What do you think?
Rate this book
On Eating Meat: The truth about its production and the ethics of eating it
A scorching manifesto on the ethics of eating meat by the best placed person to write about it - farmer and chef Matthew Evans, aka The Gourmet Farmer.
How can 160,000 deaths in one day constitute a 'medium-sized operation'?
Think beef is killing the world? What about asparagus farms? Or golf?
Eat dairy? You'd better eat veal, too.
Going vegan might be all the rage, but the fact is the world has an ever-growing, insatiable appetite for meat - especially cheap meat. Former food critic and chef, now farmer and restaurateur Matthew Evans grapples with the thorny issues around the ways we produce and consume animals. From feedlots and abattoirs, to organic farms and animal welfare agencies, he has an intimate, expert understanding of the farming practices that take place in our name. Evans calls for less radicalisation, greater understanding, and for ethical omnivores to stand up for the welfare of animals and farmers alike. Sure to spark intense debate, On Eating Meat is an urgent read for all vegans, vegetarians and carnivores.
How can 160,000 deaths in one day constitute a 'medium-sized operation'?
Think beef is killing the world? What about asparagus farms? Or golf?
Eat dairy? You'd better eat veal, too.
Going vegan might be all the rage, but the fact is the world has an ever-growing, insatiable appetite for meat - especially cheap meat. Former food critic and chef, now farmer and restaurateur Matthew Evans grapples with the thorny issues around the ways we produce and consume animals. From feedlots and abattoirs, to organic farms and animal welfare agencies, he has an intimate, expert understanding of the farming practices that take place in our name. Evans calls for less radicalisation, greater understanding, and for ethical omnivores to stand up for the welfare of animals and farmers alike. Sure to spark intense debate, On Eating Meat is an urgent read for all vegans, vegetarians and carnivores.
312 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 2019
56 people are currently reading
480 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews
September 26, 2020
At best this is an informative, though cheerily misleading, call to discuss how we in the West raise animals for consumption. At worst it is filled with falsehoods, logical misdirection and supercilious moralising.
I believe that Matthew Evans comes to this book with genuine intentions. He has the tone of your didactic homespun uncle at the Christmas dinner table—opinionated and impassioned from the lunchtime beers. You get the sense that Uncle Matt would really like to bring those at one end of the spectrum—the vegan/vegos—to chat and commune with those at the other end of the spectrum—the animal slaughterers who are ok with keeping animals caged and as a unit of production akin to coal or shoes. He wants everyone at the table together and for this he should be lauded.
He is at his best when he is investigating what animal production consists of, the production cycle and explaining the definitive process of how animals are raised, killed and sold. He is good when he is demonstrating his years of experience as to why tenderness versus taste is an important consideration in meat, or why properly aged meat matters. He’s also on track when he discusses some potential solutions to the issues he raises, such as regulation/legislation.
In terms of where he is either mis-directed or entirely off the rails, here I go:
Inconsistent moralising
For a guy that has spent the last 5 years writing a book on meat, and the meat industry, a guy who has farmed and slaughtered animals for 15 years, I was surprised that his end conclusion was that basically he was right all along and all of society should be more like him. Call me naïve, but I thought some of his conclusions would be along the lines of: I was at this point before the book and now I’ve changed my ethics to over here. Basically, his beginning is his end: he farms animals, kills them, feels a tad bad about the killing but in the end is ok about it, wants everyone to eat better-raised animals, wants more open meat industry so that the worst aspects disappear, but he doesn’t think veganism is much use and isn’t too fussed about the climate effects of the meat industry. At one point he says “My view is that it’s very hard to get people to change behaviour…” and yet he’s just gone through all this killing, all this climate change consideration, chatting about vegetarianism etc and surprisingly finds that his point of view was right all along…quelle surprise.
Continuing with moralising, his reasoning here is also faulty in that he doesn’t discriminate logically between animal death. If he kills a pig, that’s ok, but if a female sow is killed as she gives birth to piglets, that is bad. To many people, a dead pig is a dead pig, so his drawn line really just shows that he’s not so much evidence-based (a line he’s pushing in this book), but rather him pushing his own cart again.
General mathematical misunderstanding/misdirection
A couple of times in the book Evans quotes if everyone went vegan our CO2 output would drop by “only” 10%. Hello, what?! 10% is huge. 10% is the equivalent of saying to nearly 800 million humans: we’re cancelling your carbon debt forever. If we could eliminate 10% of our CO2 emissions at a stroke, that would be the greatest achievement released in the 21st century. Evans not only misses this point but misdirects as if to say we should ignore it. Some of his arguments against veganism are more compelling, but this is woefully wrong.
Cognitive dissonance
Evans argues that while scientific research shows it takes about 10kg of plant to create 1kg of animal that eats it, it is still better to farm animals because it works on his farm in Tasmania and therefore it is better his way. He tries to use the logic of specificity of Tasmania’s land being mostly arable for ruminant animals but misses the point entirely that the scientists are speaking at the top level, that hundreds of acres of the Amazon are cleared every minute to grow food for cows. Evans either doesn’t grasp, or doesn’t know, that he is wrong on the large scale rather than his micro-scale and that generally it’s (much) easier to get calories from plants than animals.
Strawman arguments
He routinely compares non-relevant concepts, like arguing that if you don’t like cows, you also shouldn’t like golf or cars. This is preposterous. The amount of space on Earth for golf courses is miniscule compared to that dedicated to raising animals. These arguments aren’t helpful because if any of us care about the environment, we should be looking at all of our climate options, but of course you focus on the most damaging first which would include transport and also animal farming (but golf would be 5 thousandth on the list).
Dumb old tropes
“The research confirms what a lot of farmers already know, but city-based citizen scientists may not understand.” This quote is in reference to going vegan. This is after Evans has explained to us that vegans are healthier, better for the environment and don’t kill as many animals as he does (even with the animals that die because of protecting crops etc). I’m not vegan, yet stuff like this made me want to drip chilli-infused lime into my eyes.
Unsound logic
He does the old trick of saying red cars are safer than blue cars, red cars are faster than green cars etc, only doing comparisons of one item at a time, rather than in aggregate. For example, he says that grass-reared animals…are amongst the more efficient producers of food energy for fossil fuel use. This is misleading in that: a) most local animals (which he continually refers to in this Australia-focussed book) aren’t grass-reared but rather are grain-fed and b) this is a bait and switch argument as if we’re really only worried about the net effect of fossil fuels which is equivalent CO2 production which is FAR worse with animals versus plants.
