29 February 2004

"Birds," by Adrian Belew, from Inner Revolution (1992)

Birds, birds everywhere I see
I wanna live like they do
I wanna be in their trees,
so heavenly

Bird, birds everywhere I go
I wanna know what they know
I wanna live in harmony,
so simply

Dear God, I know sometime I'm gonna die
and when I do I hope you'll give me one more try
up in the sky with those

Birds, birds everywhere I turn
looking down there's no boundaries
looking down there's no countries,
no misery

Dear God, I know sometime I'm gonna die
and when I do I hope you'll give me one more try
up in the sky with those

Birds, birds everywhere I see
I wanna live like they do
I wanna be in their trees,
so free
so free
so free

28 February 2004

Vegan Vixens

Joanna Lucas brought this site to my attention. I had never heard of the Vegan Vixens. I'm wondering what scantily clad women have to do with sparing animals pain, suffering, deprivation, confinement, and death. I'm not saying the women in question were coerced into participating, but aren't they being objectified—aren't their bodies being used—to make a point, and isn't that objectionable? Does the end of liberating animals justify sexist means? Would it justify racist or anti-Semitic means? Shouldn't one argue for liberation rather than appeal to people's emotions?

27 February 2004

A Steven M. Wise Bibliography

Wise, Steven M. "Of Farm Animals and Justice." Pace Environmental Law Review 3 (1986): 191-227.

Wise, Steven M. "How Nonhuman Animals Were Trapped in a Nonexistent Universe." Animal Law 1 (1995): 15-45.

Wise, Steven M. "The Legal Thinghood of Nonhuman Animals." Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review 23 (spring 1996): 471-546.

Wise, Steven M. "Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals: The Case for Chimpanzees and Bonobos." Animal Law 2 (spring 1996): 179-86.

Wise, Steven M. "Thunder Without Rain: A Review/Commentary of Gary L. Francione's Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement." Animal Law 3 (1997): 45-59.

Goodall, Jane, and Steven M. Wise. "Are Chimpanzees Entitled to Fundamental Legal Rights?" Animal Law 3 (1997): 61-73.

Wise, Steven M. "Hardly a Revolution—The Eligibility of Nonhuman Animals for Dignity-Rights in a Liberal Democracy." Vermont Law Review 22 (summer 1998): 793-915.

Wise, Steven M. "Recovery of Common Law Damages for Emotional Distress, Loss of Society, and Loss of Companionship for the Wrongful Death of a Companion Animal." Animal Law 4 (1998): 33-93.

Wise, Steven M. "Animal Thing to Animal Person—Thoughts on Time, Place, and Theories." Animal Law 5 (1999): 61-8.

Wise, Steven M. Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Rights for Animals. Foreword by Jane Goodall. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2000.

Wise, Steven M. Review of Animal Law, by Pamela D. Frasch, Sonia S. Waisman, Bruce A. Wagman, and Scott Beckstead. Animal Law 6 (2000): 251-7.

Wise, Steven M. "Dismantling the Barriers to Legal Rights for Nonhuman Animals." Animal Law 7 (2001): 9-17.

Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2003.

26 February 2004

From the Mailbag


I read the article about PETA's efforts to change the town's name from Slaughterville to Veggieville. I thought it was just plain funny. Nothing more. I do work directly on behalf of animals. So do many of my friends who make good use of PETA's free activist materials and support. Some of us also donate money to PETA and encourage others to become members if for no other reason, at least to receive their complimentary copy of Singer's Animal Liberation.

I guess a lot of us women don't think PETA's campaigns are degrading and oppressive to us. Some of PETA's publicity stunts are juvenile indeed, but then a lot of their outreach efforts do target a juvenile audience . . . and with great success.

I disagree that PETA's campaigns to improve the welfare of battery chickens are detrimental to the cause of animal rights, even though you and Francione (among other thinkers I respect) make a compelling case for it. Yes, we do want empty cages not larger cages but, for the next 200 years, while we work towards our ultimate goal, shouldn't we also try to make the lives of farmed animals a touch more tolerable?

PETA's campaigns are not limited to their high profile boycotts. Their Vegan Outreach program, their Humane Education classes, their grassroots outreach efforts, to name a few, get a lot less publicity than the naked run events but they do reach a lot of people and change a lot of minds. How is that the worst thing that ever happened to the animals?

