Rhetorical Analysis Of 'The Omnivore's Delusion'

1352 Words 6 Pages
The agricultural/food industry has been in many argument about how animals and crops are being raised and killed to feed the american people. Michael Pollan uses his selection “An Animal’s Place” to defend his right to eat as he pleases. While, Blake Hurst uses his article “The Omnivore’s Delusion” to shield post-modern farming techniques from a mass of uneducated critics. Now, read as these two duke it out against their opponents to see if they can live as they want.

Michael Pollan, a writer/activist, fights for his right to animals as he sees fit. First, Pollan proclaims multiple points about how animals are different from animals. One being that animals eat other animals in nature, and so Pollan questions why can’t we do the same. He then reitterates this by saying,” Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals any more ethically than they treat one another?”(Pollan 365) This shows how the author feels
…show more content…
Hurst has become very annoyed with these judgements that he said,” I’m so tired of people who wouldn’t visit a doctor who used a stethoscope instead of an MRI demanding that farmers like me use 1930’s technology to raise food. Farming has always be messy and painful, and bloody and dirty. It still is.” This leads readers to believe that there is more to farming than meets the eye. One of these overlooked subjects is that Industrial farming is more eco friendly. In the selection, Hurst states that,

”Critics of “industrial farming” spend most of their time concerned with the processes by which food is raised…. Except that that some of the largest farms are organic-and are giant organizations dependant upon lots of hired stoop labor doing the most backbreaking tasks in order to save the sensitive conscience of my fellow passenger the merest whiff of pesticide

Related Documents

Related Topics