With Palin in the race, please forget Nader

I think it's pretty clear that the US, the World and the Planet cannot take another 4 years, or more, of Republican rule. I understand the desire to vote outside of the 2-party system, but I am asking everyone to take the time to educate themselves on what a McCain-Palin administration would mean for the animals, and the environment. What will a vote for Nader, or someone else, achieve in real terms? What could it cost us?

Here is a little primer, consisting of excerpted quotes from Sarah Palin, regarding these issues, taken from this site:


Palin On the Environment:

* Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. (Aug 2008)
* Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered. (Aug 2008)
* We must encourage timber, mining, drilling, & fishing. (Jan 2008)
* Wolf predator control is important for subsistence hunters. (Sep 2007)
* Feds shouldn't list beluga whales as endangered. (Aug 2007)
* Provide stability in regulations for developers. (Jan 2007)
* Convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR. (Jan 2007)
* Fish platform: "Resource First" philosophy. (Nov 2006)
* Supports "Roads to Resources": subsidized access to mines. (Oct 2006)
* Don't duplicate effort in monitoring cruise ship emissions. (Oct 2006)

Palin on Guns:

* Hunts and fishes, as did her father. (Aug 2008)
* Hunts as much as she can; freezer-full of wild game. (Aug 2008)


Palin On Oil and Energy:

* Produce more of our own oil & gas, for national security. (Sep 2008)
* More pipelines; more nukes; more coal; more alternatives. (Sep 2008)
* Claimed major triumph: $500 million subsidy for gas pipeline. (Aug 2008)
* Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)
* Gasline Inducement Act: 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline. (Aug 2008)
* Commercialize Alaska's North Slope natural gas. (Aug 2008)
* Appointed an Alaska oil and gas commissioner. (Aug 2008)
* To win, GOP must push energy independence. (Aug 2008)
* Lift moratorium on offshore drilling. (Jul 2008)
* Convinced McCain to drill offshore; not yet on drilling ANWR. (Jul 2008)
* Unlock ANWR; we're ready, willing and able to contribute. (Jun 2008)
* Bush is right: drill ANWR & develop our own supplies. (Apr 2008)
* Get ANWR open. (Nov 2006)
* Chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. (Nov 2006)


Care about human population control? She's for legislating reproductive choices, opposing anything other than abstinence-only programs and is against abortion rights unless the "life of the woman is in danger".

Her husband is a commericial fisherman, when he's not working in oil field production for BP.

Probably the most horrific things she supports is aerial wolf hunting. You can see a video of what that entails here.


Check out the Palin Family Animal Torture Photo Album at this site, which also offers some more info on her environmental positions.


At this point in the election year, a vote for a 3rd-party candidate is a potential vote against our future. Please consider that when you make your selection this November.

Animal Advocacy Tip:

Ok, I am so totally stealing this tip from Gary at Animal Writings. First of all, always carry animal advocacy literature with you - in your purse, backpack or car. Throw in a variety of them so you can have something for whatever occasion may arise. I pretty much already did that in my car, but Gary introduced me to this tip after watching him do it once while following him out of a parking garage. He offered literature to the parking garage attendant! They must be the most bored individuals at work, so what a perfect captive audience eager for something to read.

This past Sunday we had one of those "How cool was that?" moments when fellow activist Lisa accidentally pulled her car into a guarded lot in DC. Lisa rolled down the window to tell the guard we needed to turn around, and before she could say anything the guard excitedly yelled out "Are you vegans?" It took us a second to realize she was reading Lisa's license plate, and then we offered her Compassion Over Killing's Veg-DC Restaurant Guide, which she enthusiastically accepted. You just never know when you'll have an opportunity for advocacy, so better to be prepared...

Restaurant Review - Lotus Vegetarian, Chantilly, VA

So it's kind of exciting when a new veg restaurant opens up in the suburbs. Now if we had a full-fledged vegan bakery, I'd pretty much be all set!

Lotus Vegetarian is located in Chantilly, near the intersection of Routes 50 and 28, in the same plaza as K-Mart and Lowe's (Sully Place). (13872 Metrotech Drive, Chantilly, VA 20151, 703-378-6888.) It's a small but pleasant space, very casual with plenty of booths. You order at a counter - I believe for eat in or takeout. (I think they might have waitress service if you eat in, but I was doing takeout, so I'm not sure.)

I've read online that the owners worked at Sunflower Vegetarian Restaurant (located in Vienna and Seven Corners) and the menu is very similar, although less extensive. It's Asian-inspired, with lots of faux meat dishes, some salads, veggie items, soups, "burgers" and sandwiches, rice and noodles, smoothies and juices. The menu is mostly vegan, with dishes containing egg and dairy clearly marked. Unfortunately their desserts all contain egg.

I wanted to try a few things to get a sense of the quality, so I ordered Summer Rolls, Avocado Roll and Vege-Chicken with Cashews.

The Summer Rolls (rice paper wrapped with vege-ham, basil, jicama, carrots, lettuce and dry spiced tofu) were nice, but a little smaller than I am used to. Usually the summer rolls I've purchased and made are more plump - so I was a little disappointed at their skimpiness. The dipping sauce was soy-sauce based, rather than the peanut sauce common with Vietnamese rolls. I probably wouldn't order them again...but they aren't bad.

The Avocado Roll (avocado, vege-crab meat, cucumber, black and white sesame seeds in nori sheet) were good, but I could have used some more wasabi. The roll itself was a very generous serving, though. They also have a Rainbow Roll (vege-ham, tofu skin, organic carrots, pickled radish, asparagus, cucumber and soy protein strips) which I definitely want to try next time. Overall, a good vegetarian way to satisfy a sushi fix.

The Vege-Chicken with Cashews (diced soy protein sauteed with sugar peas, zucchini, organic carrots, jicama, while mushrooms and cashew nuts in brown sauce) was excellent. I really liked the flavor and the texture of the protein. I would have liked a few more nuts, but I'm just whining. The jicama was a nice, crunchy addition. The brown rice accompanying the dish was cooked right. (My husband went without me and tried the Vege-Beef with Snow Peas [marinated soy beef sauteed with snow peas, organic carrots, jicama and lotus root in brown sauce] and said it was also excellent.)

The take-out packaging needs a little work. Things leaked and got shifted around. Just beware...

Overall I was very pleased and look forward to visiting often and dining in-house. I think it's so important to support local veg establishments, to ensure that more people get to try vegetarian foods and that the public sees establishments thriving.

Upcoming review: Mei's Asian Bistro, Arlington, VA

Sparrows con't

So it turns out that out of five hatchlings in the Sparrow's nest near my home, only one fledgling survived. I found a dead hatchling in the nest the day after there had been two, but saw a lone survivor the same day in a tree right above the nest. I have to admit it's kind of shocking that the hatchling was alive and vibrant one day and dead the next.

I also found the high mortality rate a bit alarming. And I'm not even sure that the one that made it out will live long term.

Doing a bit of research online, it appears the cause is probably one of three things: lack of available insects for feeding, disease or environmental pollutants. The hatchlings need an abundant source of insects in their first days of life to survive, and it's possible that, due to pesticide use, there just aren't enough insects to support the population. Also, when people like me put out seed, it's possible that the hatchlings were fed too much of that, and not enough insects. So I feel like I could be contributing to the problem!

After this experience, I have to admit that I'm amazed there remains any urban wildlife at all. They are under constant assault from so many directions. This week has been a real eye opener.

There's a new Sparrow in town

It's been a Sparrow kind of spring.

Like most of the country, House Sparrows are an abundant species in my neighborhood. Technically they aren't really sparrows at all, but actually Old World Weaver Finches. They were introduced to North America from England in the 1850's in order to help reduce crop pests. Unfortunately, they didn't plan for their amazing adaptive and reproductive abilities that resulted in damaged crops and fruit trees in addition to their habit of taking over native birds' nesting sites.

Their population has been declining though and they aren't protected - meaning they can be killed by anyone, at any time, for any reason. I have to admit that when a Cooper's Hawk visits for a meal, I hope it's a House Sparrow he gets, and not a Cardinal. There's just more of them!

Actually, I find them to be very clever and they have varied and beautiful songs. There are also stories of them figuring out ways to open the automatic doors at Home Depot, where they tend to make permanent homes. That's a bird that earns your respect.

Last month we noticed some House Sparrows had set up house right next to our front door in a topiary. It wasn't a great place, as they freaked out every time we came in and out of the house - which my husband does a lot, working out of the house and his car. It was fun though to see the 4 light blue eggs in the small nest so close to the house, and we tried to do our best not to disturb them.

One day I went to grab the garden hose beneath the topiary, and noticed two broken eggs on the ground. I immediately looked up and saw lots of feathers around the nest - which was now empty - and figured that a fight had ensued for the eggs and that the parents had lost. I pulled out the nest, which was so beautifully crafted and intricate, and felt a pang for the parents that had worked so hard only to lose their offspring. I hoped they had at least escaped the predator and could try again in another location.

A few days later, I noticed a sparrow going to another bush not far from the topiary. So I went to investigate and sure enough, 5 little beaks where popping up out of a nest. I've never seen parents feeding more than 2 offspring, so I anticipated that all 5 wouldn't survive. When I peeked the other day, there were only 3. And they filled up the nest so much that it looked like one bird blob with three heads attached. I'm curious now if they will only be left with 2...

