Animal Writes

New Undercover Investigation Exposes The Live Skinning and Dismember of Fish at Texas Slaughter Facility

2011-01-20T16:59:00.002-05:00

Mercy For Animals just released a new investigation into a Texas catfish slaughter facility. The video shows workers skinning and dismembering fish while still alive and fully conscious. Please watch and share this video far and wide. It only takes a few seconds to post it on your Facebook or email it to friends, but can result in people to stop eating fish, and hopefully all animals.

2 Links: A Satirical Piece On Elephants in the Circus, and a Sermon Discussing Righteous Animals in Judaism

2010-06-06T11:19:00.003-04:00

First off, The Onion, though highly satirical, has done an incredible job of portraying the torture inflicted on elephants in circuses in "Children of All Ages Delighted By Enslavement Of Topsy the Elephant."

Secondly, though it is less relevant (and the discussion of animals is pretty minimal), I figured that I would also post a link to this Devar Torah (sermon on Torah) I gave in my Junior year of college. The first half of it includes brief discussion of and references early and Medieval Rabbinic perception of the capacity of animals to perform righteous acts.

Those two links are all I've got for now; enjoy (especially the first one)!

PETA: A Hurdle for Vegan Advocacy

2010-04-29T11:19:00.001-04:00

This was a letter I had written to the PETA administration in my thoughts about there extremism and marketing tactics. As someone who has advocated for the vegan lifestyle, I have often been faced with people mocking the cause by mentioning PETA's campaigns such as "Sea Kittens" and their games such as "Cooking Momma: Momma Kills Animals The Unauthorized Addition". Unintentionally, I feel like some of PETA's more extremist campaigns have gone past a purpose and more of a shock factor, and these tactics have now become a hurtle to not only them, but all vegan activists alike. Either way, this is my letter to them, and I'd love if you'd share your thoughts also.

I would like to personally start off by saying that PETA gave me great information while I made the transition between going from a flexitarian, to vegetarian, to vegan while also hindering my cause when trying to share information with others.

The efficiency of Peta is absolutely amazing. I get vital information texted to my phone and email when ever the administration posts or sends anything, the amount of information and pamphlets is great, the efficiency in which I had received this information in my mail was amazing, the graphics and photographs are very professional, and their ability to attract attention to the cause of animal rights and welfare are better than any cause I have ever seen.

However, I feel that there are a few things that also make Peta the biggest threat to the cause in which it tries to fight for when it comes to marketing its ideas.

I think that the most bipartisan issue would be the Peta ads featuring women insinuating that they are naked. I, myself, see the human body as a beautiful thing and support the display of pornographic material, seeing that it is only natural and inevitable when sexual drive coexists with the digital age. I also realize that featuring such ads, undoubtably, creates a lot of attention and is great for marketing, after-all, the public wants to see a naked celebrity more than pretty much anything these day. But, I believe, that this is incredibly counter-productive. A majority of the time, it is very hard for minors to convince their parents to allow them to become vegan, or even vegetarian, with the amount of false dietary information mass-marketed to the public. With the naked women on billboards, tvs, magazines, and the internet also available to these parents, their opinion of a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle turns sour from the start. This crosses out a whole entire marketable group of clientele, and maybe the greatest. People probably most apt to turn to the aforementioned lifestyle are those not influenced by the culture and values of the Reagan Administration, seeing that the USDA underwent a huge turn in marketing and administration during the 1980's. By turning off their parents, Peta inherently erases a huge market.

Whenever I mention that I am vegetarian, especially that I am vegan, a lot of times I hear about absolutism and PETA, even people mockingly mentioning the "Sea Kittens" campaign. This has not only been a problem that I have been faced with, but one the whole vegetarian community, whether ovo-lacto or vegan alike. The treatment of animals is something we all care about undoubtably, and it is horrible that there is such a division in a minority. What we are faced with is the split between abolitionists and welfarists, and this will always exist; however, (as cliche the saying as it may be) with the amount of power Peta has, comes a great amount of responsibility, meaning the lives and welfare of animals, the planet, and the indirect meals able to be fed to the hungry due to this lifestyle, are resting in its hands. Bruce Friedrich, VP of Peta, also has stated in a recent post that being an absolutist is the worst way to attract people to this cause. The members of Peta should, of course, not give up their strong convictions of remaining not only meat free, but egg and dairy free, but being that Peta is so big, I believe that it is the organization's responsibility, with all of its money, resources, and recognition, to advocate in such a way that helps the most amount of animals being that this is its perceived cause.

I would also humbly recommend, as that the cause is the mentioned, that Peta interact and support the whole spectrum of organizations interested in animal welfare, a big one including Meat Free Mondays. This, again, is helping support animal welfare in the way appealing to the most amount of people possible, and also could be viewed as a gate way to vegetarianism and so forth if possible.

I can honestly say that Peta has done an amazing job at marketing, and like any project, there will always be debatable discussion, details, and mess ups. Like all people in this community, both Peta and I just want to, and are strongly convicted to, the cause of helping the well being of animals. Thank you so much for your time in reading this and helping facilitate action hoping to help a worthy purpose.

My regards,
Rebecca

"I used to be veg*n, but..."

2010-04-24T13:59:00.003-04:00

There's a question I've been asking myself lately:

Why do so many people go veg*n but don't stay veg*n?

We're up against powerful forces: generations of tradition, powerful lobbying and a hidden food system. But it's easy to reach out to people -- we have national organizations that give us free literature and videos, there's hours and hours of evidence of cruelty to animals on YouTube, the UN and the World Watch Institute have the most up-to-date research on the environmental aspect, and celebrities like Ellen and Oprah aren't afraid to talk about the issues.

While many people go veg*n as a result of documentaries, leaflets, books and conversations, many do not stick with it. When out tabling or leafleting, or when acquaintances/friends find out I'm vegan, I regularly hear "I used to be veg*n, but..." When I politely inquire about what they had trouble with I hear a range of answers:

"I just felt weak and tired all the time."
"I know it's bad but I just missed meat too much."
"I just don't care anymore."
"I don't know why... I should start doing it again."
"My parents wouldn't cook or buy veg*n food for me." (Haven't heard this much because I'm on a college campus but I know this is a problem for many teens).
"The cafeteria doesn't have enough veg*n options." (While our cafeteria has meager options for veg*ns, I know many veg*ns that have stuck with it despite this. So why does it affect others so much? Next school year this is going to be our top priority).

Some people quit because they say they felt weak and tired all the time, yet I meet some people that are so glad they made the switch because they feel better. If one is trying out veg*nism and they don't feel so healthy, a quick google search returns thousands of results, and I may be wrong, but I'd say most people have a friend/acquaintance that is veg*n to consult if they have questions. Most pro-veg literature has detailed information on eating a balanced veg*n diet or at least links to websites that focus on veg*n health.

Is it a real problem that maybe some people just can't feel healthy without meat? That notion seems so strange to me because I'm very active and rarely sick, but everyone is different and this may be a very real problem for some. I have a friend that used to eat mostly vegan with the occasional animal product. She knows her stuff about nutrition and how to eat a good, balanced vegan diet, but when she started eating more meat/dairy she said she actually started feeling better. It wasn't at the request of a doctor or parent, she just wanted to try it. She still eats lots of vegan food, but more meat/dairy than she used to and says she feels better.

Two years ago I would've said a big problem is that people don't stick with it because they're not involved in a veg*n community or don't have any other veg*n friends, but even though we have a large community at my school, a lot of friends/acquaintances haven't stuck with it or have been on and off despite there being a well-established veg*n community.

When people say they just missed meat too much, I think there's more to it. Every year being veg*n gets easier and more mainstream, so if someone became veg*n several years ago, why is it more difficult for them now?

When it comes to just not caring anymore maybe it's because as people get older they become less idealistic and focus more on their career and starting a family. They may even feel jaded that their idealism in their youth didn't "change the world" like they thought it would. I know this is a blanket statement and obviously there are thousands, if not millions, of exceptions, but I have met many people that say "I was veg*n when I was younger" or used to be involved in a social justice issue during high school or college but have stopped.

What have you found in your experiences and conversations? Has anyone out there reading this fell on and off the wagon in the past? If so, why? And what made you "get back on"? What do you think the problems are? Obviously we know how to expose people to the issues and how to interest them in going veg*n, but why do so many not stick with it?

Are there any articles out there similar to this one that I could read and get ideas from? BeyondVeg.com is a website that addresses these issues but focuses more on raw diets and such (but does talk a great deal of veg*nism).

I'd love to hear what people think and get some discussion and ideas rolling, and figure out the best ways to approach these complex situations.

Clearing up the Confusion about Cows and Climate

2010-04-22T11:33:00.003-04:00

*Sigh*. Where to begin? I have already gone into about as much depth as a blog allows one to, detailing the effects of animal agriculture on the environment. But misinformation seems to have no end, and this Earth Day it is again time to refute some of the newest “findings”.

Telegraph, UK: Cows Absolved of Causing Global Warming

AFP (Wire): Eating Less Meat Won't Reduce Global Warming: Study

UK Times: Tofu Can Harm Environment More Than Meat, Finds WWF Study

Telegraph, UK: UN Admits Flaw in Report on Meat and Climate Change

These headlines would be great news for meat-eaters and the environment if, well, they were true. It’s a minor detail, I know. But reality must rear its ugly face and inform us that eating animal products is just as destructive as it was on Earth Day last year. I could easily write a separate post for every one of the above articles, but I’ll try to stick to a paragraph each.

Cows Absolved? If you live in China, and the only greenhouse gas you care about is nitrous oxide, then the headline is arguably technically true. They just bury some little details in the 9^th and 10^th paragraphs: “But Dr. Butterbach-Bahl [the author of the study] pointed out that the study did not take into account the methane produced by the livestock or the carbon dioxide produced if soil erodes […] He said the study does not overturn the case for cutting down on red meat.” Oh sure, if you leave out the two most prevalent greenhouse gases, then cows don’t produce many greenhouse gases. Makes sense!

Pro-Meat Study? Dr. Frank Mitloehner, author of the report (it’s not a study) in question, is quoted touting animal agriculture industry talking points such as “Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat”. But the article fails to actually cite a single fact from the report, nor do they provide a title of or link to the supposed study. Mitloehner is called a “leading air quality expert”, but his official biography shows that his credentials have nothing to do with global warming and that his main academic objective is to “help establish environmentally benign livestock systems”. Yet somehow he is qualified to undermine findings by the United Nations’ scientists without even citing a fact or source?

Devastating Tofu? Another article fails to actually provide a title or link to the supposed study, and cites no numbers or methodologies. All I can gather from this widely re-posted article is that if you look at the entire carbon footprint of processed soy foods shipped halfway across the globe and compare it only to the land use of local, grass-fed cow (and again ignore the methane from that cow), then you may find the soy product to be worse for the environment. They’re really grasping at straws…

Flawed Reporting? Kind of. The thing is, the UN misreported the TRANSPORTATION sector, not the animal sector. So animal agribusiness is responsible for just as much devastation as was originally reported- and cars may be even worse than we thought. Is this even worth reporting on?

Meanwhile, back in reality, a new UN report shows that it’s not just meat that we need to be concerned with- dairy alone is responsible for 4% of all global warming emissions. This news wasn’t reported nearly as widely as the non-science above, but I can’t say that anyone I know is surprised.

We need to be on top of these facts at all times to counter the nonsense that is spouted by agribusiness. To learn more about animal agriculture's effects on the environment and/or to request a free vegan starter guide, check out www.biteglobalwarming.org

Are Oysters Vegan?

2010-04-10T16:58:00.004-04:00

Christopher Cox, a self-labeled vegan, just wrote a trenchant and provocative article at Slate.com, in which he defends his decision to eat oysters. Predictably, the article is drawing a firestorm of criticism from many vegans, who are branding Cox a heretic.

I think the article is a must-read for veg activists. Cox digs into into tough but vital questions of labeling, purity, and absolutism. He writes:

"When I became a vegan, I didn't draw an X through everything marked "Animalia" on the tree of life. And when I pick out my dinner, I don't ask myself: What do I have to do to remain a vegan? I ask myself: What is the right choice in this situation? Eating ethically is not a purity pissing contest, and the more vegans or vegetarians pretend that it is, the more their diets start to resemble mere fashion—and thus risk being dismissed as such."

So, whaddya think?

P.S. If you find Cox's commentary interesting, check out Michael Greger's classic article on honey.

The Great Debate: To call yourself a vegetarian or vegan – PART II

2010-04-07T22:20:00.007-04:00

As the co-moderator of this blog, nothing makes me happier than to see posts explode into lively, fiery debates. When I say fiery, however, I’m talking about igniting debate, not burning those who disagree with you. So I’m both thrilled to see that Kenny Torrella’s post yesterday set off a heated exchange and disappointed to see that some readers – on both sides of the issue – responded with bitter sarcasm.

Blog readers have every right to be pissed off by any view they disagree with, but there’s a big difference between being respectfully pissed and just plain out pissing on somebody else’s opinions. All I’m saying is be respectful, be civil, and most importantly, keep it real!

With that in mind, I’d like to extend an invitation to any interested readers to participate in this discussion. If you’re not a contributor on “Animal Writes,” but would like to weigh in by posting a guest entry, shoot me an email at benjidavidow@gmail.com

Now, moderator business aside, I’d like to take off my referee shirt and jump into the fighting ring with the understanding that everything I say is my personal opinion as an activist and not as the blog moderator. At the same time, I’d like to see if there’s any room for reconciliation between the sparring viewpoints.

To summarize, Kenny, a vegan farm animal activist (and a friend of mine, for full disclosure) argued from experience that labeling himself as vegetarian rather than vegan is more effective in outreach. He echoes the insights of Bruce Friedrich, who has found that talking about veganism right off the bat tends to overwhelm and turn away folks from engaging with the issue. Some readers retorted that a vegan who labels himself as vegetarian is dishonest and has sold out by neglecting animals that are exploited for dairy and eggs.

I agree with some of the commenters that there is profound inconsistency in ethically motivated lacto-ovo vegetarianism, since, for example, more animals are slaughtered in the egg industry than in the beef industry. However, for anyone doing veg outreach, the vital and never-ceasing question must be: how can I have the greatest impact for farm animals? In Bruce and Kenny’s experience, explicitly advocating veganism turns a slight fraction of people vegan at best, while advocating vegetarianism leads many down a path that often leads to veganism.

As Kenny notes, Jonathan Safran Foer, author of Eating Animals, has talked about the importance of asking people to take the first step rather than the last step. If Joe Shmoe takes the first step and sees how easy it is, he’s likely to take the next step. But if you ask Joe to leap to the finish line, he’s likely to walk away – probably in the opposite direction.

Imposing a moral baseline seems to me not only counterproductive, since it often turns people off from opening up to the issues, but also disingenuous, since nobody consumes a 100% cruelty-free diet. No vegan I know, myself included, eats in a way that causes zero harm to animals, farmers, laborers, or the environment. So holding up veganism as a moral ideal, even with the best of intentions, is misguided. The question is how to minimize our harm. Veganism is a huge step in that direction, but it is not the endpoint, and treating it as such tempts the language of self-righteousness and absolutism.

The comments on Kenny’s post reflect a broader rift in the animal rights community between so-called abolitionists and so-called welfarists. Abolitionists advocate an uncompromising pro-vegan stance and tend to oppose any incremental welfare reforms for farm animals, since they believe such reforms only reinforce the legitimacy of using animals for food. Welfarists, in contrast, believe that incremental steps forward for animal welfare are important and can be advanced in tandem with a non-exploitation ethic.

My sense is that these diverging viewpoints are rooted in deep convictions. To make a sweeping generalization, I think abolitionists place higher value on honesty, purity and idealism, while welfarists value efficacy, practicality, and nuance. Now, I bet that few welfarists or abolitionists would actually accept this categorization. A welfarist might believe that she is acting with more integrity, since in her view, renouncing efforts to improve welfare standards is doing a disservice to animals. An abolitionist might believe that he is acting with more efficacy, since welfare reforms, in his view, will turn away many potential vegetarians. My point is simply that where one falls on the abolitionist-welfarist spectrum is most often the product of underlying values (and formative experiences) and is unlikely to be swayed by means of debate.

Any conversation on effective outreach runs the risk of universalizing the matter and suggesting that some tactics are all-around superior to others. While some tactics will have greater success in some or most cases, there’s no one-size-fits-all formula for outreach. So it’s conceivable that while some or most vegans may be more effective talking about vegetarianism, other vegans, given their temperament or their convictions or who they’re talking to, may have more success talking about veganism.

At the end of the day, you won’t find the answers on how to do effective outreach in a book or on a blog; you’ll find them on the street where you can put different tactics and styles to the test. So the best advice I can offer is this: get out and find what works for you!

To call yourself vegetarian or vegan -- that is the question

2010-04-06T00:26:00.005-04:00

(I took this from the Vegan Outreach blog -- whyveganoutreach.blogspot.com. The text in bold is from the blog, and below it is my own personal experience),

Bruce Friedrich, coauthor with Matt Ball on The Animal Activist’s Handbook and VP of PETA, has had personal interactions with literally thousands of individuals over the years (quite possibly, he has had more one-on-one conversations about animal issues than anyone else in the U.S.). He recently wrote:

I actually think that using the word “vegan” (other than perhaps with youth) may be counterproductive to helping animals, relative to using the word “vegetarian.” As a species, we are given to seeing things as “all or nothing," and I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had discussions with people who write off making any changes because they believe they can’t go vegan.

That’s why I no longer wear my “Ask me why I’m vegan” shirts – I wear the vegetarian ones, and the conversations have gotten SO MUCH BETTER. Where people used to be all about what vegan means and how hard it is to give up dairy (which saves 1/10 of an animal/year), now we talk about fish and chickens (saving many dozens of animals/year). I used to hear stories about dour and angry vegans; now I hear stories about daughters and cousins who are vegetarian.

This is anecdotal, of course, but it’s not theoretical – this is real-world and OVERWHELMING. I have FAR more people respond to my shirt now and approach me to ask questions. Before, I generally talked about what vegan means and the evils of dairy (still good, of course, but not nearly as valuable in helping animals). Now, I often have people tell me on the basis of one conversation that they will go vegetarian.

My long experience shows the word vegan scares many people, but the word vegetarian interests them (we also see this overwhelmingly when leafleting – people want vegetarian information far more than vegan information). Ironically, I’ll bet we get far fewer vegans by using the word vegan, since many vegetarians do go vegan, once they see how easy it is and start down the path of compassionate eating.

This is from this interview; more on this later in the week.

I read this a few weeks ago and have been experimenting with it lately, and I think it's a small tip for activists that goes a long way. For 2.5 years I had been telling people I was vegan if the subject came up. Now if people ask I say I'm vegetarian, and it makes a world of a difference. When I used to say I was vegan, people would immediately say some kind of variation of, "That's awesome, but I could never do that myself." Now when I say I'm vegetarian, people become more open and tell me about other vegetarians they know, vegetarian foods they've tried, how they've considered going vegetarian, or they had been vegetarian in the past and want to get back into it.

Whenever I met a vegetarian while leafleting, I used to say, "Have you considered veganism?" The situation would immediately turn a bit sour. For a split second they saw me as someone they had much in common with, and after asking if they've considered veganism, they see me as someone telling them to do more -- that their vegetarianism is not enough. Out of the number of vegetarians I had met and responded to like this, not a single one responded positively -- none said, "Why yes, I have been considering veganism lately!" All of them said a variation of, "Well, veganism seems like a good thing, but it's just too much for me." No matter how much cajoling, they wouldn't budge. The funny thing about this is that when I was a vegetarian I was the same way toward vegans. This is something important to remember. I didn't go vegan because another vegan was telling me to, or even telling me about it... I did it on my own after thinking about it and researching it for several months.

Now while leafleting, I give words of encouragement to vegetarians I meet. I tell them how awesome it is that they're vegetarian, to keep it up, I say "Aw, you're the best," I give them literature that has recipes and nutritional information. This makes a huge difference! They feel encouraged to do more, rather than being told to. They may not feel as alone in their choice if they meet another "vegetarian" that is also an activist and is thanking them.

Although our initial reaction is to identify as a vegan or to convince vegetarians to go vegan, 9 times out of 10 it doesn't turn anyone on to veganism -- it only makes them feel like they're being judged, as if their lifestyle choice to eschew all meat products was worth nothing. I'm not saying this is a fool-proof guide to live by and of course there are instances where it's important to say you're vegan, or if a vegetarian wants more information about going vegan, then by all means, hand out vegan literature and share your experiences as a vegan.

Although I was first skeptical of Friedrich's tip, I experimented with it and found it to be a much better approach toward turning more people on to a vegetarian lifestyle. I'd love to hear others' thoughts on this and if you try it out, let me know how it goes.

There are a lot of other great essays, articles and interviews here: http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/index.html

The next article I write for this blog will be a general why and how-to on leafleting for Vegan Outreach and what I've learned from it.

Pumpkin French Toast Casserole (or banana, apple, other fruit)

2010-03-20T14:02:00.002-04:00

This is basically my lazy, casual rendition of French toast, with less work. This recipe is about using what you have on hand or things that you may have no other use for or are about to get up and leave you.

The original Recipe is from Vegan Brunch by Isa, amazing book and worth your hard earned money.

This recipe is great for when you have some stale or dry bread that is past it's prime. Because this recipe is the my lazy vegan version, you can use any old bread or an assortment of breads. No matter how old, dry, stale, hard, broken or decrepit it is, because instead of perfect slices our bread is going to be cubed, torn and shredded. I also made sure to save and add all the bread crumbs I had laying around, so dump out those bags and scrap your cutting boards! Waste not, want not.

This recipe is all about using what you already have, so experiment and substitute to suit your needs. If you don't have pumpkin try squash, banana, fruit compote, sweet potato, apple sauce. Anything!

What you will need:
Baking Dish
Bowl
Cutting Board

Ingredients:
1 cup canned pumpkin (alternative, depending on what you have could be apple sauce, compote, mashed bananas)
1 cup almond milk (or any other vegan milk)
2 T corn starch (again, it you like potato or other starches use them)
2 t cinnamon
1 t nutmeg
two shakes of all spice

optional: Earth balance for buttering the baking dish and dotting the top
Optional add ins: Anything you have laying around, nuts (whole, broken, ground), coconut, dried fruit, chocolate chips, oats, flax seeds, this is your dish and it is about using what you have.
More Options: If you don't want to serve the casserole with syrup or sugar, I would add brown sugar or maple syrup directly to the pumpkin mix to bake in the sweetness so no toppings will be needed.

