My opinions on animal welfare campaigns have definitely changed over the last year or so and articles like this high-blood-pressure-inducing piece from Food and Wine illustrate the main reason my position has changed.

Let me start by stating what should be obvious: I’m not against better conditions for animals.  Welfare improvements are fine and dandy in theory because, hey, “less bad” is better.  But many times, as with “free range” eggs, the supposed welfare gains are nonexistent.  Instead, what we get is consumers feeling ethically better about their choice to eat eggs and an industry that can charge more money for their products.  You can bet the industry is making more profit, too, or they wouldn’t be making these changes.  We’re doing the industry’s marketing for them when we tout these supposed welfare improvements as “victories.”  The industry looks better for supposedly treating animals better, consumers feel less guilty about their consumption, and it does nothing to convince people to reduce or eliminate their consumption of eggs.  Yes, they may buy a few fewer because of the cost, but their fundamental thought process about animal products isn’t being challenged.

I used to think getting people to eat free range eggs, organic milk, etc. might be a “stepping stone” to veganism.  These days, though, I’m becoming more and more convinced that they’re steps backwards as we see more and more former vegetarians going back to meat.

Even former vegetarian cookbook authors are jumping the grass-fed, free-range bandwagon:

Even chef Mollie Katzen, author of the vegetarian bible the Moosewood Cookbook, is experimenting with meat again. “For about 30 years I didn’t eat meat at all, just a bite of fish every once in a while, and always some dairy,” she says. “Lately, I’ve been eating a little meat. People say, ‘Ha, ha, Mollie Katzen is eating steak.’ But now that cleaner, naturally fed meat is available, it’s a great option for anyone who’s looking to complete his diet. Somehow, it got ascribed to me that I don’t want people to eat meat. I’ve just wanted to supply possibilities that were low on the food chain.”

This is infuriating on so many levels.  For one, people are going to read this and think, “Wow.  Mollie Katzen, former vegetarian cookbook author, is eating meat again.  I guess vegetarianism isn’t that necessary of a goal after all.”  Trust me, Mollie, I’m not saying, “ha ha” at this.

Also frustrating is the implication that a vegan diet is “incomplete” when she says, “[N]aturally fed meat is… a great option for anyone who’s looking to complete his diet.”  We don’t need dead animal on our plate to be complete and as a vegetarian cookbook author, she should realize this.

It’s bad enough when people that are considering vegetarianism or veganism don’t go all the way because their moral sensibilities are sated by the promise of happy meat, but it’s even worse when we have former vegetarians (and vegetarian role models — even though it pains me to type that phrase) backsliding and speaking out about it.

The article’s author, Christine Lennon, closes with this: “Convincing those people that eating meat can improve the welfare of the entire livestock population is a tough sell.”  Allow me to close with a response:

It’s a “tough sell” because it’s cop-out reasoning that’s used to justify the consumption and commodification of animals for our tastes.

What is the solution?  Should we put an end to all welfare campaigns?  I don’t have the answers, but I know I won’t spend my own time or resources promoting such ideals.  I spend enough time already trying to counter the message that too many people are taking from these campaigns: that welfare alone is enough.  It’s not.

Preface

Before I get into this, let me preface by saying a few things.

I’ve been thinking a lot about these issues over the last nine months.  I’ve started two or three posts on the issue and have ended up abandoning them because I didn’t know which direction I was going to go with them.  In fact, I still don’t know.

While I consider myself an animal advocate, I don’t feel like I’ve delved very deeply into the animal rights “movement.”  That is to say, I don’t have a day job at one of the national organizations, I haven’t attended demonstrations, and I don’t spend a lot of time doing letter writing campaigns.  All of these are good things, but based on time constraints and other considerations, I have to choose different ways to advocate for animals (like this blog).  As a result, this means I can still view arguments between national groups and well-known activists with somewhat of an outsider’s eye.

It’s never ceased to surprise me that any group, no matter how small or how niche, will always break down into in-fighting at one point or another.  One cause that I’ve been involved with for years has split into a number of factions because of disagreements and personality conflicts, this despite the fact that the cause is a disease that only affects about 50 people in the entire world.  So it doesn’t surprise me in the least that a lot of people working together for the same core reason — the animals — will often disagree on the best way to help.

