I spent part of Sunday (and, yes, it’s taking me this long to blog about it) at the Taking Action for Animals conference in DC. I didn’t attend any sessions, as I was just there to help Josh out at the Herbivore table (did I meet any of you there?). Nevertheless, it was hard not to hear about the hubbub surrounding the presentation by humane farmers like Neiman Ranch who were brought in by the Animal Welfare Institute. Reportedly, these farmers showed slideshows that featured photos of cute animals that were all raised oh-so-well. Noticeably absent were photos of these animals meeting their demise. Needless to say, it angered a lot of people in attendance.

What surprised (and disheartened) me most, though, was that nearly half of the crowd at that presentation was ooh-ing and aah-ing at the pictures and stories of the animals, completely falling for the whole “humane meat” thing.

Should we be demonizing farmers who raise their animals in a more humane way than their factory farm counterparts? I’m not into demonizing. But should we be inviting them to speak, unchecked, at an animal rights conference? Should we give them a free pass by clapping and openly praising them? They make their money directly from the slaughter of animals, so I’d say, “Probably not.”

At the very least, we should be inviting these folks to be part of a panel discussion where they can be challenged. A short period of open questions after a presentation isn’t nearly enough.

The AWI argues that TAFA isn’t an animal rights conference and that we shouldn’t “close our minds” when it comes to hearing such presentations. The thing is, these farmers presumably were paid for their appearance. Since they were unchallenged aside from a few audience questions, it amounts to animal advocates paying someone who financially benefits from the slaughter of animals to come and do a marketing spiel.

That’s not too cool with me.

I’d love to hear some more about others who may have attended TAFA, particularly that presentation. After doing a quick blog search and checking in at a few vegan forums, I saw almost no post-discussion of the conference, which surprised me a bit. This is something we need to talk about.

I’ll close with a picture:

SCANDAL: Vegans standing in front of a seafood/chicken restaurant in DC.

Pictured: Gary (from Animal Writings), Deb (from Invisible Voices), and Josh (from Herbivore).

There’s another photo with me in it, but this one’s better.

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.

Thanks to Chris for pointing out this puff piece on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In it, it describes Romney packing up the family for a summer trip:

Before beginning the drive, Mitt Romney put Seamus, the family’s hulking Irish setter, in a dog carrier and attached it to the station wagon’s roof rack. He’d built a windshield for the carrier, to make the ride more comfortable for the dog.

I echo Chris’ sentiment of “WTF?”  Who the heck puts their dog on the roof of their car?  And we’re supposed to be all “Wow, he’s so caring about his dog!” when he builds a windshield for the carrier?

Here’s some news for Romney: dude, your dog isn’t a piece of luggage.  If the family were to get into a car accident, the dog wouldn’t stand a chance.  At least inside the car he has the protection of the vehicle’s frame.  What if the carrier came loose and fell off the car?  Again, the dog has no chance.

This is just another example of “animals as property” that so pervades our lives.  To Romney, the family dog isn’t worth space in the car.  Having him dangerously perched on the roof as they fly down the roads at 65mph is a risk that’s reasonable to him.  Would he consider that same risk with his kids?  Of course not.

Want another example of how Seamus gets treated as property?  OK.

A brown liquid was dripping down the back window, payback from an Irish setter who’d been riding on the roof in the wind for hours.

As the rest of the boys joined in the howls of disgust, Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There, he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway. It was a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management.

Animals rarely get much respect from the oval office.  Sure, President Bush’s dog Barney gets a nicer home page than most people have, but he’s also used to create stupid White House promotional videos.  Then, of course, there’s the debacle that is the presidential turkey pardon at Thanksgiving.  But if Romney were to become president, Seamus would be the worst-treated First Dog since Warren G. Harding’s lab named Seat Cushion.  (That last sentence was said in a manner imitating Jon Stewart.  Imagine me looking coyly at the camera.)

How you treat animals is usually a good indicator of how you treat people.  Perhaps we should keep that in mind when looking at presidential candidates.

A few weeks ago, I was sitting out near the man-made lake by the building where I work.  The lake is home to a number of extremely large koi, large enough to swallow your small child whole.  This particular day was “Bring Your Daughter to Work Day” and a father was walking along the lake with his daughter (who was not eaten by the fish) and a co-worker.  The man pointed out the koi to his daughter.

“See those really large fish?  They get that big because they don’t let people fish in this lake.  So the fish just eat and eat and eat because there’s no one there to catch them.”

I was a little taken aback by this.  The tone he said this in wasn’t one of, “See how happy fish are when you aren’t screwing with them?”  It was more of, “Fish need us to catch them and eat them so they don’t get so huge.”