[UPDATE: I checked the nest this morning and there were only 2 birds left. :>( ]

In the midst of all this, I noticed a single bird in my back yard hanging out one day on a chair. What caught my eye was his striking head pattern of alternating black and white stripes. On occasion I get an unfamiliar bird at the feeders and I can't tell you how exciting it is when that happens. His back was to me, but he turned around eventually and I was able to get a good look at him. I started flipping frantically through my bird book and it turns out he was a White Crowned Sparrow, a bird I had never heard of or seen before.

I've noticed him a few times since, but I have a feeling he won't be a permanent guest. Not if the House Sparrows have anything to do with it.

Guest Post - To Truly Celebrate Earth Day, Go Vegan!

In recognition of Earth Day, I've invited my good friend and fellow animal advocate, Lisa Q., to guest blog on the topic of environmentalism and veganism. In her frequent outreach, Lisa passionately alerts the public to the reality that unless we all adopt a vegan lifestyle, we truly will never tackle our global climate crisis.

Without further ado, here's Lisa:

When Al Gore made “An Inconvenient Truth” it soon followed that “global warming”, now called “climate change”, was a hot topic and eventually “environment” was no longer a dirty word. I will be eternally grateful for the progress I have seen for the environment, and do credit Al Gore, but I am among those who are very disappointed with some of the weak spots in his message. Like most “environmentalists”, Al Gore is not even vegetarian, so maybe that is why he was unable to bring himself to inform the pubic that animal agriculture is arguably responsible for more environmental devastation than any other industry, and that going vegan will save the earth.

No other industry can claim this much environmental crime: Animal agriculture is responsible for creating far more greenhouse gasses than all forms of mechanized transportation combined; it is responsible for consuming our limited supply of water and 70% of all crops grown; while it is consuming the water it is also the largest source of water pollution; it is the reason that 70% of the deforested Amazon rainforest was clear cut (for grazing land).

I am sure Al Gore knew many of the facts that led the United Nations to publish Livestock's Long Shadow, a 2006 report that details many of the ways animal agriculture is killing our planet through pollution and resource depletion. Keep in mind that as strong as it is, it was still written by people who I highly doubt are vegetarian themselves, so you may notice how hard it is for them to state the obvious, that we must stop eating animals to save the earth.

It is very common to see environmental tips listed in the media now (Again, thank you Mr. Gore). I was pleasantly shocked the first time I saw a “ways to go green” list in the conservative Reader’s Digest. But even in the most progressive publications, the most commonly suggested green tip is to reduce your carbon emissions through reducing your mechanized travel. That is a fine tip, but not if you omit the fact that animal agriculture is responsible for far more greenhouse gasses than all forms of mechanized travel combined. You can drive a Hummer daily and still not do as much damage as you do by not being vegan. Sure, it helps if you can buy a fuel efficient vehicle and avoid travel, but if you really want to cut greenhouse gasses you must go vegan first.

Ironically, some of Mr. Gore’s most boisterous critics complain that his frequent travel by jet is proof of his hypocrisy. At least Mr. Gore buys carbon offsets, and I am not sure that he would be safe on regular planes, but in reality if they really wanted to complain they would point out that he is not vegan.

Greening tips are often expensive, too. They want us to seal our homes, install solar panels, buy hybrid cars or conversion kits, buy offsets, etc. You can go vegan without spending any additional money at all and still do more for the environment than all of those expensive tips combined.

Has someone told you to turn off the water while you brush your teeth? Great idea, but if you are in the US and had half a pound (pre-cooked weight) of hamburger for dinner, you wasted an average of 15 gallons of water and 6 pounds of grain.

I am glad that someone cares about reducing mercury in our water. It is very disturbing that this is allowed to happen in the first place. We need to make sure that the EPA’s clean water funding is not cut. Still, runoff from animal agriculture and chemicals used in tanneries is the largest source of water pollution. The ammonia from animals we raise to eat causes acid rain. Animal agriculture dumps raw sewage into our water! In addition to algae blooms which absorb the oxygen in the water, and the listeria we see in the news, the sewage from animal agriculture contains antibiotics and hormones!

It is much easier now to get affordable recycled copy paper, renewable this, no old- growth that. At an Earth Day celebration I was offered a tree to plant. How is that going to bring back the rainforest?? I’d like to see a constant reminder that 70% of the deforested rain forest was not actually cut down for paper or furniture, but it was clear cut to make room for grazing land! I don’t need to plant a tree, when going vegan saves an entire rain forest.

The crisis we now face is so urgent that we cannot continue to avoid the cold hard fact that if we want to survive we must go vegan.

An Oil-Free, Vegan Diet - the Antidote to Heart Disease?

After being on a vegan diet for several years, my cholesterol level still wasn't as low as I thought it should be, even though I'm within the "federal guidelines" (which are deceptively skewed way too high, most likely to favor the continued consumption of animal "products"). My triglycerides improved significantly on a vegan diet, but I couldn't understand why my total cholesterol wasn't much lower. I wasn't consuming any cholesterol, so what was I eating to cause my body to create it? Oil, it seems. Even if you don't eat cholesterol-laden foods, your liver will still produce it, if you include fats (especially saturated) in your diet.

After doing some research, I came across a book by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease, that documented his study of severely ill heart patients who, by following an oil-free, plant-based (vegan) diet, stopped and/or reversed their heart disease - very quickly.

It's a compelling finding. He basically got 20 people who were told to go home and die (for whom "conventional medicine" and surgery was not an option) to get their cholesterol under 150 (which he determined was the magic number for cultures without heart disease), by eating differently. (He initially put them on statins, due to their severe disease and the cholesterol number has to be obtained on plant foods only, to get this kind of disease reversal.) Twenty years later, all of the study participants who continued to follow this eating strategy are alive and thriving. Some of the angiogram pictures of before (clogged) and after (not) arteries are pretty phenomenal.

Dr. Esselstyn's own family has also been eating like this for the same 20 years, as a way to prevent the development of heart disease. He basically claims that unless there is some genetic predisposition to high cholesterol, you won't get heart disease eating this way.

I knew what plant-based meant, but what would it mean to go oil free? It means no oils - including what we think of as "good oils" - like olive oil. No nuts (except walnuts for the heart healthy), no coconut, no avocado. Nothing fried, no oil-based dressings - no Veganaise. It's a daunting concept for most of us, but he makes it clear that it's all or nothing in terms of having any effect on our hearts. (There is the inclusion of low quantities of low-fat tofu, so it's practically "fat-free", but not completely.)

His wife has provided some nice recipes in the book, that show the possibilities of eating this way for optimum heart health. But it's admittedly restrictive if you need to eat outside of the home. And I'm not sure that most people - pre-severe heart disease - would be willing to make the commitment.

But it certainly has gotten me to reevaluate my diet. Eating is a continually evolving learning experience, and reading this book left me with the same question I initially had when I went vegan, "Can I really sustain a diet like this?" Ending my participation in unnecessary suffering, as an incentive to dietary changes, made the transition to veganism easy. But eating purely to prevent future clogged arteries and the resulting heart attack or stroke (or even diabetes and certain cancers), doesn't instill the same urgency. Even though it probably should.

The book is a quick read, and I recommend it. On the link I provided, you can also find a link to Dr. Esselstyn's speaking engagements, if you would like to hear him discuss his study, and book, in person.

United Poultry Concerns Conference Wrap-up

The Conference

I have to say that overall I was disappointed with the conference, from the perspective of the stated focus and purpose. Although there was information I found thought-provoking in a few of the presentations, little of that had to do with the topic of effective advocacy and how to bridge the existing divide among animal advocates.

Most of the presenters generally offered defensive statements about their positions, in poorly organized presentations, with little time left for productive attendee participation. This kind of conference would be better served without “speakers”, with the focus instead being on challenging advocates coming from different viewpoints to directly address one another in order to come to some solutions. For instance, I think a better approach would have been to assign everyone to a small group of advocates of differing views, and have them, as a group, come up with a solution or consensus on a particular issue. Then each group could have addressed the other attendees, revealing their compromise, or why one was impossible.

I particularly felt bad for those attendees who traveled a long distance and spent lots of money to attend the conference, yet left without any sense of understanding of any position, or even a glimmer of resolution on the issues. There were some wonderful advocates in attendance, whose insight was in no way harnessed for the benefit of everyone there. What a lost opportunity to hear their perspectives and try to find some way to understand where they are coming from.

I did appreciate the opportunity to see the sanctuary, meet the feathered residents and hear Karen Davis’s always inspiring words, but unfortunately that visit cut into valuable time that could have been spent more productively. I do hope in the future that when such a diverse group is gathered, a more effective format will be employed in order to get to the heart of the issues.

Norfolk

Norfolk was interesting. The people seemed very friendly and diverse and really attractive (I couldn't help but notice this for some reason!). The city center is small, with some very beautiful older homes in one section near the water. The visual highlight was definitely seeing PETA’s large headquarters looming from many points in the city. As someone who has to drive by NRA headquarters frequently, I can’t tell you what a refreshing change it was to see an animal group building featured so prominently!

