Animal Person

On Industry-Funded Studies

Here's the link to the Wall Street Journal article. And here's the Pew report.

On a Petition That Worked and Property Rights

If you are a member of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, you probably know (via Good Medicine, their magazine) that just south of me, in Broward County, Ashley Capps, a 10th grader at Everglades High School, circulated a petition that was signed by 100 of her classmates to persuade the administration to offer more vegetarian and vegan options.

At the request of a Broward County school board member, PCRM nutritionists helped the district's food service department  . . . . [and] PCRM president Neal Barnard, M.D., visited each school to speak to parents and administrators about the healthfulness of vegetarian options (13).

The article also notes that according to a recent Harris Interactive Poll, the number of vegetarian teenagers has tripled in the last 10 years.

If you want to work toward more options in your district's schools, PCRM's Healthy School Lunches campaign will help you with the process. I continue to support PCRM because they have few issues, and they tackle them well. They want people to go vegan because it's healthy. They want animals out of labs (largely) because it's bad science and there are alternatives. They're organized, professional and rational (i.e., not hysterical) in the way they present their messages, they have free, helpful material for all of their campaigns, and they always provide quick, as well as not-so-quick actions you can take.

With regard to property rights, on the New York Bird Club discussion board, marilyn asked:

I wanted to know since animals are on the law books (from my understanding as propert)-who is in charge of changing such a law so that cruelty to animals is not taken so lightly with not much punishment. The laws need to say that animals are sentient creatures and that cruelty is a felony with many years jail time. Anyone have information for me. thanks.

You don't have to be a member to chime in, so if you're inclined, go for it!

On THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS

THE EMOTIONAL LIVES OF ANIMALS: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy, Sorrow, and  Empathy--and Why They Matter, by Marc Bekoff, is similar to Jeffrey Masson's ALTRUISTIC ARMADILLOS, ZENLIKE ZEBRAS (which I reviewed last year) and PLEASURABLE KINGDOM, by Jonathan Balcombe (which I wrote about in 2006) in that it's a useful tool to combat speciesism.

Without ever using the word "speciesism," Bekoff demonstrates that the emotions we are so certain are unique to humans are indeed not (e.g., love, grief, joy, embarrassment, jealousy), and also some cognitive capacities, such as thinking about the future and living by a moral code, are not unique to humans either.

Before I list some of my favorite quotes, I must say that Bekoff does not believe we should be using animals, however in the interim he believes we should work to improve their welfare and their living conditions while we are using them (135). Also, there are many instances of calling an animal "it" (18, 33, 150),  and euphemisms such as "put to sleep" (16).

And now, to the favorites:

• It's because animals have emotions that we're so drawn to them; lacking a shared language, emotions are perhaps our most effective means of cross-species communication (15).
• Rather than presuming that fish feel less than mice and that mice feel less than chimpanzees, or that rats aren't as emotional as dogs or wolves, or in general that animals feel less (and know less and suffer less) than humans, let's assume that numerous animals do experience rich emotions and do suffer all sorts of pain, perhaps even to a greater degree than humans (22).
• [H]umans can be selfish, unfair, and uncaring, and their moral codes can sometimes be self-servingly hypocritical. Just take a cursory glance at the front page of the newspaper: the murder of a family during a robbery is considered unacceptable, but not so killing in self-defense or as part of a distant, "justified" war. Humans can lie, steal, and cheat, and they can justify their actions so they never feel "wrong." At times, indeed, it can be hard to imagine how anyone could consider humans morally "above" any other animal beings (91).
• [I]t is becoming clear that many moral behaviors originate in emotional centers in the brain--a neural architecture that humans share with other animals (104).
• [The] "survival of the fittest" mentality, which pervades so much thinking and theorizing, is increasingly not supported by current research as being the prime mover in evolution. . . . Animals certainly still compete, but cooperation is central in the evolution of social behavior, and this alone makes it key for survival (107).
• Cognitive ethology  . . . relies on anecdotes, analogy, and anthropomorphism to reach its conclusions. They have traditionally been "dirty words" in science, since they smack of the subjective and the personal . . . . But are people who resist these A words themselves reacting out of personal or professional bias? (113).
• No longer do researchers have to clean up their language and sanitize their prose by using quotation marks around words such as happy, sad, jealousy or grief. Animals don't merely act "as if" they have feelings; they have them (120).
• [W]e all recognize and agree that animals and humans share many traits, including emotions. Thus we're not inserting something human into animals, but we're identifying commonalities and then using human language to communicate what we observe. . . . Claims that anthropomorphism has no place in science or that anthropomorphic predictions and explanations are less accurate than more mechanistic or reductionistic explanations are not supported by any data (125-6).
• We must not simply continue with the status quo because that is what we've always done. What we know has changed, and so should our relationships with animals (133).
• [T]he precautionary principle . . . maintains that a lack of certainty should not be an excuse to delay taking action. Sometimes we have to act based on our best judgment, because we may never have "all" the facts, and if we wait for absolute certainty, we might never do anything . . . . We may never know everything that goes through an animal's mind and heart, but we don't need to (137).
• I could no longer abide the killing of any animal, no matter how humane the process, simply for it to become my meal (150). Please note that on the same page, Bekoff promotes mitigating the worst abuses on farms and promotes free-range chickens and livestock.
• [Z]oos operate with two express purposes: one is to educate the public about animals and conservation, and the other is to help preserve species. These are laudable goals, but they rest on two shaky premises. One is that zoos can actually succeed at them, and the other is that zoos can adequately care for their charges. As for their goals, there is insufficient evidence to know the extent to which zoos actually educate visitors or if zoos play any significant role in species protection . . . . So if zoos don't really educate and aren't important for species survival, can they at least be trusted to nurture their animals? Unfortunately, too often the answer is no (152-3).
• If we continue to allow human interests to always trump the interests of other animals, we will never solve the numerous and complex problems we face (162).
• The separation of "us" (humans) from "them" (other animals) engenders a false dichotomy (162).
• No one is an object or an other; we are all just us (163).

As you can see, Bekoff walks the line between his personal belief that we shouldn't be using animals, and his prescription to care more about their welfare when the rest of us use them. I would recommend the book for all animal rights activists to bolster their information regarding the emotional and cognitive capacities of other species, as such ammunition comes in handy, particularly with people who own and claim to love dogs (and that's a significant part of his argument--that dogs aren't unlike us in many ways, but likewise other animals aren't unlike dogs in many ways). However, I'm not sure I'd recommend it to someone as a way to help them change the way they live their life, as that could easily backfire into the world of humane veal and providing more enrichment to animals being tortured in labs. Though Bekoff does speak of use, he speaks far more of suffering and ways to reduce it, and that concerns me.

On the Saving of Individuals

Deb Durant and I have written (her far better than I) about the mountain lions at the Kofa National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona for months, and I'd like to ask everyone a favor.

I talk a lot about seeing animals as individuals who have an interest in their own lives, free from the domination and torment (to say nothing of the slaughter) that occurs when we humans find a use for them or decide that they're in our way.

We have an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of, at most, a handful of mountain lions at Kofa. That difference, for them, is that between life and death, as the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) has decided the cougars (/pumas/mountain lions) should being collared and killed ("lethally removed") because the population of bighorn sheep is lower than it was in 2000, yet higher than it was last year. (Yes, you read that right.)

