We all claim to care about animals and to regard them as having at least some moral value. We all claim to agree that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals and—whatever disagreement we may have about when animal use is necessary—we all agree that the suffering and death of animals cannot be justified by human pleasure, amusement, or convenience. We condemn Michael Vick for dogfighting precisely because we feel strongly that any pleasure that Vick got from this activity could not possibly justify what he did. So how can we justify the fact that we kill many billions of land animals and fish every year for food? However “humanely” we treat and kill these animals, the amount of animal suffering we cause is staggering. Yet no one maintains that animal foods are necessary for optimal health. Indeed, mounting empirical evidence points to animal foods being detrimental for human health. But however you evaluate that evidence, there can be no serious doubt that we can have excellent health with a vegan diet. There is also broad consensus that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. Animal agriculture is responsible for water pollution, air pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, inefficient use of plant protein and water, and all sorts of other environmental harms. The best justification we have for the unimaginable amount of suffering and death that we impose on animals is that they taste good. We enjoy the taste of animal foods. But how is this any different from Michal Vick claiming that his dogfighting operation was justifiable because he enjoyed watching dogs fight? Vick liked sitting around a pit watching animals fight. We enjoy sitting around a summer barbecue pit roasting the corpses of animals who had lives and deaths that were as bad as, if not worse than, Vick’s dogs. What is the difference between Michael Vick and those of us who eat animal foods? This book shows there is no difference, or at least not any difference that matters morally. Prof. Gary L. Francione and Prof. Anna Charlton argue that if you think animals matter morally—if you reject the idea that animals are just things—your own beliefs require that you stop eating animal products. There is nothing "extreme" about a vegan diet; what is extreme is the inconsistency between what we say we believe and how we act where animals are concerned. Many of us are uneasy thinking about the animals who end up on our plates. We may have thought about stopping our consumption of animal products, but there are many excuses that have kept us from doing so. The authors explore the 30+ excuses they have heard as long-time vegans and address each one, showing why these excuses don’t work. Packed with clear, commonsense thinking on animal ethics, without jargon or complicated theory, this book will change the way you think about what you eat.

    Comprehensive and hard-hitting, Bleating Hearts examines the world's vast exploitation of animals, from the food, fashion, and research industries to the use of other species for sport, war, entertainment, religion, labor and pleasure.

    Faced with the overwhelming wealth and power of the animal exploitation industries, animal activists are like David trying to stand up to Goliath. But rather than following the unsuccessful strategies of the past, Phelps proposes that we change the game by adopting David's strategy of refusing to play by Goliath's rules.First, Changing the Game examines the challenge facing activists and explains why animal liberation is the most difficult struggle for social justice ever undertaken. Next, it surveys the environment in which the American animal rights movement has had to operate since its founding in 1975, and concludes that a period of rapid social progress is about to begin in which animal rights should be aligned with the progressive movement. In addition, it explores the implications for animal liberation in regards to the rising economic, political, and cultural power of nations such as China, India, and Brazil. Finally, the book analyzes the current strategies of the animal liberation movement in terms of the debate between "abolitionists" and "new welfarists," using a theoretical framework created by sociologist Max Weber and elaborated by feminist historian Aileen Kraditor.Compellingly and clearly written, filled with passionate arguments and undeniable truths, Changing the Game is a must read across the animal protection movement and among members of the academic community whose fields of interest include animal rights and social justice.

    Jude has been summoned to Bragg Falls to meet with a whistleblower who has documented the dangerous conditions for workers and the brutal treatment of pigs about to be slaughtered at D&M Processing. But when she arrives, she finds that her contact has committed suicide and the video he made is gone. The deeper she probes, the more the town’s residents turn against her – afraid that an exposé will shut down the plant. But beyond the local resistance, there is a more sinister force that will do anything to hide what is happening behind the secretive doors of the slaughterhouse.