Also, if you bread mixture looks a little dry once all the juices are absorb splash some more almond milk on top.

Add ins can either be mixed with pumpkin mixture, or tossed with the bread, or even sprinkled over top of the dish! Whatever you want.

a little liquid from jarred ginger or a little bit of grated fresh ginger (again, this is to taste so for stronger bite add more)
expired bread, I had a good 3/4 loaf but you could round this out with fresh bread, all bread crumbs or any bread like items you have around.

Dice your bread into bite sized cubes or tear into chunks if using soft bread save all end pieces, crumbs, fluffy bits and odds and ends. Set aside.

Mix everything else together in a bowl and preheat your oven to 350.

Place all your bread into a shallow rimmed baking dish (you can use a casserole dish or deep dish, this will result in a softer casserole. As the pumpkin mixture is pretty wet, and depending on how hard/dry your bread is you may want more layers to keep in moisture.) Since I like mine less moist and a little crispy, I'm using a shallow baking dish so my bread is effectively in a single layer.

Pour pumpkin mixture over bread and let sit until oven is ready, the longer it sits the more it absorbs and the softer it gets. So depending on the tough/dryness of your bread and your preference for soft/pudding style eats you may want to let it sit longer.

I added broken walnut pieces to mine and mixed them in last. Mine also looked a little dry so I added a splash of soymilk on top and dotted it with Earth Balance.

Alternatively you can prepare this and place it in your fridge to dish out smaller amounts to cook on an as needed bases. Or even fish out your bread cubes to fry, traditional French toast style throughout the week. MMM

But since I'm being lazy, I'm just gonna plop the whole mess in the oven and not let it sit very long. About 12 minutes, stir let it sit another 12, then bake.

Baking time was around 15-20 mins, again if you'd like a more pudding style dish you could stir/mix it as it cooks and reduce the cooking time.

Voila!

Now because I didn't add any sugar to the casserole the end result isn't overtly sweet. I prefer to sweeten it to taste on the plate with icing sugar and maple syrup (I also lived with my dad, who hated sweets so I tend to let people add their own sugar). However, if you're looking for a sweetened dish ready scoop and eat, I would mix in some maple syrup or brown sugar right into the pumpkin puree.

Serve alone, dusted with sugar, spices, citrus zest, berry sauce, syrup, ice cream or w/e.

alternatively if you like pumpkin, you could make this a savory dish by adding sauted garlic, Rosemary, thyme and onions to the pumkin mixture and extra earth balance.

Mentioning "Vegan" in your profile, and why it results in debates, attacks and general craziness

2010-03-20T00:26:00.003-04:00

Subject: HMMM

user wrote:

Why are you vegan?

me wrote:

Primarily because I found out what when on in the meat, dairy and egg industry and decided it wasn't something I felt comfortable supporting.

user wrote:

Oh? And what happens in those industries?

me wrote:

:: GRAPHIC and POSSIBLY UPSETTING CONTENT:

If you are looking for a comprehensive overview, I would suggest downloading/renting Earthlings as it does a great job of covering various forms of exploitation.
Or http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/

Although I should warn you, the following is brief description of off the top of my head issues. It's not pleasant, and a bit graphic so please consider whether you want to read it before continuing.

Mostly issues relating to the constant impregnation of dairy cows, removing the calves after they are born, subsequent veal industry, hormone injections, decrepit conditions, abuses and confinement.

Laying hens kept in file drawer sized cages with 5-7 birds, again poor dirty cramped conditions.

Various slaughter house abuses, killing, skinning, dismembering, boiling etc while animals are still alive and conscious.

user wrote:

I have actually seen Earthlings for one of my classes. I subsequently set out to disprove my professor and what was shown in that video. You must understand that the footage they use is from only certain cases and does not reflect the industry as a whole. Consider beef -- here in Canada, there are a few types of cattle farms. There's the breeding farms, which only take calves away when they are fully weened, and there are feeder farms, which put cattle on a high-protein grain diet to get them bulked up to be used as meat.

Did you know the majority of beef produced in Canada obeys both Jewish and Muslim code?

I've been to a few farms around here in the maritimes, and I have seen no instance of abuse or poor conditions in them.

Hmm, how about PETA. Did you know their headquarters has a huge freezer built in it? They use it to store the corpses of animals they euthanize. They just so happen to euthanize over half of the animals they "save". They also pay people to firebomb animal shelters they suspect are "cruel".

It's fun to know both sides eh?

me wrote:

If you remember from the film, there is actually footage from a similar facility which was a kosher establishment (as in, it was supposed to be in accordance with Jewish slaughter codes).

I have also been to smaller stalk yards and farms, and have witness untreated ailments, dirty conditions, passes open trucks in freezing conditions taking animals to slaughter, and smaller Amish farms/auctions where calves where sold with wet umbilical cords.

I know very little about PETA and their tactics, as they aren't a group I particularly care for. I was aware they support euthanasia over live in shelters, as they consider a life in a shelter to be a cruelty (I'm don't agree with this sentiment, but I can understand how non-kill shelters can become negative living environments and serve as poor substitutes for lovings homes. However, because animals are unable to give us consent in ways we can understand nor are they able to express a desire to be 'put down' I don't really believe it is our place to decide when their lives are worth living and when they would be better off dead. As this likely varies on an individual basis).

I feel that no-kill live in shelters, if properly managed and run can be suitable living situation for animals. Provided that the set up differs greatly from the standard pound and these areas operate more like sanctuaries which while performing adoptions, are set up for the primary and live long care of abandoned animals.

However, as to the accusations/scandals to which you speak, well to be honest I know very little because once again, I don't support the majority of PETA's tactics, actions or campaigns. I believe their name, motto and perhaps end goals are worth while, however I feel that in their attempts to reach them they take steps and methods which should be avoided and overall give animal rights a bad name.

Although I do believe that PETA has a firm stance against direct action, injuries/threats to property or people. I do support the ALF, which a network of direct action activists who have commit felonies and destroyed private property. I however, am a fairly alone on this issue as most animal activists do not condone sabotage or destruction of personal property or breaking the law.

As I have been vegan and involved in animal rights for over 10 years, I have explored and listened to numerous versions of the other side from fundamentalists preaching religion, to people who simply believe my life choices are worthless, soft, stupid or otherwise, to individuals who have properly considered the ethical implications and simply decided they don't care. And finally to well educated individuals, who do their research and either research and purchase directly from sources that meet their personal ethical standards or who go so far as to raise their own animals for consumption to assure that they are fairly treated and slaughtered quickly.

Regardless, in the end it remains that the idea that one could ever find a source of meat, dairy, eggs ect that is free from exploitation and harm seems rather pointless. These relationships are exploitative by their vary nature, and although some may be more ethically sound than others, when it comes down to it, I don't need animal products and I don't want them. Personally, I don't believe the ends justifies the means.

Simply put, the idea of humane slaughter is hypocritical because taking the life of another (against their will/without their consent) is not a humane act. Although you may be able to find someone who will be swift and follow procedures, it remains a brutal act. As I would wish to have authority over my own body, life etc and I would like others to respect that, I feel it is only fair that I respect theirs.

If I have no reason or need to cause harm, why do it?

surprised at his responce

user wrote:

Well done madam, I applaud you.

I respect people that know what they stand for and can back it up well. There are too many "fakers" out there who just rant and roar about issues that they know nothing about.

However, you're obviously not one of them. You know whats up, you've done your homework. If someone says what you stand for is "worthless" or "stupid" you should give them a big whup upside the head, eh?

Oh, and yes, I knew about the Jewish factory thing from Earthlings, I figured you'd bring it right back up.

But now, I am so fighting the urge to mention that it is not difficult to retort responses which have no logical bearing on the discussion.

peta =/= nothing to do with veganism, our discussion of veganism, my veganism or any sub category there of
earthlings validy = hear say
jewish/muslim killing codes =/= ethical, moral, or king treatment of animals, just slightly less horrible

etc.

But i feel like I should resist and end with this good view on vegans.
I choose a median ground, not attacking the random retorts and confrontational nature he adopted but the faker comment

me wrote:

I don't believe that individuals who choose a lifestyle more intuned with their own personal ethics are 'fakers'. They are simply doing what feels right to them, regardless of their ability, experience, or knowledge relating to debates.

You don't need to conduct extensive research or explore the issues to decide what feels right or wrong to your own living or ethical standards.

Feeling strongly about something you believe in, in and of it self is note worthy. Knowing the issues, debates and politics around things are always good and worthy endeavours but they are no means pre-requisites to choosing compassion.

user wrote:

Nono, not so much a lifestyle in tune with what they believe. Consider genetically altered foods. Someone could have heard from someone else that they're going to wind up causing multitudes of adverse side effects if they eat the stuff. Thus, they decide they're not going to eat it, and nobody else should either.

There's a big difference between those who know why they are doing something, and those who don't.

me wrote:

I would agree however, when taking your previous statements/discussion into account the 'fakers' you are referring to would be people who have scene earthlings or other such documentaries and decided that they didn't approve of that kind of thing so they went vegan.

And it appears the argument you are proposing would be that, because not every single farm consists of that level of cruelty/abuse etc that those individuals shouldn't give up purchasing animal products. However, the issue being the lacks control system, check ups and general status of animals in this society means there is very little going on to prevent the kinds of situations depicted in this/similar media.

As such, the decision to avoid animal products, due to the correlated risk that such abuses are occurring at the facility from which your particular product came from would be deemed invalid. When in fact, in my opinion, not supporting an industry which allows those practices to occur would be a fare more logically conclusion than seeking out a farms and slaughter houses within that system that guard against those abuses.

because a) you would continue to support and industry in which the thing your opposed to, occurs in (i.e. the really bad abuses, hypothetically assuming you are fine with all other forms of abuse which occur).
b) slaughter houses deal with more than one farm, and vice versa, meaning the $ you input would be trickling back to both the farm and slaughter house you support and also others which may not uphold your ethical standards
c) one again, although not as cruel, chances are you would still find some discomfort to the overall treatment of animals as non living things, as this is the primary issue to which earthlings and other documents speak to (and what allows the lack of policing and abuses to occur in the first place).

Finally, that to imply that individuals who choose compassion based on a limited exposure to surface problems in the meat/etc industry as fakes, well just doesn't make sense. Fake would imply falsehood, dishonest pretences or attempting to appear as something they are not, when in fact they have simply made a gut ethical choice, without going into extensively exploring all issues and sub-issues. They are not claiming to be experts on the meat industry or veganism, they are just claiming to be opposed to factory farming and it's practices, of which they are actually opposed to.

Jonathan Safran Foer on Ellen DeGeneres

2010-03-11T00:11:00.003-05:00

Today, Jonathan Safran Foer, author of the bestselling book Eating Animals appeared on the Ellen DeGeneres show. Ellen, a committed vegan and quite possibly Oprah's heir as daytime TV queen, is in an unequaled position to advance veganism into the mainstream.

Lights. Camera. Activism!

2010-03-04T17:45:00.004-05:00

If a picture is worth a thousand words, then perhaps it could be said that a film is worth a thousand pictures. In my experience, there are few things more effective in veg outreach and education than screening films like "Peaceable Kingdom" or "The Witness."

There's no doubt, however, that there's a major dearth of short, pithy, and compelling films about animal issues. The Palo Alto Humane Society has set out this year to change that by inviting young filmmakers and activists to submit films to its first annual Humane Planet Film Contest. So, if you know how to get a good shot, have some editing chops, and most importantly have something to say, you should definitely check this out. The deadline is the end of March, and winners will take home a cash prize and get their films publicly screened.

What a Difference a Day Makes!

2010-02-16T21:34:00.001-05:00

World's largest food service provider increases vegetarian options

2010-01-30T15:23:00.007-05:00

Compass Group, the world's largest food service provider, recently launched their "Be A Flexitarian" initiative, drastically increasing the vegetarian options at over 8,500 cafeterias across the country.

The initiative's purpose is to, "...encourage people to 'Be a Flexitarian' by simply eating ONE meat-free meal a week." And by doing so, we can, "...make an impact on both our health and the environment."

The initiative was developed with the help of the Humane Society of the United States, which stated that, "...this initiative to promote the incorporation of more meat-free meals is the largest corporate program of its kind in the world."

This isn't Compass Group's first initiative to help animals, but it certainly is their biggest. Compass Group's U.S. cafeterias exclusively purchase cage-free shell eggs, and are large purchasers of hormone and antibiotic-free chicken, pork, turkey, and grass fed beef.

Thanks to the Be A Flexitarian initiative, I think we're going to see even more people seriously reducing their meat consumption, and becoming more open-minded to vegetarianism-- especially young people. Some of Compass Group's clients include Chartwells and Bon Appetit, which are both food service providers for hundreds of colleges across the country.

Compass Group's approach to addressing sustainable dining not only makes vegetarian eating more accessible, but also more appealing. Help spread the word of the Be A Flexitarian initiative by joining the Facebook page and inviting others.

Halifax's Vegan Association Recipe Zine! Call out for Vegan Recipes, Stories, Articles etc

2010-01-29T14:53:00.000-05:00

The Halifax Vegan Association (and yours truly) are putting out a vegan recipe zine for free distribution to the public. I'm hoping to get both zine copies printed to be sent up and maybe host a scanned version of the original for an e-zine and so other groups will be able to re-print and distribute the zine to spread the vegan love.

As such I will be hosting a Vegan Recipe Zine Workshop on Sunday January 31th 2pm-6pm at the Dalhousie Women's Center in Halifax N.S., including Pizza and a community Potluck.

More importantly, for the extended vegan community (This means YOU! Internet) I am still looking for any recipe submissions, going vegan stories, articles, art work or simple zine pages you would like to have published in this zine.

Feel free to send me submission via e-mail (bad_blanch_amanda at hotmail).

Stay Vegan!

Paging all Activist Scholars

2010-01-28T16:17:00.006-05:00

Are you an animal activist with a scholarly bent? Have you written an academic paper on animal rights that you'd like to get published? Would you like to discuss abolitionism and liberation theory with fellow college students? If so, you're in luck! Anthony Nocella at the Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS) recently introduced me to a number of amazing opportunities for collegiate activists and encouraged all interested students to get involved. The Institute's annual Conference for Critical Animal Studies will take place at SUNY Cortland, New York on April 10th. The conference's theme is "Abolition, Liberation, and the Intersections within Social Justice," and you can learn more here. ICAS is also eager to publish student work (commentary, articles, summaries of events, etc) in its Journal for Critical Animal Studies. This is a great opportunity to get your voice out and connect with like-minded folks.

The Dark Side of Dairy

2010-01-27T13:41:00.005-05:00

Last night, ABC Nightline aired a damning investigation by Mercy For Animals (MFA) of New York's largest dairy farm. The findings were appalling and unfortunately representative of standard conditions and farming practices in the dairy industry. Make sure to post the investigation video on Facebook.

Evidence gathered at the dairy facility revealed:

Cows with bloody open wounds, prolapsed uteruses, pus-filled infections and swollen joints, apparently left to suffer without veterinary care
"Downed" cows - those too sick or injured to even stand - left to suffer for weeks before dying or being killed
Workers hitting, kicking, punching, and electric-shocking cows and calves
Calves having their horns burned off without painkillers, as a worker shoved his fingers into the calves' eyes to restrain them
Calves having their tails cut off - a painful practice opposed by the American Veterinary Medical Association
Newborn calves forcibly dragged away from their mothers by their legs, causing emotional distress to both mother and calf
Cows living in overcrowded sheds on manure-coated concrete flooring
Workers injecting cows with a controversial bovine growth hormone, used to increase milk production

Animal Representation in Literature

2009-11-28T10:58:00.006-05:00

For those of you interested in academic activism, I've started a blog related to independent work I'm doing on animal representation in Toni Morrison's Beloved. While literary analysis may seem the furthest thing from grassroots animal rights activism, I propose that conventions of animal invisibility in certain texts shed light on the process through which animal oppression emerges in broader contexts. My independent work will explore how Morrison deliberately renders animals invisible in an attempt to perform the way institutional oppression is silenced and normalized. I will also look at the rise of American dairying and the contribution these breeding/taxonomic practices had on slave treatment.

It's a work in progress, so if you are interested in Beloved or animal studies, I would love your feedback. Read more here: http://belovedbeasts.wordpress.com/

An Ancient Prohibition On the Dangers of Animals in Entertainment (Part One?)

2009-11-04T22:50:00.005-05:00

My usual warning about my posts: I tend to blog about things I come across in Judaism that fascinate me. I am sure that I have preachy tendencies in my writing. If you're not interested in the preachiness, then feel free to read those tidbits that do remain.

Two weekends ago, at a study session coordinated by the Jewish Theological Seminary and led by Jon Adam Ross, I was introduced to one text which I was shocked to have never encountered before in my studies of Judaism (and I am thankful to have finally been introduced to it).

In the 3rd century CE, Rabbi Yehudah Ha-Nasi, discouraging Jews from participating in a culture of Roman theater which the Rabbis associated with violence (as exhibited in gladiator matches) or idolatry (such as the dramas of Greek gods) recorded a law in the Mishnah (in Avodah Zarah 1:7) that begins with the following:

אין מוכרין להם דובין ואריות וכל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים.

It is forbidden to sell them bears, lions or anything that has the potential to injure the public.

These words, read in their traditional context, don't sound necessarily like the words of animal rights activists. But, this statement--when read in the context of what we know about the inherent abuses and dangers in using animals in entertainment--is certainly compassionate towards animals.

The passage is concerned with the well-being of these animals. Our passage lists bears and lions specifically, but the passage doesn't identify those potential customers to whom we can't sell these animals! (Of course, we presume that the Rabbinic ban is on selling animals to entertainers, to businesspeople with stadiums and to any people who make it their business to put animals on stages.) Not only are Jews so discouraged in the Mishnah from participating in a culture that utilizes animals in violent means, but Jews are forbidden from making money from and from reaping the benefits of a culture that endorses this literally inhumane practice.

When it comes to that dangerous subject of animals in entertainment, this brief dictum is unwavering in the graveness of the sin: not only are Jews forbidden from supporting animals in entertainment, Jews are forbidden from being supported by animals in entertainment.

Although I usually like to have more to say on a subject, I am writing this blog post now because I did not want to forget this source. I hope to study this topic more in the near future and to have then a few more insights into the subject.

Also, for just a few mild introductory thoughts about the use of animals in entertainment, feel free to examine this site or this page.

Veganmofo: Vegan Brunch!

2009-10-31T14:11:00.000-04:00

What better way to start the weekend? Pancakes, Sausage and homefries! All vegan of course.

Brunch is just one of those things you look forward to like fall and cozy sweaters.

Today brunch features, Banana pancakes from Vegan Brunch! By Isa Chandra M. , followed my rosemary roasted garlic potatoes also taken from Vegan Brunch (sort of) and to round it out we ate some yves sausage rounds.

Yum!

Adam's plate

What are you eating for brunch?

Natalie Portman on "Eating Animals"

2009-10-29T20:12:00.003-04:00

Check out Natalie Portman's glowing review of Jonathan Safran Foer's

just released book, Eating Animals. And while we're on the topic of

vegan celebrities, Alicia Silverstone just came out with a veg

cookbook/diet book, The Kind Diet. Also, Oprah's former personal

chef just released a vegan cookbook, The Conscious Cook.

Now here's the amazing part: all three of these books are on the top 100

bestselling list on Amazon! I would bet that this is the first time in

the history of the universe that two, let alone three vegan books have

been simultaneous bestsellers. Veganism is finally coming into the

mainstream.

The Cove Gains Publicity

2009-10-23T16:09:00.005-04:00

Yesterday's Times published an article about The Cove, a documentary film uncovering the mass slaughter of dolphins off the coast of Taiji, Japan. The film's first public screening in Japan was held on Wednesday at the Tokyo International Film Festival.

The film and article make it clear that a vast majority of Japanese citizens know nothing of the brutal hunt, nor of the high mercury readings in the dolphin meat. Before seeing the film, I knew very little about this issue, and was glad to have expanded my knowledge of animal cruelty past the context of the American meat industry. That being said, I felt a bit powerless after watching the film, unable to take comfort in the fact that I could cast my vote as a consumer. My sentiments were somewhat lifted after reading this article in light of the fact that many of Tokyo's viewers were outraged by what they saw. They by no means see national identity as a reason to continue this brutal hunt, and are eager to help.

Was Honest Abe an animal rights advocate?

2009-10-22T20:30:00.002-04:00

Many sources have made the claim that Abraham Lincoln supported animal rights and/or practiced vegetarianism, often citing the following alleged quotation: "I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."

Environmentalist, animal rights advocate and author Mike Hudak has scoured the evidence on the topic -- it looks like Lincoln may not have been a kindred spirit after all. Shucks.

Abraham Lincoln: Vegetarian and Animal Rights Advocate?—A Review of the Evidence
by Mike Hudak

Rescue Ink: Tough guys for the animals

2009-10-16T15:57:00.002-04:00

Check out Rescue Ink: a tough, tattooed band of bikers who don't take no for an answer when it comes to helping abused animsl.

New York Times article: Heaven's Angels

Quick Piece from The Onion

2009-10-13T09:03:00.002-04:00

I figured I'd pass along this piece from The Onion on God inventing a new bird.

Nothing too heavy in the article... but I think it's a good laugh for people who like animals and/or religion.

Ham and Eggonomics on "The Pollan-Singer Travesty"

2009-10-06T14:15:00.002-04:00

Check out this quick post from "Ham and Eggonomics" (a great blog!) by Bailey Norwood, an ag economist at Oklahoma State University. It's interesting to see a pro-animal welfare critique of Pollan from a non-veg perspective. And If you haven't read Jim Mason and Peter Singer's The Way We Eat, it's really worth it. They talk about everything from freeganism and lab-grown meat to GMOs and fair-trade coffee .

Vegan Month of Food 3.0!