If you're thinking that it makes no sense to vilify and kill natural predators, particularly when their prey population has actually increased, and you must be missing something, you indeed are missing something: that tags for the hunting of bighorn sheep are a source of revenue for the AGFD, so they want to have as many bighorn sheep on the Kofa NWR as possible . . . . so people can kill them. You don't see AGFD calling for a decrease in people killing mountain lions. . . .

Hunting:

The 2008 season will commence on December 1, 2008, and run through the month.  The results of the 2007 season are available in the January 2008 monthly update.                            

Mountain lions--the natural predators of the sheep--are being blamed for the fact that there are fewer sheep than in 2000, yet more than in 2006, yet there are myriad other reasons for sheep population decline and/or mortality. The report prepared by the Kofa NWR and the AGFD describes other factors, including:

• Population response to drought
• Water availability
• Biological considerations (they are slow to recover, as a species, anyway)
• Disease
• Human disturbance
• Translocations (to reestablish populations elsewhere)
• Hunting ("Hunter success rates have averaged 89% for bighorn sheep on the Kofa over the last 20 years"-p. 19).

The Yuma Sun article Deb referenced a couple of days ago has a lively comments section and you can "Recommend" the article as well as individual comments. Please, at least do that (I did!). You'll find that even hunter Daniel Patterson agrees that the slaughter of mountain lions at Kofa is unethical. He writes:

The real problem here is the unethical tactics of AZ Game & Fish using GPS collars not for real research, but to track and kill rare low desert pumas. I'm a hunter and most other hunters will agree it is unethical to use GPS collars to track and kill pumas.

Bighorn populations on the Kofa are going up -- something AGFD seems to not want to talk about. Between 06 and 07, the agencies estimate the bighorn population went up significantly from 392 to 460 animals. We should all be glad the bighorn population is going up, and the gov't should be honest about it.

The Kofa is a National Wildlife Refuge that needs ecosystem management, not single-species bighorn game farm management.

And now for that favor I was talking about . . . Please read letter from the US Department of the Interior regarding this issue. There is a "scoping period," which basically is a window for providing input that began on April 24 and will close on May 24. Please either send an e-mail to KofaLionComments@fws.gov or send a letter expressing your thoughts and feelings over this situation, and specifically saying that there is no need to kill the "offending" pumas (not to mention it's unethical) to:

US Fish and Wildlife Service
Southwest Arizona National Wildlife Refuge Complex
356 West 1st Street
Yuma, AZ 85364

The "Project Description" on the last page of the letter states it:

"is to allow for the limited removal, by government agents, of individual lions identified as regularly preying on sheep. The lethal removal of 'offending lions' in order to recover and manage bighorn sheep would be used when population levels of sheep fall below an identified threshold. A mountain lion would be considered an 'offending lion' if it preyed on more than one sheep in a six month period."

Lethal removal. Offending lion. More than one sheep in six months. And hunting season has not been affected.

Please write and save a handful of individuals in Arizona.

The Difficult Thing About Going Vegan

A while back, Dan commented that the most difficult thing about going vegan is the most difficult thing about life in general--other people.

Well, other people don't appear to be making life any easier for the Milwaukee Brewers' Prince Fielder, who has become a vegetarian.

Let's deconstruct:

Fielder and his diet have become as delicious for critics as the rib eyes he used to love.

“Fans last year were yelling at me, ‘Hey Prince, eat a salad!’ ” Fielder said during dinner at a Milwaukee restaurant last Tuesday. “This year they’re saying, ‘Eat a steak!’ I feel like going: ‘Keep yelling, buddy. You’re still in the stands.’ ”

Great comeback.

Fielder, 23, decided to make the switch over the winter after reading how cattle and chickens were treated and “was totally grossed out,” he said. His wife, Chanel, preferred a no-meat diet as it was, so he embraced a new approach.

Two things jump out:

1. He did it because of the treatment of the animals, yet didn't include milk products and eggs, which just might contain more suffering than a hamburger. Someone ought to tell him that.
2. His wife eschews meat, which is great because he has support at home.

I have a question about something on the following page that I don't understand:

Names of any other baseball-playing vegetarians remain a mystery; the tight end Tony Gonzalez of the Kansas City Chiefs last year became a vegan [but not really], meaning he also eschews eggs and dairy.

Not quite so draconian, Fielder still has received advice on his new diet from Leslie Bonci of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.

Not quite so draconian?  Is the article's author, Alan Schwarz, referring to veganism as draconian? I don't understand.

Brewers fans do not seem quite so comfortable with their brawny slugger becoming so refined.

Refined? That was an interesting choice, don't you think?

Dan Ricksetter of Milwaukee added: “It was a bit disheartening when he decided to become a vegetarian. Brats are intrinsic to our culture. They’re the breakfast of champions. I’m not sure which sport.”

Perhaps Mr. Fielder realized that culture is no excuse for torture.

You can write to the New York Times about Fielder and the article referenced above at letters@nytimes.com. Maybe congratulations are in order, maybe you want to point out that milk products and eggs are not without hideous cruelty. Here's Fielder's page on the official Brewers site, and here's the fan feedback e-mail page.

On Petitions and Grizzly Bear "Actors"

The proposed budget cut in the State of Florida that would have involved a dramatic reduction in funds for foster youth and emancipated foster youth has been rejected, in part (from what my contacts tell me) due to the overwhelming response from Floridians, like me, who signed a petition and called legislators to register their discontent. Over 2,500 people signed the petition! my contact enthusiastically reported.

Wow. 2,500.

That doesn't seem like a lot to me, considering the millions of people since I became an "animal rights activist" in 1986, who signed petitions to stop the seal slaughter. And who continue to sign.

I have had numerous petition experiences with positive outcomes when the issue had to do with humans, and particularly if it was an election year. I signed a petition a couple of years ago to ban gestation crates (yes, that was me, thinking the elimination of gestation crates would lead to veganism, mea culpa, mea culpa), and I know that similar welfare reforms that are a win-win-win (allegedly) have succeeded.

However, I have yet to see a petition produce any change that I would campaign for. (And I welcome suggestions, as it's not as if I have a list in front of me so I could be missing something.) It makes sense that no abolitionist measure would come from a petition, as the economic reasons underlying the use of animals will always prevail, for now. And then there's the reality that legislators are supported by the animal-exploitation industrial complex.

The fact that it only takes a couple of seconds to sign a petition isn't a plus, in my mind. Everyone knows it's a no-risk venture, it takes virtually no time, there's no commitment attached to it, and no money. It does make a statement when delivered, I'm sure, particularly if it has hundreds of thousands of names on it (or even thousands, as with the Florida budget petition). But how strong can that statement be when it took so little to create it (especially if it was created on the Internet)?

When I first started working with nonprofits and raised the meager $3,000 it would take to go, with two other teachers, to Haiti to deliver medical and school supplies in 1991 (can you say coup d'etat? And debacle?), I was given a bit of advice I'll never forget. I was collecting clothing to bring to the children and amassed so much I had to ask the people in the community to stop sending me clothing and give it to a certain local church that served homeless children. A nun at the church wasn't surprised by all of the clothing. She said (after she expressed her gratitude): "That's what you get in middle class neighborhoods. They give you clothing--and anything else they don't want--and they sign petitions. That's what they think supporting a cause is. Just don't ask them to do anything that would actually cost them something."

A nun said this. Ouch.

This is probably me being cynical again, but I have the old-school notion in my mind that when you believe in something and you want to change the way things are, there must be sacrifice. I don't find in this lifetime that you get something for nothing. And I find it difficult to believe that massive social change of the variety I'd like to see is going to come from signing petitions.

