Why Beef Should Not Be Banned

In his journalistic investigation into the depths of industrial agriculture, Michael Pollan analyzes “what it is we’re eating, where it came from, how it found its way to our table, and what it really cost” in an effort to provide both himself and his readers with an educated answer to the surprisingly complex question of “what should we have for dinner?” (Pollan 411, 1). However, what appears as a noble attempt to develop a fuller understanding of the personal, social, and environmental implications of food choices soon reveals itself as a quest to justify Pollan’s own desire to continue eating meat despite its undeniable detriments to animals, human health, and the environment. Indeed, the mere title of Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma as well as his assertion in the book’s introduction that “omnivory offers the pleasures of variety,” exposes the author’s gustatory preferences that prompt him to ask which meat to eat, rather than if to eat meat at all (Pollan 4). This preemptive refusal, due to mere gastronomic pleasure, to consider methods of eating responsibly that do not involve meat renders Pollan’s investigative endeavor essentially meaningless why would he take the time and effort to thoroughly examine the consequences of his food choices if he vowed at the outset to not allow his discoveries to truly shift his eating habits? Why would he write an entire book delving into the minute details of industrialized food production only to advise himself and his audience

The meat industry feeds billions and employs about 20% of the world’s population (Lynette, 5). It has been a controversial topic for many years and will most likely continue to be a debated topic for years to come. Many argue that without it the world would starve. Others argue that it may cause irreversible effects on the earth. Although many people depend on the meat industry, humans may find themselves to be stuck in a situation where their past actions destroyed their resources and damaged their future. The impacts of CAFOs may be initially promising, but their long term effects could lead to a disaster. CAFOs should be outlawed because they are highly pollutant, do not help local economies grow, and can be detrimental to human health.

The first dilemma is observable in the sphere of the American meat industry. The unhygienic conditions of meat production units, and the pathetic conditions of the places where the cattle are kept, both point toward indulgence in unethical practices. From the deontological perspective and from the utilitarian perspective if the meat production scenario, as depicted in the documentary, is considered then a clear picture of unethical practice will come before the eyes of the spectators of the movie. The disgusting condition of the meat industry has contributed to the infamy of the meat industry and its rotten nature. From the deontological perspective it can be said that, it is the duty of an employer to ensure the safety and security of his employees. But Robert Kenner, in the documentary, has shown how the employers in the sphere of American meat industry are indifferent to this basic duty. These employers refrain from being accountable to their employees and to the common public as well. The higher rate of workplace injury in the context of the meat industry is a burning truth and this truth indicates how unethical the approaches of the employers are. From the utilitarian perspective, if judged, it can be seen that, the food industry must be very much cautious about its modes of production and about the quality of its produces. This is primarily because food is consumed by a huge number of consumers

The matters pertaining the animal rights and their suffering for the sake of harvesting their flesh have been an issue with a variety of perspectives. Puppies, Pigs and People, a piece by Alastair Norcross, bring to question the treatment towards livestock and what is immoral about the process. The argument proclaims that since we (humans) do not require meat as part of our diet then the exploit of raising animals for consumption (humanly or not) is immoral. On a counter side of the argument, a philosopher, Carl Cohen, states in his work that animals possess no moral rights thus we have the option to eat them despite if it is immoral or not. In the case of who I believe offers the most optimum solution, I believe Cohen is the most accurate in his summation of animal’s roles in our world. I will argue that people have no obligation to abstain from eating animals, but morally speaking animals should be kept in humane living conditions in order for it to meet our obligations towards these creatures.

We’ve all heard environmentalists explain what global warming is, why it’s dangerous, and what we can do to stop it. People protest against auto emissions and fossil fuel daily. “ But the one industry that produces more greenhouse gases than all the SUV’s, cars, ships, planes, and trucks in the world combined, has carefully avoided scrutiny” (Goveg.com). Often overlooked in environmental destruction is the meat industry. This industry has a major source of deforestation, wasted natural resources, and pollution. As consumers we expect our food to be safe, but Americans should pay more attention and fear what may affect our environment in the future.

Did you know, that the United States consumes about 24 billion pounds of meat every year? Meat and poultry is one of the fastest growing industries in the world today. For many, all that goes through their mind is how good it is and they chow it down without a second thought. It has become a habit, an act of second-nature. However, many are not aware of the way it was produced or where it comes from. In his 2009 New York Times essay, award winning novelist and New York University professor, Jonathan Foer considers the effects of consuming meat and argues that the contemporary ways in which the animals we eat are produced, is highly unethical. Specifically the conditions they are raised in, the genetic tweaks, and the inhumane killing process. He spent three years researching his book, Eating Animals, which was published on November 2, 2009.  It is clear he is not forcing his views on his readers, rather he is speaking to them on a more logical and emotional platform. Bringing to light the controversial ways of modern day meat production, he insists on more conscientious food choices. Foer is critically acclaimed for his persuasive writing techniques, staggering research, clever language, and graphically creative instances. His main claim is that meat is bad when it comes at the expense of animal suffering, danger to your health, and negative effects to our environment. To advance his claim he does the following: first,  he uses narration as a way to attract his audience attention and keep them engaged with the text, next, he employs the strategy of cause and effect, to help his audience to fully comprehend the results in his research, and lastly, uses convincing descriptions to appall his readers and to leave them in dismay. His audience is mostly mainstream, however, it specifically entices rhetoricians. It seems his main purpose is to inform his audience and educate them on the matter at hand.

