Como Comemos

by Peter Singer, Jim Mason

Porque as nossas escolhas alimentares fazem a diferença.

Conveniência, preço e embalagem tornaram-se as forças motrizes da dieta alimentar. Mas qual é o verdadeiro custo das nossas escolhas alimentares diárias?
Para responder a esta questão oportuna e importante, os autores Peter Singer, o mais perspicaz eticista, e Jim Mason, um escritor ambientalmente consciente, empreendem uma odisseia dos tempos modernos simultaneamente chocante e reveladora. Começando a sua aventura à mesa de jantar de três famílias típicas, com gostos e hábitos de compras distintos, propõem-se determinar as origens dos alimentos que consumimos.

Genres: Nonfiction, Food, Philosophy, Health, Politics, Vegan, Science

400 pages, Capa Mole

First published May 16, 2006

About the author

Peter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.


In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty. 


Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.

Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.



Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.

Reviews

[Kim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastic book, written in a non-academic style, covering issues such an animal welfare, organic foods, locally grown foods (with a surprising twist on that choice!), and fair trade items. I found this book incredibly well researched, and open to empirical facts rather than demonstrating any blind allegiance to any one particular view point. After reading this book, I've entered into several conversations with vegan/animal rights friends of mine who generally criticize Singer, who was once the philosophical head of the animals rights movement, and is now seen generally as having "sold out" to places such as Whole Foods, for his shift towards animal welfarism rather than animal rights. I was directed to a website called humane myths that discusses the "myths" behind humanely raised food, though, I actually found it supported my animal welfarist feelings, rather than refuted them. Anyways, this is an excellent book, though I'm sure animal rightists would disagree, but I highly recommend it to all who wish to eat more ethically, and see that decision as one filled with nuances and trade-offs rather than as a black and white proposition as so many animal rightists do.

[Shaun · Rating 5 out of 5]

Out of all the books that deals with food, this is the must have book to read! I have been trying to find some chapters or segments that I can use to teach to my class about animal rights, food politics, and the environmental concerns dealing with food. I was expecting to only find a chapter or perhaps a segment to use. To my surprise, the whole book is worthy to be taught in class.

Peter Singer is well-known in philosophical circles as an ethicist and utilitarian. He has written many books about animal welfare and the farming industry. What I like about this book is that you don't have to be a philosopher to understand the principles behind this book. Indeed, this book was written for the common person. What I also like about the author's is that they are intellectually honest about their results. They aren't coming from any perspective and try to defend it any way they can. They look at the results and determine "this is the most ethical thing to do in this situation." So there are times where eating local is actually harmful, and there are some fish in Wal-Mart that's actually better than buying it wild.

The book takes you on a journey through three families. Each of these families has a different philosophy of eating food. In order, the book starts from (1) the conventional American diet, (2) the conscientious omnivore, and (3), the vegan lifestyle. I'll go in that order and display any interesting tidbits of information along the way. The book follows a simple formula where we explore a family's eating habits and then the author's trace the food to the original source. So if a family bought Tyson Chicken, the author's find out where this chicken is produced, how it's slaughtered, how it's raised. There were even moments where the author worked on a turkey insemination farm for a day.
The Conventional American Diet

Where does the typical family do their grocery shopping? Usually, it's Wal-Mart. Singer and Mason tag along with a family to Wal-Mart to see what this family buys. What do they buy? Oscar Meyer bacon, Tyson chicken, eggs, Gortan's fish. . .

* The Chicken: The authors bring up some interesting tidbits about chickens. With Tyson chicken, it's a factory farm. While visiting the farm, they mention that the chickens are cooped up in a cage that's barely enough space for their body mass. (Imagine being in an airplane bathroom for 24 hours a day.) Chickens naturally peck at the ground, but because there is no ground, they can't peck which causes them stress. Thus, they peck at other birds. This can't happen, so their beaks get cut off! The workers barely get paid. It's one of the biggest turnover rates at Tyson chicken.
* Eggs: The label "Animal Certified Care" doesn't mean much. It's the same as above with the chickens. The label was just a way for more people to buy the eggs if they thought the eggs were cared for. But it's a misnomer.
* Pork: Pigs are actually intelligent creatures. The sows, however, can't move around because they're in crates for their whole lives. As soon as they give birth, they are impregnated again. Their whole lives are basically pregnancy after pregnancy. Inside, pigs spend their lives in small concrete and steel pens. They can't turn around, roll, root or exercise. The stench from their excrement is so sharp that people wear masks, while the pigs suffer damaged lungs and eyes.
* Beef and Milk: Cows are given steroids to bulk them up for bigger beef. With milk, you have to impregnate the cows because they can't have milk unless they give birth. As soon as the cows give birth, the calves are basically discarded. After all, economically speaking, you don't need the calf (unless you're going to use it to sell veal), you just need the mother for the milk.
* McDonald's: McDonald's has been getting a lot of flack lately because of their high fatty foods. Over time however, the authors do contend that they are striving to get better with their environmental impact.
* Wal-Mart: The employees live off of almost minimum wage. They can't form unions and advancement in the company is so bureaucratic that it feels like being a peasant in a corporate world.

Again, it's the idea of these factory farms that evades our knowledge. Singer and Mason believe we tolerate the sins of industrialized food production because these practices aren't known to the public. As Pollan puts it: "Much of our food system depends on our not knowing much about it."

(Note: I could talk more about these chapters, but to be honest, I remember the end of the book more vividly. So if I give a bigger review about the vegan lifestyle, it's not because I'm short-shifting the conventional American diet or propounding the vegan diet. It's basically because, like all books, you remember the ending better.)
The Conscientious Omnivores

In a previous blog, I stated that I was a demi-vegetarian. However, after reading this part, this applies to me more effectively. Thus, I may go back and change my position from demi-vegetarian to "Conscientious Omnivore."