This sense of entitlement is pervasive among omnivores defending their meat eating.  From the brutish “If we’re able to kill them, we should be able to eat them” to the awfully assuming “God put them here for us” to the it-stopped-being-clever-when-it-became-a-bumper-sticker “God wouldn’t have made animals so tasty if He didn’t want us to eat them,” the underlying theme is that it’s our right as The Mighty Humans to eat what we want, when we want.  We see it when there’s a backlash against a foie gras ban when restaurants that fight against these bans are looked at as freedom fighting heroes rather than purveyors of the most obvious of cruelties.  It’s a very different case from being entitled to use animals because we need them to live: we don’t.  We just want to eat what we think is exotic or what tastes good.

I think that feelings of entitlement are also behind the “they need us to [hunt/milk/catch] them or else they’ll [overpopulate/burst/get huge]” arguments that frequently come up.  In a sense, those arguments are saying, “We’re doing them a favor, so we should be able to eat them.”

I wanted to say to that guy, “Trust me.  Fish definitely don’t need us to catch them.  Just like cows don’t need to be milked and deer don’t need to be sniped.”  Alas, I think my comment would have fallen on deaf ears.  And it might have gotten me thrown in the lake.

Reading through PigProgress.net, “Your Portal On Global Pig Production,” is a strange experience.  Their blog ranges from mundane things like “pellets vs. meal” to “Salmonella testing – is it going to cause a problem for you?” and discussions about piglet tail docking.  They have a section on gestation crates and feature ads for companies that make “agri-housing” for animals (lots of images of chicken buildings and pig buildings therein).  Overall, though, the tone of the site is much tamer than similar ones from other industries.

What baffles me, though, is their “pigculular news” section which features supposedly off-the-wall stories about pigs, but which really ends up reinforcing the idea that pigs are smart, sentient beings.  It surprises me to no end to see the industry promoting stories like “Pet dog cares for discarded piglets” and “Piglets take on art world.”  Of course, they also have unfortunate stories like “Alabama boy, 11, kills giant pig” and “Pig bladder helped man regrow his fingertip,” but overall, the tone of the stories are the type you might expect to find on an animal rights blog.

Very weird.

All animals are worthy of our respect and maybe stories like this one out of Alaska will help others begin to grasp that.

A 50-ton bowhead whale was caught off the Alaskan coast last month.  In him was a very old weapon fragment that experts used to place the age of the whale at between 115 and 130-years-old.  A hundred years ago, this whale survived a shot by whale hunters and roamed the oceans for a century, wearing the weapon fragment like a badge of honor.  Bowhead whales can live to be 200-years-old, making them “perhaps the most aged animals on Earth.”

Unfortunately, this particular whale met his match last month when hunters killed it with a similar weapon, which is described in the following terms:

The 49-foot male whale died when it was shot with a similar projectile last month, and the older device was found buried beneath its blubber as hunters carved it with a chain saw for harvesting.

“Harvesting” is one of those terms that should limited to grains and vegetables, not sentient beings.

According to the article, whales are a primary source of food for Alaskans and a hunting quota has been renewed to allow 255 whales to be killed by ten Alaskan villages over a five year period.

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

Today is National Pig Day, which as you might imagine has nothing to do with celebrating pigs for, um, being pigs.  Instead, food blog Serious Eats celebrates with features on Chinese Pork Butt, regional barbecued pork, and “pig chefs.”

Perhaps the most repulsive article, though, is 30 Days of Pork, which discusses a vegetarian’s return to meat eating by eating pig every day for a month. 

From the article (emphasis mine):

Ms. Kelso (right), a 34-year-old executive producer for an interactive ad agency in San Francisco, became a vegetarian while living with a vegan boyfriend. “He was adamant that his cookware not come in contact with any meat products.” Because she cares about animals, their welfare, and their ethical treatment, she said, she found it relatively easy to give up meat. But, she says, “I love the taste, so I was one of those vegetarians who would always try all the fake meats.”

It was after reading Michael Pollan’s book The Omnivore’s Dilemma, however, that Ms Kelso was prompted to rethink her reasons for becoming a vegetarian—namely her interest in remaining true to personal ethics regarding the impact of food on the environment and society. The book, which came out earlier this year, follows four very different meals from source to table while assessing their ethical, economical, and social impact along the way.

“After reading it, I realized that I was in violation of those ethics even while being a vegetarian,” Ms. Kelso said. “Unless I drop out of society, live in the forest, and become a hunter-gatherer, I have an impact based on what I buy, no matter what it is.”

