HSUS Promotes Veganism

September 29, 2008 | 2 Comments

The ‘Yes on Prop 2‘ gala dinner - with celebrities and fundraising - was VEGAN.

The measure, of course, assumes people are still eating animals. It deals only with their treatment in factory farming situations. (There was no meat last night — as is the custom at most animal welfare events. The vegan dinner was catered by Madeleine Bistro. And it was good — really.) (source)

So no, the HSUS is not promoting “happy meat.” If anything, they convinced some meat-eaters to eat vegan for one meal.

Yes, I know Prop 2 isn’t going to make a huge difference in many animals’ lives. They will still be slaughtered and eaten. Yes, I wish everyone would go vegan. But that’s not going to happen any time soon.

Prop 2 is a step in the right direction. It gives animals a tiny bit more space so they can turn around in their cages. Prop 2 is a reflection that humans, even the meat-eating ones, are not evil monsters.

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under animal-rights, vegan, vegetarian
2 Comments to "HSUS Promotes Veganism"

Vote Yes On Prop 2

September 3, 2008 | 5 Comments

this sheep wants your attention

Californians, please vote yes on Prop 2, which would ban battery cages and gestation crates. It’s a very modest proposal that will simply outlaw some of the most cruel forms of farm animal confinement. From the initiative:

“The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to tum around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.” (Read the text of Prop 2 here >>)

If that’s not enough to convince you to vote for it, here are some more reasons:

Prop 2 is good for human animals. It will help prevent some food borne illness (since intensive animal agriculture tends to produce more unsafe meat and other animal products than less intensive animal agriculture).
Prop 2 is good for the environment and wild animals. It will prevent some forms of pollution (since intensive animal agriculture is extremely polluting).

Even if you don’t think this would be a victory for farm animals (because they’ll still become meat for human consumption) you should still vote yes. Here’s why:

Prop 2 is good for animal advocates. A yes vote indicates a public concern for animals. That will inspire more politicians and business people to consider animal rights and welfare as part of their agendas.
Prop 2 is good for farm animals. This initiative won’t be a real victory for farm animals. It’s a tiny step in a long, long road for farm animals. But it’s an improvement. It’s better to do something than nothing.
Prop 2 is good for future farm animals. A “yes on Prop 2″ vote suggests opposition to some forms of animal confinement, but not support of any specific animal use. That is, this is incremental abolition, not welfarism. It will not hinder future animal rights measures.

If you are an animal rights supporter and you don’t feel that this measure is strong enough, please still vote yes. We don’t have to claim this as an animal rights victory. Prop 2 is not truly about animal rights. But we can still vote yes on Prop 2 with a clear conscience that we’re doing the right thing for animals, for human health, and for the environment.

And while I’m on that topic, if you’re not already vegan, please go vegan. Veganism is truly the right thing for animals, for human health, and for the environment.

But stil, some people will vote no. Even people who care deeply about animals. Gary Francione wants Californians to oppose. He suggests that the initiative isn’t good for animals because it’s not enough. It’s too far in the future and it doesn’t ban all the cruel practices involved in intensive animal agriculture. More specifically, he opposes it because it doesn’t fundamentally address animal rights. What surprised me most about his opposition was this reason:

“it is important for animal advocates to send a clear message to the Humane Society of the United States”

I can’t even fathom this line of reasoning. A clear message would be, let’s see, CLEAR. A “no” vote isn’t clear, given that many voters will vote “no.” How is the HSUS supposed to differentiate between the animal exploiter’s “no” vote and the animal advocate’s “no” vote? They can’t. Perhaps if Gary said, ‘Vote no and send a letter to the HSUS explaining why you voted how you did’ then his explanation would make more sense. But he didn’t say that. He just wants you to vote ‘no.’

Francione claims, ” if passed, [the initiative] will only make the public feel better about animal exploitation and will result in increased exploitation.” I highly doubt animal product consumption will increase as a result of Prop 2. There simply isn’t any real evidence to support Francione’s claims that meat consumption will increase.

The people who will “feel better about animal exploitation” after Prop 2 passes are the same people who don’t feel bad enough now to stop. They already eat animal products and they’re not stopping any time soon.

Besides, it’s immoral to deny animals a relief in suffering in order to encourage more people to go vegan. The issues are separate. We can’t base how we treat animals on what we expect humans to do. The animals need our help NOW. And the humans are, well, unpredictable. Will they eat less or more meat, who knows? It’s not truly relevant.

