On Misleading the Public

When I went to Whole Foods yesterday I did quite a bit of observing and listening. And during this particular trip, there was exactly zero conversation about what kind of standard anyone was operating under regarding treatment and slaughter of animals. There is, however, a large sign above the meat counter that reads: Change the world while you eat. And there were pamphlets from the Animal Compassion Foundation which, if you're not paying attention (or um, reading), you might think that the placement of the three pamphlets, in addition to the giant sign, might indicate that the meat came from a place that met some standard. You just might think you are changing the world by eating the animals under the sign. The reality, according to the website, is that:

Though related, and similarly named, the Animal Compassionate Standards are not created or maintained by the Animal Compassion Foundation. The Foundation is a separate and independent non-profit educational organization created to provide producers and researchers with the opportunity to learn, share ideas, and collaborate on projects.

The pamphlets talk of helping "producers make the transition to even higher levels of animal welfare as outlined in the next generation of Whole Foods Market meat standards, the Animal Compassionate Standards, which we are encouraging producers throughout the world to achieve."

It does appear that Jenny's comment that people assume the meat has met Animal Compassionate Standards is probably the case. There is nothing in the pamphlets that speaks of any "producer" who has actually met the standard. As a person reading the pamphlet, I conclude that the foundation is a research organization that will amass some best practices for "raising animals in a compassionate manner" (whatever that means). And if I'm not paying attention, I just might think everyone chopped up and presented in various pieces beneath the pamphlets in glass cases were once animals treated in some fabulously compassionate way (i.e., better than Whole Foods' benchmark standards).

As for the foundation, two of the projects currently being funded are:

1. Alternatives to castration in pigs (don't castrate them? Is that an example of an alternative?) The reason they are castrated is that pig meat doesn't taste or smell as good when it comes from an intact pig. Herbal supplements might be an answer, thereby eliminating the need for castration. (Not eating them might be an answer, too. If you don't like the way their flesh tastes, why not eat someone who tastes better rather than changing the way the flesh tastes artificially?)
2. Alternatives for on-farm control of flystrike in sheep. Flystrike occurs in long-tailed sheep who are bred and slaughtered for their meat. Usually, their tails are cut off. Ingenious solution? Breed sheep with shorter tails so their's less accumulation of fecal matter on the hind end, so the tails won't "need" to be cut off.

The foundation also offers "grazing workshops" where you can learn how "to grow and finish ruminant animals on native grasses." Grow and finish? I never thought of cows as creatures you grow? And the word finish? I want to go to one of the workshops just to hear about "finishing" animals on native grasses.

Workshops "in development" include:

• Lameness in dairy cattle: Identifying lameness and its risk factors (I'm wondering why this workshop is still in development. Perhaps if benchmark standards were higher, the problem would be solved).
• Developing a livestock management plan for your farm (in other words, if the workshop isn't even available yet, chances are most suppliers don't have a livestock management plan).

Because I don't eat animals, I don't frequent the meat department or the Whole Foods site, but now that I have, I can confidently say that American consumers will pay more, not read closely, and allow themselves to be easily manipulated/misled, all so they can maintain the steady stream of dead animals and their secretions into their bodies. I don't care how "naturally " you feed animals when you're breeding, dominating, controlling and slaughtering them unnecessarily. It's time we circulate that message to the mainstream. There's nothing misleading about that one.

Comments

[Roger Yates]

Hi Mary - it looks like these "standards" are going to be as meaningless, problematic and misleading as the notion of "Freedom Foods" in Britain.

Animal advocates who think they can get into be business of regulating atrocities and emerge with some positive outcome ought to think long and hard about the issue.

All I see is evidence of more and more people becoming happier about consuming murderous products.

RY

Great post. I know a lot of folks think of Whole Foods as "guilt-free", and hopefully, posts like this one will help set the record straight.