But I could be wrong.

I already know what some of you think because you e-mailed me and made me want to write this post, and I thank you. I suspect a lot of people will disagree with what I've written.

But I could be wrong.

Finally, I was going to post about "Hollywood Grizzly Bear Kills Trainer," but I have little to say other than: What did you expect?

On Speciesism and the Relanguaging of Reality

The primary reason I wanted to blog was to point out the way our language belies our behavior when it comes to nonhuman animals. The relanguaging of reality to conjure up a contrary image used to be a mere fascination for me. But now it's a cause for worry.

I worry that the average American doesn't find anything odd about the phrase "humane slaughter." I worry that the concept of "ethical veal" can actually make someone feel good about eating a calf. I worry that the "lethal removal" of cougars (and read Deb for commentary and action to take), despite including the word "lethal," doesn't cause more ire.

And when I read that some people might not want to eat veal because it comes from a baby, I find myself thinking: So you'd rather him suffer longer before you eat him? 

And for those upset by the prospect of eating a baby, what about lamb? What about eggs? Here's an educational tale that goes under the category of Too Much Information, but it's worth telling.

INT: DOCTOR'S OFFICE

Mary is getting an ultrasound of her ovaries.

MARY

What's that?

TECHNICIAN

That's a follicle, you know, it holds an egg.

MARY

    (pointing to oblong bubble)

No, that. What's that?

TECHNICIAN

Oh, that's a sac of fluid. It came from the egg when you ovulated.

MARY

Oh, so it's like the egg cracked and that's the egg white. Just like with eggs you have for breakfast.

TECHNICIAN

Exactly. . . . Wait . . . I never thought of it that way . . . Ewww.

MARY

I'm so glad I don't eat eggs.

It is odd that they're called eggs, though. Amazing that we haven't created a word that would make them sound less like what they really are. Then again, as my technician who looks at human eggs all day demonstrated, it's altogether possible that most people aren't connecting the idea of an egg with the reality of an egg.

I worry about the culling of birds, mushing dogs, Greyhounds, race horses, day old chickens and sea lions, as if culling them is a relief, as killing them would have been cruel.

I worry that when I speak of the enslavement of animals, people get offended, as if enslavement is a condition applicable only to humans. I worry that we don't refer to what we do to animals as rape, when we are indeed raping them, according to several definitions.

I worry that when I comment that "what I find most unsettling is that there is no hint that bringing sentient beings into existence for the sole purpose of dominating, exploiting and slaughtering them, when there is no need to, might also be some kind of crime," someone named evie responds, "for 1 split second I thought you were speaking of humans. Yikes."

Speciesism, in addition to our propensity for wanting to turn away from the atrocious things we do, has created a jargon that is now common usage. Those who exploit nonhuman animals have been allowed to label what they do and what they "produce," and the mainstream public has lapped up and incorporated their language, thereby lulling themselves into a false sense of what it means to be humane or just.

So what can you do? Attend to the precision of your language, and clarify the language of others when you can, whether in conversation or in a letter to the editor or a producer. Yes, we could all spend entire days doing this; I'm aware of that. But we are such a minuscule minority, and we need to step up and combat the lies that have become reality for most people as they become unwitting accomplices to the multi-billion dollar business of dominating and slaughtering sentient beings and destroying the planet.

A Smattering of Things to Do

This week has brought many interesting suggestions of things Animal People can do to get the word out--whatever your word is (after all, we are not clones).

Bea informed me that Dirty Jobs, on The Discover Channel, will feature . . . .

Inside an Indiana dairy farm, Mike learns how to milk a cow and use a blow torch to clean her udders. Then, Mike gets the inside scoop on how to inseminate a cow. Finally, Mike gets an up-close look at fatherhood as he helps deliver baby calves.

I accidentally saw several minutes of the episode where Mike gleefully, and to romping, silly music, checks the sex of day old baby chickens, and tosses the males to their deaths. This is a popular show, and millions of people are now aware that male chicks are killed on Day 1 or 2 and I haven't heard anything about egg sales plummeting as a result, so though the audience might be upset about some of what they see (and it is likely to be presented in a delightful manner), I suspect dietary and consumer habits will not change. And that's not the intention of the show, anyway. I'd be curious to see who the advertisers are for that episode.

If you are so inclined, watch it, deconstruct it, and let me know how it all goes. Write to Mike Rowe and the producers of the show and let them know what you think (here's a message board).

Next, I didn't follow Pope Benedict XVI's US trip, but I hear that 100 white doves were released at his New York and Washington DC masses. The New York Bird Club was aflutter regarding this information, particularly considering the Pope's (alleged) love of cats is well known. There's some confusion over whether the birds were doves or white homing pigeons, as if they were the latter it would be acceptable. There are six pages of discussion on the board, including suggestions for what you can do if this is something that offends you.

Penultimately, if you haven't visited Water Footprint.org and calculated your individual water footprint, do so and then use your results in discussions with vegetarians and omnivores and anyone else interested in the environment. Do NOT use the quick calculator , as it doesn't distinguish between vegetarians and vegans, and your results will have an enormous dairy component to them that you cannot control. You might want to rethink your coffee consumption and quit said habit (it takes 140 litres of water to produce 1 cup of coffee, compared to 35 litres for a cup of tea). And you'll need to know that 1 kilogram=2.20462 pounds.

Also, there are slides that provide very useful tidbits on the home page, but Safari apparently doesn't support them (yet doesn't say anything about their existence), while Firefox does show them. This tells me that there might be other parts of the design that I'm not seeing with Safari.

I'm a bit confused about "Industrial goods consumption" being judged by my gross yearly income. That enormously skews my water footprint, yet I purchase far less than the average person. And to use gross income rather than net makes no sense to me. It appears that there's a lot of judgment factored into the equation. Nevertheless, the information on the site is useful for conversations with meat and dairy eaters, as it helps them see that if they call themselves environmentalists, they might want to change what they call themselves or change their behavior.

Finally, Deanna wrote me asking for help with:

  . . . finding a way to stop the Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City, UT from building a proposed new polar bear exhibit. The Hogle Zoo had a polar bear several years ago that died from an intestinal blockage caused by ingesting a glove that had been thrown into his cage. I had seen that polar bear in person and it was a most depressing sight. This was Salt Lake City in the summer which is blazing hot! The poor bear was in a really small concrete and bar cage and it was just pitiful. Now they want another polar bear and are campaigning for donations for a new exhibit. They have already received a $3 million grant from a local philanthropic
organization. It will probably be several years before the exhibit has enough funding, but I would like to marshall some resources to stop it before it gets started. There are so many logical arguments against building this exhibit, not the least of which is that the money it will take to build it could be put to better use protecting the Arctic. I know it always comes down to money and power and I am not at all sure where to start. . . .

I am not choosing one animal over another to focus on. I think zoos of any kind should be abolished. The reason for my focus on this particular zoo and this particular exhibit is that it does not yet exist and has the possibility of being stopped and the possibility of educating the public about protecting the polar bears' natural habitat if they are to be saved - not putting them in zoos in the high desert. It just seems that stopping this exhibit would be a huge step in making people sit up and take notice and realizing that zoos are not the conservation havens that their PR people try to make them out to be.

Any suggestions?