Vegan Eats

We had some good food while there. The conference host hotel, Hilton, offered a delicious lunch of salad, stuffed red pepper with some tofu mixture, pasta and grilled veggies with a peanutty chocolate pie thing for dessert. Some of us ate dinner at Amalfi’s, of which the faux salmon was freakishly authentic, with fake “skin” and all! My faux chicken with a wine sauce, veggies and potatoes was really good. And the raspberry vegan cheesecake was awesome! We also indulged in some vegan pizza – a mushroom, olive and spinach pie with soy cheese – from Bella Pizzeria. It was the best vegan pizza I have had yet. Unfortunately, the vegan frozen custard place was closed for the season, so we had Rita’s Water Ice instead, which was almost as good, but not quite….

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Karen Davis's Statement

This is the final post in our Animal Advocacy Strategies Blogversation Series leading up to the UPC Conference this weekend. I feel well prepared now to discuss this topic at the conference and I'm sure Gary would agree with me that this has proved to be a worthy exercise.

I'll be posting a follow-up after the weekend to wrap everything up and report back on all the conference happenings.

Karen Davis, President of United Poultry Concerns: “If the public is told it can eat humanely raised and slaughtered animals, what incentive do people have to explore the range of delicious and nutritious vegan products on the market? Should animal advocates make it easier and more comfortable for people to consume meat, milk and eggs?”

Gary:

I agree: We don't want to give people the idea that it's acceptable to exploit and kill living beings for pleasure if it's done "humanely." We also don't want people to think that "cage-free" or "free-range" is humane. "Humane" is, among other things, refraining from exploitation.

At the same time, because the public is so deeply vested and addicted to eating animals (most people freak out at the concept of giving up meat, dairy, and eggs), we have an obligation, and are compelled by our compassion and kinship to other sentient beings, to give aid and comfort to the one trillion or more animals who will be unjustly imprisoned and killed until our society goes vegan. If we can end the worst tortures inflicted on them, and give them at least rudimentary opportunities to pursue happiness and engage in normal physical and social behaviors while they are wrongly incarcerated, and if we can do that without making the public more complacent about their exploitation, we should pursue that course of action with conviction.

That is the challenge: To end the exploitation of animals, and to ease the suffering of the innocent victims of that exploitation in the meantime. I believe we can and should try to accomplish both goals.

In my view, Karen Davis and UPC provide a model of how that may be done. UPC is unambiguous in its call for people to go vegan. Karen has authored many articles and books that describe the misery and wrongfulness of exploiting animals, and UPC offers abundant literature showing people how to prepare delicious animal-free meals. But Karen has also advocated for interim measures that would eliminate horrific tortures done to animals enslaved by the meat and egg industries. When she helped end forced starvation of laying hens, she played a role in reducing the suffering of perhaps billions of hens. But in no way was there any implication from Karen or UPC that hens would now be treated humanely, or that exploiting hens for their reproductive capabilities was in any way acceptable.

Perhaps in the UPC conference, we'll put our heads together and look at a panoply of approaches to cultivating compassion for animals, ending animal exploitation and cruelty, and giving relief to the current victims of those moral transgressions. I hope we will judge strategies with an open mind, and consider their respective virtues and positive potential as well as risks and limitations, and I hope we'll see how various tactics may work in synergy. (For example, I've personally seen people give up eggs after watching videos about the horror of battery cages, while other folks I know feel pangs of guilt after viewing such videos but don't change their egg-eating habits until they learn about male chick-killing or have serious discussions about the morality of and suffering caused by forcing hens to lay ten times more eggs than they would in the wild).

Often it takes a multitude of advocacy encounters before someone will have an "aha" moment, or modify their lifestyle. We don't know exactly what will cause the spark, or when, and I suspect that in most cases, the process of developing compassion and respect for animals and divesting from exploitative habits is cumulative and influenced by many experiences and outside points of view. It takes a village to raise awareness.

I hope that animal activists give each other the benefit of the doubt. We all are trying in earnest - and against formidable obstacles - to end human-caused animal suffering, abolish institutionalized animal exploitation, and create a world in which animals are treated with kindness and protected with justice. And I think we're making progress on all those fronts. I can see concrete as well as subtle signs that society is changing. It's a long and arduous yet ultimately glorious process. If we make sincere attempts to work cooperatively with each other, and give support and recognition to our fellow activists' efforts, I think that will help keep us sane and optimistic, enable us to be more creative, and increase our stamina in this "longest struggle." I'm looking forward to the conference and hope that as a participating attendee I can contribute in some way toward those lofty objectives.


Kim:

At this point, most people who are somewhat knowledgeable about factory farming are already aware of the "option" to purchase products from what they believe are more humanely raised animals. The "producers" seem to be doing a good job of promoting these notions to this group of consumers.

When I advocate to someone who is completely unaware of factory farming (just explaining where their food comes from tends to be new information), their immediate reaction is to seek out something less horrific. For the majority, their initial response isn't an instantaneous desire to stop eating animals and their excretions, but to rationalize a way to keep doing so without doing harm. (I know that's what I went through.)

I don't know many advocates that directly promote "humane" products. After being told that there is no "humane" alternative, most people still need the time to transition to the notion that they will no longer be participating in societal eating norms. So if they insist they cannot give up these products at this time, and they mention cage-free eggs, free-range beef or organic milk, most advocates I know will acknowledge that these options are better than the factory-farming alternative while explaining how complete avoidance is the only true humane option. In other words, the natural tendency to rationalize their behavior will lead them first to seek out something more "humane".

Can we stop farmers from selling these products or dismiss this option entirely when advocating? Or is the reality that until there are wholesale societal attitude changes, people will continue eating these things no matter what information we give them, so at least give the animals some relief? I tend to believe that is why some of the larger animal groups work with and support these "producers" - because the sooner we can get the animals out of the worst conditions imaginable, the better. As I've said before, I think it's a natural, inevitable progression - factory farming to "humane" farming to veganism. We should be telling people the facts while encouraging any changes in behavior (supporting reduction of consumption or "humane" options, with caveats).

In much the same way we ask people to spay and neuter companion animals, care for feral cat colonies or fight to enact companion animal legislation and abuse penalties, we can't ignore the suffering of the farmed animals, that are also the victims of being bred for profit, while we determine a way to put it to an end. Just because we don't take them into our homes, we can't dismiss the current conditions enforced by their oppressors. All animals - companion or otherwise - deserve the attention of their immediate "welfare" as we work to end the practices that landed them in their circumstances. Personally, my conscience won't allow anything else.

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Harold Brown's Statement

[Updated 3/20/08 at 9:00 p.m.]

Harold Brown, President of Farm Kind: “Ask yourself, ‘Why would any multinational corporation make a change that wasn’t going to be profitable?’ In my opinion, the move away from gestation crates for sows is designed to assuage the concerns of consumers. Granted, this is a slight improvement, but no one should call it a victory for the pigs or for the animal rights movement.”

Kim:

The real question to ask is why have the consumers started to have concerns about animal treatment? Did these corporations suddenly realize they weren't making a profit and decide to make costly changes to their operations in a vacuum?

Um, no.

Because of the impact of the animal advocacy movement, and the success of ongoing campaigns to educate the public on animal treatment, consumers are demanding (what they believe to be) animal products that came from "humanely" treated animals. So of course industry is going to react to the changing attitudes, instigated by the "movement", and adjust accordingly. And isn't this a natural first response by both the public and industries to this previously hidden information?

These industries fight very hard to keep the realities of their exploitation away from public view because it is cheaper and more profitable to disregard the suffering of the animals. (And changing "production" methods is a very costly intitial investment.) Now that their practices are being successfully exposed, did anyone think they were just going to close up shop, or that consumers were ready to give up their animal products?

The public wants to believe the myth that they can still consume animal products without causing suffering. Is it really plausible that most people, at this point, are ready to accept the notion that something they've been brainwashed about since receiving that first bottle of cow's milk, is immoral and unethical? That kind of ingrained, societal "norm" isn't something that can be overcome in one step; it obviously takes many. And the first step is getting people aware that animals are suffering at all. Thankfully, that appears to be where we are at now - finally at a point where enough consumers have been educated about the industry to be demanding changes.

So what's next? We continue the education. Advocate to a newly-aware public that there truly is no "humane" way to exploit another being for profit. It's time to accept that this current notion of "humane" animal products is the logical reaction by a society numbed by "tradition" and industrial influence. Becoming frustrated and angry at this reality doesn't move us forward, at best, and does nothing to help the animals, at worst.

Gary:

Why would a corporation do something that might cut into profits? Two major reasons are:

1) To comply with government mandates or revisions in the law;

2) To stay viable in the face of shifting consumer demand.

Both of these factors are forcing changes in the animal agriculture sector.

I want to focus first on the latter influence. When running a business, you either have to respond to changing customer demand or go belly-up. This is what I believe is the main cause of recent reforms in the animal agriculture industry.

Consumers now indicate more care about farmed animal's interests than they did five or ten years ago. It's insufficient, inconsistent, and unsteady to be sure; although I predict it will strengthen over time. In any event, the public is starting to no longer accept certain cruelties that have been standard practices in animal agriculture for decades. This is why companies are getting rid of gestation crates, veal pens, and battery cages. The market has begun to reject those practices. Companies - if they want to stay in business - have to respond to those concerns.

Furthermore, states are passing referendums banning these practices. And according to polls, the practices are being outlawed not because of parochial "not in my backyard" complaints but on ethical grounds. So producers can't simply relocate and solve the problem. They're being forced - if not mandated - to abolish certain procedures.

