Just how destructive does a culinary preference have to be before we decide to eat something else? If contributing to the suffering of billions of animals that live miserable lives and (quite often) die in horrific ways isn't motivating, what would be? If being the number one contributor to the most serious threat facing the planet (global warming) isn't enough, what is? And if you are tempted to put off these questions of conscience, to say not now then when?I had avoided this book since 2009. I really enjoyed (and still do) a lot of the food writing of the same time by authors like Michael Pollan but I knew that this book in particular delved into the horrors of the factory farming industry and it wasn't something I wanted to subject myself to willingly. I have recently undergone my third honest shift in my relationship to food. Primarily from the severe destruction animal farming has on the environment, I have chosen to become vegetarian. It was after this shift I decided to read Eating Animals. I am not a purist. I occasionally still eat fish (and can still never imagine totally giving up oysters) but it is a personal evolution, the change comes from an honest, internal transformation. Foer gives us an important and accessible insight to what we are putting into the bodies of our families and children and forces us to look into the mirror. Our choices, manifested in our actions are the only way to truly share our beliefs. Walk the talk. I cannot preach to anyone, I cannot judge anyone but I can manage myself. I can choose to live in a city where I do not rely on the need for a personal car, I can choose not to support an industry that is destroying the planet and is detrimental to all of our wellbeing. I no longer live in a small rural community where the beef on my parents table comes from a neighbor's pasture. So where is it coming from then? Examination is a challenge, for it is unforgivingly violent and horrific, but isn't that precisely why we should question it?