then consumed. In order to help fight back against the abuse, there needs to be a cut back on the amount of meat or poultry that is consumed. Seriously consider the option of becoming a vegetarian; by not eating meat, you completely stop supporting animal

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.

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.

Alastair Norcross’s essay “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” explores the issue of animal rights. The essay explores a scenario which prompts a compelling argument against factory-raised animals and how the meat we consume on a daily bases comes at a sharp price. In addition, several counterarguments are presented throughout the essay.

Many people who think that the way that we treat animals in the process of raising those for human consumption are wrong never stop, to think what they can do to stop this problem from further occurring. Furthermore, they make impassioned calls for more “humanely” raised meat. Instead to soothe their consciences they shop for “free range” meat, and eggs; which has no importance. Even if an animal is raised ‘free range” it still lives s life of pain and suffering that all ends with a butcher’s knife. Although many know that over 53 billion land animals are slaughtered each year for human utilization they still tend to eat this meat with no problem. The simple explanation is that many don’t care what happens to animals as long as they are eating and healthy. If they did care then they would what could be a difficult choice; to go without eating meat and selling it in any form.

Amidst giant supermarkets and effortlessly accessible meals, Americans eat whatever is in the grocery store. But the question remains, where did that “cage-free” chicken really come from? Americans are lost in their understanding as to where their food actually comes from. The author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan, asserts that Americans are facing a modern-day version of the omnivore’s dilemma wherein they don’t know what to eat. This is because of fickle science that influences confused Americans, America’s lack of a food culture, and people’s unfamiliarity with the food process.

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.

To depict the extent to which humans have twisted nature in the food industry, Michael Pollan offers anecdotes detailing modern slaughterhouses and the industrialization of meat, one of which is written about his personal connection with a steer raised for slaughter. Similar to the meat industrialization system he describes, the manner in which Pollan writes is clear and methodical, each animal designated by a number and their histories described succinctly; steer 9534’s name, for example, “signifies she was the thirty fourth cow born in 1995” (Pollan 69). However, this system greatly differs from the original nature of the process which Pollan describes. Before the mechanization of the meat industry, cattle grazed in

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

Authors Khullar, Barlett and Steele, Singer, and Hurst in Food Matters, argue many valid and important points previously discussed. Singer suggests that “competition in the marketplace” has a higher cost in the lives of the animals, so that their “flesh” can be provided to the consumer at a lower cost, and I agree because people can cause a strain with product demands (Singer 179). It’s easier to believe that chickens, cows, and pigs live on Old Macdonald’s happy farm than to actually

Author Gary Steiner is a philosophy professor at Bucknell University. Also, a devout vegan, he has focused much of his recent works on the notion of animal rights. In his essay “Animal, Vegetable, Miserable,” he confronts the cruel and immoral abuses animals face from their human counterparts. He does so in a profound manner, reaching through the pages of his essay to really get those wheels turning in his reader 's minds. His primary goal in writing this essay is to get people to focus on the important issue—to re-evaluate years and years of socialized thinking that humans are superior to animals. He even addresses one of the common excuses humans use to justify killing animals, “animals are meant for human consumption.” How do we know this? Because our culture and the bible tell us it is OK. But is that simply enough? Steiner insists that it’s improper to raise animals in a life of confinement and fattening only to face the butcher 's knife in the end. Not to mention that many of the basic products consumers purchase at their local stores contain animal elements of some sort. Many of whom are completely unaware and wouldn’t think twice about them containing any sort of animal byproduct. But after reading this essay, one might want to consider thinking again.

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.

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.

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.