Although Pollan brings up many valid points, the arguments to some of those are just not justified. He does, however, reiterate the profound methods of the industrialized factory farm system that the animal rights people have recognized for years. He presents the topic of how animals are farmed in this country and placed on a table in such a way that the majority of people could relate to, as opposed to listening to an animal rights activist. .
Pollan explains that although many people seem eager to extend moral consideration to animals, more and more suffering is being imposed on them (in farms and laboratories) in this day and age than in any other time in history. Animals are treated as specimens that products are tested on, and the reasoning is justified via stating the obvious: Using a human is unacceptable and unethical, yet animals are no problem because they are in essence benefiting humanity. .
Pollan uses Ben Franklin's defense by reiterating what Franklin had used many years ago: "Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another?" (Pollan 3). The argument obviously makes sense, but contains a major flaw. Humans commit crimes that range up to (and include) murder, yet we are taught to treat each other in a moral and ethical manner. In addition, when a human is murdered, the killer more than likely did not kill to eat the meat of the human. So why is it that it is ok for humans to kill an animal based solely on the fact that animals kill each other, and not ok for humans to kill each other? The fact is that when a human is killed, his life is lost and grieved. Animals, however, are rarely grieved. In addition, murder and rape are natural for humans, but it should be noted that " humans don't kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do." (Pollard 3).
In another example, Pollan speaks about how an animal is killed for clothes, which poses a difficult animal rights challenge.