“Industrial agriculture characteristically proceeds by single solutions to single problems: If you want the most money from your land this year, grow the crops for which the market price is highest.” - Wendell Berry
Ever since the beginning of time, meat has been a staple of the human diet. People have many reasons why they chose not to consume meat. One of the most common reasons some people chose not to eat meat is because they believe that it is unethical. There are many processes required in order to produce meat for conception, and these processes have become widely known to the public and cause a great deal of controversy. Animals are often tortured, genetically modified, and live in squalid conditions before they become the meat we put on our dinner tables. In Michael Pollan’s book, An Omnivore’s Dilemma, we are focused on many different views of eating meat and other foods that are products of animals. The majority of those who chose to consume
If a farm is producing efficiently enough, it determines whether an industrial farm is competent or not. Berry notes, “Today, with hundreds of farm families losing their farms every week, the economists are still saying, as they have said all along, that these people deserve to fail, that they have failed because they are the ‘least efficient producers,’ and that the rest of us are better off for their failure” (105 ). If farms are not producing efficiently enough, they are seen as failing and farmers end up losing their farms. ‘Better off for their failure’ meaning if growers fail then machines will take their place and will be more efficient, producing more products. Pollan asserts, “’Efficiency’ is the term usually invoked to defend large-scale industrial farms, and it usually refers to the economies of scale that can be achieved by the application of technology and standardization” (377). The procedure of how food is made does not come into concern, only the results do. That is how large industrial farms are accepted, because they provide proficiently. The outcome of industrial farms outweighs the negative impacts, at least to industrial farmers. Pollan responds to Berry’s statement by agreeing with him on the issue of the current industrial model being acceptable to some consumers, only due to the fact that
“Thou shouldst eat to live; not live to eat”, is a famous quote by the well known philosopher Socrates, who believed this is the perspective we should take when we are eating food.Unfortunately, the times have changed and so has the way we eat. We no longer have to go hunting for our food, or grow crops to receive all of our fruits and vegetables. Because we have become a society that has grown into the new world of technology, there would be no need to rely on ourselves for what we need-- we can simply gather our resources from other people. In the book, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, written by Michael Pollan, takes us on a journey full of concerns of the “Food Industrial Complex”. Even though the novel speaks mainly of the issues with the food on our plate, these issues are more deeply connected and reflected in former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Military
Global warming has been a topic of debate for many years now. A more recent argument is that food production is a key contributing factor to the global warming epidemic. In the article “A Carnivore’s Dilemma”, Nicolette Niman provides an insight to the logistics being said in these statements. The article was written in response to the statement farming and food production is leading to climate change. Niman, being a rancher who raises cattle, goats, and turkeys, effectively frames the situation logically by providing credible statistics and examples to help the reader better understand the impacts of different methods of food production. She does this by providing specific information regarding the greenhouse gases involved, being carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides.
Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma addresses a variety of concerns about food production and consumption. One might ask what exactly is the omnivore’s dilemma? And the basic answer to this question is “what should we eat for dinner”? Being humans makes us omnivores, which means we can at whatever we want. Part of the dilemma is figuring out what is safe to eat and what its safe to think. This is all determined by what your culture tells you to eat. In some cultures it is normal to eat horse while in others it is illegal. This shows how diet varies by region and culture. For example in the Dominican Republic they eat a meal called “Mondongo” and this dish is basically pig or cow intestine including the stomach, feet, and many other inner parts. To the people of the Dominican Republic this meal is part of their tradition and it’s a type of delicacy. On the other hand in many other places it’s seen as dirty or something that shouldn’t be eaten. Being a poor country all parts of the animals are not to be wasted thus making it a norm. Another example of the Omnivore’s dilemma is deciding what to eat and what not to eat based on the condition of how what they are going to consume was grown or raised. Many people choose to eat only organic because it’s said to be healthier but when compared to non-organic food the difference is slim. Regardless people continue to buy organic products. People get emotionally connected to
In Blake Hurst’s “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-Intellectuals,” he opposes the accusations made by tofu-eating, recycled-toilet-paper-using, self-starving Michael Pollan and his followers. Throughout “The Omnivore’s Delusion…,” Hurst mentions how methods of farming have evolved to match demands of produce. The author states that “Only ‘Industrial farming’ can possibly meet the demands of an increasing population and increased demand for food as a result of growing incomes” (Hurst 4). This quote essentially means that “Industrial Farming” is the most efficient way to farm for today’s population level. A second point that is made by Hurst is that changes made by today’s farming are necessary. The author mentions that without the protection