• Does anyone have evidence that starting online petitions actually works? I just signed one against budget cuts for child welfare in Florida (they will dramatically affect funds available for foster and former foster youth), because a good friend asked me to, but I do wonder about their efficacy.
• I suppose Deanna could start a blog or an organization dedicated to stopping this endeavor, and/or partner with the local animal welfare groups or animal rights groups.
• Writing letters to the editor could be helpful.
• And writing to city commissioners (that's how it works down here--it's all about the city commissioners).
• Going to council meetings with a group and getting on the agenda to publicly discuss this, unless the zoo is private.
• Contacting the Utah Zoological Society Board of Directors, which runs the zoo, is definitely a good idea.
• If you know any big donors--or can even amass a bunch of smaller ones--who can let the zoo know that its customers aren't happy with its plans, that could be helpful.

As I run around today I might think of others, and I'll be in and out to publish comments if anyone has any ideas.

Thanks, as always, for reading and writing.

On Absurdity and NYT Editorials

An editorial in today's New York Times, called "Million-Dollar Meat" is screaming for letters to the editor. I haven't been writing as many letters for animal rights as I usually do, as my commitment to blogging daily (and at least a couple of times a week at the recently-launched www.marymartinphd.com) is my priority, and sometimes that's all my day allows.

The back story is that PeTA is "offering a $1 million reward to the first scientist to produce and bring to market in vitro meat."

Let's deconstruct:

• The Times is "disgusted by the conventional meat industry in this country, which raises animals — especially chicken and pigs — in inhumane confinement systems that cause significant environmental damage." So is everyone else, and there's absolutely no risk in writing that. In fact, they'd sound like barbarians, at this point, if they took any other position.
• Naturally, the Times believes that: "There is every reason to change the way meat is produced, to make it more ethical, more humane." Without fear of sounding like a broken record, I am disappointed that such bright, articulate, educated people fail to consider slaughter without necessity as unethical or inhumane, regardless of the conditions the animals are kept in. But they will explain themselves, in a remarkably unsophisticated manner, in a moment. First, however, they must exacerbate the existing confusion over what animal rights is.
• "But the result of the technology that PETA hopes to reward could be the end of domesticated farm animals." What's so bad about the end of domesticated farm animals? They're only domesticated because we made them so, and we only made them in order to dominate and exploit them.
• "This has often seemed as if it were the logical conclusion of some radical animal-rights activists: better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance that they would suffer." Seems as if it were the logical conclusion is confusing to me. First, seems as if it were often tells me that the editorial board at the Times isn't clear about what animal rights is and hasn't been properly introduced to the idea that domination and exploitation are at its core. Next, it is a logical conclusion that bringing animals into the world for the sole purpose of using them isn't right, and I don't know what's so "radical" about that idea. Finally, I don't think that last clause is the point of animal rights. The idea that it's better for animals not to exist at all if there is a chance they would suffer is inaccurate. I would rewrite it as: better for animals not to exist at all than to be brought into this world for the sole purpose of being dominated, exploited and slaughtered for no legitimate reason. But because of all of the focus on cruelty, this misunderstanding about animal rights has become ubiquitous.
• This editorial is a perfect example of what happens when you focus on cruelty: you open the door for what the Times "prefers," which is "a more measured approach."  Once you couch your objection in the language of suffering, you have no choice but to accept any resolution that seeks to reduce suffering, otherwise you look like you're against reducing suffering.
• Of course, this is the direction the Times chooses, with its declaration that we should: "Ensure the least possible cruelty to animals, by all means, and raise them in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound." Again, the editorial board, word people that they are, might want to further explore the notion of "ethical," and ponder the place of dominance, exploitation and slaughter in their definition.
• The next sentence contains a notion I found embarrassingly unsophisticated, not to mention absurd: that we should "also treasure the cultural and historical bond between humans and domesticated animals." It is not a bond that we are treasuring; it is bondage. What kind of a society treasures involuntary servitude in 2008?
• Surprisingly, the penultimate sentence articulates the substance of animal rights as I know it, yet it appears that the editorial board isn't aware of what it has done when it states: "Historically speaking, they exist only because of the uses we have found for them, and preserving their existence means, in most cases, preserving the uses we have made for them." Exactly. The editorial board might want to think about what that means.
• We end with: "It will be a barren world if the herds and flocks disappear in favor of meat grown in a laboratory tank." Animals wouldn't completely disappear, and there are more food animals in sheds and factories than in herds or flocks.

What's amazing--but not really--about that last sentence and much of the editorial, is that it celebrates the idea that we bring animals into the world for our use. And that the Times thinks it would be a damn shame--a barren world--if we didn't get the opportunity to continue to use them the way we wish to. If the Times understood animal rights in terms of nonviolence and social justice, I wonder what kind of "measured approach" they'd be able to conjure up?

Letters can be sent to: letters@nytimes.com.

How is Earth Day Like Mother's Day?

How is Earth Day like Mother's Day? People think they can celebrate, express their gratitude and give the Earth or their mother/s a rest for one day, then go back to neglecting and trampling on them the next day--and for the rest of the year.

That's the nature of holidays, though: a quick acknowledgment, which is supposed to be better than none. It's a gesture.

The cheeky "What Killed Earth Day? Too Much Fuss and No Bother," by Hank Stuever in today's Washington Post ends with:

Finally, Earth Day died the minute they canceled that Earth Day concert here on Sunday. Because of rain. Because of lightning.

That sort of wussiness won't save the planet. Earth Day died because, it turns out, saving the Earth is going to be very complicated. It is going to require attention spans, intelligence, sacrifice and lawyers and more than one day a year. To save the Earth, Earth Day had to go.

Earth Day is survived by its longtime companion, Mother Nature.

Respecting the Earth and its inhabitants isn't achieved by shifting consumption from one provider of goods to another, although when you need to replace something, shifting to a "greener" (as opposed to more greenwashed ) product is certainly desirable. (Check out Freecycle, where you might be able to get what you want, free of charge, from someone who wants to give it away.) It's not accomplished through buying a different kind of meat or egg.  If you're serious about ending the exploitation of the Earth, you'll buy only things--and that includes food--that you need. Eating to live rather than living to eat doesn't mean you don't enjoy your food and look forward to each meal. To me, it means your food decisions are based on what your body needs to function optimally. It also means that if there's something you crave, such as an animal product, you make the decision for others--a decision that is far more important for them--that you are going to refrain from killing them for your meals. Eating to live can include eating in such a way that allows others to live.

People want to hear that they can honor the Earth for a day, only to return to their destructive practices the following day. People want to hear that they can care about animals and not want to harm them, but still eat their flesh, secretions and excretions. But the jig is up, and we know that that's impossible.

On Cameras in Slaughterhouses

I'm categorizing this post under Gray Matters, among other things, because I'm ambivalent. As many of you know by now, as a result of the investigation at the Hallmark slaughterhouse, Congress is calling for video cameras to be installed at slaughterhouses.

This is from Erik Marcus:

Such an action wouldn't stop all slaughterhouse abuse but it's a vital
step in the right direction.  On Friday I recorded an eighteen minute
podcast about this:

http://www.vegan.com/2008/04/18/bonus-podcast-glass-walls-and-video/

And, as a result, one of my listeners started a petition on the Care2
site, calling for Congress to pass legislation mandating the
installation of video cameras inside all United States
slaughterhouses.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/video-cameras-in-slaughterhouses

Won't you take two minutes to visit the above web page and to sign
this petition . . .

Elaine wrote a post for the Daily Kos about this issue here.

My question for you all is: Are you going to sign the petition, and if so, why? If not, why not? What does it mean for you to sign the petition?

