Written with the verve readers know from his novels, Everything Is Illuminated and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Jonathan Safran Foer's first nonfiction book -- Eating Animals -- grew out of his need to justify dietary decisions to his children.
A vegetarian and sometime vegan, Foer carefully examines the stories we tell ourselves about what we eat, considering notions of comfort, tradition, and culture. He blends his memories of the roles food played in his childhood with literary representations of meals; reviews various philosophies of food; and conducts his own investigations into factory farms.
Jonathan Safran Foer
Jonathan Safran Foer made his fiction début in The New Yorker in 2001, with "The Very Rigid Search," which was part of his first novel, "Everything Is Illuminated." His other books include the novel "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close" and "Eating Animals," about the ethics of eating meat. In March, he and Nathan Englander published "New American Haggadah."
Jonathan Safran Foer, author of Eating Animals, claims agribusiness is guilty of "the worst kind of manipulation." He says the lies range from leading people to believe there's a "well funded" anti-meat lobby to applying meaningless "free-range" labels to eggs.
System of modern animal farming designed to yield the most meat, milk, and eggs in the least amount of time and space possible. The term, descriptive of standard farming practice in the U.S., is frequently used by animal-rights activists, who maintain that animal-protection measures routinely ignore farm animals. Animals are often fed growth hormones, sprayed with pesticides, and fed antibiotics to mitigate the problems of infestation and disease that are exacerbated by crowded living conditions. Chickens spend their lives crowded into small cages, often so tightly that they cannot turn around; the cages are stacked in high batteries, and the length of day and night are artificially controlled to maximize egg laying. Veal calves are virtually immobilized in narrow stalls for their entire lives. These and numerous other practices have long been decried by critics.
Research is a bullet! Not vegy tears!
How much protein is optimal for human babies? (About6.25% of Kcal in human milk)
For the young up to about age 40 ( 18 to 25% of calories for max fertility)
For the elederly for lnger healthy life? No study! Thats right no study! But we can look to other organis like yeast and insects and surpise 6.25% of calories from protein (Just like mom's milk) incresed life span.
From this reduced need for protein PLUS
for max health and life span we can fed more of the young the protein they need and reduce the factory farming!(Hint eat lamb and eggs)
USA protein consumption by quartile is about 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22% of calories. And from large studies of 7th day adventist and others we see the lower protein is associated with better health and longer life.
Give us data and facts please! Please SIR another bowl of data!
find this very curious. He is not taking into account many significant factors. They are the following:
1. He is speaking to people who agree with him. He did not invite farm hand or individuals who could make a change in the meat industry.
2. Without meat our brains would not be as large as they are.
3.We as a species which developed from eating meat and thereby making ourselves omnivores.
4. MEAT TASTES GOOD! In fact, meat tastes GREAT!
5. Most people don't believe there is any morality in eating meat. Morality is saved for humans and many animals are simply living meals which haven't been killed and cooked yet. That's how I feel.
6. I as a meat eater will never give it up and many people who eat meat feel the same way. Not because of the many reasons given in this speech, but because of the reasons I gave above.
Because, we as a species will never give up eating me, why don't we figure out a way to produce animals for eating which is more environmentally friendly.
Riddlemethis: In many ways, it is impossible to visit the farm your meat comes from (especially beef). You know why an entire country gets its beef export boycotted when a single case of mad cow disease breaks out? Because we take beef from hundreds of farms, and blend it all together before it is served. So you CAN visit the farms, but it will be more than one.
Mark Sullivan: I don't understand your critique accusing him of being religious and using demagoguery. Try poking holes in his actual argument instead of setting up straw men to pick on. He clearly says that there is plenty of gray between eating meat all the time, and being vegitarian, he even says its a disservice to demonize meat eaters!
We all know that animals are raised for food in the factories. There are multiple topics to deal with. The things the factories do would get me arrested under animal torture laws if I did them at home. Most people find that morally abhorrent, hence the free range market increase. However, that is not the crux of his argument. The argument is that there is a more efficient way to feed the number of people on this planet. For all the acres we spend growing feed for animals, we could cut out the middle man and just make all that food go to humans (cows eat a whole lot more than we do). He isn't saying don't eat meat necessarily, just eat less and eat smarter. You can buy local, that way you don't have hormones and antibiotics in your meat. Avoid those things more for yourself than the animal.
Also, buying local cuts down on emissions, because your meat isn't shipped all over the country (and internationally) before you get it. It should be understood that all his arguments are ultimately better for the environment, which very much is a moral problem for anyone who cares about our ancestors.
Mr Svperstar: "My question here is this, do we really have a vast array of problems with efficiency, dwindling resources, available farm land, over fishing, food supply, water supply, pollution, energy production, climate change, traffic congestion, housing, etc, etc?" Are you serious? Yes we have a problem with several of those things! You would almost have to cover your eyes and ears not to be aware.
I don't think anywhere he is advocating going back to caveman days. I'm almost positive of that. The problem is, with creature comforts. Right now we in the U.S., have lots of creature comforts, we also have excess. Not all creature comforts are bad, and everyone on the planet tries to get them (I'm thinking of beds, homes, medicines, shoes, books, mail etc.). The problem is that very soon, all the world is going to want to live like we do. Once places like China and India get even more financially stable, they will begin to live like we do. Our planet is already nearly taxed for resources like farmland, energy sources and emissions. How bad will it be then? We currently use 1/4th of the worlds liquid fuel. Our population is 310mil. China is almost at 1.5 billion. So yes, we do have some very serious issues already, that could get drastically worse.