Another unsound logic issue is where he almost gets it right. He argues that the UK tried to protect pigs with welfare laws but had the net effect of damaging the UK’s pork industry. He quotes figures showing the ongoing decline in local pork production as an example. He was nearly right on this one. First of all, local production likely has been subject to broader market forces for decades because of closer ties to Europe. That’s the whole point of David Ricardo’s concepts of the advantage of specialisation with trade; second, this is the problem generated by unintended consequence—if the UK truly wanted to protect the pigs, they would require all pork sold to meet a certain quality.
Writing
His writing is generally pretty good. It does read as if he has dictated the book, but no one has edited it. He has passages such as where he is explaining the difficulty of inspecting big chicken farms. One sentence is simply: “On or off camera”. Hmmm, maybe the editor could have thrown in a semi-colon to the previous sentence to explain that they could not meet the CEO, on or off camera. It’s a small issue, and mostly his folksy style works with the ease of communication, but surely someone could have tidied all this up.
I did learn about the meat industry from the book. I just wish Evans did a better job of maintaining his often-times charming style, whilst being more objective and distancing his personal views from the investigation he undertakes.
I believe that Matthew Evans comes to this book with genuine intentions. He has the tone of your didactic homespun uncle at the Christmas dinner table—opinionated and impassioned from the lunchtime beers. You get the sense that Uncle Matt would really like to bring those at one end of the spectrum—the vegan/vegos—to chat and commune with those at the other end of the spectrum—the animal slaughterers who are ok with keeping animals caged and as a unit of production akin to coal or shoes. He wants everyone at the table together and for this he should be lauded.
He is at his best when he is investigating what animal production consists of, the production cycle and explaining the definitive process of how animals are raised, killed and sold. He is good when he is demonstrating his years of experience as to why tenderness versus taste is an important consideration in meat, or why properly aged meat matters. He’s also on track when he discusses some potential solutions to the issues he raises, such as regulation/legislation.
In terms of where he is either mis-directed or entirely off the rails, here I go:
Inconsistent moralising
For a guy that has spent the last 5 years writing a book on meat, and the meat industry, a guy who has farmed and slaughtered animals for 15 years, I was surprised that his end conclusion was that basically he was right all along and all of society should be more like him. Call me naïve, but I thought some of his conclusions would be along the lines of: I was at this point before the book and now I’ve changed my ethics to over here. Basically, his beginning is his end: he farms animals, kills them, feels a tad bad about the killing but in the end is ok about it, wants everyone to eat better-raised animals, wants more open meat industry so that the worst aspects disappear, but he doesn’t think veganism is much use and isn’t too fussed about the climate effects of the meat industry. At one point he says “My view is that it’s very hard to get people to change behaviour…” and yet he’s just gone through all this killing, all this climate change consideration, chatting about vegetarianism etc and surprisingly finds that his point of view was right all along…quelle surprise.
Continuing with moralising, his reasoning here is also faulty in that he doesn’t discriminate logically between animal death. If he kills a pig, that’s ok, but if a female sow is killed as she gives birth to piglets, that is bad. To many people, a dead pig is a dead pig, so his drawn line really just shows that he’s not so much evidence-based (a line he’s pushing in this book), but rather him pushing his own cart again.
General mathematical misunderstanding/misdirection
A couple of times in the book Evans quotes if everyone went vegan our CO2 output would drop by “only” 10%. Hello, what?! 10% is huge. 10% is the equivalent of saying to nearly 800 million humans: we’re cancelling your carbon debt forever. If we could eliminate 10% of our CO2 emissions at a stroke, that would be the greatest achievement released in the 21st century. Evans not only misses this point but misdirects as if to say we should ignore it. Some of his arguments against veganism are more compelling, but this is woefully wrong.
Cognitive dissonance
Evans argues that while scientific research shows it takes about 10kg of plant to create 1kg of animal that eats it, it is still better to farm animals because it works on his farm in Tasmania and therefore it is better his way. He tries to use the logic of specificity of Tasmania’s land being mostly arable for ruminant animals but misses the point entirely that the scientists are speaking at the top level, that hundreds of acres of the Amazon are cleared every minute to grow food for cows. Evans either doesn’t grasp, or doesn’t know, that he is wrong on the large scale rather than his micro-scale and that generally it’s (much) easier to get calories from plants than animals.
Strawman arguments
He routinely compares non-relevant concepts, like arguing that if you don’t like cows, you also shouldn’t like golf or cars. This is preposterous. The amount of space on Earth for golf courses is miniscule compared to that dedicated to raising animals. These arguments aren’t helpful because if any of us care about the environment, we should be looking at all of our climate options, but of course you focus on the most damaging first which would include transport and also animal farming (but golf would be 5 thousandth on the list).
Dumb old tropes
“The research confirms what a lot of farmers already know, but city-based citizen scientists may not understand.” This quote is in reference to going vegan. This is after Evans has explained to us that vegans are healthier, better for the environment and don’t kill as many animals as he does (even with the animals that die because of protecting crops etc). I’m not vegan, yet stuff like this made me want to drip chilli-infused lime into my eyes.
Unsound logic
He does the old trick of saying red cars are safer than blue cars, red cars are faster than green cars etc, only doing comparisons of one item at a time, rather than in aggregate. For example, he says that grass-reared animals…are amongst the more efficient producers of food energy for fossil fuel use. This is misleading in that: a) most local animals (which he continually refers to in this Australia-focussed book) aren’t grass-reared but rather are grain-fed and b) this is a bait and switch argument as if we’re really only worried about the net effect of fossil fuels which is equivalent CO2 production which is FAR worse with animals versus plants.
Another unsound logic issue is where he almost gets it right. He argues that the UK tried to protect pigs with welfare laws but had the net effect of damaging the UK’s pork industry. He quotes figures showing the ongoing decline in local pork production as an example. He was nearly right on this one. First of all, local production likely has been subject to broader market forces for decades because of closer ties to Europe. That’s the whole point of David Ricardo’s concepts of the advantage of specialisation with trade; second, this is the problem generated by unintended consequence—if the UK truly wanted to protect the pigs, they would require all pork sold to meet a certain quality.