My opinion is that this is no way related to animal rights and will not lead to animal rights. It just might lead to some people going vegetarian or vegan because it will provide slaughterhouses with those glass Linda and Paul McCartney spoke of. Maybe it won't, as we don't know if all (any?) of the footage will be for public consumption.

One thing I'm fairly sure it will lead to--and this is just logic talking--is that slaughterhouse workers will be on their best behavior for the cameras, while they mutilate, torture and slaughter sentient beings in perfectly legal ways. And what I see in our future is slaughterhouses using the footage to demonstrate that the animals are not suffering unduly (of course, that's a ridiculous statement, but you know you're going to hear about how they're being treated humanely).

Perhaps the footage might lead to the alteration of some practices. Perhaps not. Remember, the cameras aren't so you can see how horrible it is in the slaughterhouse--they're for oversight. They're supposed to catch the person who thinks it's funny to sit on a turkey or throw chickens against a wall for fun or sexually molest a pig. They're supposed to make sure that business goes as it should in a slaughterhouse.

And if no problems are found, a slaughterhouse might use that fact in their marketing. You won't even have to pay more for happy meat, then, because you can get less-abused met from Tyson (or wherever).

What I would like to see if I'm going to spend my time and energy on a campaign, and I know I've written this many times, is evidence that it will help my cause. My cause is the liberation of animals, and not only don't I think cameras in slaughterhouses will lead to it, but I think the entire idea might backfire, making even slaughterhouse meat into happy meat.

I'd be thrilled to be persuaded otherwise. Perhaps I'm just being cynical. But this act by Congress could turn out to be a boon for animal slaughter companies, depending on who is allowed access to the footage, and what exactly would constitute inappropriate or cruel action. I don't want to hear that business is going the way it should in a slaughterhouse. I want to hear that we're not going to be slaughtering animals.

Intention is a powerful notion, and the intention here is to catch things that shouldn't be happening, not things that are customary for the industry. That doesn't help my cause.

On the Spirituality of NOT Eating Animals

You may recall that a couple of days ago I was experiencing frustration with people who call themselves spiritual, yet manage to incorporate eating animals into their brand of spirituality. To be fair, traditional Western religions (i.e., not mysticism), at least according to their doctrines, incorporate animal products, so I do understand why someone who calls herself Catholic might find nothing unacceptable about eating animals. It's the Eastern types that confounded me, as ahimsa (nonviolence, non injury) is a tenet, and nonhuman animals are explicitly included. Eating meat is the ingestion of suffering on a spiritual level, and I'm not sure what kind of mental acrobatics have positioned my friends (and some commenters on Rethos) to say otherwise.

Eric suggested directing them to Dr. Will Tuttle's World Peace Diet, which I had forgotten about, probably because it's the book closest to what I believe so it didn't create any stress, conflict or dissonance in my mind. (That's just how my mind works. Or doesn't.) You can direct people to a 340-page book, or you can ask them to watch a video, or you can do both. I'm doing both.

Here are some of my favorite points to ponder for those who believe they can eat animals with love and deference:

• "Seeing beings rather than things."
• We are attached to food, religion and our cultural story, but why?
• "In our culture, we practice the art of disconnection." Anyone who meditates or does yoga knows that repetition is the mother of mastery.
• When you harm others, you're harming yourself even more.
• "Whatever we do to animals, we start doing to people."
• "Perhaps the reason we have all the problems we have is the mentality required to have an unending supply of flesh and fluids."

I think my new strategy is to ask my friends to watch the video. It certainly isn't a substitute for reading the book, but it does raise important questions and present valuable information (like his story about the monastery in South Korea that has been vegan for 650 years). His personal journey will no doubt be  particularly interesting to my friends who have had similar paths.

I'll let you know if my new strategy yields any desired outcomes.

What Can YOU Do About The Food Crisis or Climate Change?

In response to those who have written saying, "I'm a vegan--the food crisis and climate change aren't my fault! What else can I possibly do?" (or something like that), I pass that question back to you. Let's come up with some ideas.

I tomorrow's NYT Magazine, "The Green Issue," there are some good ideas and some that won't apply to you because they're animal based and the NYT hasn't gotten around to taking the connection between animals for food and climate change seriously. They do have an entire section called "Eat," wherein the penultimate tip, "The High Price of Beef," states:

Trimming the amount of meat Americans eat would not only help the planet — a mere 20 percent reduction is the equivalent of switching from a Camry to a Prius — but would also be likely to reduce obesity, cancer and heart disease. Until recently, it was only animal rights groups like PETA that were willing to ask Americans to forgo the pleasures of the flesh. That changed in January, when Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and a vegetarian), uttered four little words: “Please eat less meat.” He continued: “This is something that the I.P.C.C. was afraid to say earlier, but now we have said it.”

Other than that, unless I missed something, the "production" of food that comes from animals doesn't appear to be a serious problem.

With regard to the food crisis, every article I've read has at least one sentence regarding the connection between eating animals and global hunger. But sometimes only one sentence.

So what can someone who's already being part of the solution contribute? Here are some thoughts:

• I find many vegans to be single-issue focused. I'd like to see more discussions that connect other issues relating to nonviolence and social justice (and the environment) because I think they make going vegan an even stronger idea as it's part of the solution to so many issues. (Part, as in: aligning actions with beliefs.) I also think that when you present veganism as necessary if you're serious about climate change, nonviolence, etc..., it's tough for someone to accuse you of loving animals and not people (which is ridiculous, but we all know people who do that) because your issue isn't with the treatment of animals--it's with promoting justice.
  
• Educating others about why veganism is an integral part of a plan that would ease the food crisis and climate change (not to mention create a healthier, thinner population in the ever-fattening West).
• Stop buying products made with corn. You may have already done that. I'd also add rice to the list of products not to buy. Even wheat. And here's why: demand for corn, rice and wheat (and of course meat) are in large part what's causing the crisis (though it really is more of a distribution crisis). And often when people learn of a supply and demand crisis, they rush out to buy as much of the product as possible, thereby exacerbating the problem. To flip that situation (and this is also true when investing--you don't buy when prices are high and the stock is in demand--that's when you get out!), whatever product is experiencing market stress is one to avoid as to not add to the stress. Besides, there are people who need that rice and wheat a lot more than you do. Eat more quinoa. It's better for you, anyway.

What do you think?

On the Eating of Meat with Love and Spirituality

Almost two weeks ago, I posted Is "Compassionate Carnivore" and Oxymoron? on Rethos, and encountered an idea I haven't seen for a while: that you can eat meat with "love" and "deference," and if you do so your behavior is "morally sound."

I truly believe it is morally sound. With deference, love, and an understanding of the proportions of nutrients the body needs, eating meat can be ethical.

I tried my best to respectfully disagree with the gentleman who wrote that, but it wasn't easy for me. I have many people in my life who are spiritual, though very few who would call themselves religious. Some believe in a god, others don't. All were raised within the Judeo-Christian model, yet as adults they're now more in a Hindu-Buddhist model. And here's what I get from the ones who used to be vegetarians or vegans (some of whom lived in ashrams, which are usually vegetarian as they use ghee):

Spiritually, I believe that if you express your gratitude and bless your food and the animals it came from, eating some meat is okay. After all, it is all karma and (similar to what the gentleman who wrote the above comment concluded) "the living must eat the dead, for the dead to live again."

It takes every ounce of self-restraint for me not to say, "Dogs are scavengers and eat the dead. You wanna do that? Go for it. But what you are doing is paying someone to breed, dominate, exploit, mutilate and slaughter someone. Is that part of your whole poetic circle-of-life scenario? Does that sound karmically correct?"