It's the same procedure again. The authors find a family and go shopping with them. Where do they shop? The family goes to a Trader Joe's. This is what the family buys:

* Niman Ranch Bacon: This bacon comes from pork that is raised in humane ways. No crates, no stress. The sows can take their time and they can actually build their own bedding if they want. Singer and Mason visit an organic pig farm, revealing that pigs are sentient and delightful, at least as intelligent as domestic pets. So the pigs are treated humanely. However, feedlots to feed animals thrive on corn. But the corn for feedlots requires chemical fertilizers. In other words, oil. Based on this, how much oil does it cost to feed a 534 lb. to a 1250 lb. steer? 284 gallons of oil just to fatten the steer. To know more about it, check this out: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUDCh7...]
* "Certified Humane Eggs": I was actually surprised by this chapter. The chickens are raised a little bit better than on a factory farm, but according to the authors, the floor was just a "sea of brown hens, so crowded that the shed floor was visible only down the center of the shed." They sometimes practice debeaking the hens if it gets to the point where they get stressed. But if they are raised humanely, why are they still stressed, I thought? Nevertheless, the eggs are laid in nesting boxes. The hens are fed organic grains which makes them considered organic. But the "certified humane" is what really surprised me. The hens aren't in their own personal cages, they were free to roam in the barn. But the authors were "disturbed by the fact that there were so many of them in a single shed, effectively unable to go outside, and certainly never able to enjoy scratching around in grass, or to be part of a normal-size flock in which they get to know each other as individuals." Detailing the cruelty in factory chicken farms, the authors conclude that organic or free-range poultry products are the only ethical choice.
* Seafood: Fish is depleting heavily around the world. Interestingly, however, the authors showed that buying the Gorton's Fish Fillets from Wal-Mart is actually environmentally better than buying it wild. It's mainly because the fish is Pollock. Thus, Horizon seafood (Horizon is known for selling organic foods) is worse than Gorton's Fish. Crab imported from other countries are the worst, thus it should be avoided. For farmed salmon, about five liters of diesel fuel is used to catch about one kilogram of salmon. Indeed, since salmon is the most popular, it causes the most amount of pollution. Shrimp, as well, is the seafood that causes the worst environmental hazards. Overall, the authors recommend to avoid shrimp (unless it's from Canada).
* Fruits: Ask yourself this. Isn't there something weird about buying apples from China when you can easily get it from Iowa? You would assume that eating local food would be better. However, the authors want to show that usually that is the case, but not always. If you're buying a local tomato (especially in the winter), then that farmer needs fuel to make the tomato. The authors calculate how much fuel is used compared to buying a tomato somewhere else in the country and then shipping it here. It's actually better, environmentally speaking, to buy a tomato in Florida than it is to buy it locally (unless to tomato is in season). With rice, it requires a lot of energy to grow it. Indeed, you would save energy by buying rice from Bangladesh, rather than buying it form San Fransisco. A better policy would be to buy locally and in season.
* Fairtrade: Fairtrade is becoming popular and the idea behind it is to help out the farmers instead of the corporation. Chiquita bananas is better than Dole, for example. The farmers who don't have fairtrade usually make about $7500 a year.
* Eating Out: Where could the conscientious omnivore go out to eat? Chipotle seems to be the best option. Too bad there's none in Utah. I had some in Texas. It's actually pretty good.
* Whole Foods Market: Of course, this is the market for these types of eaters.

The Vegans

These folks eat purely organic stuff and they don't use anything that deals with animals products. With this family, it's because they still see it as part of the system. Organic food contains less pesticides, it keeps the quality of the soil better without relying of fossil fuels for synthetic fertilizer. Of course, it's more expensive, but in the long haul, it's actually not. The manure from the factory farms spills off into the streams which makes the people unhealthy. The air becomes so strong that it can actually ruin your lungs (and the animals are living in it). Combined with other things, you'll have to go to the doctor eventually. But with health care, the taxpayers will have to cover some of it.

* Milk: A problem is that you'll need more cows to make more milk. But this also means that it produces more methane. Thus, just nip it in the bud and stop drinking milk. Vegans usually drink soy milk or rice milk. Indeed, the cows at Horizon are still crowded in pens and a dry landscape. What does this mean? Organic just simply means you were fed organic things. It doesn't mean that you were treated humanely. The authors conclude to avoid Horizon and go for Organic Valley, (which is nice considering that I don't buy from Horizon anyways from luck).
* GMO (Genetically Modified Foods): This is to be avoided because it's seen as unnatural.

Are Vegans missing something in their diet? Vitamin B12 is the main culprit. With protein, they actually get plenty of it from nuts, seeds, beans, and lentils. It seems odd that we're feeding 21 lbs. of grains just to produce one lb. of beef. It takes 1,584 gallons of water to produce beef. However, the authors do contend that eating chips actually uses up more water. Beef, however, is the meat that requires the most amount of water.

In the end, the authors present these three families and let you judge their own conclusions. However, the authors do want at least one thing. It's as if they're saying, "If you can't go vegan, try becoming a conscientious omnivore at the very least." The reason is because factory farms are simply unethical. They present arguments that factory farming is completely wasteful and immoral. To see why, go here. (It's not gross, I promise.) The ending is mostly philosophy, but it's presented with readable ease.
Freegans

If you don't know what freegans are, go here. I didn't know this lifestyle was politically motivated. Basically, you go through dumpsters searching for food. The philosophical idea is to get away from the industry altogether. If you're not buying food, then you're not supporting it. They avoid spending their money to those who exploit animals. But once something is thrown out, it makes no difference to the producer. If you oppose the abuse of animals, but still like eating meat, cheese, or eggs, get it from a dumpster. When the authors talked to these individuals, two of them were in college. Neither one uses their money to buy food because they can easily get it from a dumpster. Indeed, the authors point to studies that 40% of the food that's thrown away could've been safely consumed.

In the end, one could reply that eating the conventional diet is cheaper. In actuality, it doesn't fare out. Because the manure slides to the rivers, taxpayers' dollars are spent cleaning up environmental damage, building infrastructure, and subsidising fodder production (itself unsustainable). It's actually more costly to be on the Conventional American Diet. Even economists agree: Cheap, industrial agriculture is false economy. "Economists - even those who are loudest in extolling the virtues of the free market - agree that the existence of such externalities is a sign of market failure." Unless you pay the real price of production with local certified organic (in which case the pig has roamed, was not fed antibiotics or hormones and had limited transport), eating pork products is ethically (and economically) indefensible.