Writing
His writing is generally pretty good. It does read as if he has dictated the book, but no one has edited it. He has passages such as where he is explaining the difficulty of inspecting big chicken farms. One sentence is simply: “On or off camera”. Hmmm, maybe the editor could have thrown in a semi-colon to the previous sentence to explain that they could not meet the CEO, on or off camera. It’s a small issue, and mostly his folksy style works with the ease of communication, but surely someone could have tidied all this up.
I did learn about the meat industry from the book. I just wish Evans did a better job of maintaining his often-times charming style, whilst being more objective and distancing his personal views from the investigation he undertakes.
January 15, 2020
3 stars on the generous side. Strongest when factual and shining a spot light on poor and sometimes shocking farm practices in both Australia and the US. Weakest when devolving into rambling straw man arguments on vegetarian and vegan philosophy. The repetitive nature, particularly of some of the more dubious moral reasoning didn’t assist. That said, it’s hard to imagine you could read this book and not have it factor in your future purchasing and consumption decisions when it comes to meat.
September 11, 2019
Basically this guy just likes the taste of meat and will make any bendy logic to fit his goal of eating it and not feeling bad.
September 14, 2019
Guy likes the taste of meat a is trying to justify eating it. Bags out conventional meat growers and vegans to give the illusion of a rounded argument.
August 13, 2019
This book discusses many issues that Australians who eat animal products definitely ought to be aware of. It explores how our meat is produced, and argues that people should be far more conscious of where their food comes from and the power they have over the lives (and deaths) of the animals they eat. I thought it was well written, and the author is clearly very passionate about what he does and how he does it.
One of the things I was not very impressed by was the way the author presents his arguments against veganism, which I found unconvincing. He seems to mischaracterise the vegan philosophy, implying on multiple occasions that veganism is about being perfect and eliminating animal suffering completely. He writes about the number of animals that are killed in the process of harvesting plants as if it is something that vegans and vegetarians are not aware of and will be surprised by. In fact, if you're vegan or vegetarian, I doubt you'll find much in this book that you didn't already know.
He does, however, raise some very good points about how some vegans and animal rights activists communicate with omnivores. Often their methods can be self-defeating; pushing people away rather than convincing them.
Overall, I thought it was definitely worth the read, and I hope that it will spark some healthy discussion about these issues in our society.
One of the things I was not very impressed by was the way the author presents his arguments against veganism, which I found unconvincing. He seems to mischaracterise the vegan philosophy, implying on multiple occasions that veganism is about being perfect and eliminating animal suffering completely. He writes about the number of animals that are killed in the process of harvesting plants as if it is something that vegans and vegetarians are not aware of and will be surprised by. In fact, if you're vegan or vegetarian, I doubt you'll find much in this book that you didn't already know.
He does, however, raise some very good points about how some vegans and animal rights activists communicate with omnivores. Often their methods can be self-defeating; pushing people away rather than convincing them.
Overall, I thought it was definitely worth the read, and I hope that it will spark some healthy discussion about these issues in our society.
July 13, 2019
A very interesting and well researched read. A look at all types of farming and food production and how it impacts the land and the natural environment. Whilst the meat industry gets a lot of flack about the pain and suffering caused to animals, this book opens eyes to the consequences of all food industries and the need for transparency within meat, vegetable and fruit farming.
There is suffering and unethical practices within the meat industry and this book explains why and how this could be better, and how instead of aggressive shock campaigns, actual compassionate discussion from meat consumers needs to take place to make change.
Also... if you have a cat...keep them inside.
There is suffering and unethical practices within the meat industry and this book explains why and how this could be better, and how instead of aggressive shock campaigns, actual compassionate discussion from meat consumers needs to take place to make change.
Also... if you have a cat...keep them inside.
February 24, 2020
Picked up on impulse at the library and thought I would just flick through it - I’m a fan of Matthew Evans , The Gourmet Farmer TV series on SBS .
Once I started, I had to read the lot- carefully. A very measured discussion of both sides of the meat eating, vegetarian/vegan debate.
Extremely well researched, with lots of arguments I’ve never considered. Some facts very confronting and Evans doesn’t shy away from the fact that we the “eaters “, both omnivores and plant eaters have a responsibility to know and do something about farming practices ( power of the consumer) rather than just ignoring.
Once I started, I had to read the lot- carefully. A very measured discussion of both sides of the meat eating, vegetarian/vegan debate.
Extremely well researched, with lots of arguments I’ve never considered. Some facts very confronting and Evans doesn’t shy away from the fact that we the “eaters “, both omnivores and plant eaters have a responsibility to know and do something about farming practices ( power of the consumer) rather than just ignoring.
March 26, 2024
I really enjoyed this book even though I am a vegan but also it has really made me think and question things. I think it is really well put together and everybody should read it as it brings up many good points about the way we produce food. I think that it makes me think how the future of food production could be better and I am not even against people eating meat that is ethically produced.
Matthew has put a lot of time and effort into the book and deserves congratulations on a good thought promoting book.
Matthew has put a lot of time and effort into the book and deserves congratulations on a good thought promoting book.
Read
January 31, 2025Lots of interesting (chicken) nuggets sprinkled through a book that needed streamlining. Less focused / more sloppy than his book on soil, the book corkscrewed through a set of topics on repeat. I really would have better appreciated something more linear, building a case cleanly and step by step.
There are things I loved about this book though. Evans is so winsome nearest the end, when he's talking about food quality and the small steps we can do to move up the chain and purchase more ethically raised meat. I also loved his section on feral and native culling as food waste which we could instead be eating!
I'm anti 'food-salvationism' — the idea that if we eat a diet of x, y, or z our health would be excellent and our world would be trouble-free. But, I buy his argument that we can be both more ethical to our animals AND get higher quality food — that the two go hand in hand (so obviously fitting of God's awesome design). We just have to be willing to spend a little more or eat a little less meat.
I reckon this book will stick with me longer than many a 5-star work, in the daily choices I make at the supermarket and beyond.
There are things I loved about this book though. Evans is so winsome nearest the end, when he's talking about food quality and the small steps we can do to move up the chain and purchase more ethically raised meat. I also loved his section on feral and native culling as food waste which we could instead be eating!
I'm anti 'food-salvationism' — the idea that if we eat a diet of x, y, or z our health would be excellent and our world would be trouble-free. But, I buy his argument that we can be both more ethical to our animals AND get higher quality food — that the two go hand in hand (so obviously fitting of God's awesome design). We just have to be willing to spend a little more or eat a little less meat.
I reckon this book will stick with me longer than many a 5-star work, in the daily choices I make at the supermarket and beyond.
