English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

come under increasing scrutiny over concerns about public health, sustainability, and ethical obligations toward animals. In the global south, the demand for meat continues to rise alongside growing populations and higher incomes (Nam, Jo, and Lee 2010; Rae 2008), and the industrial model of meat production is assuming increasing prominence in these regions (Fraser 2008; Li 2009). While much of the social science literature focuses on the pros and cons of traditional, smallscale versus industrial food systems, the animal rights movement historically has regarded both forms of animal agriculture as inherently problematic with respect to ethical obligations toward animals. Supporters of this movement have long premised their arguments on the concept of speciesism— the notion that it is just as arbitrary to discriminate against the basic interests and suffering of another being on the basis of species as it is to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, nationality, or creed (Regan 1983; Singer 1975). While nonhuman animals obviously do not have an interest in civil rights like voting, for Singer and others, all sentient animals are equal when it comes to their basic desire to avoid pain and suffering. To quote from Singer (1975, 8),

Livestock Intensification Strategies in Rwanda: Ethical Implications for Animals and a Consideration of Potential Alternatives