I’ve been thinking a lot about this whole “conscientious omnivore” thing (and, somewhat related, the welfare v.s. rights v.s. abolition argument — that, I’ll cover separately) and the more I see things like this, the more the idea of being promoting ”conscientious omnivorousness” bothers me.

Yes, it would be nice if people that ate meat started caring about how the animals were treating.  Yes, it would be nice if learning about slaughterhouses, dairy farms, and egg farms eventually led these people on a path to veganism.  And, yes, eating locally farmed meat may be marginally better than factory farmed meat (in the same way that punching someone in the face with your fist is better than punching them while wearing brass knuckles).

But, no, it’s not nice to keep seeing these articles about so-called ethical vegetarians that decide to go back to eating meat because now they can eat “happy meat” and have their conscience sated.  People like Kelso are drawing conclusions from books like The Omnivore’s Dilemma and The Way We Eat that allow them to return to meat consumption with a clear heart, convinced somehow that eating animals is more ethically correct than not eating animals.  That’s some seriously shaky ground.

The article ends thusly:

While she says that she may go back to being a vegetarian (or maybe not), Ms. Kelso is looking forward to the holidays at home, where, she says, her father is awaiting her visit. “He’s obsessed with cooking and is very excited about the next time I go out and visit him. He’s already planning all his special meat dishes.”

*sigh*  I’m sure the pigs are all just as excited.

Cloning opens door to ‘farmyard freaks’

However, GM scientists are actively investigating ways to remove the stress and aggression gene from animals, effectively turning them into complacent zombies.

The professor said it might become technically possible to produce “animal vegetables” - beasts which are “highly prolific and oblivious to their physical and mental status”.

DAMN IT. Seriously. When will we stop acting like idiots trying to invent sentience-free animals and just, you know, stop eating animals that don’t want to be eaten?!

(via BoingBoing)

There are a lot of great companies out there, large and small, that are making products with sustainability and ethics in mind. A lot of them started small and got acquired by larger companies, which causes some justified concern about the integrity, ongoing direction, and ultimate intentions of the company going forward, but we’ll leave that aside for now.

My New Year’s wish is directed at those companies, big and small, that are “nearly vegan”… companies that have always made products without meat, that market themselves to vegetarians, and make it very clear which of their products are vegan. There are a lot of these types of companies, but for no reason other than their visibility, I’ll single out two: Amy’s Kitchen and Endangered Species Chocolate. Both companies are well aware of vegans and make it clear which of their products are vegan-safe, which is great. But here’s the question: why not go all the way?

While Amy’s doesn’t come right out and mention ethics or animal rights in their mission statement, but they hint at it. Endangered Species, though, uses animals as their primary focus. They donate a percentage of their profits to animal-related charities and they use only “ethically traded” cocoa. Shoot, their mission statement even starts off: “Here, our core value is Reverence for Life…”

Why, then, do both companies use dairy-based ingredients in their products? It’s been well-argued by Erik Marcus and others^* that dairy is an even worse ethical choice than beef, so it’s not ethically consistent for pro-animal companies to involve themselves in any sort of animal exploitation, let alone something as egregiously exploitative as dairy.

Amy’s: you already leave out eggs. Your recent deal with Follow Your Heart means you can ditch the dairy and non-vegan soy cheese. Your spinach and soy cheese pizza on rice crust is incredible. So, c’mon, just do it! And Endangered Species: everyone knows that milk chocolate is inferior to dark chocolate. Why not go all the way and offer strictly dark chocolate, sans dairy?

^* Beware the second-to-last paragraph in that linked article–it’s garbage.

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.

As Thanksgiving is tomorrow here in the US and families feast on dead flesh from coast to coast, I thought I’d pass on a few facts from the industry itself:

In 2005, about 256 million turkeys were raised. We estimate that 46 million of those turkeys were eaten at Thanksgiving, 22 million at Christmas and 19 million at Easter.

For those into percentages, that means that 18% of all turkeys raised are eaten on a single day (and 34% on the three holidays listed above).

Interestingly, the page this info came from lists a bunch of facts about turkeys that could actually turn people off from eating turkey. Admitting your food has an individual personality or unique traits probably isn’t the best idea for an industry that exists to serve you these same dead animals.

I’m going to point you to my post from last year which has a bunch of good information about the bird that somehow became associated with Thanksgiving. I’m also going to suggest you fill out the National Turkey Federation’s survey.

Have a good meat-free holiday, everyone.

