In “Omnivore’s Delusion,” Blake Hurst, a veteran famer, calls attention to the “agri-intellectuals” who are critiquing farming when having no experience. First of all, the author wants “Agri-intellectuals” to take a walk in a farmer’s shoes. Throughout the article, Hurst throws jabs at the people criticizing choices a farmer makes, for example, he says, “It is important, though, that even people riding in airplanes know that there are environmental and food safety costs to whatever kind of farming we choose” (4). The author says this to show his anger and suggest to these critics they should know what they are talking about before they talk about it. Secondly, Hurst points out the food animal endangerment. The author tells his readers
Millions of animals are consumed everyday; humans are creating a mass animal holocaust, but is this animal holocaust changing the climate? In the essay “ The Carnivores Dilemma,” written by Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and livestock rancher, asserts that food production, most importantly beef production, is a global contributor to climate change. Nicolette Niman has reports by United Nations and the University of Chicago and the reports “condemn meat-eating,” and the reports also say that beef production is closely related to global warming. Niman highlights, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides are the leading greenhouses gases involved in increasing global warming. A vast majority of people across the world consumes meat and very little people are vegetarian, or the people that don’t eat meat, but are there connections between people and meat production industry when it comes to eating food and the effect it has on the climate? The greenhouse gases, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxides are not only to blame, but we should be looking at people and industrialized farming for the leading cause of greenhouse gases in agriculture and the arm-twisting dilemma we have been lured into, which is meat production itself.
Moreover, this system of mass farming leads to single crop farms, which are ecologically unsafe, and the unnatural treatment of animals (Kingsolver 14). These facts are presented to force the reader to consider their own actions when purchasing their own food because of the huge economic impact that their purchases can have. Kingsolver demonstrates this impact by stating that “every U.S. citizen ate just one meal a week (any meal) composed of locally and organically raised meats and produce, we
During this chapter of The Omnivore’s Dilemma Pollan talks about fast food. This means that he is speaking to people who regularly eat fast food and those who are wondering what is in their food when they order out. As a part of this he asks biologist Todd Dawson to run fast food items through a spectrometer to see how much corn is in the food. His analyses concluded that “soda (100 percent corn), milk shake (78 percent), salad dressing (65 percent), chicken nuggets (56 percent), cheeseburger (52 percent), and French fries (23 percent)” (p. 117). This is part of Pollan educating his audience of what is in their food when they go through the drive through. Speaking of his audience, his main demographic is to the people that are truly wonder
There are many issues regarding the raising and producing of various livestock animals, and the use of pesticides on various types of crops. The movie Food.Inc does a good job explaining these issues, but in a very biased way. It makes agriculturists look like terrible people, when this is not the case.
...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.
One point Berry makes about people’s ignorance is that they do not recognize their connection to the agricultural cycle. He appeals to the reader’s sense of logic when he describes the process food goes through to reach the consumer, and how eating ends it (3). He uses their sense of reason to persuade them as he continues to point out how oblivious eaters are by saying that “food is pretty much an abstract idea” to them even though they should realize it does not magically appear in the local store (4). Berry mentions that not only do they ignore how it gets to the store, but also the location and type of farms their food comes from (4). He says ...
Alastair Norcross introduces a very controversial case. He compares the actions of Fred as being morally equal to factory farming. Norcross presents the Marginal case and the Analogy argument. There are many objections to his beliefs such as; the suffering of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasure of millions. Also, the individual consumers lack the power to put an end to factory farming. And lastly, human beings have a greater moral status than nonhumans. (Norcross, 285) I disagree with Norcross’s statement saying that Fred’s behavior and that of people who consume factory-farmed meat is morally equivalent.
These changes, from difficult manual labor to chemicals and genetically modified products, are in his opinion a necessary and modern action. When faced with the duty of feeding the world it would be a hard pressed farmer who could be individually responsible for every plant and small field under their care, I agree. Pulling away from nature is not ideal in the least, but with such a large population and so few farmers it feels like we do not really have much of a choice in the matter. These advancements, however, do allow for farmers to made less of an impact on the nature around them, which is a positive since we only have a single world around us to live in. Destroying it is not really a solution to any problem, no matter how large. “…We have to farm ‘industrially’ to feed the world, and by using those ‘industrial’ tools sensibly, we can accomplish that task… while protecting the land, water, and air around us” Hurst explains, pointing out that it is a responsibility that every farmer must undertake to be sensible with these newer and potentially harmful tools and to have some form of forethought of the consequences (The Omnivore’s Delusion,
In the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan talks about 4 different models that we consume, purchase, and add it to our daily lives. Michael Pollan travels to different locations around the United States, where he mentions his models which are fast food, industrial organic, beyond organic, and hunting. I believe that the 3 important models that we need to feed the population are fast food, industrial organic, and beyond organic. Fast food is one of the most important models in this society because people nowadays, eat fast food everyday and it is hurting us in the long run. We need to stick to beyond organic or industrial organic food because it is good for our well being. Ever since the government and corporations took over on what we eat, we have lost our culture. In the introduction of the Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan states that we have lost our culture:
Berry does not hesitate in using harsh words and metaphors like “the hamburger she is eating came from a steer who spent much of his life standing deep in his own excrement in a feedlot”(Berry 10). This provokes the readers to feeling horrible about industrial eating. He uses our pride while pointing to the lies of the make-up of industrial foods. He plays on human self-preservation when writing about chemicals in plants and animals which is out of the consumer’s control. He tries to spark a curiosity and enthusiasm, describing his own passion of farming, animal husbandry, horticulture, and gardening.
Our current system of corporate-dominated, industrial-style farming might not resemble the old-fashioned farms of yore, but the modern method of raising food has been a surprisingly long time in the making. That's one of the astonishing revelations found in Christopher D. Cook's "Diet for a Dead Planet: Big Business and the Coming Food Crisis" (2004, 2006, The New Press), which explores in great detail the often unappealing, yet largely unseen, underbelly of today's food production and processing machine. While some of the material will be familiar to those who've read Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" or Eric Schlosser's "Fast-Food Nation," Cook's work provides many new insights for anyone who's concerned about how and what we eat,
In this essay, I will support David Fraser’s argument that it is essential for people who handle consumer meats to provide animals with an adaptive environment and develop relationships with farm animals to achieve the three dimensions of animal welfare: fundamental health and functioning, positive affective states, and the preservation of natural behavior of that species. I will also present and critique an alternative means of achieving animal welfare in which animal producers can change the genetic makeup of animals, either through selection or genetic engineering, in a way that will lower the threshold for sufficient welfare. In the first section, I will define and explain Fraser’s argument; then, I will explicate what it means to genetically
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.
In order to feed the growing population of the world, nontraditional farming and ranching techniques have been used to increase food production. For example, animal mass harvesting systems and feed lots used for chickens and cows allow for faster growing and harvesting of the animal. But are these practices moral? In Paul Taylor’s “The Ethics of Respect for Nature”, he illustrates how this treatment of animals is immoral, because of his biocentric view. Bonnie Steinbock would disagree with Taylor due to her speciesic view, illustrated in her article “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”, that places human needs over animal needs in this case.
Freeman, Carrie Packwood. "Framing Animal Rights in the "Go Veg" Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations." Society & Animals 18.2 (2010): 163-182. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.