And guess what? You can vote “yes” on Prop 2 and still send a letter to the HSUS telling them you’d rather they spend money on vegan education than on animal welfare measures. You can vote “yes” on Prop 2 and refrain from donating money to the HSUS. You can vote “yes” on Prop 2 and continue working towards abolition. You can vote “yes” on Prop 2 and still do vegan education.

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Animals, Food, Politics, vegan, vegetarian
5 Comments to "Vote Yes On Prop 2"

I’m Sorry, Meat-Eaters, But You’re Full Of It

August 29, 2008 | 4 Comments

taste bud

I think this article, “I’m Sorry, Taste Buds” is compelling for those who believe in human supremacy. The author, Kevin Padrez, offers plenty of good reasons to go vegan:

“If the impending heart attack isn’t enough to scare you away, there are the added immoral actions of the meat industry. Twinkies, though more unhealthy than meat, are not jacked up with sickly growth hormones, aren’t raised to be brutally slaughtered and don’t cause an environmental toll that is both grossly underestimated and completely unsustainable.

He doesn’t think it’s right to treat animals the way they’re treated in industrial agriculture. And he believes in God. And he thinks veg*nism is a sacrifice. These are common assumptions for many Americans.

Padrez decided to go vegetarian for Lent and he realizes some things:

“[T]he vegetarian life is growing on me [...] I feel better about myself knowing I am doing something good for my body and soul.”

I share it here because it might be compelling to you or someone you know. He makes some excellent points about how vegetarianism and veganism are good for your health, the environment, and your conscience.

However, this is my blog and this space is essentially about me and my ideas. And well, I disagree with some of his premises.

Of course, I agree with him regarding industrial animal agriculture (aka factory farming). I think it’s terribly cruel and completely immoral. Animals should not be confined in tiny crates, cages or crammed into warehouses. Animals should not be force-fed, forcibly impregnated, pumped full of hormones and antibiotics, or inhumanely slaughtered. Every animal should know the feeling of natural sunlight on their back or belly. Every animal should have access to clean air and water. Every animal should be able to live a long, full life. Every animal should have plenty of room to roam and wander. Every animal should be the beneficiary of human kindness and compassion, not cruelty and greed.

I also agree with Padrez about the health benefits of vegetarianism. Both my mother and my husband made major health transformations due to their change in diet from omnivorism to vegetarianism. They became much healthier people as vegetarians. (My own transformation wasn’t nearly as dramatic given that I became vegetarian at age six and hadn’t developed health problems related to meat-eating.) Moreover, I’ve read The China Study, which documents numerous health and nutrition studies and concludes that vegetarianism is indeed much more healthy than omnivorism.

But I disagree with some of his other premises.

For starters, I’m atheist. I think God and religion has been used to justify many horrors in this world and I don’t support any religion or any irrational belief that is destructive to the belief-holder or anyone else. That said, I think many people’s belief in God and attachment to religion is relatively harmless. Moreover, I understand that beliefs formed in early childhood are exceptionally difficult to erase. Therefor, I place no major emphasis on eradicating that particular irrational belief. If someone believes in God, I don’t worry about their cognitive abilities or reasoning skills the way some atheists and agnostics do. I usually simply let them have their belief and try not to offend them too much with my lack of belief.

Next, I don’t agree that veganism is a sacrifice. In fact, I feel that’s it’s a moral baseline. It’s the least we can do. It doesn’t make us better than anyone else. It doesn’t make us superheroes. We aren’t exceptionally generous or compassionate people. Vegans are not “brave” or “heroic” regardless of what some people think. We are merely humans who’ve made the decision to try to live our lives without harming animals.

Furthermore, not only is living as a vegan not a sacrifice, it can be an abundant lifestyle. Vegans tend to have an abundance of health, an abundance of a clear conscience, an abundance of interesting foods, an abundance of energy, and more. The saying that “when you close one door, another door opens” is absolutely true in regards to veganism. The so-called sacrifice of abastaining from harming animals is not a true sacrifice because harming animals is not a true good. Just as ridding ones self of bad habits like smoking cigarettes is not a sacrifice, veganism is ridding ones self of a bad habit and is not a sacrifice.

However, given Padrez’s premises, his logic is valid. If I shared his perspective of the world, I would likely come to similar conclusions about animals and veg*nism.