The Washington Post has a story in today’s paper titled Intelligence Of Dolphins Cited in Fight Against Hunt that discusses the fight marine scientists are launching against dolphin hunting as part of Japan’s annual “Dolphin drive.” According to the Wikipedia entry on the subject:

When a pod of dolphins has been spotted, they’re driven into a bay with boats by the fishermen while banging on metal rods hanging in the water to scare them. When the dolphins are in the bay, it is quickly closed off with nets so the dolphins cannot escape. The dolphins are not always caught and killed immediately, but sometimes left to calm down over night. If so, the dolphins are caught one by one and killed the following day. The killing of the animals used to be done by slitting their throats which resulted in a long and painful death for the dolphin, but the Japanese government banned this method and now dolphins may officially only be killed by driving a metal pin into the neck of the dolphin, which causes them to die within seconds.

The picture accompanying the Post article is particularly horrific, showing hunters in a boat surrounded by blood red waters.

Critics of the hunt call it “inhumane” because “according to a growing body of research, are not just intelligent but sophisticatedly self-aware.” Unfortunately, victims of other types of hunting around the world are rarely afforded the same respect. While I agree that dolphin hunting is terrible and needs to be stopped, linking inhumane treatment with intelligence perpetuates the idea that only “smart” animals rated against some arbitrary scale derived by us are worthy of saving.

An interesting quote later in the articles comes from Takumi Fukuda, the fisheries attache at the Japanese Embassy in Washington, a defender of the event:

It is “quite natural . . . no one wants to expose the killing scene to the public, like no meat company wants to release pictures from the killing scene in their slaughterhouses,” Fukuda said. “We should understand that all animal killing scenes contain certain cruelty.”

…

He added that there is a growing awareness among fishermen of a need for more humane methods.

“We understand and think it is necessary to shorten the time until the dolphin dies, so we have been trying to shorten the times,” he said.

That last bit sounds an awful lot like the welfare argument being used in the factory farm reform movement. People fighting for an end to the dolphin hunt won’t settle for “more humane methods,” will they? Should we?

Veg Blog regular kitchenmage wrote an entry on her blog a few weeks back titled Some of my best friends are vegan… where she asks, “What’s with the faux meat? … [I]f you are a vegan for ethical reasons, I can’t see how you could eat faux steak. You’re not eating a cow because it’s ethically wrong so why are you pretending to eat a cow? What’s up with that?”

I know I’ve written about this before, but am too lazy to do a search and find it. So, I just thought I’d include my response here:

Sorry for the delay in replying to this post, but here goes…

The simple answer:

I gave up meat for ethical reasons. I didn’t give up meat because I disliked the taste. Thus, if I can have something that reminds me of the flavor and texture of meat that I enjoyed while also being cruelty-free, what’s the problem?

The expanded version:

I hear a lot from people saying, “Oh God, soy ____? That’s gross.” But, to me, eating something made of soy or wheat, whatever it is, is much less disturbing than something made of an animal that used to be alive.

That said, I can understand why some vegans won’t eat fake meat or are creeped out by it. For many, it reminds them too much of the real thing and the gag reflex may kick in. For me, though, knowing simply that it’s not meat is enough for me to enjoy it with a good conscience.

In addition, fake meats are an awesome transitional food for new vegetarians coming from a meat-heavy background that have no clue what they’re going to eat.

Does all that make sense?

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 Center for Science in the Public Interest (best known as “those guys that fought to get trans fat listed on nutritional labels”) publish a newsletter called Nutrition Action. It’s a good read with solid scientific information about diet and health, often debunking or questioning claims behind supplements. It’s far from vegan, as they are often recommending dairy and meat, but that sort of makes sense since they’re focused solely on health. They never speak against a vegan diet, but I suppose they know their readership is primarily non-vegetarian.

However, in May 2006 I was very surprised to see a full-page ad for their campaign against palm oil. Palm oil is very prevalent in processed foods and isn’t exactly healthy, so it’s not unusual that they’re speaking out against it, but what surprised me is the angle they’re taking. Their main ad reads “DYING FOR A COOKIE?” and underneath says, “Palm oil production is killing orangutans and other endangered wildlife.” Their full report talks about palm oil’s detrimental effect on health, the environment, and wildlife. This is the first time that I can remember that the CSPI has made note of the animal suffering associated with any food product.

One danger they note is that with the new trans fat designation on nutrition labels, many companies are looking to switch away from partially hydrogenated oils. The danger is that they might move to palm oil.

If companies replaced the 2.5 billion pounds of partially hydrogenated oil used annually in foods needing a solid fat with palm oil, U.S. palm oil imports would triple over the 2003 level. Such an increase would require about 1,240 square miles of new oil palm plantations—an area that represents rainforest habitat for up to 65 Sumatran rhinos, 54 elephant families, 65 Sumatran tigers, and 2,500 orangutans.