2009-09-30T00:12:00.002-04:00

Just a heads up blog-o-sphere that veganmofo (that's vegan month of food!) is back! And better then ever, over 200 bloggers have signed on so don't miss out!

Find all the round-ups-info-and-sign-ups here!

And follow all the handy dandy actions, including your's truly on this bloglines feed.

"Dominion" by Matthew Scully

2009-09-19T19:29:00.002-04:00

I recently read Dominion by Matthew Scully, and was impressed by the author's eloquence and merciful compassion. Scully is not your stereotypical animal rights advocate: he is a prominent conservative, and has worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Robert P. Casey and Sarah Palin. The book should provide a refreshing perspective for anyone already familiar with standard animal rights philosophy, and would be a great recommendation for a more conservative skeptic.

An excerpt:

"Walking around a place like Farm 2149, I do not need some utilitarian philosopher to do the moral math for me, adding up and subtracting the suffering of the world to determine which lives have value and which do not. I do not need a contractualist philosopher to define for me an "appropriate object of sympathy." I do not need behavioral scientists or cognitive theorists to distinguish which pains are "real" pains and which are not. I do not need experts in evolutionary ecology or some other faddish field of the day to explain the hard and remorseless demands of natural selection. I require no advice from theologians on where mercy may be granted and where withheld. Confronted with this wholesale disregard and destruction of life, all attempts to justify it strike me as vain talk, miserable excuses that cannot cover the iniquity, the ungodly presumption of it, the scale and sorrow of it.

Only effete "urbanites," we are admonished, care about such things because we are so estranged from nature's harsh realities. But these particular realities are not of nature's design, and in every corner of our factory farms one finds the most casual disregard for the nature of the animals themselves. Nature has its own hardships, but its own kindnesses, too, like straw and room to sleep and the care of a mother for her young. When we take even those away, we are smothering the inmost yearnings of these creatures and the charity in our own hearts."

Dunkin' Cruelty Exposed

2009-09-16T11:07:00.002-04:00

Compassion Over Killing (COK) just released an investigative video of an egg farm owned by Michael Foods, a supplier of Dunkin' Donuts. As you may know, COK is waging a campaign for Dunkin' Donuts to stop using eggs and dairy and convert to vegan doughnuts. If you haven't yet, take a moment to send a letter asking Dunkin' Donuts to stop supporting animal cruelty.

Interview with Nathan Runkle

2009-09-11T14:41:00.003-04:00

Check out this podcast interview of Nathan Runkle by Erik Marcus of vegan.com. They discuss the recently-released investigation of Iowa's Hy-Line Hatchery, the largest egg-laying breed hatchery in the world. They also talk about Twitter and how activists can harness the powers of new social networking technologies to become more effective.

Humane/Cruelty: Race, Class, Prison, Liberation

2009-09-08T00:56:00.008-04:00

Introduction
[Oppressions are ideologies—]“a set of socially shared beliefs that legitmates an existing or desired social order. Prejudice, on the other hand, is an individual predisposition to devalue a group of others… seciesism is also an ideology—that is, a set of widely held, socially inherited beliefs… When the psychological and moral (or immoral) bases of oppression are accentuated, social structural forces are downplayed or overlooked entirely… they tend to stifle any realization of the need for social change.” –David Nibert[*]

The discourse of vegetarian and vegan advocates is saturated with personal choice. When the individual person is not totally responsible for the suffering of each individual animal, it is because vegetarianism is too inconvenient and the law is too permissive of cruelty. Thus the irony of the dominant discourse is that animal liberation is possible so long as humans become more rational and less self-interested; but, so long as people are self-interested, we ought to make vegetarianism as convenient and non-threatening as possible and make animal cruelty as inconvenient and punishable as possible.

In this post I will lay-out the myriad of ways the most popular forms of animal advocacy (at least in the USA) privileges a white, middle-class audience at the expense of including people of color and people of low-income. Drawing on the vast, original works over at The Vegan Ideal [TVI], I wish to demonstrate 1) how focusing on punishing, shaming, and dehumanizing individual animal exploiters a) draws attention away from the institutional oppression (i.e. speciesism) in favor of vice (i.e. cruelty) as well as b) how such punishment is often part of ethnocentric and nationalist projects, and finally, c) how such projects merely seek to substitute animal cages for human cages.

SYMPTOM vs SYSTEM
One general misallocation of resources is for the legislation of stiffer penalties for "animal cruelty." Aside from the unjust material consequences of these laws, the discourse of "humane" is a conceptual red herring just begging to be appropriated.

In his latest essay, "Forget Shorter Showers: Why Personal Change Does Not Equal Political Change," Derrick Jensen argues that

[This liberal perspective] incorrectly assigns blame to the individual (and most especially to individuals who are particularly powerless) instead of to those who actually wield power in this system and to the system itself.

In other words, the liberal perspective focuses on litigating personal acts and scapegoating marginalized people (often those with low-income, people of color, and Other cultures--but more on this later) rather than the powerful institutions/systems that are either at the root of the violence or a more significant actor whose violence is so profound it has become invisible or is assumed to be “natural.” The same is true of animal liberationists, explains David Nibert in Animal Rights/Human Rights: advocates have a “tendency to overlook or minimize the social structural basis of oppression” by over-emphasizing “overcoming prejudice and immoral reasoning” without analyzing the underlying societal causes.

Just as the symbolic language obscures rather than clarifies the source of the oppression of animal others, so to do the actual rhetoric of "cruelty," "inhumane," and "barbaric," and the punishments such rhetoric encourages us to distribute misdirect our attention toward the symptoms and not the political pathology of oppression. Take for instance poultry plant workers who are fired for “cruelty to animals” after an investigation in which the violence of the slaughterhouse becomes invisible and the corporation shifts its accountability for the institutional cruelty onto desparate, malaised workers. Or, how certain men are imprisoned for dog-fighting and cock-fighting, a means to demonstrating one’s masculinity-—an institution which is responsible for militarism and a rape culture. In both cases, the actual systems of species and gender privilege as well as class inequality that drive such behavior are absent from discussion.

HUMANE/CRUELTY
The rhetoric of "cruelty" substitutes recognizing the cultural and ideological underpinnings of such material acts for an unreflective communitarian presupposition that when the law is not broken, when things are going all according to plan and design, then "cruelty" does not exist. Animal abuse is thus framed as "personal" and not "political" since it is based in prejudice, ignorance, and callousness, not a political orientation. Here, education and/or reform are what are needed to solve the problem, not a cultural rethinking/transformation. As is noted at TVI,

[The] talk about "cruelty" and "humane treatment" is basically a way of depoliticizing oppression...these terms fail to address the oppressive power relations under which harm and suffering occurs... If cruelty to animals is "regarded as a pattern of socially and culturally unacceptable behavior," then speciesism – the very system of nonhuman oppression – is outside the limits "animal cruelty"... So cruelty is the exception that proves that speciesism rules

Rather than being useful to the political discourse on human-animal relations, "cruelty" and "(in)humane" actually obscure the radical political philosophy that is animal liberation. Rather than being opposing terms, "'humane treatment' and 'cruelty' are really paired terms, with the former suggested as the remedy to the latter."

Despite the popular sway of the ROH, the effectiveness of the ROH is counterproductive to the liberation movements because it actually reinforces prejudices (speciesism, racism, classist) while also centering the moral issue with the identity and character of individual agents rather than those who are exploited by them and the systemic nature of the immoral consequences. The ROH ought to be abandoned because 1) it is preconceived in a speciesist language/world; 2) its definition varies to the degree which one is speciesist/humanist; 3) it is ultimately more about the consumer than the nonhuman animal and the human-animal relationship--appealing to a virtue/self-esteem...

First, the idea of "humane" suggest human exceptionalism in compassion, or at the very least, that it distinguishes the human species over others as a compassionate one (which seems to be quite the opposite case if you look at our history). Theoreticians from Adam Smith to David Hume to Charles Darwin have all argued that our morality, contrary to theologians, comes from our animality, not "humanity" (as in Reason). Recent studies, especially by cognitive ethologists like Marc Bekoff, have proved that such is more than probably the case given the extended evidence of moral systems in many mammalian species. So not only is the equation of the human(e) with moral-goodness factually incorrect, it is also speciesist because it privileges H. sapiens as superior to all other species based on this factual inaccuracy.

Furthermore, what we mean by "humane" is less about the act and more about the actor. When one says something is "humane" they cease discussing the nature of the act and rather turn the focus inward to the nature of the actor. Indeed, to proclaim an act is humane is to proclaim the actor as human and good (while those who do alternatively are less human and less good). When one labels something as humane, what they are really doing is identifying themselves as practicing "humanity," something that is privileged as superior to other forms of being and identity (such as animality). So when one says so-and-so is "humane" they are prescribing that act as something we ought to do (perhaps because it is something divine).

Take for example an article by Frank Rosci, in which it is asked, "Is agribusiness forgetting its humanity when treating animals destined for dinner?" The discourse of Rabbi Bradley Bleefeld is demonstrative of the humanism/speciesism of "humane" discourse whereby human and animal become ontologically independent of one another through kosher law. Bleefeld explains that kosher slaughter

is based on preserving our humanity...a prayer is said every time, with every animal, to remind the slaughterer that he is a human being and not an indiscriminate killer -- animals do what they want, but we can't

The killing of animals as done by Jewish people is suggested to be signatory of humanity, moral beings, as opposed to "animals." Because killing is ritualized by rite of law and thus not "indiscriminate," it can be justified against those who are not human, moral beings. But, as we will see, this very Jewish-exceptionalist logic is part of the anthropogenic machine that is always already ethnocentric.

RACE, CLASS, SPECIES
Since human identity has been one of the most important and contentious questions/topics in Western history, the use of "humane" can become a particularly violent tool for legitimizing one's own contentious actions simultaneously as establishing one's own preformed identity in opposition to another who is "inhumane" and "unethical." The humane proclamation is really nothing more than a performative apology for one's actions as a means to console ourselves with the sense that we are human and thereby good, abjecting the presence of the "monstrosity" of our actions and thereby the monsters that we all are. In locating the human inside us and the monster without, we buffer the anxiety surrounding the threatening idea that we sometimes are satisfied performing unethical actions.

This is where things get interesting, or as Royce Drake writes, complicated. Speciesism does not exist within a cultural vacuum; it is never a single-issue. Speciesism is always already situated within a network of other systems of oppression particular to each culture. As such, certain types of cruelty are accepted as others are not, and out from this ethnocentric moral system arises a means through which other oppressions can be expressed.

Through ethnocentrism and selective speciesism, concern over animal rights and welfare have often been used as arguments for the inferiority and expulsion of Other people. Royce explains this well at Vegans of Color:

The way we see, and judge speciesism is shaped by our own socio-cultural contexts... Racism, classism, xenophobia, sexism, homophobia, (and on and on) color our perceptions of animal oppression: Our families don’t whale, they don’t dog fight, they don’t experiment on apes... Our families may eat cows and chickens (Happy meat? Even better) and go to zoos, but that is something everyone does, and it isn’t as barbaric as something that those people do

So while many animal advocates may consider bull-fights and whaling the pinnacle of barbarism, parallel animal exploitation such as breaking in riding horses and fishing are less so, more “normal” because they are not a part of our culture, our being-in-the-world, our humanity. Those outside of our culture, outside our human-animal rites, are also outside our definition of humanity (or at least, they correspond with it less than we ourselves do).

It is not surprising then that the animal welfare movement has so often "dehumanized" human Others as "barbaric," "inhumane," and "savage"--a process inseparable from the socio-political institution of colonization. As others and myself have written on previously, vegans are not exempt from this criticism because they are opposed to all forms of animal exploitation[Korean dog-eating, Japanese dolphin slaughter, Cherokee bear pit, Makah Whaling, Non-white pet traders, etc]. Indeed, the rhetoric of barbaric, inhumane, and savage all have xenophobic and/or colonial histories. Even throughout the last century, they have been deployed to oppose non-Secular/Christian human-animal relations such as Kosher and Halal slaughter in Nazi Germany and Britain.

In the US and many other countries, animal welfare laws continue to be used to imprison and punish people from disadvantaged ethnic groups and classes as it has been since the first wave of the movement in the 19th century. As was the case then, acceptable human-animal conduct is informed by the norms and (human) identity of upper/middle-class Anglo-Saxons and declared through a discourse of character reform.

PRISON
As is explained by TVI, it is a lot easier for those with privilege to prosecute and imprison those with less privilege for acts of animal exploitation and abuse than those with equal or more privilege. If one were to

harassed a rich white man, say one who owns a meat packing plant that exploits both workers and nonhuman animals, the volunteer might end up in jail. However, by targeting people of color working on the street the same volunteer has all the support of the institutional racism and classism, including the LAPD

This of course was a major criticism of the crusade of animal protectionists to prosecute Michael Vick (an effort that is by no means racially-neutral within a white supremacist society wherein up to one-third of young black men are imprisoned). This is one reason why litigation is not only minimally effective, but also ultimately futile in bringing about real social change. If sending people to prison is primarily a measure to deter crime, but only the most vulnerable people in society who are the least responsible from animal exploitation ever go to prison, then prison only treats the symptom and not the disease. And as was mentioned in the citation above, attempting to bring justice to those who are both privileged and responsible for animal abuse may result in one ending up in prison themselves.

TVI also notes that while many vegans decry the contemporary witch hunts of animal activists—“green in the new red”--

"animal activists" promote more police suppression than they receive. As a general group, most "animal activists" are more "critical to the maintenance of state power" than they are "subversive"... activists are manufacturing increased police suppression that targets oppressed groups by actively promoting stiffer sentencing for anti-cruelty laws, and specifically criminalizing "animal cruelty" identified with poor people and people of color (i.e., dog fighting and cock fighting)

TVI continues its analysis elsewhere:

Not only does the concept of animal cruelty fail to address the oppression of other animals, it actually expands oppression in the form of the Prison Industrial Complex... That this approach centers a reliance on police, prisons, and the court system is itself problematic

To summarize TVI, not only is the legal system as it is setup now (i.e. The Prison Industrial Complex) incompetent, it actually produces violence upon which it was established to eliminate.

Therefore, by relying upon the law as a tool to outlaw animal "cruelty" so as to punish the "inhumane" through imprisonment, the animal protection movement, in contradiction to vegan principles, fills cages with some beings whereby it seeks to empty cages of others. This is why TVI illuminates the parallels

between veganism and prison abolition. Both call out the political relations of oppressions that are usually masked and depoliticized with similar terms. That is, both reject the calls for more "humane treatment" under the existing system

If vegans are to be consistent and fair in their theory and action, they thus ought to honor "the efforts of all who are striving for the emancipation of humans and of other animals" which includes supporting prison abolition.

This essay is an abridged verion of a previous post at HEALTH. Click here to read the full version.

The Sounds of God's Roars In Speechless Nature

2009-09-03T19:44:00.002-04:00

Foreward: I wrote up this blog post a few weeks ago for my own personal blog. As a blogger and a religious Jew, I often blog about teachings I feel are not emphasized enough in traditional Jewish circles. And as a vegetarian and someone concerned about nature, I am especially interested in sympathy towards animals in traditional Jewish texts.

Knowing that Judaism is a religion that says that humans are Godly, I often wonder why Judaism less frequently teaches that animals can, like humans, have a divine spark. In this blog post, I argue that traditional Judaism actually sees Godliness in animals too.

For the mathematically inclined: if a religion teaches that humans are like God, and if a religion teaches that animals are like God; then, according to the transitive property, the religion is also teaching us that animals are like humans.

In trying to recall the times at night when the Priests in the Temple in Jerusalem would perform different Temple rites, the Rabbis of Massekhet Berakhot 3a debated how nighttime is divided up¹: should nighttime's 12 hours be divided into 3 night-watches of 4 hours each, or 4 night-watches of 3 hours each?

Amidst the arguments, the Talmud examines Rabbi Eliezer's position:

לעולם קסבר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה

Rabbi Eliezer has forever held that there are three watches in the night!

והא קמ"ל דאיכא משמרות ברקיע ואיכא משמרות בארעא

And he teaches us that there are watches in Heaven and watches on Earth.

דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר שלש משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמר ומשמר יושב הקב"ה ושואג כארי

For it is taught: Rabbi Eliezer says, "There are three watches in the night, and at each watch, the Holy Blessed One sits and roars like a lion...

שנאמר (ירמיהו כה) ה' ממרום ישאג וממעון קדשו יתן קולו שאוג ישאג על נוהו

As it mentions (3 roars!²) in Jeremiah 25:30, 'God, from upon high, will roar and, from the base of God's holiness, will project God's roaring voice. God will roar over God's glory!'"

Rabbi Eliezer continues in his explanation:

וסימן לדבר

"God's roaring here is a symbolic matter:

משמרה ראשונה חמור נוער

At the first watch, a donkey brays...

שניה כלבים צועקים

At the second watch, dogs bark....

שלישית תינוק יונק משדי אמו ואשה מספרת עם בעלה.

And at the third watch, a baby nurses at the breasts of its mother as the woman speaks with her husband."

Of course, Jeremiah didn't give any direct acknowledgment of donkeys, dogs, or even humans in the excerpt Rabbi Eliezer quotes. But Rabbi Eliezer knows that, if he's going to take Jeremiah seriously, then he has to take Jeremiah metaphorically.

Rabbi Eliezer is listening for God's roar: God's promise of surveillance, of protection. Rabbi Eliezer tells us that, when he listens to the sounds of the night that surrounds him, he hears nature. He hears the bray of a donkey upon which he or a neighbor might ride to town or to the market. He hears the barking of dogs protecting their territory. And he hears a baby being raised by nurturing parents.

All these sounds that Rabbi Eliezer hears are wordless. Certainly the dog and the donkey have no words to share. And the baby does not even cry or produce a sound approaching the volume of a bark or a bray. The baby only feeds and gets the parents talking. It is only after that third night-watch has already begun though that nighttime has finally restored the words of life into women and men³.

That wordless donkey--assuring transportation and economic access to the market--and those inarticulate dogs--determined to safeguard the residential stability of home--work in tandem with the muted baby who promises us the future of human life.

Rabbi Eliezer listens for God's three roars each night, and he finds them in the wordless cries of nature. But only by way of the sounds of the mute and the speechless, Rabbi Eliezer is able to listen to God. Rabbi Eliezer's point is simple: we can hear God's promise most pronounced in the wordlessness of nature.

NOTES:

1. The classic Jewish calendar divides a day into 12 equal "hours" of nighttime and 12 equal "hours" of daytime. Hypothetically, if a day were dark from 8 PM until 4 AM and light from 4 AM to 8 PM, then each Jewish nighttime "hour" would be 80 minutes long and the Jewish daytime "hours" would be 40 minutes each. Because sunrise and sunset change everyday of the Gregorian calendar, the Jewish "days" begin and end at different times everyday on the Gregorian clock.

2. Rashi notes this in his commentary to this section.

3. Judaism has often valued speech as an indicator of life or existence (for both God and God's humans were enabled to speak, as the humans were made in God's image). Also, one ancient Jewish belief states that the human soul leaves the human body when the body sleeps and returns when the body wakes up. This idea is reflected even today in modern classical Jewish nighttime and daytime prayers.

4. Special thanks to Emily Winograd for studying this Sugeya with me.

Must-See Investigative Footage

2009-09-03T15:50:00.011-04:00

Take a look at this just-released, must-see investigative footage from Mercy For Animals of the largest egg-laying hen hatchery in the world, showing the standard egg industry practice of grinding up newborn male chicks (the story has been picked up by hundreds of news outlets including the Washington Post and SF Chronicle). As many of you know, the egg industry has no use for male chicks since they don't grow fast enough to be used for meat. This goes for most free range/organic egg producers as well, who typically source chicks from the same hatcheries.

The practice of disposing chicks by the millions is emblematic of an industry that reduces feeling animals into units of production. Think about it: like any manufacturing industry, the meat, dairy and egg industries are interested in churning out product at the lowest cost and optimized efficiency. The key difference is that the commodities are themselves sentient individuals, capable of suffering. Today, billions of farm animals in the U.S. alone are severely confined, intensively bred, mutilated without anesthesia, routinely starved (in the case of breeder animals), and forced through many other inhumanities to boost efficiency and profit. To stress the immensity of these cruelties, if a large-scale farmer treated just a few cats or dogs how s/he regularly treats tens of thousands of pigs, cows, or chickens, s/he would likely face felony charges.

That said, I don't think it's fair or constructive to lay all the blame on the industry. The fact is that producers are meeting consumer demand and it is, for example, virtually impossible to economically produce eggs without killing off the males and definitely impossible to produce cheap eggs without extreme confinement. So this sort of video should prompt consumers to reflect on their food choices rather than point their fingers at somebody else. In "Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money," Erik Marcus makes a great case that eggs should be the first, not the last food to give up for animal welfare. And though it may be counterintuitive, there's significantly more slaughter in the egg industry than in the beef industry (all hens are 'expired' when their egg production declines). For those who eat eggs, there's no doubt that switching to locally-produced, free-range eggs (not the one's you'll find at the grocery) is a huge improvement for the animals. But still, corners are cut for efficiency, at the expense of welfare. As long as animals are commodified for food production, inhumane practices and unnecessary suffering are virtually inevitable.

Note: This video only skims the tip of iceberg of all that is inhumane with the egg industry. For a more detailed account check out this report from the Humane Society.

Walk the Walk

2009-08-20T16:41:00.005-04:00

Farm Sanctuary's annual Walk for Farm Animals will kick off during the early fall months. For over twenty years, the walk has raised money for farm animals and awareness about the treatment of factory farm animals. Find a walk near you and register to walk. The money goes to Farm Sanctuary's rescue missions, campaign efforts, and care for the sanctuary animals. Last year they raised $231,458 for farm animals.

If you don't see your city listed, volunteer to organize a walk. It's easy and rewarding.

Caged Animals...or Women?

2009-08-17T10:17:00.001-04:00

Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment Of Women

Dunkin' Cruelty Vegtalk Interview

2009-08-09T00:43:00.009-04:00

Erik Marcus at vegan.com interviewed Erica Meier of Compassion Over Killing (COK) the other day about COK's new campaign targeting Dunkin' Donuts. Take a listen here.

