I had a profound love for beef a couple of years back. Whenever I felt hungry at lunchtime I would always slip off to the nearest cafeteria and begin to ponder what I would eat to quench the insatiable craving. I would often settle on junk food - fried chicken, a cheeseburger or the four-cheese pizza. However, the undercover investigations exposing extreme animal abuse in factory farms coupled by the increasing health concerns linked to the consumption of animal products have made me think twice about my love for beef and other related food. I asked myself: Is it ethical for humans to eat beef? This question is the subject of a raging debate going on in the food ethics. There are arguments and counterarguments on whether eating nonhuman food, including beef, is morally right or wrong. There are a number of things that we should take into account when deciding whether or not to eat beef.
First and foremost, I am concerned about eating beef because of the inherent abuse and cruelty of cruelty in factory farms. In his thought-provoking essay, the only way to have a cow, Bill McKibben asserts the indefensibility of the contemporary livestock production (129). Mckibben draws on the mistreatment of animals when advancing this argument. I strongly conquer with McKibben as far the unethical handling of livestock in animal farms is concerned. Today, abuse and cruelty of animals in these facilities has gradually transformed into standard industry practice. Think of an animal farm and what pops into your mind? My vision is often cows crammed by the thousands into extremely unsanitary, poor ventilated sheds. The animals stand on their own waste, inhale poisonous, choking gas emitted from accumulated feces and urine. Unfortunately, this vision is now a reality. Most of the animals are stuffed in huge industrial sheds, spend almost their whole life confined in such torturous sheds, are denied access to clean air and sunlight. McKibben holds that the companies that run the majority of factory farms strive to maximize output and minimize costs simultaneously – always at the expense of the animals (129). These corporations squeeze as many animals as possible into very small shades to make more money. Animal production practices that abuse animals for the sake of maximizing production, efficiency and profits are entirely unethical.
Furthermore, we should also consider the health risks eating beef poses to human health before making the decision to consume beef. Today’s intensive, livestock factory farming heavily relies on antibiotics to make reinvigorate the growth of animals and keep them alive in the filthy housing conditions. Most of the animal rearing companies deliberately embrace genetic manipulation of their livestock with the aim of getting larger animals. In Food Inc., Robert Kenner exposes the rot in the US food industry by unearthing the extremely mechanized underbelly of the industry that has remained a mystery to consumers. The film powerfully discloses new strains of E. coli that poses a serious threat to public health. According to the film, the deadly bacteria make about 73,000 Americans sick each year. Kenner further links eating beef (and other genetically modified animal foods) to the widespread obesity not only among children but adults as well.
In his essay, Why Shame Won't Stop Obesity, Dhruv Khullar opines that junk food contributes to the increasing prevalence of obesity and associated illness in the US (136). Khullar notes that many US citizens are subject to plenty of readily available “high-fat, high-calorie, and low-nutrient foods” (135). This is a reality considering the unprecedented amount of foods we increasingly take outside our home, and in larger portion sizes than ever. The doctor believes that this phenomenon trend has led to an obesity epidemic with about three-quarters of Americans reported being suffering from obesity or overweight (136). He further capitalizes on the alarming prediction - half of the US adult population will develop diabetes by 2020 to promote responsible dieting (137). The adverse consequences of eating beef are perverse. Research shows that lifestyle diseases such as obesity, overweight, and diabetes increase the risk of stroke, cardiovascular illness, and kidney problems, among other severe health conditions. Excessive utilization of antibiotics in animal production can also cause antibiotic-resistant bacteria that pose a serious threat to human health. Schlosser argues that unhealthy and overly processed fast foods like French fries, however much they may taste and smell great, are laced with artificial and natural flavors – both of which have adverse effects of human health (51). Consideration of the health concerns related to eating beef would help us make informed and ethical decisions.
Additionally, environmental consequences of animal production are another fundamental factor we need to consider when deciding whether or not to eat beef. McKibben believes that factory animal farming (eating beef) can potentially cause climate change (129). Beef consumption can harm our environment since animals release toxic substances like methane when farting or belching (129). These actions might appear unthreatening on the surface, but McKibben cautions that they could actually breed a bigger problem – global warming (129). The deforestation resulting from cutting down of vegetation cover for planting animal fodder, the fertilizer, and chemicals sprayed on animal feeds, and fuel used on the transportation of these animals exacerbate the risk of global warming. McKibben identifies that today’s cows are kept on a feedlot and fed cord, which is unethical. Shifting from feedlot farming to rotational farming and turning into vegans could lead a friendlier environmental particularly by reducing the greenhouse emissions (129). I also believe that grass-fed cows are a healthier option compared to their corn-fed counterparts.
Lastly, I am also concerned about the admissibility of the suffering and pain inflicted on animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses. In light of Singer, the perverse and malicious abuse is unethical because animals have the capacity to suffer or feel pain and enjoy their lives (104). We (humans) do not have a right to kill animals. Singer argues that humans and animals share a moral equality because both can suffer or enjoy their lives (107). According to the scholar, we should not discount or assume the suffering animals undergo simply because we are higher or better species than animals. Singer extends the equality humans and animals share beyond the species boundary and suggests that we ought to give equal consideration to the interests of all beings, including humans and animals since all can feel pain regardless of their respective species (105). Singer equates mishandling of animals to slave ownership as slave owners did not care about the plight of the blacks seriously. Since nonhuman animals have an inherent capacity to feel, Singer proposes that we should treat them based on utilitarian ethics. Killing animals for the sake of taste or luxury rather a necessity is morally wrong. We can survive and live a healthier life without eating beef. Therefore, we should choose the option that results in no unnecessary harm to animals.
Works Cited
Kenner, Robert. "Food Inc. [Motion Picture]." United States: Magnolia Pictures (2008).
Khullar, Dhruv. “Why Shame Won't Stop Obesity.” The Hasting Center, 28 Mar. 2012.
McKibben, Bill. "The only way to have a cow." Orion Magazine, Mar/Apr (2010).
Schlosser, Eric. "Why McDonald's fries taste so good." Atlantic Monthly 287.1 (2001): 50-58.
Singer, Peter. "Equality for animals?." (1993).