I’d like to think that every serious animal advocate is an abolitionist at their core: they want to see animal exploitation go away.  They’d like the world to be vegan and they want animal interests to be considered alongside human interests.  The differences start to arise when the methods to get there come up.

Welfare, Rights, and Abolition

Welfarists believe incremental steps are an important part of the animal rights strategy.  Encourage changes within the system to improve the lives of the animals that are slaughtered, educate people about the conditions at factory farms and hope that if these people move to organic/free range meat and eggs, it’s only the first of many steps they’ll make to ending animal cruelty in their lives.

Pure abolitionists believe that we shouldn’t spend time promoting or fighting for things like removal of gestation crates for sows or cage free eggs on college campuses.  They don’t view these as victories because any marginal gains for the animals are offset by the people that now feel content with eating their humanely-raised meat or cage-free eggs.

Should we spend our resources on welfare reforms?

The primary arguments for spending time and money on these reforms include:

1. They cost the industry money.
2. They reduce animal suffering.
3. They are effective in getting people to give up animal products (which is, presumably, the real end goal).

So, do these hold up?

The first question is the hardest for me to answer, even though it probably can be calculated and stated somewhat definitively.  Yes, the industry spends money to defend against welfare reforms.  Yes, implementing the reforms initially will probably cost them money.  But in literature from national organizations, one of the benefits touted to the industry is that the changes will be cost effective and will, presumably, increase profits.

We also see the industry taking credit for these changes, using them as a way to say, “Hey, look at us.  We care about the animals.  Buy from us, we’re not evil!”

I suspect that it may cost the industry a little money up front, but I have a tough time believing that incremental welfare reforms will cost them much money in the long-run.  The industry has proven itself as extremely adaptable.  If they are forced to comply with one new welfare regulation, they’ll find another loophole to exploit that will make up for it.

Next is the reduction in animal suffering.  Yes, it is better that a sow can turn around rather than being jammed in a gestation crate.  And yes, it may be better that a chicken doesn’t have to stand on wire.  However, from people I know that have been to “free range” or “cage free” farms, they describe these places as every bit as bad as a battery cage operation.  There’s still almost no room to move, the birds are still debeaked, there’s still an unbearable stench, and the birds don’t receive any extra medical care.  I haven’t been to either a battery cage facility or a free range facility, so I’m forced to go on what others have told me.

So, while there are (from my perspective) marginal welfare gains from adoption of cage free or free range eggs, I’m a bit concerned by lauding these as a “victory.”  It reminds me of Chris Rock’s bit about men that brag, “I take care of my children!”  Rock responds, “You’re supposed to take care of your children!  What do you want, a cookie?”  The industry should be treating these animals better.  Do we really want to give them a cookie just because they’re mistreating chickens slightly less?

Do I think pushing for animal welfare is a waste of time and money?  I don’t know.  I mean, in some sense, when there’s all this awful stuff going on, shouldn’t we try and make it better for the animals going through it right now?  On the other hand, would a wrongly trapped prisoner want groups to mobilize their writing campaigns to focus on getting him a bigger cell or would he a want campaign that worked to get him out of jail altogether and keep it from happening again to someone else?

I realize this isn’t the perfect metaphor, but it’s how I’ve thought through this issue thus far.  Take from it what you will.

Lastly, we need to think about whether or not these incremental steps will help encourage people to move to vegetarianism or veganism.  Several years ago, I might have said, “Yeah, going organic/free range is a good first step.”  However, as I’ve talked to more people and read more material, I’m not convinced of this anymore.  One great example: this past Christmas, I had a discussion with a family member who was fully convinced that eating free range eggs was fine because “the birds are treated so well.”  The way I see it, we have enough trouble convincing the average person that eggs aren’t OK even though they “don’t involve killing the chicken.”  People already have to be convinced to not eat eggs.  If we also have to convince them that, no, free range isn’t really OK, it adds an added layer of complexity for animal advocates.

An even more disturbing trend that I noted in an earlier post is that of long-time vegetarians returning to eating meat because now they can feel better about it.  I don’t know the de-conversation rate we’re talking about here, but the fact that anyone went from ethical vegetarianism back to consuming animal products scares the hell out of me.  I wouldn’t have thought it was possible, but it’s happening, which means that this idea of “humanely raised meat” may not be having the results originally hoped for in terms of being a stepping stone to veg*nism.

