Both Reese and Rayner write a critical review of Foer’s text, Eating Animals.  Now it’s your turn to join the conversation.  What is your review of Eating Animals?  Begin by explaining the controversial conversation about Foer’s credibility and argument that Reese and Rayner establish, and then enter the conversation by arguing whether you agree, disagree, or agree/disagree with Reese’s and Rayner’s reviews.  Develop your argument with support from the text (i.e. Foer’s ethos, pathos, and logos, or lack thereof), quotes from Reese’s and Rayner’s critiques, and your own personal response to the text.

In his book Wating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer discusses the faults in our meet production system. I like that he wants to expose the cruel ways in which we treat and slaughter our livestock. I believe that animals deserve to be treated with dignity, but for me the problem only starts when he tries to implement his own ethics into mine. He tries to convince his audience to be vegetarian or even vegan and I feel like the type of book that he wrote should be factual rather then a plead for vegetarianism.

            Foer was born and raised in the city, he has never lived, worked, or before writing this book even set foot on a farm. Reese and Rayner argue that someone that was born and raised in the city can be over sensitive and over emotional when it comes to raising cattle or other livestock. Simple practices like branding can’t be justified as animal cruelty just because it hurts the calf for a little bit. On the other hand, a whole lifetime of restricted movement and bad food is cruel and I think every animal deserves to be in nature.

            Jay Rayner argues that that some of the information that Foer used is heavely outdated and oes not represent the reality of today. “ The appalling stall and tether pig-rearing system that Safran Foer describes in such detail, for example, has been banned here since 1997 and will be banned across Europe by 2013. Likewise, free-range eggs now account for 40% of the market, a recent increase fuelled by the decision of McDonald's in the UK to use only the free-range variety.” ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/feb/28/eating-animals-jonathan-safran-foer). These are some of Foers’ premium arguments, which are now completely invalid. Some of his other arguments however remain strong as ever.

            Foer believes that the relationship between farm animas and humans can never work, and he suggests that we should just abandon them al together. However I agree with Reese “ … fixing the relationship is both possible and worthwhile. To declare that humanity should opt out of this relationship altogether strikes me as less heinous but every bit as arrogant and unnatural as the factory farm.” We have been eating animals forever, and to change this would be unnatural.

            Eating animals is a good book, and I liked learning the truth about where some of the foods we eat every day comes from. Unfortunately, as a college student its hard to pick and choose what you eat, sometimes you just have to take what you get. Eating animals does not have to be a cruel or unnatural process, and I agree with Foer that it would be better if it weren’t.