Food Inc. Unpacked

2009-08-07T16:43:00.006-04:00

In response to the cinematic success of Food Inc. - a documentary by Robert Kenner about industrial agriculture - Chipotle is sponsoring free screenings of the film across the country as a part of their Food With Integrity campaign. Their stated goal is to “start a discussion” about food production in America. I went to one such screening in Chicago with a fellow StAR blog contributor.

With animation and color as artificial as the tomatoes in a grocery store, Food Inc. peals back some of the layers of industrial food production, examining health concerns, workers’ rights abuse, animal exploitation and the dirty politics behind it all. In this film where corn is the villain and every head of federal food policy is in bed with Monsanto, an old-fashioned farmer emerges as the Beatrice in an inferno of food. His farm is the idyllic vision one imagines while reading Charlotte’s Web. The animals on his farm approach him when he enters the pen rather than run in fear at the sight of a human hand.

Veganism is by no means implied in the message of the film. Though there are somewhat graphic images of slaughterhouse production, the assumption of the film – and of Chipotle – is that there is such a thing as “naturally raised” or “humanely raised” meat. The takeaway message, then, is that we should buy local and vote with our dollars. This message seems on shaky ground after the film has depicted the dilemma of a financially-stifled Los Angeles family for whom it is an economically-wise decision to buy a $0.99 McDonalds burger rather than a head of lettuce. As my skeptical vegan friend pointed out, the ‘vote with your dollar’ slogan implies that some people get more votes than others. In the Al Gore documentary style, Food Inc. presents problems with only an afterthought to the solutions, which are given a few seconds preceding the end credits. One is left with a sense that they are not much freer in their food choices than the battery-cage hens.

Those who see the film courtesy of Chipotle may be left with the assumption that Chipotle’s food is the solution to this harrowing problem. A Chipotle representative provides an opening disclaimer to the film saying that they are “a pioneer in changing the way people think about and eat fast food,” and that they serve “nutritious ingredients from local and family farmers who are committed to sustainably raising antibiotic and hormone-free meats and organic vegetables.” Despite Chipotle’s claim that their Food with Integrity campaign is not “merely a marketing tool,” there is no doubt that this organization—whose foundations are built on funding from McDonald’s Inc.—is catering its menu and discourse to shifting consumer preferences that are concerned with the environmental and social impact of food. My primary “beef” with Chipotle’s marketing package—and of the film in general—is that there is no honest deconstruction of the many buzz words that have come to be nothing more than marketing ploys, such as “hormone-free,” “humane meat,” or “organic.” Instead, they continue to use these terms as shiny consumerist solutions to a problem inextricably linked to overconsumption, overproduction, and faulty demand signals.

Ask Michael Kors why he uses fur!

2009-08-06T16:37:00.003-04:00

Please take a moment of your time to submit questions for designer Michael Kors, asking him why he continues to use fur in his designs when he knows that fur requires animals to be tortured and barbarically killed. If this topic gets a lot of hits, the general ethical issues of fur will be in Time Magazine's "100 Questions for Michael Kors."

Here are some sample posts (feel free to copy/paste if you are busy):

“How can you call yourself an original designer when you steal fashion ideas from animals by using their fur?

“Why won’t you stop using fur, even when so many hyper-fashionable people, like Stella McCartney, Vivienne Westwood, Natalie Portman, and Tim Gunn have come out against it?”

“You recently dropped raccoon dog fur from your line—why not all fur? Why should raccoon dogs be spared, and not other sentient animals?”

“Why you such a bitch to animals boy?” haha

Dunkin' Donuts Cruelty: Quick Action for Animals

2009-08-06T13:32:00.004-04:00

As some of you may be aware, Compassion Over Killing (COK) has launched a new campaign aimed at Dunkin' Donuts to persuade them to offer vegan menu items free of the cruelties involved in the egg and dairy industries. Their new website is up and they are urging activists and consumers alike to make their voices heard and take a minute or two to call, snail mail or email the company, urging them to offer cruelty free options.

As every single donut on their current menu contains milk and eggs, COK is also urging them to offer menu items for those with allergies and health concerns.

Here's the short e-mail I sent:

To whom it may concern,

I recently learned that your company does not offer any products suitable for people who avoid consuming animal products such as dairy and eggs, which appear in all your donut menu items. As you are likely well aware, the number of individuals who avoid the cruelties and negative health effects of animal products are growing. With numerous consumers opting for healthier foods and cruelty-free goods our retail market is shifting. As a result we ask that businesses represent our needs and allow consumers to continue their support of companies such as yours. Without dairy and egg-free options, consumers will be forced to purchase elsewhere.

I would ask that you increase the availability of items without animal products or create vegan meal items to reflect your consumers' growing concerns, opening yourselves up to a larger market. New animal-free products would be marketed as healthier options and allow your company to tap into the growing concerns of the population for health foods and improved eating habits.

I would like to thank you for your time and again stress the need for vegan menu items to be added to your repertoire, allowing consumers the chance to purchase cruelty-free items from your establishment.

Thank you

To visit the campaign's web site click here: Dunkin' Cruelty

Fowl Play

2009-08-05T21:17:00.009-04:00

I recently got a chance to see Fowl Play, a great new film produced by Adam Durand and Mercy For Animals (MFA). It's an incredibly disturbing but equally inspiring documentary that is super well-done. Fowl Play is also pretty short (less than an hour), so it would be good for campus screenings with plenty of room for post-viewing discussion. The film takes a behind closed-doors look at the egg industry and tells the stories of rescued hens and their courageous rescuers while touching on broader farm animal and animal rights issues. Unfortunately, the DVD is not yet available, but it should be out soon. Don't miss it!

On a related note, Compassion Over Killing (COK) just launched a campaign to get Dunkin' Donuts to stop using dairy and eggs. Take 2 minutes to take action here.

My Trip to the Stockyard

2009-07-31T22:26:00.002-04:00

I have just finished an internship at Farm Sanctuary in Upstate New York. Farm Sanctuary is the largest farm animal sanctuary, focusing on education, outreach, legislation, and animal rescue. I have learned so much at Farm Sanctuary, and recommend it so strongly for anyone interested in animal rights.

One part of the internship was a trip to a stockyard auction. I'd like to tell you about my experience.

The stockyard was in Bath and was very small. Steers, pigs, lambs, and goats in holding stalls waiting, bleating, bellowing, and snorting, to be auctioned off. They paced the dirty stalls where they could barely turn around. They tried to push their ways through the wooden planks to be free. They cried. They literally cried. But that wasn't the worst part.

When we got there, they were about to auction off the veal calves. They were all kept in a very small pen. They were still wobbly--one could barely walk. Their wet umbilical cords still hung from their bellies. They cried and cried, like babies. Anxious, confused, stepping on each other, bellowing so so loudly. The worst part was bending over the stall to pet them, to try to offer them a small bit of comfort before they were either slaughtered or chained to veal crate later that day. When they saw fingers, they desperately began to suckle them. One followed me around, suckling desperately on my entire hand. Whether they were hungry or not is not the point--though very sad if they were--but they were seeking their mother's udder. Comfort. Affection. Far too young to be away from her.

Children beat the calves with canes. The older ones taught the younger ones (some so small they probably could not yet read) how to beat them to make them move. Baby cows flinched with fear and pain. They were smacked into the auction room, pushed around by a man to show the customers how well they can move. They would be sold and beat into another small pen. This went on for eternity.

Some calves were to be slaughtered that day for what is called "bob veal." This is low-quality veal that is not pale in flesh, but is very cheap to buy and produce. Other calves were to be chained to veal crates for 6 weeks, fed a liquid diet deficient in iron and protein to create pale, tender, anemic flesh, so desired by veal connoisseurs. These calves are weak with atrophied muscles, 6 weeks in the dark, alone, unable to even stand. Starving. Dying before being murdered. Babies.

This was a very small stockyard with small-town friendly farmers and Amish people. This is the BEST it's going to get. My heart won't even allow me to imagine what bigger, factory farmed veal operations looked like.

I'm having trouble shaking the feeling of baby cows suckling on my hand. Images of babies hitting babies with canes. Hearing the crying calves. Smelling the awful stench. Please don't drink milk.

Summer Salad Ideas

2009-07-31T16:49:00.005-04:00

Mark Bittman recently published an article in the New York Times with summer salad ideas entitled 101 Simple Salads for the Season. Don't get too excited, all 101 recipes are not animal-friendly, but the first 36 are vegan as the subheading suggests. I will admit, I haven't tried any of these recipes out myself, but I was told they are top-notch. If you're looking for a creative vegan dish to bring to a potluck or summer BBQ, any of these recipes would make a great addition.

Big problems

2009-07-29T16:16:00.004-04:00

In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof discusses our moral obligations with regard to world poverty and muses on what leads people to turn the other way. He draws from the work of philosopher Peter Singer, who many of you may know from his writings about animal ethics.

Kristof points out that people are less likely to help when a problem is framed as very large and less specific. He cites the title of an upcoming essay by psychologist Paul Slovic: "The more who die, the less we care." Kristof writes that "humanitarian appeals emphasize the scale of the challenges — 25,000 children will die today! — in ways that are as likely to numb us as to galvanize us."

This should ring a bell for animal rights advocates. We all know that the numbers are staggering -- ten billion animals slaughtered every year in the United States alone, and many more when including fish. Perhaps we would do well to avoid overemphasizing the sheer scale of the problem. Instead, we could focus on how our individual choices are linked to animal cruelty while including positive arguments as well.

Cheesy Vegan Macaroni Casserole

2009-07-28T15:36:00.004-04:00

Here's a top-notch casserole recipe I learned from a friend. Although I call for mushrooms and broccoli here, you can really go with any veggies (cauliflower, onion, spinach, and kale are some ideas). If you're not familiar, nutritional yeast is an inactive, golden-hued form of yeast, rich in protein and B vitamins. This recipe capitalizes on the yeast's distinctive, cheese-like flavor (which also makes it good in pesto and on popcorn). Nutritional yeast is typically sold in bulk at natural food stores or in well-stocked supermarkets.

3 cups elbow macaroni
1/2 cup margarine or soy butter
1/2 cup flour
3 1/2 cups boiling water
2 Tablespoons Soy Sauce
1 teaspoon salt
2 teaspoons garlic powder
2 teaspoons dill
1 teaspoon cheyenne, turmeric, or paprika
2 Tablespoons cup olive oil
1 cup Nutritional Yeast
1 broccoli floret chopped
1 cup shitake mushrooms chopped

Preheat oven to 425°. Cook the noodles. While cooking, melt the margarine in a saucepan over low heat. Mix the flour in with a whisk and stir until smooth and bubbly. Add water, soy sauce, salt, and other spices. Let sauce cook until thick, then stir in oil and nutritional yeast and remove from heat. Drain the noodles and empty them into the casserole dish. Mix in about 2/3 of the sauce with the pasta. Layer the vegetables on top of the pasta. Pour remaining sauce atop veggies. Sprinkle with some more dill. Bake for about 25 minutes or until vegetables are soft and crispy and sauce is browned. Eat.

The Winsome Vegan: some thoughts on faith, animal rights, and living with carnivores

2009-07-27T22:49:00.004-04:00

I wrote this post on my own blog in 2007.

Even when I ate meat, I was never what you'd consider to be a "foodie." As I've written before, in my pre-vegan bachelor days, I could subsist for days, even weeks, on food-related products purchased at the local 7-11. Being vegan does force me to be more thoughtful about what I'm eating, but it's a thoughtfulness born more of necessity rather than pleasure. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy my food, I do. But I've never had much interest in contemplating exciting new meals. Cooking shows -- at least the sort where you are shown how to make something -- are stunningly dull. I do like fashion, and care much more about clothing than food. Hence, I do enjoy "Project Runway." But I can't explain why I'm so fond of "Top Chef" and the positively sadistic "Hell's Kitchen". Perhaps I just like watching people who are passionate about what they do struggling to perform under intense pressure. I know I'm at my best under pressure, and perhaps it's empathy born of experience in other areas of life that makes the competitors on these shows so interesting to me. Lord knows, it's not the food that they're actually making. And this brings me back to veganism. In the last four or five months that I have been much more strictly and actively vegan, I've been acutely conscious of my own dangerous tendency towards self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is the pit into which many adult converts tend to fall, and those of us who have "prodigal son" narratives (in my case involving a decade and a half worth of drugs, alcohol, multiple divorces and a lot of very unhealthy sexual acting-out) are all the more likely to become tiresomely prudish as we move to amend our way of life.

Of course, in our zeal to promote the new "clean livin'" we've just discovered, we end up alienating everyone around us. I know I've slipped into the role of the prig many times, and as I grow in Christ, I'm all the more determined to not let that censoriousness characterize my thinking or my words about other people's behavior. At the same time, when it comes to veganism and animal rights, it's hard. As someone who does believe that all sentient beings -- not just humans -- do have inalienable rights to life and dignity, it's often difficult to find a way to live in loving community with those who find that view preposterous and silly. Watching "Hell's Kitchen" last night, I saw one group of chefs preparing "bacon-wrapped rabbit" as a special dish. Looking at the strips of bacon wrapped around the little chunks of rabbit, I thought about the animals from which those morsels came. I thought about the hogs I've been around and the rabbits I've played with. (Lest you think I'm a purely urban vegan, I've spent a lot of time in my life on ranches and farms. I grew up around 4-H and FFA and have been to countless livestock shows and auctions. I'm not an urban sentimentalist totally ignorant of the realities of farm life.) I thought about the capacity of pigs to nurture and to protect, and the clear and obvious ability of rabbits to experience fear and pain and pleasure. And in order to continue watching the show, I had to shut down that part of me that wanted to scream "How dare you!" at the aspiring chefs. I have vegan acquaintances who won't go to family holidays where meat is served. I know some vegans who have severed all of their close ties with those who continue to eat animal products. They find it too painful to sit at family meals while those whom they love consume the flesh of creatures equally deserving of protection and care. I'm far too committed to my friends and family, far too interested in far too many different types of people to ever cut myself off from someone over their dietary choices.

With my family, we've reached a clear understanding. When we come home for family holidays (such as at Easter this year), we'll bring our own food. No one will beg us to try "just one little bite" of ham or omelette. In turn, we won't begin to hector our loved ones with the usual lines: "Do you have any idea how that was made? Would you be willing to eat it if you saw how that animal was slaughtered?" My wife and I not only sit next to meat-eaters, we even help in preparing dishes filled with animal product (as at the Fourth of July, where I spent over an hour cranking out ice cream I would never taste). We've made a conscious decision to strike a balance between our desire for loving, harmonious relationship with our families and our own commitment to no longer consume animals in any form. It's not as easy as it sounds. Sometimes, the meat eaters around me feel as if they're being silently rebuked. As they slice their steaks and I spoon in my quinoa and broccoli, they look uncomfortable. I make a conscious effort not to stare at their food, I don't make disgusted expressions, I don't use passive-aggressive tactics to communicate disapproval. Nevertheless, I see some folks getting antsy. Often, they'll ask if I'm "okay" with what they're eating; I'm always careful to be reassuring.

At the same time, my veganism is not a value-neutral lifestyle choice. Being a feminist and being anti-racist isn't morally equivalent with being a misogynist bigot. Those of us who fight for justice for women and ethnic minorities want to change hearts and minds and behaviors; we want men to stop abusing women, we want full inclusion for people of color in every aspect of public life. Most of us draw a distinction between someone who says "having toast with peanut butter in the morning is better than having cornflakes, and you can't judge me for that view" and someone who says "raping women is something I prefer to not raping them, and you can't judge me." The latter involves tremendous harm to living beings whose lives have innate value, and so we feel comfortable and right in judging it. So if I believe that pigs and rabbits and cows have a similar innate value to that of a human being, am I not contradicting myself if I reassure my meat-eating friends that they're "okay with me" when I would never offer that same reassurance to a rapist or a racist? Yes, I do want a world where we've minimized the suffering of sentient creatures. I do want a world where we are all surviving and thriving on a plant-based diet, and I am eager to play a role in helping to create the economic systems and the policies that can make veganism as affordable and pleasurable and easy as carniverousness. The cost to the earth (in terms of water and protein, for example) to "factory farm" cows, pigs, sheep, and poultry is colossal and likely unsustainable. The cost in physical suffering is unspeakable, and I do wish those who eat meat would, at the least, imagine the face of the creature whose thighs or hindquarters they are eating. There can be no virtue in deliberate, willfull denial.

At the same time, I'm aware we live in a world trapped in the famous tension between the Already and the Not Yet. I am Already aware, at least I trust I am, of what it is God is calling me to be. I am Already convinced that I am called, and indeed, we all are called, to eat and drink and drive and make love and buy morally. I am Already convinced that to follow Christ is to live a life of courage and radical compassion; I am Already convinced that to live as an authentic feminist is to see that the exploitation of other living creatures for my pleasure is fundamentally unethical. I am Not Yet at the place where I can live this life perfectly, without the occasional small compromises that expose me and others to the charge of hypocrisy. I am Not Yet at the place where I can make the case for Christian feminist veganism without coming across, at least to many, as a charlatan or a fraud or a deluded prude swept up in religious enthusiasm. So I'll keep on keepin' on; that means being cheerful about an undressed salad at an elegant restaurant while those around me nosh on chateaubriand. That means being unapologetic about animal rights while being warm, engaging, and non-judgmental with those who are unwilling to consider my position to be practical or desirable. And it means I'm gonna work on another book proposal one of these days. Working title: "The Winsome Vegan: How to Live Cruelty-Free and Love those Who Don't".

Some Musings on Veganism, “Finikiness,” and Indulging in Omnivory

2009-07-27T09:39:00.007-04:00

In the kitchen of my shared apartment in Leipzig, I was forced to behold a disgusting sight and smell. A tomato, a half-eaten container of blueberry yogurt, more yogurt in a glass dish, and a few unopened snacks had been sitting on the countertop for the last four days, apparently left there by a flatmate who had gone on vacation. The tomato and yogurt had of course become moldy and attracted numerous fruit flies, so I grudgingly threw them in the dumpster outside. The remaining question was what to do with the unopened (and therefore unspoiled) items: berry-flavored applesauce, vanilla pudding with whipped topping, and another container of yogurt. I knew that the owner had probably forgotten their existence entirely and might never eat them—after all, they were put there at the same time as all the foul-smelling, spoiled food which was left out so carelessly. Therefore, there seemed to be only two possible courses of action: put them in the refrigerator and hope that the owner would find them eventually, or eat them myself. I did the former with the applesauce and unopened yogurt, which didn’t look that interesting. But the vanilla pudding looked like the ultimate creamy perfection, so I couldn’t resist indulging.

This instance is part of an unfortunate pattern that’s been plaguing me for the past few months: I see an animal-based food, decide that eating it won’t affect the demand much because it’s a small amount and/or I didn’t buy it myself, and my willpower breaks; or I order something at a restaurant which may or may not be vegan, but am too lazy to ask, and it ends up being non-vegan. Thankfully, the pudding incident is the worst of the sins I’ve engaged in, other than a time when I started nibbling some fancy cheese someone had brought to a picnic and ended up eating an amount half the size of a tennis ball. I also admit that part of my lazyness with asking about ingredients at restaurants has to do with being in Germany for the summer, where I don’t speak the language fluently. Yet still I worry that if I don’t bring these habits under control, they will escalate until I find myself knowingly purchasing animal products on my own.

Fortunately, the animal agriculture industry is at least partially right when it condemns small welfare improvements as the beginning of a “slippery slope” toward the banning of animal agriculture, but unfortunately it works the other way too: as soon as a vegan starts eating small amounts of animal products, they’ve put themselves on a dangerous path toward losing their veganism entirely. While I don’t think this will happen to me anytime soon (banning myself from buying animal products, even if I eat things that other people buy, seems straightforward enough), even this prohibition has its gray areas. For example, am I purchasing animal products if I buy a lunch at an all-you-can-eat buffet that contains both vegan and non-vegan items, and then put some non-vegan things on my plate at the last minute?

Calling oneself a vegan, while not being very strict, can also have its public relations problems. Anyone who’s a freegan or a not-so-strict vegan is undoubtedly familiar with the awkward situation that arises when you taste small amounts of animal products in front of people who know you’re vegan. Someone says, “But I thought you were a vegan!” and you’re forced to give a response like, “Well, I’m not always that strict” or “I’m just having a small taste, so it's not really feeding into the demand.” While this may make some almost-ready-to-be-vegans lose some of their fear of commitment, it can make others perceive you as weak-willed, and we don’t want to give omnivores that satisfaction. Not to mention that over time, our small forays into omnivory add up, so it’s not quite true that they have no affect on supply and demand—it’s just a very small effect compared to that of full-fledged omnivores.

Then again, being too strict a vegan can have its drawbacks too. The more “finicky” you are, the more people are going to perceive you as “unreasonable,” and this does not help the public’s perception of an already “fringe” lifestyle. I once made this mistake when I ordered some pasta at an Italian restaurant which wasn’t described on the menu as containing cheese, but it ended up having some sprinkled on top. This was in addition to a salad I had gotten, which automatically came with some milk-based dressing that wasn’t mentioned on the menu. I don’t remember whether the waitress was within earshot, but I do remember expressing my displeasure, and some others at the table immediately accused me of being “ungreatful” for what the cook must have meant as a nice garnish. While I still think my complaint was justified, no one else perceived it that way, so unfortunately I think my cause was hindered rather than helped. This was especially true since the damage, in terms of animal products used, could no longer be undone.

So for all you fellow vegans out there, my advice is this: try to keep your small indulgences in meat, eggs, and dairy to a minimum, but don't make so big a deal about it that the legitimacy of your position is undermined. If you ever get the sense that you’re at the beginning of a “slippery slope” toward non-veganism, that means it’s time to reaffirm where your boundaries are, before it’s too late. But meanwhile, don’t be so dogmatic you turn into a fussy person whom no one wants to emulate.

