Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Effects of animal agriculture
Animal agriculture environmental impacts
Animal agriculture environmental impacts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Effects of animal agriculture
What should govern our eating habits? Should base our consumption choices on foods that do not degrade the environment? Is it necessary to consider human rights, fair trade and food worker injustices? Should we base the foundation of our eating habits on animal welfare? The meaning of eating ethically is a multifaceted subject. There are so many varying issues when it comes to how humans have influenced the treatment and the development of animals throughout the evolution of man, from the carnivorous Neanderthal to the present day omnivorous Homosapien. Exploitation of animals includes using them for food, research, pets and educational purposes exclusively for the benefit of the human race. Animal rights activism attempts to bring awareness …show more content…
The biggest threat to the environment is due to animal waste produce by factory farming. “According to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the EPA, animal feeding operations produce approximately 500 million tons of manure every year”( AN HSUS Report: The Impact of Industrialized Animal Agriculture on the Environment). Traditional farming operations that include the production of produce as well as livestock use the animal waste as fertilizer for crops, the high nitrogen levels help to boost plant growth. However industrial livestock companies must use other disposable methods due to the lack of land required for grassroots solution to animal waste. Instead corporations will haul to smaller nearby farming operations, the intense concentration of the manure in these agriculture areas cause high levels of harmful natural occurring chemicals found in animal waste end up in the water supply. Water runoff inevitably ends up in streams, ponds, lakes and drinking water. The high levels pollutants such as phosphorus and nitrogen removes oxygen from the water which is detrimental to aquatic life. Moreover the use of manure lagoons, which are essentially open pits used for storage of manure, pose a great risk to air quality due to the release of high levels of harmful gases (An HSUS Report: The Impact of Industrialized Animal Agriculture on the Environment). There is also great risk that manure lagoons could spill and leak into nearby water supplies which poses an immense threat to local wildlife and aquatic animals. The increasing amount of these pollutants in the air put workers and nearby residents at risk for developing severe chronic illnesses and contributes to the declining overall quality of breathable air. Factory farming is a major contributor to global climate change due to the emission of green house gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. As the
Jonathan Safran Foer wrote “Eating Animals” for his son; although, when he started writing it was not meant to be a book (Foer). More specifically to decide whether he would raise his son as a vegetarian or meat eater and to decide what stories to tell his son (Foer). The book was meant to answer his question of what meat is and how we get it s well as many other questions. Since the book is a quest for knowledge about the meat we eat, the audience for this book is anyone that consumes food. This is book is filled with research that allows the audience to question if we wish to continue to eat meat or not and provide answers as to why. Throughout the book Foer uses healthy doses of logos and pathos to effectively cause his readers to question if they will eat meat at their next meal and meals that follow. Foer ends his book with a call to action that states “Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.” when dealing with the problem of factory farming (Foer).
In the book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan challenges his readers to examine their food and question themselves about the things they consume. Have we ever considered where our food comes from or stopped to think about the process that goes into the food that we purchase to eat every day? Do we know whether our meat and vegetables picked out were raised in our local farms or transported from another country? Michael pollen addresses the reality of what really goes beyond the food we intake and how our lives are affected. He does not just compel us to question the food we consume, but also the food our “food” consumes.
In the book published in 2006, the Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural history of Four Meals, by Michael Pollan, is a non-fiction book about American eating habits and the food dilemma that many Americans are facing today. Pollan begins the book by discussing the dilemma of the omnivore like ourselves, a creature with many choices of food. Pollan decides to learn the root to the food dilemma by examining the three primary food chains: industrial food chain, the organic food chain, and the hunter-gathering food chain. His journey begins by first exploring the industrialized food industry. Pollan examines the industry by following both corn and cow from the beginning through the industrialized process. The work on the corn fields of George Naylor shows him that the industrial system has made corn appears nearly in all products in the supermarket (Pollan 33-37). Pollen then decides to purchase a steer which allows him to see the industrialized monoculture of beef production and how mass production produces food to serve the society. Following his journey, Pollan and his family eat a meal at McDonald's restaurant. Pollan realizes that he and very few people actually understand how such a meal is created. By examining the different food paths available to modern man and by analyzing those paths, Pollan argues that there is a basic relation between nature and the human. The food choice and what we eat represents a connection with our natural world. The industrial food ruins that ecological connections. In fact, the modern agribusiness has lost touch with the natural cycles of farming. Pollan presents the book with a question in the beginning: "What should we have for dinner?" (Pollan 1) This question posed a combination of p...
Recognizing and escaping the food industry’s trap: How to flee the trap. In “The Eco-Gastronomic Mirror: Narcissism and Death at the Dinner Table” by Jordan Shapiro and “The Pleasures of Eating” by Wendell Berry, the reader is introduced to both authors’ views on the relationship between humans, food and nature. In Berry’s essay, he argues, that people should try to eat healthier instead of processed foods made solely by the manufacturers. He seems to be trying to reach out to the general masses. However, Shapiro prefers to view the human relationship with food psychologically.
