On School Lunches and the Power of Being Duped
I think this might be the year for expanded vegan school lunches in schools and government facilities. There's the Change.org activity and the Change.gov activity as well as the PCRM petition (and its user-friendly Healthy School Lunches site). And then there's concerned parents who will take on their child's school and make certain that particular school can properly and ethically address the nutritional needs of their child.
Whether there is legislation or not, whether there is a call for sweeping change from the "top" or not, there is definitely an unprecedented combination of pressure and evidence (an epidemic of childhood obesity) that puts veganism and vegan education in a fantastic position. Through programs at school, children are actively marketed by exploiters of sentient nonhumans (check out the "Mobile Dairy Classroom" Chris directed me to that is a legitimate, school-supported activity, and then of course there's always the local 4-H, which has a surreal combination of corporate partners that include The Annie E. Casey Foundation and Monsanto). And I think that, like so many ideas that are unraveling in the US, the dominant culture's definitions of "food," "healthy," and even "humane" are vulnerable. And heaven knows distrust of corporate America is at an all-time high.
Though I haven't heard much good news for animals lately, the elements that make for initiation of a successful takeover are in place. Between subsidies that are being questioned by more people, to a growing awareness of the health problems associated with the consumption of the flesh and secretions of animals, to the expense of creating those products by directing grain and water to them as well as the resulting environmental destruction, all arguments for veganism appear to experiencing more exposure than ever.
I used to think that people should and would stop eating animals because they should stop eating animals. And some will. But for others, the moral argument simply won't create the desired change. Nor will the positive reasons for living a life that includes nonhumans in its circle of compassion. Sometimes, when one is surrounded by evidence that eating animals isn't in any way what it was marketed as, and it becomes clear that we've all been duped, Phillip Morris-style, by people who knew what they were doing, that's powerful motivation to make change. No one wants to be made a fool of, and that's exactly what's happened. It might not be the most positive angle, but when billions of lives and the future of the planet are at stake, we should use all of the arguments at our disposal.
What is the desired change? *Even if* it is for someone to adopt a herbivorous diet (what some erroneously call "veganism" or "being vegan")… then the "health argument" and "environmental argument" will rarely (if ever) get someone all the way there.
Both arguments appeal to utilitarian thinking. In very practical terms… humans can eat fairly significant quantities of flesh and secretions and still be very healthy. Certainly, consuming *less* than the average American/westerner has serious health benefits, but *none* is not required.
As for the environmental aspect… at some point of reduced/modified (it's local!) consumption of flesh and secretions, nearly all humans will stop reducing and modifying. Their endpoint wont be very close to herbivory. Just spend some time thinking about how humans adjust their behavior with reference to other environmental matters. Human people might drive less and/or buy different cars (Prius!). Some might use public transportation more often. Maybe a few bike or walk most places. Almost no one will say: "I reject all carbon based transport".
Also, environmental concerns all get thrown in together, which can set up rationalizations like: "Well, I took the bus to the grocery, so it's okay if I get some yogurt". "I am always careful to compost, so I can buy half a dozen free range eggs". "This meal is vegan, I'll just garnish with some cheese".
I try to reduce, reuse, and recycle (RRR – 90s flashback). Actually, I take it quite seriously. But I'm not a primitivist, nor swearing off all aspects of industrial production. Almost no one is. We react to utilitarian considerations with: MITIGATE, not ELIMINATE.
Mitigate makes sense in many situations. One where it does not: the enslavement of PERSONS, where eliminate should be the only mantra, and course suggested by our arguments — whether the victims are human or not. Only deontological moral arguments (as in those that promote rights) can nudge the paradigm toward nonhuman personhood and get humans to think about eliminating behaviors.
I am very excited about the potential of the fresh (relatively speaking) moral arguments put forth by Gary Francione (beginning around the turn of the century with "Introduction to Animal Rights"). They have not been optimally explored, promoted, packaged, and presented (the potential is vast). We have only had clear rights based thinking available for a few years!
