The Ethics Of Eating Meat

1485 Words 6 Pages
I believe that there is nothing wrong with eating meat because it has developed humans for millions of years and is also a natural occurring process. However, I do believe that the method of which we obtain our meat including factory farming is unethical and needs to be changed. The amount of respect that humans have for the animals we eat is miniscule, and it needs to be fixed. Similar to Pollan’s viewpoint on meat-eating and the process of obtaining meat, I believe that animal experimentation is for a good cause such as medical breakthrough and research for developing pathogens. However, there is a big lack of respect for the creatures that we test with. With that being said, I do not support the unnecessary harm and brutality that some …show more content…
He suggests that “if you’re willing to make the effort, it’s entirely possible to limit the meat you eat to nonindustrial animals” (413). With this quote, Pollan explains that just because you like meat doesn’t mean that you can’t be against factory farmed meat. Factory farmed meat refers to farm animals that lived in an unhealthy setting, ate an unhealthy diet, and suffered unnecessary harm due to boosted production rates. Being a meat-eater himself, he acknowledges the fact that he probably won’t abolish meat, but he still makes an effort to slow the brutal industry by staying away from meats that were grown in a factory farm setting, and being a little more thankful for the animals that were sacrificed. I agree with most of Pollan’s ideas in his paper. He doesn’t want to completely ditch the idea of eating animals, but he does want to make a change to the process of obtaining meat. Similar to how the American capitalistic society has turned farming into a brutal, animal-suffering business, animal testing can be looked at the same …show more content…
Although mice, rats, and chimpanzees have the majority of the same genes (Sheila L. MacRae et al. 14), the small difference in genes between lab animals and humans can still be dangerous for human use. In Kehinde’s review article, he discovered by research that only “71% of acute toxicities in humans resulting from compounds that entered clinical trials were predicted by preclinical safety or toxicity studies in animals” (56). This means that 71% of the toxins found in humans were predicted from the results with the laboratory animals. To me, although this number is high, it isn’t high enough. This doesn’t mean that the other 29% toxins would kill or harm a human, but it could happen and that chance is not a risk worth

Related Documents

Related Topics