The Vegan Bug

I’ve been at my parent’s home for the past few days where I happened upon the June 2007 issue of Gourmet Magazine. Normally, I’d avoid this kind of magazine full of grilling recipies for steak and cheese, but enticed by a headline on the cover, I opened it up and found an article entitled, “A View to Kill.”

It began by explaining the industry’s private practices and refusal to allow anyone inside. “Spokesmen at the [big five] refused to show me the farms…refused to show me the slaughterhouses…even refused to talk to me about how they raise and kill chickens.” It when on to detail a few of the victories of the welfarist movement over the past seven years. The bulk of the article, however, consisted of explaining the cruel ways chickens are shipped an slaughtered (which, on the whole, was remarkably accurate, the only part left out was the searing off of the chicken’s beaks.) Eventually it explains new methods of slaughter that would be more “humane,” including the gas technique developed in Britian.

I was actually very impressed by the accuracy and sense of urgancy in the article. The writer mentioned PETA without making them seem completely insane, and even sided with them on the issue of KFC’s refusal to obtain more humane standards of treatment. But a few things seemed at least confsing if not contradicory. The first page of the article has a full-page picture of Peeps (those awful little yellow easter candies) hanging from hooks upside down. Why is this so bad? It made my family and even I laugh. It undercut the seriousness of the issue by making it a joke right off the bat. I caught myself laughing and was horrified by the fact that I could take such a cruel practice and laugh at it.

Secondly, what are the readers of this magazine going to think when they flip a few more pages and see a recipe for chicken? No where in the article did it make any reference to cutting down on meat intake, which is reitterated by the recipes throughout.

In any case, at least the article was there. It may not have been as complete as I would have liked, but at least the messege of compassionate people is reaching the masses.

Tid-bits I found interesting from the latest issue of VegNews:

• Spain has developed a new way of attaining foie gras without force feeding ducks. The birds naturally gorge on food before their winter migratory cycle. The foie gras “artisans” as they are called, then kill the ducks at their heaviest point. Since there is no force feeding in this method, the official foie gras ban, which is supposed to take full effect in California in 2012, can be side stepped. Don’t celebrate our victory yet!
• The Humane Society recently discoverd that clothing labed as faux fur may actually be dog fur. Cothing sold by Tommy Hilfiger, Andrew Marc, Michael Kors, and others were mislabeled when made with domestic dog or Asiatic racoon dog fur (use of dog and cat fur is illegal in the U.S.) 25 coats were tested, 24 of which were mislabeled.
• Wolfgang Puck has stopped serving foie gras in all of his restaurants and will, by the end of the year, no longer be using battery-cage eggs, or veal or pork from crated animals. He will also adapt a progressive animal-welfare plan (Happy Meat.) If he cares about the animals, why not try vegan, or even vegetarian restaurants?
• The meat in pet food is there becuase they had no where else to put it. The animal parts unfit for human consumption (esophagus, udders, intestines, cancerous animal parts, etc.) are in your dog’s food. There’s more: euthanized animals, such as dogs, are in there, too. Think, mad dog disease. If it’s not good enough for you, it’s no good enough for your dog.

The Los Angeles Times reported today on the nation’s growing concern for animal welfare. Both the compassionate and the not-so-compassionate of the general population are represented, though the article definitely leans toward the appreciation of animal rights. It is always refreshing to see animal issues show up in the mainstream news, but I agree with Eric from AnAnimalFriendlyLife.com about the fact that the article made no mention of veganism. If the world is growing more compassionate to our fellow animals, why isn’t veganism a ready option in the article?

I have been asked many times why I don’t urge non-vegetarians to buy cage-free eggs or other supposedly cruelty-free meat. The shortest answer is simply that I support only the complete abolition of animal useage, nothing less.

But that response doesn’t make much sense to most people, so here is the long answer: I believe that animals were not put on this earth for human use any more that blacks were placed here for whites or women for men. Speciesism is as untolorable and cruel as racism and sexism.

This next part is where I really start losing people. I morally cannot support any form of animal cruelty. Cage-free eggs still suffer animal cruelty. “Cruelty-free” meat still suffers animal cruelty. This is the difference between abolitionists, like myself, and welfarists, like Peter Singer. Welfarists believe that any step is a step in the right direction. Vivisection is not a step in the right direction, though some welfarists believe it is. The only step a person can take in the right direction is to refrain from using animals for selfish reasons.

Telling people to consume meat that has been supposedly treated well, only makes the consumer’s concience feel better about their choice. If anything, cage-free eggs only promote the eating of eggs because they remove the guilt from a meal. Just because meat is “happy” is not an excuse to eat it. “Happy Meat” doesn’t exist, it is the meat industry’s way of gaining more customers.

Consider your choices. Which is better: meat with a (fictional) promise, or no meat at all?