Marcus v.s. Francione

This weekend, I listened to the lengthy debate between Erik Marcus and Gary Francione.  I was looking forward to this because both men are passionate about animal rights, have a lot of common ground, and state their positions well.  I’ve got to be honest, though… listening to this “debate” (not really a debate since there were no time restrictions or moderators) was difficult.  Uncomfortable, even.

Reading reaction to the debate, I wasn’t surprised to see a wide variety of responses.  Some felt that Erik came across as ill-prepared for Gary’s onslaught.  Others felt Gary was rude by frequently interrupting and dismissing what Erik had to say.  Still others thought that Erik was the rude one by calling Francione a “fundamentalist” without having read his books.

Part of the reason I felt very ill-at-ease while listening to the debate was that I really wanted this debate to go well.  I’m friends with Erik and he was a big influence on me throughout my veg* journey, but at the same time, I find Gary to be an engaging speaker with very solid ideals.  And man, he’s a freakin’ fireball.  I’d love to see him go up against someone like Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity.  Or someone from the CCF.

Nevertheless, I found myself getting frustrated by the interruptions, the flow of the discussion, and the general tone from both of them.  And I think both participants felt the same way, as they sounded completely exasperated with each other by the end.

That said, while it wasn’t easy to listen to the debate, I encourage everyone to do so (if you don’t have time for the whole thing, listen to the first part — the second part involves a lot of going around in circles).  I think that even though these discussions may be uncomfortable and bring up a lot of strong emotions, it’s crucial that we talk.

One thing that’s baffled me has been the fact we have two very similar AR conferences: Animal Rights and Taking Action for Animals.  In recent years, national organizations have refused to participate in one of the conferences because SHAC supporters were on the same agenda.  Not the same panel, necessarily, but just at the same conference.  They didn’t want to be associated with the “extremists.”

As far as I’m concerned, we need to mobilize all corners of the AR movement.  Of course there are going to be disagreements and arguments, but for heaven’s sake, let’s talk about it.  Let’s take a look at things from all angles and honestly consider tactics, techniques, and ways that we spend our money.  Long-time activists need to hear new ideas and newcomers need to pay attention and learn from those that have come before them.

I realize I’m saying this as a relative newcomer to the movement that is very much still an outsider.  I know I’ve got a lot to learn and that my perspectives will change with time, but I get this feeling that we’re at a very important crossroads in the movement.  We need to respectfully sit down and discuss things on a level that doesn’t get personal.  One side shouldn’t say (or even imply) that the other is wasting their time.  Or dismiss the other’s opinions out of hand because it’s different.  Or ignore another viewpoint because it may seem too extreme or fundamentalist on the surface.  If we can form a real, honest dialogue that leaves egos and personal conflicts at the door, perhaps we can figure out where we really go from here.  I suspect there isn’t a simple answer.

Elsewhere

Here’s some more stuff to read/listen to, primarily with regards to the debate.  I haven’t gone through all of these, so this is as much a list for me as it is for you:

• The Vegan Freak response (podcast)
• Response from the Vegan Freak forums
• Gary at Animal Writings weighs in
• “On Intellectual Honesty, and the Francione/Marcus Debate” -Animal Person (haven’t seen this blog before)
• Vegan Represent forums

When I first became vegetarian a little over six years ago, it was a huge change for me. For three meals a day, I committed to doing something different than I had done for the previous 27000 meals of my life. To me, giving up meat was extreme, especially early on when I tried to figure out what else I could eat other than soy hot dogs.

After a little while, though, it felt very natural and I realized that vegetarianism wasn’t that big of a deal. And while I thought that someday I might possibly go vegan, the idea of veganism still seemed extreme to me.