Of course population is an enormous issue, but I don't believe it makes since to just ignore all these smaller brush fire because "fuck it".
Your economy argument is flawed. If people cut back on meat like he is suggesting, it wouldn't happen on Tuesday, it will happen over many, many years. Nobody would be out of a job all of a sudden. Jobs will shift, and new jobs will take its place. Also, people who care about their food (a group that would grow in size if meat consumption dwindled for moral or environmental reasons) would buy local. This creates new local jobs and supports real farmers, not enormous corporate ones. It is an economic fact that spending money on a local business keeps money circulating in a local economy much longer, encouraging growth. So in reality, it would probably be a true grassroots boom for our economy.
Finally, morality. Isn't almost everything a morality issue at its root? Again, he clearly shows that there is plenty of gray area, it isn't all black and white. Not everything PETA says is false, and not everything in religion is evil. He is right. We don't need to eat meat, eggs or cheese. We don't, the truth is that (obviously) you can live off of veggies alone. He isn't saying we have to, just showing the door. So yeah; cutting back on meat consumption, buying local, asking for more disclosure from farms about their sanitation and treatment together cuts down on our energy costs, would lead to improved health (as long as people don't replace meat with twinkies), benefit our economy, make us more self sustaining as a country, reduce emissions and set an example for the developing world. All while improving the treatment of animals as a bi product.
I question whether he or any other self-anointed "experts" are experts of anything other than their own arbitrary beliefs. I do not simply disagree with his delivery, I disagree with his message. I do not think any serious person should mourn the fact that we raise animals for food. Look, animals are KILLED for our food. The are raised with the intent that we will kill it, gut it, cut it into small pieces, put it under or over heat and consume it. This is a GOOD thing. Finding productive ways to feed ourselves is a GOOD THING.
I also believe that a very bright person who spends years in training and advanced education to become a dentist is something other than what this gentleman is.
Again, this is just my opinion.
why the HELL do you have so many pay per view things, I bookmarked the website because it was entirely free...now there are lots of things I want to watch, but I aint paying any money to listen to them. Information should be free always, and anyone who wants "privacy rights" and all that garbage that goes with it is probably guilty of something they want to hide from the information flow.
Also, lots of people that post on here are giving me the impression that they are douches, liars and assholes.
Yes swearing is necessary. Also, my own biased opinion is that business and big business are wrong by definition. A business' primary goal is making money any way it can, the easiest way(which is what most businesses choose)is to cheat, steal, or lie. If you dont believe me, then I just ask you if you are a business owner yourself or have an IQ below 75...(or a mix of the two).
Dear Mark Sullivan,
You may find him arrogant and moralistic, but being concerned with the style of delivery rather than the content, is missing the point. Also: We live in a technocratic society. On a daily basis we let expert tell us how to live our lives, i don't know what you find so insulting about that. You accept the dentist's opinion when you visit him and the lawyer's opinion when he gives you advice. Similarly Jonathan put many hours of research into "Eating Animals" while I was off working as an expert in my field. I was only to glad to be able to pick up his book and be able to trace his footnotes back to his sources. Obviously never accept the expert's opinion uncritically and if it's possible and you think necessary, verify it (whether it's your dentist or lawyer), but I don't quite appreciate why you should be so "sick" of experts.
Originally Posted by Tommy Jefferson
I question the morality of your belief that men with guns should force other people to live the way you want.
Perhaps you should examine both your moral premise that Violence is a Good Way to Solve Social Problems , and the track record of success for government solutions to big problems such as terrorism, hurricanes, war, and education.
Ummm, at no point did I say anything about men with guns. I said to insert a law or regulation to prevent unneccesary cruelty.
I can only guess that what you are going on about is that such a law would be a violation of your personal freedoms.
a) There is nothing to be gained out of the torture of defenceless animals, thus a desire for such a freedom is beyond justification.
b) To be consistent on personal freedoms, you would have to be opposed to any other law which impedes our actions. Rape, murder, etc. Permitting such actions would contradict your objection to violence or allowing someone to weild an overpowering force. Thus there is no way for this rationale to be consistent.
There is a difference between complex issues such as wars, terrorism, and education, that include a wide variety of points of view, motives and grey areas, etc, and the type of simple regulations I'm refering to. Farming practices are a long way from being one of these big problems , as you put it.
What I'm suggesting is more akin to the seat belt example I mentioned than any of those topics. Are you opposed to seat belts? Other more valid examples might include removing CFC's from aerosols, or lead from paint/fuel. There was a problem and a law was introduced to change the way industry operated. The consumer has not been affected, and improvement has been made behind the scenes.
I am currently reading a book entitled Animal Factory written by David Kirby.
As Jonathan states in this video, they are factories not farms.
I wish that everyone would read this book and get some idea about how animals are raised to be "killed" for our every day food supply.
I watched a video on You-Tube some 2 years ago and almost got sick when I saw how these animals were slaughtered.
I became a vegetarian for some 18 weeks until my wife talked me out of it. I wish I would have remained one. I feel guilty even eating meat today.