The Truth About the Sustenance We Provide for Cattle
6
Christy Robinson
Eng. 101.08/Stahl
Analysis Essay Draft 1
8 November 2010
The Truth about the Sustenance We Provide for Cattle
In a world where protein is essential and that protein comes from cattle, there is a lot we don’t know. In his article “Cattle Futures?”— published in the New York Times Magazine on January 11, 2004—Michael Pollan sets out to describe exactly where the protein we eat comes from. Since this article was published in the New York Times, one can only hope the audience is educated and likes to stay active in regards to disputed topics or events. Because of whom his audience is and his use of rhetorical devices, Pollan is able to convince his readers that something is wrong with the way cattle are now being raised. Through the stunning use of logos (albeit logos which lacks evidence to support the factual claims), pathos, ethos, diction, and imagery, Pollan can’t help but reveal the horrors behind the cattle industry and persuade others to take action against it.
Pollan describes the treatment of cattle in today’s industry along with how the cattle are weak and decrepit before being slaughtered and turned into the beef we consume. He explains how young cattle are fed a replacement formula (bovine blood) before being raised as cannibals while eating other livestock. As for the protein from these cattle, we are getting the product of chicken feces—feces that are called a high source of protein— which was fed to the cattle. Pollan makes the point that as we feed the cheapest source of protein to the cattle, we get cheaper prices for the protein we need. For these cheap prices, Pollan states we are turning the cattle into cannibals and causing them to no longer avoid their own species as a source of nutrition. Even if it a little more costly, Pollan thinks we should go back to when cattle grazed on a savanna instead of their own species or feces (Pollan 11).
Throughout his article, Pollan uses logos to give the readers facts; this is where one weakness lies. He never cites any sources to verify what he is saying. Instead of citing a specific source, he states a study, such as “35 percent in one study” (Pollan 11). This raises a question: what study is he talking about? From where is he getting his information? Since it is not stated nor referenced in any way, one can either assume Pollan is telling the truth or lying. Considering he is the author of many novels that deal with the topic of food, how humans consume it, and the nutrition that comes from it,—In Defense of Food, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and Second Nature— one could surmise Pollan knows what he is talking about (“Books”). Even though he fails to cite sources for this article, because of his status as a writer and the subjects he writes on, one can reasonably assume the facts are right. Still, he should mention where the information is coming from despite his credibility as a writer.
Since he uses many facts, he deliberately uses logos. By using this technique, Pollan is able to show how sensibly we can go back to eating cattle raised off of a savanna rather than the monstrosity that is raised in a feedlot. He uses logos by providing good information that shows the reader what is happening in the cattle industry. For example he states, “Many of us were surprised to learn that despite the FDA’s 1997 ban on feeding cattle cattle meat and bone meal, feedlots continue to rear these herbivores as cannibals” (Pollan 11). Considering the FDA had a ban on feeding cattle their own species and feedlots continue to ignore this ban, it shows how blatantly the cattle industry is ignoring laws set by the government for their own monetary gain. Another statement from Pollan that elaborates on the cattle industries’ practices would be “chicken feces, which the U.S. cattle industry regards as a high source of protein” (Pollan 11). Even if the cattle industry was obeying the law and refusing to feed cattle bone meal and cattle meat, they still feel chicken feces are okay food supplements. Since the U.S. industry feels feces are a good source of protein, it helps to expose the monsters at the head of the corporations who ignore FDA laws and feed their cattle other animals and feces. Through this, Pollan is able to give factual information that shows what the cattle industry is still doing; this in turn, helps to illustrate the point of the article which is to go back to cattle grazing on a savanna rather than themselves and other feces.
Pollan uses logos to illustrate the dangers of feeding cattle their own species which allows readers to see the diseases and dangers that can occur from consuming the meat from feedlots. Pollan points out:
Yet the great unlearned lesson of BSE [bovine spongiform encephalopathy aka mad-cow] and other similar brain-wasting diseases is that… it isn’t quite true that protein is protein. Eating the protein of your own species, for example, carries special risks. The Fore of New Guinea was nearly wiped out by kuru, which bears a striking resemblance to BSE; they spread it among themselves by ritually eating the brains of their dead kin. (12)
These statements prove that humans can be affected at a great cost by cannibalism. Since humans have received kuru by eating their own species, what makes cows any different when they consume their own species? In turn, cattle—if eating their own kin—can receive BSE and pass it onto us at the end of the food chain. Pollan makes a very effective argument illustrating how dangerous eating your own species can be through one statement alone: the fact that the Fore of New Guinea was decimated by a disease like BSE proves the adverse effects of cannibalism. This effective argument should push readers to speak out against the cattle industry and their cannibalistic practices with cattle.