Michael Pollan’s alternative to Factory farming has given a huge insight into a better ethics on food. In “The Animals: Practicing Complexity” Michael Pollan writes about a polyface farm and how it works. The goal of a polyface farm is to emotionally, economically, and environmentally enhance agriculture. Everything on a polyface farm has the potential to be helpful to something else on the farm. Pollan states “The chicken feed not only feeds the broilers but, transformed into chicken crap, feeds the grass that feeds the cows that, as I was about to see, feeds the pigs and the laying hens” (Pollan 345). This chain of profit very beneficial to farms because overall they spend much less money and have more money to spend elsewhere. There 's
For example, Miyun Park, the vice president for farm animal welfare at the Humane Society, explains, “Today, economic growth and development around the world are leading to a rise in the demand for animal products. According to the World Bank, increased global demand caused total meat production in the developing world to almost triple between 1980 and 2002- from 45 million to 134 million tons” (Park). With only an abrupt time to adapt to the demand, farmers don’t have time to improve their farms. Also, they need more animals to slaughter. So, the farms are usually overcrowded and unsanitary because the farmers are not thinking about what's best for the animals; they only think about the production speed and if they are slaughtering enough animals to pacify the demand. Also, in the article, "The Globalization of Animal Welfare”, it explains that, “the average person in an industrialized country still consumes far more animal products each year: 181 pounds of meat, 459 pounds of dairy, and 29 pounds of eggs, as compared with 68 pounds of meat, 110 pounds of dairy, and 18 pounds of eggs for each person in the developing world” (Park). An abundance of animals have to be slaughtered because people are “dependent” on meat. Farmers are not doing there job to their full potential. Farmers only care about quantity, if they are producing enough, rather than quality, if the
World hunger has always been a problem that has plagued humanity, and through the years, it has remained an almost impossible problem to solve. However, industrialized agriculture has become a possible solution to world hunger with its ability to produce more food on less land than traditional methods. Industrialized agriculture is the solution Robert Paarlberg offers in his article, “Attention Whole Food Shoppers” which first appeared in April 2010 edition of Foreign Policy. Paarlberg attempts to use specific criteria to demonstrate the benefits of industrialized agriculture, such as its impacts on world hunger, the income gap, and global politics. Paarlberg was to an extent successful at proving his points and persuading his intended audience.
Many of us, nowadays, eat and enjoy eating meat but many would agree that this is actually not an ethical action. Michael Pollan, in his persuasive style article “An Animal's Place" published in The New Work Times Magazine, on November 10, 2002 intends to persuade his audience that humans should respect animals and as long as they are treated well in farms and give them a more peaceful life and death it will be fine to eat them. According to Pollan, in today's huge industrial farms, cruel and unbearable things happen that are against animals rights. There is a high possibility that in the future these actions will stop as already some protest for animal rights have begun, because animals have feelings and farms take advantage of them thinking that they are mere machines, making them suffer. The solution to this conflict according to the author who supports friendly farms that respect and give a fun and secure life for animals. I believe that the author is convincing because he first makes clear what the argument is about, he then presents both moral arguments and
Imagine walking through a building that is crammed from wall to wall with thousands of chickens, making so much noise because of how little room they have to move around. “Corpses that have been in the cages for so long that their bodies have become mummified” (Humane Society of the United States). Walking on a floor that is caked with so many flies. Seeing the unsanitary location where the food you serve your family is coming from. You have just walked through a factory farm.
This short story explains and questions how people find eating animals morally acceptable. Steiner 's short story explains that whenever people think these animals are being treated respectfully they are being ignorant to the fact of how these animals are truly treated; Steiner brings up the fact of how an animals typical horrid life is and how it transitions from its horrid life to being killed by a butcher in a matter of seconds. Moreover, Steiner also adheres to the topic of how unacceptable, it is to kill these animals just for human consumption. Steiner 's purpose in writing this short story is to display to us the fact that eating any animal is not only wrong, but it is just downright unacceptable as it is mass murder of these innocent animals. Finally, Steiner tries to define at his best, what a strict vegan truly
All animals have feelings, they have a right to kind treatment, and a right to live in this world. The meat packing industry disregards animal’s emotions and their rights all together by the malicious treatment of animals. The way animals are being treated is highly unfair. Being slaughtered for their body parts and suffering just to be used for protein or an asset to humans is unbearable. An animal’s life is at equal values to a human and deserve the same rights as
Imagine a day in the life of a common farm animal. Far from the peaceful grazing life one would envision, the livestock of today endure horrific conditions - from suffering painful diseases to being separated from their mothers at too young of an age. Not only are these conditions harmful to the animals, the food produced by them is unnecessary to humanity’s well-being and can even be damaging to society’s overall health. Since the definition of ethics is having well-founded standards of right and wrong, this process of producing meat for our consumption is unethical.