Go vegan, stay vegan.

Sue: Let me tell you about the swearing incident. I was right there when it happened. The woman who sweared started to ask a question, when someone behind her in line said, plainly enough for me and others to hear, “Why don’t you shut up and let someone ask a real question?” Now that was totally out of line and inexcusably rude, and that’s what provoked the swearing. The woman who sweared quickly apologized.

BTW, the provacateur a few minutes earlier had tried to cut in line, in front of me.

I would like to address one more of your points. You assert that until recently, consumers had no concept of “happy meat.” I would counter that yes, they did.

Pictures of happy, robust hens in sunny fields on cartons of eggs that came from battery cages stretch back decades. So do images of smiling cows on milk cartons and delivery trucks, and all manner of deceptive advertising. Consumers by and large thought that farm animals had good lives and were treated well. They had no idea that hens were killed after one laying cycle, that veal was a byproduct of dairy, that animals were often alive and struggling as their throats were slit, and so on. Then as now, most consumers thought that cows naturally gave milk for no reason at all, and/or that they “had” to be milked, like we were doing them a favor. They bought their meat, dairy, and eggs without the slightest worry about animal welfare.

“Feeling better?” They felt just fine. I would argue that most of today’s consumers of cage-free eggs, free-grazing pork, or what-have-you feel not one iota better than the totally complacent buyers of the most unhappy meat; however in some instances from what I can tell they feel more conflicted.

Also - once people are concerned about animals’ interests, once they form perceptions of farmed animals as sentient beings as Sue pointed out, rather than some vague conglomerate - or as virtually non-existent - they are far more receptive to accepting that to fully abide by animals’ interests, it is necessary to do more - to ultimately go vegan. Their willingness to spend more to avoid some cruellties is an indicator that they have some desire to take steps to avoid violating animals’ interests - and that is something we as vegan advocates can work with.

Let me first state unequivocally that I know we are both aiming for the same thing and that I know you are sincere and committed in your efforts. So - solidarity there, my friend.

I draw a distinction between meat industry propaganda - which precedes the recent welfare campaigns in dispute, is applied to all meat including that which comes from the worst factory farms, and which IMHO will occur no matter what strategy we choose - and actual reforms, such as letting hens walk on solid ground and flap their wings, or giving dairy cows a lifetime of pasture in which to graze instead of making them spend their entire lives in dirt and excrement - IMHO those are not equivalent to the trivial examples you cited.

The modest decrease over the last few decades in percentage of calories from meat has many possible factors, including industry advertising, shifting demographics, relative cost of living, and health concerns.

In my experience, repeatedly, people who buy nothing but the cheapest meat and who pay no attention to welfare concerns are the ones most doggedly attached to meat-eating, and those who have some concern about animal welfare are most open to trying things like veggie sausages and accepting a COK guide to vegetarian restaurants.

While there is the occasional sensationalist quote in the media from the lapsed vegetarian now eating free-range eggs, there are tons of articles, often with accompanying surveys, about the growth in vegetarianism. Also keep in mind that there have always been ex-vegetarians and they have a seemingly unlimited number of excuses for their backsliding. We cannot conveniently pin the blame on welfare reform.

We’ll have to agree that we have different experiences. The folks I know who are concerned about the environment and animal welfare are typically eating less cruel meat as well as exploring vegetarian options. Although there are exceptions, I see this over and over.

In Europe, where there is a stronger animal welfare movement, they are ahead of us in terms of percentage of people becoming vegetarian as well as in number, strength, enforcement, and breadth of coverage of animal protection laws. Granted, there are some differences between Europe and the U.S. (just as there are differences between regions of the U.S.); nonetheless in Europe we have large-scale proof of concept that welfare campaigns need not slow down the path to veganism and may even speed it up. We may want to learn from them, albeit taking our differences into account.

I disagree with your assertion that I (or people in general) who are concerned about treatment of animals “skip right over” the use of animals, and specifically in my case and in the case of others whom I know, you assertion is simply wrong. I care with all my heart about ending the use of animals, and the bulk of my advocacy is vegan-oriented, with a strong (I think, unmistakable) message that it is morally wrong to exploit them in any way. I know I speak for others.