When I finally made the transition to veganism, it also turned out to be not that big of a deal. Today, it seems like the most normal thing in the world to me, definitely not “extreme” by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, to anyone else that hasn’t made the transition to veganism, whether omnivore or lacto-ovo vegetarian, it still seems very far “out there.” The phrase “vegan extremists” is not terribly uncommon:

“Fish is a great source of protein and it’s one of the few foods that almost all people will agree is good for you - except some vegan extremists - with the caveat that you have to be careful about where the fish comes from and what kind it is.” (also includes this comment from a reader: “To heck with vegan extremists! Put the fish on my plate!”)

“Vegetarian and Vegan extremists, as well as fur-haters (people who throw red paint at people who wear fur) have a heavily intolerant view on animal testing, they firmly believe that any testing is inhumane, they pass pictures of animals in torture-like devices and are very active in trying to make meat-eaters and fur-wearers feel like murderers, just because they don’t abide by the vegetarian/vegan extremist point of view.”

And, of course, the “don’t they have anything better to do” variety of comment:

“Please beware that the vegan extremists are not going to go away. Like extremists of every stripe, they want to impose their values on others. Many have nothing but time to kill (so to speak) and plenty of $$$ from a few high profile backers.”

We regard sports and activities as “extreme” if they are death-defying, ones that if performed without experience and the utmost caution would cause the average person to meet a painful end. Indeed, death itself is probably the most extreme thing that any of us will ever face (and the one thing that we will all face at some point). It’s the end of this life, and even if you believe in the afterlife, you can be sure you’re in for a drastic change when the reaper calls your number.

Likewise, we look at torture as extreme because in many cases, it’s a fate worse than death. It makes the victim wish for death as a quick release from the suffering.

If one looks at the animal exploitation industries–that is, the meat, dairy, and egg industries, the vivisection and animal testing industries, and the fur industry–a few obvious things come to light. The vast majority of the animals used in these industries undergo treatment that would be considered torture by the mainstream if inflicted upon humans: confinement, sharing cramped cages, force feeding, starvation, rape, use of foreign substances, lack of medical care. For whatever reason, when these acts are committed against non-human animals, they’re considered “standard industry practices” and not torture.

But even if agreement can’t be reached on the treatment of these animals, one thing is undeniable: 100% of them face the most extreme of extremes: death. And not a natural death that most of us hope for, but an early, painful, unnatural death at the hands of another. This death would be at best considered torturous and at worst, murder. Again, since these acts are not being committed against humans, most of us accept them as the normal part of life.

So the question at this point is, “Why is veganism extreme?” It’s extreme because it causes us to radically change how we live our lives.

But forget that for a moment. Forget any personal change required in becoming vegan (because, after all, would we consider inconvenience if it involved our next door neighbor being tortured?). Consider only the actual actions involved in a.) eating meat, wearing animal products, and supporting animal testing and b.) practicing veganism.

Torture and death are extreme. Meat, fur, and animal testing involve both. Therefore, these actions should be considered extreme.

Veganism bypasses all of this. Veganism opts out of exploitation, torture, and death. Veganism strives for compassion. Veganism is peace. Veganism is not extreme. Eating dozens of animals a year (even more if you’re into chicken rather than beef) is extreme.

Sure, we’re all still freaks for the way we choose to live our lives because it’s so drastically different than what most people do, but it doesn’t make our lifestyle extreme. In fact, it’s our very choice to abstain from animal products and the suffering that’s associated with them that makes us the antithesis of extreme.

This is a short article I wrote for my CSA’s newsletter. I thought I’d include it here. The audience generally knows what a “vegan” is, but may not have had a whole lot of experience cooking for them. I wanted to come strictly from a food angle and only briefly mention the reasons people are vegan.

It’s summertime and you’ve got a group of people coming over for dinner. It’s stressful, but you’re feeling confident because you’ve got a bagful of CSA veggies and a pile of favorite recipes to serve up to your friends. There’s one problem though.

A vegan’s coming to dinner.

Let’s quickly define “vegan” in case you haven’t come across one of these crazy beasts before. Vegans are strict vegetarians that abstain from meat (which included poultry, fish, game, etc.), dairy, eggs, and honey and also do not wear leather, wool, silk or other animal-derived products. There are ethical, health, and environmental reasons people go vegan, but we won’t go into that here (if you’re interested in more detail, visit http://www.vegblog.org/resources/).