November 5, 2019
Five stars for Matthew Evans' research into animal farming practices in Australia. As freerangetarians, we pretty much agree with everything he has to say about the need for people to rethink factory farming chickens and pigs, and to be prepared to pay more for higher welfare meat.
Some people's response to these issues is to go vegan, however in Chapter 11 Evans sheds some light on the indirect harm growing fruit & vegetables can cause animals. For example, at one Tasmanian farm which produces 400 tonnes of peas per season, they have to kill 800-1000 possums and 500 wallabies every year, along with a few ducks, as well as many rodents. The farm owners have wildlife fences, but say it wouldn't be financially viable for them to grow peas without killing animals. Another orchardist Evans knows had to kill 120 possums one spring to protect his apple crop. And according to Professor Archer, roughly 25 times more sentient beings die to produce a kilo of protein from wheat than a kilo of protein from beef (mostly rodents).
The book leaves some threads loose regarding how much meat we should eat. Evans might be playing it safe by suggesting we should eat less, citing the factoid that it would require five planets if we all ate as much meat as Australians do. The problem with this conclusion is that what we eat is also dependent on our local environment and what it can provide. Much of Australia's land is marginal and could not sustain regular cropping. The question is whether eating less meat would help return more land to its natural state, or whether farmers would find other uses for it. It should be noted that it would probably require 20 planets if we all ate meat like Mongolians.
While better editing could have removed some repetition, I would highly recommend this book to "thinking omnivores" who can alter the system through the choices they make. I also recommend Evans' TV series "For the Love of Meat."
Some people's response to these issues is to go vegan, however in Chapter 11 Evans sheds some light on the indirect harm growing fruit & vegetables can cause animals. For example, at one Tasmanian farm which produces 400 tonnes of peas per season, they have to kill 800-1000 possums and 500 wallabies every year, along with a few ducks, as well as many rodents. The farm owners have wildlife fences, but say it wouldn't be financially viable for them to grow peas without killing animals. Another orchardist Evans knows had to kill 120 possums one spring to protect his apple crop. And according to Professor Archer, roughly 25 times more sentient beings die to produce a kilo of protein from wheat than a kilo of protein from beef (mostly rodents).
The book leaves some threads loose regarding how much meat we should eat. Evans might be playing it safe by suggesting we should eat less, citing the factoid that it would require five planets if we all ate as much meat as Australians do. The problem with this conclusion is that what we eat is also dependent on our local environment and what it can provide. Much of Australia's land is marginal and could not sustain regular cropping. The question is whether eating less meat would help return more land to its natural state, or whether farmers would find other uses for it. It should be noted that it would probably require 20 planets if we all ate meat like Mongolians.
While better editing could have removed some repetition, I would highly recommend this book to "thinking omnivores" who can alter the system through the choices they make. I also recommend Evans' TV series "For the Love of Meat."
July 20, 2019
A confronting read, even for one like myself who has already given the subject of meat production and dispatch a lot of thought. Evans has a lot to say about commercial meat production and it's a grisly business indeed . Pun intended.
Vegans don't escape his steely gaze either, as he makes the damage to animals and the planet caused by their own consumption equally as clear.
It's not all doom and gloom, however, and Evans calls for less radicalisation, a stronger focus on ethical farming and a more informed consumer base.
An important read for anyone who eats.
Vegans don't escape his steely gaze either, as he makes the damage to animals and the planet caused by their own consumption equally as clear.
It's not all doom and gloom, however, and Evans calls for less radicalisation, a stronger focus on ethical farming and a more informed consumer base.
An important read for anyone who eats.
January 5, 2024
I picked this up fully expecting to read about why veganism is the only ethical way to deal with animal welfare and eating meat. Thats not what this book expouses - rather, is advocates for eating *less* meat and eating meat from animals that have been treated humanely and allowed to do animal stuff. Like chickens that dig through dirt and get sunshine whenever they want it. Cows fed grass and have shade if and when they want it, pigs that aren't bolted into cages to give birth. It's also highlighted some historical things that have been lost over time - that meat used to be a special occasion thing, not a multiple times a day thing. That we used to have multiple breeds of chickens that taste different but we don't any longer as corporations figured out what's cheapest and grows quickest. That nowadays, *80%* of antibiotic use in Australia is on livestock as a preventative measure rather than anything actually wrong with the animal. It's a sobering yet informative read and it was refreshing to read a book written by an Australian about Australia; I usually get stuck reading US centric stuff.
The book isn't without criticism - he advocates for governments to take action, corporations to change their ways and individuals to change their buying habits. He acknowledges the problem is capitalism (cheapest meat = worst cared for and quickest to grow) but stops short of criticising that and assumes it's just a forgone conclusion. To be fair, he isn't a political commentator so I don't give too much if a negative mark here, it was just very telling from my perspective.
As for what I'm taking from it - I'm still gonna eat mostly vegetarian and continue to look for changes I can make to eat and use less animal products. Also going to try to ask more questions about the meat I do eat and eat it on occasion, rather than regularly. The biggest thing we can do is not hide from this - like everything, scratching below the surface and asking the what's and the why's is something we should all do and that includes the food we eat.
The book isn't without criticism - he advocates for governments to take action, corporations to change their ways and individuals to change their buying habits. He acknowledges the problem is capitalism (cheapest meat = worst cared for and quickest to grow) but stops short of criticising that and assumes it's just a forgone conclusion. To be fair, he isn't a political commentator so I don't give too much if a negative mark here, it was just very telling from my perspective.
As for what I'm taking from it - I'm still gonna eat mostly vegetarian and continue to look for changes I can make to eat and use less animal products. Also going to try to ask more questions about the meat I do eat and eat it on occasion, rather than regularly. The biggest thing we can do is not hide from this - like everything, scratching below the surface and asking the what's and the why's is something we should all do and that includes the food we eat.
April 15, 2021
This book was extremely informative, especially as it spoke to my local context and informed me of actual farming conditions that occur in my local food supply chain.
Essentially, Evans, who is a small scale regenerative farmer in my neck of the woods, wants people to take an ethical approach to meat eating that is not vegetarian or vegan. In fact, he argues very compellingly that veganism isn’t helping the environment or animal welfare, it’s actually harming both in some cases. He does a good job of straightforwardly confronting some scare statistics about meat that get thrown about, like how much water it takes to produce a kilo of beef (as soon as he starts logically taking this apart you want to facepalm for not seeing the flaws yourself).
