Eating Animals

Much like Chapter 4, “Hiding/Seeking,” Foer presents multiple testimony sections in this chapter, including Nicolette and Bill Niman and Bruce Friedrich. Unlike Chapter 4, where the testimonies were either against or for factory farming, this chapter includes varying perspectives. Both Bill and Nicolette value ethical farming, but Bruce’s perspective as a member of PETA sheds some light on how farming animals, regardless of the intentions of good farmers, can still be problematic. While Bill and Nicolette take good care of their animals and provide a good life for them up until slaughter, Bruce recalls that farming animals is still akin to slavery. The good life that these animals are given, according to Bruce, does not outweigh their captivity, their eventual slaughter, and the conceptual degradation that comes with holding animals as lesser beings. Bruce’s arguments cover a variety of points that Foer has brought up already, such as the fact that meat is not needed for survival any longer, and that alternative diets are healthier and more sustainable for the environment. Foer indicates that Social Responsibility, the Environment, and Starvation are inherently linked to the individual choices we make. Nicolette takes a stance that is like Foer’s own, as she believes that vegetarianism is a matter of personal choice. Nicolette abstains from eating meat, yet she is married to and assists Bill in running a business that produces animals for consumption.

Though Nicolette’s profession seems contradictory, she is matched by the unnamed vegan person that Foer interviews, who is currently designing a mobile slaughterhouse. Both Nicolette and the vegan designer are consciously abstaining from meat consumption, yet they are actively contributing to the business of selling and consuming meat. This situation is not as contradictory, however, when viewed through the same lens that Foer applies to eating animals. All three have decided that they do not want to eat meat, though Nicolette says she “can’t go to the word wrong” (225) in describing carnivory, because they are not willing to make that choice for other people. Foer seems dubious about Nicolette’s position, and he finds Bill’s even more tenuous, as he has a difficult time explaining his feelings about slaughtering the animals that he has raised. For both Nicolette and Bill, there are elements of Foer’s idea of forgetting, as both ranchers seem to willfully ignore or forget the elements of their jobs that are most disconcerting.

Bill’s “deep breath” pairs with his and Nicolette’s insistence on branding as a cruel but necessary measure to cast doubt on their ethical position. Foer notes how branding is essentially a tradition, rather than a practical measure, and yet both Bill and Nicolette claim that branding is needed. It is unlikely that two seasoned ranchers would have any confusion on how “rustling,” or stealing cattle, works, so it can be assumed that they know branding is ineffective. If the couple are truly working to become a more ethical farm, then Foer believes that they should stop branding. However, Foer thinks that this is likely another situation in which Bill would take a “deep breath” and push forward with the practice, despite the cruelty. An interesting note that Foer includes is the growing desire among consumers for ethically sourced meat, which often leads Frank Reese to have more orders than he can fill. Niman Ranches, with a similar reputation for humane practices, can then be assumed to have a similar degree of demand. Considering that Bill and Nicolette still brand their animals, and Frank struggles to find ethical slaughterhouses, this demand mirrors the demand that factory farms use to excuse their unethical practices. If demand for Reese’s turkeys and Niman’s animals increases, Foer may be suggesting that they, too, will accept more unethical practices to help meet demands. In the end, this line of reasoning contributes to Foer’s decision to become a permanent vegetarian, as there is no way to guarantee that even the most ethical farms will always remain ethical. As demand from selective omnivores, or those that choose to only eat ethically sources meat, increases, the odds of ethical farms maintaining their ethical practices decrease, and then ethical farms may become precisely the kinds of farms that they currently seek to replace.