Good job, CSPI. Let’s see more of it in the future and it wouldn’t kill you to start mentioning vegetarian diets a bit more, would it?

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.

The other day, the dog and I were going for a walk around a man-made lake. The weather was really nice, but I was still surprised to see no less than 15 people scattered around the edge of the lake, fishing. This particular lake didn’t strike me as much of a hotspot for fish (this is the same lake where I shot a set of photos featuring abandoned shopping carts), but it still got me thinking.

Fishing is one of those activities that’s viewed by many cultures as one of the most meditative, relaxing ones we can engage in. It forces us to slow down, be patient, and live in the moment. Unfortunately, it also means injuring or killing fish (yes, even if you throw them back). So, I got to thinking… is there any fish-friendly way to go fishing?

The act of feeding fish is harmless enough as long we’re careful about what we give them. But just tossing food into the water lacks the in-the-moment quality of sitting in a rowboat with a fishing pole in hand (I’m guessing here… I haven’t been fishing since I was a kid). So, would there be a way to take a standard fishing pole and replace the hook with something that can hold food while it sits in the water but not injure the fish when he tries to eat it? Do things like this already exist?

I’ll smile the first time I hear someone say, “I just fed a 7 1/2 pound perch!” rather than “I just caught a 7 1/2 pound perch! *”

* May be followed by “and it was the best moment of my presidency!”

Over the last few years, I’ve seen a lot of these types of stories, ones where someone (often a school principal) will kiss a pig if a certain amount of money is raised for charity. In this story, whoever raises the most money gets to kiss the pig and “bring… Wilbur home.” The money raised pays for youth programs and the maintenance of the Loudoun County fairgrounds’ livestock and show buildings.

Ugh.

In the usual case, kissing the pig is portrayed as this crazy, disgusting thing… a “sacrifice” a person will make as an incentive to raise money. While it amuses a lot of people, it does nothing to battle the stereotype of pigs as dirty, disgusting animals. But, really, unless a pig’s been out for a roll in the mud on a summer day, kissing a pig on the nose is no more disgusting than kissing your dog on the nose.

Maybe I’m making too much out of it. Maybe it’s just a harmless way to raise money. But, in the article linked above, there’s little question: the pig that’s “won” will either be killed for food. “Wilbur” will be eaten.

And I wonder what “youth programs” will be supported by money raised at a fair with bull riding, dairy shows, goat shows, and a livestock auction (”offering Beef, Lamb, Goat, Pork, Chicken, Duck, Rabbit, and much more!”). I might be making some false assumptions here, but I can’t find any further information on the “youth programs,” so I’m left to guess. It’s also unclear how much of the money raised will go to the fairgrounds, which promote more of this type of event.

The last couple of days, we’ve focused on large companies or organizations with significant financial resources that are using their money to denounce comparatively pauper-like animal rights groups. Today, though, we go to the other end of the spectrum and look at individuals who hold some sort of grudge against animal rights advocates, people that feel strongly enough that they start a web site to attack AR groups and activists.

Let’s take a moment to consider what could drive an individual to take the time out of their life to specifically work against animals and activities meant to protect them. The way I figure it, there are a few forces that could be at play:

• They feel threatened by the work of animal rights advocates and feel that their own “rights” (the right to eat meat, the right to wear fur, the right to hunt) are being infringed upon. I wonder if these people start sites of a way to justify their own beliefs even more than to further a cause.
• They’ve been personally attacked by strong-armed AR tactics in the past. Maybe back in the 90s they were walking out of Saks Fifth Avenue wearing a fur coat and someone with PETA threw red paint on them. This type of person harbors a resentment at being singled out and physically attacked for something they believe or wear and they want to fight back.
• They genuinely hate animals. I suspect that this group is quite small. Most people can feel at least some sort of compassion and see the importance that groups like PETA and HSUS play in animal welfare.

From what I’ve seen on anti-AR sites, members of the first group (or at least people who I think fit that profile) are the most prevalent. They get members of the second group on their side by focusing less on the actual cause of animal protection and more on the “outrageous” things that advocates may do in the name of the cause. They won’t acknowledge the work that PETA does to help homeless companion animals but they’ll jump all over the PETA Kills Puppies bandwagon. They’ll attack any comparisons to factory farms and the Holocaust, but won’t think for a second that it’s not the victims that are being compared, but the act of victimization.

Looking at this list shows that there are a pretty significant number of these sites out there. Not all sites on that list are still alive and some of them are meat industry sites, but a good chunk are maintained by individuals that just hate animal rights activists and, in some cases, the actual animal rights cause.