They're naturally worried about the trendline. Where does this newfound concern stop? Where does it lead? If we encompass vegan advocacy - educating people on animals' interests, conveying our obligation not to violate those interests whenever practically possible, and showing how one can have a diverse, peaceful, and deeply satisfying vegan diet - the concern will hopefully lead to the abolition of animal agriculture and other forms of institutionalized animal exploitation. And, I hope, far beyond that - to radically more kinship- and compassion-oriented worldviews.

But in the meantime, simply getting the public to feel the animals' pain, and to sympathize with animals as individuals is a huge start. It's already causing significant ripples in the animal agriculture industry, and opening the door for new and exciting vegetarian products and services.

Granted, the purveyors of animal exploitation are trying to leverage the situation foisted upon them to their advantage, by presenting their new improved animal flesh and secretion products as "humane." Of course, the meat, dairy, and egg industries have long sold their products of death and suffering as "happy," one way or another. "Happy meat" is nothing new. I believe this reaction by the industry is to be expected, and may be inevitable, regardless of which animal advocacy strategy is dominant. The animal-killing industry will naturally try to assuage consumers who are having second thoughts about meat by telling them that the animals are happy, as well as by tempting them with tantalizing photos and promotions, and making meat obsessively available. The industry is using its usual deceptions and tricks - and huge bankroll - in an attempt to prevent erosion of consumer demand and confidence. Though "happy meat" may seem on the surface to be merely a new marketing tactic, I think it is a defensive maneuver on the part of industry.

I see some consumers' desire to eat only "happy meat" as progress of a sort. Meat-eating is very much like an addiction in our society. Most people cannot conceive of giving it up. They have strong psychological and emotional attachments to it. They started eating meat before they can remember, and fear that life would be bleak without it, or that they might waste away without their daily meat fix - despite nearly irrefutable and abundant empirical evidence to the contrary. At the same time, more and more meat-eaters are begining to have conflicting feelings about eating animal flesh. They see images of animals suffering in factory farms and hear about horrid cruelties in slaughterhouses. So they take partial steps and make irrational but superficially satisfying deals with themselves: "I'll only buy free-range chickens" or "I'll only buy meat from family farms." This is roughly akin to the alcoholic saying "I'll only drink on the weekends."

The addicts are trying to convince themselves that their behavior is ok, as long as they make some minor modifications. This is insufficient, of course, but it's better than not admitting that there's any problems with their behavior. The dynamic on which advocates can capitalize is the growing number of meat-eaters who are trying - albeit with abundant denial and willful ignorance at this point - to reconcile their deep desire for meat with their emerging concern for animals' interests. At this early stage in their disengagement from their life-long habit, which is heavily promoted and enabled by society, meat-eaters are taking baby steps, and occasionally backsliding. But since they do feel some pangs of guilt now, we can show them that the "happy meat solution" is no solution at all, since there is cruelty and profound violation of animals' interests throughout animal agriculture, and there is a world of vegan foods that can make up a wonderfully satisfying, diverse, and healthy - and compassionate and non-violent - diet. And that the variety, accessibility, and quality of vegan products will expand greatly as more people give up animal products. The possibilities for fantastic animal-free diets, and the peace of mind that comes with that - which may lead to increased peace with others (human and nonhuman) - are magnificent.

I do agree that profit is a powerful and dominating feature of business in the capitalist world, and that some companies are obsessed with profit, even to the point of flagrantly violating basic morals if they get in the way of the bottom line. As I point out repeatedly in my one-on-one activism, profit is a driving force behind all the cruelties that are embedded in animal agriculture and other industries that use animals as tools. I almost always get quick and uncontested agreement on that. Love of money may not be the root of all evil, but it is often an accomplice to atrocities. In my personal outreach, I urge people not to be a part of such wrongdoing, and endeavor to show them the way out.

(Sidebar: I'm interested in digging deeper, and investigating the psychology and social pressures behind people's quest for money and power, which often fuels domination and exploitation. I plan to discuss - and maybe "blogverse" that topic in Animal Writings down the road.)

HSUS Slaughterhouse Investigation & Beef Recall - I'm getting irked

First off, big kudos to The Humane Society of the United States for undertaking an undercover investigation that has caught the attention of the general public. That it takes such an action to expose an activity that routinely goes on every second in this country is ridiculous - which shows the difficulty we face overcoming the animal exploitation industries, when they have our government's assistance in keeping the horrific realities hidden from view. (Um, if they really wanted to monitor animal "welfare", how about remote video monitoring in slaughterhouses?) It's big money, for the industries and the politicians in bed with them. They have a lot to lose. Videos of what goes on in slaughterhouses and factory farms aren't good for business.

But I've been noticing some things surrounding the reporting of this story - from all different fronts - that are starting to annoy me.

Other animal advocacy groups aren't crediting HSUS

I think it's great to use this recall as a way to hit home whatever point your organization wants to make. Use it, use it, use it. But I think it's really hypocritical and disengenuous for some groups who openly criticize HSUS for being "welfarist" or "too powerful" or "not vegan enough" to take advantage of HSUS's hard work and funding in their own campaigns, yet never even mention HSUS. As if the USDA just magically recalled the beef all on its own. Yeah right.

If you are going to refer to the recall, you should be crediting HSUS. I can't believe so many self-proclaimed "animal rights" groups would rather leave the impression that the USDA is on the ball, doing their jobs, because they have some personal issues with another animal advocacy group. Is that really the impression we should be giving? I am really disgusted by this, and it needs to stop.

These were SPENT "dairy cows", not "beef cattle"

The ASPCA just put out an email about this recall. (Not mentioning HSUS, of course.) They described downed animals as "cattle", which really leaves a different impression of what animals we are talking about here. I'm pretty sure that most of the cow-milk drinking, cheese-eating public never thinks about what happens to "dairy cows" once they can no longer be raped, impregnated and exploitated for their lactation. What an opportunity to focus on the end result of "dairy" that isn't usually highlighted. Everyone needs to be talking about this.

Even "dairy cows" from organic and small farms end up at these slaughterhouses

No one seems to be talking about this much either. What an opportunity to tell the public that no matter what "treatment" the animals receive on the "farm", they all end up on the same trucks, for the same torturous journey on the road, to the same slaughterhouses, to the same horrific end. People who call themselves vegetarians, but eat dairy products, especially seem to be missing this point. Ugh.

Why are these cows REALLY "down"?

These cows aren't "down" because they are in the end stages of Mad Cow Disease. They are down because they've been abused for years at ye' olde factory or "family" farm - from having their bones depleted of calcium from extended, forced milk production; from being given antibiotics to ward off chronic mastitis (udder infection); from hormone injections they get to increase "production"; from being fed crap grain and who knows what instead of grazing on grass; from being kept standing in their own waste every second of their lives; from being hooked up to metal milking machines twice a day, every day. And then, being forced onto a truck, where they are driven hundreds of miles, exposed to the elements, without food or water, packed in without consideration for injuries obtained along the "trip" to the slaughterhouse.

So then they can't stand, can't walk to their own horrific deaths. Because they are dehydrated, exhausted, have broken bones, udder infections - not because their flesh is some risk to human consumption. It's because of what humans have put them through.

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Bruce Freidrich's Statement

Bruce Friedrich, Vice President of PETA: I believe that animal activism should involve applying the golden rule across the species barrier, asking ourselves this question: f I were a calf in a crate or a hen being starved for two weeks or crammed into a battery cage, how would I want a human animal rights activist to behave?

Kim:

I never understood the argument that you can't or shouldn't advocate simultaneously for improved conditions while pursuing abolition. Of course if a loved one was imprisoned, for instance, you would do everything in your power to advocate for their best possible treatment while in captivity, while you work for their release. The individual animals only want relief from their current situation, without concern for the status of all other animals under human exploitation - now or into the future. Failing to address their current suffering - under the guise of some strategic theory that may or may not lead to abolition - pretty much guarantees their continuing suffering in the near future.

As I've said before, I feel that demanding the reformation of current practices serves to shift attitudes, which will be necessary to achieve abolition. If the animals actually benefit from the reforms in the near future that would be a bonus. But it's not the only reason that we should pursue the reforms, which is an element that is often overlooked. Every welfare campaign that manages to infiltrate the public consciousness plants a seed of awareness and self-examination that allows vegan advocacy to be effective.


Gary:

Bruce asks us to follow the Golden Rule - to consider the plight of the inevitable animal prisoners of institutionalized oppression, who are fated to be killed, and try to at least relieve their suffering. The desire to suffer less is urgent, intense, and compelling.

One criticism of helping victims now is that if we reduce the severity of their suffering, the public will "feel better" about exploiting them. So - to paraphrase pattrice jones - let's not limit our consideration of possible strategies to either helping current victims or abolishing the institutions that commit the atrocities. Let's set our sights higher, and use our collective brainpower and creativity to devise ways and take actions to provide relief to animals now and in the forseeable future, and break down exploitiative habits and institutions, and sell the vegan solution as compellingly as possible.

For example, there's no reason why every welfare campaign can't include links to vegan recipes and health information, and be accompanied by frank talk about how killing for pleasure violates basic, widely-shared moral codes and how ending such exploitation has enormous possibilities for peace, harmony, health, and a much cleaner world.

