Johnathan Safran Foer Eating Animals Analysis

A central theme in Foer’s, “Eating Animals” is the meaning of food and obviously as the title suggests, Foer’s own internal struggle with eating animals. In addition, Foer’s research has examined not just that the elements provide nourishment for our bodies, but the sentimental ability that food has to unite people and create lasting memories and bonds, simply because one has chosen to ‘break bread.’ “…because the stories that are served with food matter. These stories bind our family together, and bind our family to others. Stories about food are stories about us — our history and our values… I came to learn that food serves two parallel purposes: it nourishes and it helps you remember. Eating and storytelling are inseparable...” (Foer 22)

But in “Eating Animals” Johnathan Safran Foer goes deeper than simply writing a book about food, how that food made it to your plate, or whether you should or shouldn’t eat animals. He asks “What is an animal? … What is a human?” (Foer 60) He goes on to say, “Even by the dictionary definition, humans both are and are not animals. In the first sense, humans are members of the animal kingdom. But more often, we casually use the word animal to signify all creatures — from orangutan to dog to shrimp —

except humans.” (Foer 59) So if the question is whether or not to eat “animals”, what differentiates “orangutans, dogs and shrimp” from humans? Is it simply that we are at the top of the food chain? If so, you would assume that we acquired a responsibility to treat the animals in the most humane way possible.
Most of America agrees, “When surveyed, 96 percent of Americans say that animals deserve legal protection, 76 percent say that animal welfare is more important to them than low meat prices, and nearly two-thirds advocate passing not only laws but “strict laws” concerning the treatment of farmed animals.” (Foer 88)
However, through Foer’s research, we can see that humanity is not commonly associated with processing animals into a form we commonly eat. The following examples show just how horrific the food industry can be whilst catching and processing food to be eaten.
In fishing, “technologies of war” are used against the fish with sophisticated equipment like, “radar, echo sounders (once used to locate enemy submarines), navy-developed electronic navigation systems, and, in the last decade of the twentieth century, and satellite-based GPS.” (Foer 50) In addition to simple fishing, in terms of shrimping, “the average shrimp trawling operation throws 80 to 90 percent of the sea animals it captures overboard, dead or dying, as bycatch. Shrimp account for only 2 percent of global seafood by weight, but shrimp trawling accounts for 33 percent of global bycatch.” (Foer 63) “Or take tuna. Among the other 145 species regularly killed — gratuitously — while killing tuna.” (Foer 64) These statistics are alarming, yet almost an “accepted” fact. Is this poor treatment simply the “bycatch” of eating animals?
In terms of chicken farming, you’d assume that chickens would at least be treated humanely, in a cage with room to move around, possibly outside on a farm somewhere. Foer shows this is not the case when he describes, that “the typical cage for egg-laying hens allows each sixty-seven square inches of floor space — somewhere between the size of this page and a sheet of printer paper. Such cages are stacked between three and nine tiers high.” (Foer 61) But at least they are treated humanely before they are killed? Wrong! Foer’s research shows that,
“…at a slaughterhouse in West Virginia that supplies KFC, workers were documented tearing the heads off live birds, spitting tobacco into their eyes, spray-painting their faces, and violently stomping on them.” He adds, “This slaughterhouse was not a “bad apple,” but a “Supplier of the Year.” Imagine what happens at the bad apples when no one is looking.” (Foer 82)
To understand Foer’s interaction with animals, you’d have to go back to Foer’s childhood when self-admittedly he didn’t care much for animals, particularly dogs.

“I had a particular lack of enthusiasm for dogs… I would (only) agree to go over to friends’ houses if they confined their dogs... I didn’t like watching television shows that featured dogs… I disliked — people who got excited about dogs…” (Foer 32) But eventually that all changed when he met and, “(Foer) one day became a person who loved dogs. (Foer) became a dog person.” (Foer 32) Foer instantly fell in love with his (female) dog, named “George”. Prior to this point, Foer ate meat, and routinely talked about eating chicken and carrots, his grandmothers “prized

dish”.
However, with the addition of George, Foer began to wrestle with the thought of, if he was ok with eating animals, and George was an animal, why don’t humans eat dog? (And he even showed that in fact, eating dog isn’t as uncommon in other parts of the word) (Foer 37) “I wouldn’t eat George, because she’s mine. But why wouldn’t I eat a dog I’d never met? Or more to the point, what justification might I have for sparing dogs, but eating other animals?” (Foer 35) But why just stop at dogs, “The French, who love their dogs, sometimes eat their horses. The Spanish, who love their horses, sometimes eat their cows. The Indians, who love their cows, sometimes eat their dogs.” (Foer 37)
Foer grew up not caring about animals, yet the addition of George into his life, and his family made him realizes that the animals that we eat are just as important as the ones that we allow to lay on the couch, and lick our faces. More importantly, he points out that as humans, if we do make the choice to eat animals, that we have a responsibility to catch, kill, and process all animals as humanely possible. Through his vivid research, we are able to see that this isn’t always the case. We all share a role in the “animal kingdom” and just because humans are on top, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t treat animals with dignity and humanity.