Ban Horse Drawn Carriages in Chicago

2009-07-23T11:47:00.003-04:00

As stated in the previous blog post regarding horse-drawn carriages in New York City, this form of "romantic" entertainment is quite popular among tourist activities in popular cities. The abusive treatment, living conditions, dangerous environment, weather extremes, and long work hours that horses are forced to endure, are shielded by the romantic facade of experiencing the city. Fortunately, these practices have been banned in Paris, Toronto, London, Las Vegas, Bejing, Reno, Palm Beach, Key West, Santa Fe, and Oxford. Also, strong campaigns to ban this cruelty against horses are currently active in Rome, New York City, and Chicago. As a resident of Chicago, I am saddened and disgusted to see this abuse practiced in such a seemingly progressive city.

Please click on the following link to sign the online petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Ban-Chicago-Carriages. If we reach 1000 signatures, a letter will be sent to Mayor Daley encouraging him to rethink Chicago's participation in horse-drawn carriages.

Also, please contact Chicago 42nd ward alderman, Brendan Reilly, to encourage him to aid in the successful ban of horse-drawn carriages:

311 West Superior, Suite 212

Chicago, IL 60610

Ph: 312-642-4242

Email: office@reillyforchicago.com

If you are a resident of Chicago and would be interested in attending our protests, please email BanChicagoHDC@gmail.com for more information.

Newsflash: Veganism healthful for ALL stages of the life-cycle

2009-07-14T21:14:00.004-04:00

The American Dietetic Association, the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, just released its updated position paper on vegetarianism. If you're somebody who advocates for veganism, whether to family and friends or to the public through outreach, this quote is essential to know:

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes."

One more nail in the coffin of the popular myth that veganism is inappropriate or dangerous for infants and children.

Farmed Animals and Femininity

2009-07-14T11:50:00.001-04:00

“The concealment of breastfeeding rests equally, if not more, on squeamishness relating to bodily function: the fact that food comes out of our bodies is an unsettling thought in a culture that rarely remembers food growing on trees”
--Fiona Giles Fresh Milk [*]

“Separate lexicons suggest opposite behaviors and attributes. We eat, but other animals feed. A woman is pregnant or nurses her babies; a nonhuman mammal gestates or lactates. A dead human is a corpse, a dead nonhuman a carcass or meat”
--Carol Adams “Foreword” to Animal Equality[*]

PREFACE
The human breast is a battleground. It is a cultural site at which pervasive dominant discourses in western societies demarcate “nature” from culture and politics, “woman” from man, “Man” from “animal,” spirituality from sexuality, and altruism from self-interest. Just as breasts (generally) come in pairs, so do their culturally conscripted “natures.” The powerful emotions that may be evoked by the sight or touch of the breast may not be solely aesthetic; they may also signify deeper subconscious anxieties over our very identities as men, women, humans, animals, straights or queers.

Further, the female breast has been the site of national and racial politics in which “Others” are to be subordinated to the public pursuits of white men. Within certain practices of “wet-nursing,” some of which continue today, the bodies of poor, black, and “foreign” women as well as dairy cows have been commodified as resources to nurture a new generation who will inherit a great nation, almost always at the expense of the health of such “Others.” Both conceptually and materially, public life, men, whites, and H. sapiens in general are privileged over private life, women, people of color, and “animals.”

Farmed Animals and Femininity
In light of modern Western humans' will to knowledge, power, and meaning, it is not so surprising Carol Linneaus chose to highlight humans' capacity to reason (sapien) as that which separates the men from the animals. Though reason is what makes humans an exceptioanl animal, Linneaus deliberately chose the breast as a marker of human beings' continuity with the animal kingdom. Shiebinger notes that "Linneaus created the term Mammalia in response to the question of humans’ place in nature" so that while "a female characteristic (the lactating mamma) ties humans to brutes... a traditionally male characteristic (reason) marks our separation."[51e]

Breasts, as organs of the body that function to nurse children, have been historically marked as part of a person’s Species being, a matter of her facticity, or determined nature. As popularly expressed by Simone de Beauvoir in her groundbreaking book The Second Sex (1949), “giving birth and suckling are not activities, they are natural functions; no project is involved” (94*). Unlike transcendental projects willed by individual human consciousnesses, breasts are more often associated with the immanence of the body because of their relationship to reproduction and the perpetuation of the collective species to which women are forced into servitude. The situation of the (feminine) body even constitutes a detriment to those human projects. “Nursing is also an exhausting obligation,” she writes, as “the nursing mother feeds the newborn at the expense of her own strength” (95*).

In contrast to a male’s freedom and expression which increase with the complexity of their species, a female animal “feels her enslavement more and more keenly, the conflict between her own interests and the reproductive forces is heightened… woman is of all mammalian females at once the one who is most profoundly alienated” (26, 33). As mother, woman is “like a phase of a species… her individual and separate existence merges into universal life. Her individuality is derisively contested by generality” (184). Women, in other words, lose their autonomy and individuality when their bodies conform to their biological function, becoming subsumed into the general species. Though, many feminists may no longer share Beauvoir’s attitude toward the female body today, her attitude generally reflects the metaphysical and material prejudices of modern Western culture.

Perhaps more than people realize, the Species being of women and the construction of femininity are intricately wrapped up in cultural constructions—both material and conceptual—of farmed animals. Just as women have been subsumed by the Species within patriarchy, so have farmed animals within specieisism.

Carol Adams highlights that species is gendered, animals are feminized, and women are animalized.[52] Particularly, all members of species exploited for their feminine bodies (i.e. eggs, milk) “carry the attribute of the female of the species... unless specifically identified as male.”[53] As Beauvoir stated before her, Adams writes “[t]he generic, unlike mankind, is female… Man transcends species; woman bears it. So do the other animals.” Joan Dunayer likewise notes that

“Whereas other species’ names appear as plurals (‘palm cockatoos’) or follow the (‘the palm cockatoo’), man does not. Frequent capitalization literally elevates Man above other animals. Functioning like a proper name, Man personifies our species as an adult male (13*)

Linguistically, the privilege accorded to “Man” is a site in which sexism and speciesism intersect. While “Man” is proper and particular, women and animals live mere generalized existences. “Man” is unified in his dignified individuality, while women and animals are interchangeable units in a collective.

Although de Beauvoir writes that “The term ‘female’ is derogatory not because it emphasizes woman’s animality, but because it imprisons her in her sex,” she later goes on to describe anthropomorphic vices men have used to describe various female animals—sluggish, eager, artful, stupid, callous, lustful, ferocious, abased—all of which men project unto women (3). Indeed, Dunayer in “Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots” (as well as many other feminist thinkers) have analyzed the intersections between misogynistic and speciesist rhetoric. Terms like catty, shrew, dumb bunny, cow, bitch, old crow, queen bee, and sow are intended, at least originally, to denigrate women, mostly through their analogy to constructions of farmed animals. Women and their lifestyles are also trivialized in the way in which the lives of animals are trivialized. For instance young women are often called chicks while more mature women are said to be old hens who are cooped unless they attend hen parties with their brood.[54]

The distinction between women’s animality and her imprisonment within her sex is very fine since our understanding of female sexuality is partially influenced by human reproductive management and regimes for female farmed animals. In her essay “Thinking like a Chicken: Farm Animals and the Feminine Connection,” Karen Dawn notes that while many people valorize and sympathize with the plight of “wild” animals, there has been a “culturally-conditioned indifference” toward “domestic” animals. Keystone environmental thinkers have privileged those animals that are “natural, wild, and free” over farmed animals which have supposedly been “bred to docility, tractability, stupidity, and dependency.” Though many men have

traditionally admired and even sought to emulate certain kinds of animals, even as they set out to subjugate and destroy them… they have not traditionally admired or sought to emulate women [or farmed animals]… men essentially give to themselves a new lease to run with the predators, not the prey, and to identify with the "wild" and not the "tame."[55]

Women and farmed animals, both who have been domesticated and valued for their feminine docility, are too boring and slavish to admire and emulate; they lack all that is most valued in modern patriarchy: freedom, power, and intelligence.

Ultimately reduced to edible commodities, farmed animals—even more so than “wild” animals—are also dispossessed of agency and particularity. In being reduced to “meat,” farmed animals lose their particularity, “someone has becomes something, an object with no distinctiveness, no uniqueness, no individuality” [56]. As Carol Adams observes, “When you add five pounds of hamburger to a plate of hamburger, it is more of the same thing” [56b]. Further, farmed animals lose their agency through the story of meat and milk eating in which “we reposition the animal from subject to object by making ourselves the subject of meat-eating" [57]. Similarly, because of the stories we tell about dairy cows, the embodied subjectivity of cows is elided: “Milking is done to her rather than by her” [54]. No wonder the minds behind Barnyard chose a male gender for its udder-ed protagonist: “the people producing this film didn't think it was possible to have actual female cows being humorous or wild”, after all, cows are dull and boring.[58]

Through the values and prejudices of patriarchy, women have been marked with animality and thus face a similar negative treatment as animals do. At least metaphorically, women too become exchangeable objects whose agency is evicerated through the objectifying, fragmenting, and consuming male gaze. Adams explains that through the metaphor of being “treated like meat,”

[f]eminists have used violence against animals as metaphor, literalizing and feminizing the metaphor…Whereas women may feel like pieces of meat, and be treated like pieces of meat—emotionally butchered and physically battered—animals actually are made into pieces of meat… [this metaphor often results in an] occlusion, negation, and omission in which the literal fate of the animal is elided [57b]

While many people feel that the objectifying and exploitative treatment of animals (i.e. being “treated like meat’) is unjust when applied to human animals, they uncriticaly accept that it is “natural” and right to treat “animals” as such. By doing so, these people do not challenge discrimination, objectification, and exploitation themselves, but only that these acts not be performed against a certain class of privileged subjects.

Beauvoir and the majority of more contemporary femininsts cannot simply elide the risks of dehumanization (a speciesist word) by supporting their defense on the metaphysical foundation of liberal humanism in which humans are either other-than or more-than “animals, but never “mere” animals because they possess self-consciousness. By creating a negative zone of exclusion, the animal body, of which humans transcend, biologist Lynda Birke warns that

we are inevitably going to face problems [because] analogies are drawn between human society and that of other species… if animals are ‘mere’ biology, puppets of their genes, then there will inevitably be inferences made about the mere biology at the heart of human nature.(11*)

The animal body which modern Western people have abjected to form the sanctity of its subjectivity will continually beseeche them, as the abject ceaselessly threatens to collapse the demarcation between it and the demarcating subject.[59] As long as human subjectivity relies upon the abjection and occlusion of “animal” and corporeal subjectivity, those who are marked as closer to animality and corporeality will likely face abject treatment.

This essay was previously posted on HEALTH in the third post in a series on "The Identity Politics of Breasts"

886 Million Deaths

2009-07-12T18:22:00.009-04:00

The other day, a fire ravaged a large battery-cage egg farm in Texas, claiming the lives of 800,000 hens. You probably didn't hear a thing. That's because, as usual, when something like this happens, the coverage was limited to local news outlets. The stories noted that there were no human fatalities and that the company that owns the farm, Cal-Maine Foods, is only experiencing minimal economic damage.

Cramming hundreds of thousands of animals into a handful of cheaply-built sheds on a single property – typical of factory farms – is not only harmful to the animals, the environment, farm workers, and neighboring residents, it's also plainly absurd from a disaster-prevention standpoint. Factory farms are notoriously vulnerable to fires and natural disasters. In 2000, a tornado swept through the largest egg farm in Ohio, nearly decimating the buildings (see picture below). For weeks, over a million hens were stranded - many entangled in the wire mesh of their mangled cages - left to languish without food or water. Aside from a lucky few who were rescued and brought to sanctuary, most starved or were bulldozed or suffocated to death.

What's often most stunning about these disaster stories is the calm acceptance by the producers. The hundreds of thousands of animals killed in the fire represent a fairly disposable fraction of Cal-Maine's "inventory." Furthermore, the company is fully insured for the replacement value, including the losses in production (i.e. the hens). Is it outrageous to speculate that maybe the industry doesn't want to pay for better, safer buildings considering that the inevitable losses resulting from disaster-prone buildings are so trivial?

Looking at the bigger picture, the 800,000 animals that were killed in the blaze are among nearly 1 billion farm animals in the U.S. every year who die before slaughter due to poor conditions, intensive breeding, neglect, mistreatment, and bad management, virtually all preventable deaths. The meat, dairy, and egg industry's cold hearted acceptance of these high mortality rates makes perfect economic sense: reduce fixed costs and maximize overall production, and a few hundred, thousand, or million deaths doesn't hurt the bottom line.

The fact that annually about 886 million animals die horrible deaths from preventable causes is a little known fact that we should work to make common knowledge. Many people who don't find anything wrong with slaughter would be disgusted to learn that hundreds of millions of animals are left to die from disease, injury, squalid conditions, etc. This staggering mortality rate speaks to the ruthless economic logic of industrial animal agriculture where animals are reduced to units of production.

You'll hear industry spokespersons often make the claim that animals must be healthy and happy in order to grow and produce. It is thus, they say, in the best interest of farmers to protect their animals' welfare. The 886 million animal figure defies that claim.

There's nothing we can do for the 800,000 animals who burned to death in the fire. But we can, in time, bring an end to the unspeakable inhumanity of an industry that let it happen and will no doubt let it happen again.

Hens stranded at Buckeye egg farm after a tornado struck in 2000

Vegan strength

2009-06-23T00:07:00.012-04:00

Stereotypes, anyone? Check out these powerlifting vegans:

Vegans Win Weightlifting Competition

VeganStrength.org

What about horse-drawn carriages?

2009-06-05T02:29:00.013-04:00

Along with zoos, circuses and pet shops, horse-drawn carriages are among the seemingly innocuous industries that employ animals for entertainment in abusive ways. The romantic depiction of white stallions in Woody Allen’s Manhattan or Carrie Bradshaw’s last date with Big has made the industry a popular tourist attraction. A new documentary, Blinders: the truth behind the tradition, exposes some of the underhanded cruelties of horse-drawn carriages in New York City. Director Donny Moss said in an interview with Animal Voices that the documentary “peals back the facade” of the industry to reveal “a gruesome tradition."

Moss discusses how these horses - instinctively anxious prey animals that flee with stimuli - have to constantly maneuver through the crowded and dangerous streets of New York. Many are constantly in fear of their surroundings and they often react in dangerous ways. Their hooves and bodies wear out from the exhaustive work they do on concrete they were not made to walk on. When it comes time for them to “retire,” most are loaded onto transport trucks and endure long trips to Mexico or Canada for slaughter (an inadvertent negative effect of the ban on horse slaughter in the United States).

The practices of horse-drawn carriages are by no means as abusive as any segment of the meat industry, nor do these horses constitute a significant chunk of animal employment. While some advocates may view this as an obscure issue that we should dismiss for the sake of greater abuses, it seems this could be an easy way to force people to confront their relationships with animals at large. For starters, when we consider whether we should devote our resources to a given cause, we often view our political capital as a finite resource that should affect the greatest number of animals in the worst conditions. This leaves out the root of the problem, which is the mindset of humans toward animals. Given that horses on the street are visible to New Yorkers on a daily basis, this industry is one way that humans build their conception of the place for animals in our world. In this instance, the horses are visually equated to the taxis or limos on the street. They are unmistakably machine-like commodities.

Identifying the horses as individuals with interests – an aim of the film as it singles out a few of the horses’ stories – reformulates the horse-drawn carriage image as one of domination and exploitation. Through small, micropolitical gestures—such as telling a friend about the true state of horses as you pass by one—or confrontational and visible demonstrations, we can disrupt the iconic image of a calm and pleasant horse ride.

This is also an industry with which we can reasonably expect success. It is much easier to create change in consumer preferences with regard to a tourist attraction than it is to create one in regard to daily lifestyle habits such as food choices. If people have strong negative associations with horse-drawn carriages and view it as both scrupulous and hazardous, a natural boycott of the industry can easily emerge. Despite numerous petitions urging a ban, Mayor Bloomberg is on the record saying that he supports the tradition because tourists like it. A little outreach could go a long way to ban this practice and create some compassion for animals.

Watch the trailer of Blinders:

The entire documentary is available for free on youtube here.

How vegetarians get their protein

2009-05-29T04:19:00.000-04:00

From fmylife.com:

Today, I was at my boyfriend's house. I've been a vegetarian for 4 years, and his mother made lasagna with meat in it. After telling her I don't eat meat, my boyfriend's father proceeds to say "we know who's meat she does eat." My boyfriend, his mother, and I were standing right there. FML

Many inappropriate things enter and exit the omnivore's mouth.

Francione on Pets

2009-05-26T13:43:00.003-04:00

Listen to what Gary Francione has to say about pet ownership in a February 2009 interview:

In short, he argues that "we cannot justify domestication" or continued breeding of animals to serve as companions, but that we have a moral obligation to take care of the animals that we have already brought into existence.

Francione draws a somewhat gratuitous comparison to slavery in response to a question about humans who may have no source of friendship other than their companion animals. This analogy is weak since the primary concern with slavery was not whether the individuals should continue to exist and breed into the future, but whether their status should be that of a subordinate class of people. Since there is no way for most dog species to survive without human guardianship, opposing the pet industry is equivalent to opposing the legitimacy of the existence of these animals. Ridding ourselves of the mindset of domestication does not just require that we get rid of the pet-owner relationship, but that we actively do things to get rid of the species as well.

The Role of Satire

2009-05-25T16:56:00.008-04:00

It sometimes seems that the comedic realm is one of the greatest forums for consciousness-raising efforts. Granted a cloak of immunity, comedians are able to say things others won’t, because their remarks can easily be written off as punchlines without social truth. It is no wonder, then, that Jon Stewart (and his cohorts) thrived during the Bush era, which was characterized by concealment and its lack of transparency.

Similarly, South Park sometimes takes the meat industry head on. This clip from an episode titled “Fun With Veal” is working at both the comedic and the social level:

The rows of wide-eyed cows look back at the parallel rows of wide-eyed children, as this fun field trip inadvertently turns into an exposé of an injustice. Cartman - the gluttonous and irreverent embodiment of opportunistic capitalism - upholds the "meathead" viewpoint of the fat kid who thinks cute animals are tasty. Kyle’s claim that “city kids get to go to museums for field trips, we get cow farms,” brings to light the urban versus rural disparity. As the bourgeois, museum-visiting kids are presumably also a part of the strain of society that consumes this veal, the rural “redneck” children of south park depict a relationship with meat that does not extract the animals from it. As industrial factory farming takes residence in areas with scarce populations, urbanization distances consumers from the meat they eat to the point where the industry becomes invisible and impenetrable. South Park’s project, then, is not only to take the children behind these closed doors, but also to take the viewer to a place that is otherwise inaccessible to them.

This episode adheres to the general South Park formula, where critical examination of a social wrong is immediately followed by the characters flippantly dismissing their cause, none the wiser:

After the children somewhat successfully save the baby cows, Stan’s brief foray into vegetarianism is brought to a close when it literally turns him into a “pussy.” The political message of South Park episodes is difficult to ascertain and sometimes the end-goal is the shock the slapstick humor elicits rather than a real call for social action. The 8-year-old boys, however, almost always serve as mouthpieces for some deep social criticism, as their tabula rasa naiveté renders common and overlooked absurdities anew. In the end, the viewer cannot comfortably accept and inhabit the characters' rejection of vegetarianism, so is left with an unsettling sense that all is not as it should be. The social criticism that occurs prior to the final punchline is where the consciousness-raising efforts of comedy lie, as the humor is not sufficient compensation for our new painful state of awareness.

watch the entire "Fun with Veal" episode here.

Why vegetarian feminists are upset with PETA

2009-05-25T15:53:00.009-04:00

by Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux, founder and editor of Equal Writes

You wouldn't think that feminism and animal rights activism would be mutually exclusive ventures, but even if they offered me a job, I would never work for PETA (and in this frosty economy, no less!). This is not because I love fur, leather shoes, or pepperoni pizza - with the possible exception of my vintage cowboy boots, I could, and do, live happily without all three. In fact, I'm a lifelong vegetarian. I've never eaten beef or pork (except for the occasional hot dog when I was 5, before my father told me that they eat cat in Africa and I made the Lisa Simpson connection between lambs and lamb chops), and I stopped eating all meat when I was 10, so I think I have pretty good vegetarian street cred. I cried in the middle of a cafe earlier this year while reading a Michael Pollan article about cattle raised for beef (read it - it made me go vegan for three months before I got anemia from my college dining halls) - it's incredibly easy to get me worked up about animal rights issues, and if there were more than 24 hours in the day, I would be devoting time to animal rights activism.

But I'm also a lifelong feminist, and I have been increasingly shocked and horrified by PETA's casual exploitation of gender stereotypes and objectification of the female body in an effort to raise support for its activism. If you've seen any of PETA's ads, you know what I'm talking about. This commercial was banned from the Super Bowl, for obvious reasons (surely there are ways to convince people to go vegetarian without showing a scantily clad woman preparing to fuck a bunch of asparagus), but PETA has repeatedly launched advertisements which throw respect for women (or, for that matter, for men) out the window in the name of animal liberation. Just a few examples: Alicia Silverstone stripped naked for a PETA ad, with the tagline "I'm a vegetarian" above her obviously airbrushed body. The strippers of Rick's Cabaret posed nude for another ad campaign, which declared "We'd rather go topless than wear fur." In a demonstration last year, PETA used a pregnant woman in a cage as part of a demonstration against mistreated pigs. And just to prove that they could perpetuate damaging male stereotypes as well as sexualizing women, PETA produced an ad last year featuring Mickey Rourke, who inveighed upon viewers to "have the cojones to fix your dog." Sometimes they like to use a psuedo-feminist, "love your body" type of rhetoric to mask the fact that they're blatantly exploiting women's bodies (tagline: "Be comfortable in your own skin: don't wear fur"). But usually, PETA throws itself behind campaigns that unashamedly objectify women in the service of "justice."

This is similar to problems that I have with other methods used to encourage people - usually women - to go vegan. On Princeton's feminist and gender issues blog, Equal Writes (shameless plug: I'm a co-editor), I wrote a post about the "Skinny Bitch" book series, which play on women's insecurities about their bodies to shame them into changing their diet. Another post on this blog points out the obvious problems in encouraging girls to stop eating meat because it will "make you fat" (another one from PETA - it boggles my mind that they're not called out more often for this shit). The really aggravating thing for me, though, is that vegetarianism is in many ways a healthier diet. So why tell women that veganism is the way for them to become a "skinny bitch" rather than a "healthy woman"? Because it's easier to play on women's existing negative self-image. Our culture has done a great job of laying the groundwork for anyone to shame women into eating proscriptively, and rather than helping women feel better about their bodies - and at the same time, work for animal rights - PETA and other activists take the low road.