(On a tangential note, I understand that the latest HSUS undercover investigation has resulted in a flood of emails to the group from people pledging to reduce or eliminate their meat and/or dairy intake. Let's capitalize on this spike of concern for farmed animals and newfound interest in vegetarianism, to inform the public that cruelty is pervasive throughout the meat, dairy, and egg industries, and then show them the "way out.")

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Patty Mark's Statement

Patty Mark, President of Animal Liberation Victoria in Australia: “The majority of the animal movement continues with the same approach we’ve taken for 25 years and things are getting worse for animals. The numbers killed have never been higher – 55 billion each year globally, and growing – and this doesn’t include aquatic animals. It’s a poor use of our time to engage with animal industries, big business and governments trying to encourage them to treat the animals who are at their mercy “better.” It’s time for us to set the pace and to be proactive. The real work isn’t negotiating with the animal industries, but with educating the public. The biggest threat to animal farming is veganism.”

Gary:

First off, let me express my abundant gratitude to Patty Mark for introducing the open rescue activism technique. This form of direct action is a powerful form of advocacy that not only saves animals from their hellish surroundings and brutal death but also compellingly conveys the suffering of animals and the compassion of their rescuers.

Kim:

Open rescues definitely serve to break down the barriers of speciesism, when openly exposing suffering elucidates the irrelevancy of “ownership”, in favor of individual rights. Our society gives little credence to a parent’s right to torture “his or her” child, for instance, and in much the same way that very few would be against intervention to stop cruelty to children by parents, it’s difficult after a while to argue that society doesn’t have the same responsibility for other species. Rescuing without masks reinforces the already existing notion that we each have a responsibility to protect the innocent from abuse, regardless of the “status” given to the abuser, in relation to the abused.

Gary:

In the last 25 years, the animal movement has engaged in a myriad of strategies and tactics: holding vegan feed-ins; handing out "Why Vegan?" brochures; putting welfare referendums on ballots; lobbying for companion animal laws and animal testing alternatives; staging “meatout” events; convincing school and company cafeterias to stop buying eggs from battery cage operations; publishing a profusion of books, cookbooks, magazines, newsletters, leaflets, veg restaurant guides; creating web sites, videos, films, You Tube posts, blogs, podcasts and MySpace pages; promoting vegan products and veg-friendly establishments; starting vegan businesses; persuading medical schools to end animal labs; harassing and shaming Huntington Life Sciences partners; opening and running farmed animal and wild animal sanctuaries; leveraging public opinion to free elephants from zoos; blocking boats at sea from killing whales; protesting against dolphin slaughters and animal circuses; documenting rodeo cruelty; starting vegan, animal rights, and animal protection groups in hundreds of cities; enacting foie gras bans; leafleting at human social justice events; tabling with vegan and animal protection literature at festivals and health fairs; running commercials on TV that show factory farm suffering; organizing wonderful and thought-provoking conferences to benefit animals.

I suspect that this boundless variety of approaches, reflecting the diversity of views in the animal movement – even, specifically, among ethical vegan activists in the animal movement - will continue. Different messages affect different audiences, and not every activist or potential activist is attracted to the same kind of advocacy.

Kim:

I don’t know where the notion of “25 years” of one approach comes from, as is evidenced by all the diversity you’ve listed among animal advocates’ approaches. If anything, it was just recently that any real attention has been paid to the plight of farmed animals at all, with most of the focus having been on the abolition of specific industries - fur and animal testing predominantly - and on companion animal issues. Historically speaking, the focus on vegan education is just developing, and clearly any claim of defeat or success using any particular methodology is premature.

Gary:

Let us not be too quick to rule out any form of advocacy that endeavors to help animals. One of the most frequent concerns raised about organizations that have moved away from strict vegan advocacy is that the vegan approach was not given a fair chance. To shift attitudes and behaviors that have become deeply entrenched in society takes time, and may require endless tweaking and adjusting. The criticism is valid in my judgment. But let's be evenhanded; let's not pronounce welfare reforms to be worthless or counterproductive, either.

By all means, let's honestly and openly evaluate approaches:

- giving fellow activists the benefit of the doubt and empathically listening to their points of view and experiences;

- avoiding becoming so vested in our positions regarding tactics and strategy that we reflexively defend them at any cost;

-trying our level best to not splinter into The Judean People's Front and The People's Front of Judea, the two factions in The Life of Brian that ostensibly had the same overall goals but were preoccupied with sniping at each other.

The modern animal movement has only had a visible presence in mainstream America and the Western world for 30 years, and only in the last few years have more than a tiny portion of residents of medium-to-large cities or college towns been able to pronounce and even define "vegan" with relative accuracy.

Everything's still on the table.

Kim:

I agree. I’ve said before that at this point it’s all just throwing darts in the dark. No one has the definitive solution for how to break through the societal brainwashing by the industries exploiting animals for profit. It’s a daunting proposition. That the notion of “animal rights” even has mainstream awareness is remarkable in itself, and illustrates that something pretty effective has taken place to make even that happen. How fortunate that we have models available to critique, criticize and learn from!

I think as a “movement”, it’s important to examine methodologies and strategize about effective ways to proceed. But claiming any one approach is superior to another and treating those who disagree as co-conspirators with animal industries, is not only presumptuous, but counter productive. There’s nothing the animal industries would like more than a fractious and acrimonious group of animal advocates. The reality is that different people are going to come to different conclusions about focus and strategy, and have different preferences about contributing. You can’t dictate activism preferences to others no matter how personally convinced you happen to be about the efficacy of your ideas.

Gary:

The increase in the number of animals killed for food in the U.S. can be attributed mostly to a) a rising population, b) a shift from beef to chicken, c) an increase in the number of calories eaten per person. Another contributing factor is that relative to other items in the Consumer Price Index, meat has stayed relatively inexpensive. According to my perusing of USDA figures, the percentage of calories on our plates from animal sources has gone down in the last 25 years, even though the amount of food on our plates has expanded.

Worldwide, increases in meat consumption is largely due to socioeconomic factors that, so far, have been mostly outside the scope or influence of the animal movement.

I mention all this as a hedge against laying the blame for the rise in the number of animals killed in the U.S. or worldwide on certain animal advocacy tactics.
We should also consider other numbers and trends. How many vegan products and veg*an meat and dairy substitutes are there in stores now compared to 25 years ago? How easy is it to get vegan main courses at college cafeterias now compared to 25 years ago? What percentage of the population has a general idea of what "vegan" means now compared to 25 years ago? (The fact that Burger King used the word, albeit disparagingly, on a prominent billboard was a reflection of how mainstream the word has become, at least in some areas of the country.) How many vegan and vegan-friendly establishments are there now compared to 25 years ago? How many states in the last 25 years have made certain crimes against companion animals a felony? How many zoos have declared that they're closing their elephant exhibits? How much has the percentage of hunters in the population gone down? How much have sales of faux leather and faux fur gone up in the last 25 years?

Each purchase of veggie bacon usually contributes to saving pigs' lives. The same basic concept holds true for purchases of most other veggie versions of meat and dairy products. If we're looking at numbers, we should consider how many more animals would be killed if not for these products. Who gets the credit?

Kim:

Advocacy doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There is no way to judge the effectiveness of actions without addressing simultaneous shifts in societal factors during the examined period, as you've outlined above. It’s ridiculous to claim that any one strategy can cause an end result. And I hear that claim a lot. It’s convenient to ignore other factors contributing to a situation in an effort to bolster an argument, but it has no basis in fact.

Gary:

Polls show that interest in veganism among young people is rising. Who gets the credit here? Vegan Outreach, which gets a steady stream of positive feedback and conversion testimonials from people who have received their literature at college campuses across the country? Compassion Over Killing's well-put together commercials on MTV? HSUS' recent environmental advertising campaign that recommended cutting back on all animal product consumption as much as possible? United Poultry Concerns, which campaigns for chickens on every front imaginable? PETA? Meet Your Meat? Grassroots groups? One-on-one activism? Maybe all of the above and more; the whole mix.

Kim:

Yes, it’s the mix. And I think you’ve hit on the most probable continued course of action that has the greatest chance of bringing information to such a diverse society - multiple approaches. Once you get out on the street and do any advocacy, it becomes quickly apparent that different people respond to different approaches.

Gary:

Efforts to ban fur have largely focused on eliminating it, not improving fur animal welfare – probably because a large segment of the public is opposed to fur and/or doesn't wear it; fur is not deeply embedded into everyday society the way meat and dairy are. Yet the fur industry has rebounded from its dip in the 1980s and recently has been making record profits. I point out this unimpressive record of a prolonged abolition effort's attempt to have a serious impact on an industry that the public largely thinks of as expendable if not ostentatious, not to suggest that we switch strategies but that there's no surefire strategy that we've found thus far that quickly and permanently reduces the number of animals killed for profit.

Kim:

Which shows the monumental problem we have to overcome with vegan promotion. We all need to eat, and the overwhelming majority of people believe you need to eat animals to survive. The fur industry hasn’t gone away, yet we don’t require fur to survive, like we do food.

