Looking for something?

• Links
• Home
• Blog
• About
• store

Comments Regarding ‘Humane’ Meat

October 18, 2008 | 2 Comments

This is blog filler… sort of…

I left this comment at Feministe in a discussion about Prop 2, slightly edited:

Oprah did a show about Prop 2.
http://www.oprah.com/dated/oprahshow/oprahshow_20081008_animals

She displayed a sow gestation crate (a small, cruel cage for pregnant pigs that is currently the industry standard) and a veal crate (a small cage for baby bulls, who are a product of the dairy industry). Lisa Ling toured some farms - not the most horrific farms because they won’t allow video cameras inside, but even she was dismayed by the “nice” factory farms.

One of the guests was Nicholas Kristof, who recounted:

When it was time to slaughter one of the geese, young Nicholas was given the task of rushing into the barn to grab a goose for the chopping block. “Then I’d be walking out to the door, and out of that panicked flock one goose would emerge and walk toward me absolutely terrified, but sort of protesting in a very ‘goosian’ way. It would be the mate of the one that I was holding,” he says. “And boy, that is a kind of courage—and it sounds funny to say it, but courage and humanity, if you will—that I have just never seen since. That has haunted me ever since.”

The fact is, animal agriculture is about profit. It’s not about human health, it’s not about animal welfare, it’s not about protecting the environment. And so long as regulations on animal agriculture remain as lax as they are today, we’ll continue to have more and more abuse of animals, more outbreaks of bacterial contamination, more diet-related preventable disease, and more pollution. Prop 2 won’t stop all those things, but it’s a beginning.

I’m urging all my friends and family members who live in California to vote YES ON PROP 2. And NO on prop 8. They’re both about basic rights. For animals it’s the basic right to lie down, turn around, and stretch out one’s limbs. For people, it’s the basic right to wed who you love.

I left this comment at Pandagon in a discussion about PETA, veganism, and animal rights. I’ve edited it slightly:

Some omnis think: “These are things that most people who are of the opinion that Everyone Should Be Vegan And Nobody Should Ever Eat Any Animal Products, EVAR usually do not pursue.  Because if you give people butter from happy cows, they won’t be vegan anymore, will they?  And we can’t have that, can we? “

1) No, we oppose ‘happy meat’ (and ‘happy butter’ etc) for animal rights reasons, not to control you. It’s not about you. Get over yourself.

2) Moreover, happy meat is not sustainable. The rapidly growing population simply can’t consume animal products in a sustainable manner, period. As a society, we can choose to go vegan or we can sterilize everyone. I vote vegan.
Details here: http://www.humanemyth.org/faq/1127.htm

3) Lastly, there is NO possible way to absolutely ensure humane slaughter. Some number of sick people will abuse animals. If you care about animals, the only humane choice is to stop eating them.

Veal Comes From A Grieving Mother

October 9, 2008 | 3 Comments

And dairy is the major industry. Veal is just a bi-product of the dairy industry.

Anyway… Three Indian River County men charged with stealing and killing a cow.

Three men remained in jail Sunday night on charges associated with killing and dismembering of a 400-pound calf [...]

[One man was] charged with a felony for trespassing on property while armed and a misdemeanor for disposing of a dead animal. [Two others] had additional charges including two misdemeanors for trespassing on private property and for disposing of a dead animal. [...] The 6-month-old calf was one of about 90 head of cattle on the property [...]

[The property owner] said he found the calf’s head Sunday morning near a ditch where the three men reportedly killed it in front of its mother.

“The mother cow was looking in the ditch,” Holman said. “She stayed there for 24 hours. They killed the calf right in front of the mother cow. I want to see them punished to the fullest extent of the law.”

The property owner essentially argues that:
a) the slaughter of this calf wasn’t humane
b) he had more right to slaughter this calf

Mary Martin sums it up:

it’s unthinkably vicious to tear one individual calf from his or her mother in the dead of night, but it’s perfectly acceptable to do it on a mass scale, on a schedule, in the light of day.

Day 3 Vlogging For Veganism

October 3, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Vote Yes On Prop 2

September 3, 2008 | 5 Comments

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.

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

August 29, 2008 | 4 Comments

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?
;)

« Previous Page — Next Page »

See why Elaine recommends Vita-Mix

Elaine recommends Downbound.

Subscribe

Important Message:

Order a FREE vegetarian starter kit at GoVeg.com

Read why Elaine recommends Prosper.

Post Script:

Feed Me:

Subscribe

Elaine's Twitter Updates:

,,

Copyright © Elaine Vigneault · Legal notice · Contact · OOSHEE · Revolution theme by Brian Gardner