A slight panic sets in. If you can’t serve someone meat, that’s OK. You’ve dealt with vegetarians before. But now you can’t use butter, eggs, milk, cheese, or honey in your meal? This is going to be hard, isn’t it?

Thankfully, no. Here’s a quick guide for ways to deal with those pesky vegan dinner guests:

• Make all your sides vegan. This is easy if you’re a member of the CSA and have a large batch of fresh veggies and herbs. There are plenty of vegan recipes on the web site (vegetarian recipes are marked as such, but you’ll have to look more closely for explicitly vegan recipes) and most public libraries have a vast collection of vegan cookbooks that you can borrow. If you have enough tasty vegan sides, they can mix and match those to fill up their plate. But please don’t leave them with just salad and carrot sticks.
• Ask the vegan if they want to bring a dish. Many times, vegans will bring their own dishes to functions in order to not trouble the host while ensuring that they have something to eat. But if it’s a potluck, let the vegan know you’re looking forward to seeing what they bring and trying something new.
• Make all your food vegan. Believe me, it’s not as scary as it sounds and even the hardest of hardcore meat eaters will rarely turn their nose up at a free meal even if it doesn’t have meat in it. In a lot of cases, you can use familiar recipes just making certain substitutions:
• For meat, replace it with a soy or gluten-based analog. There are so many great faux chicken, beef, and pork subs out there and they’re easy to find. Just check the label to make sure that the manufacturer doesn’t use dairy (like whey) or eggs (Morningstar Farms is famous for doing this).
• For dairy, swap out milk with soy, rice, or almond milk. For cheese, look for a soy based cheese (read the label and watch out for casein, a milk-derived protein) or just leave the cheese out.
• Eggs can be a tad tricky. It’s easy if you’re baking (see http://www.theppk.com/veganbaking.html for great tips for getting rid of eggs in cookies, cakes, etc.) but it may be a bit tough if you’re making an egg-heavy quiche. If that’s the case, Google “vegan quiche.”
• Honey can be easily substituted for with agave nectar (a liquid sweetener derived from cactus that tastes very similar to honey and is very low on the glycemic index), brown rice syrup, or a dry sweetener.
• If trying to figure out exactly how to swap out ingredients in a recipe is a bit daunting, hit Google and search for a vegan version of your recipe. So, if you were going to make fettucine alfredo, search: “fettucine alfredo” vegan recipe

As you can see, cooking for vegans may be a different experience than you’re used to, but it’s by no means difficult. Vegan food is not (or, rather, does not have to be) boring. And when a vegan friend comes by and sees that you’ve prepared a great vegan meal that isn’t spaghetti with marinara sauce, a salad, or a stir fry, their mind will be blown and they’ll be ever so thankful they don’t have to subsist on the snack tray.

Ryan MacMichael is one of those “pesky vegans.” He’s the PVF webmaster but also runs vegblog.org and wrote the foreword for the amazing cookbook Vegan with a Vengeance.

Hello.

I’ve been a customer of the Dulles, VA Wegmans store for several years now. I enjoy the selection of foods that you offer, particularly with regards to produce and specialty convenience foods. I’ve spread the word about Wegmans and have turned a number of people onto the store and they’ve become loyal customers as well.

However, last year, when Compassionate Consumers released their video shot inside your egg farm, I was disheartened. I wasn’t necessarily surprised at what I saw, since these types of atrocities happen every day at factory farms around the world. Rather, I was disheartened and embarrassed by your public response to the footage. Rather than acknowledge there was a problem, you used crafty language to insinuate (with absolutely no evidence) that some of the footage wasn’t shot at your facility. Then you mentioned the concern about the health risk when it’s been shown that factory farmed chicken and eggs are the reason that avian flu has spread so quickly in the first place.

That said, I continued to shop at your store, thinking that you’d come around and would work to make changes like Trader Joe’s and other similar companies. (You may say that you’re “full-service supermarket, not a specialty food store,” but come on… regular supermarkets don’t develop cult followings.)

But with the most recent news of Adam Durand’s sentencing, I can no longer spend money at your store in good conscience. Adam admitted to the misdemeanor he was charged with, but despite the fact he had no previous record, the judge saw fit to comply with your request for a jail sentence. A jail sentence. For a guy who helped sick and dying birds that your egg farm wouldn’t.

