We’re proud to introduce PAWS’ latest campaign to get students to eat less meat: “Meatless Mondays.” Meatless Mondays is a simple pledge to commit to go vegetarian one day a week for the spring semester. We’ll be tabling at Frist and dining halls to get students to sign up. You can sign the petition here.
The pledge reads:
“As a thoughtful member of the Princeton community, I realize that my daily consumption choices do not only affect me, but also the animals I consume. I am concerned about the cruelty associated with eating meat, and its impact on global warming, the environment, and my health. By signing my name, I pledge to eat vegetarian every Monday for the remainder of the semester.”
Let us know (animals@princeton.edu) if you want to help sign people up. It’s a quick and easy way to get involved with PAWS and make a real impact on the level of meat consumption on our campus.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Friday, February 01, 2008
When Humanitarianism and Animal Justice Diverge
The exciting thing about Kiva is that it actually connects people, at least insofar as donors determine exactly to whom their money is loaned. I can, for example, choose between a motorcycle shop in
As with nearly all things I discover that, on their face, make me feel like the world is not entirely going to hell in a hand-basket, there’s a catch. That is, many of the people requesting loans are looking to expand operations based around animal exploitation. Norah Nabulya in
None of this intended to detract from the undeniable good that groups like Kiva do (for the record, I loaned my $25 to a fruit vendor in
Nonetheless, the paradox of Kiva – helping humans and harming animals – does speak to a broader conundrum for the animal liberation movement. Saving a human beings almost invariably allows that individual to continue or expand their use of animals. And the problem is not just in animal testing, where there is an often touted trade off between humane treatment of animals and medical advances. Every persona added to the global population adds to the global demand for animals for food, clothing, and entertainment. What’s worse, when people become better off, animals are eventually the victims – it is no coincidence that the
Certainly, animals have been abused in all sorts of societies – socialist and capitalist. To acknowledge this, however, does not mean that the character and scale of animal abuse does not vary depending on the economic system. While this essay is not intended to be a wholesale indictment of capitalism, I think that the above anecdotes suggest that we as animal activists do need to think not just about the system of production of animals, but this system of production in its entirety. We in the developed world are rich because we have excelled at exploiting our fellow human beings, natural resources, and animals. Now people in the developing world want our privileges, and, with many of their natural resources already exhausted by colonialism and mismanagement, and already at the bottom of the human hierarchy, their economic empowerment comes at the expense of the only individuals valued lower than themselves – animals.
As long as exploitation of anything is the basis of our economic systems, animals will always get the short end of the stick, since they will always be the easiest to exploit. Animal activists need to think seriously about the systematic changes that are required in order to help both humans and animals at the same time. Until we find an economic model in which people can get ahead without causing harm to others, animal activism will always be vulnerable to appearing anti-humanitarian. No movement can ever attract widespread sympathy if its followers busy themselves with telling Cambodian farmers to raise arugula instead of cows.
This blog post owes an intellectual debt to the article “Veganarchy” by Brian Dominick. http://www.keeponfighting.net/article.php?story=20050704172629220
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Perfection
Recently I wrote a paper for Peter Singer’s course “Practical Ethics” that attempts to answer the question: “does taking morality seriously mean alienating oneself from some of the most essential aspects of human existence?”
The quick answer for most people I think is of course a definite “No.” We can all think about modern moral issues without becoming completely absorbed in them to the point that we lose focus on other interests—art, athletics, careers, etc. Most of our blog readers, I bet, are vegetarians or vegans who have made that serious ethical commitment without separating themselves from anything else important in their lives (except, perhaps, a carnivorous boyfriend.)
But what about taking morality so seriously that it begins to take over other parts of your life? One philosopher we read thinks that moral saints (people whose actions are as morally worthy as possible) cannot lead a full human existence. They cannot be world-class violinists or into high-end fashion or excel at athletics because to pursue these nonmoral interests would take time away from moral actions. A moral saint can’t even take a nap because she could be using that time to serve soup to the homeless. A world of moral saints would be a sad, unfulfilled, and boring place.