Singer has written books about the suffering of animals, and while he does mention that briefly, the authors aren't focused on that. Instead, they want to point out the environmental and economic aspects as well. It's as if to say, "You're eating this particular diet, well look how your eating habits are affecting the environment, animals, or the economy." They drive home the consequences of what we eat. We don't pay attention to that, and Singer and Mason point out that these are issues to think about, but more precisely, these are issues that we should think about.

I will finish with these last words. If you eat food--whether it's conventional American diet, a consciousntious omnivore, a vegetarian, or a vegan--you owe it to yourself to read this book!

[Kathy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Only read this book if you are ready to change the way you eat. Because once you read it you cannot go back to the way things were before. The authors explain what it is your actually eating and how it is produced. Once you know all the details it changes everything, especially about meat and dairy.
It's easy to be ignorant, as we lead busy lives and the media represents everything so nicely. It's always the big companies that have the best ads and are the cheapest so we buy their products the most, but in reality they are the companies that are the WORST.
I do recommend everybody to read this. Especially parents as what we are actually putting into our and our childrens bodies is not only bad for us but truely stems from Evil and Greed.
The authors are quite graphic in some chapters, describing every factual detail that happens behind these factory walls and I could not read some of it. I was crying and felt sick to my stomach. And I used to buy these products, which means that I was supporting them with my dollar. Not anymore. I have researched ethical Dairy farmers that treat their cattle humanly and I have cut out meat. Yes I spend more on food now, but it's really not that much considering that we have no problems spending over $10 dollars on a drink when we go out or spending over $100 dollars on clothes.
I feel so much better now knowing what I'm putting into my body is ethical and humane and did not cost the earth.

[Siddhartha Golu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ethics is hard.

If I've learnt something all these years, it is this universal maxim. Everybody wishes they'd make ethically sound choices in their lives, but more often than not, ethical choices are in contrast with cost and convenience. Nowhere is this more apparent than the way we consume food.

There are a lot of similarities between food and religion. Both are deeply personal choices which are erroneously thought of as having a clear, set winning answer. Both divide people into disjoint sets where they vehemently try to outdo one another in following "The Right Way". And of course, both are deeply political.

My personal journey in food, as in religion, has been quite tumultuous. Coming from a vegetarian family, I used to feel discomfort in sitting at the same table where somebody was eating meat, used to scoff at the smell of eggs and couldn't go near anything related to fish (this is still the case). Then somewhere along the way, I decided that I don't have a right to reject things which I haven't experienced myself and started indulging in this forbidden fruit. I tried everything I could get my hands on, but never reached that stage where I could appreciate the hype. Having gotten a taste of the other side, I made the decision to quit everything and slowly move back to being a vegetarian/vegan.

This was the point where I started to seek out reasons to convince me of my choice, and came across this book.

I wouldn't call this a balanced book in the sense that the authors' convictions are clear from the start, however where this shines is the way they use evidence to reach their conclusions rather than playing on guilt and shame. The basic fact remains, and this I have confirmed with many of my non-vegetarian friends as well, that we know too little about where our food comes from and our choices would be different if we were armed with this knowledge. The authors visit few American families and observe their eating habits, and then take us through some factory farms where the brutalities are quite graphic and sometimes hard to read and difficult to digest.

However, one qualm that I had while reading through these chapters, was the over-importance of ethics in our everyday choices. Not everyone wants to live a Kantian life full of moments filled with questioning their every choice. Life is hard to live anyway. I was delighted though to find a section dealing with this exhaustion:

Sometimes the very success of the ethical consumer movement and the proliferation of consumer concerns it has spawned seems to threaten the entire ethical consumption project. When one ethical concern is heaped upon another and we struggle to be sure that our purchases do not contribute to slave labor, animal exploitation, land degradation, wetland pollution, rural depopulation, unfair trade practices, global warming, and the destruction of rain-forests, it may all seem so complicated that we could be tempted to forget about everything except eating what we like and can afford.

I'm facing this situation myself when I eat eggs and drink milk in the morning - if every time I consume an animal product, I have to think about where this is coming from and whether I've unintentionally hurt an animal - to say that my day-to-day life would be unpleasant would be an understatement. However, we should be cautious of throwing the baby out with bathwater - the choice doesn't have to be between over-indulgence and starvation; we just need to be a bit more conscious of what we consume. To borrow an economist's favorite phrase: there's always a trade-off. We just need to be aware of the ones we are making.

All in all, I found this to be quite an informative read, albeit a bit dry in places, but would definitely recommend.

-------------------------------

This is also available on my website here.

[Sher · Rating 5 out of 5]

A balanced exploration of how what we eat matters regarding the health of our planet and for animal welfare. Peter Singer has long been an ethicist I've admired and enjoyed reading his works. This book looks at the diet of three American families --real people who are profiled as case studies. The authors go to the grocery store with each family, and then trace everything in their cart and explain where each of those food items comes from. Factory farming is discussed , organic farming is discussed, and the views of other well known food gurus such as Michael Pollan are reviewed.

Intensive pig farming and dairy farming was something I knew little about; although intensive chicken operations and cattle feed lots I do know a lot about. I've even been into and seen a chicken operation in West Virginia, and it's not something you forget seeing.

Labels -- how do they work. And when do they fool you.

The book looks at various myths such as - we must have factory farms to feed the whole planet- that's an idea I thought was true. Vegans are not as healthy as people who eat meat. It's always best to buy local, well sometimes that is not the best for everyone, and even for our planet-- a great comparative look at the times when you are helping to buy Fair Trade.

I found much to ponder in this book about my own food choices. And, what we choose to consume, where we choose to put our dollars, does matter!

[d4]

Worth a read/recommendation for anyone curious about the ethical implications of their eating habits, but doesn't want to be condemned for sometimes choosing convenience over ethical considerations.

If you've already decided being vegan isn't for you, then at the very least, this book will debunk some common labeling misconceptions as well as assist you in opting out of factory farmed meat and fish that has been caught in a completely unsustainable manner.

There's also an interesting look into whether or not eating locally is an ethical decision, and it's far more complicated than I had realized.

[Ange Rakocevic · Rating 5 out of 5]

everyone who shops in supermarkets needs to read this book!! having the pre-existing knowledge from Pollan's books on food and america's over-production and -consumption of food really complimented my reading of this, especially since Pollan is referenced a few times. I reckon a Michael Pollan re-read is in order...