I spent a couple hundred dollars a month at Wegmans purchasing produce, vegan convenience foods, and pet supplies. Because of your reaction to the Compassionate Consumers’ movie and your pushing for a jail sentence of Adam Durand, I’m hereby boycotting your store. The money I would have spent at your store will instead go to smaller, local health food stores and to Adam Durand’s defense fund. I’ve also taken time to spread the word on vegblog.org and will be posting a copy of this letter there, as well.

I hope that you reconsider your stance and work to make a change. You have it within your power to do so. You’re recognized as a great place to work for your human employees. Why not try and make it a little less painful for your non-human employees as well?

… Ryan A. MacMichael
Virginia

The current Vegan Freak podcast talks about two stories in the news recently that have really gotten my blood boiling. The first is about Tony Blair’s vocal support for animal testing and his classification of animal rights activists as “terrorists.” Blair was crafty in his use of implying a (non-existent) connection between a letter-writing campaign targeted at shareholders of GlaxoSmithKline and an isolated incident of a weirdo exhuming a someone’s corpse. We have to be very careful when things like this hit the press to remind friends and family that a.) only a select few animals rights activists (like any other group) are wacky, and b.) a significant portion of animal experimentation has nothing to do with finding life-saving answers to diseases but rather with developing drugs for things like erectile dysfunction.

A related story worth mentioning is one from Germany where researchers say that stem-cell testing can be used to replace hundreds of thousands of experiments on animals. That’s outstanding news, but may not matter much here in the United States until we (and by “we” I mean he) wisen up with regards to the use of stem cells.

The second story that raised my ire is about how animal rights activist Adam Durand was sentenced to six months in jail for a misdemeanor. The misdemeanor? Trespassing in Wegmans’ egg facility to gather the footage for Wegmans Cruelty. This is the maximum sentence Durand could have received and no one was actually expecting any jail time for him. It’s an absurd judgement and I won’t speak any more on it at this point, but I will redirect you to what I wrote about Wegmans a month or so ago. If you’d like to help Adam out or just write him to show your support, Compassionate Consumers has the information.

It’s getting more than a little scary with the government declaring animal rights’ activists “terrorists,” legal action being taken against those that do open rescues, and rights for food animals being stripped more and more. But as scary as it is, these actions wouldn’t be taken if an impact weren’t being made. The average consumer is becoming much more aware of what’s happening to make their food and that scares the industry to death. And, really, it’s not privacy matters or even property destruction the industry is most worried about… they’re worried about industry practices becoming common knowledge which can only serve to hurt them in a big way financially.

I just mailed the following letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer as a response to an article titled “Aid pours in for dogs rescued from kennel:”

I’m writing in response to the “Aid pours in for dogs rescued from kennel” article that ran on February 24th, 2006.

It’s touching to see that so much aid and support has poured in for the dogs rescued from an allegedly abusive and neglectful breeder. I’m thankful there are so many people willing to help companion animals in need.

However, I was disheartened to see that the article also featured a list of ways to “Pick a Good Breeder.” Much more appropriate would have been a list of “Reasons to Adopt Rather than Buy from a Breeder,” especially considering the nature of the piece.

Every year, millions of dogs in the United States are killed because there simply aren’t enough people to care for them or enough room in shelters to house them. Often, strays and lost dogs are picked up, kept at a shelter for seven days, and if no one claims them, they are killed to make room for more animals.

Surely, there are good and ethical breeders, but because of the sheer number of surplus dogs that are killed, there is simply no justification for purchasing from a breeder or, even worse, a pet store. If someone is looking to bring a companion animal into their lives, they should adopt from a shelter or rescue organization. Petfinder.com can help in the search for a specific breed, if that’s an important consideration.

Perhaps when the pet population comes under control, buying from breeders will be an ethical choice. But for now, it’s vitally important we save the animals that most need our help.

Ryan MacMichael

Holy cow.

I was doing a little bit of research to see what types of food some of the local public schools make available for students. After reading the article about the school in Atlanta with the amazing veggie-friendly lunch line, I had high hopes for Northern Virginia. Alas, what I came across was quite disappointing. Case in point, this document (PDF), a newsletter titled Nutrifax published by the Fairfax County Public Schools.