And, more importantly, a moral saint would not create positive change in the world because her sad life would not inspire others to make ethical choices. Being a moral leader requires living a happy fulfilled life that others want to emulate.
So moral sainthood is not good – but does that give us an easy way out? Can we stop feeling guilty for not living up to the utilitarian theories that tell us we are ethically obligated to donate 10% of our income to the impoverished or to be completely vegan (or dare I say, even completely vegetarian)?
We can't be self-righteous moral saints if we want to create positive change in the world, be we also can't take the easy way out and be moral slackers. What we can, and should, do, is strive for a different kind of perfection, one that looks at overall impact rather than individual actions. A life that has the most positive impact overall is a life of ethical moderation that others will want to copy.
So what does this mean for animal rights ethics? Should an animal rights activist aspire to perfection? To veganism? How can our lifestyle choices have the biggest impact both in terms of individual impact and the indirect impact it has through influencing others? Is veganism, "the moral baseline of the movement," the obvious answer?
Or sometimes—like in certain eating clubs where the only vegan food day in and day out is old hummus and wet spinach leaves—is veganism too much of a sacrifice that will turn observers away from animal rights? In these cases, might striving for “perfection” be counterproductive?
The quick answer for most people I think is of course a definite “No.” We can all think about modern moral issues without becoming completely absorbed in them to the point that we lose focus on other interests—art, athletics, careers, etc. Most of our blog readers, I bet, are vegetarians or vegans who have made that serious ethical commitment without separating themselves from anything else important in their lives (except, perhaps, a carnivorous boyfriend.)
But what about taking morality so seriously that it begins to take over other parts of your life? One philosopher we read thinks that moral saints (people whose actions are as morally worthy as possible) cannot lead a full human existence. They cannot be world-class violinists or into high-end fashion or excel at athletics because to pursue these nonmoral interests would take time away from moral actions. A moral saint can’t even take a nap because she could be using that time to serve soup to the homeless. A world of moral saints would be a sad, unfulfilled, and boring place.
And, more importantly, a moral saint would not create positive change in the world because her sad life would not inspire others to make ethical choices. Being a moral leader requires living a happy fulfilled life that others want to emulate.
So moral sainthood is not good – but does that give us an easy way out? Can we stop feeling guilty for not living up to the utilitarian theories that tell us we are ethically obligated to donate 10% of our income to the impoverished or to be completely vegan (or dare I say, even completely vegetarian)?
We can't be self-righteous moral saints if we want to create positive change in the world, be we also can't take the easy way out and be moral slackers. What we can, and should, do, is strive for a different kind of perfection, one that looks at overall impact rather than individual actions. A life that has the most positive impact overall is a life of ethical moderation that others will want to copy.
So what does this mean for animal rights ethics? Should an animal rights activist aspire to perfection? To veganism? How can our lifestyle choices have the biggest impact both in terms of individual impact and the indirect impact it has through influencing others? Is veganism, "the moral baseline of the movement," the obvious answer?
Or sometimes—like in certain eating clubs where the only vegan food day in and day out is old hummus and wet spinach leaves—is veganism too much of a sacrifice that will turn observers away from animal rights? In these cases, might striving for “perfection” be counterproductive?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
PAWS 2008
Happy 2008! After spending the day on a purifying juice fast contemplating the upcoming year, I have a solid list of New Year’s resolutions, and I’d like to share a few with you.
My first resolution is to improve my vegan cooking skills. This is not only for my own health and satisfaction, but to be a more effective influence on others. We all know that good food is the way to a man’s (and/or meat-eater’s) heart.
Another one of my resolutions is to lead a healthy, satisfied, and cheerful vegan lifestyle that will serve as a good example to others. This includes being in good shape, eating well, and not complaining about the pathetic vegan options at my eating club or lusting after pizza.
My PAWS-related resolution is the one I really want to share with you. In less than a year since we formed back in April 2007, we’ve had an amazing amount of success. PAWS is now a well-known campus name, has gotten national media coverage, and has changed quite a few hearts and minds. In 2008, I want PAWS to reach a new level of influence and achievement.
