In Cathy B Glenn’s article, “Constructing
Consumables and Consent: A Critical Analysis of Factory Farm Industry Discourse”
she talks a lot about language and how it is used to promote non-desirable
foods. Even though she herself uses her language to enhance her argument. However,
in the midst of her very large article the thing that stood out the most was
her basic desire to boycott factory farm animal products as her solution. She says,
“Because the use of factory farm animal products supports a clearly cruel and
environmentally dangerous industry, choosing nonuse (that is, refusing to buy
products associated with factory farming) is an ethically sound choice.” This
may be the “ethically sound choice” but is it the realistic choice? Often
people with incredibly strong views fail to see the world at large as something
that is very stuck in it’s ways. Radicals tend to believe that these drastic
choices would work. Certainly they would, if everyone did it. And appreciated, as
it is, Cathy’s faith in people, the evidence would show that people just couldn’t
all afford not to shop in locations that don’t offer food from a factory farm. One question would be, what are the small
steps people could take instead? What can be changed about these farms so that
people could shop from them at their cheap price? These are not simple answers,
which is why they are constantly debated. But asking so much of a struggling public
is unrealistic to the point of foolishness. Where else can change be made?
The truth is that poverty is no excuse for buying meat from factory farms. If one is truly poor one cannot afford meat at all. Daily meat is not a right of people and it is really only a cultural trend that is less than a century old. it does not look like Americans are willing to stop eating meat in the near future but that unwillingness in no excuse for bringing meat to the table in as compassion-less a way as i can think of.
ReplyDelete