Being that it implies there are “fax” about nutrition, you might think that the document included helpful tips about vegetarian diets. Instead, in one page we get loads of half-truths, misinformation, and an undertone of anti-vegetarianism. If I didn’t know better, I’d think someone from the meat industry penned this, but there’s even a phone number to call a “registered dietician” for more information. Here’s a quick look at some of the main problems with this newsletter:

• It’s titled “The Vegetarian Agenda.” Right off the bat, it’s antagonistic.
• Incorrect definition of terms. Here, a semi-vegetarian = pescatarian. Semi-vegetarians just eat “less” meat, which can include any and all meat, poultry, etc. Pescatarians don’t eat beef or poultry, but will eat fish. They also refer to “lacto-ova” vegetarian. As far as I know, this is not an accepted alternate spelling for “lacto-ovo,” though it may be technically acceptable.

• False information about the “risks” of vegetarianism. They have a section about the health benefits of vegetarianism, but it’s half the length of the “risks” section. A blatant falsehood crops up here: “Animal protein is the only source of complete protein with all the essential amino acids present.” One word: quinoa. Also, the soybean has what’s considered a complete protein, though it doesn’t have all of the essential amino acids.

  The risks section continues with more subtle errors, like stating “The more restrictive the diet is
  about eating animal protein, the greater the health risks become.” They mention B12 (which actually only occurs naturally in plant sources but for humans comes primarily from animals that have ingested B12 in their feed) and that “animal protein is the major source for calcium, Vitamin D, and iron.” Remember that most of the best sources of calcium are from plant sources.

  The worst of all the errors, though comes in this paragraph:

  Many grains, legumes and seeds are good sources of protein but need to be combined with one another to become complete proteins. A grain product, another vegetable or an animal derived protein can provide amino acids that are missing in a vegetable. Examples of complementary combinations are beans and rice, peanut butter and bread, macaroni and cheese.

  This section implies that protein-combining in the same meal is required, a belief that was disproven a couple of decades ago. The current school of thought says that a.) most people get too much protein, b.) plant proteins generally don’t have the health risks associated with animal proteins, and c.) as long as you eat a decent variety of foods over the course of a day, your proteins will be plenty well combined.

There’s still a lot of work to be done in the food service industry. While a lot of the statements above may on the surface have a layer of truth, there’s a sense of “vegetarianism is bad and hard to do, so if you have to deal with it, here are some things to tell those annoying people.” We are pests, aren’t we?

With all of the vegetarian/AR-themed blogs out there now, sometimes I worry that the ground I cover has already been covered elsewhere or that certain topics are getting boring for regular readers. But I think I can safely assume that the topic of this post is not one that you’ll be seeing elsewhere, unless it somehow manages to spark some weird discussions that I’m not expecting.

A lot of my passions and interests conflict with each other, at least on the surface. For instance, I run a small hip-hop label, but I’m also a tea geek. I’m big fan of classic diners and diner architecture even though there’s rarely anything I can eat at those greasy spoons. But perhaps the biggest conflict comes with my lifelong interest in horror movies and my firm beliefs in animal rights. I kid around and tell people, “I like blood on the screen, but not on my plate,” but this weird juxtaposition of interests and beliefs actually does cause some inner conflict for me.

The first thought that probably pops into your head is, “But horror movies are fake and always say, ‘No animals were harmed in the making of this film.’” In most cases, you’d be correct, but there are a couple of issues that come up.

First is the more common issue of special effects artists using animal leftovers for their effects. You’ll see this frequently in zombie movies where the zombies are munching on someone’s intestines… they’re usually pig intestines. Filmmakers don’t consider this in their “no animals were harmed” statement since the intestines are by-products. Of course, since vegans concern themselves with by-products or anything associated with animal exploitation, this is an issue. Sure, intestines are generally cast-offs from the slaughter process and, actually, are often obtained directly from slaughterhouses, but the fact remains that these things wouldn’t exist without the suffering of an animal. Even Larry Fessenden, whose movies have actually focused on animal rights, used an actual liver in a scene in Habit. It’s really common.