The problem, at the most fundamental level, is that we're not acknowledging intersectionality. This is not something that's limited to animal rights activists - American Apparel is a great example of a company which uses women's bodies to sell clothes that were made under decent working conditions - apparently, we can't have happy workers and desexualized models (for a more in-depth rant, I've written two posts, linked here and here, about American Apparel on Equal Writes). Why can't we humanize animals in the attempt to make people care about the way that they're mistreated, rather than dehumanizing women?

Animals, women and workers are frequently denied full rights as living creatures. But using women to gain rights for animals is not really progress. And what does it say about the movement itself if the only way to convince people to treat animals with respect and dignity is to sex it up? Why not show images of slaughterhouses, rather than assuring us that greased-up naked women don't eat meat (and please, just because Playboy does it, doesn't make it ok - they're not trying to take some kind of moral high ground)? Why not tell people that it's actually healthier to eat less meat, rather than telling women that it's the only way they'll get skinny? It's desperate and tacky and offensive to promote justice for one cause at the expense of another. And it makes it impossible for me to respect an organization that logically I should love.

I'd also like to note that PETA's advertisements have recently strayed into the realm of racism (beyond the fact that the vast majority of their nekkid models are white). Last year, there were discussions of renting ad space on the border fence between the U.S. and Mexico, for billboards that equated a carnivorous diet with the border patrol. The billboards, in English and Spanish, would offer the caution: "If the Border Patrol Doesn't Get You, the Chicken and Burgers Will - Go Vegan." I'm not sure what the status is with these ads, but the very idea that this is an acceptable strategy is totally unbelievable. The images on the billboards are definitely racist, and content aside, what the hell is the idea behind giving the U.S. government money to support its fucked-up immigration policies?

I'd love to see the day when animal rights activists acknowledge the connections between abuse of animals and abuse of women. But I will never get behind any organization that so flippantly disregards health, self-esteem, and the female body. Thanks, PETA, for trying to promote your issues through misogyny and racism. And until it's willing to take the road of basic decency and stop using tired stereotypes and "sexy" advertising tropes, I'll keeping throwing up in my mouth at the mention of its name. I don't know how many converts PETA's gotten from these ad campaigns, but it's definitely lost my support.

Circuses good for elephants?

2009-05-23T12:01:00.010-04:00

Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus is awaiting the decision of a lawsuit that charges them with the abuse of elephants used in their shows. For over nine years animal rights activists have documented footage that shows elephants being tethered for long periods of time and trainers violently using bullhooks to teach them routines. ASPCA attorneys are arguing that these actions violate the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Watch the Today Show's segment on the lawsuit, which includes the perspective of Kenneth Feld, the chief executive of Feld Entertainment, and PETA Vice President Dan Mathews:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Feld not only purports that the elephants are treated humanely, but also asserts that the circuses are "helping to save an endangered species." While it may be true that circuses are the primary site of Asian elephant reproduction, (as factory farms are the sole site of genetically-modified turkey reproduction), Feld is using the rhetoric of endangered species to exploit animals, a technique that seems to be the primary purpose of this category. The constituent members of the "endangered species" list are species that are seen as desirable for human ends (for entertainment, visual pleasure, agribusiness, etc.). Species are constantly coming into and out of existence, so we create an arbitrary line when we create legal clauses for the protection of Asian elephants, Blue Whales, and the Snow Leopard, but not for the Pashford pot beetle. From a utilitarian perspective, the preservation of a species is usually an unjustifiable position as it comes at the expense of individual interests.

Glitzenstein, the ASPCA attorney featured in the clip, advocates a problematic moderate position: Ringling Bros. should continue to operate and use animals in their shows, but we should "make sure that something is done to improve the lives of these animals." As usual, the ASPCA does not critique the underlying assumption that these animals should be used for human entertainment at all, but takes on the most mainstream viewpoint. It seems, however, that Ringling would not be able to effectively use elephants without the bullhook (or some similar torture device). Take a look at this clip from Earthlings that shows how the bullhook is actually used:

The piercings from the bullhooks are clearly not like superficial "mosquito bites," as the handler on the Today Show suggests. They are deep stabs that are meant to drive the elephants insane. Getting rid of a torture device will inadvertently bring an end to the effective use of elephants in circus stunts, as there is no way to coerce the animals to do these tricks without the threat of serious physical harm. The lingering question of a victorious court decision is what new mechanism Ringling Bros., could employ that will serve the same end as the bullhook.

PETA, Pets, and Extinction

2009-05-20T16:17:00.003-04:00

I’ve always been surprised by the number of people who criticize PETA for operating animal shelters which euthanize animals. There are certainly many grounds on which to criticize PETA, but I’ve never thought the fact that they kill unwanted pets which no one is capable of providing for is a particularly good one. Ultimately, euthanizing animals which cannot reasonably be treated to a meaningful and pleasurable life is clearly consistent with the utilitarian philosophy from which many animal rights activists draw inspiration (note, for example, Peter Singer’s strident support for human euthanasia and infanticide, alongside his concern for animals). Frankly, the “hypocrisy” of PETA euthanizing animals is far less than the hypocrisy of the many “animal-lovers” who eat meat but love their pets enough to cry foul when PETA chooses the least-bad option to address the systematic problem of pet overpopulation.

A recent poster on this blog, however, offered a more intriguing allegation: that PETA’s euthanasia policy is part of a broader attempt to make pets extinct.

There are a few reasons why the elimination of pets might be bad news for humans. First off, there are the obvious uses of companion animals for assisting blind and deaf individuals. Most of us have heard about the medical and psychological studies that have shown that having pets makes human beings healthier. These are, of course, scientific attempts to codify common sense: most of us know that in a world where humans are often atomized and isolated from one another, pets provided much needed friendship, affection, and unconditional love.

My family “owns” two dogs, and I can certainly see simply from my own experience that all of the above are true. Nonetheless, I still find compelling the arguments of those who have suggested that domesticated animals are actually bad for humans in a broad sense. Jim Mason – who co-authored “The Way We Eat” with Singer in 2006 – wrote an earlier book, “An Unnatural Order,” that suggests that the subjugation of animals was, in a sense, a rehearsal for our later domination of the earth and one another. According to Mason, by dominating and domesticating animals, we create in ourselves a mindset that allows us to dominate more than just animals. It’s a complicated argument, but it’s worth considering, and it is consistent with less far-flung connections that have been demonstrated between abuses of animals and abuses of humans.

The point of being an animal rights activist, though, is that our sphere of ethical consideration is wider than just humans. And so, however we decided to weight the above evidence as to whether dogs and cats are “good” for humans, we ought also to ask whether it’s good for dogs and cats. In this respect, I have to agree with Gary Francione that if there were two dogs left on the planet, I would not let them breed.

I’m sure many of us who have derived a great deal of pleasure from the company of animals – myself included – shudder at the above statement. But when we really look at the root of the issue, I think the problem with the very idea of domesticated animals becomes clear. Fundamentally, PETA has to euthanize thousands of animals because we have bred entire species of beings that are completely helpless. Dogs and cats may seem happy, but – without being inside their heads – I imagine that their lives lack the fulfillment that would come from a free life in the wild. They are utterly dependent on others, and I submit that this means their lives can never be that much more valuable than that of a particularly well-treated human slave.

I sincerely doubt that PETA actually wants to rid the world of pets. PETA’s thinking tends to be short term and focused on the immediate alleviation of animal suffering (hence their support for things like Proposition 2 in California). I doubt something as far fetched as the elimination of pet ownership will ever make it onto their radar screen. But I do think that reconsidering our relationship with pets is important, if nothing but for the role such animals play in our broader mindset.

Vegans attacked

2009-05-19T16:10:00.003-04:00

an entry from FMyLife:

"Today, due to the cold, windy weather, I decided to wear my brand-new cute (and expensive) jacket that has a faux-fur hood. As I walked down the street, numerous PETA members attacked me with red liquid. I'm a Vegan and an animal-rights activist. FML"

F**K Grapefruit

2009-05-19T03:30:00.005-04:00

From xkcd the webcomic.

Vulcan Vegetarians

2009-05-18T18:43:00.003-04:00

In case the new Star Trek movie hasn't already caught your interest, consider that Vulcans are committed to a vegetarian diet and way of life. This most notably includes Spock, a vegan, originally portrayed by vegetarian actor Leonard Nimoy. Vulcans are ethical vegetarians, and their philosophy of non-violence states that "It is illogical to kill without reason."

Vegetarian and Vulcan enthusiasts alike can even sport these "Live Veg and Prosper" shirts from Peta, based on the famous Vulcan saying.

Mandating Vegetarianism?

2009-05-17T22:53:00.000-04:00

Given the environmental and social externalities that result from meat production, it seems reasonable that meat consumption be federally regulated in a way similar to attempts at capping greenhouse gas emissions or banning trans fat. Of course, BBQ-loving Americans would be up in arms--literally, with their rifles and second-amendment doctrines--if the U.S. government ever came close to such a move.

The Belgian city of Ghent, however, is taking steps in this direction. While they are not going so far as to ban or criminalize meat consumption, they are going to have recommended weekly "veggie days," aimed at raising awareness about the environmental impact of meat consumption and combating obesity. Politicians and public officials will be the first to give up meat, followed by programs for schoolchildren in September. Every restaurant in the city will guarantee a vegetarian option and some will go fully vegetarian on the day.

See, Al Gore. Sometimes politicians actually take the lead on curbing their environmental footprint.

Acitivism: Life of the Undercover Investigator

2009-05-17T21:34:00.004-04:00

Read about how one college animal rights activist has gone on to do undercover investigative work.

Going undercover for animal rights
by Van Wallach
published in the Princeton Alumni Weekly

If you viewed a recent People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) video of workers stomping on turkeys’ heads at a plant in West Virginia, you might think twice about eating turkey at Thanksgiving. One of the individuals behind planning that video was Hannah Schein ’96, an investigations specialist at PETA since 2002 who helped arrange an undercover operation at the plant.

Besides hiring and training undercover operatives, Schein does fieldwork herself. It requires drama skills and knowledge of the criminal-justice system and religious practices; Schein specializes in scrutinizing kosher food plants, which prepare meat according to Jewish dietary requirements. Investigations often start with a call from a whistleblower at a plant, alerting PETA of problems. The group tries to meet with companies to discuss concerns and solutions. If that fails and PETA decides the plant warrants an investigation, Schein gets to work. She studies a company’s operations for months, then visits a site incognito through a business or personal cover — such as by signing up for a public tour. If it’s legal, she brings hidden recording devices to note violations of animal-protection laws. She might also try to get an operative hired. After that, PETA publicizes the findings and alerts prosecutors and regulatory agencies to prod them to act.

Gaining access “can take a lot of legwork,” says Schein, a Woodrow Wilson School major at Princeton. In October 2007 she went undercover to film a kosher slaughterhouse in Uruguay that used a “shackle-and-hoist” slaughtering system: Cattle are chained by one leg and hoisted in the air to have their throats cut. In 2006 Schein and a PETA colleague confronted the singer Beyoncé in a restaurant to try to persuade her to stop wearing fur and not to include it in her clothing line.

“Our role is to hold companies’ feet to the fire in obeying the humane handling and slaughtering law,” says Schein, who now focuses on training undercover operatives and strategy for PETA more than actual fieldwork. In the Uruguay case, the publicity led rabbis in Israel to urge plants to phase out the shackle-and-hoist approach, although Schein, who observes religious dietary rules, doesn’t know if that has happened.

A passion for alleviating animals’ suffering drives Schein, a vegan who eats no meat, eggs, or dairy products. While “always an animal lover,” she ate meat and wore leather until she met her husband, PETA senior researcher Philip Schein, in 1998. At the time, both were program directors for Hillel chapters, Hannah at Princeton and Philip at Syracuse University. Philip was a vegan, and she soon adopted that lifestyle.

Undercover work for Schein and her operatives is emotionally draining and stressful: Not only are they watching animals suffer, but during an operation they have to record useful footage. “As long as I have the energy, I’ll do it,” she says. “I’d feel worse not being on the front lines.”

Naked Vegetarians Satire

2009-05-14T10:35:00.004-04:00

PETA's still going with the "sex sells" mantra, casting Alicia Silverstone in a recent ad about how vegetarianism makes her "feel better." Here's Jimmy Kimmel's spoof:
(disclaimer: video contains both flattering and unflattering nudity)

Welcome to the Monkey House

2009-05-11T13:50:00.007-04:00

Ever wonder what it's really like to be in a battery cage? Mark Middleton, creator of Animal Visuals : Visual Resources for Animal Advocates, wants to move beyond the anthropocentric visual experience of most slaughterhouse footage into the view from the caged animal's eyes. Here's what an ordinary battery-cage hen sees when she looks around her:

Listen to Middleton's interview on Animal Voices, a Toronto-based radio show about animal liberation. Middleton talks about his motivation behind the project and how he thinks it will affect the politics of representation.

Joke of the Day

2009-05-08T17:09:00.000-04:00

Stop blaming Mexico

2009-05-06T00:16:00.015-04:00

This just in. Scientists have traced swine flu (now known as H1N1) to a strain found in U.S. factory farms in 1998, when it mutated and spread at a rapid pace. Despite expert warning at the time that the virus could develop to infect humans, the pork industry has continued to relinquish itself from blame saying "swine flu" is a misnomer.

Raul Rabadan of Comunbia University's biomedical department released information tracing the gene to the H1N2 and H1N3 viruses isolated in 1998. The virus has killed 176 people so far and is thoroughly disrupting the daily operations of many nations, as China begins to quarantine Mexicans and culture feuds erupt in Egypt over pig culling.

Bob Martin, former executive director of the Pew Commission on Industrial Animal Farm Production criticized the workings of confined animal feeding operations, calling them "super-incubators for viruses."

The Pew Foundation report described the historical changes in the method of meat production in the U.S. from the small family-owned farms to intensive confinement systems. The report says, "[T]hat change has happened primarily out of view of consumers but has come at a cost to the environment and a negative impact on public health, rural communities, and the health and well-being of the animals themselves."

It'll be interesting to see how the pork industry's PR department deals with its forthcoming criticism.

Are we all terrorists?

2009-05-04T11:11:00.005-04:00

As many of you have perhaps already heard, the animal rights’ community reached a new milestone this week when Daniel Andreas San Diego was placed on the FBI’s Most Wanted list (you can read about it here). San Diego is the first “domestic terrorist” to make the list, as well as the first animal rights activist. Without engaging the complex question of whether or not direct action to liberate animals is justified, I have two points to make.

The first, of course, is that the placement of San Diego on the FBI most wanted list is completely ridiculous. In the press conference they held for the announcement, Special Agent Charlene Thornton stated that “Mr. San Diego and those like him are every bit as great a threat to the peace and security of the United States as any foreign terrorist.” This assertion is patently inane. San Diego planted two bombs in a deserted office building and set them off at a time when the building was assuredly unoccupied, causing minor damage and no injuries.

The issue of whether or not actions like Diego’s are effective or justifiable is a prickly one, but whether you think this guy is a deranged misanthrope or a modern-day abolitionist, it’s clear he’s no Osama Bin Laden. While I realize that we’re not all utilitarians here, I think that most of us would be willing to agree that killing three-thousand people is worse than killing zero. Even making a comparison closer to home, it is clear San Diego is not on par with, say, Timothy McVeigh, or any other right wing militia group that has no compunctions about killing human and non-humans alike. That point, though, has been made more effectively by others. Will Potter, at greenisthenewred.com, has spent years chronicling how anti-property “violence” by environmental and animal rights activists has been blown completely out of proportion. Indeed, Potter suggests that the timing of the announcement about San Diego was probably politically motivated.

The more significant thing I want to argue here, though, is a bit less obvious. It starts with another article about alleged terrorists that details how the United States used the torture technique “waterboarding” 266 times on two Arab terrorist suspects. While San Diego and the two victims in this case – Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed – might share the label “terrorist,” as I pointed out above the similarities pretty much end there. Moreover, we in the animal rights community aren’t really supposed to care about cases like Zubaydah and Mohammed’s. After all, groups like PETA – through partnerships with conservative groups and right-wing pundits like Pat Buchanan – have consistently rejected the idea that social justice issues that do not involve animals fall into their purview. Indifference to these issues is not just a product of a few organizations, though: sociological research into the animal rights movement has consistently found animal rights activists to be some of the most single-minded single-issue activists out there.

What I think that San Diego’s case shows, though, is that animal rights activists can ignore the happenings of society at large only at their own peril. Commentators like Will Potter at greenisthenewred.com are keen to argue that the animal rights and environmental movements are being singled out and targeted, through legislation like the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Honestly, though, I think Potter is wrong. What happened to San Diego – as well as groups like the SHAC 7 who were involved in more explicitly non-violent behavior – is emblematic of a society that is deeply repressive at large.

I am often told that vegans need to present themselves as non-threatening. While to some extent this is a warning against vegans covering themselves in tattoos and piercings that are off-putting to everyone else, I think that admonition – which has a lot of currency in the movement – has deeper significance. I believe a lot of animal rights activists want to convince everyone else that we really are just in it for the animals, and we’re not going to challenge anything else. And maybe that’s what some activists want: a vegan “utopia” where animals are left unharmed but everything else – capitalism, consumerism, American international arrogance – remains the same.

Personally, I think such a society would be no utopia at all. We would do well to remember that Nazi Germany had the most pro-animal laws of any modern Western country. As I have argued, animal rights activists like the SHAC 7 are undermined more broadly by our country’s anti-terrorism and anti-crime hysteria. But more than that, I think the principles we ought to stand for – equal consideration, respect, dignity, and sustainability – are under attack both for humans and non-human animals.

I submit, then, that if every single person in the world went vegan tomorrow, we as animal rights activists should not rest a minute, but should immediately dedicate ourselves to other problems. Society needs an overhaul, and I think that animal abuse is only one symptom of much deeper problems.

Egypt's pig slaughter and meat as a political tool

2009-05-03T19:00:00.009-04:00

Despite expert opinion that swine flu is not spread by the direct consumption of pig meat (read post about how factory farming does, however, inadvertently cause such diseases), the Egyptian government has started killing Egypt's estimated 300,000 to 350,000 pigs in an effort to prevent an outbreak.

The forceful slaughter is against the will of the pig farmers, and opposed to the recommendations of the United Nations and the World Health Organization, who say this move is an unnecessary and ineffective way to contain the disease. Violent protests and tensions are emerging between Egypt's majority Muslims (who do not consume pig products) and its Coptic Christians, who are the major constituents of the pig farmers and believe the government is using swine flu as a way to disenfranchise them. Obviously, the culling is also against the will of the pigs, though it is hard to say whether this systematic slaughter--which is expected to take one month to execute fully--is more or less brutal than what the pigs would endure through the normal course of their path to slaughter.

There seems to be an emerging relationship between animal slaughter and people of low socioeconomic status, reminiscent of the immigrant workers abuse that occurred at an American slaughterhouse in Postville, Iowa last year. The Christians in Egypt are overwhelmingly poor and perceived as doing the "dirty" work of the county. It seems that the job of raising and slaughtering animals often falls on some of the poorest and most marginalized groups of people, indicating the many levels on which the practice is exploitive and dehumanizing.

Save the pork industry and call it "the hybrid flu"

2009-05-03T04:47:00.003-04:00

Watch Jon Stewart's montage of the pork industry's desperate attempt to preserve consumer confidence:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Snoutbreak '09 - What to Call Swine Flu

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

First 100 Days

Quick Bechamel sauce

2009-05-01T20:32:00.005-04:00

My kitchen is currently non-existent so apologies for the lack of posting. Here is an easy Bechamel sauce from the ppk website served on WW macaroni and steamed broccoli.

When water is boiling place basket with broccoli over water. Once boiling, add pasta and return brocolli to steamer.

Meanwhile, make this quick and easy sauce. I adjusted the seasoning with extra salt, garlic power, onion powder and paprika with nutmeg like the french do.Very rewarding and filling.

The Swine Flu Culprit: Factory Farming

2009-04-30T05:00:00.001-04:00

With the swine flu outbreak spreading in Mexico and surfacing in the United States, few are stating the obvious: These diseases that spread from animals to humans are a direct result of the confinement and breeding processes of factory farming.

The spread of diseases from humans to animals is not new, but its origins can be traced to the domestication of animals and its rise to the intensive confinement of these animals. Michael Greger, M.D., wrote a haunting account of the inevitable spread of infectious disease in
his book Bird Flu: A Virus of Our Own Hatching (available online for free). A graduate of Cornell University School of Agriculture and Tufts Medical School, Dr. Gregor is currently the current Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at HSUS. He writes,

"...most modern human infectious diseases were unknown to our hunter and gatherer ancestors.742 Early humans may have suffered sporadic cases of animal-borne diseases such as anthrax from wild sheep or tularemia (“rabbit skinner’s disease”) from wild rabbits,743 but the domestication of animals triggered what the director of Harvard’s Center for Health and the Global Environment called the mass “spillover” of animal disease into human populations.744...

Epidemic diseases tend to be harbored only by those animal species that herd or flock together in large numbers. This concentration allows for the evolution and maintenance of contagious pathogens capable of rapidly spreading through entire populations. Unfortunately, this same quality—the herd instinct—is what makes these animals particularly desirable for domestication. Domestication brought these animals once appreciated mainly from afar (along with their diseases) into close proximity and density with human settlements. As a zoonoses research team concluded, “The spread of microbes from animals to humans was then inevitable.746..."

He goes on to explain that diseases such as Avian flu, swine flu and even Tuberculosis have their roots in the domestication of certain animals.

An op-ed piece published last month by Nicholas Kristof renounced agribusiness' use of antibiotics. Kristof warned about the dangers of MRSA, an antibiotic-resistant staph infection that was found in 25 to 39 percent of pigs in America.

