Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essays on the concerns with eating meat
Literature review of ethical consumerism
Principles of ecocriticism in literature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essays on the concerns with eating meat
The texts from the “Food and the Environment” cluster in The Bedford Book of Genres held three compelling argumentative pieces- all regarding environmental and personal reasons for limiting one 's diet. The first text, “Against Meat” by Jonathan Safer Foer, mapped out the author’s life and how it affected his decision to not eat meat. The second, “Why Vegetarians are Eating Meat” by Christine Lennon, the author gives qualitative reasoning as to why eating local meat is the best way to eat meat. . And the final text, “The Localvore Myth,” by James E. McWilliams, the author gives scientific reasoning as to why being vegetarian is the most ecologically friendly option. After reading the three texts, I feel as though Foer’s piece vastly outclasses …show more content…
My issue with Lennon is that her piece feels like more of a suggestion than an argument. Her main point is that eating locally produced meat is healthier than both factory farmed meat and synthesised soy meat alternatives. Lennon does have a valid argument there, but the way she presents it comes across too casual, With Foer, I feel like I’m at a rally and he’s giving a speech. With Lennon, I feel like I’m having a cup of coffee with her. I agree with her argument, but she’s lacking the power that Foer …show more content…
Well, I feel like I chose to listen to his argument. He leads very conversationally. His opening recounts how he used to spend time with his grandmother, and how her cooking was her sign of affection. How he grew up being told not to hurt animals, but to eat meat. How he spent years convincing himself that it’s okay to eat meat because he’s not directly killing the animals. And how he doesn 't want his children to come to the same realization, and call him out on his hypocrisy. He quickly shifts his tone to convince the reader that eating meat is a great offence. Foer even goes as far to say that eating meat is synonymous to rape. But even when Foer shifts his tone to be more intense, he never loses this level of friendliness that he establishes in his introduction. He never sounds like he’s on a soap box. At the same time, he never sounds like he’s giving a suggestion. His piece dances on the fine line between a casual conversation, and a radical rant. He makes me feel like it’s important to side with him, but not urgent. I can fully support Foer just in the way he presents himself. Where Lennon doesn 't push- and McWilliams pushes too hard- Foer steers his audience to his point and lets them decide for themselves. And that resonates with
The argumentative article “More Pros than Cons in a Meat-Free Life” authored by Marjorie Lee Garretson was published in the student newspaper of the University of Mississippi in April 2010. In Garretson’s article, she said that a vegetarian lifestyle is the healthy life choice and how many people don’t know how the environment is affected by their eating habits. She argues how the animal factory farms mistreat the animals in an inhumane way in order to be sources of food. Although, she did not really achieve the aim she wants it for this article, she did not do a good job in trying to convince most of the readers to become vegetarian because of her writing style and the lack of information of vegetarian
...oss’ paper. Therefore, this objection is not sound because the number of naïve people are rapidly dwindling. The second objection stated that one person has no effect on the factory farming industry, so giving up meat is pointless because the industry is too large to feel the effects of someone converting to vegetarianism. I refuted this objection by saying that, yes, one person alone will not make a difference, but when more and more people become vegetarians, the industry will be forced to respond by producing less animals, therefore, preventing more animal suffering. Although these two objections were strong and valid, I believe I was able to successfully defend Norcross’ argument that factory farming is wrong and cruel.
I will first show the lack of validity and soundness to Howard’s claim that A) a vegan lifestyle is a healthier choice and B) his claim that one must switch to that lifestyle to enjoy these said benefits. To the claim made in A, Howard uses his own health problems he endured on his meat diet, and uses it as a constant variable comparing it to his now relative healthy lifestyle as a vegan. On first glance anyone who eats a calorie-laden, unbalanced diet and ends up weighing 300 pounds, as Lyman himself admitted, will have health problems regardless of his orientation to meat or vegetables. With this said his comparing analogy is inertly flawed and must be disregarded from the argument he presents. On march 8 before the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Mary K Young, MS.,R.D,NCBA Director of Nutrition Research and Information, presented the benefits of eating meat. Using Data from the 1995 USDA Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSI) she confirms that red meat enhances one overall diet quality. Young goes on to point out that red meat is the number one source for protein, B12, and zinc, number 2 source for B6 and third greatest source for iron, niacin and potassium. She also pointed out that red meat alone has the greatest concentrates of iron and zinc together. Also included cited in Young’s report was the research recently published in the Journal of the American...
