Marinescu1

Vlad Marinescu Dr. Jeffrey W. Jarman Comm Analysis and Criticism 06/10/2011

For this paper, I have chosen to analyze a brochure which advocates stopping the acts of cruelty against animals in slaughterhouses across the United States. This is an important topic because many believe the animals which are mistreated, raised, and held in dreadful conditions for human consumption are also animals which are as smart as the dog or cat which we raise with love and care. In experiments at Penn State University pigs learned to play special computer games for food just as quick as chimps ( The Intelligence of Pigs, 2008). According to a study by Chris McLaughlin, All species of pigs are smarter than dogs, and capable of abstract representation (The Smartest Domestic Animal in The World). Furthermore, excessive meat consumption is known to cause great health problems such as obesity and high cholesterol. We consume nearly one and a half times more meat than most industrialized nations and use more than 50 percent of our water and land to raise livestock ( 5 Reasons To Go Meatless, 2009). Some researchers in this field argue that all the fear, stress, pain, and anger which animals suffer in the last moments of their lives are transferred to the meat which we consume. Those who eat meat are ingesting not only the flesh, but also all the hormones of stress that are released due to the animals post fear as well (Benefits of Being Vegetarian, 2005). Among some of the barriers for a meatless diet are the tough periods such as pregnancy when the body needs many more nutrients than usual. All these nutrients have been found in diverse vegetables such as beans or soy. Well-balanced vegetarian diets have been approved for all stages of life, including

Marinescu2

pregnant and lactating women, children, adolescence, and competitive athletes (Vegetarian and Vegan Diet, 2007). All these factors draw attention to this matter, trying to reach a common ground between the pleasures of consuming meat, the health problems, and treating animals with respect. The theme of this brochure is that animals in slaughter houses are greatly mistreated and that by eating less meat, one can save some from suffering. The goals of this piece of rhetoric are simply to oppose and stop the cruelty against animals bred to be consumed. Furthermore, the argument is that just by eating less meat, one can spare the suffering of some animals. Please bear in mind that opposing the cruelties of factory farming is not an all-or-nothing proposition (Oppose Cruelty, 2010). The implied audience for this case is, in my opinion, very large. Every person who consumes meat and has a voice which can be heard is targeted. Furthermore, it is my belief that vegetarian people are also in the audience in order to continue advocating for a meatless diet and helping with the fight to end animal cruelty. There are many barriers for having a vegetarian diet or even eating less meat. As a first barrier, people in general not only in the United States simply love to eat meat. It is part of many traditions and associated with certain holidays or events. As a tradition, meat has almost always been part of our diet as humans, and many believe that we are made to eat meat. Another big barrier is that by giving up eating meat, one has to make big changes to his diet, to find alternatives to the usual recipes which involve meat. Also, many argue that food without meat does not taste as good and requires skills to cook which most do not have. Other barriers are that most everybody eats meat so it is easy to be tempted, or that restaurants do not offer enough vegan options so it is hard to eat out. A study conducted in Australia in 2003 found that, The main perceived barriers to adopting a vegetarian diet were enjoying eating meat and an

Marinescu3

unwillingness to alter eating habits (Benefits and barriers to the consumption of a vegetarian diet, 2003). One other very important barrier is that many people simply do not know anything about how the animals which they consume are treated. Many would probably be tuned off by the thousands of chickens packed in cages with their beak half cut off as the pictures in the brochure show. This does not conclude that people would stop eating meat or even eat less, but just that they would be aware of it. If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian (Paul McCartney). The first strategy which is clearly used in this piece is the use of aesthetics. There are many images in this brochure, each more shocking then the next. Pigs are held in cages where they cannot even move, chickens with their beaks cut off and bleeding, hens dying of malnutrition, cows full of blood, etc. These pictures are made to be shown as they are, without censoring anything in order to shock the audience with the truth. It is not just a strategy; it is exactly how animals are treated, and people should see. These images tap into our emotions and even spark up compassion for the animals that suffer so much and live their entire lives without seeing sun light or being able to run around. The images in this piece are, for me, the most important strategy because it is the first thing someone sees, and they are hard to forget. The second strategy which I immediately noticed was the use of strong descriptive language concerning the way the animals were handled and how they suffered. Decomposing corpses are found in cages with live birds, birds with broken legs and wings, open wounds, and large tumors were shackled and hung on the slaughter line, workers punched, kicked, threw, and mutilated live birds, they tore eggs from birds bodies to toss at coworkers, and ripped the heads off birds who were trapped inside the transport cages, workers clipped the piglets tails with dull pliers; performed castrations, ripping out the piglets testes with their hands, and

