Stop the Fight Against Factory Farming, Save the Animal Rights Movement
Rescued from a Missouri "family farm"
It’s time for the vegan/animal rights movement to stop battling factory farming. And by that, of course, I mean that it’s time to stop presenting factory farming as the enemy, as the sole problem, when the problem is not confined to factory farming. Why? Because it isn’t working. And I’m tired of reading articles like the one published in yesterday’s New York Press, about how hip it is now for vegans and vegetarians to go back to eating animals, now that they can get “humane,” local, feel-good flesh and animal products; about how there’s no need to stop eating animals if you’re not eating “factory-farmed” animals; about how even vegan and vegetarian restaurateurs think they need to add flesh to their menus.
This is crap, people. Scary, disturbing crap. And the animal rights movement is contributing to it. We’re at a fork in the road, and it’s time for us to shift strategy and change course. Now.
The article at issue leads off with the tale of New York’s former Red Bamboo restaurant and its recent addition of animal flesh to the formerly vegetarian (but not vegan) menu (the restaurant is also no longer called “Red Bamboo” — it apparently closed at the end of December and reopened this month under a new name; I’m not sure why the article failed to point this out):
“It [dietary trends] has been my demographic for 15 years, and I have seen it change from vegetarian, to vegan and then back to meat.”
Once upon a time, vegetarianism or veganism was the calling card of the socially conscious 20-something. Stocking up on soymilk and Boca burgers and celebrating birthdays at restaurants like Kate’s Joint, a vegetarian diner open since 1996 on Avenue B, were de rigueur. But these days, as high-profile chefs like David Chang resolutely refuse to cater to an animal product-free world, many New York vegetarians are giving up the greens and developing a taste for flesh.
“I suddenly woke up to the fact that I had access to meat I feel great about,” says Gabrielle Langholtz, editor of Edible Brooklyn and Edible Manhattan magazines. “I thought all meat was produced in this horrific way, but now I eat some meat raised by my husband or raised on pasture, on green grass under blue sky.”
And — wait for it –
People were encouraged to avoid meat with scary PETA videos and horror stories about factory farming, but these days, newly carnivorous New Yorkers are able to cushion their consciousnesses with locally grown, free range and all-around-happy meat. It’s guiltfree grub, and there’s no shortage of eaters buying into it.
Everybody together now: AAAaaaaarrrgghh!
I know I’ve explored this topic often over the last year or so, but only because it’s damn important. Such articles come out regularly these days, yet too many in the animal rights movement still insist that what we see being described and hear people saying isn’t really happening — that it’s only “anecdotal.” But how many anecdotes do we need to see and hear before we acknowledge that this is the direction we’re moving in?
And we in the animal rights movement aren’t innocent bystanders in the trend. For as long as we keep talking about factory farming as The Great Evil and about minor welfare reforms as The Great Changes; for as long as we keep funding and endorsing Big Giant Nonprofit campaigns that set up false dichotomies and perpetuate humane myths (watch for this post in the coming week or two; I’ve been holding it in (yea for censorship!) for over a year); for as long as we keep failing to talk openly, compassionately, and with full honesty about what we really believe and know — that there is no “happy meat” and “guiltfree [animal-based] grub” and that passable welfare reforms aren’t even significant enough to be considered Band-Aids – the trend described in this horrifying article isn’t going to reverse.
People need those of us who know about our fellow animals, about who they are, to really talk about them, as individuals, as mothers and sons and friends and companions, as beings with thoughts and feelings and joys and sorrows and the desire — and right — to live. People need to know that (1) “free-range,” “local” operations often involve the same barbaric practices and always involve the same brutal slaughter as “factory farms,” and (2) even if they didn’t, exploiting and slaughtering our fellow animals just because we like the way their dead bodies and “products” taste still wouldn’t be okay — blowing a bullet through a fellow terrified animal’s head or slicing a knife through a fellow animal’s throat or ripping apart a bellowing, frantic mother and baby or causing any other unnecessary harm, for our selfish pleasure, is not “humane.”
There’s nothing extreme about saying that. But there is something dishonest and dangerous about not saying it, compassionately and respectfully but consistently, especially when we can see the direction we’re heading. To be clear, I am not someone who objects to exposing and discussing cruelties, whether on small farms or factory farms — I think that’s important too – but it cannot be all we talk about. Otherwise, we get this:
“The evolution of my thinking is typical of my group,” says Langholtz. “Everyone who was eating tofu in 1992 is eating lamb now.”
And that makes this a sad and scary day. It is time to reevaluate our movement and our strategies, folks. We owe our fellow animals that. Intentions have been good. Hearts have been big. People promote certain campaigns and use certain language and maintain certain focus and withhold certain beliefs and information and support certain groups because they think those are the right, effective choices.
But what’s been happening in the world of animal advocacy hasn’t been effective, not at truly turning things around for our fellow animals. So it’s time we turn around the movement.
—
Edit: In case there’s any confusion about this, as I gathered there might be after this post began accruing comments, I’m not arguing that factory farms aren’t abhorrent or that we should stop opposing them; I’m arguing that they’re not the problem. I’m arguing that framing “factory farming” as the problem — and the end of “factory farming” as our goal — is not only dishonest but also ultimately harmful.
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
“Everyone who was eating tofu in 1992 is eating lamb now.”
Well, I guess now we know what kind of asshole eats a lamb.
Sorry, couldn’t help it. Laugh or cry.
Never Trust an Ex-Vegan.
No, seriously. If you go back to eating animal products because you can now “feel good” that the animals didn’t live their lives in deplorable conditions (but just died in them), then you never quite got the message anyway. They’re as willfully ignorant as the always-omnivorous, and even worse, they SHOULD know better.
Veganism is no more a trendy lifestyle than not murdering other human animals is. Make of that what you will.
Ex-vegans, I find, are the most dangerous people to any animal rights conversation.
Great post! I can’t wait to read the one you’ve been holding back for a year. :)
These words right back at you:
Animal rights, at its heart, is the most unextreme philosophy I can imagine. It is about nonviolence. It is about compassion. It is about not harming and not causing suffering and not killing when we don’t have to. That’s it. It is really, truly that simple. ~Stephanie Ernst
I have a difficult time understanding how people can willfully block out the “killing” part. But I suppose it’s easy if they follow the mantra that these (happy) animals “gave” their lives.
I agree, it’s all disheartening.
Thank you so much for this post.
Factory “farms” are the rule, with less intensive confinement as the exception; however, all food-industry enslavement and slaughter is cruel and unjust. Our movement needs to get serious about opposing speciesism, promoting veganism, and advocating liberation from property status and basic rights (life and liberty) extension for nonhuman animals. May we all speak for the oppresed – loudly and without apology!
I understand what you are saying, and I realize humankind should go vegan. But this strikes me like a socialist telling the anti-corporate globaliation movement not to forget that small businesses exploit people too and that we should stop battling the TNCs.
Factory farms are death camps!
Hi, md. I’ll just repeat here what I wrote in response to the comment on the Facebook page: The point of the post (which perhaps I should have made clearer) isn’t that we should stop opposing factory farming but rather is that, among other things, we should stop framing factory farming as the problem and the end of “factory farming” as our goal, when these aren’t the problem and goal and when presenting our goals in this way leads to the kinds of issues discussed in the post.
The movement’s focus on the unspeakable horrors of factory farms is appropriate and practical, as we seek to expand mass support for our cause.
Also, keep in mind that the system we oppose cannot survive without industrial livestock production. The whole house of cards comes down if we can somehow cripple that central, odious institution.
…so, while I realize your headline is meant rhetorically, the Movement’s focus on factory farming is actually strategically and politically correct.
To extend my (strained) metaphor, ecosocialists describe the predations of global capital in the less-developed world, as that is where the horrors of the system are most vividly on display. Likewise do animal liberationists focus on factory farming….
…Perhaps you are letting your understandable irritation with the niche market of “humanely produced meat” distract you from the big picture of the Western diet and industrial livestock production.
“The movement’s focus on the unspeakable horrors of factory farms is appropriate and practical, as we seek to expand mass support for our cause.”
Where’s your proof that it’s “appropriate and practical” — that it’s achieving its goals? Do you see factory farming on its knees? Do you see people stopping their consumption of animals in droves because of this “practical” approach? Because I don’t. Did you read, for example, the article I linked to? And I doubt the “pasture-raised” cow or “free-range” chicken whose mutilation and brutal slaughter are paid for by the happy-meat, soothed-conscience consumers whom you’ve convinced that only “factory farming” is bad, and that all they have to do is buy “local” or whatever, would consider their pain, suffering, and deaths progress.
And mass support for what cause? Focusing solely (or so narrowly that it seems we’re focusing solely) on factory farming and giving the impression that “happy,” “humane” animal exploitation & slaughter alternatives to factory farming are a viable, real solution is perfectly appropriate if your cause is animal welfare and support for smaller-scale animal agriculture, sure, but I fail to see how it’s inherently “practical” for animal rights.
I’m not distracted from “the big picture of the Western diet and industrial livestock production,” and that you think I am indicates you missed the point of this post. I don’t think industrial agriculture is the “big picture” problem.
Also, I recommend checking out Mary’s related post: http://challengeoppression.com/2010/01/15/confessions-of-an-ex-ex-vegan/
I do get your point Stephanie, believe it or not. I just think you are way off base. And I know you believe you’re looking at the big picture (same for us all: animal liberation), but I think you’re letting your frustration with a niche market of “humane meat eaters” carry you away, as indicated by the misguided hyperbole of “Save the AR Movement, Stop the Fight Against Factory Farming.” For the reasons I’ve indicated, I believe this is the right fight to be emphasizing right now.
I’ll gladly look over theses new posts when I have a chance, but what a shame we have to see Stephanie’s original, misguided, post again.
all animal farms where the animals are raised with profit and death in mind are death camps.
Some may be a Hilton death camp and some may be public jail death camp but the results are the same.
In the meantime, as I posted recently, the idea of happy meat allows people who might otherwise adopt veg*n diets to seriously consider that they are doing the right thing, the humane thing — and in some cases it leads to increased animal slaughter. Once demand for locally-raised carcasses increases and there’s no facility to provide the slaughter, for example, facilities will be built. And slaughter will increase.
And increase
And include new animals
Like rabbits
I don’t think anyone would argue that animals on smaller farms may be treated better (though I suspect the betrayal of being cared for and loved by humans –at least, some profess to love and care for those animals — may be extremely painful for the animals themselves) than those on factory farms (and that’s not always the case, either). But the focus on factory farming as being the sole evil has allowed this happy local meat industry to flourish and to continue breeding and killing animals. The AR movement needs to recognize that we can’t just talk about factory farms.
word.
What does that mean? Word! If you agree with something, say so and give your reasons why. “Word” hardly adds to the discussion.
On the streets of New York City, “word” is an expression of agreement. I’m assuming that’s what Michael means by that…he’s agreeing with Steph’s brilliant blog post.
haha, sorry. As a friend of Stephanie, I guess my single word comment was more directed to her, as in “hell yeah! you said it perfectly”, and it was less meant to add to public discourse.
But to agree with what Louie said, yes, I think Stephanie said it exactly as it needed to be said…there was no need for me to explain why I agreed, because I would just be regurgitating what Stephanie said. “Word” was my slightly silly way of succinctly telling her how perfect her post was.
“but these days, newly carnivorous New Yorkers are able to cushion their consciousnesses with locally grown, free range and all-around-happy meat”
Seriously, thats just wrong. Who writes such crap? Theres no “all-around-happy meat”. It’s still murder, it’s still bloody, it’s still flesh. It’s still a living creature that didn’t want to die for the appetite of somebody else.
I totally agree with you, the movement is obviously doing something wrong, if this is what other people make of it.
plus they’re not carnivorous unless they’ve given up everything BUT meat!
I think the term “carnist” applies here.
Bravo! It’s about time somebody said it!
I knew the day would come when factory farming practices would be reformed and less cruel practices would get instituted leaving a schism between “veganism” and “animal rights”. They are separate issues even though so many have assumed otherwise. It turns out that animal righters happen to do something that seems like veganism but in today’s common usage of the word it is merely coincidental. This really is our fault though. Animal rights activists have been skirting the issue by focusing on the welfare, health and environmental causes. Afraid to address the real issue they’ve propped up ploys with a ends-justifies-the-means mentality. It was thought that if we could end factory farming then we could corner people into an unsustainable “human, small farm, grass fed” practice that would eventually topple and animal liberation would be ours! Furthermore it’s no wonder people leave veganism when they eventually find out they were duped by advocates’ exaggerations.