For example, how about packaging the arguments as a simple three step set that "ramps up" in complexity… 1) Our moral schizophrenia. 2) Taking our opposition to "unnecessary suffering" seriously. 3) Equal consideration and why it is speciesist to deny any sentient being basic rights.
I am reminded of: "But what do you have for…?" – Erik Marcus (http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/mp3/eriks-diner-2007-02-25.mp3)
I don't think we necessarily need to "have something" for everyone. Let's just speak our truth. A consistent message can only help build movement unity. We have not yet begun to exhaust the pool of humans who are receptive to ethical thinking.
As for myself, the desired change is abolition. Veganism is living abolition now. I simply cannot recommend, directly or indirectly, that someone participate with slavery in merely a reduced or modified fashion. Doing so does not strike me as consistent with anyone's personhood. Mitigators do not lay the foundation for abolition. To the extent that they will personally embody and publicize a utilitarian ("just do less") approach to our relationship with nonhuman animals, the reverse is probably true.
"Let's just speak our truth."
My truth is what I wrote: we've all been duped, and there are myriad reasons why not eating sentient nonhumans is the answer to our problems–is the desired change.
And eating fewer animals is most certainly better than not eating fewer animals.
Yes, and less suffering is most certainly better than more suffering.
Drawing normative guidance directly from moral truisms can be very problematic.
I was talking with the 8 year old I share a living space with and looking at the school lunch menu that he brought home. I looked at the menu and it was all meat dishes, across the board. There were options with no "meat" but they were yogurt, cheese, eggs. I make his (no meat but still some dairy. I'm working on it) lunch every day and I expressed worry to him for some of the other kids that might be vegan. He told me that there is a fresh fruit and vege bar available for the kids who buy lunch at school. Pretty progressive for a backwoods town like this one, I think. I still have to wonder how many kids take advantage of it when there are tater tots served and chicken nuggets on the loose.
That's it! If only I had been vegetarian as a kid I would never have been fat! OH WAIT, I was raised vegetarian since birth! And yet I was still fat!
You say you get that veganism doesn't make you thin, but it sounds like you're implying that fat kids just eat too much dang meat. Feeding all schoolchildren a vegan diet will not have any significant impact on child obesity. The only way to seriously reduce obesity is to kill the fat people before they reproduce and spread their fat genes.
Of course I am all for vegan options in school meals. I chose my college partly because the cafeteria was very vegetarian-friendly. (Not so vegan-friendly, but I didn't go vegan until after I graduated.)
meerkat,
Here's where I get my information from: http://www.healthyschoollunches.org/reports/report2008_intro.cfm, which begins: "As childhood obesity rates climb, attention is increasingly focused on the importance of improving the healthfulness of school meals. The prevalence of childhood overweight could double over the next two decades, according to a recent study from researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. While many factors contribute to childhood obesity, poor nutrition plays a leading role."
You say "Feeding all schoolchildren a vegan diet will not have any significant impact on child obesity." But how do you know that? These programs for vegan lunches are about nutrition and about well planned vegan meals (hence PCRM's name of the program: Healthy School Lunches). I don't see why that wouldn't have an impact on childhood obesity.
Aside from the problems of obesity – I'd think a parent should also be very concerned with colorectal cancer and harmful cholesterol – as both issues they say, begin in stages of life… It's difficult to ignore that what one is feeding to their kids at 12 could contribute to their heart attacks when they reach 50. I only seems responsible to me to ensure that your child has a good dietary foundation in foods that don't contribute to illness (or early death).
Of all places to find information about vegan and vegetarian options in school lunches, The Meatpoultry site says:
"In response to the demand, 52 percent of U.S. school districts now offer vegetarian meals, and 15 percent offer vegan meals, according to the School Nutrition Association."
http://www.meatpoultry.com/news/newsfinder.asp?e=bea.elliott@verizon.net&Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=604&docId=l:920842622&topicId=14427&start=1&topics=single
That's at least a dent – isn't it?