Marinescu4

tattooed sows by repeatedly driving a spiked mallet into the pigs flesh, and, injured, sick, and runt piglets were slowly suffocated in overcrowded CO2 gas carts (Oppose Cruelty, 2010). The third strategy which I have found to stand out from the text is the incorporation of testimonials and statistics used from and by people with studies in this field. The following add credibility to the cause using the strategy of rational argument. Peter Cheeke, PhD. asks a rhetorical question in the brochure which is designed to help people question what is really happening. Do we as humans.have the right to take the life of other sentient organism, particularly when we are not forced to do so by hunger, but rather do so for the somewhat frivolous reason that we like the taste of meat? Another example of a testimonial in the form of a rhetorical question is used to make people think more about this matter and realize that even if these animals are considered by many as just a food source, they also can suffer. Author Jeremy Bentham asks people the following questions in the brochure. The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But, can they suffer? (Oppose Cruelty, 2010) Another rhetorical question used in the text makes people think about what makes animals so different from one another. Are dogs and cats really so different from chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows that one group deserves legal protection from cruelty, while the other deserves virtually no protection at all? (Oppose Cruelty, 2010) The next testimonial comes from the undercover MFA agent Mike who worked at a pig breeding facility. I saw firsthand how clever and emphatic pigs can be. A sow and her entire litter had escaped their crate and gathered in the hallway. Also, PhD. Bernard E. Rollin states that, Contrary to what one may hear from the industry, chickens are not mindless, simple automata but are complex behaviorally, do quite well in learning, show a rich social organization, and have a diverse repertoire of skills. The statistics in this text are used in order to show the intended audience that the problem really exists and that any help is much

Marinescu5

needed. Birds account for more than 95 percent of U.S. land animals killed for food, yet there is no federal law requiring they be handled humanely (Oppose Cruelty, 2010). The next statistic shows readers the results of avoiding meat. By avoiding the meat of chickens, turkeys, and pigs, you can prevent the suffering of more than two thousands of these animals during your lifetime (Oppose Cruelty, 2010). The last strategy which I will point out is also part of the rational argument. This strategy appeals to the self-interest of everyone in the readership audience. The claim made is that one can save many animals from suffering not only by choosing a meatless diet, but this choice will lead healthier lives as well.According to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarians tend to have lower body weights, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure, as well as lower rates of type 2 diabetes and heart disease (Oppose Cruelty, 2010). It is my belief that even though this campaign is very well structured, using diverse strategies and credible sources, most people who come in contact with this brochure will be affected by its message only for the moment. The main barrier is that most people love to eat meat, have always done so, and the practice is very hard to overcome. The message is very strong and nobody will deny the fact that there is a problem for sure. In my opinion, the people behind this campaign are well aware of the great barriers but move forward with the hope that each person who decides not to eat meat once a week will be a great success for all supporting this cause. I believe that this piece of rhetoric is among the best I have seen, and this played an important role in my choice for this assignment. The pictures shown in this brochure are simply shocking, and the various testimonials from people working undercover who have actually witnessed the problem are compelling. Due to studying this matter in depth, I believe it is very possible that this campaign persuaded some to eat less meat or to stop eating meat for the most

Marinescu6

part. Even though the great majority will not give up eating meat, I believe that the goal was never to make everybody a vegetarian. The goal of this campaign was to make people aware of this problem, and help change as many habits as possible; just the fact that a lot of people became aware of this problem is a huge success. In conclusion, this piece of rhetoric is excellent in my opinion, but it faces great barriers which will be very hard to overcome.

Marinescu7