Anyway here at VeganChicago we recently up-ended our mission statement as we discover this schism and it’s been making us quietly unpopular. We might even need to drop “Vegan” from our title at some point. You can read more about all that here: http://www.veganchicago.com/messages/boards/thread/8063773
Oh and FYI, this blog has some of the most lucid and rational arguments I’ve seen in my 10 years of veganism. Thank you, keep up the good work!
Dave attitudes like yours are so dangerous! They allow exploiters to go on exploiting innocent beings! It does not matter how or when its done, executing another living being for your pleasure when it is not needed for survival is point blank wrong! You should remove the word vegan from your most misguided site because you and those like you are the furthest thing from animal rights advocates or vegans i could think of! You damage the impact of our cause and cheapen the lives of non humans around the world.
SHAME ON YOU!
Kamron,
I’m not sure exactly what exactly you find so objectionable about my argument. If you can please explain in detail I might better learn how they are flawed and correct them.
thanks,
-dave
I doubt that people are leaving veganism because they feel they’ve been duped by the AR movement (topple the factory farm first and then the grass fed coalition will go next). If they are giving up veganism it is because they are caving to gluttony and appetite and have decided that another being can be sacrificed to satisfy them. Callousness and cruelty abounds! The move to veganism just illustrates the stupidity of people who can be talked into anything, including “happy meat”.
Debrah,
People are going vegan because advocacy has shown them the horrors of factory farming and speaks nothing on behalf of animals’ inherent interests to life. They are leaving to go to work on the welfare standards. They are discovering that abolishment is a logical leap they never meant to make. It’s is not a failure to stay vegan it is a natural evolution of the argument of welfare.
I’m one of those meat eaters that has no ethical problems eating an animal that was well treated during it’s life and humanely slaughtered. I raise chickens in my backyard for eggs and meat and when the time comes to kill some of them to eat, I do it myself. I’ve slaughtered chickens and I’ve seen a chicken get sick and die in less than 20 hours. The slaughtered chicken definitely had it better off It got to be well fed, run around with other chickens, then hang upside down for a few minutes (rendering it semi-conscious), feel a very small amount of pain, and then fade to black. The sick chicken, on the other hand, spent many hours in pain before it finally died cold and alone. Everything dies. Natural deaths are rarely comfortable or peaceful. I have a hard time feeling like I’ve done anything wrong to when I raise an animal in a nice comfortable life with only the slightest discomfort at the very end when the alternative is to let nature have it’s way with the animal.
Virtually all farm animals wouldn’t even be alive in the first place if they weren’t being raised for food. Those that were would largely be getting killed violently by other non-human carnivores or dying horrible deaths from starvation or disease. Even death from old age is terrible, more often than not. Why would I want that for any animal?
Noah, thanks for joining the discussion – it’s great to see non-animal-rights activists comment here.
That said, a couple of comments:
1) Please consider your language use – throughout your post, you refer to nonhuman animals as “its”. A nonhuman animal who is capable of experiencing emotions, thinking, using complex verbal communications and engaging in many similar behaviors as humans should not be referred to as “its”. Chairs are “its”. Chickens are “she” and “he” and “they”. They are “who’s”.
2) You can decide “old age” is terrible for yourself. You should not get to decide the experience, on its own, is so terrible for others. Certainly an argument could be made that ending enormous suffering through death (euthanasia, killing) is kinder than permitting that suffering to occur. But to claim that growing old is reason alone to unnecessarily slaughter young, healthy animals before they get old is a little extreme.
We can make choices to be kinder to others. And we can make choices not to be kinder to others. Taking the life of another animal when you do not need to is not kind. It never can be.
Claiming farmed animals would be better off dismembered, abused, slaughtered, and denied normal social interactions than being free or not in existence is incredibly arrogant and, well, a little bit cruel.
Noah,
Your argument, “Virtually all farm animals wouldn’t even be alive in the first place if they weren’t being raised for food” (i.e., we benefit them) is ripe with errors. I detail why the argument doesn’t work here:
http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/on_prior_existence_and_sophistry_nonexistence_not_a_rights_violation
Furthermore, compassion like yours would suggest that we should be killing the elderly, infirmed, etc. of our own species. That would be consistent.
From Noah:
“Virtually all farm animals wouldn’t even be alive in the first place if they weren’t being raised for food.”
Noah, I’d rather not have been born than have had to live the life of a farmed animal.
“Even death from old age is terrible, more often than not. Why would I want that for any animal?”
So perhaps we should all go out and murder each other. After all, it’s better to die quickly at age 40 than to die naturally at age 85, right?
From Tracy: “Noah, I’d rather not have been born than have had to live the life of a farmed animal.”
This just speaks to your ignorance of small to medium sized sustainable farms. They may not be in the majority, but there are plenty of farm animals that have wonderful lives. They are free to roam, never go hungry, and spend their whole life with other animals without having to worry about predators. You wouldn’t want that life? There’s lots of people that would.
“So perhaps we should all go out and murder each other. After all, it’s better to die quickly at age 40 than to die naturally at age 85, right?”
Obviously I don’t believe that and this is an area where we legitimately disagree. All of nature is filled with animals eating other animals (even dolphins, which are supposedly smarter than us, live by eating other animals). I think that’s OK. That’s life (and death). I don’t think that killing your own species is OK. I can understand your viewpoint, but I disagree. Especially when it comes to species that we have bred for generations and that are pretty much incapable of taking care of themselves in the wild.
You will probably find this disturbing (so maybe just stop now), but something about killing an animal to eat, even in a very clean, humane way, feels natural. I don’t know anyone who thinks it’s cool, and in fact some of my meat eater friends seem a little disturbed by the fact that I do it, but none the less, that’s how I feel. When I make a mistake that causes the animal pain, that does bother me, I don’t want any animal to suffer either.
Noah.
“You will probably find this disturbing (so maybe just stop now), but something about killing an animal to eat, even in a very clean, humane way, feels natural.”
South pacific islanders used to be cannibals and they felt natural about it. So by your logic one of them should be able to kill and eat you.
How do you feel about this?
Noah,
“Virtually all of nature” is filled with infanticide as well. By your logic, that would be acceptable within our own species as well. Nature seems to be acting as your moral barometer in this argument, which has disturbing consequence, if you only reason consistently. But you won’t. Why? Because you’re reasoning from a conclusion; that is, you want to eat animal carcasses. But that’s not logical. You cannot appeal to “nature” Noah, for if we did, rape, violence, war, etc. would all be justified, ethically.
Noah, your premise is that animals are things for humans to use. Imagine if someone more powerful told you exactly what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and then he finally demanded your life. That’s the hellish existence of every farmed animal or lab animal in this world.
There’s no way for any of us to know the depths of what animals suffer when in agony. It’s quite possible that they experience emotions on a greater range than humans. Is this so far-fetched? Many animals have more acute eyesight, hearing, and sense of smell than us. Why not a more acute emotional experience? Then their imprisonment and unnatural deaths are even more tragic.
When humans assume “knowledge” of what animals feel, this is pure speculation. Not to mention, it’s again telling an animal how to exist to serve our own desires. As usual, we’re speaking for them and not listening to them. (Nonhuman primates who use sign language have repeatedly asked to be released from their prisons. Their requests have never been granted, even though they communicated clearly in human-made language.)
Would legal human slavery be acceptable if we treat the slaves “humanely” and maybe give them a day at the spa on Saturdays? See how crazy that sounds? So the issue is not about how the animals are treated. They could receive a massage before getting their throats slit. It doesn’t change the fact that they’re getting their throats slit.
And even if the meat industry succeeds in breeding “zombie” pigs, chickens, and cows who enter the slaughterhouse without a fierce struggle, humans still have no right to kill any other species.
@noah – You say “They may not be in the majority, but there are plenty of farm animals that have wonderful lives.”
I would argue that a “wonderful” life is a full and complete life. Not one cut short by being murdered, dismembered and devoured.
Noah, I appreciate your view point. I realize that many other posters on here don’t agree and take issue with apparent inconsistencies between your view on using animals and how the same arguments apply to humans. I think yours is at least an intelligent consideration of the issues we deal with in our food system, and there is a level of compassion in what you do in contrast to what that majority of omnivores express. I don’t think we can realize progress without an open dialogue with all view points, so thank you for posting.
Noah’s arguments are great examples of why many animal advocates have been focusing on the wrong issues.
I absolutely agree with you Dave. It’s evident in even the language we use, like “humane” and “cruel”, for examples. They are incredibly vague and loaded terms, and as long as we continue to base campaigns and tactics around them, I fear we will lead the movement into further confusion in a sea of misguided humans looking for excuses to live guilt-free in their privilege. Going along the lines with what Stephanie presented in her post, we need to be honest in our efforts. And we need to be specific. We need to specifically lay out, particularly for ourselves, how we expect liberation to come, because right now we’re behaving like it’s going to magically happen if we use the magic words to open people’s hearts.
The bottom line, Noah, is that we don’t _need_ to eat animals.
I’m not suggesting pigs or chickens or cows should be bred and then made to live in the wild. I’m saying they should not be bred at all if their reason for living is to be murdered.
Noah:
Your logic is astounding. You said it yourself – you RAISE animals for food. They wouldn’t exist if you hadn’t bred/paid for them to be bred to begin with. They wouldn’t exist, wouldn’t be around to care that they don’t, and you could be eating the food you’re feeding them instead. While the ratio is lower than the amazing amount of water, grain and/or grass o raise a ruminant, chickens still require at LEAST 1.5 times as many calories to raise as they “produce” meat calories. It’s an inefficent, unnecessary and cruel form of food production whether they’re in cramped cages or in your living room.
Stephanie the fact that you assert that factory farms aren’t the problem proves to everyone that you have never even had the slightest grasp of what animal rights or veganism are all about.
You are an idiot! Point Blank!
Kamron, your “argument” would be more interesting if you stopped with the personal insults and addressed the issues you feel the author is ignoring.
What about Stephanie’s post gives you the impression that she believes factory farming isn’t a problem? Work from that premise rather than the “You’re an idiot!” fallacy.
From my no compromise, abolitionist, vegan for life viewpoint Stephanie’s article is dangerous and idiotic! I stand by my comments.
Uh … I have to go with others’ responses to your various ranting comments in this thread, Kamron: Either you didn’t bother to actually read the post, or you completely missed its points. You’re yelling at people who agree with you and making yourself look pretty foolish in the process.
Obviously Kamron, you have not understood Stephanie’s article and comments at all. It is imperative that you do to avoid making more of the same nonsensical comments that you already have.
Kamron,
Let’s keep things civil, shall we? Name-calling gets us nowhere.
And it’s apparent to me that you have very little familiarity with the localvore, “free range” and happy meat movements.
Kamron, erroneously judging this article based solely on its title rather than its actual contents demonstrates a foolish act. Doing so in such an unwarranted ill-mannered and volatile way, though, shows that you’re simply a fool.
Look i know i can get overly passionate and a bit rude. I am sorry for that. On the other hand i find the article disturbing and to be counter to productive animal rights action.
The fact of the matter is that factory farming is the most widespread and disgustingly cruel animal exploitation on the planet. We will never as a movement achieve true animal liberation until the factory farming industry has been destroyed. How can we achieve a world that does not consume flesh until we stamp out the worst of it? Human beings on mass are slow to react to things so we must do things a step at a time starting with the most obvious evil first.
It is for this reason i think the article is most flawed and a danger to the cause.
If this makes me a fool then i gladly take that label.
Kamron, I have to ask: Did you read the article? Point out where you feel it is flawed and a danger to the cause. So far, all I am reading from you are personal insults and generic, non specific reasons for disliking the piece.
Despite Kamron’s anger, this quote caught my attention:
“We will never as a movement achieve true animal liberation until the factory farming industry has been destroyed.”