With all due respect, I think the worst thing that is happening to animals is divisiveness within the animal rights movement.


25 February 2004

Your Government at Work

Enjoy your steak!


Read this and then ask yourself whether People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is a serious organization. If you support PETA, you're a fool. Work directly in behalf of animals; don't give your money or time to an organization that degrades and oppresses women, wastes contributors' money, worships celebrity, and campaigns to get chickens an extra inch or two in their cages—thereby entrenching the idea that they are resources for human use. PETA is the worst thing that ever happened to animals. I mean that quite literally.

24 February 2004

Mary Midgley on Wolves and Men

I once read a chatty journalistic book on wolves, which described in detail how wolves trapped in medieval France used to be flayed alive, with various appalling refinements. "Perhaps this was rather cruel," the author remarked, "but then the wolf is itself a cruel beast." The words sound so natural; it is quite difficult to ask oneself: do wolves in fact flay people alive? Or to take in the fact that the only animal that does this sort of thing is Homo sapiens. Another complaint that the author made against wolves was their treachery. They would creep up on people secretly, he said, and then attack so suddently [sic] that their victims did not have time to defend themselves. The idea that wolves would starve if they always gave fair warning never struck him. Wolves in fact, have traditionally been blamed for being carnivores, which is doubly surprising since the people who blamed them normally ate meat themselves, and were not, as the wolf is, compelled by their stomachs to do so.

(Mary Midgley, Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature [New York and Scarborough, Ontario: New American Library, 1980 (1978)], 27 [italics in original])

23 February 2004

22 February 2004

20 February 2004

S. F. Sapontzis on Animal Liberation

Apparently, many people are offended when animal liberationists draw analogies between animal liberation and the various human liberation movements. For example, Leslie Francis and Richard Norman assert that "the equation of animal welfare with genuine liberation movements such as black liberation, women's liberation, or gay liberation has the effect of trivializing those real liberation movements," and Richard A. Watson adds that "Singer's claim that the struggle against the tyranny of human over nonhuman animals is a struggle as important as any of the moral and social issues that have been fought over in recent years is insulting to past and recent victims of moral and social oppression."

Unfortunately, it is not immediately obvious what makes a liberation movement "genuine," "real," or "as important as" other, certified liberation movements. If we were to judge by the number of suffering individuals involved, then the animal liberation movement is clearly more serious than any human liberation movement. We kill approximately five billion mammals and birds annually in the United States alone. That is many times the number of women and people of color in the United States. If we are to judge by how fundamental the interests being violated are, then once again, liberating animals is very serious business, since they are routinely tormented and mutilated in laboratories, are denied any sort of normal, fulfilling life in factory farms, and have their very lives taken from them in a vast variety of situations. Women and minorities do not suffer such routine, fundamental deprivations. If we are to judge by the moral, legal, cultural, and individual life-style changes that would be occasioned by the success of the movement, then once again, animal liberation is at least as serious an issue as the extension of equal rights to minorities and women. Liberating animals would directly affect our eating habits, clothing preferences, biomedical research industry, sporting business, and land use, thereby changing our current way of life at least as pervasively as have the civil rights and women's liberation movements.

(S. F. Sapontzis, Morals, Reason, and Animals [Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987], 84-5 [endnotes omitted])

18 February 2004

An Answer to My Question About Peter Singer

Good afternoon, Professor.

Thanks for leaving a comment on my blog. I'd return the favor, but I see that you do not have commenting software on yours.

Re the Bestiality post . . . I would assume that Singer doesn't object as long as the animal is not hurt or "protesting" in some way. But, as you know, he's really weird. :-)

I think also he's trying to make the point that you can't object to sex with animals on cruelty grounds if you think it's okay to stuff them in cages, kill them and eat them. You can't object via a cultural relativity argument, as some cultures (apparently) have engaged in it. You can't object via a "people have souls" appeal to religion because we also have bodies, bodies that are very similar to animal bodies. A Kantian "people have dignity" argument fails because we do other things that counter our alleged dignity.

So, why does this sexual taboo stand when so many others have fallen? I don't think Singer actually answers the question. He simply wants to show that there isn't a good argument against it.


