So after I wrote my last post, I was flipping through my DVR recordings and came across one last Holiday Lifetime-ish movie I had recorded that I had yet to watch - Will You Merry Me. Yes, that's the title and I STILL watched it.
The basic premise: a Jewish girl and a Christian guy fall in love, get engaged and get together with all the parents over Christmas/Hanukkah to meet each other. It was actually kind of cute, and even had some funny moments. But then, it got even better.
- The girl is staying in the guy's childhood bedroom and he has a hunting rifle hanging on the wall over his door. She's appalled and proclaims she can't believe he can hunt, killing innocent animals, etc.
- They go to the kitchen and his mother is preparing one of the ducks the father had killed. Guy reminds Mom that girl is a vegetarian. Mom says duck is ok because it's not meat. Girl says she doesn't eat anything that smiles. Mom then tries to find something to make for her, settling on quiche, when guy tells Mom she doesn't eat cheese either. Mom replies, "Cheese smiles?" I admit I chuckled - and I know, most animals (except chimps and humans) don't "smile" - but it was an effective scene that displayed the mother's lack of awareness.
- Guy and girl fight (partially about emails sent by a former girlfriend - emails about "animal rights" and stuff, he claims).
The parents fight (mostly about family traditions). But the overall message of the movie appeared to be that it's ok to start new traditions - like the one mentioned in the final scene as follows:
- After reconciling, guy tells girl that they'll have a VEGAN Christmas. She asks him if he'll eat Tofurky. He says he LOVES Tofurky and that he'll eat it whenever she serves it.
So there you go. Just when I thought my stupid movie obsession was shallow and time-wasting, I'm given some validation. And a reminder that things sure have come a long way toward mainstream vegan awareness.
Showing posts with label vegan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vegan. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Thursday, June 19, 2008
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...
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...
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, April 21, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
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.")
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.")
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Easy Vegan Meal - Thai Coconut Soup
It's cold, I'm in the mood for soup today, I'm lazy and I'm on a coconut kick. So....another can of Amy's soup comes to the rescue!
This time it's Amy's Tom Kha Phak or Thai Coconut Soup. To this, I add a can of Trader Joe's Light Coconut Milk - I like this kind because it's less calories and this brand is inexpensive. Then I throw in some frozen sugar snap peas, frozen mixed mushrooms (the greatest thing ever from Woodstock Farms) and Morningstar Farms Chik-n-Strips. I bring it to a light boil, serve some up and then season with kosher salt and pepper to taste and top with some fresh cilantro. I like things spicy, so I also splashed some Tabasco on top.
OMG good!
By adding the extra ingredients, I stretched the servings from 2 to 4, enhanced the flavors and textures, created more of a complete meal in one pot and cut down on the sodium content.
This time it's Amy's Tom Kha Phak or Thai Coconut Soup. To this, I add a can of Trader Joe's Light Coconut Milk - I like this kind because it's less calories and this brand is inexpensive. Then I throw in some frozen sugar snap peas, frozen mixed mushrooms (the greatest thing ever from Woodstock Farms) and Morningstar Farms Chik-n-Strips. I bring it to a light boil, serve some up and then season with kosher salt and pepper to taste and top with some fresh cilantro. I like things spicy, so I also splashed some Tabasco on top.
OMG good!
By adding the extra ingredients, I stretched the servings from 2 to 4, enhanced the flavors and textures, created more of a complete meal in one pot and cut down on the sodium content.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
What if McDonald's suddenly became vegan?
I have this fantasy that if all the McDonald's suddenly went vegan, no one would really notice the difference, or complain. No one goes to McDonald's to eat healthy food anyway, so as long as it was still fast, cheap and tasted good, I believe it wouldn't matter.
Now, I'm not examining the issues surrounding "fast food" and what that implies about our society's priorities; I'm only conjuring up a scenario based on our current habits. And recognizing that being vegan isn't really a matter of difficulty for a society, but only a matter of us currently having a fast-food, animal-product dominated, society.
I've often presented the question to others who still choose to eat animals and animal products about what they would do if suddenly there were no animals to eat. The answer has always been that they would no longer eat them - or they offer no answer at all. But the answer has yet to be "I wouldn't survive." (I imagine that would be a pretty ridiculous answer when the person asking the question is a thriving vegan!) Vegans are living proof that you don't need to eat animals and their byproducts to survive.
We all know the phenomenon where someone tastes something and declares it delicious, only to retract their assessment once it's revealed to them it is something they previously declared unappetizing. Some get angry, believing they have been deceived. But some realize through this exercise how their perceptions had been dictating their food choices, rather than actual taste. And I'm sure these scenarios would play out in a sudden McDonald's conversion. Now I know it's a stretch that you could replicate all the flavors in McDonald's products perfectly in vegan forms, but I imagine if they became the only options - either you eat this or stop eating at McDonald's - people would most likely be unwilling to give up the cheap convenience due to a lack of animal parts, if it was at least tasty.
At least that's what I choose to believe. That if there was no other choice, society would have no problem being vegan.
Now, I'm not examining the issues surrounding "fast food" and what that implies about our society's priorities; I'm only conjuring up a scenario based on our current habits. And recognizing that being vegan isn't really a matter of difficulty for a society, but only a matter of us currently having a fast-food, animal-product dominated, society.
