If+your+steak+had+a+face+would+you+eat+it??

=** "IF YOUR STEAK HAD A FACE WOULD YOU EAT IT.....??" **= Rachel Sanders N8833133 Tutor; Judith Meiklejohn

1. Cultural Artefact
The picture shown above is taken from an article titled, “The meat paradox: How can we love some animals and eat others?” written by Brock Bastion for the news website The Conversation. The picture shows the head of a dead pig arranged among other parts of a pigs body with its face positioned so it can be clearly seen. The image addresses the link between the act of eating meat and animal welfare. This picture depicts how society is either unaware of or chooses to ignore the journey that many animals take from birth to eventually become what we eat on a daily basis. If we were confronted with the animal in its original form, like the face of the pig above would we feel differently about eating pork or bacon?

2. Public Health Issue
Diet is fundamentally linked to ill health, especially diseases such as Type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers. Although behavioural, environmental and genetic factors also play a role in the development of disease, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare recommends that only a well-balanced diet can provide all the necessary nutritional elements required for good health (AIHW, 2013). According to the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines, adherence to recommended dietary guidelines by Australian adults is not satisfactory (NHMRC, 2013). There is evidence of a ‘probable association’ with some cancers and the consumption of red meat (NHMRC, 2013), therefore the public health issues are related to the relationship between eating red meat and ill health.

**3. Literature Review**
A review of the literature shows a range of articles focused on the ethical and health considerations of eating red meat. These concerns included issues of animal rights and welfare, environmental sustainability of ‘growing’ animals for their meat, and the health aspects of diets based primarily around meat. Although there are wide-ranging perspectives this review will concentrate on the animal welfare and health aspects of consuming red meat. Generally the articles reviewed were based on the research principles and methodologies aligned with psychological theory and philosophy. In his article, Henning (2011) reviews the human and environmental impacts of livestock production. He is not supportive of continuing our current methods of production and believes that the “long shadow” of farming animals has contributed to environmental degradation, pollution and the rising levels of ill health and chronic disease among populations. Henning (2011) argues that the there is more focus on the dietary levels of fat, sugar and salt rather than the over-consumption of animals and the health impact that this can have. Henning (2011) believes to eliminate the industrilization of food production a “new agrarian farming method” should be introduced. This particular method focuses on the “natural” methods of raising animals and producing food. Therefore its main focus is to reduce the human and environmental costs of industrialised food production. He then discusses intensive factory farming and the inhumane and unthinkable cruel methods used on animals. He believes that these new faming methods methods would improve the living conditions of livestock and as a result would “return their rightful evolutionary role as members of a complex farming community symbiotically related in complex webs of interdependence (Henning, 2011).” In conclusion Henning's article makes a very powerful argument that humans cannot continue to eat animals at both current and proposed rates and avoid catastrophic environmental harms. The correlation with the amount of animal products we consume and the more devastating effects on environment is evidence that significantly identifies the increasing harm that the consumption of animal product has on both the environment and our health. Similar to Henning (2011), Smil (2002) uses his background in philosophy to argue that eating meat is not necessary for human health and considers the environmental and health issues related to the production of meat. While Henning (2011) advocates for a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, Smil (2002) refers to this choice as a “culturally induced adaptation” although he does believe current levels of meat consumption are too high especially considering the health and environmental impacts. (p.602)  Smil (2002) explains animal cruelty in considerable description, outlining the harsh reality that occurs within farm factory walls. He states that “farm factories contain tens of thousands of animals imprisoned in confined spaces, and leakage of nitrate-laden waste water from lagoons slowly overflowing with fermenting excrement.” This portrayal of animal cruelty supports his belief that there has to be a balance of meat consumption as it is not an absolute necessity. He strongly believes that there are no scientifically defensible grounds that justify high consumption of meat in diets in western countries. These particular diets do not improve health or prolong lives, rather they can have a detrimental impact on health as well as undesirable environmental consequences (Smil, 2002).  An article by Sapontzis (2012), a professor of philosophy from California State University also discusses the importance of meat within western diets. He asks if there is really such need for animals to suffer unnecessarily. He puts forward the idea that “ the suffering endured by these animals is outweighed by the goods derived from meat, dairy, and egg production. These benefits include not only the pleasure humans get from eating these animal products but also the economic benefits enjoyed by people involved in producing meat and animal products.” Similar to Henning and Smil, Sapontzis believes we as moral people should be committed to reducing avoidable pain suffered by factory farmed animals. Although vegetarianism is an apparent solution there are others like, returning to traditional forms of animal husbandry and hunting and fishing. These other solutions are necessary, “especially since the global growth of the middle-class population is stimulating a growing clamour for “luxuries” such as meat (Sapontzis, 2012).” While Sapontzis may support some animal products it is evident that he believes there is a need as one culture we need to find alternative means in order to counter this global rise in meat consumption.  This literature review provides some background to the issues surrounding the consumption of animal products. Generally, the authors raise similar concerns relating to the environment, sustainability and importantly for this topic, the issues of animal welfare and human health. None of these factors can be considered separately as they all interact with each other, however the evidence from these articles does point towards finding a different way forward as a means of lessening the negative impacts of too much meat consumption and improving the lives of animals.