Gary:

To be fair, we may finally be turning the corner on the fur front, as a growing number of clothing lines and retailers are removing fur from their inventories.
Should we engage with "the enemy?" I tend to look at this tactic on a case-by-case basis. Negotiations with industry led to many corporations stopping animal tests of cosmetic and personal care products. PETA and some other groups have talked companies into dropping fur. HSUS has leveraged the public's growing disapproval of certain agribusiness practices into bans of those practices at the supplier and buyer ends. (Although to reiterate what I said in a previous post, we must continue to expand the public's consciousness and work on fundamentally changing its attitudes toward animal exploitation, and vegan advocacy is essential in these efforts.)

Kim:

I’m sure a rebuttal would be that Saks, for instance, isn’t the “enemy” but the fur producers are. You would be asking Saks to discontinue selling that type of item, not to close its doors completely. In other words, you wouldn’t be able to approach "Blood Money Furs" retailer with the same request.

Gary:

For purposes of this discussion, I'll consider establishments that sell and promote the offending products to be part of "the enemy." But a better term might be "suppliers" or "sellers." My goal would not be to drive companies out of business - even though that might happen - but to get them to stop selling the products of exploitation, products from killed animals in particular. But I agree, it's easier to accomplish that if you're not asking the company to get rid of its main or only product. So a department store could replace its fur garments with faux fur items or other apparel (and eventually do the same with its leather and wool clothing), and a small mixed-use farm could stop raising beef cattle and grow more crops for human consumption instead.


Kim:

You also raise the oft argued issue of whether or not “we” should ever work with the “enemy”, since it would most likely be an effort to address welfare, not abolition. I personally believe it has a place in the process, as even the appearance of a nationally known entity acknowledging the welfare of animals has an impact on the public consciousness. Even if the ultimate “welfare” benefits to the animals aren’t incredibly significant (although I do believe every improvement is incredibly significant from that animal’s point of view) I think the overall effect, in combination with other types of advocacy, is a necessary part of the process.

Gary:

Often, small businesses are more approachable and flexible than mega-corporations. From personal experience, I know that a single activist can influence small companies' business practices. Of course, we ultimately want to eliminate demand for animal-derived products, but a) changes in supply and promotion can affect demand, b) business owners and managers are people too, and sometimes we can have an impact on their own demand, which may be reflected in their business policies. For some animal advocates, meeting with businesspeople may be an attractive outlet for their activism.

Kim:

And I’ve seen evidence of this kind of advocacy gaining national attention, when major media picks up on a story, for instance. Action creates action, no matter how small it appears to be at the start.

Gary:

I agree that the biggest threat to animal farming is veganism. But one might also say that the biggest threat to animal farming is the change in the public's consciousness that precedes vegan-inspired changes in behavior. I believe this transition is presently occurring, albeit at a frustratingly slow and uneven pace. Any way that we can wrest people from their deeply-entrenched notions that certain animals are here for us to eat, and that meals aren't complete without meat, will help speed up that transition. Any way we can engender people to develop sympathy and respect for farmed animals and all sentient beings will help move us to veganism and perhaps many magnificent possibilities beyond that.

Kim:

There are so few humans educating other humans about veganism, that trying to do it person by person, without any other larger societal influences concurrently making the pitch, is unrealistic. I think the public is becoming more receptive to veganism because of the groundwork that has been laid and that there is no way to measure what kind of success we would be having now in our vegan outreach if it wasn’t for PETA or HSUS approaching the issue on different fronts. I have no way of knowing what our position would be today if PETA had only done strictly vegan education, for instance. And anyone who claims they know differently is fooling themselves.

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Christine Morrissey's Statement

Christine Morrissey, Director of East Bay Animal Advocates: “Clanking big-rigs barrel past Sunshine Donuts in Livingston, California, carrying 4,500 feces-caked chickens to the Foster Farms processing plant one block to the left. The Livingston plant kills nearly 600,000 chickens daily. It’s the largest slaughterhouse in the world. Maintaining a campaign website entitled FosterFacts.net, we slammed Foster Farms on its poor treatment of chickens, resulting in lively corporate outreach efforts and penetrating false advertising complaints.”

Gary:

I realize this is somewhat tangential to the discussion, but I wanted to praise East Bay Animal Advocates (EBAA) for their revealing and incriminating investigations of the animal agriculture industry. I've referred to their work many times in my blog. I particularly would urge readers to check out their investigation of a free-range turkey operation . It shows turkeys living and dying in horrible conditions.

I met Christine briefly at the last Taking Action for Animals conference. If memory serves - which I think it does in this case - she informed me that the turkey facility in question, Diestel Turkey Ranch, was a supplier to Whole Foods Market, and that EBAA shared their findings with Whole Foods, but that Whole Foods continued to get turkeys from Diestel. Just one more indication of the harshness and resistance to reform of the animal exploitation and killing business. As bad as the Diestel situation is, non-"free-range" is even worse, though.

EBAA's long-running Foster Farms campaign illustrates some of the strengths and fallibilities of welfare reform strategies. For the last two and a half years, EBAA has done a superb job of documenting the horrid conditions and putrid lies of Foster Farms - a "poultry processing" company that, according to EBAA's web site , kills five million chickens a week. As best I can tell, EBAA's outreach to the public and to the business community has been outstanding. Yet Foster Farms - possibly with help from government agencies that seem thoroughly uninterested in animal welfare - has stonewalled every activist attempt at reform.

At the same time, EBAA's footage of animal suffering at Foster Farms, and its reporting of the company's callous attitude toward both the animals and humans it exploits, has no doubt opened many people's eyes to the violence of large-scale animal agriculture, impelled them to sympathize with the animals' interests, and made them think about the moral consequences of their food choices. These are all fairly common precursors to becoming vegetarian (or at least reducing meat intake) and developing support for animal rights.

Notwithstanding that small organizations can only do so much and are usually strapped for resources, my respectful request would be to add vegan solutions to the web sites. Leverage the outrage and sadness that viewers to the sites (and followers of campaigns) may experience, and let them know about ways they can eliminate their contribution to virtually all the cruelties and suffering - and untimely death - in chicken operations. And turkey operations. And rabbit meat farms . And so on. The additional information wouldn't have to be anything elaborate; perhaps just some links to vegan substitute products, recipes, and cookbooks.

Sorry to drift off-topic again; I just wanted to mention that I very much liked the latest EBAA blog entry EBAA blog entry [link](February 4), which discusses the challenges of conveying the plght of animals in the media.

Kim:

Thanks Gary for insight into the activities of EBAA. I wasn't personally familiar with their work and this helped highlight their efforts.

I know that if I lived anywhere near the never ending truck processions to murder, as Christine described, I would find it difficult to ignore the immediate, immense suffering. I think this really highlights the element that makes it difficult to forgo attempts at welfare reform, while focusing only on vegan advocacy. It's a natural human impulse to want to stop suffering as it's occurring. And I don't think there is any way to disable that human drive in most people, in exchange for what might appear to be a more logical course of action.

I've always felt that even if welfare reform campaigns don't result in complete elimination of suffering, or even significant changes for a large percentage of animals, they serve to illuminate the facts that most compassionate people will then have trouble ignoring. Welfare campaigns, at the very least, serve to bring the truth into the light. An effective undercover investigation, for instance, that manages to hit major media outlets, reaches a lot more people in a very short amount of time than individual efforts to promote veganism. I see the campaigns as a reinforcement of what we do on the ground, so to speak, providing validity to our in-person education efforts. If they saw it on the evening news, it tends to click when confronted with an actual activist offering the same information.

I agree with you, Gary, that any welfare campaign needs to incorporate vegan advocacy to be truly effective. The logical extension of "welfare" is veganism, after all.

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Robert Schiff's Statement

Roberta Schiff, President of Mid-Hudson Vegetarian Society in New York: “I know there are organizations who believe that making conditions for farmed animals somewhat less inhumane is the only thing possible given the voracious demand for meat, eggs, and milk. But two fast food chains agreeing to purchase a small percent of their flesh from animals treated with a bit less cruelty is hardly either exciting or a victory. It is a measured amount of progress, at best. Please let none of us do things or state things in such a way as to influence people to think these products have no price.”

Kim:

I don’t agree that most organizations think addressing conditions for farmed animals is “the only thing possible” - only one part of the equation. Given the fact that nothing activists do this second, short of illegal sabotage, is going to address the current suffering these animals face every second, if demanding change produces even a little “less cruelty” I find it significant, even if it isn’t “exciting” to us.

But I do agree that it is a form of “progress”. It’s progress in that attitudes are changing about consideration for farmed animals at all. It follows from the attitudinal shift regarding companion animals that has had some dramatic recent examples - from the animal issues that arose during Hurricane Katrina and the swift and clear outrage toward Michael Vick. Companion animal activism has been all about “welfare”. And we can see clear evidence that society has become less tolerant of companion animal abuse in conjunction with that focus, and that these attitude changes are having an impact on attitudes about “other” animals.

I haven’t personally seen evidence of activists portraying welfare as an end game solution, but I agree that we need to be upfront with the public about the inhumanity of any animal exploitation. But I find that the public’s own desire to keep eating animals creates a “wishful thinking” response to the notion of “humane exploitation” - they want to believe there is a way to keep eating animals that is humane and moral. When I hear such declarations about their choices being humane, I find it pretty easy to alter that perception with a little education that the exploiters fail to leave off.