Personally, as a Christian who is interested in grappling with what practical land stewardship should look like, I find his explanations of how beautifully designed the cow is to be nothing less than inspiring. Even its waste products are designed to nourish the earth, producing more grass which (while inedible to humans) is then converted by the cow into one of the most nutrient dense foods available to us.
I have found myself recommending this book quite frequently in the year since I read it. It has information which is useful wherever you live but for me I found it most valuable as a source of information about the meat I’m actually buying right here at my local shops.
Essentially, Evans, who is a small scale regenerative farmer in my neck of the woods, wants people to take an ethical approach to meat eating that is not vegetarian or vegan. In fact, he argues very compellingly that veganism isn’t helping the environment or animal welfare, it’s actually harming both in some cases. He does a good job of straightforwardly confronting some scare statistics about meat that get thrown about, like how much water it takes to produce a kilo of beef (as soon as he starts logically taking this apart you want to facepalm for not seeing the flaws yourself).
Personally, as a Christian who is interested in grappling with what practical land stewardship should look like, I find his explanations of how beautifully designed the cow is to be nothing less than inspiring. Even its waste products are designed to nourish the earth, producing more grass which (while inedible to humans) is then converted by the cow into one of the most nutrient dense foods available to us.
I have found myself recommending this book quite frequently in the year since I read it. It has information which is useful wherever you live but for me I found it most valuable as a source of information about the meat I’m actually buying right here at my local shops.
June 21, 2021
Very informative with a few perspectives I have not thought about before. Refreshing to not be battered for eating meat.
July 2, 2019
Well researched, argued well, and a worthy discussion to be had with those who argue that eating animals is unethical. It’s natural.
July 25, 2019
Interesting perspectives on the meat industry and good to read a “local” commentary instead of always hearing the United States ideas.
December 8, 2020
I really liked this book. For me it was a good balance between science and personal musings which I feel are both important factors when thinking about our consumer choices. There aren’t easy answers for a lot of these questions but it was good to hear another side of the argument.
July 23, 2020
God, I can't tell you how good it is to be reading again. After three months of closure because of Covid, the libraries have finally reopened! Yay!
I enjoyed this book. It's a topic I've been greatly interested in over the past three years and more intensely now. I want to know how to live my life the best way, but it's very hard to find a reasoned argument concerning this topic without both extremes pushing their agendas. Just like he's pointed out in this book.
We humans like to think with our hearts (and our guts), not our minds, and it isn't particularly helpful for those like me who are seeking the truth. Then again, is there a truth? Or will it only ever be a matter of perception?
It's helped answer some questions but it's also made me more confused than ever. One thing is clear, however—we need to be more mindful of what we consume. Not just what we eat but in the way we live our lives as a whole. It's clear we are making progress in a number of areas but when it comes to our food, in particular, we're going backwards.
We Aussies shouldn't be proud of our diets and what we do to the world because of it. We choose to be ignorant because it's easier to do so. It needs to stop.
Eat less meat, dairy, poultry, even eradicate it if you feel you should. A good start would be banning caged eggs from our shelves and completely eliminating processed meat from our diet.
I have doubts, however, that anything much will be done in the near future. Mr Evans has hope that we all want to do good—I disagree. From what I've seen, a good chunk of us truly don't care and many of us who do are unwilling to make sacrifices at the expense of our luxury.
I hope he's right ...
I enjoyed this book. It's a topic I've been greatly interested in over the past three years and more intensely now. I want to know how to live my life the best way, but it's very hard to find a reasoned argument concerning this topic without both extremes pushing their agendas. Just like he's pointed out in this book.
We humans like to think with our hearts (and our guts), not our minds, and it isn't particularly helpful for those like me who are seeking the truth. Then again, is there a truth? Or will it only ever be a matter of perception?
It's helped answer some questions but it's also made me more confused than ever. One thing is clear, however—we need to be more mindful of what we consume. Not just what we eat but in the way we live our lives as a whole. It's clear we are making progress in a number of areas but when it comes to our food, in particular, we're going backwards.
We Aussies shouldn't be proud of our diets and what we do to the world because of it. We choose to be ignorant because it's easier to do so. It needs to stop.
Eat less meat, dairy, poultry, even eradicate it if you feel you should. A good start would be banning caged eggs from our shelves and completely eliminating processed meat from our diet.
I have doubts, however, that anything much will be done in the near future. Mr Evans has hope that we all want to do good—I disagree. From what I've seen, a good chunk of us truly don't care and many of us who do are unwilling to make sacrifices at the expense of our luxury.
I hope he's right ...
January 27, 2021
On Eating Meat started quite negatively, as expected. Along the 'every factory farm is evil' track. The farms wouldn't let them inside, so they know they've something to hide. Maybe, it's because whenever journos are let in they bash 'em. And same here. Evans did come 'round to praising a couple of farms, but he shamed most large operations. There really should be some credit given to large farming operations for openness and receptiveness.
However, Evans did eventually get around to some of the positives and ethics on eating meat. He digresses on cat population control - a possible better focus for PETA. But perhaps two of his most pertinent points were:
1) Eating meat is often the most ethical and productive use of land. Steep land that is not farmable in any other way, might convert something we can't eat (grass) into a consumable product (beef, lamb). Additionally, we cull many animals that would be edible. Pademelons, for example, are our local pest here in Southern Tasmania, and they are delicious.
2) The proper treatment of animals should be championed by meat-eaters. Vegans currently do most of the fighting for animal rights. But they really have no skin in the game. If real change in animal treatment is to happen, it will be driven by people who eat meat and are willing to pay a fair price for quality, ethically-raised meat.
All in all, a well-crafted book. I think it could have been even better if there had been a focus on positive examples and a few possible (inexpensive?) ways for mass-producers to move towards more humane treatment of their animals.
However, Evans did eventually get around to some of the positives and ethics on eating meat. He digresses on cat population control - a possible better focus for PETA. But perhaps two of his most pertinent points were:
1) Eating meat is often the most ethical and productive use of land. Steep land that is not farmable in any other way, might convert something we can't eat (grass) into a consumable product (beef, lamb). Additionally, we cull many animals that would be edible. Pademelons, for example, are our local pest here in Southern Tasmania, and they are delicious.
2) The proper treatment of animals should be championed by meat-eaters. Vegans currently do most of the fighting for animal rights. But they really have no skin in the game. If real change in animal treatment is to happen, it will be driven by people who eat meat and are willing to pay a fair price for quality, ethically-raised meat.
