In class the question was raised as to whether this book was stronger than the previous piece we read from Peter Singer. I felt absolutely that the answer to this was yes and I was trying to pinpoint the reason. I came to the conclusion that the strength of the book was rooted in the vivid ans specific examples given to express the authors' facts. The examples of cruelty to animals stand most profoundly for strengthening and verifiying the truth behind the facts and the reasons for people to change in accordance with the book's points. The examples that concerned animal slaughter cruelty made me a vegetarian again! I mean that has to stand for something. If they made a change in me then they can do it for others. Vegetarianism is the most extreme change. But if it can do this for me then it can most definitely make people at least be smarter in their purchasing of food according to some standards for anti-cruelty and enviromental concerns. Reading this examples could make so many people see the truth. They will make smarter choices because of the book. The issue is getting people to pick up the book and read it. We have to get people to take the first step and learn. They can't change until they allow it to be an option. They have to want to know the truth. Enjoying food can't always be the priority. People have to confront the horrors and injustices that accompany the enjoyment they are solely concerned for.

I believe there is a real important lesson to be learned from the portion of book concerning "If consumer demands change, then the business will change to please them". This seems really important to me. What needs changing is the business itself, and the way it does things. But the business won't change until the source of its revenue forces it to change. They will do whatever it takes to get our money. If we decide we want the cruelty to stop and refuse to buy their food that does not comply to this anti-cruetly (environment harming)method then they will not get business and will fail as a business. Its on the consumers to start the change. The problem is, enough consumers have to contribute to the cause for it to have an effect. 10% of the population isnt enough because 90% are giving them the current business under the wrong policies and standards and they care about the majority.

On page 133 there is a reference to giving animals the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to pain and suffering. The story about the chicken being put in boiling water (unstunned) came out mutilated from its own effort to escape (broken bones and such). Some call this responsive/reflexive efforts to stimuli, and say it is not proof of suffering or cognitive response. But doesnt this intense effort on the part of the chicken to escape a seemingly painful situation earm it the "benefit of the doubt"? What exactly is it that people require in the way of seeming pain to consider giving animals the benefit of the doubt without the proof? What does it take for people to care and consider the repercussions of their choices and desires?