Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fast Food and our Society research essay
Fast food and our society
Fast food and our society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
My initial inspiration in becoming a vegetarian was simple: eating animals is not essential to living a healthy life and I would prefer to avoid engaging in a discordant relationship with nonhuman animals and the natural world. Theretofore, I had been an eager, indiscriminate consumer of nonhuman animals, often outfitted in leather footwear and annually swathed in my winter wool. Thenceforth, family anticipated and dreaded my finicky dietary demands and envisaged the emaciated shell of a once healthy son toiling over paltry tasks. Friends taunted me with kabobs and sushi. Others kept a close eye on my behavior lest I step on a bug or unwittingly ingest carnal victuals. While I was largely unperturbed by such petty adversity, I was perplexed by a former acquaintance’s zealous affront: “Eat your vegetables you faggot hippie!” Likewise, a fellow employee once jokingly remarked that my abstention from sharing part of a chicken with him rendered me a sissy. The revelation that not only did others find my vegetarianism amusing but indicative of my sexuality and subordinate masculinity was disquieting. The dominant culture’s feminization and concomitant derision of vegetarian men became all too clear to me upon viewing an episode of South Park at a friend’s behest.
In “Fun With Veal,” Trey Parker and Matt Stone portray Ms. Choksondik’s fourth grade class on a field trip to a “Concentrated Animal Production Operation.” Much to the children’s dismay, they discover that veal is slaughtered, anemic, “little, baby cows” (“Fun With Veal”). Provoked by compassion, Stan, Kyle, Butters, and Cartman decide to rescue the calves from immanent slaughter and provide refuge in Stan’s bedroom. The press soon gets wind of the boys’ audacity ...
... middle of paper ...
...prets a number of Hardee’s and Burger King commercials advocating animal consumption as indicative of a larger cultural anxiety resulting from ever broadening masculine ideals evinced by metrosexual masculinity’s popularization in recent years:
The use of beef eating as an evocation of a retrograde masculinity, one celebrating masculine norms challenged by metrosexuality and domestic participation, speaks to the vitality of existing cultural beliefs about meat as a proper male food that attains its virility through the exclusion of women. (Buerkle 88).
Buerkle claims that increasing gender egalitarianism threatens “men’s privilege and produces anxiety for some men as their status changes. […] The allusions to a retrograde masculinity [in burger commercials] fortifies men’s sense of self amidst masculinities fluctuating more rapidly than before” (Buerkle 89).
... Nestle’s quote, Bittman makes his editorial plea to ethos, by proposing proof that a woman of reliable mental power of this issue come to an agreement with Bittman's thesis statement. Bittman also develops pathos in this article because he grabs a widely held matter that to many individuals is elaborate with: "...giving them the gift of appreciating the pleasures of nourishing one another and enjoying that nourishment together.” (Mark Bittman) Bittman gives the reader the actions to think about the last time they had a family dinner and further imposes how these family dinners are altogether important for family time. Therefore, Bittman did a magnificent job in pointing into the morals of his targeted audience and developing a critical point of view about fast food to his intended audience leaving them with a thought on less fast food and more home prepared meals.
One issue the documentary highlights is the abuse of animals and workers by the food companies, in order to reveal how the companies hide the dark side of the food world from the public. In several instances, we see animals being treated cruelly. The workers have little regard for the lives of the animals since they are going to die anyways. Chickens are grabbed and thrown into truck beds like objects, regulation chicken coups allow for no light the entire lives of the chickens, and cows are pushed around with fork lifts to take to slaughter. Many chickens are even bred to have such large breasts that their bones and organs cannot support their bodies. These chickens cannot walk and they even wheeze in pain for the cameras. The film is clearly using the unacceptable premise fallacy of appeal to emotion in this instance, because the viewer is meant to feel pity at the sight of the abused animals. This supports their conclusion, because many American’s imagine their food coming from a happy, country farm and would be horrified to know the truth.
Cornyetz’s approach to the concept of women as meat in My Year of Meats can also be compared to how women and meat are advertised in popular culture. Popular fast-food chain Carl’s Jr. has been promoting their products for years using commercials starring barely clothed women sensually eating their menu items (Davies). In February 2015, their “All-Natural – Too Hot For TV” (Appendix 2) commercial to promote a natural, antibiotic, hormone, and steroid-free burger (Kain). The commercial featured a nude woman sensually saying the
Most of us do not think twice about the foods we pick up from the supermarket. Many Americans have a preconceived belief that the food being sold to us is safe, and withholds the highest standard of quality. Certainly, compared to many places in the world, this is true. But is the United States sincerely trying to carry out these standards, or have we begun to see a reverse in the health and safety of our food- and more explicitly in our meat? Jonathan Foer, author of “Eating Animals” argues for reform within the food industry- not only for the humane treatment of animals but moreover for our own health. Although Foer exposes the ills within the food industries in order to persuade readers to change their diets for the better, his “vegetarianism or die” assessment may be too extreme for most Americans. The true ills do not start with the meat, but with industrialized production of it through methods practiced by factory farming.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
“We take care of animals, and the animals take care of us.” (Rollin 212). The preceding phrase is a policy that American farmers in the old west lived their lives by. Modern farmers live do not live their lives anywhere near to this phrase because they own factory farms, and the whole reason for having a factory farm is to fit as many animals in a small space as possible in order to maximize profit. Factory Farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) first appeared in the 1920s, right after Vitamins A and D, because if animals are given these vitamins in their diets, exercise and sunlight are not necessities for the animals to grow anymore (In Defense of Animals 1). The growing number of factory farms is coupled with the decreasing population of rural areas, which means that many people are beginning to factory farm because it yields a higher profit (“Agricultural Sciences” 170). In the 1950s, the average number of chickens on a given egg farm in the United States was 100, but now the average number is a shocking 10,000 chickens (“Factory Farms” 4). The reason for the increase of chickens has to do with new and cheaper technology developed just after World War II. The new technology increased the number of chickens, while it had the opposite effect on dairy and meat cows, their numbers went in the other direction. The number of cows used for milk was cut by more than half between 1950 and 2000, because farmers discovered new and more efficient methods for milking cows (Weeks 4). Many activists for animals’ rights are concerned about the methods used by factory farmers because they confine their animals into tight spaces and since there are so many of them in a small ...
Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.
Though vegetarianism was never a taboo subject as are some other controversial topics, The question of whether or not human beings should live off meat still is highly discussed amongst all types of people. Spiritual leaders, activists, scientists, and doctors have spoken up on behalf of their group’s opinion. Amongst the arguments of what is right when it comes to the food chain, resonating on many a mind is where the concept of vegetarian came from. Was it started as a religious virtue or a moral decision? Perhaps it was a forced lifestyle or a diet trend gone wrong (or right depending). Health wise, which is better for us? Educating ourselves by answering these questions helps us answer the, perhaps, most important question of all. Which lifestyle will we, as individuals, choose?
There are a myriad of myths and misconceptions that surround the words “vegetarian” and “vegan.” One perhaps thinks that becoming vegan is synonymous with becoming weak and holier-than-thou or only consuming foods such as Tofurkey. Thankfully, this isn’t the case for the vast majority of vegans or vegetarians. For financial and health concerns, many Americans are consuming less meat and poultry; approximately one third of Americans follow a diet centered upon vegetables and whole grains, with the occasional consumption of meat. Nonetheless, meat consumption per capita is still extortionate in America—the highest per capita with the exception of Luxembourg—largely due to its ingrained nature in our economy and culture.
Every day across America millions of people wake up to start their morning. Throughout the day the vast majority of these people will consume meat, but 3% will replace the pig, cow, and chicken products for vegetable or fruit made meals (Harris). These vegetarians all have many different reasons to make this choice. This decision is a huge change in one’s life and is not without questions. Some people may wonder why would anyone abstain from the amazing food that contains meat. This essay will briefly explain the history of vegetarianism, the reasons for vegetarianism, and answer questions about vegetarianism. Vegetarian diets are all around better than diets containing meat because of three main reasons; the abuse of animals, the environmental damage, and the health benefits for humans.
Andrew F. Smith once said, “Eating at fast food outlets and other restaurants is simply a manifestation of the commodification of time coupled with the relatively low value many Americans have placed on the food they eat”. In the non-fiction book, “Fast Food Nation” by Eric Schlosser, the author had first-hand experiences on the aspects of fast food and conveyed that it has changed agriculture that we today did not have noticed. We eat fast food everyday and it has become an addiction that regards many non-beneficial factors to our health. Imagine the wealthy plains of grass and a farm that raises barn animals and made contributions to our daily consumptions. Have you ever wonder what the meatpacking companies and slaughterhouses had done to the meat that you eat everyday? Do you really believe that the magnificent aroma of your patties and hamburgers are actually from the burger? Wake up! The natural products that derive from farms are being tampered by the greed of America and their tactics are deceiving our perspectives on today’s agricultural industries. The growth of fast food has changed the face of farming and ranching, slaughterhouses and meatpacking, nutrition and health, and even food tastes gradually as time elapsed.
Around the world it is acceptable to eat certain animals depending on one’s culture. “The French, who love their dogs, sometimes eat their horses. The Spanish, who loves their horses, sometimes eat their cows. The Indians, who love their cows, sometimes eat their dogs” (Foer 604). “Let Them Eat Dog” is an excerpt from Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. The excerpt explains the many benefits to eating dogs and the taboo behind it. The author also uses humor, imagery and emotional appeal to get across to the reader the logic of eating dogs. One chooses to eat meat based on what the culture deems acceptable. Foer questions why culture deems certain animals acceptable to be eaten, and illustrates why it should be acceptable to eat dogs. The
According to the Human Research Council, the percentage of the United States population surveyed in 2014 that claimed to be vegan or vegetarian was 1.8% (“Reasons for Choosing Vegetarianism or Veganism,” 2016). Vegans are individuals who do not eat any animals products including meat and dairy products, whereas vegetarians are individuals who do not eat meat products. Vegetarians, as well as vegans, are considered minorities in society because they choose to eat a certain way and stray from social norms. They are made fun of and are constantly harassed by sensitive meat eaters and people who think it is “weird.” Vegetarians are thought to be crazy for not wanting to eat meat. This evolving era of vegetarianism is an ethical issue because majority
“I always knew that becoming a vegetarian would help prevent cruelty to animals but I was not aware of the environmental consequences of a meat-eating diet.” writes Lillie Ogden, a writer for the popular recipe magazine, Vegetarian Times. The first part of her statement, about “cruelty to animals” is a familiar argument, and generally the one that surrounds the case for adopting a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. However, this exhausted argument is ineffective in actually changing anyone’s eating habits. You can show me as many videos of suffering farm animals as you want, but that argument isn’t going to change the fact that at the end of the day I’m still going to enjoy a juicy, medium-rare steak. The reason being isn’t that I’m not a empathetic person or that I
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.