I am aware of how rude I sound, but I do happen to be surrounded by spiritual-types, and I find them more adept at rationalization than the average person. And the crux of it all is that spirituality trumps everything and in fact INFORMS morality. So if you can justify something with spirituality, morality is PRESUMED.

Do you see my problem?

Any advice for dealing with these loving, compassionate, meditating, chanting, well-meaning yoga-doers?

On The Global Food Crisis, Part Deux

For at least 10 days, my mailbox has been inundated with links to articles about the global food crisis. I'm currently working with a group directly affected by the crisis, and it has begun to see food riots. I tell you this because I'm the only person involved in the initiative who is a vegan or--and this is far more important--understands the connection between how we eat here in the US and why there doesn't appear to be enough food for developing nations. If you're going to work directly with people who are starving, it would seem to me that engaging in a lifestyle that contributes to that starvation is not the optimal way to behave.

Though most mainstream publications in the US connect not just biofuels to the food crisis, but meat consumption also, they don't concentrate on the latter (as I discussed in The Global Food Crisis and Crimes Against Humanity). Other publications are dealing with it a bit more substantially, but not without major problems.

For instance, in "The Big Question: Is changing our diet the key to resolving the global food crisis?" in The Independent, Jeremy Laurance reports that the quantity of grain grown in the world (2.1 billion tons) isn't the problem. The problem is where the grain is going (biofuels and farmed animals).

According to Simon Fairlie, in his magazine The Land, it would take just 3 million hectares of arable land to meet Britain's food needs, half the current total, if the population were vegan.

Meanwhile, Laurance thinks it's completely unrealistic for Britain to go vegan.

Vegans number 0.4 per cent of the population, vegetarians 3 per cent, and most people will not take readily to a diet of green leaves, pulses, fruit and nuts. This is about the direction we should be moving in, not the ultimate destination. We should be aiming to reduce our meat and dairy consumption, and increase consumption of fruit and vegetables.

We are eating 50 per cent more meat than in the 1960s, and global consumption is forecast to double by 2050. More of the extra is chicken, and we eat less red meat than in the past (and a lot less than the Americans). But in terms of overall meat consumption, we are not even going in the right direction.

I don't disagree that it's unrealistic for Britain to immediately go vegan, but I wouldn't call it completely unrealistic. Also, calling veganism "a diet of green leaves, pulses, fruits and nuts" hardly sounds appealing, and would make no one even investigate going vegan, which I think is unfair.

Laurance also thinks "it seems too difficult" to give up meat, and writes: "We should get used to thinking of meat as a treat – it could help to save the world's poor from starvation." That's an odd juxtaposition to me. It's a treat to kill someone when you don't need to, and it's also a treat to help starving people? I don't get it. But what confounds me even more are his conclusions. Given the realities that Laurance explains regarding health, the environment and the inefficiency of meat production, he writes:

Should we be trying to cut out meat to help save the world's poor from starvation?
Yes...

* Producing meat is less efficient than growing grain – it takes 8kg of corn to produce 1kg of beef

* Growing crops to feed animals means there is less land on which to grow crops for humans

* There is a shortage of grain for human consumption, and global food prices have leapt by 57 per cent in a year

No...

* It is not realistic to expect people to switch to a vegan diet of vegetables, pulses, fruit and nuts

* China and India should not be denied the same diet that we have enjoyed as they grow wealthier

* An alternative way of tackling the food crisis would be to reverse the policy of diverting grain to make biofuels

First of all, the food crisis existed prior to biofuels. Some people starve while others eat animals. That's not news. Would ceasing the production of biofuels ease the situation? Probably. But what's being done here that's inexcusable, is that biofuels are being painted as the enemy, while meat production, which has been diverting food from the mouths of the hungry for decades, gets a free pass.

George Monbiot does something similar in his "The Pleasures of the Flesh: If you care about hunger, eat less meat" (and you can comment on it here--I did). He begins with the statistics about food and where it is going, mentioning biofuel and calling it, like others have, a "crime against humanity" to use food as fuel. Like Laurance, he quotes Simon Fairlie's findings, concluding that "A vegan Britain could make a massive contribution to global food stocks." But then he loses me and my jaw drops with:

But I cannot advocate a diet I am incapable of following. I tried it for about 18 months, lost two stone, went as white as bone and felt that I was losing my mind. I know a few healthy-looking vegans and I admire them immensely. But after almost every talk I give, I am pestered by swarms of vegans demanding that I adopt their lifestyle. I cannot help noticing that in most cases their skin has turned a fascinating pearl grey.

Like Laurance, he doesn't make one want to even investigate a healthy vegan diet. (And by the by, my visits to London and Oxford have informed me that is the British who look wan.) Monbiot goes the sustainable-meat route, ruling out beef "for both environmental and humanitarian reasons," and encouraging the consumption of tilapia.

What I don't read in either Laurance or Monbiot is a moral imperative. I don't get the feeling of urgency. Instead, the message I received was: biofuels, bad, and in fact a crime against humanity; meat consumption, bad, but it's a yummy pleasure and a treat and we enjoy it and shouldn't be asked to stop.

Finally, the most unsettling part of both articles is the blatant speciesism. The effect on other species isn't even considered. Monbiot thinks he considers it with: "Pigs and chickens feed more efficiently, but unless they are free range you encounter another ethical issue: the monstrous conditions in which they are kept." He is considering the welfare of the animals yet he doesn't find an "ethical issue" in bringing them into existence for the sole purpose of dominating, exploiting and slaughtering them unnecessarily.

I'm still waiting for someone to have the integrity to write that we have a moral imperative toward each other, other sentient beings and the Earth. And the simplest, most environmentally friendly answer to our biggest problems is to eschew products that contribute them and to go vegan.

On Horses, Four-Wheelers, Plows and Other Machinery

Back in November I wrote "On Homeless Horses and Hawking Happy Meat," after which there was a discussion about horses and their place in our lives. (I'd like to see some discussion about our place in their lives.)

Portia Winters, a horse owner who says it is she who is the "real animal lover," was involved in the conversation. (And yes, I did respond that loving animals isn't the point.) She recently revived that discussion with:

OK, Let me get this straight. We are not supposed to ride horses or use them in any way? Where would you suggest all the pampered and cherished show horses go? Do you really believe they will just exist in someone's back yard as a lawn ornament? Horses would not still be in existence if it wasn't for the want of people to use them in sport. Sorry but I find some of the animal activists to be out of touch with reality and extreme. By the way bits, saddles, spurs, crops etc... are only as harsh and cruel as the human using them. Honestly I think most people of teh opinion horses should not be ridden do not own horses. I do agree that non domesticated animals Ex;Elephants should not be used for our entertainment.

I didn't respond as I was feeling a bit like she wasn't listening to the idea that horses aren't ours to use, so I just published the comment in case someone wanted to respond, and called it a day.

Then I read "South Carolina Breeders Try to Save Marsh Tacky Horses," by Bruce Smith (AP), and thought it might help me craft a kinder, gentler response to Portia than the one that was on the tip of my tongue when I read her comment.

Onward . . .

I would begin by answering Portia's question: Are we supposed to ride horses or use them in any way?