[Heidi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I knew going into this book that I wasn't likely to get an objective, unbiased view of the food system from the author of "Animal Liberation" but I tried to keep an open mind. Most of the book is really well done -- informative, factual, thought-provoking, and well-researched. I read this shortly after reading "The Omnivore's Dilemma" so a lot of the information was familiar to me, but I appreciated the reinforcement of ideas I've already read about.

My biggest problem with this book is that Singer and Mason seem to feel that there is one set of universal, acceptable ethical principles by which people's choices should be guided. I do agree with most of their conclusions, but not all, and I kind of resent being told that there's an obvious ethical answer to a dilemma when I've reached a different conclusion. I also grew tired of coming across the occasional biased, non-objective comment here and there.

The book was also heavily focused on the ethics of eating meat, with far less attention paid to other ethical topics concerning the production of food in general.

Those minor complaints aside, it is a good read if you're interested in the food industry, particularly the meat industry.

[Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

really informative and interesting. This book convicted Jeff almost into vegegarianism... I suppose for me it is just making me think a lot about paying more money for lest crualty and waste. Even if you aren't a greenie hippy you should read this. If nothing else we should all know what it takes for our easy and cheap foods.

[Kay · Rating 3 out of 5]

(Disclaimer: don't take my review too seriously because I don't feel qualified to judge the quality of the book. It's definitely a good book, but I'm just rating based on my personal enjoyment) Really eye-opening but after like the first half I felt like I got the point. Learned a lot about how to make better choices (and how Whole Foods is actually a super cool and awesome concept until it got eaten up by Amazon!!!). But also learned that literally almost EVERYTHING will have some sort of negative impact on the environment or animals even when you try to buy local/organic. The cover a section on the ethics of dumpster divers/freegans which I wasn't expecting, but was interesting. Even just finishing your plate it an act of humanity of preventing waste, excess damage to the environment, and animals. I thought it was interesting how obesity (and other ailments of the affluent) are harmful to the environment because you are causing an unneeded and excess demand to purge environmental resources and farm animals. Best part of the book: I love the breadth of the effects of your dollar of what you pay for that is covered. A lot of people think vegetarians are just about saving animals BUT THERE IS SO MUCH MORE TO THE PROCESS. By making better choices, you can make an impact on the environment, animal cruelty, farm worker safety, living wages, etc.

Anyway, food is political (duh) and where you buy you food from whom you buy your food from is also political. So vote with your dollars where you can.

[Sarah Wells · Rating 5 out of 5]

As much as I’d like to think that times have changed since this book was written - the truth is that nearly everything in this book is probably still entirely relevant today. Despite having to accept a few statistics as outdated, it’s a fantastic summary of the ethical choices we all make every day.

[HD · Rating 4 out of 5]

You might want to read The Expanding Circle: Ethics and Sociobiology first before reading this book, it is a good intro to Singer's moral viewpoint. It examines the notion of ethics and rights of all beings, something he further explained in this book. Mind you Singer is huge animal rights activist so there's a good chance the arguments presented is biased (every argument is biased when it comes to 'ethics and morality' after all). Proceed with that information in mind.

The Ethics of What We Eat explores the impact our food choices have on humans, animals, and the environment. Is the food grown without pesticides or herbicides? Are the farm workers paid a living wage? Do the animals involved suffer needlessly?

Three quarters of the book is filled with arguments to persuade people not to eat recklessly and put some more thought into their foods, where it came from and how it was processed. However, recognizing that not all of us have the same moral virtue in food -especially in food- and become a vegan, Singer offer ways to make ethical food choices;

1. Transparency: We have a right to know how our food Is produced.
2. Fairness: producing food should not impose costs on others. Any form of food production that is not environmentally sustainable will be unfair in this respect, since it will make future generations worse off.
3. Humanity: Inflicting significant suffering on animals for minor reasons is wrong. if you're going to eat them, don't make them suffer needlessly.
4. Social Responsibility: Workers should have decent wages and working conditions.
5. Needs: Preserving life and health justifies more than other desires.

If you're having a good time reading a fictional story then reading it won't serve you any problem. However, you're gonna have a hard time if the only book you read is academic book. In that case, I'd suggest you to read Singer's journal instead.

[Anjuli Ayer]

In his recent work, The Ethics of What We Eat (March 2007), Singer and farmer Jim Mason investigate the shopping choices of three families with diets exemplary of our current culture: Standard American Diet (SAD), Organic, and vegan. The Hiller-Neirstheimer family lives in Mabelville, Arkansas, shops at Wal-Mart and eats the SAD. They choose their groceries based on convenience and cost, and are unaware of ethical values concerning food. The Masarech-Motavalli family lives in Fairfield, Connecticut, they are environmentally conscious, and they eat organic food whenever possible. However, due to busy lifestyles, they also base many of their shopping decisions on convenience. And in Othale, Kansas, the Farb family, a vegan household, buys organic, and to a large extent has a lifestyle to match their ethical views. The authors follow the families to the grocery store, partake in a meal, and question each family’s choices. Each family’s purchases are then weighed alongside the interests of all those involved in the food’s production. We are all at least marginally aware of the atrocities of factory farming and food production. Although the authors include their fair share of horror stories, the significance of the work is the focus on critique, not exposure to these ethical problems.

Full review: http://asmartmouth.com/2008/09/30/pet...

[Madison · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a very easy read that outlines the ethics of our food choices, from the standard American diet, to veganism, all the way to dumpster diving! The book is a little dated, and I’m sure some things have changed since its publication, but most of the information is still very relevant to the current conditions of factory farming. Singer & Mason bring up very unbiased points from all sides of the story. I specifically liked their view on how imported produce can be more ethical than local produce! I personally feel like everyone should read this book.

[Oanh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, but wish it was less US-centric (Why not, Peter Singer, have more about Aus food production? Or even a different edition in which the food production of Australia is explored?)

[Bibliovoracious · Rating 5 out of 5]

So thought-provoking. Amazing.