Your PAWS officers have come up with some great ideas for PAWS 2008 and we’re working hard to make them happen. Here are some of them:
o Develop an impressive PAWS website
o Focus on delicious free vegan food!
o Table in Frist regularly with vegetarian literature and PAWS event information
o Take a trip to the Watkins Glen Farm Sanctuary
o Rank the Eating Clubs on their vegetarian and vegan food
o Host Veg Fest 2008 on April 10, 2008 featuring keynote speaker Wayne Pacelle and tons of vegan food
o Team up with unrelated groups to introduce a new batch of people to veg food & info
o Continue to pester Dining Services and eating clubs to serve us better veg food
o Create some type of pledge that people can sign up for on an ongoing basis, like Meatless Mondays or just a pledge to think critically about food choices (ideas for what kind of pledge would be useful would be most appreciated!)
What do YOU want PAWS to accomplish this year? Please leave us your comments so we can get to work on making it happen. With your help, PAWS can be the most active and influential group on campus.
Best wishes for a happy, healthy, and animal-friendly new year!
My first resolution is to improve my vegan cooking skills. This is not only for my own health and satisfaction, but to be a more effective influence on others. We all know that good food is the way to a man’s (and/or meat-eater’s) heart.
Another one of my resolutions is to lead a healthy, satisfied, and cheerful vegan lifestyle that will serve as a good example to others. This includes being in good shape, eating well, and not complaining about the pathetic vegan options at my eating club or lusting after pizza.
My PAWS-related resolution is the one I really want to share with you. In less than a year since we formed back in April 2007, we’ve had an amazing amount of success. PAWS is now a well-known campus name, has gotten national media coverage, and has changed quite a few hearts and minds. In 2008, I want PAWS to reach a new level of influence and achievement.
Your PAWS officers have come up with some great ideas for PAWS 2008 and we’re working hard to make them happen. Here are some of them:
o Develop an impressive PAWS website
o Focus on delicious free vegan food!
o Table in Frist regularly with vegetarian literature and PAWS event information
o Take a trip to the Watkins Glen Farm Sanctuary
o Rank the Eating Clubs on their vegetarian and vegan food
o Host Veg Fest 2008 on April 10, 2008 featuring keynote speaker Wayne Pacelle and tons of vegan food
o Team up with unrelated groups to introduce a new batch of people to veg food & info
o Continue to pester Dining Services and eating clubs to serve us better veg food
o Create some type of pledge that people can sign up for on an ongoing basis, like Meatless Mondays or just a pledge to think critically about food choices (ideas for what kind of pledge would be useful would be most appreciated!)
What do YOU want PAWS to accomplish this year? Please leave us your comments so we can get to work on making it happen. With your help, PAWS can be the most active and influential group on campus.
Best wishes for a happy, healthy, and animal-friendly new year!
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Getting Past "Can't"
While I'd like to humor myself and think that this blog is read by individuals with a wide swathe of dietary preferences, I think it's safe to say that in reality almost anyone reading this is probably already a vegan or vegetarian. That means that, invariably, each of us has had the experience of being offered a delicious looking, but not animal-friendly dish, and responded "I'm sorry, I can't eat that." In my opinion, as soon as the word "can't" leaves our lips, we, as vegetarians, have done a great disservice to our cause.
I'll admit that we as a society spend far too much time talking about labels and semantics, and not enough time engaging in actual action. Hillary Clinton waffles about whether she is a "liberal" or a "progressive." The Bush administration feuds with the UN over whether Sudan is a "genocide" or simply a "mass killing." And thousands of people are riled up because well-meaning multi-culturalists prefer "Happy Holidays" to "Merry Christmas." But in this case, I think it's worth examining the impact that a simple word choice can have.
Stating that we "can't" eat meat, eggs, or dairy turns our dietary choices - which we all adopted for the positive reasons of protecting our health, preserving the environment, and helping animals - into something negative. "Can't" makes me think of overbearing parents or traffic regulations. People who are lactose intolerant can't drink milk; people on diets can't eat fatty food. But almost all of us can eat whatever we want - the point is that we don't. That's a distinction worth paying attention to. At the risk of sounding too corny, I believe that being a vegetarian or vegan should be a joy, not an onus. None of us has been coerced into being a vegetarian - so let's stop acting like it.