A Useful Site

Yesterday I quoted law professor David Favre, who is one of the foremost practitioners and theorists of animal law. When I quote someone who is alive, I send a link to him or her. This morning I received a nice e-mail message from Professor Favre, who teaches in my home state of Michigan. He brought his website on animals to my attention. Here it is. It looks like a terrific resource for anyone who's interested in the legal status of animals—past, present, or future. By the way, Professor Favre has written several books and articles about animals and the law. Keep up the good work in behalf of animals, professor!

17 February 2004

David Favre on Widening Our Concern

To focus on animal issues is not to suggest that human issues have been solved or are not important. But it is time to widen the scope of our societal vision and concern. Perhaps by reaching out beyond humankind, we will be more aware of the need for universal human rights at the same time. To argue for the recognition of the interests of animals can only be done in a context that presumes and promotes the recognition of the interests of the human animal.

(David Favre, "Time for a Sharper Legal Focus," Animal Law 1 [1995]: 1-4, at 2)

16 February 2004


If I have sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent, I rape her. (See here and here.) Can nonhuman animals consent to sexual intercourse? If not, then why is sex with them not rape (or the moral equivalent thereof)? Somebody explain this essay by Peter Singer to me. Is he implying that sex with animals is morally permissible? How could it be, when they can't consent to it?

15 February 2004

Is Peter Singer Good for Animals?

I admire and respect Peter Singer, but sometimes I wonder whether he has been good for animals. I have no doubt that many people, having read his books and essays, became vegetarians. But how many people who might otherwise have entertained vegetarianism chose not to as a result of not liking Singer personally? I've received several e-mails from readers expressing indignation toward Singer. They don't like him for lots of reasons. (See here and here for some of them.) For many people, Singer is the face of the animal-liberation movement. To reject him, in their minds, is to reject the movement.

I plead with those who dislike Singer to separate him from the animals and from the movement to protect animals. Singer is not the animal-liberation movement. The movement is much larger than one person, even if that person has played a prominent role in it. Would you cease working for civil rights for African-Americans because you find fault with Martin Luther King Jr? Would you not fight for your country because you dislike its president? Our politics has become so personalized that we find it hard to separate the idea, theory, or argument from the person propounding it. But we must. If you care about animals, act in their behalf. Don't worry about who else is acting in their behalf.

14 February 2004

Mad-Cow Disease

There's a story in today's New York Times about the risk of getting brain disease from eating beef. See here. Note the odds given. If you eat beef, you have anywhere from one chance in a million to one chance in thirty-five million of getting brain disease. It sounds like a long shot, but people buy lottery tickets with worse odds of winning than that. Are you feeling lucky today? Eat a hamburger!

13 February 2004

From Yesterday's Dallas Morning News

Re: "Low-carb diet guru Atkins died obese," yesterday's news story.

Even though I'm not a dieter (I prefer the old-fashioned approaches of a balanced diet, portion control and exercise), I believe any story about Dr. Atkins and his condition (supposedly obese) at the time of his death needs an explanation of its source. I'm not talking about the medical examiner; I'm talking about the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which released the medical examiner's report.

Readers need to know that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is basically a vegetarian, animal-rights group, closely allied with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. No wonder it delighted in playing investigative reporter and then tattler with information that does not give a complete picture of the doctor's death.

Bob Cockrum, Grand Prairie

12 February 2004

Explaining My Diet

I received the following letter from a reader:
Keith, I am curious. What made you give up chicken so many years after giving up red meat? Or rather, what made you continue to eat chicken after rejecting red meat? Joanna
Thanks for writing, Joanna. My plan, back in 1981, was to eliminate animal products from my diet gradually. If you will pardon the puns, I didn't want to quit cold turkey (or go whole hog). But seriously, becoming a vegan is a momentous event. I was worried that my health would suffer. I knew little about nutrition; I was poor (in law school); and I couldn't cook worth a lick (despite having a mother who's excellent at it). I decided that if I gave up red meat all at once, but continued eating turkey, chicken, fish, and eggs for a while, I could learn about nutrition and cooking in the meantime. The plan was to eliminate turkey from my diet at the end of 1981 (which I did), then chicken the following year, then fish the year after that, and then eggs. By the time I reached veganhood in three or four years, I'd be ready for it.