This is why I focused on the major issue that he used to justify his actions of meat-eating: taste. He claimed that:

“Sure, meat is packed with fat and bare of most vitamins and minerals, but it will always have one thing: flavor. Study after study showing the health benefits of vegetarian diets were not enough for me to sacrifice my favorite food group.”

Padrez may well favor meat, but his taste buds are not independent, unbiased judges. His taste buds are merely extensions of his brain - and all the judgments and biases within that brain.

In fact, studies have shown that taste is so subjective that it belies one’s assumptions. A preference for the taste of meat is a physical manifestation of cultural and philosophical/ religious baggage, not an empirically valid fact.

This also explains why many vegetarians and vegans dislike faux meat products: because the taste reminds them of eating animals. They have a dislike of the idea more than a dislike of the flavors.

One of Padrez’s central premises is untrue, thus his entire argument crumbles. I didn’t even have to attack his belief in God or even his assumption of human supremacy in order to get there, I simply had to use some sociological/ marketing studies.

See why I was interested in going back to school to study Sociology?
;)

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Animals, Environmentalism, Food, Lifestyle, Philosophy and Guidance, veganism, vegetarian, vegetarianism
4 Comments to "I’m Sorry, Meat-Eaters, But You’re Full Of It"

Meat Eaters Need To Get Honest

August 8, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Here’s yet another tool in the vegan arsenal against the ’stupid things omnivores say,’ such as, “But I like the taste of meat better” or “Vegan food is gross”:

[R]esearchers used one of the oldest tricks in the social scientist’s toolbox: They lied.

Some [study] participants got what they were told was coming, and others unknowingly ate the other type of roll. Then they all filled out questionnaires about how they like the food.

“Participants who ate the vegetarian alternative did not rate the taste and aroma less favorably than those who ate the beef product,” the researchers report in August issue of the Journal of Consumer Research. “Instead, what influenced taste evaluation was what they thought they had eaten and whether that food symbolized values that they personally supported.”

From “Meat Eaters Live A Lie” in Yahoo LiveScience >>
Emphasis added :)

Yeah, this is why human beings who live in “civilized” societies rarely get hungry when they see the animals they most often eat. You probably don’t salivate when you see a cow. You don’t generally have an urge to kill lambs. You don’t have a strong desire to hunt and eat pigs. Nope. You’re a human who lives in a society that promotes peaceful interactions with animals. When you see the animals we most often eat, you probably think they’re cute, maybe even cuddly. You’re not a carnivore. You KNOW it.

Even people who hunt tend not to be true hunters. They hunt because they enjoy the experience of being out in nature, of working together with friends, of planning, of tracking, of camping. It’s not about the killing, otherwise they’d act like wild dogs who hunt and kill indiscriminately whenever they’re hungry, maybe even their own species if they’re hungry enough. Nope, even human hunters aren’t like that. When they get hungry, they reach for the lunchbox, not the gun.

We have these complex brains that are capable of so much. We can think creatively and abstractly. We can plan, plot, prepare. We can reason, rationalize, and excuse. We can philosophize and theorize. Because of our brains, we have learned so much in the history of human kind. And we’ve learned that vegetarian and vegan diets are perfectly healthy. Humans do not need to eat meat. People don’t need to breed, kill, and eat animals.

Our entire bodies are controlled by our brains. Our tastebuds are not disconnected to our brains, they are connected. Our tastebuds are influenced by our other senses as well as our expectations and our beliefs. Our brains are so powerful, we can be tricked by our own brains. What we think we taste is not always the case.

When meat eaters say they prefer the taste of meat to vegan alternatives, they are probably lying to themselves. They need to get honest with themselves in more ways than one. They need to get honest about their preferences - that they prefer to kill and eat animals than to adopt a healthier and kinder diet. They need to get honest about their tastebuds - that tastebuds are affected by preconceptions, beliefs, and other mental states.

Meat eaters need to admit to themselves they not only regard their tastebuds’ pleasure as superior to all other living beings’ lives, but that those tastebuds can’t even be relied upon to provide an accurate measure of pleasure.

Posted by Elaine Vigneault | Filed Under Animals, animal-rights, brain, meat, omnis, psychology, science, tastebuds, the mind, vegan, veganism, vegetarian
Leave a Comment to "Meat Eaters Need To Get Honest"