[Melanie Page · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really like the way the authors balanced all sides of the conversation. Shopping local may mean supporting a farmer who uses more fuel to make rice (out of season when customers want it) than a farmer in Bangladesh who grows it in season with natural resources and then flies it to the US. Plus, that Bangladeshi farmer may not make as much as the local farmer, so ethically, it's better to support the farmer in Bangladesh who is poorer. The author also looks at factory farming, and says that even Americans who make less money should still avoid factory farming because ethically it means animals suffer. However, the author doesn't talk about how poor American families can feed their children when they aren't buying cheaper products, which are cheaper because they're made in mass production. I was on board with the ethical arguments in this book until the very end. Then, the author makes the argument that poor Americans don't have enough money for groceries because they tend to spend all their money on junk food and soda pop instead of water. That's a pretty big assumption from a guy who's been carefully laying out an argument the whole time. He also suggests that being fat is a moral issue because it's a burden to the healthcare system and that fat people are just eating up a bunch of animals and making themselves fat, and their fatness is the result of suffering animals. Overall, the book started to get really repetitive in the last third or quarter. I know that ethics arguments like to build upon themselves, but the author would repeat what he just said and add on to it, and then repeat what he had added an add on to that. Plus, he suggests that calories are the important measurement of food. I realize I'm being simplistic here, but he makes statements like you can get just as many calories from a vegan diet that you can from a meat-eating diet. The goal is not to just eat calories, but to feel satiated and get through your day. The author seems to think that because Americans who are poor don't suffer as much as third world people who are poor, that there's more room for poor Americans to suffer. I did think it was interesting when he said that we spend far less on our grocery budgets today than we did in the past, suggesting that we're just getting a bunch of cheap food when our relatives in the past would spend more on quality products. That doesn't take into account the fact that Americans spend the majority of their paycheck on rent right now because housing costs are so expensive. The flaws that I see in Peter Singer's book may be the result of it being dated, and I hope that someday he updates this work.

[Gergely Kovács · Rating 5 out of 5]

Complete, overwhelming, disturbing, liberating. As strange as it sounds.

You should probably read this book too. And not because I became a vegan evangelist, but because you just need to know how commercial animal husbandry works. If not else, it's super interesting. Ignorance is bliss - they say and that's probably the most true when it comes to consuming animal products. It's shocking how much we don't know about the world and how a piece of information can transfer the way we look at things. Knowing that vegan options are so widely and easily available, and that it's more healthy (if you pay attention to a few things), resulting in much smaller ecological footprint, not to mention the really interesting ethical aspects, it's really not a big stretch at all to leave animal products behind. Not sure whether being 100% vegan would be a reasonable goal, but it will be hard to look at non-ethically produced animal products without guilt now. Knowing how much positive impact one can have on the world by going vegan alone is enough motivation to switch. Been almost vegan (with some vegetarian food still) for awhile now and it's no sacrifice at all. You gotta learn how to eat enough calories, but that's pretty much it. Give it a shot (both the book and the lifestyle) ;)

[Marco Gomes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good book. Dense on information, data, statistics. Difficult to read in some parts due to high information density. The arguments and stories presented on the book led me to try tge vegan lifestyle from now on, let's see how that goes.

[Faith Williams · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent and well-researched, this look inside our food choices in the West is worth reading. "Eating is a political act," as the authors say. 'The Way We Eat' goes in depth into modern agriculture practices as affecting land animals and sea creatures, as well as interviews families who follow the SAD, conscious omnivorism, and veganism. The book gives philosophical advice on the ethics of food choices, which I found to be helpful and not at all judgemental. I was already a vegetarian but the authors make a strong case that, because of the cruelties of the dairy industry (like it's complicity in veal production), vegetarianism is not going far enough if I want to eat an ethical diet. Veganism is probably in my future. For now, I am limiting dairy to organic, grass-fed, pasture-raised, etc.

[Shawn Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Follows three families and trails the source of each of their food choices. Informative.

[Alexa Fontanilla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Highly informative, made me reflect on the ethics behind my personal food choices.

[Ana Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must to EVERYONE!! Really
So educational, so informative, so clarifying and most of all in my vegan case so affirming and reaffirming about how even in that way I can change to the better still.

Do better, for the planet, for the animals, for life itself.

[Jolene Bear · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books on the topic in my opinion. Really well written, with enough detail to understand the dark truths of our food systems without feeling like your soul is being destroyed in the process. Highly recommend.

[Korin · Rating 5 out of 5]

God this book took me forever to read.

But it was worth it.

I have a real, physical copy, but you should see all the sticky notes I had in it. So many notes.

This book just cemented the whole “I need my own farm” idea in my mind even more. I don’t want to consume any factory farmed anything ever.

Husband doesn’t know it but as soon as I’m in control of our meals again, we’re sharply decreasing our animal product intake.

This book did it’s job on me.

[Mariana Ferreira · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Ghandi afirmou que a grandeza de uma nação e o seu progresso moral podem ser avaliados pela forma como se trata os seus animais.”

Peter Singer faz trabalho de campo com 3 famílias*, representantes de três tipos de dieta diferentes (Dieta americana padrão, Dieta Omnívora Consciente e Dieta Vegan. Ao longo dos capítulos, faz apartes acerca de imensos tópicos como o estado de arte da indústria pecuária americana com foco na criação bovina, suína e de aves, a produção de ovos e leite, peixe e marisco, comida orgânica e diferentes certificados e legislações (ou ausência delas) existentes, OGM, comércio justo e a ética subjacente ao consumo de animais - o seu impacto em termos ambientais, de saúde e sofrimento infligido nas cadeias de produção quasi fordianas. Para Singer e para diversas pessoas - comer é “um ato político” e votamos com o nosso dinheiro as realidades que queremos perpetrar.

Pontos fortes:

Repensar a ética. É propulsor de um movimento de maior consciência alimentar, que se ramifica em questões diretas de sofrimento dos animais, destruição de ecossistemas, poluição, sobre-exploração dos recursos e embrutecimento moral das gerações vindouras.
A ética não deverá ser utilitária - Deve assentar em pressupostos qualitativos, numa razão vital (conceito de Gasset), além do mecanicismo e lógica brutal ocidental utilitária.
Deve ser um novo patamar de consciência, ou uma consciência desperta. Uma ética prática, verdadeiramente ativa e reflexiva. Deve ser um eco interior, uma resposta clara, um chamamento, um dever - de empatia, compaixão, união com a natureza. A ética como terreno profunda e maravilhosamente humano. Uma anomalia feliz da natureza, uma ordem no caos, mais que um mote abstrato ou um entretenimento dialético de filósofos separado da vida real, da interpenetração dos mundos – do espírito e das práticas. A ética não deverá ser um luxo, mas a nossa natureza.
A ética atravessa a vida e, parafraseando a máxima de Sócrates , “uma vida não examinada não merece ser vivida.”