As I said in my blog yesterday, I failed to eliminate chicken from my diet when the time came. It was moral weakness. I admit it. I ate chicken in many forms and enjoyed it. I've never backslid. Since 31 December 1981, the only animal products I've consumed (other than the insects that creep into our canned goods) are chicken, fish, and eggs. As time went on, I found myself eating less and less chicken. Then, a couple of years ago, I had an invigorating e-mail exchange with several friends and colleagues. These conversations didn't persuade me of anything (sorry, Mylan); they simply inspired me to continue the program I began more than two decades ago. I decided to eliminate chicken from my diet at long last. I sometimes buy chicken-flavored ramen, but that's it. I also became picky about the eggs I eat. The grocery stores I frequent began carrying eggs from "free-roaming" hens. They cost more, but it's worth it to me.

So here I am. No dairy products for thirty-two years. No red meat for twenty-three years. No turkey for twenty-two years. No chicken for a couple of years. The only eggs I eat are from free-roaming hens. I still eat fish, however. I'm no saint. But I'm close to my ideal, and there's always room for improvement. The next thing to go, if I move forward, will be the fish.

11 February 2004

Twenty-three Years and Counting

Here is my journal entry for 18 February 1981:
2-18-81 I put in a 10-hour day: noon until 10 p.m. We are studying "state action" in Constitutional Law II, and I am interested very much in the subject. You see, the Constitution places limits on what the government ("state") can do in the way of restricting private activity. But state action can take many forms; sometimes, indeed, it looks like private action, as where a court of law upholds a private agreement which has the effect of depriving someone of his or her rights. In my view, nearly all human activity is "state action." Property does not exist independently of the state, because the state creates it; contracts become meaningless once the coercive enforcement power of the state is removed; and the fact that the state grants licenses (like driver's licenses) signifies acceptance of certain types of behavior. In fact, anything that is legal is state action, since it is sanctioned by the governmental authorities. Once this is recognized, the constitutional problem is simply where to draw the line. In other words, how far can individuals go in depriving others of their constitutional rights?

I purchased a book on behavioral modification in children. [Henry C. Rickard and Michael Dinoff, eds., Behavior Modification in Children: Case Studies and Illustrations from a Summer Camp (University, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1974); I finished reading this book on 16 May 1981] An authoritarian person might use such a book to learn how to indoctrinate his or her children; I bought it in order to study the manner in which children can be taught to think. Each generation must question all of the assumptions upon which preceding generations were based. My children will accept nothing—not food, not clothing, not language—at face value.

Just a note: the last pork or beef that I ate was on 11 February 1981, about a week ago. I will not eat any more pork or beef for as long as I shall live. More on this later.
I was raised in a meat-eating family. In 1972, when I was fifteen, I had an asthma attack and learned that I was allergic to dairy products. I have had no milk, cheese, ice cream, or butter for more than three decades. Nor have I had any red meat for twenty-three years. I'm forty-six, so I've been red meat-free for half my life. As for why I gave up only red meat, it was part of a plan to eliminate all animal products from my diet (for moral reasons, but knowing that it was healthier). I gave up turkey on 31 December 1981. The plan was to give up chicken, fish, and eggs, in that order; but I never did. A couple of years ago I gave up chicken, and for the past year or so the only eggs I've eaten are from "free-roaming" hens. I'm not a vegetarian, much less a vegan. But I'm close (a demi-vegetarian), and that's good enough. You can criticize me only if you eat fewer animal products than I do. Bring it on.

10 February 2004

Peter Singer Links

Peter Singer has done more than anyone—certainly more than any philosopher—to make the status of animals a moral issue. His 1975 book Animal Liberation has been called the Bible of the animal-liberation movement. Many of us cut our philosophical teeth on Singer's books and essays. This is not to say that I agree with him on every particular, or even on his general approach to ethics, only that he inspired me. If you'd like to read some of Singer's essays, click here. You will not be sorry. By the way, if you like the page, please drop a note to Pablo Stafforini, who created and maintains it. He's probably the coolest-looking philosopher I've seen.

09 February 2004


If you eat beef, this story in today's New York Times should alarm you. First, it shows that the beef industry doesn't really want to test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). It's afraid more cases will be found, which will scare consumers away. Second, it shows that the United States Department of Agriculture is not an independent agency. It exists to protect and subsidize the beef industry (as well as the pork industry, the poultry industry, the dairy industry, and so forth). As any student of government will tell you, agencies designed to regulate industries end up promoting them. Why not protest this ungodly alliance by giving up beef? Better yet, become a vegetarian. You should do it for the animals; but doing it for yourself and for your loved ones will suffice.

