A scorching manifesto on the ethics of eating meat by the best placed person to write about it - farmer and chef Matthew Evans, aka The Gourmet Farmer. 'Compelling, illuminating and often confronting, On Eating Meat is a brilliant blend of a gastronome's passion with forensic research into the sources of the meat we eat. Matthew Evans brings his unflinching honesty - and a farmer's hands-on experience - to the question of how to be an ethical carnivore.' Hugh Mackay 'Intellectually thrilling - a book that challenges both vegans and carnivores in the battle for a new ethics of eating. This book will leave you surprised, engrossed and sometimes shocked - whatever your food choices.' Richard Glover How can 160,000 deaths in one day constitute a 'medium-sized operation'? Think beef is killing the world? What about asparagus farms? Or golf? Eat dairy? You'd better eat veal, too. Going vegan might be all the rage, but the fact is the world has an ever-growing, insatiable appetite for meat - especially cheap meat. Former food critic and chef, now farmer and restaurateur Matthew Evans grapples with the thorny issues around the ways we produce and consume animals. From feedlots and abattoirs, to organic farms and animal welfare agencies, he has an intimate, expert understanding of the farming practices that take place in our name. Evans calls for less radicalisation, greater understanding, and for ethical omnivores to stand up for the welfare of animals and farmers alike. Sure to spark intense debate, On Eating Meat is an urgent read for all vegans, vegetarians and carnivores.

Vegetarians have argued at great length that meat-eating is wrong. Even so, the vast majority of people continue to eat meat, and even most vegetarians eventually give up on their diets. Does this prove these people must be morally corrupt? In Why It’s OK to Eat Meat, Dan C. Shahar argues the answer is no: it’s entirely possible to be an ethical person while continuing to eat meat—and not just the "fancy" offerings from the farmers' market but also the regular meat we find at most supermarkets and restaurants. Shahar’s examination forcefully echoes vegetarians’ concerns about the meat industry’s impacts on animals, workers, the environment, and public health. However, he shows that the most influential ethical arguments for avoiding meat on the basis of these considerations are ultimately unpersuasive. Instead of insisting we all become vegetarians, Shahar argues each of us has broad latitude to choose which of the world’s problems to tackle, in what ways, and to what extents, and hence people can decline to take up this particular form of activism without doing anything wrong. Key Features First book-length defense of meat-eating written for a popular audience Punchy, accessible introduction to the multifaceted debate over the ethics of eating meat Includes pioneering new examinations of humane labeling practices Shows why appeals to universalized patterns of behavior can’t vindicate vegetarians’ claims that there’s a duty to avoid meat Develops a novel theory of ethical activism with potential applications to a wide range of other issues

Meat eating is often a contentious subject, whether considering the technical, ethical, environmental, political, or health-related aspects of production and consumption. This book is a wide-ranging and interdisciplinary examination and critique of meat consumption by humans, throughout their evolution and around the world. Setting the scene with a chapter on meat’s role in human evolution and its growing influence during the development of agricultural practices, the book goes on to examine modern production systems, their efficiencies, outputs, and impacts. The major global trends of meat consumption are described in order to find out what part its consumption plays in changing modern diets in countries around the world. The heart of the book addresses the consequences of the "massive carnivory" of western diets, looking at the inefficiencies of production and at the huge impacts on land, water, and the atmosphere. Health impacts are also covered, both positive and negative. In conclusion, the author looks forward at his vision of “rational meat eating”, where environmental and health impacts are reduced, animals are treated more humanely, and alternative sources of protein make a higher contribution. Should We Eat Meat? is not an ideological tract for or against carnivorousness but rather a careful evaluation of meat's roles in human diets and the environmental and health consequences of its production and consumption. It will be of interest to a wide readership including professionals and academics in food and agricultural production, human health and nutrition, environmental science, and regulatory and policy making bodies around the world.

Roughly 95% of Americans don't appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human? As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don't eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don't put away your steak knife just yet. In Eat Meat... Or Don't, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it's ultimately a book about critical thinking. But moral facts shouldn't be confused with ideology. When it comes to moral choices, there are better ones, and there are worse ones. If you act rationally and ethically and have adopted a good moral framework, you might come to the justified conclusion that eating meat is unethical... or you might not. Regardless of your conclusion, you will almost certainly realize that eating less meat is a fantastic idea for your health, the environment, and especially animals, and it's an easily achievable goal that will change your life for the better.

From a vital new voice in food ethics comes a smart, nuanced investigation into the current meat debate. Our future diet will be shaped by diverse forces. It will be shaped by novel technologies, by geopolitical tensions, and the evolution of cultural preferences, by shocks to the status quo— pandemics and economic strife, the escalation of the climate and ecological crises—and by how we choose to respond. It will also be shaped by our emotions. It will be shaped by the meat paradox. "Should we eat animals?” was, until recently, a question reserved for moral philosophers and an ethically minded minority, but it is now posed on restaurant menus and supermarket shelves, on social media and morning television. The recent surge in popularity for veganism in the UK, Europe and North America has created a rupture in the rites and rituals of meat, challenging the cultural narratives that sustain our omnivory. In The Meat Paradox, Rob Percival, an expert in the politics of meat, searches for the evolutionary origins of the meat paradox, asking when our relationship with meat first became emotionally and ethically complicated. Every society must eat, and meat provides an important source of nutrients. But every society is moved by its empathy. We must all find a way of balancing competing and contradictory imperatives. This new book is essential reading for anyone interested in the origins of our empathy, the psychology of our dietary choices, and anyone who has wondered whether they should or shouldn't eat meat.

This volume collects twelve new essays by leading moral philosophers on a vitally important topic: the ethics of eating meat. Some of the key questions examined include: Are animals harmed or benefited by our practice of raising and killing them for food? Do the realities of the marketplace entail that we have no power as individuals to improve the lives of any animals by becoming vegetarian, and if so, have we any reason to stop eating meat? Suppose it is morally wrong to eat meat--should we be blamed for doing so? If we should be vegetarians, what sort should we be?

For anyone who has ever wondered about the ethics of killing animals for food, this is the definitive collection of essays on the ethical debate. Written by internationally recognized scholars on both sides of the debate, the provocative articles here compiled will give vegetarians and meat-eaters a thorough grounding in all aspects of this controversial issue. After an introduction to the nature of the debate by editor Steve F. Sapontzis, Daniel Dombrowski reviews the history of vegetarianism. There follows a discussion of health issues and what anthropology has to tell us about human diet. Also included are the classic cases for vegetarianism from philosophers Peter Singer and Tom Regan, and new essays rebutting those classic positions from humanists Roger Scruton and Carl Cohen, among others. Various scholars then examine religious teachings about eating animals, which are drawn from Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as Native American and Eastern traditions. Finally, Carol J. Adams, Deanne Curtin, and Val Plumwood, among other outstanding advocates, debate the ethics of eating meat in connection with feminism, environmentalism, and multiculturalism. Containing virtually a "Who’s Who" of philosophers, social critics, environmentalists, feminists, and religious scholars who have participated in the vegetarianism debate over the past quarter century, this outstanding anthology of expert articles, most of them new, provides the latest thinking on a subject of increasing public interest.