When we choose to say "can't" instead of "don't," we set up barriers between ourselves and the meat eaters - and let them off the hook. As soon as you say you can't eat something, the first thing going through the carnivore's head is "well, I can - I've got perfectly good canine teeth and a perfectly functioning digestive system." The discussion ends - there's no reason for them to learn more about the reasons behind your dietary choices, because evidently it's some kind of pathology. In contrast, saying that you "don't" eat something immediately prompts the question "why" - a perfect opportunity for vegetarians to cite the multitude of excellent reasons for their decision not to consume animal products.
Saying "Can't"? Just don't do it.
I'll admit that we as a society spend far too much time talking about labels and semantics, and not enough time engaging in actual action. Hillary Clinton waffles about whether she is a "liberal" or a "progressive." The Bush administration feuds with the UN over whether Sudan is a "genocide" or simply a "mass killing." And thousands of people are riled up because well-meaning multi-culturalists prefer "Happy Holidays" to "Merry Christmas." But in this case, I think it's worth examining the impact that a simple word choice can have.
Stating that we "can't" eat meat, eggs, or dairy turns our dietary choices - which we all adopted for the positive reasons of protecting our health, preserving the environment, and helping animals - into something negative. "Can't" makes me think of overbearing parents or traffic regulations. People who are lactose intolerant can't drink milk; people on diets can't eat fatty food. But almost all of us can eat whatever we want - the point is that we don't. That's a distinction worth paying attention to. At the risk of sounding too corny, I believe that being a vegetarian or vegan should be a joy, not an onus. None of us has been coerced into being a vegetarian - so let's stop acting like it.
When we choose to say "can't" instead of "don't," we set up barriers between ourselves and the meat eaters - and let them off the hook. As soon as you say you can't eat something, the first thing going through the carnivore's head is "well, I can - I've got perfectly good canine teeth and a perfectly functioning digestive system." The discussion ends - there's no reason for them to learn more about the reasons behind your dietary choices, because evidently it's some kind of pathology. In contrast, saying that you "don't" eat something immediately prompts the question "why" - a perfect opportunity for vegetarians to cite the multitude of excellent reasons for their decision not to consume animal products.
Saying "Can't"? Just don't do it.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
A Good Use of Our Princeton Education
Since PAWS was featured on the mtvU show Cause Effect, we’ve received lots of emails praising our dedication to animals. Of course, we’ve also met some critics. For example, today I got home from a long day of classes to read this email from “Dave”:
“I sure am glad that you are putting that high dollar Prinston [sic] education to some use. Have you ever given some thought to all of the suffering PEOPLE in this world? It is no different than the treatment of animals. Women are beaten Children are born into this world with HIV, Crack Cocaine in their system and Meth in their system. There are homeless people and people freezing in the streets. Go Girl save those chickens. Must have been the easiest choice for a project assignment!!”
It would be easy for me to dismiss this email, because we hear this argument all the time, and we think it is self-evidently wrong. Our automatic response is that eating humanely does not take any time away from your other causes, and hey, what are you doing to save the world with all your free time, anyway? By eating meat, are you able to spend more time helping people? Probably not. It often seems that the people who are the most critical of our activism are the people who have never been activists themselves, and have no desire (it would seem to me) to make the world a better place. PAWS activists, on the other hand, tend to be the exact same people who participate in a variety of other positive, progressive activities on campus. Many of us participated in the anti-torture protest last year, many of us care about enacting universal healthcare in this country, alleviating global poverty, and fighting AIDS. We are compassionate, ethical people who care about reducing suffering—no matter who is suffering.
In short, fighting for animals and fighting for people are in no way mutually exclusive. And because of global warming and health, they are actually complementary.
But let me look at this criticism a bit more seriously. While it doesn’t take any more time to be a vegetarian, Dave is actually correct: it does take time to be animal activist. When I’m out setting up demonstrations, leafleting around town, and writing blogs like these, I’m fighting for animal rights when I could be fighting for human rights.