All in all, a well-crafted book. I think it could have been even better if there had been a focus on positive examples and a few possible (inexpensive?) ways for mass-producers to move towards more humane treatment of their animals.
August 5, 2021
If you’re a convinced and rightfully passionate Vegan, this is not the book for you. If you’re the type of person who is unlikely to be convinced to question your nightly serve of Meat with small side serving of greenery, this may not be the book for you (but you should read it anyway). However, I’ve given this book five stars as it was written for people like me; open minded Omnivore, living a comfortable enough life to be able to question the source of my food.
This book somewhat confirms our worst fears about the commercial meat industry which a majority of us support with our consumer dollars. However, unlike many previous attempts at blowing the whistle on the industry, Matthew Evans provides realistic steps the average conscious meat eater can take to begin to change industry standards.
Whether eating meat at all is necessary is a separate discussion. The discussion we must have right now is where is our food coming from and do we agree with the way it’s being produced on our behalf?
I will be recommending this book to anyone that’s willing to have the conversation.
This book somewhat confirms our worst fears about the commercial meat industry which a majority of us support with our consumer dollars. However, unlike many previous attempts at blowing the whistle on the industry, Matthew Evans provides realistic steps the average conscious meat eater can take to begin to change industry standards.
Whether eating meat at all is necessary is a separate discussion. The discussion we must have right now is where is our food coming from and do we agree with the way it’s being produced on our behalf?
I will be recommending this book to anyone that’s willing to have the conversation.
February 22, 2023
2.5*
This book is fairly well reasoned and makes an attempt to look at a range of views and interests surrounding this topic. Matthew has clearly done a lot of thinking and a lot of reading about this issue, and his justifications are strongest when he refers to specific findings and studies to back up reasonable arguments.
Where I found this less enjoyable was when he discussed aspects of the broader issue he is clearly passionate about and has experienced in his personal life- feral cats, militant activists, heartless big corporations purely focussed on the bottom line, etc etc. These points were made....and then made, and made again. In a few cases the author ended up downright rambling and repeating the same things over and over, which felt a lot more personal and less scientific than some areas of the book.
I also felt that if this book is a result of 5 years of intensive research as he claims, I would have expected some mention of the ways in which his own thinking was challenged through that process. However, this books feels more like him saying "I do this, I live this way, I have thought about this, here are some facts to show why I was right all along"
This has the effect of coming across as a very lengthy project embarked on to reassure himself that he has a 'correct' and balanced viewpoint. I do agree with many of the points raised, but on the whole I didn't feel like the authors own journey and changing views came across.
I also think this book would have benefited from the weighing in of some of the people he broadly refers to, people who live those lives and possibly also some research experts/career professionals - rather than " I knew a guy who used to work in a slaughterhouse", and broad claims about vegans as a whole, I feel that individual opinions apart from he authors own could have been explored. Just as an example, I follow a vegan diet and have done for many years- I also agree with many of Matthew's opinions about the best way to approach these topics, the most sustainable ways forward for the world as a whole, the most logical and least impactfull uses of our land, etc. I personally do not want to go back to an omnivorous diet, but I acklowedge the benefits of locally and ethically sourced animal products for those who do choose to eat that way. Yet voices like mine aren't acknowledged, and instead Matthew comments on about 'vegans and activists' as a collective, and rants on about activists ruining things for everyone, and a judgemental preachy group not allowing their cause to really be considered. I think where either extremes of the topic are referred to so broadly, that is where this book is weakest and would have benefited from views beyond the authors being acknowledged.
Overall, I leaned a bit from this book, it was good to read something referring to Australian practices and situations as so many figures and documentaries etc seem based on the US, but the rants and generalisations brought it down for me.
This book is fairly well reasoned and makes an attempt to look at a range of views and interests surrounding this topic. Matthew has clearly done a lot of thinking and a lot of reading about this issue, and his justifications are strongest when he refers to specific findings and studies to back up reasonable arguments.
Where I found this less enjoyable was when he discussed aspects of the broader issue he is clearly passionate about and has experienced in his personal life- feral cats, militant activists, heartless big corporations purely focussed on the bottom line, etc etc. These points were made....and then made, and made again. In a few cases the author ended up downright rambling and repeating the same things over and over, which felt a lot more personal and less scientific than some areas of the book.
I also felt that if this book is a result of 5 years of intensive research as he claims, I would have expected some mention of the ways in which his own thinking was challenged through that process. However, this books feels more like him saying "I do this, I live this way, I have thought about this, here are some facts to show why I was right all along"
This has the effect of coming across as a very lengthy project embarked on to reassure himself that he has a 'correct' and balanced viewpoint. I do agree with many of the points raised, but on the whole I didn't feel like the authors own journey and changing views came across.
I also think this book would have benefited from the weighing in of some of the people he broadly refers to, people who live those lives and possibly also some research experts/career professionals - rather than " I knew a guy who used to work in a slaughterhouse", and broad claims about vegans as a whole, I feel that individual opinions apart from he authors own could have been explored. Just as an example, I follow a vegan diet and have done for many years- I also agree with many of Matthew's opinions about the best way to approach these topics, the most sustainable ways forward for the world as a whole, the most logical and least impactfull uses of our land, etc. I personally do not want to go back to an omnivorous diet, but I acklowedge the benefits of locally and ethically sourced animal products for those who do choose to eat that way. Yet voices like mine aren't acknowledged, and instead Matthew comments on about 'vegans and activists' as a collective, and rants on about activists ruining things for everyone, and a judgemental preachy group not allowing their cause to really be considered. I think where either extremes of the topic are referred to so broadly, that is where this book is weakest and would have benefited from views beyond the authors being acknowledged.
Overall, I leaned a bit from this book, it was good to read something referring to Australian practices and situations as so many figures and documentaries etc seem based on the US, but the rants and generalisations brought it down for me.
February 20, 2025
Do not be misguided by the cover (as I did) it is half factual and half memoir. (That’s how I interpreted it)
Well written and easily peaking interest. The author (who is a meat eater) has successfully portrayed this as best he can without too much bias.. I just wish he wrote this more through his farmer lens than a chef’s lens.
Alas. We move onto more technical things.
I’m disappointed with some of his chapters - I feel like there are things left unsaid and not spoken about..
why?
Is it fear of making the industry look bad?
Or is the information just poorly structured?
Was it even worth writing about if you weren’t allowed to legally explore it?