The pork industry, however, has been quick to encourage Americans to continue consuming pig products as the contamination is not present in the foods. Renaming it "the so-called swine flu" C. Larry Pope, the chief executive at Smithfield Foods told the New York Times that "Swine flu is a misnomer. They need to be concerned about the influenza, but not eating pork." While Pope is correct in his analysis that the individual transfer of the disease does not occur at the level of food consumption, he fails to see the long-term effects of pig confinement on the spread of diseases. The disease may not be contained within the porkchops, but the industry is at the root of the problem.

Drawing the Line: Being boiled hurts

2009-04-27T23:41:00.000-04:00

For those conscious eaters who continually ask the question about where to draw the line between sentient and non sentient organisms, a recent study weighs in about the central neuronal processing of crabs. The discovery shows that they not only feel physical responses to painful stimuli, but are also capable of remembering pain.

The experiment, conducted by Professor Bob Elwood and Mirjam Appel from the School of Biological Sciences at Queen's University, sought to deliver shocks to the crabs that were just strong enough to cause them to move out of their shells. They found that shocked crabs showed signs of remembering the experience as they moved out of their old shells into new ones.

So if you're still enjoying those trips to Red Lobster, straddling the line between pesca- and vegetarian, it seems reasonable to take crabs off your menu.

Cows decoded and exploited

2009-04-24T10:37:00.009-04:00

Scientists recently achieved a major milestone in animal studies, sequencing the genome of a female Hereford cow. The project was a six-year effort led by 300 scientists in 25 countries. Cows now join the small group of animals whose genomes have been sequenced, which include humans, primates and rodents.

Unfortunately, this "breakthrough" is among the discoveries that seek to protect the $49 billion cattle industry of the United States. One of the authors of the paper, Ross Tellam, described the human benefits of the study saying,

"If we can see precisely what genes cause the differences between each animal, there is an opportunity to enhance selective breeding...We can use natural methods - simply selecting the best animals - to produce livestock that make more meat or more milk."

Scientists will start comparing the Hereford cow genome to those of six other breeds, with the hope of selecting traits most suited for beef and dairy production. This process of selective breeding is a common industry practice that produces turkeys who are so large they can't naturally copulate and gestation pigs who are physically immobilized from their excess weight. This could contribute to many of the other diseases industry cows already suffer from, such as mastitis, an inflammation of the udder.

Vegans last longer

2009-04-20T19:30:00.001-04:00

The Princeton Animal Welfaore Society (PAWS) hosted its first annual VegFest, featuring chipotle burritos, vegan desserts, music, free t-shirts and a presentation by scientist T. Colin Campbell.

Author of the "China Study"--one of the most comprehensive examinations of the relationship between the consumption of animal products and illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and osteoporosis--Campbell gave a powerpoint presentation on nutritional misconceptions and studies that have provided evidence to the contrary. The China Project took place over the course of twenty years and surveyed the death rates from cancer in 2,400 counties and 880 million citizens in China. Campbell was featured in a new documentary about vegan health, A Delicate Balance, which PAWS showed to a small group of students and community members last week.

Campbell is among many emerging nutritionists and scientists who are trying to undo public understanding of health, which among other things attributes milk consumption to strong bones and considers animal products the only source of a "complete protein." Though Campbell has received peer-reviewed research funding, he still faces stiff opposition from the public and even at Cornell, where his class was banned (perhaps attributable to Cornell's very large school of agriculture and their vested interest in meat consumption).

The theme of PAWS' "blitz week" was vegan health, which we summed up in the slogan written on our American Apparel giveaway shirts: Vegans Last Longer. (subtext intended)

Defending the Indefensible

2009-04-17T18:40:00.006-04:00

People will go to great, sometimes absurd lengths to defend that which they hold dear, when it is under attack. In response to last week’s San Francisco Board of Supervisors resolution commending restaurants that have stopped serving foie gras, determined foodies have rushed to the defense of the right to consume the excessively-priced, fattened, and diseased liver of force-fed ducks and geese. In a Wednesday column in the San Francisco Chronicle entitled “In Praise of Foie Gras,” Caille Millner attempts not only to defend the indefensible, but to glorify what is arguably the cruelest delicacy known to man. By wildly distorting the reality of foie gras, Millner puts a happy face on profound suffering.

Millner’s piece made my blood boil. Thanks to her skewed claims, thousands of restaurant-goers won’t think twice the next time they see foie gras on the menu. But there's reason for hope. Beyond its superficial claims, Millner's article signals just how out of touch with public opinion anyone who defends foie gras is these days. Millner resorts to patently clumsy and contrived arguments (see below). Clearly, she is on the defensive. Her painting of the anti-foie gras crusade as a raging fad, and her community of foie gras foodie enthusiasts as noble yet misunderstood guardians of a sacred right – lone voices of reason in a sea of confusion – signals just how unpopular foie gras is these days. The desperation of her plea is a testament to the success of the anti-foie gras campaign and more broadly to the fact that, as Nicholas Kristof put it in the New York Times last week, “animal rights are now firmly on the mainstream ethical agenda.”

But Millner is undeterred. She closes on a note of triumph, “Commend away, San Francisco. I'll be just across the city lines, eating without guilt.” What she fails to note is that quite soon, crossing city lines won’t be enough. Thanks to a bill signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2004, the sale and production of foie gras will be banned in California in 2012.

See you in Nevada, Caille.

Thankfully, Millner’s claims are not hard to refute. She uses lines of reasoning and rhetorical devices that are nearly universal in defenses of animal cruelty. I think it’s instructive to flesh these out and consider how we can best respond.

Tactic: Crying anthropomorphism
Her claim: “Most people are prone to anthropomorphize, so they imagine how horrible it would be to have a tube shoved down their own throat (ducks do not have voice boxes or gag reflexes; they breathe through their tongues) and agree that it's a horrible process that must be stopped.”
Why it works: Crying anthropomorphism always scores points. The suggestion is that those who care about animal suffering have fallen prey to childish sentimentality. It lends an air of scientific credibility to those opposing animal rights and suggests that empathy is irrational.
Response: For starters, her claim that geese lack a gag reflex is questionable. The Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW), the EU’s most authoritative scientific body on farm animal welfare, reported that “the oropharyngeal area is particularly sensitive and is physiologically adapted to perform a gag reflex in order to prevent fluids entering the trachea. Force feeding will have to overcome this reflex and hence the birds may initially find this distressing and injury may result.” But this is beside the point, because the inherent and undeniable cruelty of foie gras is not the force-feeding itself but the resulting enlargement of the bird’s livers to 6-10 times their natural size, inducing injury, disease, and lameness. Millner makes no mention of this.

Tactic: Displacing culpability/defense by commonality
Her Claim: “The means of production for the vast majority of the country's meat supply are at least as horrifying as what it takes to produce foie gras, but it's much harder to demonize the vast majority of Americans for what they eat.”
Why it works: One of the easiest ways to excuse someone for their evils is to point out that a whole lot of other folks are doing the exact same thing or even worse things. Suddenly, it’s unfair to single out that particular evil over other equally horrible evils. Basically she is saying “all meat production is cruel so why don’t you lay off foie gras.”
Response: The claim that the farm animal rights movement is singularly focused on foie gras is absurd. The resources put into all the foie gras campaigns across the country are minuscule in comparison to those invested in Proposition 2, alone.

Tactic: Distortion and irrelevant claims
Her Claim: “Never mind that there are only three foie gras producers in the United States, all small farms that are paragons of humane treatment compared to our country's countless factory farms….All three foie gras farms in the United States use open pens for their ducks and have very low mortality rates.”
Why it works: When there isn’t supporting evidence for your case, sometimes you just have to make things up. Here, Millner exploits the common image of “small” farms as humane and idyllic.
Response: The smallness of foie gras farms and the quality of living conditions do not affect the cruelty inherent in the force-feeding process. And are the farms in this investigation video (including the three she mentions) truly “paragons of humane treatment?” The housing looks wretched. Low mortality rates (a highly subjective term that she doesn’t quantify) don’t mean much, given that the ducks are slaughtered at only 4 months of age. Moreover, one can think of plenty of forms of torture, human and animal alike, that don’t result in death.

Tactic: Framing issue as human rights vs. animal rights
Her Claim: “Never mind that so many enormous issues - climate change, obesity, health care - are tied up in our country's cheap meats, not its expensive ones. And certainly never mind that the leadership of San Francisco has far bigger things to worry about than whether or not people should be eating foie gras.”
Why it works: Animal cruelty apologists like to suggest that that human rights and animal rights are mutually exclusive. Here, Millner implies that those campaigning against foie gras are squandering time that could be spent working on more important, presumably human issues.
Response: This is not a human life vs. animal life issue. This is a relishing-in-the-fleeting-taste-of-flesh-produced-through-enormous-cruelty vs. finding-something-else-to-eat, issue. The passing of this resolution required little time on the part of the council. Furthermore, the council resolution will have an impact far beyond city limits. Since San Diego passed a similar resolution last year, other cities in Southern California have done the same. The San Fran resolution is likely to have a similar ripple effect.

Tactic: One-sided quotes
Her Claim: "We were the first farm to use a humane auditor," said Rick Bishop, animal welfare officer for Hudson Valley Foie Gras in Ferndale, N.Y. …“We've always fought misinformation by having an open-door policy at our farm. Anyone who wants to see what we're doing is welcome to visit and observe at any step of the process."
Why it works: It’s simple. Quote somebody that agrees with you and pretend that he or she is an expert.
Response: Thanks to Hudson Valley’s transparency, activists with Compassion Over Killing took up the offer for a free tour. The problem is, they caught it on tape.

Tactic: Appeal to personal investment in cruelty
Her Claim: “A dollop of foie gras is a creamy, rich flavor explosion. Prepared properly, it has wonderful texture - the word "mouthfeel" should have been invented for it - and, like wine, can have notes of flowers, citrus, nuts. I love it.”
Response: Hmmm, I guess the 15 countries that have banned foie gras weren’t aware of how yummy it tastes.

Tempermant Testing Fails to Evaluate Shelter Dogs

2009-04-16T09:51:00.006-04:00

While I was interning at Farm Sanctuary a dog was dumped on its grounds. As the farm does not take in dogs, he was sent to Tompkins County SPCA, a no-kill shelter in Ithaca. When I called to check up on him, I learned that he was scheduled to be put down that day because he had failed temperament testing. He tested positive for "rough play," "possession aggression" and "food aggression". Having spent time with the dog, I knew this could not be the case. After arguing with staff on the phone they agreed to hold him until 5pm and release him to me, as he was "dangerous" and "un-adoptable."

I was able to watch a video of the tests they did to evaluate him. During one, he was chained to a wall in two spots and poked at with a large rubber arm on a stick. He was given pig ears and other treats while the arm poked at his face trying to knock food, toys and pig ears out of his mouth. At some point, he growled, backed away from the arm and snapped. This led them to deem him too dangerous to be adopted. During another test, they had him play and jump on a man with a hockey stick, who would use the stick to block and push the dog off and rough him up. This was deemed rough play, but was not enough to fail him.

I had to sign legal forms, which said that the dog cannot live in Ithaca, is a danger to society and that I accept all responsibility. After being warned again about how dangerous he was, they walked him out and when he saw me he trotted over and placed his head over my shoulder and tried to curl up in my lap. He sat there, leaned into me and licked my cheek. When I stood back up to sign the rest of the forms he trotted over to my friend, Zoe, (who he'd never met until then) and leaned into her chest with his head waiting for the affection.

This is the e-mail I wrote to the shelter about how Party (that is his name) has been doing since I took him home. My hope is to make them realize the inadequacies of their temperament tests. Party tested positive for rough play, food aggression and possession aggression. In y experience with party, he has neither.

Hello,

This is Amanda Dickie. Your shelter redeemed a young dog named Party dog to me last November. I just wanted to let you know that he is the sweetest dog out there. And despite what your tests may have indicated, he does not have possession aggression or food aggression. He met my mother for the first time on the ride home and was eating chips out of her hand the whole way back.

When we arrived home we had him sitting and waiting for his food. Once or twice he jumped the gun and started eating before he had permission, but my 54 -year-old mother was able to control him without protest. After he got settled here everyone approaches him while eating and he is fine. My mother and I regularly take his food dish from him while he is eating and just waits for us to give it back.

He is learning to take treats from people gently. Whenever he is too rough, we take the treat back and try again until he gets it right. He has never growled, snapped or bitten anyone since leaving your shelter. We have four cats, who occasionally eat out of his bowl. When they do this, he sits back and waits for them to finish.

There is a constant flow of new and strange people in our house and party is excited and happy to meet everyone of them. He no longer jumps on people when they come to the door, and is happy when strangers approach him. He also loves small children and is extra gentle around them.

This dog is one of the kindest, gentlest and friendliest dogs I have ever met. Kids pull his tail, blow in his ears and pull on his cheeks, but he never retaliates with aggression.

We just wanted to pass along this message in hopes that you might reconsider using temperament testing as it is an unfair system that sets perfectly adoptable and loving dogs up for failure.

Thank you,
Sincerely Amanda
506-849-3950
With Love, Amanda Dickie
"As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together."
- Isaac Bashevis Singer,Writer, Nobel laureate (1904-1991)

He is the sweetest boy I have ever met and he loves everyone. In no way is he "a danger to society".

Princeton environmentalists get it wrong

2009-04-15T22:45:00.001-04:00

Princeton's dining halls have started a new green initiative that asks students to eat their meals without trays for one day a month. This will decrease the amount of dishwater used to wash trays and environmental groups expect it will cut the amount of food students generally waste when they fill their trays with more than they can eat.

As part of The Princeton Animal Welfare Society's (PAWS) "blitz week," we proposed a new initiative for students: go meatless. PAWS distributed these fliers as a response to the trayless policy:

While we commend efforts that have environmental aims, we think people should consider veganism as one of the most effective ways to cut waste and save water.

This flier was designed by PAWS Vice President Emeritus Alex Barnard. If you would like to use PAWS literature on your campus, email aniamls@princeton.edu.

Skinny Bitches or Bulimic Vegetarians?

2009-04-14T11:23:00.004-04:00

Introduction
In 2007, few people would have expected a "no-nonsense" book of "tough-love" for American females to become one of the most succeful vegetarian advocacy publications in the Western hemisphere. This book, Skinny Bitch, spawned a whole slew of products including a cookbook, an instructional book on pregnancy, a journal, and now three work out videos. Already, the original book has become an international bestseller, hung onto the New York Times bestseller list (including a breif spot at the top), has sold two million copies, and has been translated into 20 languages.

While many vegetarian and AR activists have welcomed this book with open arms, too few people have heeded to the criticisms that this book preys on female body insecurities. Below, I will discuss why disguising a vegetarian message within a frame about weight-loss/management is not only detrimental to the health of adolescent females and young women but also trivializes the radical political orientation of veganism by conflating it with a self-interested, faddish diet. In light of continuous research that links the adoption of vegetarian diets by teens to disguise and/or justify their eating disorders, the sizist discourse that shames and blames "fat" people, and the vogue-ing of vegetariaism for the mainstream, I suggest that vegans ally instead with feminist and radical social justice groups to promote body acceptance and HEALTH rather than societal acceptance and "health."

"I am a vegetaian: I don't eat meat... or anything for that matter."
Just several weeks ago, a paper published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association proved suspicions that many teen girls choose vegetarianism as a cover for their extreme dieting measures. The authors of the study conclude that

current [adolescent and young adult] vegetarians may be at increased risk for binge eating with loss of control, while former vegetarians may be at increased risk for extreme unhealthful weight-control behaviors. It would be beneficial for clinicians to inquire about current and former vegetarian status when assessing risk for disordered eating behaviors.

Though there may be health benefits from adopting a vegetarian diet, many who choose such diets do so as a guise to manage their weight in the most unhealthy ways.

John Cloud from The Times recentlyreported on this latest study:

in a 2001 study in the Journal of Adolescent Health, researchers found that the most common reason teens gave for vegetarianism was to lose weight or keep from gaining it. Adolescent vegetarians are far more likely than other teens to diet... [and] teens with eating disorders are more likely to practice vegetarianism than any other age group.

So while the public and socially acceptable answer many teenage vegetarian girls for their vegetarian may be "to save the animals/environment," at least one out of five (and potentially over half) really adopted the diet primarily out of concern for the health and/or image of their body.

Cloud continues, summarizing the results of the study:

approximately 20% of the [teen] vegetarians turned out to be binge eaters...compared with only 5% of those who had always eaten meat...This disparity in extreme behavior disappeared between [the ages 19 to 23]... But among former vegetarians, that number jumped to 27%.

Interestingly, teen vegetarians were four times as likely to be binge eaters than omnivores, but young adult vegetarians were no more likely, suggesting that many teen vegetarians started extreme dieting prior to their omnivorous counterparts. Most concerning is that over one of four those who had once been vegetarians as teens, but quit, were extreme dieters. That's twice the rate of eating disorders as among young adults who had never been or who still were vegetarian! The moral: the adoption of a vegetarian diet as a teenager for the primary purpose of body-management sets one up for serious risk of eating disorders in the future.

I Love them Bitches: Don't Have a Cow, You Fat Pig, LOL!
The authors and publishers of Skinny Bitch are not naive to the "self-loathing" young (and old) women feel as a product of modern capitalist patriarchal culture. The official Skinny Bitch website gives a concise description of the book, or at least why someone should be interested and pick the thing up:

If you can't take one more day of self-loathing, you're ready to hear the truth: You cannot keep shoveling the same crap into your mouth every day and expect to lose weight.

The answer to self-loathing, the book suggests, it holds is not to accept and love one's body, but to stop eating crap and lose weight--nevermind that many of the readers of the book are proabably already at a healthy weight.

Of course, the point of the book is not to make girls into "skinny bitches" but into veg*ns with jarring editorializations of meat processing and propoganda. The title is just a diversion to get people to pick up what Julie Klausner, in a scathing review of the book at Salon described as "a PETA pamphlet in chick-lit clothing and an innovative fusion of animal rights with punitive dieting tactics that prey on women's insecurities about their bodies." According to a previous review in the New York Times

[o]ne South Cal botique has sold more than 2,000 copies of Skinny Bitch because "[customers] just like the title." Likewise, one fasion publicist said that she "would never have read 'The Omnivore’s Dilemma.' I’m not even sure I know what an omnivore is. But I know what a skinny bitch is, and I know I want to be one."

To put it simply, the Skinny Bitch franchise is so popular largely due to the clever marketing that went into it. As the fasion publicist said, women know skinny bitches, and they know they want to be them; they don't necesarily know (or care) what an omnivore or a vegan is. With a title like Skinny Bitch, the book drew on a much larger, mainstream audience, like a magnet for body-insecure women. But is this more of a succss for vegetarianism or perpetuating body-image anxiety?

Klausner would probably agree with he latter: Skinny Bitch is more likely to perpetuate eating disorders than to nurture a sustainable compassion for animal others:

The relentless bullying peppered throughout the authors' advice accounts for much of the book's humor, including quips like "you need to exercise, you lazy shit," "coffee is for pussies" and "don't be a fat pig anymore." It was a formerly anorexic friend of mine who nailed it when she read excerpts from the book. "When you have an eating disorder," she told me, "that's the voice you hear in your head all the time."

The authors of the book, understand that bullying voice internalized in women from all races, classes, and regions of America that drives them toward unhealthy eating, and they are not afraid of exploiting it to humorously shaming/motivating people into eating "better" food. How ever tongue-in-cheek the humor of their tough-love style is, it trivializes that oppressive voice within women's heads and further validates false associations between fat/stupid/lazy/bad and thin/smart/agency/good. In many ways, the humor actually is apologetic for that oppressive voice as well as mysoginism and sizism.

PETA: People Encouraging Teen Anoretics?
The title of tis section may be hyperbole, but I also don't believe it is totally out-of-hand or false. On the contrary, the success of the Skinny Bitch franchise comes after almost two decades of PETA "selling" vegetarianism and sex in the form of attaining a more beautiful and virile body, which is almost always abnormally thin and fit. PETA, which unlike Skinny Bitch does not garb its political agenda in weight-management discourse, is no less the culprit of perpetuating body-image anxiety. The organization often utilizes fat phobia and sizism to shame/motivate people to adopt a veg*n diet. For instance, Vegan Kid notes that, according to PETA's video"Chew on This: 30 Reasons to Go Vegetarian," the #3 reason to go vegetarian is because "meat and dairy make you fat." Of course, many other things "make you fat," and meat and dairy need not be any of these things. They prioritize this "fact" because they know that most people are already insecure if not ashamed of their weight and size, and as such, it may be more compelling than reason #11 "because it is violence that you can stop."

Another example of the "fat" phobia/shaming done by PETA is in a response to Jessica Simpson's "Real Girls Eat Meat" shirt on the official PETA blog. According to this PETA employee, the #4 reason that "Only Stupid Girls Brag about Eating Meat" is that

Meat will make you fat. All the saturated fat and cholesterol in chicken wings, pork chops, and steak eventually leads to flabby thighs and love handles. I hope the upcoming "Jessica Simpson's Intimates" line comes in plus sizes! Going vegetarian is the best way to get slim and stay that way.

Here again, just like we saw with Skinny Bitch, is the perpetuation of the stereotype linking size to stupidity--something that has been common at least since the pseudo-science of physiognomy. Worse of all is that PETA even has the audacity to distribute "Chicken Chump Cards"--which are still available at their online store and Petakids.com--to kids, of wich one shames fat children. On the front of the card is a sad, morbidly-obese child entitled "Tubby Tammy;" on the back it explains "how" chicken makes you so fat you'll have to wear a bungeecord for a belt.

Again, these three cases of fat phobia/shaming are in no way trivial. Each is part of a highly calculated marketing tactic to "sell" vegetarianism as a social panacea. The discourse in the blurbs and visuals has little to do with enhancing and sustaining health (or even a healthy body weight), but about looking your best for society which will reject you as a big fat, stupid person who is probably less compassionate and more self-indulgent than the other kids.

Unfortunate for the well-intentioned female animal advocates of PETA, those who do not conform to the mainstream's socially acceptable standard of beauty for women, the very standards PETA perpetuates, will be harassed and shunned. Take for instance the reactions at Perez Hilton to a publicity stunt in which a pregnant woman posed in a mock-gestation crate to protest hog farms. Comments included:

Yikes, I get the picture, but hmm... saggy boobs= kinda gross!!!!
What's a tubby naked bitch in a cage got to do with eating pork??
She needs to go on a diet
wtf is this about
ewwwwwwwww
Moo cow..UGLY
Why couldn't they have chosen an attractive female?