4. Cultural and Social Analysis
Mentally disengaging from the origins of meat serves an important function for meat consumers reducing the conflict produced by eating meat while disliking the harm that animals suffer to produce it (Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam & Radke, 2011). This addresses the fact that within society today we would rather not be aware of what is really going on under the surface and maintain our own sense of ethical ideals. Everyone has their own personal values, however in regard to meat eating practices it can also depend on the cultural beliefs of the particular community. Bastian, Loughnan, Haslam, & Radke (2011) state that culinary practices are not only sources of pleasure but are also important sources of meaning embedded within culture. Each culture has their own dietary practices and meat eating norms and what is seen as normal in one country may be seen as disgraceful in another. A good example is the controversy over the use in some countries of dogs and whales for meat. These animals are viewed as appropriate food for consumption in some places as they are not given high levels of moral worth, whereas such practices are viewed as disgraceful and morally corrupt in cultures that view these animals as having more value (Bastian, Loughan, Haslam & Redke, 2011). Groups and organisations have been established to increase social awareness of animal welfare. Their aim is to eventually abolish animal cruelty by enforcing laws and regulations. Examples of these organisations are People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and The Royal Society for the Prevention of Animals (RSPCA) plus many others all working towards the same goal of rights for all animals big or small. PETA is the largest animal rights organisation in the world, addressing the use of animals in four main areas; factory farms, clothing trade, laboratories and the entertainment industry (PETA, 2013). These organisations use a number of ways to make a social stand point including; animal cruelty investigations, public education, research animal rescue, legislation, special events, celebrity involvement and protest campaigns (PETA, 2013). Without these groups and organisations public advocacy for animal rights wouldn’t have the social impact and or regulations to help minimise the prevalence of animal cruelty. Addressing both the cultural and social aspects, it is evident that there are different interpretations between these two perspectives on the issue of animal rights. In a world where there is a significant range of varying beliefs, values and cultures we cannot force one view of animal welfare on the entire population. Findings by Bastian, Loughan, Haslam and Radke demonstrate that denying meat as an animal also assists behaviours to which we are strongly, and currently, dedicated. An individual’s appetite for meat, as well as the cultural importance of a particular meat increases behavioural commitment.

5. Analysis of the Artefact and Learning Reflections
I believe this artefact represents the underlying truth about society today as we would prefer to withdraw ourselves from linking meat and a living creature. If this picture was an accurate depiction of what consumers saw at their local supermarkets, they would think twice about purchasing it. As a result, this artefact accurately illustrates the topic of eating meat. It raises the ethical and health issues and also represents the psychological element in the decision-making process of meat eating.

<span style="color: #000000; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; text-align: left;">On reflecting upon these two assignments based I have learnt a lot from all different perspectives about this ongoing debate within society today. Throughout the process my opinion on whether I or as a society should be eating meat has changed numerous times. This topic confronted me with a range of information illustrating the harsh reality of animal use, which led me to decide to possibly become a vegetarian/vegan. However, as my knowledge deepened and after discussions with my group, I concluded that this issue is more complex than first assumed. Although animals are the main victim, there are other contributing factors like the farmers and consumers. Animal cruelty and meat eating is not clearcut. Steps need to be made to make the treatment of animals a more ethical, economical, environmental and sustainable practice within today's society. My personal beliefs and values have been influenced, as I have become aware of what I purchase and the ways I can minimize the threat to animals. The skills that I have learnt throughout this course have taught me to widen my views, expectations and knowledge as not every thing is as simple as it may seem.

6. Reference List
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2013, “Nutrition”. Retrieved on November, 1, 2013, from, <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;"> [], <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Bastion, B., (2011). “The meat paradox: how we can love some animals and eat others”, The Conversation. [] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Bastion, B., Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Radke, H., (2011). “Don’t Mind Meat? The Denial of Mind to Animals Used for Human Consumption”. //Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,// //Vol. 38//: 247, doi: 10.1177/0146167211424291 <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Smil, V., (2002). “Eating Meat: Evolution, Patterns and Consequences”. //Population and Development Review, vol. 28(4)//, 599-639. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Henning, B.G., (2011). “Standing in Livestock's 'Long Shadow': The Ethics of Eating Meat on a Small Planet.” //Ethics and the Environment, vol:16(2), 63-93.// <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">Sapontzis, S., (2012). “The Debate Over Eating Meat”. //Journal of Animal Ethics, vol:2(2),// 121-125. <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2013, “Australian Dietary Guidelines”. Retrieved on November, 1, 2013, from, [] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt;">People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, (2013). “About PETA: Our Mission Statement”. Retrieved on September 24th, 2013, from, <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 1.5;">http://www.peta.org/about/default.aspx

7. Learning Engagement and Reflection
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Bold',sans-serif;">Comment 1: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Bold',sans-serif;">[] <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Bold',sans-serif;">Comment 2: <span style="color: #000000; font-family: 'Arial Bold',sans-serif;">[]