The sites with discussion forums can be particularly frustrating to read because a lot of times, a lack of compassion and understanding is masked by a facade of logic. Often, the tone is more of “look, the wackos are at it again” rather than “I can understand their reasons, but disagree with their methods and here’s why.” Thankfully, I’ve seen a number of AR folks participate in discussions on the forums, so every so often there is an actual exchange of ideas.

I’d like to think that even if the people that run and participate in these sites are on the other side of the fence, they’re still in the same pasture. The fact they go through so much effort shows that they’re at least thinking about the issue. Perhaps if there are enough thoughtful arguments presented, enough positive action being taken, then people that are vehemently anti-AR can begin to understand where we’re coming from.

Change isn’t likely to come by trying to convert everyone into a hemp-loving soy-eating vegan. Real change will come when it becomes impossible for the average person to deny the underlying importance of animal liberation and can no longer put their own pleasures and desires ahead of those that suffer as a result.

(This is the first entry of five in a week-long series I’m calling “Know Thy Enemy Week,” which will feature quotes and perspectives of those that don’t have the interests of animals in mind. By paying close attention to how corporations and anti-AR folks think, perhaps we can learn a little better how to deal with these attitudes and turn the “enemies” into allies.)

For our first entry, I figured I’d feature the hot story that just won’t go away. I’m sure most Veg Blog readers have seen the excellent footage gathered by Compassionate Consumers in 2004 inside a Wegmans egg farm. It’s horrifying, as is pretty much all footage shot inside factory farm operations: hens living atop rotting corpses of their cagemates, many of them getting their beaks or legs caught in the cage’s wire, and others dying a slow, painful death in the manure pit. Erik Marcus often says that every egg has 30 hours of cruelty attached to it, and when you see how millions of egg-laying hens live their lives before being shipped off for slaughter, it’s clear that “cruelty” is too light of a word.

The thing is, the footage inside the Wegmans egg farm isn’t anything more shocking than other similar expose footage. But you have to look at the company behind the farm. Wegmans is often pointed to as one of the Best Places to Work because of how well they treat their (human) employees. They offer gourmet foods, many “natural” foods, organic produce, and many vegan/vegetarian convenience foods at competitive prices. They’re like a Whole Foods combined with a Safeway combined with a bakery combined with a cafe combined with a Target. Clearly, their target audience isn’t the standard consumer.

Because of this, I would expect more from Wegmans. I’d expect them to follow Trader Joe’s lead and not sell eggs from caged birds under their store brand. But because of these same factors, I see why Compassionate Consumers targeted them specifically: a company like Wegmans should be more likely to make changes in animal welfare to maintain their reputation.

Unfortunately, that didn’t prove to be the case. Instead, Wegmans released this despicable press release last November (updated a few days ago) claiming not only that they treat their hens well but that the footage in the video may not have been shot at the Wegmans egg farm. Of course, they’ve offered no evidence that this is the case and are simply using that deceptive language to plant a seed of doubt in their customers’ heads. In fact, Wegmans makes a lot of questionable claims shrouded by clever use of language:

In November of 2005, our farm participated in its annual audit of the United Egg Producers (UEP) Certified program, which outlines a set of science-based standards for cage space, air and water quality, nutritious food, and other animal care practices. The USDA conducted this audit, and we received a perfect score - 200 out of 200. (Our score in 2004 was in the high 190’s.)

The UEP Certified program is, for all intents and purposes, meaningless. The UEP is an industry group that creates their own rules, rules that allow for painful debeaking of hens and extremely tight confinement (allowing each bird a mere 67-86 square inches - less than a sheet of 8 1/2″x11″ paper and over 200 square inches less than a hen needs to be able to flap her wings). In fact, “UEP Certified” is the term the industry has been forced to use after Compassion Over Killing showed that their previous label, “Animal Care Certified,” was misleading. I encourage you to read the industry’s own guidelines (PDF) for yourself.

In the end, it was determined there was no evidence of animal abuse. The New York State Police and the Wayne County District Attorney’s office jointly conducted the investigation, and Wegmans fully cooperated.

I’m guessing this is because most states exempt chickens from anti-cruelty laws and as long as it’s “standard industry practice” (set, of course, by the industry), then it’s OK.

Food safety and food security are non-negotiable for us. We welcome customer debate on any topic, but we cannot tolerate illegal entry into our laying houses because of the obvious risk that a disease, like avian flu, could be tracked in.

It’s interesting that they bring this up, considering many believe the reason that avian flu has spread like it has is specifically because of factory farm confinement operations.