Viver eticamente é viver atento a cada momento, cada movimento, acção ou pensamento. Filtrá-lo com a razão e o coração, analisar o panorama mais vasto e agir - para o menor mal/dano possível e para o melhor bem possível (nas circunstâncias próprias e possíveis).

Critérios ideais para uma Alimentação Ética:

1) Transparência (devemos ter acesso facilitado à origem da produção, condições e certificados de saúde e de bem-estar animal)
2) Justiça (o preço dos produtos deve refletir todos os custos de produção, sem custos indiretos para terceiros)
3) Humanidade (infligir o menor sofrimento possível e garantir que os animais expressam a sua natureza – por exemplo, que os frangos possam ter espaço ao ar livre para bicar o chão, as vacas tenham pastos verdes e os porcos não estejam confinados em gradeamentos).
4) Responsabilidade social (salários justos e bem pagos, principalmente nos trabalhos mais duros como a cadeia de abate. Optar pela etiqueta de Comércio Justo que incentiva grandes desenvolvimentos transversais.
5) Necessidades (ter atenção às nossas necessidades reais permite que não haja sobre-exploração dos recursos. Devemos perguntar-nos o que realmente precisamos de consumir e se não podemos, muitas vezes, substituir ou reduzir. A ética está além do mero hábito, facilitismo ou até sabor, num panorama realmente vasto)


Dificuldades:

- No rastreamento claro da proveniência de todos os produtos, peixe e carne… informação incompleta muitas vezes. Necessidade de investigação profunda, ramificações imensas entre produtores primários, abate, distribuidores e corporações.
- Muitas pessoas não conseguem ultrapassar a dimensão hedónica da comida e a tradição, mesmo que tenham consciência racional da desumanização desta indústria. Conformam-se ao sistema passivamente e muitas vezes para se incluírem num grupo, conveniência (o que existe nas lojas) e dificuldade em transitar para um novo regime alimentar sozinhos. Toda uma discussão pode começar aqui. E não devemos catalogar alguém como sendo mais “moral” do que outra, com base somente no seu regime alimentar, claro, mas como tendo pelo menos uma orientação de consciência mais aguda e mais ampla, em relação à natureza.

Pontos fracos:

Escopo pouco abrangente: As realidades culturais descritas são os EUA e a Europa, essencialmente. Vai de encontro ao público alvo, mas carece de abrangência histórica e etnográfica, bem como de um maior número de casos positivos, relativo à criação animal. Poderá ser acusado de propaganda veganista, há um enviesamento no número de casos negativos, e poucos exemplos de casos verdadeiramente equilibrados do ponto de vista ético, de saúde e ambiental (Apesar de Singer fazer referência a alguns, na América, penso que poderia escrever também sobre a realidade Europeia das grandes cadeias de produção, bem como de outros países). Há o perigo de julgar as partes pelo todo. A atualização deve ser constante, temos de ter em conta o contexto em que este livro está demarcado.





///////////////////////////////////
Brain Storming:
 Até que ponto é a Cultura coercitiva? E o mercado? As circunstâncias financeiras e a própria estrutura laboral, que muitas vezes nos coloca em modo sobrevivência e não permite tempo para pensar, processar, tantas questões prementes. Contra os ditames sociais, a coerção tantas vezes existente para estarmos incluídos no status quo alimentar - O meu prazer gustativo não vale o sofrimento de um animal consciente (continuo a comer peixe, e tal deve-se a uma menor proximidade filogenética).
 Relação corpo-mente – relação religiosa com a comida, comum nas religiões ocidentais, conceitos de sujidade e pureza - São instrumentos heurísticos interessantes para um paralelismo moral. E por falar em moralidade, a zona no cérebro que se ativa por um estímulo de repulsa física (visto em RM) é a mesma que se ativa com a repulsa moral (Insula). Tal poderá explicar porque alguns vegetarianos conseguem converter-se por completo, sem deslize, a uma dieta sem carne (e peixe, nalguns casos).
 Carne criada em laboratório – documentário Netflix “O futuro da Carne”
 Mais que a informação, olhar é premente – ver a relação de um vitelo com a sua mãe, a consciência inegável, a rica vida emocional
 Não comemos cães, porque comeríamos vacas ou porcos? Têm que ver com a distância que existe entre nós e a sua criação e na maior barreira – o preconceito de que estes animais são mercadoria, comida.


*Anexo Estrutura/Síntese do livro

3 famílias:

1) Jake e Lee (Dieta Americana Padrão)
 O preço do frango barato, Wal-Mart, custos para terceiros

“ O culto dos preços baixos enraizou-se de tal forma na cultura dos consumidores que os grandes descontos deixam e ser novidades. são direitos” (John Dicker, The United states of Wal Mart)
(…) na Wal-Mart as pechinchas escondem custos para os contribuintes, para a comunidade, +ara os animais e para o ambiente.”

 Ovos (gaiolas), quintas industriais, poluição
 Alguns dados: 50000 porcos - o equivalente a 225kg diários de excrementos que inevitavelmente sofrem escoamento natural e contaminam efluentes e lençóis freáticos…
 Carne e leite – hormonas e antibióticos,
 Confinamento - (Na América: 90%dos porcos são criados em pavilhões, não há lei federal de “bem estar animal” (em vida), somente alguma legislação relativa ao transporte e abate (que muitas vezes é negligenciada, basta pensar nos frangos em linhas de abate industriais, cujos pescoços não são devidamente cortados e passam à fase seguinte: uma bacia de água a escaldar… ou porcas em gradeados demasiado pequenos para se mexerem, no sistema de engorda e gestação, e nos leitões castrados sem anestesia para uma carne com sabor mais apetecível ao paladar humano.