I have seen the shattering of this wishful thinking before my eyes with just the offering of some information, which reinforces the need to make public education a priority. This doesn’t mean it is necessary to ignore the suffering of animals in factory farms, or that we are endorsing “humane farming” by demanding less cruel practices. It means that while the public is demanding animals be treated better, we break down the notion that we should be eating them at all. I see this as a powerful - and necessary - combination approach.


Gary:

I believe it's important for animal advocates to acknowledge all progress in dismantling animal exploitation, if for no other reason than it provides a hedge against burnout and despair, and may boost advocates' optimism, energy levels, and stamina in the long struggle.

"Victory" in common usage need not mean total victory. It can mean getting consumers or corporations to take an action that has a positive impact on animals, such as eliminating a particularly heinous torture.

To be sure, Burger King announcing that it will purchase two percent of its eggs from non-battery cage facilities - to take one example - is certainly not a "Yay, we did it," pumping-our-fists-in-the-air victory. In the grand scheme of animal rights, it is a barely measurable increment; any victory celebrations should be muted. Furthermore, such moves have a whiff of tokenism: A corporation that kills huge numbers of animals for profit every year does the minimum possible to claim "We care about animals" and then uses that as a marketing tool or a means of stifling protest.

But there may be more here than meets the eye, and several ways in which this seemingly minor move is significant:

-- Two percent of a huge number is a lot of eggs; a lot of hens who no longer have to live their lives in a tiny wire box. Granted, the hens are still abused in many ways and brutally killed. Their victim status is unaltered. But at least they get some of their lives back. They can flap their wings. They can stand and lie down on solid ground. Their claws don't slowly wrap around the wire grating, sometimes getting ripped off when they're pulled from their cages.

-- That Burger King did anything at all with respect to animal welfare is a sign that consumers are becoming more concerned about that issue. A decade ago, it's doubtful that HSUS or other animal groups would have had sufficient leverage to force any animal welfare concessions from fast food chains.

-- Two percent today can - and probably will - turn into 5 percent, then 10, 20 and so forth. Eventually, as cage-free changes from novel to the norm, there's no reason consumers will not demand additional animal welfare improvements, such as increased space for hens, no more de-beaking, and an end to male chick-killing. These changes may significantly raise costs for fast food chains and their suppliers. Combine that with the continued mainstreaming of vegetarian options and before long veggie chicken items on the menu start to look rather compelling to Burger King and other fast-food companies - especially for products such as patties and nuggets, in which the taste largely comes from breading, the filling is highly processed, and consumers most likely would not even notice the difference. Perhaps the positive flip side of people's tendency to mindlessly eat whatever is most readily available, tastes good, and fills them up is that they'll exhibit that same behavior regardless of whether the substrate of their sandwich filling comes from an animal or a plant.

-- Burger King's move puts pressure on their competition to do the same thing. In fact, HSUS and other animal groups play one company off the other.

When animal groups get companies to make changes in their policies, they are hastening the conversion of public opinion into corporate practices. Paradoxically, the vast majority of the population is opposed to battery cages, yet still buys eggs - directly and indirectly (through products that contain eggs) - from battery cage facilities. It's a strange zone: There's enough opposition to the practice to influence corporate policy a little but not too much. By making battery cage-sourced eggs unavailable or illegal, it forces consumers to stop perpetuating a particular cruelty to which they're morally opposed but which by and large they don't stop supporting on their own, perhaps out of laziness or general resistance to change. It's almost like "Please force me to make the change."

As important as it is to translate existing consumer opinion into corporate and government policy, it's ultimately even more important to influence public attitudes so that more substantial changes can be made in the future. That's why it's essential to ease the public's fears about giving up meat, to push the mainstreaming of vegan options, to inform the public of all the cruelties inherent in animal agriculture, and to educate (or remind) the public about the sentience and intrinsic worth of animals and thus our moral obligations toward them. I think that even when there is resistance to these topics, it is not terribly difficult to convey them and discuss them in ways that resonate with the public. So, yes, let's push companies to reflect emerging public opinion, but let's also use education and inspiration to expand people's consciousness and sense of right and wrong with regard to animals; let's advocate so that animals get the inclusion they deserve in individuals' and society's moral spheres.

Kim:

Of course I don't take anything a Burger King does at face value, but use the exercise as evidence that something is at least changing, even if it is perceptions. Is this the best use of HSUS's and PETA's time, to demand certain things from exploiters, however minimal they appear to be? It might be, as part of a greater effort to bring awareness to mainstream consumers who purchase meals at these fast-food places. It certainly is a big segment of the population that spends their money on fast-food.

Truthfully, I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about what each individual campaign means in terms of overall effect, but realize that different groups and individuals are naturally going to be drawn to different issues, using different methods. I don't believe there is any way to dictate strategy in an area where there are so many competing atrocities. Or that there is any way to measure what "victory" or "success" is at this point, when the goal is the elimination of exploitation. Anything that moves in that direction is progress - if it proves to change attitudes and removes some suffering immediately.

Gary:

The gradual elimination of battery cages, veal pens, gestation crates, and other forms of widespread, institutionalized torture is part of a campaign to decrease animal suffering as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Is concentrating on getting rid of cruelties that are already opposed by a majority of the public the best way to do that? That's a huge and complicated discussion, and I'm not sure there is any one best way, but the strategy seems rational to me, and striving to reduce suffering is a noble and urgent pursuit, even though animal rights and vegan outreach extends beyond reducing suffering.

One question that arises - which I think is valid - is: By incrementally improving conditions for farm animals, do we risk making consumers more comfortable with purchasing animal products? In my experience, the most complacent consumers of animal products are those who give no conscious thought to animal welfare and express no qualms about purchasing the cruelest factory farm products (out of ignorance or other reasons). The consistent pattern I see in my outreach is that omnivores who are buying cage-free eggs and, more generally, giving some consideration - however superficial - to animal welfare are much more conflicted about eating animal products and noticeably more open to vegan ideas. Then again, those personal experiences are what gets me thinking that if I can "talk vegan" to these folks and they listen rather than walk away, so can anyone and any group.

I do think that the way in which welfare reform campaigns are orchestrated can make a huge difference. I think advocates can and should leverage public opinion about animal welfare and animal rights to secure changes in corporate and government policies, thus giving some measure of relief to the unjust victims of exploitation, while at the same time being honest and open about the whole range of cruelties in animal exploitation, and discussing broad moral issues such as our obligation not to harm sentient beings if we can avoid it. If we've had trouble with the audience rejecting those messages in the past, let's put our heads together, look at failures and successes, and determine how we can best convey those far-reaching concepts. Maybe that's one of the things that will come out of the UPC conference.

Kim:

You know, I've read lots of the theories out there on the notion that addressing welfare somehow encourages people to eat more animals - or that it encourages them to go back to eating them. I just don't buy it. If anyone is swayed by the notion of "humane murder", they haven't embraced the ideals of veganism to begin with. They aren't there yet, but that doesn't mean further information won't make the difference in their compassion evolution.

Besides, if the worst case scenario is that we somehow have to advocate from a position of less cruel farming practices, how is that a bad thing, for the animals? (Although I don't see that truly happening on a wide scale, since it will quickly prove too costly and unsustainable to feed the public all the animals they demand within that model - bolstering the vegan argument.) There are so few of us out here willing to do vegan advocacy right now, that the notion that the animals can wait until we succesfully educate the masses is unrealistic. Eliminating the worst practices is not only the logical action, as we work to increase our ranks of vegan educators, but is also the compassionate course of action.

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Paul Shapiro's Statement

**UPDATED** at 7:30 pm, 1/27


Paul Shapiro, Senior Director of HSUS’s Factory Farming Campaign: “The trend is clear: battery cages for egg-laying hens are being relegated to the dustbin of history faster than anyone would have imagined. We must be careful, however, in describing the campaign to the public to put forward a truthful message. Cage-free is a factual statement that describes the hens’ housing – simply that these birds are not confined in cages. It’s one thing to state that not using battery eggs helps reduce animal suffering and is a move in the right direction. It’s another to claim that cage-free eggs are by definition ‘cruelty-free.’”

Gary:

I'm going to start by generally pointing out where I agree, and follow with some constructive criticism.

Strictly speaking, I concur with everything Paul said. Abolishing battery cages - the example he used - is indeed an improvement for hens. I cannot imagine the unending pain and despair from being locked in a box my whole life, in which I could never raise my arms, and in which I was forced to stand, sit, and sleep on metal grates. So freeing hens from that life-long torture, and getting the public to not only refuse to support that cruelty but to ban it - first at the company and college level and now possibly at the state level - is certainly a step in the right direction. For the first time in decades, the trend toward more and more intensive confinement of farmed animals is being reversed.

I also agree that "cage-free" is an accurate term. Exaggerated phrases like "happy meat" are used by opponents of reform. And of course the animal agriculture industry promotes all its meat, dairy, and eggs as "happy." However, it should be noted that HSUS and other organizations that have engaged in reform campaigns sometimes use words like "humane" and "compassionate" to describe their initiatives.