Eggs produced by cage-free hens are available at Wegmans. These eggs cost more to produce, so the retail price is much higher than Wegmans eggs. Three nationally-known specialty food stores are often lauded for switching to cage-free eggs only. Wegmans is a full-service supermarket, not a specialty food store. (Emphasis mine.)

They’re not a speciality food store? Baloney. Compare Wegmans to your local Safeway and you’ll see they’re not a mere “full-service supermarket.” Regular old supermarkets don’t develop scary cult followings. Specialty food stores do.

The final statement of the press release is the most telling:

We don’t believe we should force all of our customers to pay more than double the price for a dozen eggs just because a few people think we should.

It’s all about keeping prices down, which inevitably means that the birds suffer as a result. And if it were really just a “few people” would similar campaigns have worked with Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and Wild Oats? How about the 80 universities and colleges that will no longer use caged birds’ eggs in their dining halls? It’s a legitimate concern of many, many consumers and Wegmans is failing to acknowledge that.

Compassionate Consumers takes on this same statement from Wegmans. Take a look, it’s a great read.

So, know thy enemy. One would think that a seemingly progressive-thinking company like Wegmans would consider animal welfare as an important issue, but it’s become clear that they’re acting no different from any other factory farm operation that works under the “UEP Certified” label. How can we work with Wegmans to change their policy? Support groups like Compassionate Consumers. Write to Wegmans to express your disgust with not only their farms but with their public response. I firmly believe that they will change their ways, but it’s going to take time and determination.

Also, keep an eye out on April 14th. ABC’s Primetime is slated to cover the Wegmans egg farm investigation. Should be interesting to see how evenly the story is covered.

If you live in Chicago and want to speak out against the horror that is foie gras, I encourage you to visit Farm Sanctuary’s Chicago campaign page and contact your alderman. The campaign is very close to being won, but still needs more support. The vote could happen as early as Sunday, so it’s imperative that if you live in Chicago you take the time now to speak up.

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).

Suffering and the capacity to anticipate it

This is a great post from ThinkVegan about the difference between the anticipation of pain in human and non-human animals. There’s an argument that says since animals can’t anticipate forthcoming pain the way that humans can, they don’t suffer the way that humans can. However, the writer argues, the very fact that animals can’t anticipate the pain in the same way may well make it worse. He uses the example of a human knowing he’s about to be tortured and how the suffering occurs in the time leading up the torture because of the anticipation. However, for a cat put into a crate and being taken to the vet, all they know is that they’re being taken away from something familiar and are filled with anxiety about what’s to come, even if it’s just a routine visit to the vet. Thus, with an animal, extra care needs to be taken anytime the animal is taken against their will out of their home.

It’s an interesting observation and theory. Take a gander… he explains it much more eloquently than I just did.

Federal Turkeys Wing It This Year

As I mentioned a few years ago, the whole presidential turkey pardon is a frustratingly annoying event. It’s meant to be this cutesy gesture, all “Hey, look, it’s so cute and funny! We’re pardoning turkeys from their death sentence! Tee-hee!” (Interestingly, as a blogger somewhere pointed out, it’s a gesture that the death row inmates in Texas rarely got…)

This year, after pressure from PETA, the turkeys won’t be going to Frying Pan Park in Herndon, VA. Many pardoned turkeys in recent years have died within a year. Frying Pan Park denies any wrongdoing and points to the unnatural weight these turkeys have to hold. I can’t say for sure whether the turkeys were treated well or not, but I know that we’ve got a number of would-have-been-Thanksgiving turkeys at Poplar Spring and all of them have lived long lives well beyond a year. This year’s birds will be flown first class to Disneyland.

Of course, this pardon doesn’t do much to bring to light the life and ultimate fate of 45 million other turkeys each Thanksgiving (that’s 15% of all turkey consumed each year in the United States). In honor of the millions of birds that wind up on Amercia’s table on the fourth Thursday of each November, some facts about turkeys and the conditions they’re raised in:

• Farm Sanctuary’s Turkey Industry Information
• PETA’s Top 10 Reasons Not to Eat Turkeys
• PETA’s information about turkeys (be sure to watch the videos, too)
• The Vegetarian Society’s Information Sheet on Turkeys
• National Wild Turkey Federation’s Wild Turkey facts - They’re a group that “preserves our hunting heritage,” but they’ve got some great information about types of wild turkeys
• Robyn’s Eastern Wild Turkey Page - “The only known web site on wild turkeys as pets.” Um, OK… still, lots of interesting info here.
• Wikipedia on turkeys
• Hybrid Turkeys - Another example of how the industry viewed farmed animals simply as units. Take this particularly cold text from the company’s “about” page: “Hybrid customers all over the world continue to profit from Hybrid’s ongoing research and development programs. Improvement in Hybrid’s well established, wide ranging gene pool ensures that various strains of turkeys are available to specifically address every market need.”

