Eating Animals Rhetorical Analysis

In the book, Eating Animals, author, John Safran Foer engages his audience on an investigation for deeper knowledge on animal consumption and ethics. Foer conceives that animal agriculture, through factory farms, is geared more so towards the callous slaughter of animals than human consumption, thus, negatively effecting the world. I agree with the thesis put forth by Foer because the slaughter process is brutal and unnecessary and a main source for the earth’s deterioration.
To address his issue on Factory Farm slaughtering, he uses gruesome examples from the beef, chicken, and fish industry. Using the examples allow the audience to visualize the pure nightmare that many animals call reality. For example, Foer researched slaughter house

work descriptions and he records the following:
Workers have been documented using poles like baseball bats to hit baby turkeys, stomping on chickens to watch them “pop,” beating lame pigs with metal pipes, and knowingly dismembering fully conscious cattle (252).
Such conditions are completely inappropriate and do nothing for animal welfare.

One can argue that the method leading to their demise is unimportant, but morality plays a role in this problems. This is where Foer tugs on your heart strings with his cleverly heart melting story telling. He wants the read to have an emotional connection for the animals we harvest.
In addition to the documented cruelty, painful descriptions of chicken processing creates uneasy atmosphere for the audience. This is needed to keep the argument up to date and alarming. Again, he explains, “Most male layers are destroyed by being sucked through a series of pipes onto an electrified plate” (48). Since a male layer is useless to their company they’re are horrifically “destroyed” (again a term Foer emphasizes as undefined). Foer wants the reader to feel remorse for the defenseless to prove Factory Farms are more interested in vicious forms of killing than the

produce.
Furthermore, the animal abuse that happens in Factory Farms causes major problems that are consciously effecting the world in major ways. This quote explains that the quick fix solutions happening in the Factory Farms are rendering the quality of the meat, in this way, choosing slaughter over consumption. For example, “The World Health organization have linked nontherapeutic antibiotic use on factory farms with increased antimicrobial resistance and called for a ban” (141). Foer uses The World Health Organization’s suggestion as evidence to prove his argument. The World Health Organization is a trusted source for the audience to believe.
In conjunctions with world effects, Foer creates a more concerning tone when discussing how factory farms effect humans directly.

He wants the audience to understand how they are being exactly effected, not just anyone. For instance, Foer states, “Smithfield, like others in the industry spray the liquefied manure onto fields…swirling gases capable of causing severe neurological damage” (176). In their defense, Foer reveals to the audience that Factory Farms believe the field will absorb the fecal matter (176). In contrast, he refutes, “Runoff [fecal matter] creeps into waterways, and poisonous gases like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide evaporate in the air” (176). This is important to Foer’s argument because communities close to these farms are negatively affected, which effects our

environment.
Moreover, Foer’s rhetorical questions and direct blame for global warming puts the reader on edge and questions their values on the environment and the severity of Factory Farming systems. Specifically, Foer asks, “If being the number one contributor to the most serious threat facing the planet (global warming) isn’t enough, what is” (243)? Taping into the ethical side of your conscious is what makes his approach successful. By offering a question to deliberate and accusing Factory Farms of ruining the ecosystem, the audience is more pressure to decide. In the debate of beliefs, Foer counterclaims, “Whether or not you ‘believe’ in global warming, whether you defend your Hummer or live off the grid, you recognize that the air you breathe and the water you drink are important” (73). This ethical approach will spark conversation on this matter, and methods to a more environmentally friendly animal agriculture can develop.
In sum, I agree that Factory Farms are insensitive when slaughtering animals and lackadaisical when protecting the environment. Foer’s approach on convincing the audience to agree with his idea is logical and ethical. His argument is clear Animal agriculture should be canvassed.