Because the public in general is so vested in eating animal products (and perhaps because they are bombarded with positive images and reinforcement of animal product consumption), I believe they're predisposed to see reform measures with rose-colored glasses and that their strong tendency is to convince themselves that eating meat, dairy, and eggs is ok. Therefore I think we have an obligation to present the unvarnished and rather bleak truth about what "cage-free" means for most hens. In the vast majority of circumstances, cage-free hens are still crowded into filthy sheds by the thousands or tens of thousands. Through intensive breeding and environmental manipulation they are forced to lay up to ten times their normal number of eggs - which takes an enormous toll on their bodies. They may be debeaked. Their diet and surroundings offer them virtually no joy and scant opportunity to engage in a natural lifestyle. Male chicks and unwanted hens are killed by brutal methods, including suffocation and being ground up alive. Cage-free hens still suffer their whole lives and both they and the male "by-products" of the egg industry are horribly exploited.

I believe HSUS can explain these disturbing realities in ways that will not result in them losing their audience. As Paul and other animal activists have pointed out, practically everyone deep down is opposed to animal cruelty and does not want to cause avoidable suffering. Yet, at the same time, they willingly contribute to avoidable animal cruelty and suffering. People unfortunately often do things that they know are wrong - out of habit, social pressure, ignorance, simply being vested in a particular lifestyle, defiance when they feel their activity choices are being attacked, and for other reasons. A large part of animal activism is helping people act in accordance with their basic morals. HSUS and other organizations are doing this in a step-wise fashion when they convince consumers to stop buying eggs from battery cages. But I believe those same techniques can be used in a much broader sense, to educate the public on cruelties that are practically endemic to animal agriculture and to spur the public to reconsider the whole premise of creating animals merely to exploit and kill them - particularly in this day and age in which alternatives are abundant.

Paul and other HSUS employees working on farmed animal reforms are long-time ethical vegans who are dedicated to bringing about a compassionate and just world that includes veganism and the eradication of animal exploitation. That is my distinct impression from meeting them and talking with them on numerous occasions over the last several years. They are quite eloquent when publicly explaining the horrors of battery cages, veal crates, and gestation crates, and I have no doubt that they could be just as effective in educating the public about male chick-killing in hen hatcheries, the severe violence and suffering in slaughterhouses, and other forms of brutality inflicted on animals throughout the animal agriculture industry. In conjunction with those efforts - since it is important to provide one's advocacy audience with solutions that they see as doable and achievable - HSUS could greatly expand its literature, online information, and outreach programs to show people how to reduce their intake of animal products and replace them with healthy, satisfying vegan choices. They do this to some degree already, and I'm excited about the ongoing significant expansion of their online vegan recipes, but I'd like to see them make this broader, "striking at the roots" type of advocacy more front-and-center in their outreach strategies. I think the time is right and that they have the talent, resources, and moral conviction in their workforce to pull it off magnificently.


Kim:

The situation of the hens’ confinement in battery cages was probably the most compelling reason for my converting to veganism. I recognized rather quickly that these particular animals suffered the most horribly, for the longest period of time. And that it was a priority to remove them from these cages above all other issues I came across regarding animal exploitation. But at the same time, I found it encouraging that many working to end this practice were optimistic that this was a practice that would come to an end fairly soon.

If that was the case, it was proof to me that a small number of individuals can make changes on behalf of animals. And I wanted to join in the process.

I was never under any illusion that removing hens from cages was going to be the final assault on their exploitation; only a matter of relieving them from this particular torture. While it may be possible to house hens in less crowded situations than most “cage-free” operations provide now - and we may have to begin demanding better “cage-free” conditions once the cages are completely eliminated industry wide, as the next step - eliminating the exploitation of hens for their bodily secretions is the ultimate goal.

But how do we get from Point A to Point B? Is it realistic that a group unable to speak on its own behalf will obtain freedom from exploitation without gradualism? How long will pure vegan advocacy take to eliminate eggs from society’s diet? How long is long to a hen suffering every second in a wire cage, never seeing daylight or spreading her wings, throughout her abbreviated life?

It’s at least been proven that the public responded to learning about the realities of caged hens and that the industry then responded to their concerns - for whatever reasons. So at the very least, we have some evidence that this kind of education campaign has “an” effect - regardless of what one thinks about the level of significance. (All I can do is assume any respite from a wire cage is of significance to the hens.)


Personally, I’m not willing to gamble with the current suffering of hens in exchange for unproven theory about strategies, when I can see that this kind of incremental advocacy is proven to at least shift attitudes. And perhaps even result in better cage-free conditions - in the next phase - while we work toward widespread veganism and abolition. Of course I would like HSUS and other groups to take a more defined position on veganism, and make sure they aren't leaving the impression that cage-free is acceptable as a final goal, but I also understand that this kind of change may require a different approach until the public is in a position to embrace what they now perceive as an inconceivable notion - life without eating animals. While vegan advocacy may not be at the forefront of their activities - like it is for Gary and I - I see their position as a complement to my activism, not as a hindrance.


[Gary didn't have a chance to add some comments he wanted to about the California Ballot Initiative being sponsored by HSUS, Farm Sanctuary and other organizations, so I am going to provide a link on his behalf. I feel the initiative goes a long way toward bringing awareness to the public about the conditions of animals on factory farms and will hopefully result in eliminating some of the worst conditions for animals. I also see the potential such an initiative brings to provide the momentum necessary to introduce veganism as an option, once it becomes clear to many new to this information that "humane exploitation" is an oxymoron, and that even the closest "ideal" for animals will never be profitable, affordable, sustainable or humane. Again, I don't see such reform efforts as an end point (although their impact on attitudes can be seen as "victories"), but as a necessary component to changing entrenched perceptions, when combined with vegan advocacy.]


**UPDATE FROM GARY**:

Although my outreach is overwhelmingly vegan-oriented, and I gently but firmly push people to go farther than merely refining their animal product intake - I ask them to replace animal consumption with animal compassion - I would encourage all California residents to sign the petition to add the "Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act" to the November 2008 ballot in that state. Details are at the link Kim provided. (Yes, the title of the initiative is over the top, but then so are the titles of so many legislative reform measures.)

The Act, if passed, would affect tens of millions of animal in one fell swoop. It would provide some rudiments of normalcy - e.g., being able to stand on solid ground and dust-bathe - to laying hens. Similar provisions would be given to breeding sows and veal calves.

There is an implied rights element to this legislation: Animals have a right not to be confined in tiny cages, therefore the practice should be outlawed. When exploited victims' legal status is raised, the public has a tendency to give those victims more respect. By raising the issue of farmed animal cruelty in a highly visible way, and incrementally strengthening farmed animal laws, the California ballot initiative reflects as well as aids the public's gradual acknowledgment of farmed animals' interests.

Granted, the measure leaves many horrific cruelties - as well as the overall exploitative business model - intact. Nonetheless it sends a signal to the animal agriculture industry that consumers are starting to reject practices that they tacitly accepted only a few years ago. And they are voting against those practices on moral grounds. If we can deepen and expand that concern, and transform it into substantial lifestyle changes - such as transitioning to a vegan diet - that spells doom for animal agriculture.

As pattrice jones has pointed out, we can put the "squeeze play" on the animal exploitation industry: Increasing restrictions on their business practices, raising their costs, and lowering demand for their products. Vegan activism plays a vital role in achieving these results. Let's leverage people's awareness and moral concerns and show them healthy, satisfying, and non-violent alternatives.




Our next post will discuss the statement of UPC Conference participant Roberta Schiff, President of Mid-Hudson Vegetarian Society in New York.

Blogversation Series - Animal Advocacy Strategies - Introduction

Please welcome Gary from Animal Writings, who will be joining me in a series of posts - a Blogversation, if you will - inspired by our upcoming attendance at the 8th annual United Poultry Concerns (UPC) Conference in Norfolk, VA at the end of March. This year the conference will examine the pros and cons of reform measures as an animal advocacy strategy.


Gary:

Thanks to Kim for letting me participate in this joint blog series.

This will be my fourth UPC conference. I highly recommend them. They are small enough to be intimate and to allow everyone to contribute. By exploring a single topic, they get past superficial headlines and bullet points and into very interesting and thought-provoking inquiries. The level of conversation and discourse is always top-notch; the speakers are respectful toward both the audience and each other and never insult the listeners' intelligence. There is a great feeling of camaraderie and plenty of opportunity to network and form friendships. The UPC forum is an ideal venue in which to discuss complicated and emotional topics. I have always felt that in past conferences I came away more informed and more appreciative of the nuances of various positions.

Kim:

Gary suggested that in advance of the conference, we could respond to the brief position statements submitted by each of the upcoming UPC forum speakers. I agreed that this would make for an interesting conversation that readers might enjoy. Our aim is not simply to agree or disagree with the speakers - although we may do some of both - but to express thoughts and reactions that may be triggered by each of the statements. We'll share them with you, and bounce them off each other, and see where it goes.

Gary:

We want to say upfront that we recognize the totality of each speaker's perspectives on animal advocacy strategy cannot be summed up in a paragraph. And we realize that each of the speaker's statements is merely one small sliver of their views on the subject. In addition, we acknowledge that each of these speakers is a tireless and dedicated activist who has worked for years if not decades on furthering the causes of animal protection, animal rights, reducing animal suffering, and bringing about a world in which our relationship with animals is based on compassion, respect, communion, and justice. We, and more importantly the animals, are indebted to their efforts.

Kim:

In our first post, to follow shortly, we'll start by discussing Paul Shapiro's statement. Then, in subsequent posts, we'll work our way through each participant's statements and end with Karen Davis.

We hope many of you will join in the conversation!