08 February 2004

Plants and Animals

I received a letter today in which the writer said we can't be sure that plants don't feel pain. Let me repeat something I've said many times: There is no reason whatsoever to think that plants feel pain (or anything else). They lack brains and nerves. They're rooted in the earth, so a pain response would do them no good (as it does animals). Even more puzzling is what is supposed to follow from this. Suppose it's not clear whether plants feel pain. Does it follow that it's not clear whether animals feel pain? Peter Singer makes the same point about oysters and insects. Doubt in one area shouldn't give us doubt everywhere. That there are hard cases doesn't mean there are no easy cases. There is as much reason to think that cows, pigs, and chickens feel pain as that a two-year old child feels pain.

The writer also expressed animosity toward Peter Singer. Please. Peter Singer is not the animal-liberation movement (although he inspired it). Peter Singer is not the only person who thinks nonhuman animals have moral status. But even if he were the only person who thinks this, nothing would follow about the moral status of animals. Don't confuse the question whether animals matter morally with the question whether Peter Singer is a good or likeable person. That's like saying that the war in Iraq was unjustified because George W. Bush smirks or swaggers. Distinguish the person from the argument. Good people can make bad arguments and bad people good arguments. Good people can act wrongly and bad people rightly. I'm not saying that Peter Singer is bad. In my opinion, he's good. But even if he were bad, it would have no bearing on whether animals have moral status.

07 February 2004

Steven M. Wise on Farm Animals

American consumers know little of the needs of farm animals, little of the health risks of eating them, and almost nothing of modern factory-farming and biotechnological techniques. The federal government neither adequately protects nor informs consumers about the animal products they eat or of the health hazards of eating them. Instead it aids industry boards that exist solely to sell animal products. It also provides tax incentives to factory-farmers. Because Congress has pre-empted the field, states have been unable to enact additional laws that require meat producers to provide consumers with accurate and relevant product information. Consumers should have the right to know in order to make informed decisions.

(Steven M. Wise, "Of Farm Animals and Justice," Pace Environmental Law Review 3 [1986]: 191-227, at 226-7 [footnote omitted])

06 February 2004

Something from the Inaptly Titled "Reason"

Brock Sides brought this to my attention. Thanks, Brock.


Enjoy your beef (and milk). The beef and dairy industries say these products are safe (see here), so they must be safe.

05 February 2004

Nimrod or Nitwit?

Here are some quotations on hunting.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Bernd Heinrich ("Hibernation, Insulation and Caffeination," Op-Ed, Jan. 31), observing scarcity, puzzles how pre-humans found enough game to survive winter. The answer: things have changed.

During back-to-back summer trips to East Africa and to Colorado, I saw an abundance of game at Masai Mara and almost none in the lush valleys of the Rockies. The problem for game in the mountains: winter range, now farmland. I was reminded of the La Brea Tar Pits, where we can glimpse an Africa-like bounty of life from pre-human Southern California.

Humans' large brains demand a lot of food energy, but overcompensate with resourcefulness. The long-term effects are scary. In prehistoric times we had ample game; in historic times ample forests. In modern times we have ample oil. In competition for "growth" and for excessive wealth, we humans are like adolescents joy-riding a stolen car: powerful, reckless, purposeless, dangerous.

I'd rather walk.

Chicago, Jan. 31, 2004

Bon Appetit

How anyone can eat beef, given how it is produced, is beyond me. See here. We put speed bumps on residential streets to give people a self-interested reason to do what they should be doing for moral reasons. Perhaps BSE will give people a self-interested reason to stop eating beef, which they should be doing for moral reasons.

04 February 2004

From the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed.


[f. veg(etable n. + -an.]