Beef accounts for so much water usage and methane emissions and carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses and it all contributes to global climate change. We are killing our planet because we like the way meat tastes. It is crucial we leave the old ways behind so that we may embrace the new lifestyle that is caring about the world and doing something about it. It is crucial that everyone understands what they are doing to themselves when they eat processed foods. It is important to recognize severely hormone treated meat as the carcinogen

In addition to his solutions, Pollan’s modern narrative sheds light on the façade of our food industries; asking us to rethink what we know. Despite the mention of certain inhumane acts in All Animals are Equal, Pollan takes us one step further to uncover the reason for which we continue to purchase our corrupt food. We all know animal abuse exists, but the average consumer like myself is more worried about the best price and the fastest way to get a burger rather than how fairly the animals are treated in the process. Whether it be the confined living space of chickens or the mental and physical torture of pigs, we continue to blind ourselves from reality. Is it purely out of selfishness? Or are we too ignorant to come to terms with our wrong doings? Like Pollan explains, it takes seeing the abuse before the shame of our disrespect can be felt (pg.6). After seeing Pollan’s truth, I might now think twice before eating out and the choice to support organic produce can make a dramatic difference for those farmers who promote the ethical lifestyle.

It is wrong when it tends otherwise." In this statement Leopold defines ethical action based on its ecological and environmental consequences, and Bost follows suit. He argues that in some parts of the world, like Arizona, eating meat is more environmentally responsible than eating anything else: "A well-managed, free-range cow is able to turn the sunlight captured by plants into condensed calories and protein with the aid of the microorganisms” But what if there’s another way to change it? People don’t need to get rid of meat eating, but rather find a better way to appreciate it then taking it for

An intense, aggressive moral scrutiny has sparked interest in the meat eating community. Eating is an activity that we as humans do frequently, and the variety of food is immense. We decide what we are about to eat and how it will affect our bodies. In different societies, controversy has arisen over the morality of eating meat from animals. However, the moral and ethical arguments of eating meat is not a new debate. Roger Scruton’s essay, “A Carnivore’s Credo”, addresses both carnivores and vegetarians by using an appeal to pathos and ethos to persuade people of the need to “remoralize” eating meat, and extrapolating that to mean that human beings have the conscious ability to choose and stand up for moral right and wrong.

For example, Simon (2013) states, “...high consumption levels damage our health and costs billions of dollars to treat.” Simon portrays that eating a wide variety of meat is no longer healthy for individuals. Moreover, it can age and promote growth amongst individuals quicker. Some effects have even gone as far to be as detrimental as cigarette and tobacco use. As the public generally becomes more and more aware of such concerns, there are two possibilities. The first being that people decide to not change what they eat, and therefore, suffer from the costs that come along with a multitude of health problems. The other alternative, is for an individual to decide to change their diet. In turn, the businesses that function around serving meat, will have to restructure and remarket to the general

Can it be morally permissible to eat meat when plant-based foods are available? In this paper my aim is it to explain why this is morally wrong to do. One problem with eating meat is humans are putting animals in unnecessary pain. Another problem is that the majority of our environmental destruction on our planet is due to agriculture. Philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, both back up this view with their own arguments.

As humanity becomes more civilized, many of us perceive that eating livestock is morally incorrect, but aren’t we are designed to be an omnivore? Our teeth and digestive system serve the purpose of breaking down animal and plant foods and to bring these important nutrients to every part of the body. Despite the fact that, in 2011, U.S. meat and poultry production reached more than 92.3 billion pounds, the ethic of killing and eating animals as well as the concern of the environmental burden caused by the production of meats is debatable. However, animal based diet is necessary for the human body to function properly and we can choose the meat produced from environmentally sustainable farms to avoid the moral ambiguity.

The cattle industry produces vast amounts of strain in the environment. It is energy inefficient, pollutes water, occupies many acres of land, and deteriorates the health of the people who abuse its consumption. The government subsidizes this industry. Therefore, the price paid for meat doesn’t reflect the environmental hazards involved in the process. In order to protect our health and the health of the environment we should pay close attention to our food choices and make sure we don’t support industries that degrade it.

We are a nation of meat eaters. We are socialized from a young age to consume high levels of animal products. This deeply ingrained meat-eating tradition is a big part of the American standard diet. A visit to the local grocery store shows that there is no shortage of animal products. Isle by isle you see a plethora of meats, neatly packed and ready to be cooked, dairy products neatly shelved, and even candies that contain animal by-products. This is an omnivore’s utopia, allowing for a lifestyle that involves the overconsumption of meats and animal by-products. The rampant meat industry has managed to condition people to disassociate the meats in our grocery markets and the animals from which they came. Most people have become unaware omnivores, consuming whatever meats are available to them. This shift of moral degradation is evident in how we process and consume our meats. We have become a selfish society that values our own convenience and affordability of meat rather than the consideration of the animal. This begs the question, is eating meat inherently wrong and should we forbid meat consumption under any and all circumstances? To fully address this issue, we must first define the moral status of animals. So, are animals equal to humans in worth and value and should they receive similar treatment?