My concern about treatment and my rejection of animal exploitation in general stem from the same place: a moral conviction that it is wrong to violate their interests if we can avoid doing so. Also, from compassion for the victims. I see this pattern all the time: people who are concerned about, say, the treatment of Michael Vick’s dogs are just as opposed to - and heartbroken over - the dogs being killed. Concern for others’ suffering does not preclude concern for their lives.

Would you like to continue this conversation offline, over the phone or Skype? That might be more productive and less time-consuming. Also, I find that with these possibly-contentious topics that extend past three or four online “rounds,” talking tends to have a friendlier, less abrasive feel, as well as allow for more nuance. (It can be a multi-way discussion if anyone’s interested.) Just a suggestion.

Finally, to end where I began, I intend for these points of disagreement to be in a spirit of constructive dialog so that we may be better advocates. I thank you and am deeply appreciative to you and anyone for their activism on behalf of animals.

If I may respond to your comments. And remember…we are both longing for and aspiring to… the same end result. The unessecary suffering of all animals…humans and non humans.

You say…
“I am nonetheless compelled, from a sense of ethics and compassion, and informed by what I can glean about industry and human behavior, to consider the welfare of animals “NOW” as part of my overall mission to help animals.”

I respond …
Making conditions in a slaughter house better NOW for the animals is like giving softer mattresses to prisoners in death camps. The Nazis started using examples of how well they were treating Jews in Aushwitz as propaganda to keep the German people from questioning the final solution. The Nazis constantly left out the death part in their propaganda films and pamphlets yet the German people knew they were gassing Jewish children, women and old men but they began to accept the camps because they were part of Hitlers/Germny’s over all plan. As long as the Jews were being treated well in the camps it seemed fair and kind of OK.
Read the section here about Nazi propaganda and how it relates to propaganda by the meat industry http://www.powerfulbook.com/
Gary, a nicer slaughter house does not exist whether it’s a Happy Slaughterhouse or a Factory Farm slaughter house they are both horrible, loathsome and appalling places. If your over all mission is to help animals now by considering their welfare it only serves to help you feel better…NOT the animals. NOT in reality. Animal welfare tactics also make the public feel better too about eating them and this only increases the suffering because more animals will be consumed. Yes, that is how it works. I guarantee you more people are buying veal now that the public thinks veal calves have larger crates or no crates.

You say…”The number of cows being killed has decreased, the number of pigs being killed has decreased by less”

I respond…Yes…but people are going backwards NOW. The decrease happened because people in the last 10 years did not have the concept of Happy Meat or Organic meat therefore they decided to skip the tortured animal foods for various reasons. Plus animal rights people were pushing going vegan and it was begining to have an impact. There are dozens and dozens of articles out in the media now proving that this trend of going back now to eating meat is happening and in 5 years happy meat eating will be the norm and veganism as an option will be skipped. I see this trend happening in the yoga world where being a vegetarian has always been a foundation of the practice. I see so many compassionate people switching to Humane raised animals rather than going veg or staying veg. When you are compelled by your sense of ethics and compassion to concentrate on better treatment of animals raised and killed for their flesh you skip right over the USE of animals issue and play right into the hands of the industry who wants the public to notice the PHONY protection of food animals. Animals should NOT be used for HUMAN pleasures….that includes eating them.
To consider the welfare of the animals NOW does almost nothing for the animals. All it really does is comfort people as they decide to eat more animals whom now they feel are HAPPY. And…considering how humans TREAT animals raised for food really does maintain the evil and morally wrong idea that animals are merely here for human use.

I don’t think helping animals now is hurting anything. As we change the image of animals to being more than a steak on a plate we change our perception of them to being sentiant beings. Again, change doesn’t happen over night. Even as a vegan animal rights person, I can’t stand it when someone comes in my face screaming and yelling. I see them as nuts even though I believe in their message.