This issue’s a little tricky. If we were to really concern ourselves with that level of detail, we wouldn’t be able to watch any movie with good conscience for fear of supporting the exploitation of animals. Isn’t using slaughterhouse cast-offs less offensive than a meat-centric lunch being served to everyone involved in a nine month movie shoot? Surely the production of a movie like Lord of the Rings involved more use of animals (for food) than a small budget horror film that shoots for a few weeks and uses a bag or two of pig intestines. Right?

Maybe, maybe not. The answer’s not really clear. Ideally, more filmmakers would apply Fessenden’s idea of “low impact filmmaking,” and I think that’s something that we can encourage as moviegoers and is where we should focus our attention. More effects are being done with CGI these days rather than exploiting animals in one way or another, which is good, so I think there’s probably some advancement being made in that respect. And even with the use of digital video versus film, there’s potential for film to eventually be phased out. However, DV has a long way to go before it ever gets the proper film “look” that’s so important for a movie.

The second thing I think about is a much smaller issue in the grand scheme of things, but it’s bothered me much more. My key interest in horror focuses on Italian horror of the 1970s. While the majority of those films don’t have any more or less involvement with animals than any other horror films, there’s one subgenre of that that period that does: the Italian cannibal movie.

You may be surprised at how many cannibal films were shot by Italian filmmakers in the 1970s and early 80s thanks to directors like Ruggero Deodato, Jess Franco, Joe D’Amato, and Umberto Lenzi. The problem with most of the movies in this subgenre is that the animal violence in these films is real. And not just “National Geographic”-leopard-eating-an-antelope real, either. Since these films are based in jungle settings, the directors chose to show exactly how “savage” the cannibals were by also showing truly disturbing scenes involving torturous deaths of animals.

In the most well-known cannibal film, Ruggero Deodato’s Cannibal Holocaust, a live box turtle is gutted with a carving knife, a squealing pig is shot in the head, a muskrat has its throat slit, a snake is decapitated, and the top of a monkey’s skull is cut off. This brutal, disgusting, and wholly unnecessary footage was used to make up for Deodato’s small budget and lend an air of authenticity. In reality, it’s just abhorrent real life violence that simply cannot be justified.

Of course, Deodato tried. He said, “But we ate the turtle afterwards!” which didn’t satiate anyone. It was still, at its core, the torture of an animal for entertainment. Deodato has also apologized and said it’s the one thing about the movie that haunts him the most. He says he would never do it again.

Whatever the case, the violence is there in a very visual and visceral way. It’s made even the most hardcore meat eaters say, “Now that’s just wrong” and the scenes with the animals are generally considered to be the most disturbing parts of the movie. Of course, as this thoughtful review points out:

One doesn’t have to be Peter Singer to realise that our attitudes towards other animals are inconsistent. How many of those who object to Deodato’s film will happily eat meat, wear leather and place a bet on the Grand National?

I’ve seen Cannibal Holocaust a half-dozen times, including on the big screen. Shoot, I’m even in three of the extras on the recent DVD release. But I can tell you that every time I watched this movie, I’ve turned away during the scenes of animal violence. A lot of people do. While the movie intends to show man’s inhumanity towards his fellow man, it unintentionally shows man’s (specifically, the filmmaker’s) inhumanity towards non-human living beings.

To add an interesting twist, the aforementioned deluxe DVD release includes an “animal cruelty free” version, which skips right past all of the gratuitous animal violence. Needless to say, I’ll be using this option during any future viewings of the movie. While there may be an argument that this ruins the director’s original intent, this is one of the few times where I don’t care. I’m somewhat heartened that the animal violence is seen by enough people as “wrong” to warrant this type of extra treatment on a DVD release. It gives some sort of hope that the animals that were killed didn’t die completely in vain.

I won’t go into the other cannibal movies that use animal violence, but I will note that it goes even deeper in Umberto Lenzi’s atrocious Cannibal Ferox, a movie both so despicable and poorly made it’s entirely unworthy of the film it’s printed on.

I’m having a harder and harder time justifying my enthusiasm for these movies that have exploited animals, but at the very least, they caused enough of a stink over the years that on-screen animal violence is something you just won’t see anymore.

I’d really like to hear what others have to say about this, especially those of you that have a similar love for movies and filmmaking (horror or otherwise).