This makes me think of Henry Spira and all of his successful and specific campaigns against vivisection and product testing on animals. This single focus approach really worked, and it seems like we’ve lost that. Groups like COK, HSUS, and PETA, no matter how much you hate them, are doing SINGLE campaigns against Dunkin’ Donuts, Ihop, Cheesecake Factory, etc. If we ALL got behind these campaigns, a lot of these large business would either drop some animal products altogether and/or switch to less cruel ones (which I know you hate, because it’s still an animal product, but to not acknowledge that there are levels of suffering involved in animal products is absurd. Less suffering is still a good thing, even thought it isn’t the best).
But we don’t. We bicker. We’re disconected, angry, and a lot of times awful at communicating. Now we’re bickering over what Spira might see as a turning point single-issue campaign (ESPECIALLY now with all of the attention in the media); the campaign to end factory farming. If we do this…. well holy fuck. The possibilities beyond that…..
It’s good to talk about things, consider new ideas, etc. But once I do this, I still arrive back at campaigning against factory farming. If you don’t like this, ok. Campaign for veganism and veganism alone! Don’t spend SOOO much time being angry at other activists.
@Smith: I think you bring up some excellent points.
“If we do this…. well holy fuck. The possibilities beyond that….. ”
Knowing what we do about factory farming – the sheer magnitude of suffering and horrific treatment of 10 billion sentient, feeling beings is so overwhelming. Getting rid of that would be an achievement of monumental proportions. Monumental. It would make transitioning people to a vegan diet all the more easier, because, at our current rate of consumption there is no logical, feasible way for “small, humane” farms to keep up….we’d have to be vegan or mostly vegan.
I can’t imagine 10 (or even 5!) years ago banning freaking battery cages in California, the 5th largest egg producer. Or waging war in Ohio over battery cages, the big egg producing state. Times are a changing! I don’t think it’s meaningless shit -I’ve been in battery cage operations; I’ve literally pulled broken hens from cages. I’ll champion veganism until I drop, but damn straight I’ll support any and all referendums or laws that eliminate some of the coldest, harshest, cruelest treatment of farmed animals – to get people to relate to farmed animals in ways other than dead flesh, eggs or breast milk. Advocating against factory farming and promoting veganism with all our hearts are not mutually exclusive (which is not something I think Stephanie disagrees with either….).
But I also think it’s good to have these discussions. It reveals both our strengths and weaknesses. I’m of the mindset that it takes all kinds of activists to get a vegan world and with very few exceptions, I think they bring a shitload of awesomeness to the movement. Sometimes we have to argue with each other – all good friends do that. :)
Smith, please consider looking at activist/filmmaker James LaVeck’s article, “Invasion of the Movement Snatchers.” He addressed this problem as early as 2006. http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/laveck.html
He talks about how the animal rights movement has fallen prey to accepting the doctrine of “necessary evil” and compromise. I think whenever folks talk about “less suffering is better than more suffering” instead of “no suffering,” this only perpetuates the acceptance of animal use. LaVeck suggests that boycotting is effective and to call off a boycott is to cripple the cause. (And I’m not saying to not campaign against factory farming. I’m saying animal advocates must advocate only for the animals and not “work with” the meat industry. I’m also not saying “The world is vegan, if you want it.” Vegan education is fine. But direct action and open rescues are effective and necessary.)
If you said that instead of lopping off six of my fingers, you’ll lop off three…Yeah, okay, that’s an improvement. But is that the kind of “improvement” I should settle for?
Here are two excerpts from LaVeck’s excellent article:
…the MBD PR firm grew out of a successful campaign to neutralize a massive boycott of the Nestlé corporation. In the late ’70s, Nestlé was attempting to persuade millions of [so-called] third world women to use synthetic infant formula instead of breast-feeding their babies. “In activist lore,” note [social activists] Stauber and Rampton, “this boycott is touted as a major victory, but in the corporate world it is understood that industry really won the day by pulling the rug out from the campaign. By making selective concessions to the activists, Nestlé succeeded in negotiating an end to the boycott. Later, activists were dismayed to discover that its infant formula marketing practices are continuing with only token changes. [So-called] Third world children continue to die, but today their plight receives little attention, and activists have found that a boycott, once terminated, is not easily turned back on.
Translate this to the animal movement, and the call for a boycott is, very simply, vegan advocacy. When we switch from asking people to eliminate or reduce their consumption of animal products, to publicly endorsing “humane” animal products, are we not, in effect, calling off our own boycott? Think about it. “A boycott, once terminated, is not easily turned back on.”
and…
Let us not forget, there is a reason why human rights groups do not develop or endorse “humane” methods of torturing and executing political prisoners, and why children’s rights advocates do not collaborate with the international pornography industry to develop standards and special labeling for films that make “compassionate” use of runaway teens. To do such things is to introduce moral ambiguity into situations where the boundaries between right and wrong must never be allowed to blur. To be the agent of such blurring is to become complicit oneself in the violence and abuse.
Let us be clear. When we endorse the consumption of any kind of animal product, we’re not only encouraging an act we ourselves know to be immoral—not only blurring the line between right and wrong—we’re also willfully ignoring animal agriculture’s massive contribution to global warming, world hunger, chronic disease, worker abuse, desertification and [so-called] third world poverty… Let us freely share with everyone the best truth we have, and let us do so with the courage, altruism and integrity of the unapologetic idealists who have come before us—those whose historic words and deeds have redefined the limits of human potential.
Thanks for this entry Stephanie. You and I and many of your readers do endeavor to be part of an animal “rights” movement. Obviously those going back to meat-eating never were and others who currently claim to be aren’t. This is the implication of your essay, but I think it’s crucial that we maintain linguistic clarity. Perhaps there is more than one animal movement? Let’s save “rights” for rightists.
Hi, Cyndi. Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I’m afraid I’m not sure where we disagree, though. I didn’t mean to imply that those eating animals are a part of the animal rights movement (though I know some think they are because of the lack of understanding of rights and welfare) — my concern as it relates to the animal rights movement itself is the movement’s focus on “factory farming” and (perhaps more accurately) the support many of its members give to campaigns & orgs that are focused very narrowly on ending “factory farming” and that imply we can have happy, humane exploitation & killing because intensive farming is the only problem.
Unfortunately, Stephanie, I doubt you could ever write too much about the problem of humane myth. It’s the virus that has all but crippled the animal rights movement.
By focusing on factory farming as the monstrous problem, the real problem is obscured. The real problem, of course, is that all animal agriculture is inhumane and wrong.
Just as by demonizing, say, HSUS, the focus shifts away from other prominent animal welfare groups that also help exploit the animals. The real problem is certain animal welfare groups no longer advocate only for the animals. There are organizations which even call themselves animal rights groups, but their actions clearly reveal they don’t oppose animal use and murder. They like to say they don’t support such things–but by not opposing them, they become willing or unwitting partners-in-crime with the exploiters.
Conversations about welfare vs. rights always get heated and off-track. The obvious issue is diluted or completely ignored: humans have no right to use and murder animals. I feel this is exactly what you do keep addressing. Thank you!
The animal-using industries want to stomp out the movement by having us fight with each other. That’s why our energy shouldn’t be diverted into a mission of attacking welfare groups. It’s also very draining because it’s not an action that adds to the creation of the nonviolent world we seek. However, you’re so right that we can’t remain silent for fear of betraying the movement. It’s a damn tricky thing. But as you seem to suggest, if we gotta fret about something, let’s focus on not betraying the animals.
There’s no easy answer. But by continuing to speak up for the animals, as you have so courageously done, each word counters the humane myth propaganda.
Here’s to the day when all animal agriculture, fisheries, zoos, circuses, vivisection labs, and other exploiters are shut down forever.
We all, as over-consuming humans, even if vegan, exploit animals because of our over-population and resulting demands for housing and goods. Our insatiable desire for “new, better, improved, updated, modern…. housing, furniture, appliances, clothing, etc.” contributes to industries that destroy habitat every minute of every day around the world. Being vegan and compassionate is not enough. We need to curb our growth and desires and learn to live with the natural world the way animals do.
Wonderful post, thank you for writing this!
Thank you to everyone who so cogently presented the case for not eating animals no matter how they are raised.
MJ – I like very much your phrase “humans have no right to use and murder animals” and hope you don’t mind if I use it in the future.
Stephanie – thanks for a superb article and bringing this to my attention. In my future discussions I will minimize the emphasis on factory farming and focus on the real issue: HUMANS HAVE NO RIGHT TO USE AND MURDER ANIMALS.
Not at all, Ingrid. Most likely lots of vegans have thought or said the same thing a thousand times. It’s often carelessly argued that only humans can be “murdered.” That’s exactly why I use the word in relation to the animals.
I think the reason that there is an exodus away from veganism is that these people weren’t really vegans to begin with. A lot of people care about mistreatment of animals, but they don’t really believe in animals being completely free from human control. They think humans should “manage” animals and use them, just be nice about it.
Also, a lot of people believe that eating animals is OK, b/c other animals do it. To them, a human eating a cow is as natural as a cat eating a mouse, or a pack of wolves taking down a caribou. Talking about horrific deaths means nothing, b/c they’ve seen the nature shows, and those caribou don’t just pass into death easily, either. They’re terrified.
So, when the reality of factory farming gets shown to them, they are horrified (and rightly so). They abstain from meat and maybe also eggs and dairy. But since they still believe animals are human property, when they come across “humane” meat, they will eat it.
It’s not the fault of animal right’s activists. It’s simply their beliefs, and I don’t know how successful one can be at changing a belief like that.
But didn’t most if not all of us believe what you’re describing, veganprimate? That’s sort of my point. The overwhelming majority of us originally didn’t “really believe in animals being completely free from human control” and “still believe[d] animals are human property.” That all fits it in with my point, really. We know those ways of ways of thinking and believing can be changed because we ourselves are examples of that change, right? So if we’re not only giving people the information about the cruelties but also giving all the information and actively encouraging them to shift their view of animals and our relationships to them, we’re helping them move along the same path we moved along. But if we approach the same people with only a “factory farming is bad” message, knowing that’s not the extent of what we believe & know and knowing that this lends itself to support of the “happy meat” view, how can we not take partial blame for the fact that that’s where people stop, that their thinking never evolves beyond that? I’m not saying others’ failure to change is activists’ “fault,” but I don’t know how we can say that how we approach people and what we focus on — the message we impart — is not a factor.
Yes, providing ALL the information we can to the best of our individual abilities seems to be logical and fair. Let folks reach their own conclusions with access to all the facts. To selectively present information is to make decisions for others. That’s censorship, even if well-intended. It also lacks basic respect. The implication is that a leader or gatekeeper gets to decide what’s “bad or good for the masses because the masses are too dumb to make intelligent decisions.”
The truth about all animal agriculture shouldn’t be edited or dumbed-down into sound bites. To not mention the problem of “happy meat” is deception by omission.
The way i see it is that the portion of the public who has already pre-determined that they will not consider any information or point of view of animal advocacy groups and leaders are not really the people to whom my following thought pertains to. To the rest of the public (the majority I am presuming), reputable animal advocacy groups and leaders would or might be seen as those whom would advocate for the best interests of the animals just as The American Anti-Slavery Group for example would advocate for the best interests of enslaved people. As such, it is not only incredibly important what animal advocacy groups and leaders say, but just as important what they don’t say or purposefully leave out of the discourse or campaign wording. Framing, as Stephanie mentioned initially, is crucial.
When virtually all the public hears from the leaders and groups that are supposed to (or thought to) be advocating for the best interests of the animals is that factory farming, or more accurately many of the aspects of factory farming, are the most important or most serious thing that needs to be changed (because it is that that is the problem), then to expect this unknowing or unsuspecting public to believe that in fact this is hardly the case, not only might many of those leaders or groups be presenting this issue in a dishonest way (because many leaders may actually believe that all unnecessary killing of animals is unjustified, not just the worst cruel conditions they are subjected to) but because these leaders and groups may be persuading significant numbers of people into believing that cruel husbandry practices are the problem, there is some level of complicity in the perpetuation of the use and killing of animals for food by these leaders and groups because of the particular position they are in. To convince many people as they do that the problem is the tiny cage for example, is beyond irresponsible because it legitimizes the notion that animals are to be used (just not abused cruelly) and actually is a form of promoting the most obvious alternative happy animal products (and in some cases, animal orgs and leaders have heartily endorsed happy animal products). I will emphasize that because of the particular position that animal orgs and leaders are in, much of what is done to establish that the problem is the worst cruelties, is in fact helping to harm animals in my view.