The animal protection movement needs to be true and not sell out for a great press release. Again, hypocrasy is our worst enemy, not AWI bringing farmers to a panel. Attacking other groups is simply feeding on ourselves. Vegan books and vegan websites tend to be there for existing vegans (you may bring some young people in, but I imagine they come from other sources like the welfare movement).

Yes, there are those who put on a happy face to suck others in, but again that is a part of human nature we must deal with. We can’t overlook it.

I don’t buy the happy meat thing either. I hated the “Porktopia” campaign by Chipolte.

I thought it was telling when someone (whom I know favors welfare reform on a case-by-case basis) asked if one of Whole Foods’ “compassionate” goals was the eventual elimination of animal products from their stores, and the WF representative deflected if not dismissed her question.

I share your concern about the downsides of debating complex issues over email. My comments were intended as brief counterpoints or affirmations in response to some of your points, not as a comprehensive analysis. Space and time doesn’t permit that here. Contact me offline if you want and we can discuss, in a friendly way, over the phone or Skype. This offer goes out to anyone, in fact.

To reiterate what I said before, AWI is only being singled out in this instance because they were the culprit for what many people - not a few - consider to be an outrage. It was not my intention to bash everything AWI is doing; I think they have some excellent initiatives.

Philip:

- I agree there are risks to welfare strategies (though not necessarily ones we cannot overcome) and that we may exaggerate the benefits of a given welfare reform.

- I am nonetheless compelled, from a sense of ethics and compassion, and informed by what I can glean about industry and human behavior, to consider the welfare of animals “NOW” as part of my overall mission to help animals. As best I can, I am acting on their behalf as I would want others to act on my behalf were I in their position. Let us acknowledge that thoughtul, educated, committed activists may disagree on tactics. And let us all - this includes me - keep an open mind as the movement progresses.

- As examples on the PETA site: Judging from the horrific images of kosher slaughter plants and articles harshly condemning “free range” operations I can hardly summarize PETA’s relationship with industry to be a “love fest.” The meat industry does not love PETA; they reguarly condemn PETA. I do agree however that PETA sometimes goes overboard in their adoration of companies that make small incremental improvements in the welfare of the animals they kill. That IMHO can set back progress by overselling the accomplishents to the public, and failing to emphasize either the substantial cruelties remaining or the preferred solution of eating vegan alternatives, which effectively gets rid of all the cruelty. OTOH by engaging in dialog “with the enemy” they were able to convince Ralph Lauren and other major companies to drop fur.

- From the numbers and my own experience, I would submit that the vast majority of people eating “happy meat” are already eating meat, not lapsed vegetarians. Furthermore, from numerous discussions and interviews, my conclusion thus far is that, in general, people buying the cheapest, most cruel factory farm meat are the most complacent, and that their decision to buy less cruel, more expensive animal products represents a disengagement from, not a solidification of that complacency. Overall, I have not found “happy meat” eaters to be more resistant to vegan outreach than meat-eaters in general.

- I don’t claim that this is a super-thorough analysis, but from looking at USDA figures (which I can share with you), my tentative conclusion is that these are the recent trends in meat and dairy consumption in the U.S.:

— The population is rising, therefore more animals are being killed.

— The number of cows being killed has decreased, the number of pigs being killed has decreased by less, the number of hens used (and killed) for egg production has remained rather steady, and the number of chickens killed has gone up substantially. In short, chicken has displaced beef and, to a lesser degree, pork.

— In terms of per-capita percentage of calories, meat consumption has gone down. The leading source of extra calories on our plates the last few decades has been plant-based oils (including trans fats).

— Sales of meat substitutes have risen dramatically, percentage-wise. The vast majority of the sales can be attributed to non-vegetarians. (All the major groups - not so much AWI, however, from what I can tell - promote veggie meats as a transition step, which I heartily endorse, and I would like to see this stepped up even more.)

Of course, these numbers don’t tell the whole story. For instance, one could lower the number of dairy cows killed, by forcing even more milk out of each cow, but increase the amount of suffering.