We care so much about what the food is and how it is made that we overlook about where the food had come from. According to the reading selection, “Killing Them with Kindness?” by James McWilliams, an American history professor at Texas State University, states “animals raised in factory farms have qualities that make them worthy of our moral consideration…[and yet, we] continue to ignore the ethical considerations involved in eating meat” (311). This exhibits that when Americans are so engrossed in healthy eating, our morals about animal rights are neglected. Most of what we eat are animals, and animals like we do have emotions, interests, and possibly goals in life. We pay no heed of the animal’s interests and it should not be that way since our interests are no more important just because we are more superior, intelligent beings should not give us the right to perceive animals in such a manner. In addition to paying notice of the origin of where the animals come from, we need to be aware of what killing animals will do to the earth. In the TedTalk, “What’s Wrong with the Way We Eat,” Mark Bittman states “10 billion animals are killed each year for food and they represent 18% of the harmful greenhouse gasses” (Bittman). This reveals that our careless consumption would not only lead to the suffering of animal deaths but the suffering of our world and our imminent death. As we increase our progression with our unhealthy obsession over healthy eating, there will not be any positive effects for the body, the animals around us, or the world. If we were to be conscious about the source of our food and the consequence of eating then we will be able to eat healthily and
“What should we have for dinner?” (Pollan 1). Michael Pollan, in his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals shows how omnivores, humans, are faced with a wide variety of food choices, therefore resulting in a dilemma. Pollan shows how with new technology and food advancement the choice has become harder because all these foods are available at all times of the year. Pollan portrays to his audience this problem by following food from the food chain, to industrial food, organic food, and food we forage ourselves; from the source to a final meal and, lastly he critiques the American way of eating. Non-fiction books should meet certain criterions in order to be successful. In his book The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals, Michael Pollan is able to craft an ineffective piece of non-argumentative non-fiction due to a lack of a clear purpose stated at the outset of the book, as well as an inability to engage the reader in the book due to the over-excessive use of technical jargon as well as bombarding the reader with facts.
After reading the Ethics of What We Eat, one may conclude that there are two normative principles that can be applied when ruling the ethics behind our food (Utilitarianism and Kantianism). Utilitarianism, which focuses on the consequences of actions, emphasizes that actions are right in proportion when they promote happiness and wrong as they tend to reverse it. On the contrary, Kantianism does not concern itself with the consequences in considering what’s right or wrong. Instead, what’s right is not the maximization of happiness, but the morality of the actions that lead to such happiness. Because of these opposite ideologies, using animals for food, its environmental impact, and its impact on global poverty can be controversial.
Do you know how factory farms affect your health, the world around you, and your children 's future? Factory farms are one of the major leading causes of pollution ,which causes a great amount of problems. The animals produced by the masses on these factory farms are extremely exploited and treated inhumanely. The methane from tons of animal manure is causing detrimental global warming. Global warming is affecting much more than the temperature, its damaging crops, species of animals are going extinct, and humans are having health problems. Raising livestock requires a great amount of land ,including animal habitats and rainforests that used to nourish the planet. Factory farms have the U.S. food production
All of the livestock being raised throughout the world produce enormous amounts of manure and urine, which in turn pollute natural resources. Animal waste changes the pH of our water, contaminates our air; and the gases emitted are believed to be a major cause of global warming. To keep costs down, the modern animal farming practice is to raise livestock in feedlots and factory farms where thousands or tens of thousands of animals are crowded into small spaces. However, this makes the animal waste problem worse because of concentrated waste. Livestock in the U.S. produce 2.7 trillion pounds of manure each year. That’s about ten times more waste than was produced by all the American
Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
Phasing out animal agriculture and replacing it with stronger, safer plant cultivation would greatly reduce pollution released into the environment as animal waste, burning fossil fuels, and contaminated water runoff. The animal waste produced in factory farms is dumped into immense open-air lago...
Furthermore, factory farming can also be very dangerous for the environment. Gale (2013) states, “...the livestock industry accounts for 80% of the greenhouse gas emission, while the methane produced by cattle and their manure has a global warming effect equivalent to that of 33 million automobiles.” By working together to stop factory farming, people can save their environment. They will also have a cleaner air to breath ...
Ethical eating is currently an international trending topic. Many people from around the globe are considering their options regarding food sources, humane foods and ethical preparation of food and its origins. After learning how to prepare meatless meals in their kitchens, new vegetarians find cooking to be easier and more enjoyable than when they prepared meat in their respective kitchens. For example, new vegetarians can appreciate the cleanliness of their kitchens due to the lack of blood, grease and animal fat that may be left behind from preparing flesh. There are many studies that reveal the positive attributes of vegetarianism. What about ethical eating options? What does ethical eating really mean? Several nutritionists and scientists
For several years the issue of eating meat has been a great concern to all types of people all over the world. In many different societies controversy has began to arise over the morality of eating meat from animals. A lot of the reasons for not eating meat have to deal with religious affiliations, personal health, animal rights, and concern about the environment. Vegetarians have a greater way of expressing meats negative effects on the human body whereas meat eaters have close to no evidence of meat eating being a positive effect on the human body. Being a vegetarian is more beneficial for human beings because of health reasons, environmental issues, and animal rights.
The greenhouse gases are those that absorb the Earths radiation and thus contribute to the greenhouse effect, but water is also a major absorber of energy. Where there is an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases (as with CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels) this results in an enhanced greenhouse effect - which is of concern as it could lead to climate change (i.e. global warming).