I’m perturbed by the frequent use of American statistics. I know Australian agriculture statistics are harder to find but you’re speaking to a mostly Australian audience about a completely different environment, wildlife organisms and population. I feel like the audience would benefit so much more from more realistic Aussie stats.
There was also a lot of repetition. Yeah you said that in chapter 2 and 10 and 12 etc.
I also was disappointed by the chapter dedicated to how to properly cook meat… writing a book like this, you should know that it’s going to attract a lot of non meat eaters too. It’s not that I’m offended, I just thought it was a waste for me to just have to skip over it as to me it’s irrelevant.
At least his anecdotes were sincere and seem honest.
He also speaks about the wildlife collateral damage of farming crops… wouldn’t it be in the interests of farmers and wildlife to invest in something that protects the crops from animal exposure?? At least to decrease the number of fatalities of wildlife.
It has successfully solidified my vegetarianism and has made me more knowledgeable and sympathetic to the practices of farmers. I admire the author for trying to discuss a very controversial and difficult subject.
“Animals have got feelings, for god’s sake.”
Well written and easily peaking interest. The author (who is a meat eater) has successfully portrayed this as best he can without too much bias.. I just wish he wrote this more through his farmer lens than a chef’s lens.
Alas. We move onto more technical things.
I’m disappointed with some of his chapters - I feel like there are things left unsaid and not spoken about..
why?
Is it fear of making the industry look bad?
Or is the information just poorly structured?
Was it even worth writing about if you weren’t allowed to legally explore it?
I’m perturbed by the frequent use of American statistics. I know Australian agriculture statistics are harder to find but you’re speaking to a mostly Australian audience about a completely different environment, wildlife organisms and population. I feel like the audience would benefit so much more from more realistic Aussie stats.
There was also a lot of repetition. Yeah you said that in chapter 2 and 10 and 12 etc.
I also was disappointed by the chapter dedicated to how to properly cook meat… writing a book like this, you should know that it’s going to attract a lot of non meat eaters too. It’s not that I’m offended, I just thought it was a waste for me to just have to skip over it as to me it’s irrelevant.
At least his anecdotes were sincere and seem honest.
He also speaks about the wildlife collateral damage of farming crops… wouldn’t it be in the interests of farmers and wildlife to invest in something that protects the crops from animal exposure?? At least to decrease the number of fatalities of wildlife.
It has successfully solidified my vegetarianism and has made me more knowledgeable and sympathetic to the practices of farmers. I admire the author for trying to discuss a very controversial and difficult subject.
“Animals have got feelings, for god’s sake.”
February 4, 2020
I wish everybody could read this book. Evans has his biases, but never lets them stop his probing thoughts from seeing someone else's perspective. He neither promotes the omnivore diet, nor dismisses the herbivorous diet; instead looks at the pros and cons of both, while trying to uncover the full spectrum of meat production and consumption in today's society. Having once been a chef, and now a pig farmer, he knows all too well what is required of the industry and the consumer, so can ask the right questions regarding ethics, and whether or not the industry has a moral obligation to the consumer. The book is told in short chapters, so detail never becomes a hindrance, but often in early chapters the remark is made that more about this will be told in a later chapter; for me this worked well as I was never getting bogged down or bored with detail or rants, so was able to flow from chapter to chapter, many times being wowed and stunned by facts. Perhaps Evans shows a bit too much aggression in Chapter 17, taking aim at the like-wise aggressive vegans claiming "eating meat is murder" often coming across heavy-handed himself, but throughout other chapters he makes it clear that he is open to listening to other people's points of views and ultimately believes that we all need to work together on our view of eating meat, how we eat meat, and just how much we eat meat. A thoroughly engaging read!
May 5, 2023
Matthew Evans presents an argument that advocates for the production and consumption of meat, as long as the animals are treated humanely. According to Evans, humane treatment involves providing the animals with a free-range farm upbringing and a quick and painless death. Amongst other things, he also draws attention to the fact that insects and wildlife are deliberately killed to ensure crop maturity for harvest, which is often overlooked by activist vegans. Evans additionally asserts that feral animals should not be treated similarly to native animals, as the former often kill millions of the latter.
Evans' ethical argument is unpersuasive. He frequently expresses sadness when he has to kill an animal for food or when it is severely injured, which raises the question of why he doesn't abstain from consuming meat altogether. Evans' argument is based on negative utilitarianism, which aims to minimise the total aggregate harm suffered. While free-range farmed animals may suffer less than factory-farmed animals, killing animals for food inevitably involves harm. Vegans and vegetarians follow a utilitarian philosophy that suggests that if one wants to minimise harm to animals, humans should not raise them to be killed.
Evans is correct in pointing out that the production of all non-meat food unfortunately requires the death of animals and insects. He also acknowledges that killing feral animals is sometimes necessary to protect native animals. If it is unfortunate to kill animals in such circumstances, how could it be justified to deliberately farm animals for slaughter? While some may argue that meat is essential for a healthy lifestyle, this is not supported by empirical evidence. Furthermore, advancements in lab-grown meat technologies may render farmed meat obsolete. Evans briefly touches on this subject but dismisses it without proper examination of the science.
In addition to presenting his argument, Evans chronicles his journey as a farmer in a memoir-like manner. However, with lengthy and garrulous sections, it often feels like Evans is writing to fulfil a word quota. Despite this, the book provides an easy-to-read and measured voice in the ongoing debate on meat consumption. For those interested in this debate, Peter Singer's 'Animal Liberation' offers a deeper philosophical argument regarding animal consumption and is recommended for further reading.
Evans' ethical argument is unpersuasive. He frequently expresses sadness when he has to kill an animal for food or when it is severely injured, which raises the question of why he doesn't abstain from consuming meat altogether. Evans' argument is based on negative utilitarianism, which aims to minimise the total aggregate harm suffered. While free-range farmed animals may suffer less than factory-farmed animals, killing animals for food inevitably involves harm. Vegans and vegetarians follow a utilitarian philosophy that suggests that if one wants to minimise harm to animals, humans should not raise them to be killed.
Evans is correct in pointing out that the production of all non-meat food unfortunately requires the death of animals and insects. He also acknowledges that killing feral animals is sometimes necessary to protect native animals. If it is unfortunate to kill animals in such circumstances, how could it be justified to deliberately farm animals for slaughter? While some may argue that meat is essential for a healthy lifestyle, this is not supported by empirical evidence. Furthermore, advancements in lab-grown meat technologies may render farmed meat obsolete. Evans briefly touches on this subject but dismisses it without proper examination of the science.