But does that imply that I implicitly put a higher value on animal life than human life? Am I saying that I care about animals more than humans? That seems to be what Dave is accusing me of. Believe it or not, I do think that would be wrong. In general, humans are more self-conscious, more rational, and more emotionally attached to their loved ones than animals can be, so I would have no basis for saving one animal life over one human life. But I don’t think that’s what I’m doing.
Instead, I’m using my unique passion, skills and motivation to make a difference exactly where I can make the biggest difference. Other people who feel passionately about other issues should fight for those causes. In no way am I saying that animal rights is the most important cause—just that it’s my most important cause.
For a thought experiment, let’s say that it was possible to estimate, empirically, the magnitude and intensity of the suffering inflicted by current global problems. We could then rank world atrocities and potentially name the worst atrocity in the world right now. Now, let’s assume that global poverty towered over all the other problems in the world right now—far worse (empirically, remember) than genocide, air and water pollution, AIDS, the US healthcare system, the Iraq War, animal exploitation, and all other problems. If a ranking like this came out, should all activists stop what they are doing and switch to fighting against global poverty? Would that even be effective?
I think the answer is clearly no. We bring about the most change by fighting for what we care about. If everyone worked on one issue (or if everyone worked on “human” issues) then less positive change would occur—spreading out our efforts offers the largest marginal benefit. Everyone making the free choice to pursue her own passions will be what makes the world a better place, even if some problems are clearly worse than others.
Yes, I agree: there are many serious issues facing the world today. While crusading for animal rights won’t fix all of them, criticizing us for taking on this issue won’t solve any. At least we’re doing something.
“I sure am glad that you are putting that high dollar Prinston [sic] education to some use. Have you ever given some thought to all of the suffering PEOPLE in this world? It is no different than the treatment of animals. Women are beaten Children are born into this world with HIV, Crack Cocaine in their system and Meth in their system. There are homeless people and people freezing in the streets. Go Girl save those chickens. Must have been the easiest choice for a project assignment!!”
It would be easy for me to dismiss this email, because we hear this argument all the time, and we think it is self-evidently wrong. Our automatic response is that eating humanely does not take any time away from your other causes, and hey, what are you doing to save the world with all your free time, anyway? By eating meat, are you able to spend more time helping people? Probably not. It often seems that the people who are the most critical of our activism are the people who have never been activists themselves, and have no desire (it would seem to me) to make the world a better place. PAWS activists, on the other hand, tend to be the exact same people who participate in a variety of other positive, progressive activities on campus. Many of us participated in the anti-torture protest last year, many of us care about enacting universal healthcare in this country, alleviating global poverty, and fighting AIDS. We are compassionate, ethical people who care about reducing suffering—no matter who is suffering.
In short, fighting for animals and fighting for people are in no way mutually exclusive. And because of global warming and health, they are actually complementary.
But let me look at this criticism a bit more seriously. While it doesn’t take any more time to be a vegetarian, Dave is actually correct: it does take time to be animal activist. When I’m out setting up demonstrations, leafleting around town, and writing blogs like these, I’m fighting for animal rights when I could be fighting for human rights.
But does that imply that I implicitly put a higher value on animal life than human life? Am I saying that I care about animals more than humans? That seems to be what Dave is accusing me of. Believe it or not, I do think that would be wrong. In general, humans are more self-conscious, more rational, and more emotionally attached to their loved ones than animals can be, so I would have no basis for saving one animal life over one human life. But I don’t think that’s what I’m doing.
Instead, I’m using my unique passion, skills and motivation to make a difference exactly where I can make the biggest difference. Other people who feel passionately about other issues should fight for those causes. In no way am I saying that animal rights is the most important cause—just that it’s my most important cause.
For a thought experiment, let’s say that it was possible to estimate, empirically, the magnitude and intensity of the suffering inflicted by current global problems. We could then rank world atrocities and potentially name the worst atrocity in the world right now. Now, let’s assume that global poverty towered over all the other problems in the world right now—far worse (empirically, remember) than genocide, air and water pollution, AIDS, the US healthcare system, the Iraq War, animal exploitation, and all other problems. If a ranking like this came out, should all activists stop what they are doing and switch to fighting against global poverty? Would that even be effective?