“To them, a human eating a cow is as natural as a cat eating a mouse, or a pack of wolves taking down a caribou”
You know, I actually didn’t have anything constructive to say to that argument for a long time. Until a light bulb came on….
Now I wish someone would bring that to me. If someone tells me that a human eating a cow is as natural as a cat eating a mouse, then I’d say “Well, if that’s the case, then you have no need to cook steaks or eat hamburgers, for you can do as cats and wolves do: eat the flesh raw.” And of course, you and I know that humans lack the capacity to digest raw mammal and avian muscle tissue and organs the way carnivores can. We don’t have the same symbiotic relationship for breaking down the proteins or tolerating the microorganisms who come with the dead animal. Instead, we get food poisoning. So cooking flesh at 400 degrees Fahrenheit for an hour or more to eat is almost like eating a cardboard box with texture–the microorganisms die, but many of the proteins and nutrients perish along with them. And if they pull the evolutionary argument with “Then why do humans have incissors if not for tearing flesh?” I’d send it right back to them, “Well, according to Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, there’s this concept called ‘evolutionary continuity’ that implies traits constantly changing along a continuum, not discretely. In this case, instead of telling yourself the story that evolution has magically stopped now that humans exist the way they do now, evolution continues to happen, regardless of the way we exist now, and so these incissors are a marking of our ancestors and how they used to live. They’re vestigial, like the appendix and the wisdom teeth and the vestigial tail. We still have them, even though we’re in a transition of no longer needing them.” Sorry to rant like this. I had to say something. That argument pisses me off and it makes me feel better to expose the fallacy of the argument, on the direct terms of the argument.
‘Frugivores (like the chimpanzee) have 32 teeth: sixteen in each jaw including four incisors, two cuspids, four bicuspids, and six molars. The cuspids are adapted for cracking nuts, and the uniform articulation of the teeth enables the frugivore to mash and grind fruits.
On the contrary, carnivores (like the cat family) have markedly developed canines that are long, sharp, cylindrical, pointed, and set apart from the other teeth.
…’
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
Regarding the incisor arguement, bear in mind that horses also have a little “fang” at about the same location that humans do and it is commonly referred to as a wolf tooth, but this in no way indicates that horses are or were carnivores. And I believe that hippos also have similar large incisors that, if you were to use the omnivores arguement about little pointy teeth, you would have to assume that horses and hippos are potential meat eaters. So its a dumb argument.
@ Debrah: Interesting that hippos are mentioned. Here’s a fascinating article: http://eng.hrosi.org/?id=22 with evidence that hippos do sometimes hunt, kill, consume or scavenge. There hasn’t been extensive study on how common this behavior is (and my guess it’s probably not the norm).
Which is moot because as we know, most of us do not NEED to eat meat, drink milk, or eat eggs to survive – no matter whether we have incisors or not.
Excellent post, Stephanie!
In fact, hippos have enormous incisors….maybe they are really responsible for the disappearance of the dinosaurs…they ate all the dinosaurs just so that they can make good use of those teeth….or so the carnist’s argument should be! :-)
Thank You. Animal commodification and murder is animal commodification and murder; any way you look at it. Factory farm, certified organic, free-range (and other various labeling shams), or back yard. Killing, inseminating, milking, taking offspring, etc. is the same act no matter where performed.
GREAT POST Stephanie…! ! !
I find that people who claim that factory farms are the real problem have a real problem….. with math.
If everyone who eats dead animals now… switched to eating killed animals who were raised only in someone’s back yard or from a small family style farm, what then would those numbers of animals being raised for food add up to? There are 300 million humans in the US alone.
A factory farm in everyones back yard or…….factory farming all over again!
Humane myth??? Or humane math…
Incredible.
Go Vegan!
Nice article Stephanie. You’re right, we need to stop targeting factory farms as the evil empire and continue to encourage people to live compassionate, non-violent, vegan lives. Blogs, trends and books like Eating Animals focus on the horrors of factory farming without saying much, if anything, about free range, certified humane, small-scale farming. The real targets however, are the people who keep these industries (and cause the slaughter of millions of animals every day) going: non-vegans. We need to educate them, nuture them, encourage them that it’s wrong to take life – any life; that they shouldn’t support slavery, exploitation and murder. Demand and supply. No demand, no supply. Simple economics.
I think this is where we need to spend our time, energy and resources.
Eating Animals . . . . How frustrating. Foer discusses the meaninglessness of the labels, yet offers his own alternative for those who still insist on eating animals. Meanwhile, I have seen so many tweets, and read blogs, about people who have gone vegan because of that book. It’s a bit of a conundrum because it’s not a book that really advocates veganism. I’m not a fan of the book, but some people have embraced its message as a vegan one and responded accordingly, so for that fluke of logic I am grateful.
I don’t actually think its a fluke of logic at all. Its basic learning processes: if you flood people with information they re not in a position to receive, they usually don’t process ANY of it. If you also then remove any power they have over the situation (in this case, by telling them they could never figure out a way to make it happen within their ethics), you get total shut down: generally either learned helplessness (“I give up. Its too painful, and I can’t do anything to make that pain stop. My actions mean nothing”), or total avoidance of the area of powerlessness.
(“I’m not going to think about it anymore because I don’t want to feel that overwhelming pain”)
I’m a person who became vegan after reading Foer’s book. I went through a few stages of processing that all started with the basic premise of the book that spoke to me: applying my true and deeply held ethics to what ends up at the end of my fork. I was already land animal meat-free (which at the time I thought was a Big Fat Deal) specifically because of factory farming practices. But I had never extended that information to dairy. His explanation of eggs changed that for me. I spent the better part of the next three weeks trying to figure out how to get eggs and milk within the context of my personal ethics (no suffering and no death for my food). After extensive hunting and searching, I realized that it was a pipe dream to think I could ever find such a thing. Even the dream of finding chickens who lived out their full lives (and who happened to produce eggs that would otherwise go to waste if we didn’t use them) was dashed when I followed the logical progression of where people get the pullets that they raise. Even in that case, I would be supporting factory farming hatcheries that kill the newborn boys in horrific ways. I had the same problem with dairy, and will never contribute to a baby being killed so that its food can be sold (or even given away). But his approach left space for ME to go through that search, and respected ME enough to trust that I would come to an ethical decision. Most others outright tell people what the only ethical choice is, and chastise anyone who doesn’t follow along. I find that beyond unhelpful to most folks who aren’t easily shocked or hammered into thinking a certain way.
The real point was that the book did not steal my process. It treated me with respect and like an individual who can be trusted to make good choices. THAT is why this book is so successful, IMO. It treats people with kindness and as though they are valuable, ethical beings….it reminds us of our power as thinking, reasoning people able to draw ethical conclusions on our own without predetermined conclusions being imposed onto us, predigested by others. And it eases us into a very scary topic without flooding us all at once with information that would shut people down.
I think this book is one of the more valuable things to happen on the topic of animals used for food in a very long time.
Hi,
This blog post is one of your most important and brilliant statements ever Stephanie…thank you very much for putting truth to power in such a clear way.
Over the past few years I have also been making precisely the same arguments as you have, because like you, it is so important for the animals to do this. I’ve been focusing intenmtly on and studying this very specific issue for the past few years, reading industry journals, food trend articles written by experts such as Marion Nestle and others, newspapers and magazine articles from the U.S. and abroad, and various animal advocates’ (welfarists and abolitionists) points of view.
Certainly there are plenty of vegetarians who eat veg simply because it is popular and for really no other reason. I would imagine there are those people who eat veg initially for that same reason but have been able to go beyond their own selfishness and personal indulgence to remain veg for a long(er) period of time for other reasons; some, because they have learned about the gruesome conditions faced by most farmed animals today. It is notable numbers of these people (and even long time ethical vegans and vegetarians) whom, in very recent years, when going back to eating meat (‘happy’ meat and eggs), are influenced I believe primarily by the convergence of forces as follows: (1) many high profile animal advocacy groups and leaders, (2) top meat processors themselves, (3) food couture obsessionists, and (4) several recent authors such as Pollan and Foer).
To me, this list of influencers is troubling in one respect mainly; instead of me stating what I believe is pretty obvious, I will ask any of you to play that game from our childhood which asks, “(which) One of these things is not like the others?” The answer is the group which has no business (from a consistency, reasoned, and moral vantage) promoting or supporting the exploitation of animals, even if those animals exploited are treated much better than the worst treated animals are before they are all killed. It is this, that pisses me off very much and why I have been for several years so vocal against ‘humane’ meat advocacy by animal advocates.
Everyone, please read this really poignant appeal: http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-abolition.html. And finally, please make sure, if you haven’t done so yet, you review all the material here: http://www.HumaneMyth.org
Thank you for your serious interest.
Warmly,
Louie G.
There is no humane slaughter, only ‘more humane’ living conditions/transport/slaughter. And still the majority of milk, eggs and flesh comes from factory farms – which are proof of Hell on earth. If every ‘food’ animal was allowed to be born and raised free-range, that would definately be a significant improvement – but I still wouldn’t kill and eat any of them. Lots of people refuse to see or the truth about such atrocities as factory farming, but once you know, how do you turn that off? Animals are not a necessary food source, and other things ‘taste’ just as good, so why engage in cruelty? When I ask the corpse consumers (though I don’t call them that), they always say they love the taste – yet these are the same people who absolutely refuse to even try a veggie version of anything! Contributing to torture is perfectly fine, but soy is sacrilegious? I don’t understand why everyone doesn’t look for more compassionate alternatives – do most people get off on killing innocents?
Good points Lisa. I believe that for the most part, people are not getting off on the killing of animals, they are either just immensely ignorant or just woefully disconnected from the truth about the flesh they are purchasing. Even after they are told, many of these same people are just not connecting a living, breathing, sentient individual with the sliced salami or even the drumstick in front of them. Others of course are sadly indifferent to animals or certain animals. Finally, there may be a smaller percentage who are sadistic and get off in some way when nonhuman individuals are killed. It is within this second group (those whom are indifferent) that the former vegans / vegetarians fall I think. They rationalize ‘humane’ (their perception) killing. They are not okay with pain and suffering (what they perceive is not necessarily true of course because “humanely raised” animals, by and large, do experience at some point or at some level pain or mental anguish) but are okay with killing an animal. They choose their indulgence over killing. They are indifferent to the killing. This is disturbing of course, as killing is a more severe form of violence than is mistreatment. To understand what I mean, just look at how all civilized societies regard the mistreatment of a person vs the killing of a person. Laws reflect the belief that killing is a more severe form of violence than mistreatment. Throw away reason, and what we are left with are, in my view, people who are not okay with the mistreatment of sentient individuals who just happen to not be human in species yet are okay with the greater violent act, the killing of these individuals. Bizarre, isn’t it?
This is great article and it reminds me a topic I was talking with some vegan friends yesterday. I’m from Brazil and they were talking about being “ok” for indigenous people hunt and eat meat (based on Avatar movie and our own indigenous), and that made me think about the issue. They say about it as a necessity and I was thinking “what kind of necessity is this”. Indigenous knows agriculture as they grow lots of foods. So, I realized that the point is my friends believe that “humane slaughter” is justified on some cases. So, we still have the believes that sometimes we “need” meat and that sometimes is “ok” to kill. I know it’s an off-topic issue (which involves more discussions), but I wanted to give another point of view for the issue about “animal factories” and misinterpreting the issue.
Hi,
Humans attempt to use all sorts of rationalizations to continue to not change their habits (like eating killed animals). The claims that eating killed animals (by people who are descendants of indigenous peoples) must continue because it is part of the ancient heritage or tradition (the “tradition” argument) of indigenous peoples is utterly ridiculous on at least two levels. Firstly, just because something was done in the past, doesn’t mean it is morally justifiable or morally responsible to continue to do that thing today. Enslaving humans was a tradition in early America, therefore, those who advocate for eating killed animals for keeping with traditions must, to be intellectually consistent with the “tradition” argument, endorse the continuation of or the bringing back of slavery in cultures where it had (more robustly) existed. Secondly, from my experience and observation of those persons who argue that traditions must be kept or brought back because this is the right of indigenous persons to do so, these people have never consistently upheld that stated belief as all of them use or utilize technology that has not historically been part of their ancient heritage or tradition. I am not aware of a single group of such people who don’t utilize artificial light, who don’t use some modern communication technology, who don’t use some form of modern transportation, who don’t own a single garment that uses non-indigenous textile technology, and so on and so forth. If there exists such a group, someone please point out to me which group this is. In the very least, the “tradition” argument people are hypocrites if not deeply ignorant or wantonly indifferent.