This weekend, an article in the Washington Post appeared titled “McNuggets of Wisdom.” The article focused on the question of whether or not chickens are as smart as dogs and takes place at none other than Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary, my favorite place to spend a Saturday.

It’s a cute article, lighthearted and generally positive towards chickens. But articles like this get me thinking: we spend an awful lot of time figuring out how “smart” one animal is versus another… pigs are more intelligent than dogs and can play video games, chickens aren’t as smart as cows because their brain is smaller, etc. When all is said and done, does any of that really matter?

In the west, we place a lot of value on intelligence in animals and seem to avoid eating those that are somehow “more intelligent” like horses, dogs, or cats. I don’t think that sentience or the will to live is dictated solely by intelligence, but we tend to tie these things together and use them to determine an animal’s “value.” Besides, it’s a pretty pointless exercise trying to compare the intelligence of chickens and dogs… they’re intelligent in different ways. Sure, a chicken won’t fetch a frisbee, but the social structures they form are surprisingly complex.

Just as a person’s true value doesn’t lie in his intelligence, any other animal’s value shouldn’t either.

Clone-Generated Milk, Meat May Be Approved: Favorable FDA Ruling Seen as Imminent

Yikes. I’m happier than ever to be a vegan.

Let’s take a look at this article:

Many in agriculture believe such genetic copies are the next logical step in improving the nation’s livestock.

Notice how they mention improving the livestock itself and not the conditions the livestock live in? As Erik Marcus says, animals are units.

Consumer groups counter that many Americans are likely to be revolted by the idea of serving clone milk to their children or tossing meat from the progeny of clones onto the backyard grill. This “yuck factor,” as it’s often called, has come to light repeatedly in public opinion surveys. Asked earlier this year in a poll by the International Food Information Council whether they would willingly buy meat, milk and eggs that come from clones if the FDA declared them to be safe, 63 percent of consumers said no.

Hearing things like this makes me think that Erik’s hopes for vat-grown meat as a way to reduce the amount of suffering may have trouble getting off the ground in the consumer market. Of course, to me, the “yuck factor” associated with cloned meat is on part with the “yuck factor” regular ol’, factory farmed meat.

The article also mentions how cloned animals’ milk will hit the shelves soon, but probably not the meat from the cloned animals themselves because the clones are so expensive to create. For a second I thought, “Well, at least there are no dairy cow offspring that will become veal this way, right? Maybe it’s an ever-so-slightly more compassionate glass of milk.” Turns out, not really:

[Clones would] be used as breeding stock, so the real question is whether their sexually produced offspring would be safe.

The animals don’t get cut any break here. They may be able to clone a cow, but that can’t cut out the sentience gene.

He’s a merchant of boar semen, keeping about 80 valuable animals. Rural students, usually members of 4-H clubs or the Future Farmers of America, order semen from these champion animals at $50 to $150 a vial and use it to inseminate local sows in hopes of creating a winning pig.

I really have no intelligent comment about this paragraph. I just wanted to quote “He’s a merchant of boar semen.” Wasn’t that a Shakespearean comedy, The Merchant of Boar Semen?

One recent morning, two cloned calves pranced around a field outside Austin. Their progenitors were not living animals, but rather cattle that had already been butchered and hung on a hook in a slaughterhouse. The calves were selected for cloning after receiving high grades for meat quality and yield, judgments that couldn’t have been made while the originals were still alive.

Priscilla, born in April, and Elvis, born in June, were created by ViaGen. They’re destined to be bred together in an effort to create prime stock. If it works, ViaGen will clone a large population of once-dead cattle, aiming to sell them or their offspring for breeding.

This is kind of sad. Sure, they’re “pranc[ing] around a field,” which most calves don’t get to do, but the whole idea of creating “prime stock” for breeding purposes from “once-dead” cattle comes off as a some sort of crazy zombie-cow experiment. And the cloned cows and their offspring are the only ones who suffer if something goes wrong. This doesn’t really matter to those benefitting financially, as the following quote shows:

Published research shows risks to the health of clones at all stages of their lives. But the genetic problems aren’t likely to alter the food value of clones…

“Food value.” There’s another one of those “animals are units” phrases.

As long as the industry is looking for ways to produce milk, eggs, and meat at an even cheaper cost-per-”unit,” we’ll continue to see things like this. Unfortunately, there’s no going back to family farming and the idea that we may be paying too little for our food is foreign to most people.

I have no doubt that the industry and science will continue to find ways to lower the cost of meat production. They always have. The problem is that it’s al