In addition to presenting his argument, Evans chronicles his journey as a farmer in a memoir-like manner. However, with lengthy and garrulous sections, it often feels like Evans is writing to fulfil a word quota. Despite this, the book provides an easy-to-read and measured voice in the ongoing debate on meat consumption. For those interested in this debate, Peter Singer's 'Animal Liberation' offers a deeper philosophical argument regarding animal consumption and is recommended for further reading.
April 3, 2022
A book written by a Tasmanian farmer and a chef who provides a honest perspective on the current state of our food production system. This book is a much needed bridge connecting consumers to farmers and corporations that produce our food and care for animals which end up as food on our tables. Grateful for the knowledge and wisdom on the ethical farming practices which Evans shared honestly and generously learnt from running his own small farm in Tasmania, as well as the gruelling insight into intensive animal farming practices which continue to dominate the food production system. Evans highlights the need for consumers, particularly meat eaters, to join the movement and conversation to raise the standards of high intensity farms, as well as use their $$ to support companies that are raising animals ethically. As a vegan, I found this book insightful and humbling, and found agreement with Evans on many issues. Our mere existence on earth harms ecosystems (the houses we build, the travel both by roads and air, and the animals which are harmed to protect crops that we eat). So the takeaway message it... as humans we cannot eliminate total harm, instead we can reduce it (minimise it) and that is a better starting point.
February 11, 2022
With a great focus on intensive farming industry practices in Australia and the World, Evans gave his own list of things wrong with what "is done in our name" to the animals in the care of this big factory farms.
Inherently we place a different value on the lives of different animals and different types of animals. In one of the more interesting analyses perhaps because domestic animals suffering is our responsibility whereas wild animals suffering is not? In the earlier chapters where these ideas were frequent, the book was at its best.
Moreover, the book at times was boring as it felt like it was just a long list of criticisms. None that I felt were satisfyingly explored just ticked ‘that’ box. Equally there was not much larger analysis as each argument seemed to fall in its own neat little box, independent from the one before it.
My main takeaways:
-Evans has a sustainable Farm in Tasmania
-The good farms are actually bad farms
-Evans has a sustainable Farm in Tasmania
-The bad farms are actually really bad farms (also they hate cameras)
-Evans has a sustainable Farm in Tasmania
-We should all kill our cats
-Honey is vegan (change my mind)
Inherently we place a different value on the lives of different animals and different types of animals. In one of the more interesting analyses perhaps because domestic animals suffering is our responsibility whereas wild animals suffering is not? In the earlier chapters where these ideas were frequent, the book was at its best.
Moreover, the book at times was boring as it felt like it was just a long list of criticisms. None that I felt were satisfyingly explored just ticked ‘that’ box. Equally there was not much larger analysis as each argument seemed to fall in its own neat little box, independent from the one before it.
My main takeaways:
-Evans has a sustainable Farm in Tasmania
-The good farms are actually bad farms
-Evans has a sustainable Farm in Tasmania
-The bad farms are actually really bad farms (also they hate cameras)
-Evans has a sustainable Farm in Tasmania
-We should all kill our cats
-Honey is vegan (change my mind)
August 23, 2019
Not a bad book but might be a bit 'heavy' for some, in regards to its content, and could very well put you off eating meat, or at least eating cheap meat. Evans, although mainly looking at the Australian environment, still makes many valid points for us here in NZ and opens ones eyes to the true realization that for many of us city folk, the majority of us would be vegetarians if we had to procure our own meat, rather than from the butcher, already cut up and placed in a nice container. I don't even like eating whole fish because I hate the 'eyes' staring at me. In a word, creepy. That said, Evans gives good reasons for both eating less meat and eating better meat, and being an advocate for being more conscious about what we buy and eat. Not a book for the squeamish (though he doesn't go into vivid detail of slaughter), some readers may have to skim over parts. Fine for older teens and up.
April 20, 2021
A thought-provoking book about animal husbandry and what goes on in the production of meat and other foods. At a time when people are increasingly ethically conscious about their everyday choices, this read serves as a reminder that we as ordinary consumers have the power to enact changes that we would like to see.
There are several arguments Evans uses that I personally believe lack conviction, such as the notion that converting to a vegan diet would "only" save 10% of greenhouse gas emissions; that is no small amount. Yet, the increasing demand for meat as developing countries progress on a socioeconomic level means that it is imperative that there is a balance between satisfying the nutritional needs of an ever-expanding global population and looking after our natural resources and habitats.
There are several arguments Evans uses that I personally believe lack conviction, such as the notion that converting to a vegan diet would "only" save 10% of greenhouse gas emissions; that is no small amount. Yet, the increasing demand for meat as developing countries progress on a socioeconomic level means that it is imperative that there is a balance between satisfying the nutritional needs of an ever-expanding global population and looking after our natural resources and habitats.
January 14, 2023
I don't say this often - but this is an important book. If you are a meat-eater then please read it. With vegans emboldened at the moment, the debate is usually framed in terms of whether to eat meat or not. The background is that Matthew Evans is a meat-eater and free range farmer. But that doesn't mean the meat industry is given a free pass. Instead he delves deep into how animals are reared, how they are treated and how they are killed. It makes for difficult reading at times. But it's timely and necessary. There is a discussion that needs to occur here, regarding how livestock are treated, between the farmers who produce meat and the consumers who buy it. And Matthew Evans has spearheaded that discussion with this book. I thoroughly recommend it.
June 15, 2021
This is an interesting investigation into the issue of ethical food choices, many arguments that vegans don't consider. I would, however like Mathew to answer the simple following question:
What is it, that IS true of an animal, that IF true of a human, would make it morally acceptable to farm those humans in even the best-described farms in this book?
--Would it be intelligence? - say if a human was as smart as a pig?
--Is it tradition? - say if there was a tribe discovered who had been farming and eating humans for thousands of years
--Is it the ability to verbally communicate? - Can we eat the mute?
What is it, that IS true of an animal, that IF true of a human, would make it morally acceptable to farm those humans in even the best-described farms in this book?
--Would it be intelligence? - say if a human was as smart as a pig?
--Is it tradition? - say if there was a tribe discovered who had been farming and eating humans for thousands of years
--Is it the ability to verbally communicate? - Can we eat the mute?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 64 reviews