Incidentally, the person who has made a similar argument to mine (to whom I give credit for initially enlightening me to the ridiculousness of the “tradition” argument) is a person of direct native American decent himself, Rod Coronado.
I challenge all people who are rationalizing their indulgence for the flesh of killed animals by claiming “tradition” to get a grip – it’s time to let go of past traditions that today are unnecessary and harm other sentient individuals. I make sacrifices every day of my life, so can you.
The only reason I’m not quite so alarmed by the idea of people going from non-animal-eating (based on fears/disgust of factory farming) to animal-eating (of so-called “humane” meat) is that it kind of parallels my own journey to veganism. Years ago, I stopped eating most forms of meat after hearing of the horrors of industrial meat production. When the whole “humanely raised” thing started, I went back to eating meat, thinking, “great, now I can eat meat without guilt.” But the problem was, I couldn’t. For some reason, the guilt remained. And at some point I had to admit my own hypocrisy and willful moral blindness, and now I am vegan for good.
In retrospect, I see that it was all part of a progression. Knowing about the cruel treatment of animals in the factory farm system awoke in me an awareness of animals as something other than objects for human use. Eating “humane” meat, while seemingly a step backward, was actually (for me) progress in that it was a first step in at least acknowledging that “food animals” had some kind of right to be treated with compassion — bear in mind that I was one of those who didn’t even acknowledge that certain animals had emotional lives at all — and it was a very short step from that to finally shedding myself of all my self-serving illusions.
I’m not saying that all of these ex-vegans are on a similar path, but I agree with other commenters that these folks probably were not “true” vegans, in the sense that they didn’t fully comprehend or embrace the essence of veganism, which in my mind leaves the door open to them for further evolution and illumination.
Hi,
Even if it’s true, Pants, that those vegans and vegetarians who have gone back to eating meat in significant numbers because for them there was no ethical or moral motivation involved at any point during their veg eating (and there’s actually evidence to the contrary), it makes no sense for animal advocacy orgs and leaders to advocate on behalf of or endorse on any level happy meat and eggs as is being done today by many such groups and leaders. So, for example, if the chattel enslavement of humans still existed today in the US, would it be appropriate or make any sense that a group who claimed to be united to stand up for the best interests of those enslaved to openly endorse a less cruel one of these: http://www.slaverysite.com/slave%20restraint.htm ? That’s pretty much what’s been happening on a stepped up scale in the past few years in the animal movement. Absolutely it’s in the best interest of the animals to point out the abject cruel conditions that are faced by the overwhelmingly vast majority of animals on farms today, but not without making it clear that the problem is the exploitation of these animals as they are treated as property, not living, sentient individuals. In selectively leaving out the later part, the argument is being framed in a way that is dishonest and leaves most people with the impression that purchasing alternatives like happy meat is a morally responsible choice….when clearly and objectively it is not. Even for people whom today they only care about what’s fashionable, the husbandry reform argument reinforces the notion that it is okay to use animals as one pleases and therein lies the biggest problem with animal orgs and leaders focusing exclusively on replacing the tiny, crowded cage with a dangerously (for the well being of the birds) overcrowded shed. http://www.HumaneMyth.org …get familiar with this site.
Thank you, Stephanie!!!
As someone who moved from Tennessee to Asheville, NC for a variety of reasons but primarily because I felt it would be a happier vegan existence, I have been so disillusioned by this local-meat (eggs, dairy) business to the point where I don’t want to buy ANYTHING local (okay, that’s drastic but still…)
I’ve been saying this for a year now but it’s been falling on deaf ears: there is an animal processing plant (slaughterhouse) about to go under construction in the town of Marion, NC AS A DIRECT RESULT OF CONSUMER REQUEST for more locally-produced animal flesh. The report on the feasability of building such a plant clearly states that. More, it states that for starters this will increase the number of animals killed in western North Carolina for consumption by FIVE TIMES the current number. The project that’s supporting this slaughterhouse is a not-for-profit entity because it’s going to teach people how to slaughter animals (aka it’s a teaching entity); and among its chief supporter is the Appalchian Sustainable Agriculture Project.
I don’t know about you, but the last time I looked Americans consumed a landfill-size number of animals every couple months or so; there is nothing sustainable about giving animals more space to live before they’re killed — okay, so it’s a bit kinder but life in prison and guaranteed death sentence is still just that. And I can’t tell you how many people I’ve run into in Asheville who “like vegan food” but could never BE vegan, not when they have these happy meat options. Yogis who raise animals to be slaughtered, people with “we still lay” bumper stickers on their cars, referring to back yard chickens (and of course the bumper sticker is wrong– the hens lay the eggs, not the people who raise and then kill them.)
Oh boy am I on a rant.
Anyway, I couldn’t agree more with you. When I go to almost any farmed animal sanctuary most talk about factory farms, but it’s time they really got on the bandwagon and just started calling attention to all animal farms.
Your essay is both incredibly timely and very important, not to mention very well written. I’m posting comments here because it’s important for AR folks to know that at least some animal sanctuaries are indeed working hard to halt this alarming trend toward the “kinder, gentler” exploitation and murder of non-human animals.
The Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center, in conjunction with several other animal sanctuaries (see below for complete list), has crafted a statement against the so-called “backyard bird” movement, one of the more faddish manifestations of this trend.
I’ve included the statement in its entirety below. It was written with a few specific target audiences in mind (and to that end, we have been sending this EVERYWHERE we can):
1. city council members and other officials responsible for making zoning changes in municipalities where people are pushing to be allowed to “keep” chickens legally in their yards;
2 backyard birders who can still be reached (i.e. folks whose own walls of self-justification are not so thick that they cannot hear the truth about what they are doing);
3. other AR activists who are seeking to contain this trend before it spreads too far out of control.
If you are actively working to ensure that backyard bird “operations” are not allowed where you live (and/or elsewhere), please feel free to post this statement where it will do the best good; we only ask that you do NOT ALTER anything in this statement, and that you maintain the list at the end of all of the sanctuaries who participated in creating this statement.
If you have questions or concerns about this — or if you would like to work on expanding this action to include the “farming” of other animals besides chickens, please contact me at sanctuary@bravebirds.org.
Thank you,
Miriam
Collective Position Statement on Backyard Poultry
Background
In the past year, shelters and sanctuaries in urban and suburban areas have witnessed a dramatic increase in the intake of chickens, particularly roosters. Hatcheries producing day-old chicks for shipment to feed stores and individuals are backlogged with orders. The desire to raise poultry can be linked to organic backyard farming as well as a desire to have direct access to food (eggs and, in some cases, meat).
As a coalition of animal sanctuaries interested in the welfare of hens and roosters, we have created this position statement on the keeping and raising of chickens. All of us have been inundated with calls to take in hens and roosters who are a) no longer wanted; b) not the correct sex; c) not legally permissible. As organizations with limited resources and space, it is no longer feasible to take in even a small percentage of these unwanted animals. Even with placement assistance, most of these chickens, particularly roosters, do not find permanent placement. This leaves municipal dog and cat shelters the task of taking in, housing, feeding, caring for, and inevitably killing healthy, adoptable chickens.
Problems associated with urban backyard flocks
Hatcheries are like puppy mills: When animals are reduced to commodities, their best interests are pushed aside in favor of profit. Hatcheries that produce chicks for backyard flocks treat chickens and their offspring in much the same way puppy mills treat breeding dogs and their puppies. There are no legal requirements dictating how breeding hens and roosters are housed, meaning they may be crammed into small cages or sheds without outdoor access.
Shipping day-old chicks is cruel: Most chickens purchased are bought from hatcheries or feed stores (these chicks originate from hatcheries). Hatcheries ship day-old birds through the postal service without any legal oversight. Young chickens are deprived of food and water for up to 72 hours and exposed to extremes in temperature. As Dr. Jean Cypher, a veterinarian specializing in avian medicine states, “A day-old chick can no more withstand three days in a dark crowded box than can any other newborn.” Other experts in avian medicine and behavior agree that transporting day-old chicks in boxes for the first 24-72 hours of life is cruel and medically detrimental to the birds.
Chicken sexing is more art than science: Using data collected from sanctuaries and rescues that field calls daily about unwanted chickens, we estimate between 20-50% of purchased “hens” are actually roosters. Depending on breed, visually identifying a rooster can take weeks to months.
Roosters may be unwanted and are often illegal: Male chickens are generally unwanted for two reasons: They don’t produce eggs and they are rarely legal in urban or suburban settings. Hatcheries may use rooster chicks as packing material, regardless of whether they were ordered. Most incorporated or urban regions that do permit chickens only allow hens, not roosters. Unwanted roosters may be abandoned to the streets, slaughtered, or end up in a municipal shelter to be killed. Very few find their way into a permanent home or sanctuary.
Chickens attract rodents: Even the cleanest coop is attractive to rats and mice who enjoy the free bedding (straw and shavings) and food. Rodents are generally viewed as pests and their presence is unwanted by chicken owners and neighbors.
Lack of professional medical care: Avian medicine has made progress but there are few vets specialized in the treatment and care of birds. Veterinarians who do treat poultry are often expensive, with the average vet visit starting at a minimum of $100.
Concerns with new ordinances allowing backyard poultry
Enforcement costs: Municipal shelters run on a tight budget dealing with animal cruelty cases, dangerous dog calls, and the normal day to day operation of their facilities. Adding an extra burden, like enforcing chicken licensing laws and related complaints, is unwise amidst current economic concerns.
Slaughter: The average chicken guardian is ill-equipped to “properly” stun and kill a chicken. Further, slaughtering can be traumatic for neighbors, including impressionable children. If chickens are to be permitted in urban areas, they must be protected from cruel mistreatment as much as “traditional” companion animals like dogs or cats, including a ban on slaughtering them for consumption.
Roosters will be killed: Creating new ordinances permitting chickens creates a market for killing 50% of all chicks born in hatcheries. Urban and suburban areas considering chickens generally ban roosters, yet male chickens comprise half of all chicks born. Hatcheries mail roosters as packing material, and sexing of chickens is more art than science (see above). When residents purchase chicks from hatcheries or feedstores and end up with roosters, they will be put in the position of having to rehome the bird(s). Most roosters are not rehomed and end up abandoned or dumped at shelters, where they are invariably killed.
Suggestions if you are considering a backyard flock
Make sure it’s legal: If you live in an unincorporated area, contact your planning department and ask about the zoning requirements regarding poultry. If you live in an incorporated region, contact the city clerk for information on ordinances regarding chickens.
Adopt: Avoid the cruelties of the hatcheries by adopting birds already in existence who need homes. Check out http://www.petfinder.org for animals available at your local shelter. Visit http://www.sanctuaries.org or http://www.farmanimalshelters.org and contact a sanctuary near you about adopting birds. If they do not have birds, do not give up. Sanctuaries and rescues receive inquiries daily regarding animals needing homes – ask that you be contacted if one of these calls occurs.
Do your research: Chickens can be wonderful companions. While they are relatively easy to maintain, they do have special needs. Be sure to research housing, predator proofing, diet, and medical needs. Some things to be aware of:
- Some breeds of chickens are cold-sensitive: Hens and roosters with large single combs are prone to frost-bite in cooler climates. Make sure adequate housing accommodates birds in both cool and hot temperatures.
- Predator protection is vital: Chickens should be locked up at night in a safe enclosure that prevents access by all predators, including dogs, raccoons, aerial predators, rats, cats, wild canines, weasels, etc. During the day, animals should be housed in a fully-fenced enclosure or yard with proper protection from aerial, day-time predators and neighborhood dogs and, in the case of small bantams, large domestic free-roaming cats.
- Veterinary care is critical: Avian medicine is still considered an “exotic” practice and, as such, is more expensive. A one-time visit may start at $100. Nevertheless, before considering housing chickens, it is imperative that they have access to veterinary care.
