Do You Campaign to Ban Foie Gras?

I don't know about you, but I get annoyed when vegans (it doesn't matter when other people do it) are relieved that cage-free eggs exist for those who still can't kick the habit. They should know better.

Then again, the national organizations--and even local ones--that these vegans give to send them newsletters and magazines touting cage-free eggs as victories, so the question shouldn't be why do they think that, it should be why do I think they wouldn't! I'm guessing we agree about eggs.

But how about foie gras bans? Do you participate in the collection of signatures, etc., or would you? If not, why not? It would be the abolition of one use of one animal, right? I thought it was until I heard someone say it's like banning gestation crates, in that they'll just keep making it, but differently. I didn't know that. And if that's the case, I'm out. Unless someone wants to convince me otherwise.

Of course, I'd campaign for banning Greyhound racing. But not for the endless attempts at getting the tracks in Florida to report injuries (they don't have to). That might produce either effect: people see how lethal racing is and don't go, or tracks change the way they do things and injuries decrease and business booms. That sounds like a bad deal and a waste of my time. Not to mention the presumption is that we're using dogs for entertainment or sport, which is contradictory to my beliefs.

I've asked this before when I discussed getting elephants out of circuses and zoos. It's speciesist, for sure, but it's also abolitionist if they're retired to sanctuaries, right?. But then people might go back to the circus because they stopped going because of the elephants (I think people like that really do exist, as there is quite a movement to remove the elephants and the big cats, but I don't hear any arguments about the rest of the animals. Then again, maybe they're just going for the "low hanging fruit" we all hear so much about, which seems very tricky.).

I presently (in the 2008 calendar year) give to no national group. Not a one. I do direct service and give to direct service as well as to small, local, and/or creative endeavors, or projects far away that I hear are successful (and I'd love it if they were abolitionist).

Am I missing something regarding legislation, or is it the case that there simply hasn't been any that wouldn't compromise my beliefs? The Farm Bill drama, which I didn't follow all that closely as it seemed like folly, wasn't even close to being in alignment with not using animals. Do any of you concentrate on legislation as the way to get nonhuman animals out of the hands/out from under the feet of human animals?  Or, as things are in 2008, do any of you think it's possible to further our cause in the US via legislation?

Comments

[Dan]

I’m against wasting advocacy resources on specific bans. Specific bans at this point in the history of human-nonhuman relations result in nothing more than shipping the activity out of a given jurisdiction, such as out of the US. For example, I understand horses are now shipped to Mexico to be slaughtered for horse meat in France. Also, specific bans are easily overturned. They are the “leaves and branches” of the problem that grow back faster than we can clip or hack at them.

We need to educate people and shift the whole paradigm, which is the root of the problem in our era. People need to go vegan and reject animal use altogether – nothing short of that will have any significant effect. It’s hypocritical to denounce one form of exploitation and cruelty while engaging in another. Go vegan and promote and educate on being vegan. There are no short cuts or quick fixes – we need to hit the root and only the root.

My next essays are a two-part series on vegan education. I’m almost finished part one and expect to post it later this week (unpopular vegan essays).

[Nick]

I don't think a ban on foie gras really accomplishes anything, since people will just eat other animal products in greater quantities to replace it. I agree with Dan about shifting peoples' entire consciousness. Deciding not to eat certain meats is not a step toward veganism.

I think that legislation can help animals, in certain ways. For instance, we could ban the fur trade with relatively little upheaval. Laws can be passed requiring "pet owners" to spay/neuter their companion animals, and provide significant funding for no-kill shelters. Dog/horse/whatever racing can be banned, as could the use of animals in circuses. And while a ban on animal testing would meet extensive opposition today, someday the public might be ready for that.

Legislation stopping the use of animals for food is another story. Laws can be used for this, but they will not bring about immediate results. In any case, here are a few ideas:

1. Stop subsidizing corn and soy, which are mostly used to feed "livestock," not humans.
2. Place a tax on all animal products.
3. Label animal products as dangerous, the way we currently label tobacco and alcohol.
4. Fund programs to teach vegan nutrition.
5. Subsidize farmers of vegan foods. (I don't know if this is such a good idea, but it's worth considering.)

[Roger Yates]

Journalist redefines the meaning of "victory" so it has no apparent meaning: http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=163490&command=displayContent&sourceNode=163316&contentPK=20287402&folderPk=89126&pNodeId=163047

I have NO idea what this means...

"A lot of other places in the country have already gone cruelty-free."

RY

[Dan]

The problem with attempting to get rid of smaller industries like the fur trade, animal racing, and circuses is that while these activities don’t have the broad-based support that animal ag does, they don’t have sufficient opposition either, at least not sufficient to overthrow them without most of the resource pie of “animal protection” groups going for major campaigns specifically direct at them. And, like the fur trade, all of them are very resilient in a non-vegan world, a world which is fertile ground for them to spring up like dandelions again. And so the endless cycle of welfarism goes.

In a world of very limited advocacy resources, as vegans, we need to focus on vegan education and forget about legislative changes. There are plenty of meat-eaters who will engage (hypocritically) in opposing these other forms of abuse. Vegans need to spend our time, energy, and money on vegan education: showing what goes on and what must go on in animal ag; explaining why it is wrong (i.e. explain speciesism as a concept); and promote vegan food (e.g. vegan food blogs, etc)

[Mary Martin]

Roger, I will write about that article tomorrow. It's absurd!

Nick--I love the list. I'll write about it next week and maybe it can be further developed.

Dan--I experience a proximity thing that makes me believe certain single issues are worth fighting for. For instance, if I still lived in Manhattan, I'd be fighting like crazy to help get the carriage horses banned. It's so disturbing to look at them and they can't be avoided in some place and they're so close to being abolished. And I didn't know Greyhound racing existed until I moved here and it's everywhere and it disgusts me and I want to get rid of it so I can feel better about where I live (it's all about me, I guess!) and also take a wee bit of the humiliation out of living in South Florida. Now, I also think those two uses can indeed stop in our lifetime so they're worth fighting for/against. Fur, for me, doesn't seem remotely possible because it isn't a local thing and it's also associated with status and the mentality of status seekers is usually difficult to change.

But that's me.

[Dan]

Fur, rodeos, hunting, and fishing are all very popular where I live, but I do nothing about any of these because they are all merely peripheral symptoms of a non-vegan society. We slaughter 10 billion animals annually for food, which represents 99.99% of all animal abuse in quantity and a represents an animal-based decision ordinary people make an average of 3 times a day. Until we can achieve a critical mass of vegans in society, we will achieve nothing, because, at best, it will be a short-lived “victory”.

Quite honestly, I don’t care what people do in terms of advocacy or if vegans do NO advocacy other than being vegan (which is advocacy in itself). I’m just advising what kind of advocacy makes sense (if we choose to do any advocacy at all) in light of living in an extremely speciesist society.

The one exception to specific advocacy that I see as making sense (i.e. not wasting one’s time) is when a person or organization has specialized expertise in a given area (e.g. a scientist or PCRM).