Michael Pollan states in his article “Escape from the Western diet”, three simple rules to follow to obtain a healthy lifestyle, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” (426). The food industry and medical community manipulate us to believe we are escaping the Western diet but to only find out that we are right back to where we started. Pollan provides some easy rules of thumb so that we aren’t caught up in the latest trends or diets but instead develop some eating boundaries that seem simple to follow on an everyday basis. Personally for me, following these rules can seem hard in some aspects but also easy in others because factors like role models when I was a kid, living situation and cooking skills effect my ability to follow the three
The western diet consists of foods high in sugar and fat, as well as a large consumption of red meats and refined grains. As a result, people who consume a western diet face problems with their weight and often have many diseases related to poor dieting. Pollan believes that the food industry and medical community take advantage of this. Pollan claims that the food industry will change their processed food and sell it back to the consumer rather than removing the process food all together. The medical community will treat people’s diseases instead of helping to prevent theses disease by educating people on how to make healthier life style choices. Mary Maxfield believes that these points made by Michael Pollan are hypocritical. She states that Michael Pollan is taking advantage of the consumer the same way he claims that the food industry and medical community are. Pollan would criticize the food industry and medical community but at the same time publish and sell his theories on how to eat
American consumers think of voting as something to be done in a booth when election season comes around. In fact, voting happens with every swipe of a credit card in a supermarket, and with every drive-through window order. Every bite taken in the United States has repercussions that are socially, politically, economically, and morally based. How food is produced and where it comes from is so much more complicated than the picture of the pastured cow on the packaging seen when placing a vote. So what happens when parents are forced to make a vote for their children each and every meal? This is the dilemma that Jonathan Safran Foer is faced with, and what prompted his novel, Eating Animals. Perhaps one of the core issues explored is the American factory farm. Although it is said that factory farms are the best way to produce a large amount of food at an affordable price, I agree with Foer that government subsidized factory farms use taxpayer dollars to exploit animals to feed citizens meat produced in a way that is unsustainable, unhealthy, immoral, and wasteful. Foer also argues for vegetarianism and decreased meat consumption overall, however based on the facts it seems more logical to take baby steps such as encouraging people to buy locally grown or at least family farmed meat, rather than from the big dogs. This will encourage the government to reevaluate the way meat is produced. People eat animals, but they should do so responsibly for their own benefit.
They both are right and wrong at once, when reading the articles I could not help but to think of the Morgan Spurlock’s documentary “Super Size Me,” for those that don’t know in this film Morgan goes on a one month McDonald 's only diet, during which he gets the oversized portions and eats every hyper processed food on the menu. Turning the average relatively fit adult American into a sluggish shadow of what he was before the one month. Morgan did both things that Pollen and Maxfield wanted to avoid. Pollen a processed diet and Maxfield a feast beyond your body’s
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
Personally, I partially disagree with the argument. I support the idea that farm animals should be treated in a more humane way, but I do not think that we should stop consuming animals. They have been part of our diet for ages. Their meat is packed with essential nutrients, like proteins and
The documentary I was presented with was Forks over Knives. Its general premise is saying meat is bad, it causes cancer, and that all humans should be on a whole- food plant based diet. They took these people into a 12-week program to switch them over to this diet. My knowledge before watching this film was that meat is good for you, we get plenty of amino acids that we don’t make in our own body. It gives us lots of protein. I did know that red meat is not a good meat to eat all the time. But I never would have thought of cutting meat out of my diet. Lee Fulkerson was the director as well the writer of Forks Over Knives. I feel as though
Realizing the necessity of refraining from meat is especially difficult because people consume it for a long time, and in addition, there is a certain attitude to the meat as to the product that is useful, nourishing and even prestigious. On the other hand, the constant consumption of meat has made the vast majority of people completely emotionless towards it. However, there must be some real and strong reasons for refusal to consume meat and as I noticed they were always completely different. So, even though vegetarianism has evolved drastically over time, some of its current forms have come back full circle to resemble that of its roots, when vegetarianism was an ethical-philosophical choice, not merely a matter of personal health. As believed, vegetarianism was originally founded in ancient India and was generally formed on ethical and moral issues.
Rachels, J. (2013). The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 617-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
Every person has the ability to make their own choice of whether to eat meat or not. However, eating meat is directly tied to negative health effects, pollution leading to a depletion of ozone, and the depletion of hundreds of thousands of acres of land “wasted” on animal production when they could be used to solve the hunger crisis or lower emission levels. What humans eat is no longer a matter of choice; it has become a matter of life and death. Literally, the future of the whole planet rests on the decision of whether or not to eat meat. If humans chose to eat less meat the world that wouldn’t have to suffer the consequences (outlined above.) Vegetarianism is one possibility, as is Veganism; however the world would be
Let me begin with the words by George Bernard Shaw: ‘Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends’. This indicates the ethic aspect of meat consumption. In fact, people often don’t realize how animals are treated, but they can see commercial spots in their TV showing smiling pigs, cows or chickens, happy and ready to be eaten. My impression is that there can’t be anything more cruel and senseless. It is no secret that animals suffer ...