No. I believe they should spend the rest of their lives at sanctuaries, doing as they please. No bits, no saddles. As far as most people who think horses shouldn't be ridden do not own horses goes--EXACTLY. Because they are not ours to own and ride. Finally, they would still be in existence, but in much smaller numbers, if we didn't breed and use them. And yes, those numbers would decrease and decrease if there weren't adequate habitat to sustain them. But for an individual interested in animal rights, that's preferable to breeding them to keep them in existence for our trivial interests and uses. Which brings me to the article about tackies . . .

Let's deconstruct:

• Only about 150 marsh tacky horses remain on the Carolina sea islands, and "breeders are coming together to save the tacky, whose ancestors were left by colonial Spanish explorers." So the horses, like cows, are not even native to North America. (The horses were brought here in the 1500s. You can learn more about them here, at The American Livestock Breeds Conservancy. Yes, they are considered livestock.)
• David Grant, who owns two dozen tackies, says: "You have to acquire a taste for these horses. They are not as attractive as an Arabian, a quarterhorse or a thoroughbred, but now that I breed them and use them, beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What's so useful about them, you ask? "They can take hunters into woods and marshes that can't be reached by foot or four-wheelers. They don't flinch when a rider fires a gun from the saddle. Their deep, narrow chests give them more stamina than quarterhorses over long distances, and their hind ends slope downward, allowing tight turns in cane breaks and woods where other horses might have to back out." So they're like a four-wheeler, but different. (We should start with: they're living, breathing beings.)
• Another tacky owner, Ed Ravenel, says: "You can work'em, you can ride'em. When you put them in swamps and mud like we have around here in the Deep South ... instead of panicking and floundering around, they can just plow right on through it." So they're also like plows, but different. (We should start with: they're living, breathing beings.)
• Perhaps the most useful trait of the tacky is that he "can be broken quickly and prove docile for even the youngest of riders," according to the article's author.
• Finally, farmer D. P. Lowther says: "If a man told me he would like a horse he can depend on to ride, to work, to put into several different disciplines, to haul and not worry about the horse breaking down or faltering or running off, the closest I could come to a guarantee would be one of these tacky horses." Wow, maybe even a money-back guarantee for the commodity that is the tacky.

Observe the way the men talk about the horses. They don't sound like they're referring to four-legged sentient beings in the least. They sound like they're describing farm equipment or motor vehicles of some sort or toys for their children. Why? Because their value to the men is due to how they can be used: as farm equipment and motor vehicles and toys for their children. They want to preserve the breed so they can keep using them.

This brings us full circle to Portia's concerns. This article makes perfect sense--there is indeed nothing wrong with it--as long as you don't believe that horses of all kinds should be able to live their lives free of our dominance and intervention. And that's why articles like this one are so unsettling: because we are painfully aware that the average person in the US will read it and say Yes! Save the tackies . . . so we can keep using them!

On the Global Food Crisis and Crimes Against Humanity

First, for all you PCRM members, there's a telephone conference call tomorrow at 8pm with Peter Singer, who will be discussing the ethical implications of animal research. It should be very, very interesting.

Next, as I'm sure you're aware, there is a global food crisis which has already caused food riots in the Philippines, Bangladesh and Haiti and other developing nations. Thirty-seven countries currently face food crises, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. Trade imbalances will be worsened, and major economies are being affected.

In the Washington Post's "World Band Chief Calls for Immediate Action on Deepening Food Crisis," Harry Dunphy writes:

Mexican Finance Secretary Agustin Carstens, who heads the bank's policy-setting Development Committee, said officials "need to redouble our efforts" to help the poorest people. He said there had been "a very welcome increase in money" from governments, but all donors need to "reach into their pockets."

I don't deny that money is needed, but something else is needed in order to create sustainability . . .

You may also be aware that the demand for biofuel is being blamed for driving up food prices. In the New York Times' "Finance Ministers Emphasize Food Crisis Over Credit Crisis," Steven R.Weisman writes:

Mr. Strauss-Kahn [the managing director of the International Monetary Fund] said he had heard from many financial officials this weekend that the West’s focus on fuel, at the expense of food, was a “crime against humanity.”

I won't say that the focus on biofuel isn't a problem, but it's not the root of the problem: it has merely exacerbated an already existing problem. Part of the root of the crisis (this is hardly a one-issue situation), as many people do indeed note (but then move on) is, as the New York Times editorial, "The World Food Crisis," suggests:

The United States and other developed countries need to step up to the plate. The rise in food prices is partly because of uncontrollable forces — including rising energy costs and the growth of the middle class in China and India. This has increased demand for animal protein, which requires large amounts of grain.

I go back to Strauss-Kahn's comment that the West's focus on fuel at the expense of food was a "crime against humanity." What about the other crime against humanity (to say nothing of billions of nonhuman animals)? In Paul Krugman's op-ed piece in the NYT a bit over a week ago called "Grains Gone Wild," he gets to the root of the crime, but then passes the blame onto the Chinese (after saying "things aren't anyone's fault--" a comment he will soon revise):

First, there’s the march of the meat-eating Chinese — that is, the growing number of people in emerging economies who are, for the first time, rich enough to start eating like Westerners. Since it takes about 700 calories’ worth of animal feed to produce a 100-calorie piece of beef, this change in diet increases the overall demand for grains.

Why isn't humanity's obsession with eating animals viewed as a crime against humanity? This problem didn't start with the Chinese. Enormous quantities of grains have been diverted from the mouths of the starving for decades. It is the desire to satisfy the palate of part of the human race (the haves) that is largely responsible for the starvation of the other part (the have-nots). If people in the developed world saw it as their moral obligation to help remedy this situation, they'd do more than "reach into their pockets;" they'd change the way they eat.

Say it with me: Supply and demand.

On Stockyards and Compassionate Carnivores

I don't know about you, but I was hit particularly hard by Dan Barry's "Silence Replaced Bids and Moos at Stockyards in Suburbs" in this morning's New York Times. And the accompanying slide show was even more devastating because of the photos and the sounds of the animals.

It was the language that struck me, of course, as Barry tried very hard to present a romantic tale of the end of an era. If he just gave me the facts, I wouldn't have been nearly as disturbed. When I read it, I wonder if I'm the only person on the planet who feels a pang, both in her stomach and her heart.

Here's what hurt me most, as Barry describes the last day the stockyards of South St. Paul, Minnesota were open for business:

• "where the auctioneer’s sweet serenade only hardens those bovine expressions of uh-oh." The sweet serenade leading to slaughter? And mocking the animals with uh-oh? Would he have felt the same way if the animals were dogs? And dare I say the same scenario occurred with humans not that long ago. Does he not see the similarity?
  
• "Punctuation to this reality came in January, when yet another animal escaped from the stockyards. A bull weighing nearly a ton apparently did not like what it had been sold for and wound up for a while on Interstate 494 during the morning rush hour. A police officer’s shotgun blast soon freed the animal from worrying about the evening commute." Mocking the bull is not journalism. He wanted to be free, Mr. Barry. He doesn't know--or care--how much he was sold for. And calling him "it," well, at this point, despite the fact that we know he's a he, we also know enough about Barry to know he doesn't care.
• "Here is John Barber, big and strong and 69, the yard’s main auctioneer for nearly four decades. What a voice he has, so deep and soothing that you want to bid on something, anything: Would there be room for a heifer in the apartment?" Something. Anything. And the heifer comment is just rude.
• "The Kruegers have donated a 900-pound heifer to be the last cow auctioned at the stockyards, with the sale proceeds going to an agricultural scholarship fund. Its father was a Simmental named Red Rock, and its mother was a Black Angus named, simply, N501 Commercial. As for its own name, chosen well before its historical role was determined: Timeless." IT is a cow. IT is a heifer. IT is female. IT is not an inanimate object. SHE is an individual. SHE WAS an individual.
• "a black-white-brown sea surrendering puffs of steam from wet hides, and the occasional yardman shout of Hey! Hey! Hey!" At this point, since he's so fond of telling us what the animals think, I'd be interested to hear what he thinks is going through their minds. Perhaps it rhymes with: Free me.
• "After a while Mr. Barber reclaims his seat, signaling that the final cattle auction is about to begin. All that livestock from Minnesota and Wisconsin, unloaded from trucks and herded into pens, now to be rushed into the arena for some momentary preening, bought, rushed out, loaded up and carted away.
  