Through his logic, Pollan uses pathos to elicit various feelings from the reader, which in turn help the reader to understand why the cattle industry nowadays needs to revert back to their old ways. He uses diction, imagery, and pathos to create powerful feelings such as nausea, anger, and disgust. By such statements as, “We learned that the beef we have been eating might consist in whole or part of meat from a ‘downer cow,’ an animal so sick and hobbled that it must be dragged to the slaughterhouse with chains or pushed by a frontend loader,” one can truly begin to feel nauseated by the description of these poor cows (Pollan 11). It allows the reader to be entranced and visualize what is happening to these cows and hopefully will cause the readers to take action to stop the cows from being mutilated into “downer cows.” It arouses the emotion of nausea because of the diction—“so sick and hobbled that it must be dragged to the slaughterhouse…”—and creates a revoltingly strong reaction to what is being done to cattle in their lifetime: some treatments include the kinds of food supplement, the treatment of the cattle itself, and the fact that cattle are dragged to their deaths. The image of a cow being sick and dragged to the slaughterhouse will reverberate in the readers’ minds forever. Or at least until the cattle industry has been changed.
Through his use of pathos and diction, Pollan is able to push his readers to the point of anger towards the cattle industry. Pollan says, “The carcass of that animal is often subjected to ‘Advanced Meat Recovery System’ that is so efficient at stripping flesh from spinal cord that the chances are good (35 percent in one study) that the resulting frankfurter contains ‘central nervous system tissue’ –precisely the tissue most likely to contain the infectious prions thought to communicate BSE” (Pollan 11). The facts that he presents are horrifying: “resulting frankfurter contains central nervous system tissue…” and “stripping flesh from spinal cord…” Pollan is able to show how the cattle industry is placing efficiency (to strip flesh from bone) over the health of their customers: a fact that would outrage any sensible human being. That is, of course, if the human being had any morals or ethics that knew the treatment of these animals was inhumane. Pollan’s diction also helps to fuel the anger towards the industry with phrases such as “stripping flesh from spinal cord” or “infectious prions.” No human should stand for treatment that literally strips the flesh of any animal and in turn, provides food with infectious prions to the public.
The other strong emotion that Pollan uses would be disgust, which ties heavily to anger. “When young, they [cattle] routinely receive ‘milk replacer’ made from bovine blood; later their daily ration is apt to contain rendered cattle fat as well as feed made from ground-up pigs and chickens—pigs and chickens that may themselves have grown up on a diet of ground-up cows” (Pollan 11). The fact that cattle are still being fed bovine blood and perhaps their own species, shows how the cattle industry is not looking towards human health, rather the stance that “protein is protein” (Pollan 12). This in turn, elicits feelings of anger and disgust, merely because the industry has turned cattle into cannibals and has forfeited human health for cheaper cost efficiency. By taking the stance that protein is protein and by using bovine blood or ground-up pigs for feed for cattle, the cattle industry is using the cheapest food source that is available to them regardless of how the public would react to this act. They are ignoring any morals they once had and are merely trying to make a profit, even if that profit means feeding cattle their own species.
Through his stance on the subject of feedlots and the treatment of cattle, Pollan shows his ethos which allows the reader to judge his character and see he is right when it comes to changing the treatment of livestock. Pollan states, “Whatever else it is – nutritious, economical, the polar opposite of wasteful—you can’t help feeling that the convoluted new food chain that industrial agriculture has devised for the animals we eat (and thus for us) is, to be unscientific for a moment, disgusting” (Pollan 11). Even though Pollan is “unscientific for a moment” he gets his point across: this point is that we need to revert back to the old ways. We, as readers, are able to see that even Pollan is shocked and disgusted by what monstrosities are being committed in the cattle industry. It shows how Pollan cares for animals and for their treatment. His ethos shows he wants the cattle industry to revert back to their old ways and provide good, healthy meat to the general public rather than the animals we are now eating.
With the character of a man who merely wants to go back to the old ways to raise cattle and the image of a “sick and hobbled” cow still in the readers’ minds, Pollan is able to create a long-lasting effect. This combined with his use of logos, pathos, and ethos and his diction (and imagery) causes his readers to question the sanity of the cattle industry. The angry, nauseated, and disgusted emotions help the reader to feel for change. Overall, through his use of rhetorical devices, Pollan is able to create a convincing argument. His readers have become more aware of the happenings in cattle feedlots and will try to turn over a new leaf for these “poor mad cows”.
Works Cited
Pollan, Michael. "Cattle Futures."Mother Earth New.s1Apr.2004: 11-12. Research Library
Core,ProQuest. Web.24 Oct. 2010.
“Books.” Michael Pollan. Michael Pollan. 2010. Web. 1 Nov. 2010 <http://www.michaelpollan.com/books>.