' The Localvore Myth, By Jonathan Safer Foer)

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

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

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