Supporting Organizations
Animal Place
Chicken Run Rescue
Eastern Shore Sanctuary and Education Center
Farm Sanctuary
Sunny Skies Bird and Animal Sanctuary
United Poultry Concerns
Woodstock Animal Sanctuary
Thank you, Miriam, I will see if this is something the other activist (yes, one other one) in the area wants to work on, although I hate to say it seems like Asheville is moving backwards:
in one of the most recent city council meetings, animals lost big time. The issue of tethering unaccompanied dogs, while passed, has nothing to back it up: the police can’t issue fines until 2011, and when the subject of backyard chickens came up, the city passed a new ordinance requiring even less space between people with chickens and their neighbors. Previously there had to be 100 yards at a minimum; that was reduced to 50.
However, this is an issue I hadn’t actually thought about and so if we can’t get enough to support to campaign to stop this processing plant/slaughterhouse, perhaps we can work harder of behalf of those backyard chickies.
Hey Wendy,
If you would like, please email me directly at sanctuary@bravebirds.org — we can perhaps talk directly about possible strategies and ways we could all work together on this….
Miriam
I just wanted to thank you so much for this post. This issue is what’s been bothering me at the moment, also. I have non-vegan friends/family members coming up to me saying, “I’m only going to buy organic, free-range, local meat now.” like this is supposed to make me feel GOOD about them eating animals. Like I’m supposed to better accept their choices in murdering innocent animals. It’s nice to know I’m not alone here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
Arianna
I hope I’m reading this right, that you’re commenting to me and not to Stephanie! If I am, you’re welcome, and if I’m not, well anyway, no you’re sure not alone.
:)
I found this amusing and sad. Bardo Project calls themselves “sustainable” — Of course they raise (and slaughter) happy meat. But what a pitiful thing they are calling their “garden”. It’s a tiny 1/8 acre, shared with a tropoline and a sad little “greenhouse”. This operation is basically an animal prison/butcher facility… Just the kind of place “fexiterians” and “ethical carnviores” cluster to. http://www.bardoproject.com/farm/index.html
Seriously – an 1/8 acre with “heirloom” seeds? I’m pretty certain the only thing “green” that lands on these peoples plates is the parsley atop the chops… :(
@ Stephanie:
I apologize if you addressed this somewhere in the posts already. I’m late to comment, but this post was just brought to my attention as I did some catch-up reading on http://animalblawg.wordpress.com. I enjoyed your post, and I think I understand your concern with giving omnivores more wiggle room in which to justify their choices. You are certainly correct that factory farms are not the only problem, although, as you clarified, they remain a large problem.
I am troubled because forcing the focus onto factory farms at the expense of justifying “free-range” or “cruelty free” operations has been one of the few ways I’ve been able to get through to anyone on a face-to-face basis. The philosophy of a society devoid of animal exploitation is admirable, but the application is difficult, obviously. Our laws for animals are draconian, and the money is on the side of the exploiters and the torturers. Our most powerful tool is to talk to people one on one. I became vegetarian and then vegan because of the influence of one well-spoken vegan. When I talk to people about animal exploitation, there is no way I can get them to focus on the entire issue. If, however, I focus on the “big evil” of factory farming, and encourage them that eating meat isn’t wrong, but they way that they are doing it is because they have been mislead by corporations that do not have their interests at heart, then I sometimes can achieve results. I encourage that they at least cut back on consumption. Most of my suburban colleagues will not venture out to find local resources. Every couple of them will cut back or become vegetarian.
Yes, that approach misses the point, and it does run the risk that you warn about in your post, and may lead to regression for those who lack the philosophy. But if I can get a new vegetarian a month out of compromising the message, isn’t relaying part of the problem and getting a more aware society better than the zero results I achieve when I try to tell people that everything they do in eating meat is wrong? People don’t respond well to that.
Maybe I am in a different camp for a different movement, as some of the comments have suggested, but I like to think that I am advocating for the same side.
Hi Seth,
It seems quite clear, by your comments Seth, as if you view your own advocacy as a personal race to get as many people (who may be willing to modulate their eating habits to the degree they are not bothered by someone else providing them information on anything that may inconvenience them or raise any feelings of guilt within them) as possible, to make a small change, regardless if the consequences of this advocacy is that all of these people are left having their notion that animals are made for humans to use and kill be reinforced. This reinforcement done, of all people, by an animal activist who claims to be “…advocating for the same side.”
Sorry Seth, I don’t think we are on the same side.
In the very, very least, if you don’t believe that humans have the right to use animals as they please, you are being dishonest in your advocacy. At the worst, you are exactly the type of person that Stephanie and so many others are warning about as we are seeing notable numbers of vegans and vegetarians (many motivated in part by ethical concerns for the well being of the animals) revertingh back to eating the exact type of products you are telling people is okay to eat.
The latest article revealing the disaster of happy meat / egg preaching: http://www.dailytitan.com/2010/01/vegetarians-give-in-to-humanely-raised-meat/
Louie,
That article reads more like a slick long-winded ad than a well-researched piece of journalism. (Hm, not exactly the balanced reporting of Dean Kuipers over at the L.A. Times or Will Potter on his Green Scare blog.) What is questionable is how many vegans are actually turning into ex-vegans. By highlighting instances of celebrities who return to eating meat, it sometimes only fabricates an illusion that this is a sweeping trend. No doubt it’s a big problem, but I wonder to what extent. Mainstream media–propped up by advertising revenue from animal industries–tends to favor articles about “humane” animal consumption and censor dissenting vegan voices simply by omission. So far, I think “happy meat” remains an “elite meat” option. “Compassionate meat” is a pricey sucker not widely available in most major supermarkets. Options such as “grass-fed buffalo burgers” in my area are found only in health food stores. (It pisses me off to think of how some folks seem intent on adding even more species to the menu, especially after I was lucky enough to encounter wild buffalo roaming out West.) Though “organic dairy products” and “cage-free” eggs are too commonplace and more of a problem.
And fickle celebrities, who often go vegan because they perceive it as the glam trend of the season, aren’t the best reps of vegan living. They’re not like, say, Scott Jurek or Brendan Brazier, devoted pro athletes who don’t follow trends on a whim.
Someone in the article mentioned that eating meat was a “personal choice”–or a “lifestyle.” I don’t think eating meat is a personal choice like choosing which hat to wear or choosing a religion (or atheism). Whether a person chooses a particular religion or not, generally speaking it has no direct tragic consequence that involves the taking of another individual’s life. This isn’t true when someone “chooses to eat meat.”
Choosing to eat meat seems to me to be similar to “choosing” to murder my neighbor or the local librarian. Sure, I can “choose” to do so. But I don’t have the right.
I hope we all continue to participate in open discussions and not devolve into the chaos of infighting that the meat industry is deliberately inflaming. By continuing to keep the questions alive, we might just create answers for reshaping the world into a place where everyone belongs.
Hi MJ,
Thank you for your response.
In spite of your perception of the article, the fact still remains, as evidenced by many (not merely just this one) reports and articles from a diversity of authors, researchers, critics in a diversity of publications (including industry journals, food-trend focused magazines, women’s issues magazines, newspapers, non-fiction books, etc, etc, etc) that notable numbers of vegans and vegetarians (many of whom cited ethical concerns as a factor for their switch to a veggie diet) are reverting to eating meat and eggs again now that they have been duped into believing that the problems with meat (namely the worst cruelties found on factory farms) is being sufficiently addressed by industry and sufficiently too by many animal orgs and leaders alike. Here’s the dupe: 1) animal orgs spend copious amounts of membership dollars focusing on the worst cruelties on factory farms painting a clear picture that factory farms are the problem (this includes massively expensive legislation campaigns teaming up with ‘humane’ animal killers and exploiters…as public opinion shifts somewhat because of this and pressure mounts, 2) industry begins to switch overcrowded cages for overcrowded sheds, reprimands or fires a worker who has been caught on video tape abusing an animal, and institutes progressive husbandry reform using the advice of experts in animal husbandry and animal welfare, 3) and finally, too many animal leaders and orgs laud these industry modulations and factory farm alternatives at the same time they exclaim “Victory for the animals!” in the process incentivising vegans and vegetarians to go back to eating meat, dairy, and eggs that have the ‘humane stamp of approval’ on top of the audacious humane label. It is utterly disgusting and shameful. How could we expect, with this insidious dupe taking place, to not have notable numbers of veggie people reverting back to eating animal products?
As for your claim that happy meat is an elite option, it is no longer. About ten years ago, when I first started examining this issue, that was the case, but today, “Natural”, “Grass-fed”, “Organically raised” , “Cage-free”, and all of the other euphemistic labels that are stuck onto the cellophaned package of killed animals is now an expanding market. If it were not for the very difficult economics that most Americans face at the moment, I think that even you would agree that the situation would be worse than it is now (‘humane’ products capturing more of the market share).
I completely agree with you that eating meat from killed animals should not be seen as merely a personal choice…it is a very serious moral decision because of the substantial consequences to living, sentient individuals. BUT, much of the public still does not get this and therein lies the serious problem of animal orgs and leaders whom are supposed to have the best interests of the animals at heart, pushing for happy meat and eggs, intentionally withholding the excellent arguments in favor of asking people to consider thinking about the whole corrupt premise that animals are here for whatever use we want to make of them (thereby legitimizing the notion that they are). It is, in the very least, dishonest for animal leaders who believe that the problem is not just the worst cruelties on factory farms, to campaign this way.
Finally, it seems that infighting is unavoidable as this issue is a really deep issue for many people who care about animals here in the world today as well as the long term future for animals. Some animal org leaders are too arrogant to come out of their ivory towers, using any and every opportunity to rationalize their myopic, short-term, personal gain arguments which, as I mention above, are responsible in part, for vegans and vegetarians reverting to eating animal products. If you believe that being self-critical on very basic but very important concerns is meaningful as I think you do, please join all those who have now recognized the real danger of animal leaders and orgs promoting the idea of happy meat and animal products as a morally responsible alternative, to challenge the ivory tower leaders who insist this.
Thank you for your valuable time.
Louie,
Humane myth is a huge problem. I’m just questioning if “hordes of vegans are turning into ex-vegans” is a reality—or more clever propaganda. Look at the sources of those articles. Aren’t they mainstream publications with parent companies linked to the meat industry? Let’s say there are a dozen ex-vegans groomed and rewarded as spokespeople by the meat industry. They can each easily scribble dozens of negative articles to be distributed through high-profile channels. Suddenly, it appears that there is a flood of “authoritative” ex-vegan voices in the mainstream. Public perception has little to do with reality. Even if there were a hundred such scribblers, numerically it’s still a very small minority.
I mean, how many vegans do you know who are flipping? In recent years I’ve discussed this with vegans and know of no one who has gone back to turkey burgers. I don’t even know any vegetarians who have given up vegetarian living, despite constant social pressure from so-called friends. This is just my personal perception. It’s bogus; the viral infection of a typical media plague.
Vegans are about 1% of the population here. They’re not the lucrative target of humane myth propaganda. Humane myth is a false choice designed for omnivores. It misleads them to *continue* participating in animal exploitation and murder. Humane myth negates their opportunity of exploring countless vegan options and discovering the joy of vegan living. This is an injustice. To veil critical information from people is to enslave them to a lie and diminish their lives. And vegans disagree about humane myth, so imagine the confusion for omnivores. It’s probably compounded tenfold.
Sorry I’m so damn long-winded. As Stephanie and others pointed out, the movement is at a critical crossroads. I no longer look to the leaders of the large groups for real progress. They’ve had a lot of practice selling out the animals and us. They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do. That’s not where change is coming from. I believe in the people. To resist. To create. To thrive. It’s small grassroots projects in each community that transform that community and then catch on in neighboring communities. This is my hope.
Wishing you a good weekend.
Hi MJ,
I am very passionate about animal advocacy and so if I appear to be or come across as curt, it is only because of the seriousness of the matter as I see it.
It is not just those articles cited on HumaneMyth…there are many more that HumaneMyth does not have posted. Also, I am not talking about some unknown vegetarians claiming to have reverted back, I’m talking about people like Marion Nestle (a renowned food critic, not a meat industry insider) who has implicitly stated that notable numbers of vegetarians have gone back to eating meat because they now believe the problems of farmed animals have been adequately addressed.
It seems, no amount of evidence is going to persuade you to see what the problem is that Stephanie and many others have raised issue with here and in other venues. You appear to be an apologist for those who advocate humane meat, as if everything Stephanie, myself, and others makes no difference to your opinion.
