Food has been a particular interest in recent years, especially in regards to benefits in health and dietary needs. It is a concept that has been embedded in our culture as a human beings for thousands of years, along with our relationship with domesticated animals, which has caused such an impact on our survival historically. This relationship is still present in our modern society, whether people realize it or not is the question. Animals, are unique in their own way, and the vast diversity of species is that of something remarkable. Unfortunately, in current years humans have been blinded by agro-industrial companies whose sole purpose is to feed the masses, yet feed them nutrient-poor foods. Due to the intense demand for meat recently in the United States, companies have failed to provide nutrient-rich and clean meats, due to cheap and fast labor methods and practices. This is where controversy begins to uprise, as people begin to realize the terrors behind the factory farms, where animals are abused and malnourished. Causing people to question the ethics of eating animals or saving a life. It is best stated by Henry Beston, a well known naturalist and author who wrote The Outermost House, “We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals…We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err. For the animal shall not be measured by man,” (Beston). Humans fail to see the cruelty and sadistic acts we can cause. Jonathan Safran Foer, however; noticed our flaw as a society and calls us to action to realize what we’ve allowed to happen to our agricultural system for so long. In Foer’s book Eating Animals, he argues for a change to our lifestyles and our food. In his case for vegetarianism, Foer’s argument in Eating Animals is successful, as it is passionate yet moving, however, his appeal to reason needs improvement as he has the potential to be somewhat biased since he fails to address certain areas of concern in regards to animal product consumption or the impact thereof.
Foer’s expertise in philosophical language has great effects on the reader. Causing the individual to question themselves and their choices in food. He develops his argument by creating a story, bringing his family’s traditions into the spotlight and allowing his readers to gain a sense of comfort and familiarity. As Jay Rayner, a food and restaurant critic for The Guardian explains that Foer’s introduction and first few chapters, “projects energetically the wide-eyed shock and disgust of the innocent, newly defiled. [However,] this is both a vice and a virtue. The author explains that he began his investigation as first-time fatherhood beckoned. He wanted to know what it was he would be feeding his child. This varnishes the book with a certain preciousness,” (Rayner). Although he negatively remarks Foer’s attempt to better himself and his first child, this explains why many readers feel so shocked by the following chapters, as he describes the explicit truth of what exactly goes on behind those fences in factory farms. This is where we can see Foer’s attempt to utilize logos from here on out. It is effective emotionally but seems to be weak, due to the fact that as he attempts to persuade the reader that consuming meat is a terrible thing, he fails to regard how humans require certain nutrients found in meat. Protein in particular is easily sourced from meat. Rayner continues to further explain how the argument is weak due to his selective choice in both words and what he wishes to discuss, “The reality is that the raising of animals for food is an ugly business, however unintensive the methods used. That's a truth we must confront. There is no doubt that we have become too divorced from our food production system. We need to know how it works. We need to know what eating meat means,” (Rayner). Foer fails to express in any detail why we as a society should change our ways, which is why his main points are so weak in a sense. He seems to play with his wording, and almost in a sense distracts you from his overall argument.
In the words of Elizabeth Kolbert, a Pulitzer Prize winning author for her book Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, “it could be argued that even a vegetarian diet falls short,” as she continues to analyze Foer’s argument, she claim that, “Foer seems particularly incensed by the suggestion that deciding not to eat meat represents a delusion of innocence or, worse still, sentimentality,” (Kolbert). Which could confuse the reader, since his goal is to persuade the reader into eating a more conscientious and vegetarian-based diet. Foer also fails to express how the dairy and egg industry are just as horrific, if not worse, than the meat industry as well. Kolbert continues to explain what Foer fails to even include in his book by saying that:
“Foer is well aware, some of the animals that suffer most from the factory-farm system aren’t the ones that end up on the table. Most dairy cows spend their lives in sheds, where they are milked two or three times a day by machine. Many develop chronic udder infections. Laying chickens are kept in cages, jammed in so tightly that they don’t have room to spread their wings. To prevent them from cannibalizing one another, their beaks are trimmed with a hot blade. When their production begins to decline, they are starved for a week or two to reset their biological clocks. Foer never says anything about forgoing eggs or dairy, which seems to imply that he consumes them,” (Kolbert).
With this in mind, it seems that Foer only picks the specific details that only impact us directly with our meat sources. However, many dairy and egg farms are directly connected to the meat industry. With Kolbert explaining how he fails to even include these two topics, it can be said that Foer only chooses certain ideas either for a more general emphasis on this controversial subject, or he feels that it perhaps represents a more detrimental situation than others.
The third chapter brings up slight concern, as it is involved with defining specific terms. In the chapter “Words/Meaning,” Foer brings forward terms and or concepts that are concerned with the meat industry, environmental impacts, etc. (Foer, 45-77). This is where however he redefines certain concepts, which could lead to a biased opinion, as he explains it the way he feels it should be defined. This could potentially censor and or alter an entire definition. As an example, when he defines the term “species barrier” he never states the actual definition of what “species barrier” actually means. He hardly goes into the actual details, he only states that, “if you go to see Knut [the polar bear at the Berlin Zoo], and get hungry, just a few feet from his enclosure is a stand selling “Wurst de Knut,” made from the flesh of factory-farmed pigs, which are at least as intelligent and deserving of our regard as Knut,” (Foer, 76). By redefining this term in his own story-based way, he hardly explains why the problem with the species barrier is so severe. He fails to regard the ecological impact this has on the planet, as well as hardly explain how human behavior is the sole reason why this barrier exists. Michael Marshall, an environment and life sciences writer and editor for BBC, explains this concept by stating that:
“nature is beautiful, and that aesthetic value is a reason to keep it. The first problem with this argument is that it spells doom for all those animals and plants that people are less fond of: the ugly, the smelly and the just plain obscure. If we don't find them appealing, they're out…Even if you don't buy the moral argument that "wild things and places have incalculable intrinsic value", there are hard-nosed practical reasons to save them..Ecologists have amassed evidence that ecosystems with a wider range of species are more stable and resilient, and less prone to sudden die-backs. This has a startling implication. A tiny, obscure worm may not be doing anything that's obviously useful to humans, but it is probably supporting the ecosystem it lives in – and that ecosystem will be providing services,” (Marshall).
Foer fails to even regard this part of the species barrier, although he does have the reader think about why certain animals are indeed fought for more than others. It has to do simply with our behavior. If he even explained how many people do not agree, or view that certain non-aesthetically pleasing animals are so disliked because it isn’t “cute” or “cuddly” the point could have gotten across much better. Especially if he described how ecosystem services are beneficial to humans in a long-term standpoint.
Foer’s overall argument is indeed strong, but does seem to fall short in some aspects, which could be due to combination of general concepts, which could get the reader to understand the importance of his call to action in an emotional sense. But, this does however fail as he attempts to explain why human society needs to change their views on factory farms, and the meat industry. He thankfully brings the issue out into the limelight, and addresses the cruelty and abuse that livestock animals endure throughout their short lifetime. Although Foer fails to address certain areas, he still is able to get his point across. If he perhaps furthered his research to address other areas of concern, or explain why the change in our food processing is necessary, then there is a higher possibility that his appeal to reason would successfully work.