1. A person who on principle abstains from all food of animal origin; a strict vegetarian.

1944 D. Watson in Vegan News Nov. 2 'Vegetarian' and 'Fruitarian' are already associated with societies that allow the 'fruits' of cows and fowls, therefore..we must make a new and appropriate word... I have used the title 'The Vegan News'. Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as the vegan diet, and we should aspire to the rank of vegans. 1945 Ibid. Feb. 3 Two members have asked how 'Vegan' is pronounced. Veegan, not Veejan. 1955 Irish Press 29 Nov. 618 A true-blue Vegan, I'm assured,..will even exclude from his or her diet, milk and..honey. 1965 New Scientist 20 May 526/3 Vitamin B12.. is found almost exclusively in animal foods, so that strict vegetarians (like vegans) may go short unless they take special precautions to ensure a supply. 1977 J. F. Fixx Compl. Bk. Running xiv. 170 There are..three kinds of vegetarians: the 100 percent vegetarian, sometimes called a vegan; the lacto-vegetarian..; and the lacto-ovo-vegetarian. 1979 J. I. M. Stewart Our England 177 Robin had discovered the duty of being a vegetarian. Indeed, he had become a vegan, and that seemed to mean that he could eat virtually nothing at all. 1985 Times 1 Feb. 12/2 'Beanmilk: milk that's never even seen a cow' is to vegans, who deplore exploitation of animals and eat nothing derived from them, a highly desirable commodity.

2. attrib. or as adj.

1944 [see sense 1 above]. 1945 Vegetarian Messenger XLII. 163 Following the articles and correspondence regarding the use of dairy products..in The Vegetarian Messenger last year, a number of our members who do not use animal products of any kind formed themselves into a group which has since adopted the title of 'The Vegan Society'. 1951 News Chron. 13 Dec. 3 A true vegetarian or vegan diet may not be nutritionally adequate, said Dr. Hill. 1973 Listener 8 Feb. 178/1 The good ecological life; no car, vegan cooking, and a mangle technology in a tumbledown cottage. 1978 Peace News 25 Aug. 18/3 A group of people from a 1750 acre vegan farming community in Tennessee..are coming to visit Britain in late September or early October. 1984 Listener 9 Aug. 17/2 The facts that CIWF is able to marshal must drive many who read its literature to a vegan diet.

Hence veganism, the beliefs or practice of vegans; abstention from all food of animal origin.

1944 Vegan News May 1 Veganism is the practice of living on fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, and other wholesome non-animal products. 1972 New Scientist 4 May 297/2 Universal vegetarianism would..tend to disrupt organic farming and the organic cycle—soil, plant, animal, man. It would also, if logically carried on as in Veganism, abolish milk and eggs. 1977 S. R. L. Clark Moral Status of Animals ix. 185 Veganism is a better project than lacto-vegetarianism, though we may in the end be able to take some milk from our kin without injustice.

03 February 2004

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "Mad Cow Disease Raises Safety Issues Beyond the Kitchen" (news article, Jan. 29):

The decision by the Food and Drug Administration to ban "the use of dead or disabled cows in the products it regulates" is in welcome contrast to the waffling on this issue previously shown by the Department of Agriculture. But existing loopholes, like allowing the use of potentially high-risk parts from animals younger than 30 months, must be closed as well.

The public is becoming educated on the surprisingly broad array of uses for beef parts. Just one case of mad cow disease in an animal that slipped through the regulatory safety net will undo any positive gains in consumer confidence achieved through recent controls and multiply losses already suffered by the beef industry.

Staten Island, Jan. 29, 2004

02 February 2004

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "Maker Warns of Scarcity of Hormone for Dairy Cows" (Business Day, Jan. 27):

Monsanto will now produce half the usual amount of growth hormone for dairy cows after the Food and Drug Administration found "quality control" problems at the factory, yet the company is raising the hormone price by 9 percent.

Dairymen say that will mean somewhat less milk, but fatter milk checks for them.

Good! Maybe now dairy farmers will finally see the futility of injecting cows with genetically engineered hormones that consumers neither want nor trust.

Emmaus, Pa., Jan. 27, 2004
The writer, a farmer, grows certified organic vegetables and is a contributor to newspapers and magazines on agricultural matters.

01 February 2004

Dale Jamieson on Beef Addiction

The addiction to beef that is characteristic of people in the industrialised countries is not only a moral atrocity for animals but also causes health problems for consumers, reduces grain supplies for the poor, precipitates social divisions in developing countries, contributes to climate change, leads to the conversion of forests to pasture lands, is a causal factor in overgrazing, and is implicated in the destruction of native plants and animals. If there is one issue on which animal liberationists and environmentalists should speak with a single voice it is on this issue.

(Dale Jamieson, "Animal Liberation Is an Environmental Ethic," Environmental Values 7 [February 1998]: 41-57, at 46)