HumaneMyth exposes a very serious problem within the animal advocacy movement. I’m glad that many objective people have recognized this. It is absurd to dismiss these articles because you question whether some of them have parent companies linked to the meat industry. In this day and age where one company might own hundreds of other very large companies with competing interests, to claim that this is a reason to dismiss outright anything published by one of those hundreds of companies, frankly, is laughable.
I personally know and have met a handful of vegans or vegetarians who have, in recent years, gone back to eating meat, eggs, or dairy.
Instead of questioning the motivations or challenging all those vegetarians and vegans who have admitted or claimed to be eating animal products again because they feel the problems have been addressed, why don’t you, MJ, consider renouncing those animal advocacy leaders whom, in the very least, are presenting misrepresentations of the problem faced by the animals? If now, in 2010, after a very long time of some animal org campaigns which intentionally sugar coat the truth so as to not offend the sensibilities of the public, it is still not appropriate to ask the public to consider that the exploitation, use of, and killing of animals in morally unjustifiable (the reason given by those orgs with happy meat campaigns), then when will it ever be the right time to ask the public to consider this? A million years from now? Never?
When I ask or suggest for people to consider that unnecessary killing (eating meat) is not a morally responsible thing to do (that it’s wrong), I am not using special powers or something. But that’s what one might think when reading of the most common reason that some animal advocates give for only mentioning the worst cruelties of factory farms, giving the impression that that is the problem, and reinforcing the notion that many people have about animals. Wouldn’t it be a good idea if we try to dispel these calamitous (to the animals) notions that many people still have?
Thank you for your time once again.
Louie,
Whoa, I gotta ask: uh, are you actually reading what I wrote to you? You’ve…well…misinterpreted what I said into just the very opposite. I’m almost puking up my lunch here. :) You’re preaching to, or hollering at, the choir. All the comments I’ve left on this site obviously show where I stand on humane myth and animal welfare groups that help peddle that nonsense.
I’ve made no excuses for the large animal welfare groups that irk the hell outta me. I only said they’re determined to do what they do. I’m just not wasting energy to persuade them otherwise, and I’m sure not gonna tell them how to advocate. It’s their group. But I can choose to refuse to support them and ally myself with other likeminded, likehearted advocates elsewhere. You wanna police the actions of every group, go ahead. That’s just not my thing.
Let me be clear about my opinions. Any animal welfare group perpetuating any amount of animal exploitation and murder via humane myth is an obstacle to justice and real freedom for the animals. This includes “compassionate animal standards” of zoos, circuses, rodeos, racetracks, and aquariums.
And any “notable number” of vegans is mathematically a tiny minority. Yes, ex-vegans do exist. So you know a few ex-vegans. The sky is not falling. Not even if you knew 500 ex-vegans. The number remains small and * insignificant *–because to begin with, vegans are only 1% of the U.S. population.
I never said humane myth isn’t one of the biggest problems. I’m talking about those mainstream articles. I’m only exploring the issue when I question if born-again meat eaters is a sweeping trend as those articles suggest or if it’s yet another attempt by the meat industry and animal welfare groups to generate a certain * public perception *. (Maybe you interpret the use of critical thinking as dismissing the problem or being naïve.) Why would the industry create this illusion? To reinforce the acceptance of meat eating as a norm. To try to coerce those of us who resist humane myth to accept the illogical “necessary lesser evil of humane myth.”
Mainstream media tries to shape public perceptions about eating meat (and all political issues). What better way than to enlist some former vegetarians or vegans to bellyache about how “horrible it was to not eat meat?” It’s quite probable this propaganda is primarily directed toward omnivores. They’re 99% of the meat, dairy, and egg industries’ customers. Humane myth is a strategy to * keep * those existing customers (who will raise their kids to be the next generation of customers). It prevents omnivores from ever discovering how yummy and nutrient-dense vegan foods are and from learning the truth about all animal agriculture.
Again, let me be clear about where I stand. “Humane” murder or “humane” exploitation does not exist. A little bit of murder or exploitation is not okay either. Humans have no right to do whatever they want to any other species just because they physically can. Humans shouldn’t “manage,” control, or interfere with the lives of animals. Every animal’s life is dear to him- or herself. I’m for total animal freedom.
By the way, I don’t think, as Gary Francione and Lee Hall do, that the direct action methods of Paul Watson, Keith Mann, or the ALF are wrong. To value property over life is wrong to me. To value mere objects like whaling ships or pseudo-research labs over the individual lives of whales, rats, dogs, chimpanzees, and other animals is criminal.
“Working with the meat industry” for the (mythical) “greater good of the animals” is an unethical conflict of interest. It only indefinitely postpones the shutting down of agribusiness. And yeah, shutting down animal agriculture, Huntingdon Life Sciences, zoos, circuses, aquariums, and any institution where there are animal prisoners is my idea of true “reform.” I don’t believe in compromising the animals. I believe in advocating a complete boycott of all animal and animal-tested “products.”
For total animal freedom, the earth, and the people….
MJ,
Your attitude all along has been to attack HumaneMyth with absurd criticisms. It seems you have an agenda to discredit the entire project…how do you reconcile this with your claim that you were only criticizing the articles??? You had written, “Humane Myth is a huge problem.” You follow this up directly with, “I’m just questioning if “hordes of vegans are turning into ex-vegans” is a reality—or more clever propaganda.” but I have found nowhere on the Humane Myth site that this is the words of those who have created HumaneMyth.org. Please show me exactly where you’d taken that quote from (but please don’t tell me it is from one of the numerous articles from other media outlets because this would only further prove that your objective is to discredit the HumaneMyth project. HumaneMyth is “clever propaganda”…and humane meat isn’t??? Do you actually read what you write MJ because you have it completely backwards? It is humane meat that is clever propaganda.
You claim to have no intent on wasting energy to tell the large animal welfare groups how to advocate yet you find plenty of time to attack a grass roots project like HumaneMyth and criticize the project for doing things the wrong way (ie., using articles you insinuate are heavily biased in favor of the meat industry’s perspective). Do you actually read what you write MJ?
You misrepresent me…I don’t want to police the actions of every group…I never expressed that in any way. What I did was called you out and had written that if you are so interested in attacking the voracity of vegans and vegetarians who have claimed to revert to meat eating and interested in attacking an organization, instead of attacking ex-vegans and vegetarians and the grass roots HumaneMyth org, you ought to focus your attacks instead on those large orgs and their leaders who are pushing humane meat. Do you still not get this MJ?
I find your attitude ( “So you know a few ex-vegans. The sky is not falling. Not even if you knew 500 ex-vegans. The number remains small and * insignificant *–because to begin with, vegans are only 1% of the U.S. population.” ) nauseating and outrageous. It is this very attitude that is the root of a disconnect from the life and lives of others. MJ, every vegan or vegetarian who reverts back to eating meat is complicit in the unnecessary killing of perhaps hundreds of animals every year (depending on which animals they eat of course). Do you think you can remove this from the equation? This inconvenient truth is insignificant??? That is certainly a repulsive attitude in my view.
As for your conspiracy theories on those articles, you would have to make a much more convincing argument than to claim that they are all meat industry propaganda for me to even engage in discourse with you on your belief as to why.
I absolutely agree with your position, “Working with the meat industry”…….boycott of all animal and animal-tested “products.”
The apparent dichotomy of your positions is confusing to me.
Louie, I’m not going to get too deep into what’s going on between you and MJ here (I honestly haven’t even had time to read all of both your comments in detail), but I at least want to jump in to point out one area where you clearly seem to be misunderstanding MJ. MJ is not attacking Humane Myth the Web site — when MJ remarked on “humane myth” being an enormous problem, the comment was on the humane myth — the myth that animal exploitation can be humane — not the Humane Myth site countering the humane myth.
Thanks Steph for clarifying that. It was not made clear previously as “humane myth” is not the problem, as I see it, but rather “humane meat” is. “Humane myth”, as I see it, is a descriptive term referring to a (troubling) thing. It is the thing, not the term which describes the troubling thing that I think is the huge problem.
MJ, I’m truly sorry and I apologize for misunderstanding what you had written and for coming down so hard on you for what I believed was your position. I hope you might now understand why I did.
No problem, Louie. I didn’t say the humane meat myth because my focus includes all animal industries perpetuating the humane myth propaganda, such as zoos and oceanariums. I think HumaneMyth.org is one of the most reliable resources that dares to keep speaking the entire truth. Tribe of Heart is a remarkable example of what a core staff of just four individuals can do to effectively advocate for the animals.
MJ, I am no longer confused by your comments as now I understand that the confusion was based on me not getting what you meant for me to get. I agree with you about Tribe and their Humane Myth project (the website, the literature and brochures, the speakers and multimedia tools, etc). Because some people may confuse “humane myth” with the Humane Myth project, I’m wondering if the best way to denote the humane myth is to always include “the” before humane myth? I know it may seem like a meaningless detail and maybe I’m the only person in the world who would get confused otherwise, but maybe I’m not and this may help to avoid a similar confusion in the future.
Humanemyth.org
There is no such thing as humane slaughter. For those of you going back to eating murder, please fix a sack lunch and go to your nearest slaughterhouse and sit right in the middle and then write about how humane these poor, precious sweet souls are murdered.. But of course you won’t do that! Too many of you love living in a world of denial. Wake up people, learn all about, humanemyth.org
Advocating for “happy meat” only increase meat consumption…
If I’m trying to encourage someone (everyone) to go vegan… If after the discussions about “plant pain”, canine teeth and the human digestive system, “gOd”, animal sentience, and on and on; And they still want to consume flesh — I would never advise “happy” – but rather reduction.
And even though I NEVER want to forget about the “suffering” – I still can’t condone or purify the killing. And happy meat does just that.
@MJ – “more clever propaganda” — I think so too!
I read a lot fromt he agriculture blogs and sites… I see that whether it’s from “welfarists” groups or “rights” issues — They are holding on by the seat of their pants. There is only so long one can stay on the defensive…
Late to the party, I realize, but I couldn’t let the opportunity pass to join the conversation. I, like Noah, am one of those omnivores who will only eat animal products if I know where they come from, how they were raised, and how they were slaughtered.
I would like to add to Noah’s argument about farm animals not being able to survive if left to live in the wild, as well as respond to some of the comments about suffering and killing.It is true that the animals Noah raised for food would never have suffered because they would never have existed if he had not chosen to raise them for food. Now take that point and blow it up to a global scale. The argument for doing away with farm animals becomes an argument in favor of extinction. That’s problematic, in my view. First off, however it comes about, extinction is not a cruelty-free process (drowning polar bears, anyone?). Second, domesticated farm animals evolved with a specific relationship to human beings. When that relationship suddenly shifts– as opposed to occurring over an evolutionary time scale– more suffering rather than less occurs (witness the suffering of feral cats, especially those that haven’t been spayed or neutered). There may be a valid vegan argument for slowly reintegrating domesticated animals back into the wild, and away from dependence on humans, but if a vegan were to make that argument, I would expect that it would apply to companion animals as well as farm animals. Those animals, too, have been bred to live lives that serve human purposes– for human pleasure. Of course, those animals, like well-treated farm animals, get a certain something from the bargain: protection, companionship, a life of relative ease compared to their wild counterparts.
Apart from the problem of distinguishing between companion animals and food animals, this theoretical vegan argument for returning all domesticated animals to the wild runs into the problem of the basis of agriculture: animal manure is necessary for a sustainable agricultural system. That is, unless you’re totally OK with petroleum-derived commercial fertilizers completely taking over. Compost can and does do a lot, and could completely rule the roost for small-scale food-raising. But compost alone cannot supply the fertility that agriculture requires. And as of right now, agriculture, not horticulture, is the primary method of getting food to the world’s table. On sustainable farms (I’m talking truly sustainable farms, not green-washed Big Ag you find in supermarkets), farm animals provide the fertility that keeps the whole system operating. Lose it, you lose the system.