Of course, no one deserves to be called such horrible, mysoginistic and speciesist names; but it would not be surprising if PETA, or some animal advocates in general, used the same rhetoric to attack a woman who was promoting pork. As is suggested in their anti-fur ads, "Be Comfortable in Your Own Skin," one blogger comments, PETA "is basically saying that yes, you should let animals keep their fur because you should be comfortable in your own skin–as long as you’re a size 2 and conventionally beautiful."

Lettuce Entertain You: Vegetarianism is the New Black
Nearly all of PETA's ad campaigns utilizes not just any woman (or man), but celebrities, and not just any celebrities, but particularly physically attractive ones who are actors and musicians. These celebrities, thus, are visual icons. There are few, if any ads of famous (and beautiful) female scientists, photographers, authors, scholars, etc. suggesting the organization values (or at least values the people who value) "entertainment" over "art," science, and literature. Such famous people may not be "cool" enough for PETA's campaign targeting youth. Vegetarianism and AR is being "sold" as the "in" thing, and as is evident with anti-fur slogans in the movement that publicly shame women for wearing fur (i.e. "the Trollsen Twins," "Fur is worn by beautiful animals and ugly people"), women who do not conform are not only moraly but physically ridiculed.

Let me emphasize that the use of such visual celebrities is very deliberate, and, as I believe, very misguided. The use of these celebrities over others emphasises not any moral, political, artisitc, or intellectual of the particular person being associated with vegetarianism and AR, but an image. One should go veg because vegetarians are pretty, hot, badass, or funny, not because they are social/political radicals healing injustices everywhere or writing/discovering something that will change the world. (Unfortunately, television, cinema, and the internet have made the former celebrities' images much more prominent and at the expense of the great works of scholars, scientists, artists, and social entrepeneurs).

To return to Chris' point, PETA dresses-up celebrities in vegetables instead of showing them eating vegetables because PETA doesn't really care what people eat so long as their "food" does not come from animals. For all they care, vegans could just eat a Boca burger, potato chips, and a soft drink--not exactly a nutritional powerhouse. The ads are intended not to promote HEALTH, but to promote an image. By dressing up celebrities in vegetables, PETA is marketing the vegetarian diet as either sexy and/or graceful. Vegetarianism, in a sense, is the latest fshion, "the color" of the 21st Century.

However, note that by framing vegetarianism and AR as an image, as an "in" thing, it easily can become an "out" thing. Many of these ads and campaigs which target younger audiences may influence thousands of people to try out vegetarianism and AR, but the question becomes "for how long?" If vegetarianism is a matter or being like a particular "cool" or "hot" celebrity, especially one whom may be obsolete in two years, as soon as another "cool" celebrity comes around who eats animals or people realize how potentially challenging a vegetarian diet can be (all the social and emotional maintenence that is involved) they may shrug it off; it's just not worth it, just as those irksome designer heels are just not worth it.

Basically, if one cares about animal "rights," veg*nism is essential to putting their values in practice, but veg*nism is only contingent if they care more about body-image, which can not only be attained a number of ways, but is also something that cannot be guaranteed by a strict vegetarian regime. Certainly one can be "vegan" and eat unhealthy foods and not exorcise, but some people are not naturally disposed to being "thin" as others--making the pursuit of thinness a futile journey. In the end, those people striving for thinness on a veg*n diet may be unhappy with the lax results and move on to "the next big thing" to lose weight so that they can achieve their "ideal" body size.

On the other hand, if vegetarianism is "sold" as a political-ideological-intellectual orientation and commitment, it becomes a part of one's values, and hence one's more permanent identity util those values change, if they change. Instead of going for numbers, if non-profits and other organizations went for outstanding citizens, we may have much stronger and longer-term advocates on our hands. So much of these attempts take the "shotgun" approach by trying to hit any and eveyone in a mass audience. Tragically, many of these politically active and radical people are being "turned-off" to the vegetarian message and thousands of dollars are being wasted because these ads and discourses more than likely alienate and offend potential ARAs who are not "thin" like the women in these ads, and more generally, unjustly contribute to the anxiety of girls outside the movement about their own body image.

This is an abridged version of the original, cross-posted @ HEALTH

Princetonians Confronted with their Moral Schizophrenia

2009-04-13T22:11:00.012-04:00

As part of the Princeton Animal Welfare Society's (PAWS) "Blitz Week"--a week where we try to seep the vegan message into public consciousness as deeply as possible with literature, slaughterhouse footage, demonstrations and speakers--we used fliers designed by Nathan Schneider in the vain of Gary Francione's conception of the moral schizophrenia people have with regard to pets and farm animals.

If you would like to use these fliers on your campus, email animals@princeton.edu

Letter to the President

2009-04-13T19:17:00.006-04:00

As some of you may have heard, Obama has back tracked on his promise to adopt from a shelter and has sadly gone to a breeder. I took some time to write him a letter and would suggest if this or anything else upsets or disappoints you that maybe you take the time to write one too.

I just wanted to let you know how disappointed I am that you bought a dog from a breeder. There are plenty of hypo-allergenic dogs dying for good homes across your country and you've just signed their death warrant. Sir, you may only be one man, and one family providing a single home for your new dog and closing a single door for the other dogs in need, but your actions are broadcast globally and have far greater effects.

As the president people look up to you and will likely follow your example. You had a real shot to make a difference, but you have let us down. Setting this precedent will make it significantly more difficult for homeless dogs to find loving homes.

Sincerely disappointed,
Amanda Dickie

Simple Potato Curry

2009-04-08T18:37:00.003-04:00

I originally found this on a LJ community and made enough to last me all week. I also used some leftover curry to fill some home made samosas! This is a great week night curry that you can throw together easily and enjoy leftovers for lunch. Being a little lazy and less authentic, I used whole wheat tortillas to scoop this stuff into my face.

Easy Potato Curry

4 large potatoes, unpeeled diced and boiled until soft.
2 T canola oil
1 yellow onion diced
3 garlic cloves
1 large carrot sliced into thin coins
5 t hot curry powder
4 t garam masala
1 fat inch of frozen ginger, grated
2 t paprika
1 t sea salt
1 can stewed tomatoes broken up (or diced if you have it!)
1 can coconut milk
1 large can chickpeas, rinsed
1 can peas, rinsed

Plop your potatoes into a pot of salted water and boil until tender. Drain and set aside.

If you don't have pre-boiled potatoes, do this while you wait.
Warm oil in a large pot (enough to fit everything) over medium heat. Add your onions once the oil is heated, saute for 2-3 minutes before adding your garlic. Once onions are translucent and garlic is fragrant toss in the carrot pieces and cook for 3-4 minutes. Then add your spices. Cook for 1-2 minutes while stirring. Now add your potatoes, rinsed beans and peas, cook for a few minutes. Now dump in your canned tomatoes and coconut milk and bring the whole thing to a low simmer for 5-10 minutes. If you find the curry to liquidly as I did, sift in a little corn starch to thicken it up.

6 Ways to Become a Better Advocate for Animal Rights and an Ally of People of Color

2009-04-07T11:27:00.005-04:00

This post is a summary of the statements expressed by people of color and their allies as documented in a five-part privilege series and is intended to assist animal activists, especially those who are identified as white, in becoming more effective at engaging in interracial communication about animal issues.

The following lists are meant to introduce you to 1) why some people of color may become outraged at human:animal oppression analogies, 2) how advocates create negative images of themselves in communities of color, 3) how they alienate advocates of color from the general AR community, and 4) six ways advocates can be more effective anti-oppression allies and advocates for animals. Finally, if you are interested in exploring how and why white and middle-class privilege can obstruct well-meaning efforts to engage with people of color who are and who are not already animal advocates, I have pasted a "table of contents" to previous posts.

Why analogizing human and animal exploitation/oppression often produces outrage and not empathy:

aim to provoke people into debate in contrast to inviting people into a discussion
are sponsored by organizations/people who have little or no history in promoting the “liberation” of the marginalized group whose oppression is being analogized to animals
are insensitive to the existential trauma of and the meaning of “animal” to individuals of the marginalized group,
assume that their oppression is history
infer that their group lacks agency (just like "animals") and thus could not liberate themselves and depended upon an enlightened class of privileged citizens.

How do POC see vegans and AR activists (in general)?
The consequences of the aforementioned errors include the perception that vegans and ARAs

exploit and appropriate the oppression of others for there own ends (without any prior request for consent and understanding)
are racist because they fail to recognize the difference between human and non-human liberation (i.e. humans are self-organizing resisters, “animals” are not) and thus reduce the marginalized group to an “animal” condition of passivity
cater to the white middle-class because they have taken no measures to make POC feel comfortable in their campaigns or abstain from consuming “cruelty-free” products that come at the expense of POC.
care “more about animals than people (or color)” for the above reasons.

How do some white advocates alienate advocates of color from working together?

Stereotype: “Have you ever eaten dog or cat?;” “Do you speak English?”
Instrumentalize: “we need a black vegan for this event;” “if we adopt children of color, there will be more diversity in our movement”
Exotify: “The best part of being vegan is getting to eat all kinds of exotic food”
Marginalize: “Comparing human and animal oppression may hurt your feelings but it will help animals”
Suppress: “Don’t criticize so-and-so because you’ll just be helping animal exploiters”
Blame: “Don’t bring race into this! Why do you have to be so divisive?”
Invalidate: “Get over it!” “You’re upset because you just don’t understand.”

How do (white) vegan and ARAs become better activists and allies?
The actions and their resulting consequences above serve both to hurt and alienate people of color from the animal/vegan movements(s) and construct the movement(s) as white middle-class, thereby creating a vicious cycle insensitivity and alienation. Therefore, a race-sensitive approach to promoting animal liberation and veganism ought to

Be proactive! …don’t assume that POC are disinterested because they are not present
Develop an understanding of POC’s existential condition and (one’s own) white privilege
Humbly invite POC into a discussion (vs. use shock tactics and potentially offensive comparisons)
Actively build bridges between movements and become an active ally in their liberation
Engage with POC in issues they are already interested in (vs. using them as a means to your ends)
Avoid language that alienates them by inferring that they are marginal Others (i.e. exotifying vegan food, homogenizing ethic groups, and scapegoating ‘foreign” cultures and nations).

Table of Contents

Part 1

Are Animals the New Slaves?
What Went Wrong?
Racism, Speciesism, and Cross-racial Misunderstanding
Are human-animal juxtapositions reductionistic?

Part 2

Animal Rights or Animal Whites?
Animal White Supremacists?
Vegan Colonialism
One Word: Empathy

Part 3

A Colorful Movement: Debunking the White Lie of White Exceptionalism
Making us Invisible: The Epistemology of Ignorance
The White Activist's Burden: Engaging the "Other"

Part 4

Killing Us Softly: Narratives of Alienation
With Us or against Us –or- “Sit Down and Shut Up, Little Brown Girl”

Part 5

Eating the Other: "Exotic" Food Fetishes
Are Vegans Oppressed?
The Police & White Privilege
Freeganism: The Privilege of Free Food?
Classism & Consumer Advocacy
Toward a Mutual Trust: Veganism as a Safe Place

Cross-posted @ HEALTH

Star Starches

2009-04-05T21:10:00.003-04:00

Featuring our favorite spud, the potato!
What better cheap, easy and oh-so-delightfully-filling product could there be?

The ways to prepare our fabulous spudding buddy are endless.
Wither mashed, baked, roasted, grilled, chilled, or fried potatoes make a great addition or composition to any meal.

Eaten with the skin the potato provides you with a rad assortment of vitamins and minerals, heavy on the C with some potassium and vitamin B6.

Its carbby goodness has filled many a hungry student belly, so when you take a break from saving animals do something nice for yourself and curl up with one of these fluffy baked delights and re-fuel your bad ass self.

Use them to bulk up, or compliment any meal. No matter what the menu, there is a potato accompaniment. If the cupboard is looking bare, then bake up one of these bad boys and top them anyway you'd like.

Happy eating!

(In our featured photo, we see the might spud enjoying a coating of paprika, pepper, earth balance, vegan bacon bits and some garlic salt. mmm)

*For further potato inspiration check out the link above!

Free Money for Vegan Food

2009-04-03T20:34:00.005-04:00

If any student groups are having trouble getting funding, Vegfund is an organization that will pay for you to have free vegan food at an event or table to promote veganism.

Find local events in your area that are appropriate venues for food distribution (art fairs, demonstrations, film screenings, etc.) and research the ways to get a table of vegan food and literature set up. Fill out an application with Vegfund (be sure to save all your receipts!) and get reimbursed for any food you buy.
Inspire people with the exquisite taste of the best vegan food you can find!

Cute = Tasty

2009-04-02T17:52:00.008-04:00

A blown-up, above-the-fold picture of this goat was featured on the front page of the NYT Dining section on Wednesday as part of an article titled "How I learned to Love Goat"

Perched ears and eyes personally engaged with the camera, this goat is a more fitting subject for the front page of a Farm Sanctuary brochure, rather than as the complement to an article about the succulence of dead goat flesh. It seems it isn't actually necessary for people to create distance between cute animal images and the meat they eat.

Are all animal/animal products nutritionally "bad"?

2009-04-02T07:35:00.010-04:00

Recently, many vegetrian advocacy organizations have been celebrating the release of a new scientific study that finds a large, positive corrlation between the high consumption of red meat and all categories of health related mortalities. Such organizations and people, however, infrequently care to read all the findings and appreciate these types of studies in a more nuanced fashion. More sensational organizations will even disegard the truth of the matter and create a distorted frame just to get some media attention, thus losing credibility in the eyes of the better-read public. For instance, many vegetarian advocates ought to read the findings more carefully before approving of its finding which include that "those [people] with high white meat intake had a slightly lower risk for total death". Taken alone, this study may sound the death knell for "red meat" only to usher in the reign of "white meat."

We must ask ourselves whether we should praise single nutritional studies as much as we do, and whether making very bold and controversial nutritional claims about "animal products" under a single-label is truly effective.

Before assuming animal flesh and dairy are essentially unhealthy for human biology, we ought to consider all the factors that may influence why "meat" and dairy are "bad" for "us," and not so bad for others. Perhaps the poor health consequences "meat" and dairy have on Americans has to do with a) the species of the animals eaten, b) their lifestyles and diets, c) the way they are cooked, d) the way they are eaten, e) the amount eaten, and f) what they are eaten with. Take any couple of these interrelated variables and alter them and you may end up with "health paradoxes." Social/cultural practices of eating/killing animals and certain kinds of cuisine also play an important role in health outcomes. "Meat" may be culturally worse for human health than naturally worse.

Note that the results from the recent study only apply to Americans and specifically address "red meat" and processed meats (from animals confined to feedlots)--much of which are cooked at high temperatures that release known carcinogens. Obviously the Standard American Diet is a nutritional time bomb, but what about the French and Masai diets that include high amounts of fatty cow's milk and ruminant flesh? Are the French and Masai's genetics that radically different from "our" own, or is it more likely that their nutritional fitness has more to do with (agri)cultural practices?

Michael Pollan has labeled the broad generalizations the public and scientific community takes from studies like these "nutritionism"--which often backfires more than it helps by being appropriated by processed "food" marketers to seel their product to a scared and gullible public. Yet, these broad exertions of "meat is bad," not only is very reductive scientifically, but also in terms of acknowledging animal lives. In a sense, vegetarian advocates are saying meat = meat (i.e. corn-fed cow = wild salmon = broiler chicken, etc). Veg*ns, through this discourse, erase differences between species, breeds, and individuals' lifestyles by objectifying animal others as exchangeable bodies. By appropriating the discourse of "meat," we thereby make "meat" of animal others, as Carol Adams might say, by no longer addressing animal others' subjectivity, merely their fragmented corpses. Jacques Derrida, an extremely influential thinker among animal ethicists today, calls such a reduction of "animals" to "the animal"--or in this case "meat"--"carno-phallogocentrism".

Obviously, as a vegan, I don't endorse the commodification and slaughtering of animal others. I only hope our resentment of the harm from killing/eating animal others be more nuanced. Depending too much on health arguments, as others have argued, distracts away from the moral/political reasons for veganism and exposes it to more dismissal.

If we want to address the health benefits of a vegan diet, we ought to do just that.

There is no evidence that one is any less healthy on a vegan diet and plenty of evidence to suggest one is healthier. With "meat" and dairy, however, I have yet to see any decisive evidence that it is *always* bad in *any amount* of *any kind.* I have yet to see a collection of studies condemning fish (without mercury contamination) and honey, for instance. It is thus reductive and naive to categorize all animal products under a single label as nutritionally "bad."

Certainly we ought to address the continual promotion of "healthier" and "humane" "meat" by the nutritional authorities of these studies at every opportunity, noting that vegan diets are equally, if not more healthy for generally everyone. Obviously, many researchers and doctors are concerned their advise will not be taken as seriously if they were to promote plant-based diets in our meat-centered culture, and may even wish to rationalize that certain "meat" is healthier than other kinds to make "us" all feel less concerned about the "food" that is literally craved. However, if a scientific study is published or there is a culture that doesn't fit within the paradigm, it is not going to convince anyone (but some vegans) to call such findings "backlash." We cannot rely on rhetoric and conspiracy theory to challenge sound scientific research. Science may not always be perfect, but it is up to the scientifically literate to criticise such claims, not anxsty activists (whether either for or against "meat").

Vegan diets by themselves are not necessarily healthy. What is most important in maintaining good health is a variety of whole produce, not merely the absence of animal products. After all, what is best about a pant-based diet is the high consumption of cancer-fighting and body-nourishing vitamens in plants; the commonality of "bad" fats (i.e. Omga-6s) are only contingently absent in plnt-based diets, not necessarily so. It is sufficiently compelling to recommend a vegan diet because animal products 1) are unnecessary for our health, 2) most often detrimental to health, 3) are generally catastrophic to ecological health, and 4) morally unjustified; these are all incontestable points, while "moderate consumption of animal products is no different" than moderate consumption of tobacco is not one.

Why risk our credibility with stretchy claims?

Despite Christian, loving lions is still dangerous

2009-04-01T16:10:00.010-04:00

Watch the Christian the lion video that everyone—mainly Oprah—is talking about. This video moves many to tears as it seems a depiction of how love can transcend species barriers.

Although Christian's story is a touching one that summons childhood desires to befriend Simba from The Lion King, I am wary of the romanticization of human—wild animal relationships. While I don’t think Christian will inspire swarms of Simba fans to adopt lion cubs, it is dangerous for people to believe that social conditioning can fundamentally change the instinctive behavior of wild animals.

One woman’s plan to love and domesticate a chimp, Travis, went terribly awry last month. The Connecticut woman raised and cared for Travis as though he were a child, feeding him lobster, dressing him in children's clothing and entertaining him with computer games. After noticing that Travis exhibited symptoms of depression, she gave him antidepressant drugs, the effects of which had not been observed on chimps. Soon after, Travis brutally attacked a friend of the woman. He was stabbed repeatedly and eventually shot down by law officers.

Travis is like many chimpanzees who are bred to be used in the entertainment industry while infants (before they are large and unsuited for domestic life) and then left to spend the rest of their lives in small cages as they have neither the survival skills for life in the wild nor the subdued personality necessary for life in a human household. The entertainment industry frequently creates this gross misconception that wild animals can adapt to live as humans do.

Korean bullfighting just as cruel as others

2009-03-31T08:43:00.002-04:00

Today’s New York Times featured an article by Choe Sang-Hun about the rising popularity of bullfighting in South Korea. The South Korean government plans to legalize ringside gambling, a move that is expected to increase spectatorship and interest in the sport.

Sang-Hun outlines the differences between Korean and Spanish bullfighting, attempting to show that Korean bullfighting is more humane since there is no matador and the bulls rarely die in the ring.

Sang-Hun gives a dismissive nod to the issue of animal rights in the last two paragraphs. When asked if he was concerned about animal abuse charges, rancher-trainer Kang Myoung-chul is quoted saying “[A]ll male herd animals fight each other for reproduction. This is not about man conquering nature, as in Spanish bullfighting. We are simply observing nature in action.”

Sang-Hun does, however, explain that the owners “bind the young bull’s horns with wires to shape them into weapons” and that the bulls are often given copious amounts of alcohol before a match, a tactic used in Spanish bullfighting to disorient and frustrate the bull. Somehow these practices do not fall into Sang-Hun or Kang’s definition of animal cruelty. I’d like to see these bulls in nature who acquire and consume alcohol before they fight—with crippled horns—for an invisible mate.

Ingrid Newkirk on PETA's euthanasia policy

2009-03-31T01:03:00.006-04:00

PETA has come under intense criticism for their policy of euthanizing many of the companion animals they rescue. The Center for Consumer Freedom recently published a document showing that PETA killed 95 percent of "adoptable pets" in its care during 2008, an average of 5.8 animals per day.

Per reader request, here is PETA president Ingrid Newkirk's defense of their policy. In an article entitled "Why We Euthanize," Newkirk writes,

In my first year working at a grossly substandard animal shelter in Maryland, I forced myself to go in early to euthanize dogs by holding them in my arms and gently helping them escape an uncaring world without trauma or pain and to spare them from being stabbed haphazardly—while they were fully conscious, terrified and aware—in the general vicinity of their hearts with needles blunt from reuse and left to thrash on the floor until they finally died by the callous people who would arrive later to do the job.

I always wonder how anyone cannot recognize that there is a world of difference between painlessly euthanizing animals out of compassion—aged, injured, sick, and dying animals whose guardians can't afford euthanasia, for instance—as PETA does, and causing them to suffer terror, pain, and a prolonged death while struggling to survive on the streets, at the hands of untrained and uncaring "technicians," or animal abusers...

Read the entire article here. Newkirk goes on to explain that it is easy to blame PETA for doing the "dirty work," but that euthanasia is often the most humane option for sick and unwanted animals. She contends that as long as the pet industry exists, sick, abused and neglected animals will need PETA's assistance to die as painlessly as possible.