  At the same time there comes the smell of cooking beef — free hamburgers! — to settle over the arena and pens, and to underscore the fate of at least some of those gathered here." An honest moment of commentary.
• "He sings to the cattle trotting into the arena 10 and 20 at a time, many of them relieving themselves to convey what they think of the honor." Perhaps that's why they were relieving themselves. And who could blame them.

Listening to the slide show was difficult for me, but it was also educational. Just when I was relieved that the stockyards were closing, I learn that the "service" will now be online. As John Barber said: "Change is hard but we'll make it through. Nobody's died from change."

That's not true. When people change their minds and decide to eat animals that do not come from factory farms, somebody dies for that change. For each meal made with animals, somebody dies.

The Joy of Meat, Redux

Yesterday morning was busy for me and I had time only to mention some tidbits about the "joy" of meat and not to deconstruct. Some of you started for me, and I thank you.

Without further ado, let's deconstruct "Rediscovering the Joy of Meat:"

• The photo. That photo. The "joy" in the faces of the people whose "business has picked up due to a resurgence in meat." They are happy indeed, with parts of sentient beings draped over them, and one holding a dead pig. Worst of all, two of them are former vegetarians.
  
  • Here's what I was thinking about on and off yesterday: Vegetarianism has nothing to do with veganism. By its very definition of using animals, we have no reason to think that vegetarianism will lead to veganism as long as suffering is the impetus to become a vegetarian. Though now I think (hope?) more people are aware that no egg, glass of milk or slice of cheese is without suffering, the mainstream public appears to be so attached to its animal products that it will believe just about anything in order to rationalize continual consumption. It makes perfect sense that vegetarians would go back to eating meat, as they haven't internalized the notion that use is abuse.

With that said, most vegans over 40 ate animals as children and gradually stopped, usually with vegetarianism as their final step on the way. So in that sense, there is a spectrum that illustrates what actually occurs in the real world when people become vegans. It has eating animals, wearing animals, "enjoying" them as entertainment or education, and using speciesist language on one end, and veganism in practice (including non-speciesist language) on the other end. (When Rae Sikora does this exercise, there are at least a handful of steps from one end of the spectrum to the other.)

Here's the issue then: Perhaps vegetarians and omnivores aren't being exposed to the idea that use equals dominance and oppression. It is a violation of someone's right to live their own life. And that is not only unjust, but it's abuse. Therefore, if abuse and suffering are what vegetarians and even some omnivores (you know, the compassionate ones) are worried about, they should take that notion to its logical conclusion--which is full circle to where it started--use. Use equals abuse is what's missing for most people. Use equals abuse.

It's fitting that the author of Carnivore Chic thinks the shift back to meat began with the vegetarian movement, as vegetarians tend to be concerned primarily with abuse. Decrease the abuse a bit, and they're happy.

• Regarding the author of The Shameless Carnivore, Scott Gold, who said: "Vegetarianism I suppose became equated with being more emotionally or morally evolved, but now the tide is really turning. If you try grass-fed, locally, humanely raised meat, it's not only significantly better for your health, it's better for the animal. It's not just good for the environment, but also, ultimately, once again, it all comes down to taste." (Susan C. found this quote odd, as well--see comments from yesterday).
  
  • I agree with Gold that vegetarianism--for the mainstream--became equated with being more morally evolved. However, he loses me with "but now the tide is really turning." Are vegetarians now less morally evolved? Are "carnivores" more morally evolved? If so, how can one be more morally evolved if one is killing someone without necessity? More evolved than whom? I'm confused. But all that confusion aside, Gold's most problematic belief is in the existence of "humanely raised meat" (not animals--meat). He believes in it "ultimately" because "[i]t tastes good. It's as simple as that." And that's the real issue. Let's not kid ourselves about why this is happening. Many people want to eat what they want to eat. And they'll pay a premium to have someone tell them they have no reason to feel bad about killing, even if they know that's a lie. Taste buds trump ethics.

As for the article on animal experimentation, yesterday afternoon a PeTA alert (thanks for sending it, Sarah) suggests we contact our congresspeople and senators and ask them to: "hold a Congressional hearing into the creation and funding of a new entity to oversee the implementation of the NAS recommendations to incorporate humane, fast, and effective non-animal test methods into government-required testing with all due speed." I don't like the word "incorporate," so I'll write "replace" or something like it. The PeTA letter isn't perfect, and I wouldn't use it, but it does give you a nice structure for your own letter.

The moral of the stories? We need to make our position clear. I think part of not doing so comes from the invalid yet ubiquitous accusation that we're fanatical and extreme. It is of course easily countered with: That depends on your definition of fanaticism. If it means the practice of aligning one's actions with one's beliefs and avoiding hypocrisy, then I am guilty.

On the Joy of Meat and the Folly of Science in the US

Remember the post I wrote about the Canadian radio show that featured a butcher who used to be a vegetarian and the author of Carnivore Chic? Well, they're back, and though you undoubtedly will find their sentiments and their sensibilities offensive, what's important is the message.

In "Rediscovering the Joy of Meat" by Allison Hanes in yesterday's Canadian National Post, we (re)visit The Healthy Butcher.

Here are the highlights, for me, that make me more certain than ever that talk of animal welfare rather than liberation has been a complete failure:

• It is just one example of a recent revival of the joys of carnivorous eating.
• Butcher shops are the new shopping grounds of a hip, elite and socially conscious clientele. Full-fledged meatfests are back in vogue as community events.
• Perhaps more significant, even some vegetarians are abandoning the moral high ground to emerge from their meatless exile.

"I do think something fundamental has shifted in our culture," said Susan Bourette, the Toronto-based author of Carnivore Chic: From Pasture to Plate, the Search for the Perfect Meat, who said that a lot of the shift began, ironically, with the vegeterian movement.

It is not that eating meat ever fell out of favour, she said, but it definitely went out of fashion for a spell with all the fuss about what the industrial food complex was doing to the environment, waistlines and health.

Now meat is in again, she said – and people are consuming it, albeit more discriminatingly, guilt free and with a renewed gusto.

• The author of The Shameless Carnivore, Scott Gold, said: "Vegetarianism I suppose became equated with being more emotionally or morally evolved, but now the tide is really turning. If you try grass-fed, locally, humanely raised meat, it's not only significantly better for your health, it's better for the animal. It's not just good for the environment, but also, ultimately, once again, it all comes down to taste."

I recently posted on Rethos: "Is Compassion Carnivore and Oxymoron?" If you're being honest with yourself, you'll admit that it is.

Finally, if you haven't seen the Washington Post article by Gilbert M. Gaul entitled, "In US, Few Alternatives to Testing on Animals," you might want to read it, particularly for the comparison between the US and Europe which makes us look like idiots.