I've often presented the question to others who still choose to eat animals and animal products about what they would do if suddenly there were no animals to eat. The answer has always been that they would no longer eat them - or they offer no answer at all. But the answer has yet to be "I wouldn't survive." (I imagine that would be a pretty ridiculous answer when the person asking the question is a thriving vegan!) Vegans are living proof that you don't need to eat animals and their byproducts to survive.
We all know the phenomenon where someone tastes something and declares it delicious, only to retract their assessment once it's revealed to them it is something they previously declared unappetizing. Some get angry, believing they have been deceived. But some realize through this exercise how their perceptions had been dictating their food choices, rather than actual taste. And I'm sure these scenarios would play out in a sudden McDonald's conversion. Now I know it's a stretch that you could replicate all the flavors in McDonald's products perfectly in vegan forms, but I imagine if they became the only options - either you eat this or stop eating at McDonald's - people would most likely be unwilling to give up the cheap convenience due to a lack of animal parts, if it was at least tasty.
At least that's what I choose to believe. That if there was no other choice, society would have no problem being vegan.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Easy Vegan Meal - Lentil Vegetable Stew
I'm an okay cook, but I definitely prefer the eating more than the preparing and tend to avoid following recipes. I've come to accept that I come from a long line of ancestors whose favorite things to make were dinner reservations. So, I look for shorcuts where I can.
I was really in the mood for stew yesterday, but didn't feel like making something from scratch. I had a can of Amy's Lentil Vegetable Soup (and I can't tell you how cool it is to see products with "(VEGAN)" heading the ingredients list) in my pantry, to use as a starting point.
These processed foods tend to have too much salt, so the first thing I do is add about a half can of water to start and then play it by ear, depending on how it tastes, to determine if I'll add more water later. Then I throw in whatever frozen veggies I have on hand - yesterday it was your basic mixed vegetables and cut leaf spinach - and maybe a frozen animal-product substitute, like the vegan Morningstar Steak Strips I used in this dish. (I just dump the frozen items right into the pot - they cook just fine.)
After bringing the soup to a simmer/low boil, I decided it could take some more water, and that I would then thicken it up with a corn starch roux (whisking the starch with some of the hot soup broth until it's a paste, and then adding it back to the pot). Then I added some garlic powder and a little Kosher salt, once in the bowl, to taste. And of course, I had to have some ketchup with my stew, as is my personal tradition.
It was delicious, hearty and satisfying, and SOOOO quick and easy! And by adding the water, veggies and strips, I turned a 2-serving, $2, fairly high-sodium can of soup into a healthier, 4-serving, multi-meal stew.
Today, I plan to have the rest with some leftover Basmati rice. Just the antecdote for a cold, rainy, winter day when you need a little comfort food.
I was really in the mood for stew yesterday, but didn't feel like making something from scratch. I had a can of Amy's Lentil Vegetable Soup (and I can't tell you how cool it is to see products with "(VEGAN)" heading the ingredients list) in my pantry, to use as a starting point.
These processed foods tend to have too much salt, so the first thing I do is add about a half can of water to start and then play it by ear, depending on how it tastes, to determine if I'll add more water later. Then I throw in whatever frozen veggies I have on hand - yesterday it was your basic mixed vegetables and cut leaf spinach - and maybe a frozen animal-product substitute, like the vegan Morningstar Steak Strips I used in this dish. (I just dump the frozen items right into the pot - they cook just fine.)
After bringing the soup to a simmer/low boil, I decided it could take some more water, and that I would then thicken it up with a corn starch roux (whisking the starch with some of the hot soup broth until it's a paste, and then adding it back to the pot). Then I added some garlic powder and a little Kosher salt, once in the bowl, to taste. And of course, I had to have some ketchup with my stew, as is my personal tradition.
It was delicious, hearty and satisfying, and SOOOO quick and easy! And by adding the water, veggies and strips, I turned a 2-serving, $2, fairly high-sodium can of soup into a healthier, 4-serving, multi-meal stew.
Today, I plan to have the rest with some leftover Basmati rice. Just the antecdote for a cold, rainy, winter day when you need a little comfort food.
Friday, November 23, 2007
Amazing Vegan Thanksgiving Feast! (Only thing missing was the cruelty.)
At your Thanksgiving celebration, did you have Stuffed Shells, Macaroni Salad, Couscous, Green Bean Casserole, Orange Liqueur Sweet Potatoes, Tofurky with potatoes and green beans, Sweet and Sour "Meat"Balls, Roasted Lemon Rosemary Carrots, Mashed Potatoes, Swiss Chard, Stuffing, 2 kinds of gravy, Enchiladas, Walforf Salad, Cranberry Sauce, Applesauce, 5 different appetizer dips, with chips & veggies, Pumpkin Pie, Cinnamon Rolls, Chocolate Cream Pie, Key Lime Pie, Whipped Soy Cream, Apple Cider and Sangria? All without animal cruelty mixed in?
I can't imagine that anyone could have eaten any better than I did yesterday, due to the addition of animal carcasses and animal by-products on their table. Not only was the food delicious and satisfying, I didn't celebrate a day of thanks by supporting the pain and suffering of sentient beings.
We should all be thankful for the abundance of non-animal food choices and the creative people who devise fantastic dishes from them. I can't think of a better example of what Thanksgiving is about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