2) Jim e Mary Ann (Omnívoros criteriosos)

 Comida orgânica, certificados
 Peixe e marisco – Captura acidental e danos no leito do mar (redes de arrasto)
 Salmão – viveiros – corante artificial para dar cor rosada (natural no seu homólogo selvagem devido ao consumo de Krill)
 Antibióticos e pesticidas no mar devido ao confinamento que propicia a propagação de parasitas entre peixes (159)
Rótulo “Eco-worse”
 Poluição sistemática dos fiordes e sobre-exploração dos recursos: o salmão é um peixe carnívoro e juntamente com a ração come o equivalente ao triplo do seu peso em peixe.
 Comer local e sazonalmente 178,183
 Comércio justo (190)
 Flo – Fairtrade Labeling Organization International

Rótulo – obrigatoriedade de: salários decentes, normas de saúde, segurança e ambiente, possibilidade de formação de sindicatos, alojamento se necessário, proibido trabalho infantil ou forçado. Lucro adicional - em benefício dos trabalhadores ou comunidades onde eles vivem – a FLO exige “melhorias contínuas “nas condições de trabalho, na qualidade do produto e sustentabilidade do ambiente.

3) JoAnn e Joe ( Vegan)

 Comida orgânica – 237, 257,262
a) Saúde (sem hormonas, antibióticos ou herbicidas
b) Ambiente – mantém a qualidade do solo (reutiliza excrementos para fertilização), alimenta a biodiversidade, diminui poluição, menos energia envolvida
 GM – bom e mau – 254… ex: manipulação do arroz, por investigadores alemães e Suíços, (“arroz dourado”) para produção de betacaroteno, precursor da Vit A ( deficiente em muitas populações do terceiro mundo e responsável pela cegueira em crianças com menos de 5 anos (mais de 2,8 milhões de casos).
 Perigo de polinização de espécies selvagens, cruzamento génico com repercussões impossíveis de prever (como uma planta resistente a insetos que se torna uma praga no seu habitat).
Veganismo
 Argumentos pró – 275, 277, 278, 279
 “Criar animais com base numa alimentação de cereais continua a ser um desperdício. Muito longe de aumentar a quantidade total de alimentos disponíveis para consumo humano, contribui para reduzi-la. “;
 (…) A floresta tropical amazónica, por exemplo, continua a ser desbravada a uma taxa anual de 25000 km2 (…) para a criação de gado e cultivo de rebentos de soja para alimentar animais. Isso traduz-se em 11 acres derrubados por minut0”
 “No caso dos porcos, são necessários cerca de 6 quilos para produzir um quilo de carne sem osso “. Para frangos: “ (…) a taxa de conversão cereal-para-carne em 3 para 1, incluindo ossos e água”.
Quanto à água utilizada: relatório de Chapagain e Hoekstra (publicado pela UNESCO em 2004) –“ apresenta um consumo medio global para a carne de bovino de 14000 litros de água por quilo, com uma média de 11500 litros para a carne produzida nos EUA”

 Argumentos contra – défice nutricional? Singer não fala de questões relevantes como o défice de OMEGA 3, se bem que existam suplementos para esse défice, bem como B12 (mesmo omnívoros podem ter deficiência porque a maioria do gado alimenta-se à base de cereais e não de pasto verde).

 Falácias Carnívoras (289-291)

a) "Não temos deveres para com os animais"
b) "Defesa “Benjamin Franklin” (citar) ou a ordem natural das coisas/ cadeia alimentar/ domínio “natural”
“Porém, este ´argumento da natureza`, pode justificar todas as espécies de iniquidades, incluindo o domínio dos homens sobre as mulheres e o abandono dos fracos e doentes na berma da estrada. Porém, mesmo que os argumentos fossem consistentes, só funcionariam com as pessoas que ainda vivem numa sociedade de caçador recolector, pois a maneira como criamos os animais hoje em dia não e absolutamente nada ´natural”.
c) Prática Cultural ou sabor (292)

“O grande sofrimento infligido aos animais pela agricultura industrial não prevalece sobre uma possível perda de satisfação gastronómica causada pela eliminação na dieta de carne de animais criados em quintas industriais”

 Quanto a uma diferença de espécies como argumento? É puramente especismo, o argumento de nível de inteligência ou grau emocional é insuficiente
“E também não é o potencial dos recém-nascidos para desenvolverem essas capacidades que marca a distinção moral crucial, porque ficaríamos igualmente chocados com qualquer pessoa que propusesse um tratamento igual para os seres humanos nascidos com deficiências intelectuais graves e irreversíveis. No entanto, se não temos em consideração diferenças de inteligência, capacidades para os nossos fins, como podemos apontar as mesmas características para justificar a exploração de membros de outras espécies? (…) não se baseia em distinções morais válidas. É um sinal de especismo, um preconceito que prevalece porque é conveniente para o grupo dominante, neste caso não brancos ou homens, mas seres humanos.”

 Domesticação e exploração permite existência desses mesmos seres mas tal compensa todo o sofrimento envolvido nas cadeias industriais?

“E se nos abstivermos de derrubar florestas e usar a terra desflorestada pra criar gado, isso significa que beneficiámos os animais selvagens de uma forma que nos dá o direito de os matar e comer? Parece uma nação mais poderosa a dizer a outra mais fraca: Poderíamos matar-vos a todos e ficar com a vossa terra, mas como decidimos não o fazer terão de ficar agradecidos e trabalhar nas nossas plantações.” (306)

[Alexander Landerman · Rating 5 out of 5]

This isn't an easy read, but its worth it.

[Deb Omnivorous Reader · Rating 3 out of 5]

Described as a landmark work on the practices of factory farming and environmentalism This was a pretty good book. It is not the first of it’s type that I have read, but it is well done and worth reading the information over and from a different perspective. It would be a great book to introduce an intelligent reader to factory farming concerns, pollution and regulation issues.

This book had the novel approach of introducing the reader to three families and researching the food they would buy and consume on average. It was a good way to introduce the different types of foods, the different types of food production and the different types of practices and ethics that people bring to their dinner table. The three types of families can be summarised as;
1) Mainstream, economically driven household with few food concerns other that basic health.
2) Omnivorous, yet healthy household with awareness of environmental and ethical concerns.
3) Intelligently vegan, strongly ethics driven ideology and research based food consumption.