I think the answer is clearly no. We bring about the most change by fighting for what we care about. If everyone worked on one issue (or if everyone worked on “human” issues) then less positive change would occur—spreading out our efforts offers the largest marginal benefit. Everyone making the free choice to pursue her own passions will be what makes the world a better place, even if some problems are clearly worse than others.
Yes, I agree: there are many serious issues facing the world today. While crusading for animal rights won’t fix all of them, criticizing us for taking on this issue won’t solve any. At least we’re doing something.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
Thanksgiving Food for Thought
Dear friends,
The Thanksgiving holiday—a relaxing day to celebrate family and friends, to appreciate your blessings and to give thanks for all you have—is almost here. Unfortunately, the holiday also means the slaughter of 45 million turkeys for Thanksgiving dinner table centerpieces. While we understand that the turkey—a symbol for warmth and love and contentment—is a tradition of the holiday, just a quick review of what eating turkey really entails will be more than enough to destroy those unfounded associations. (If you are already convinced you don’t need a thanksgiving turkey, just skip down below for yummy ideas for alternatives!)
In fact, turkey production means anything but happiness. Take a minute to read up on the standard industry practice of strangling as a standard method of killing sick or weak birds or watch undercover video footage of the Butterball turkey farm. If you’re not up for actually seeing where turkeys spend their lives (in which case you probably shouldn’t be eating them), you can simply think about these intelligent birds who spend the last five months of their lives with less than 3.5 square feet of space per bird. The birds who have their upper beaks and their toes seared off with hot blades so they don’t peck each other to death in their stress-inducing conditions. The birds who, due to unnatural breeding techniques, now grow twice as fast and twice as large as their ancestors with especially large breasts, making it impossible for them to breed naturally (or as the report states, “males can no longer mount females.”)
But wait…maybe ‘free-range’ or ‘organic’ labels get you off the hook? Unfortunately, the standards are extremely lax, with free range meaning nothing more that the turkeys can go outside at some point in their lives. Yes, any positive step is a step in the right direction, but with conditions like this on an actual “free-range” farm, it’s hard to say how free-range is any better than factory-farmed raised. We don’t really think it’s better at all.
Luckily, the horrors of the turkey industry don’t mean that you have to go hungry on Thanksgiving; they just mean you get to explore new foods and start new traditions. And that’s the reason for this letter—to tell you about some delicious alternatives to the traditional turkey. Here are some links and recipes to help you create new healthy and humane traditions.
• Tons of Thanksgiving recipes for appetizers, soups, entrees, sides, desserts, etc!
• Tips for celebrating a veg holiday
• 196 Vegan Thanksgiving recipes
• Sample Vegetarian Thanksgiving menu w/ recipes
• The new Veggie Turkey Breast With Wild Rice and Cranberry Stuffing, available at Whole Foods (what we’ll be having in my house, I hope!)
• Pumpkin pie
• Post your own recipes in the comments section!
Now more than ever, we should all be thankful for having the ability to make ethical, humane and environmental friendly choices.
Best wishes,
Princeton Animal Welfare Society
The Thanksgiving holiday—a relaxing day to celebrate family and friends, to appreciate your blessings and to give thanks for all you have—is almost here. Unfortunately, the holiday also means the slaughter of 45 million turkeys for Thanksgiving dinner table centerpieces. While we understand that the turkey—a symbol for warmth and love and contentment—is a tradition of the holiday, just a quick review of what eating turkey really entails will be more than enough to destroy those unfounded associations. (If you are already convinced you don’t need a thanksgiving turkey, just skip down below for yummy ideas for alternatives!)