Finally, while I respect the vegan viewpoint, my personal choice is to make food decisions based on a larger picture that attempts to do as little harm and as much good as possible. This means taking into account the suffering caused by all of industrial agriculture, not just the suffering inflicted upon farm animals. For example: how many tons of greenhouse gasses are belched by the factory that processes your Boca burger? how many small sustainable farms (animal or vegetable) have been put out of business by vegan-friendly third-world unfriendly commodity crops? Corn, soy, wheat, rice and one other plant crop (that’s not coming to mind for some reason) receive the lion’s share of agricultural subsidies in this country; the lion’s share of those go to the largest producers; raised as they are in giant monocultures, these crops require enormous inputs of fertilizer and pesticides, and are contributing directly and indirectly to the increasing loss of biodiversity in the nation’s rivers, the Gulf dead zone, cancer clusters in rural communities, the economic and cultural destruction of rural communities, etc. I would rather have my meal supplemented by humanely raised animal flesh that contributes to the well-being of my local community than by tofu that pays Monsanto and turns farmers into glorified share-croppers (nearly all of the US’s soybeans are patented by Monsanto, which means Monsanto, not the farmer, owns the crop) or out of season fruits and vegetables that have guzzled thousands of gallons of gasoline to make their way to my table, or obscenely subsidized rice that has helped decimate third-world farmers (Haiti, anyone?).
Suffering and killing are terrible things, I absolutely agree. But there are more ways in which agriculture contributes to suffering and killing than via the direct slaughter of farm animals, and in my opinion those other ways are just as if not more serious than the killing of farm animals for food.
Last but not least, I am a little concerned about the lack of context on display here. What do vegans have to say to impoverished people for whom a vegan diet is simply too expensive (the disparity between the cost of cheap, processed foods and factory farmed meats being a result of federal agricultural policies)? Are they heartless killers? I have seen a few commenters state the caveat that eating meat is simply wrong “if you don’t have to,” but what constitutes “need,” in this case? Does it include living in an environment that lacks arable land (such as nomadic peoples and a number of indigenous people do)? Would veganism rather see more forests cleared for agricultural cultivation than forest animals hunted for food? It seems that even with the “need” caveat, there’s a certain amount of holier-than-thou and cultural superiority complex inherent in the statement itself. I personally feel like we humans and all of our fellow animals would be much better off if we kept context in mind, and instead of judging each other for our dietary choices, focused on the structural problems and injustices that prohibit us from being able to make well-informed, healthy, animal-, environment-, and human-friendly food choices. Certainly Big Ag and corporate consolidation are more appropriate villains than “lapsed” vegans eating sustainably farmed meat? (I should note that if they’re eating truly sustainable meat, they’re eating far less meat than your average American.) Or am I missing something?
Hi Shavone,
Welcome to the discussions. I don’t think I can express some of my views without you feeling offended…but you should know that I am offended by some of the views you have expressed.
Your statement, “The argument for doing away with farm animals becomes an argument in favor of extinction.” is completely missing the whole point. Hypothetically, if in some country they were breeding humans by the thousands to eat, would you also be overly concerned that doing away with this practice would result in extinction? And as to the relationship of the purpose-bred humans, it could easily be maintained that they are treated well and a bond could develop between the bred and the breeder during their life here on earth, and indeed therefore they would get a certain something from the bargain: protection, companionship, a life of relative ease compared to much of the rest of humanity who has to struggle to varying degrees to make a living
As for the elimination of farmed animals (which would be, objectively, a great moral accomplishment)…it can only work in one way…very gradually. The world is not going to become enlightened or awake over night and realize that concurrent with the fact there is no biological requirement in the human body for animal flesh that it is also not morally responsible to exploit and treat as property, living sentient individuals. But if and when this gradual awakening happens, these people’s consumer habits will change…they will hypothetically no longer buy animal vestiges to eat. The market’s only sensible response would have to be to breed less animals to meet the increasingly lower demand. Finally, as this trend continues year after year, far fewer animals will be bred until one day, hopefully, no farmed animals will have to be bred to be killed for a gustatory indulgence. In the meantime, if there are any excess animals, they should be given sanctuary at shelters, animal sanctuaries, or even adequate homes on individual citizen’s property. Releasing domesticated animals into the wild is not good any way one could look at it.
I am, incidentally, opposed to the idea of breeding any sentient individuals (whether cat, chicken, mouse, or human) for the gain of others.
If your big concern over any other is to seek ways of living that reduces the impact on our planet, to be intellectually consistent, you would have to be in favor of starting a worldwide program which would utilize humans as a source of food, fuel, useful byproducts, and labor to name a few. But your argument is offensive and absurd as I see it because it completely removes the most morally relevant aspect; that you are advocating unnecessary violence while seeking to have less toxins in the environment / impact on our communities. Cumulatively, all commercial animal farming (including the most organic) has a negative impact on the environment. To live the lifestyle you advocate (eating meat and animal products that come from ‘sustainable farms’), there would have to be so much land converted into suitable farm or grazing pastures that this would likely destroy the last of the remaining undeveloped land in America. Wildlife is already driven to the brink in many places…your way of life would be disastrous for wildlife in many ways. This is what pasture raising on public lands has been doing to America: http://www.mikehudak.com/index.html. Keep in mind, livestock farmers kill wild animals by the millions and often use poisonous substances.
If you are concerned about animals as you claim to be, please keep in mind that humans are extremely resourceful and we can work on ways to drastically reduce the impact that non-animal agriculture has on the environment and on other animals….but, no matter how much resourcefulness humans can achieve, there will never be a time when we can remove the destruction of animals for an American diet that consists of animal flesh.
Finally, as you show sympathy for people you claim may “need” to eat meat, why don’t you show meaningful sympathy toward the victims of those same people who choose to eat others? Sympathy for the victims means not simply rationalizing that those individual’s fate is based on their instrumental value to someone who just happens to have the ability to exploit and kill them (or pay someone else to do that). Besides, wouldn’t a more noble cause for people who believe like you do, be to sacrifice themselves so that those people who “need” to eat meat can eat meat???
About the poor people, I would like to point out that most of them ALREADY don’t eat meat because they can’t afford it. The amount of meat they eat is just not “enough” to have a diet based on. And the point of “they can’t afford” is totally based on market rules and not production or real price. For example, here in Brazil we have a kind of package of staple food like rice, flour, sugar, oil, that is supposed to be enough for a family of 4 people for a month and costs about U$30, if you buy whole grain alternatives to that basic food on supermarket you would pay about U$50 but, if you buy whole grain alternatives and MORE healthy food, like seeds and oats for example, on a whole food store, it will cost about U$25. So, what is expensive here? Maybe vegan nuggets bought on supermarket, but that is just a waste of money for most people. Vegetables in Brazil are really cheap, so I don’t have to comment that.
The problem with most poor people is not that they don’t have access to meat, but that they THINK they need meat to live. It’s a cultural problem. And that what we should focus on, with education so people can learn about how to prepare healthy meals without thinking that “I need to buy meat but I don’t have money to”.
And about indigenous people, as I said before, this is an issue that most of you don’t realize how much we already affected their lifestyle and if you say that they “can’t” have enough plant based food is pointless because they know very well how to grow food, so again it’s mostly cultural, but if there were a tribe that hunt humans, would you like to let them just keep doing that or would you like to make them stop, showing them it’s not necessary? If there were a tribe that were hunting species threatened to be extincted would you allow them to do so? I’m not saying that we have to say “no more hunting for you”, but I think that this is not the case to discuss their way as being a sacred attitude. They are still humans and many of them are just moving to cities to have television (and in fact, many tribes already have it).
I know that may exist some cultures that still “need” to hunt, but say the same of people who lives in the city where they can choose is just useless.
About the farm animals being extinct, it’s just a nonsense comment, because cows wouldn’t exist at all in Brazil if they were not breed for that, and breeding them we kill almost all native animals and we already destroyed 85% of all rain forest on south and southeast of Brazil and we are reaching the number of 40% of Amazon. As someone pointed out, the world won’t just go vegetarian overnight, but what if we STOP to breed animals for food, on a gradual change, in some years the number will be much less then now, and within few years more, even less, until it reach a number that they could live on a place where they can have a comfort live on a friendly environment where they won’t be extincted, because we already destroyed forests, and now it’s to shape the new habitat. And about dogs and cats? The same apply to them, they are not native, but on the right environment and if we stop to seeing them as ours, but an animal that shares the space with the community, it will be much easier to see the future for them, being free but staying with us as far they wish to.
And the case for family farmed animals, they won’t be enough to feed all world population and it will still cost MORE to the planet then a plant based diet. It pollutes less then factory farms? Probably, but having plant based food on the same space pollute even less and feed more people. And then we can try to plant the forest again because WE NEED IT, animals need it, and the world need it. We have to stop just thinking about ways of reduce and also think about ways to fix the destruction we’ve made, and be sure that feeding animals to kill is just the most inefficient help you can do and ignoring the fact that they suffer, feel pain and we destroy family bonds just for our own pleasure is just a very stupid thing to do.
A Santos,
You’ve made many excellent points.
As I read this piece I had to stop to see whether I was reading a satire piece in The Onion. The economic effect of attacking factory farming seems self evident. If the horror of consuming animals could be cut by any significant percentage, alternative food choices could become more economic, and thus more popular, more available, and even better, greatly enlarging the base of people who are not blinded to our message by a meat addiction. The rich may always get foie gras, cocaine, or any other contraband – but if we ever reached a point where we were fighting for a small, urbane, coastal minority of holdouts, I think we would have an easier time of it than trying to convince billions of working people not to buy a serving of tasty animal protien for $1.00 at McD’s or KFC. Let the price of meat triple and watch what happens.
Hi Theo,
Unfortunately Theo, the farmed-animal industry today, with all the vast truckloads of dollars spent by all animal orgs attacking factory farming in the US over the past decade or so, is killing more animals than ever before, according to statistics I’ve seen. Sure these figures are complex but I am not aware of any official source which has provided figures that shows that the numbers of animals killed has declined significantly. Numerous articles written in industry trade journals, food magazines, newspapers, and many other places have acknowledged that happy meat is a boon for the meat industry as this sector has seen remarkable growth in the past decade or so. So long as animal orgs, the meat industry, and a couple of popular authors are convincing people that the problem isn’t eating meat, but rather factory farming, people will be influenced to buy happy meat…that’s exactly what the figures are showing. And of course the industry is going to pass the cost onto the consumer and onto the taxpayers when their powerful lobbyists influence legislators to subsidize farming cost increases.
“So long as animal orgs, the meat industry, and a couple of popular authors are convincing people that the problem isn’t eating meat, but rather factory farming, people will be influenced to buy happy meat.”
I couldn’t agree more. Perhaps because inroads were being made into exposing factory farming, horrifying people who decided to stop eating animals because of it, the industry and some so-called AR groups turned to “happy meat,” and people quite literally started eating it up.
Asheville, NC is the best small city for vegetarians according to some poll, but I’ll be damned if I can find a large group of vegans here. Everything’s about local, local local — and local meat, no matter where the animals are slaughtered, is the Big Thing. Yoga instructors raise animals “locally” to be eaten at local non-chain restaurants. And I’ll repeat: the demand by consumers for local meat (because “enlightened” consumers don’t want to support the cruelty of factory farming [yet somehow they are unable to understand that the very act of slaughter is cruel; but that's another topic, and this is what we're dealing with now]) has led to the building of a new local slaughterhouse in western North Carolina that will, for starters, increase animal slaughter (basically chickens, with some rabbits, turkeys and goats thrown into the mix) by five times the current rate of what local farmers can do.
The point, as Louie mentioned, is not that factory farming is so heinous (which it is), but that all animal farming is heinous.
Here’s an article that all people interested in farmed-animals should read: http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/something-almost-primal/
If there is one practical cause to take on that can address the underlying issue of speciesist injustice I think that zoos would be it. Zoos by their very nature perpetuate the objectification of animals and is probably something the general public can get behind. I’m surprised at how little attention these anachronistic institutions get from an animal rights perspective.
It’s a worthwhile issue to speak out against but I feel that many fewer activists would see it as more worthwhile than some other issues for various reasons. Besides, it is a lot easier to get the public (in general) interested in an issue where there is overt abuse, cruelty, or killing taking place….none of which are routinely present at most zoos.
I agree, many activists use emotional-laden ploys based upon welfare issues short-circuiting the actual issue of animal oppression. What needs to change is the attitude of the public. In this regard I think zoos are on the front lines of the matter and more activists should take a look at abolishing these institutions for greater gains. Domesticated animals can be a complicated issue to traverse. Wild animals in zoos are a no-brainer.