Most of the book appeared well researched, it was well written and made it's aims and goals for each section clear. The points were made very well and there was no tendency to preach or try and force the reader into a particular belief pattern, at least so I felt.

Chapter seventeen starts tying the practices together with the ‘ethics’ described in the title, particularly the ethics of eating meat. And that was the point where I started becoming actively critical. I have yet to find a book about ethics OR food with which I wholeheartedly agree. Show me such a book and I will (I suspect) show you the face of a stunned mullet. So it is probably unsurprising that I didn't like chapter seventeen since the attempt at a philosophical discussion of ethics struck me as superficial to the point of meaninglessness. This chapter seemed to meander aimlessly with little focus and it often seemed to me at best banal and at times downright silly. I get what the authors are trying to do, it may be effective for someone who is new to reading this type of work, but it was not for me.

The criticisms of small scale farming especially failed to convince: I am pretty sure that it was Thomas Hobbes who claimed that life in nature was nasty, brutish and short, well, so are farms. I know this because I have lived on a few and cruising ones that are genuinely trying to improve modern farming practices in the West annoys me. The authors seem concerned that, no matter what, slaughter of animals may cause those animal’s pain and distress. You reckon...?

The summary of the entirety of the book in chapter eighteen it good, it recaps the points made in the book neatly.

The final section “Food is ethical but you don’t have to be fanatical about it” once again meanders a bit. No, that is too kind; it seems to totally lose the plot. The authors repeatedly claim that in their opinion you don’t have to eat ethically all the time, but seem to criticise those who fail to do so. They appear more concerned with ‘promoting conversations’ with the unknowing that with eating according to your ethics. So I ended up with quite mixed messages about their final summary.
At the end of the book is a section about where to find ethical food in Australia which is useful. The very occasional, very brief references to Australia throughout the book were good too, though in general it was about America.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I was four years old, I became a vegetarian by choice. I lived in a small town and we raised some chickens on our land. I think our chickens had good lives, and I vaguely remember happily collecting their eggs. One day, I witnessed my grandma slaughter one of our chickens. From what I can remember, I think she cut its head off, and it continued to run around a bit after. Since I was so young, my memories about this incident aren't vivid, but my mom still remembers. She says that my relatives came over to eat the chicken; meanwhile, I sat in the fetal position under the table, crying, "I don't eat dead chicken...I don't eat dead chicken..."

Somewhere in my teens I started eating meat again. But I think I may have been onto something when I was four years old: I considered food choices to be an ethical concern. I knew nothing about the food industry. Hell, I didn't even know what the word "ethics" meant. I was four. But my decision to give up "eating dead chicken" was ethically motivated. Had I toured a factory farm, I'm sure I would have been commending my relatives for choosing to eat a humanely raised chicken and sparing the fate of a factory farmed chicken, even if for only one meal. And I would have better appreciated the eggs that my family ate from humanely kept chickens, as opposed to the vast majority of eggs on the market that are laid by suffering chickens living miserable lives in battery cages.

In most cases, I think it's better to know than not to know. Even when knowing might be inconvenient.

I'm really grateful for this book. The amount of research that went into it is impressive. The authors visited three families who ate three very different meals. They then tracked down as much information as possible about where each food product came from. This included many visits to various farms and interviews with producers. They even applied for and accepted jobs at a factory farm in order to see what it's really like, up close and personal.

So much of this book is just pure information. Knowing where our food comes from can definitely help us make better decisions about what we choose to eat. Our food choices affect our world. What we eat is an ethical matter because it affects the well-being of others. If you want to avoid contributing to the unnecessary suffering of people and other animals, then it's good to know the facts.

I found the sections explaining issues around genetically modified organisms, organic food, fair trade products and eating locally especially informative. Singer and Mason demystify these issues, explaining what they are and dispelling common misperceptions. They treat each issue very even-handedly, providing arguments both for and against each thing and providing very reasonable critiques. I now feel that I can make much better choices when it comes to buying things related to these issues.

I don't think I'll ever see food in the same way again. I can really appreciate it at a different level. I'm glad to know that I can make the world a better place through what I choose to eat.

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've enjoyed reading this book. It truly opened my eyes to the cruel practices of the food industry along with the term "factory farming." The book has made me want to enforce the vegetarian practices I've began to maintain, especially during my Spring Break (I thought my parents would make meat-related products, but I've seemed to do excellently well in avoiding them.).

With this said, I do not believe that everyone who reads this book will immediately begin questioning where their food originates. However, I believe one will notice the vegetarians and vegans (and the freegans) out there and be potentially more open to the idea...for those who can be open-minded people. My Mom does a lot of the shopping of food in the house, and she truly is closed-minded. When the book said to not be fooled by "all-natural" or "fresh," it made me truly question my Mom's words of wisdom over the years. She believes that restaurants like Baja Fresh, Subway, etc. are "fresh," but where does the food come from? She has failed to do that, although shockingly enough, my Mom recently told me she does not buy food from Africa.

As a son, I've come to realize that my parents will respect my eating decisions, and will understand a change in taste buds. While I admire my Mom's cooking, I cannot admire her close-mindedness to how food is grown nor the environmental impacts it has. My family does not support environmentalism and I see this in many ways. My Mom and little brother will leave the lights on during the day for the enhancement of their vision while I support natural lighting, or my parents will put many lights too extra for the same purpose. I complain continuously that it's blinding and actually in a way a distraction from my work, but refuse to listen to me (I have one light in my bedroom that supports natural lighting. All the others are artifical other than the sunlight that pierces through my window.). For the reasons of her closed-mindedness, I choose to be well-informed over fall into the lies and other things that exist.

Besides from this though, I support the book's philosophical nature as it truly adds to the need to keep in mind the animals. The questions on morality it proposes truly makes one question human nature, and while I still say I do not know, I can say comfortably now that I know one thing of morality from this book. We have moral obligations, and one of the most definite I've seen is the protection of human nature, which right now is mostly not being done. I look forward to further research of the vegetarian and vegan diets. :)

Jeff, thank you for the honor of reading this book. If you don't mind, I want to keep it a bit longer for my last speech in Communications. I think it's time I try convincing some people of vegetarianism.