In fact, turkey production means anything but happiness. Take a minute to read up on the standard industry practice of strangling as a standard method of killing sick or weak birds or watch undercover video footage of the Butterball turkey farm. If you’re not up for actually seeing where turkeys spend their lives (in which case you probably shouldn’t be eating them), you can simply think about these intelligent birds who spend the last five months of their lives with less than 3.5 square feet of space per bird. The birds who have their upper beaks and their toes seared off with hot blades so they don’t peck each other to death in their stress-inducing conditions. The birds who, due to unnatural breeding techniques, now grow twice as fast and twice as large as their ancestors with especially large breasts, making it impossible for them to breed naturally (or as the report states, “males can no longer mount females.”)
But wait…maybe ‘free-range’ or ‘organic’ labels get you off the hook? Unfortunately, the standards are extremely lax, with free range meaning nothing more that the turkeys can go outside at some point in their lives. Yes, any positive step is a step in the right direction, but with conditions like this on an actual “free-range” farm, it’s hard to say how free-range is any better than factory-farmed raised. We don’t really think it’s better at all.
Luckily, the horrors of the turkey industry don’t mean that you have to go hungry on Thanksgiving; they just mean you get to explore new foods and start new traditions. And that’s the reason for this letter—to tell you about some delicious alternatives to the traditional turkey. Here are some links and recipes to help you create new healthy and humane traditions.
• Tons of Thanksgiving recipes for appetizers, soups, entrees, sides, desserts, etc!
• Tips for celebrating a veg holiday
• 196 Vegan Thanksgiving recipes
• Sample Vegetarian Thanksgiving menu w/ recipes
• The new Veggie Turkey Breast With Wild Rice and Cranberry Stuffing, available at Whole Foods (what we’ll be having in my house, I hope!)
• Pumpkin pie
• Post your own recipes in the comments section!
Now more than ever, we should all be thankful for having the ability to make ethical, humane and environmental friendly choices.
Best wishes,
Princeton Animal Welfare Society
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
College Veg Pledge
Next Tuesday, November 13th, thousands of college students—including hundreds at Princeton--will be going vegetarian for College Veg Pledge 2007. These students have pledged to give up meat to show support for their vegetarian friends, to demonstrate their understanding that meat does have serious environmental and health issues, and, quite simply, because going vegetarian is not that hard to do. In fact, we’re hoping that these people will realize that going veg is so easy and fun that there is no good reason not to give up animal products permanently!
There are over 1500 students who have pledged and 34 colleges and universities officially participating. The pledge reads:
“As a university student, I realize that I am a leader for my generation and an example for society. I am concerned about the inherent cruelty of consuming animals for food and the impact meat has on global warming, the environment, and my health. By signing my name, I pledge to abstain from consuming meat on November 13th, 2007, and commit myself to exploring a more ethical diet in the future.”
Here at Princeton, we’re celebrating the veg pledge (and the 250+ students/faculty/staff already signed up) by throwing a dessert party! Other schools are also celebrating in fun ways – for example, a University of Pennsylvania dining hall is throwing a “Vegan Thanksgiving,” Dartmouth is throwing a Veg Out movie night…
College Veg Pledge is sponsored by Students for Animal Rights (StAR), a new organization devoted to helping college animal rights groups be as effective as possible. The College Veg Pledge is StAR’s first event. We hope you enjoy!
Please take the pledge!
There are over 1500 students who have pledged and 34 colleges and universities officially participating. The pledge reads:
“As a university student, I realize that I am a leader for my generation and an example for society. I am concerned about the inherent cruelty of consuming animals for food and the impact meat has on global warming, the environment, and my health. By signing my name, I pledge to abstain from consuming meat on November 13th, 2007, and commit myself to exploring a more ethical diet in the future.”
Here at Princeton, we’re celebrating the veg pledge (and the 250+ students/faculty/staff already signed up) by throwing a dessert party! Other schools are also celebrating in fun ways – for example, a University of Pennsylvania dining hall is throwing a “Vegan Thanksgiving,” Dartmouth is throwing a Veg Out movie night…
College Veg Pledge is sponsored by Students for Animal Rights (StAR), a new organization devoted to helping college animal rights groups be as effective as possible. The College Veg Pledge is StAR’s first event. We hope you enjoy!
Please take the pledge!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)