From the Mailbag

Keith:

Here is a link to a North Texas E-News article concerning H.R. 503, the bill currently being considered in the United States House of Representatives that would ban the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption.

Not surprisingly, the Agriculture Committee (of the House of Representatives) opposes the legislation, under the guise of humane considerations for horses. What, after all, would happen to all those unwanted horses if people weren't allowed to slaughter them for a profit? Presumably, these horses would suffer terribly. Of course, we don't allow the profit-generating slaughter of cats and dogs for food in this country, and they don't suffer miserably as a result. When a cat or dog becomes infirm with an incurable illness and is in serious pain as a result, we euthanize them as humanely and mercifully as possible. We don't transport them inhumanely across the country to one of the only three horse-slaughtering facilities in the country (one in Illinois, two in Texas). We don't load them on and off trucks with cattle prods, beatings with rebar poles, etc. We don't "knock" them with a captive bolt pistol, a pneumatic gun which fires an eight-inch pin into the animal's skull. (When aimed properly, the captive bolt pistol renders the animal unconscious with a single "knock"; however, when misaimed, as is often the case, the animal suffers terribly from the "knock" and may be "knocked" several times. Also, even when "knocking" does render the animal unconscious, there is no guarantee that the animal will remain unconscious during the slaughtering process.)

According to Gail Eisnitz, chief investigator of the Humane Farming Association and author of the book Slaughterhouse, each year between 100,000 and 300,000 pleasure and race horses find their way into one of America's three horse-slaughtering plants (p. 109). Eisnitz notes that "Most horses slaughtered in the United States are young, healthy animals whose owners simply have no use for them" (p. 109). In the course of her investigations, Eisnitz received a lead "about a Midwest horse plant where horses were allegedly beaten and stuck alive" (p. 112). The "sticker" is the slaughterhouse worker who cuts the animal's throat. Being "stuck" refers to the animal's having his/her throat cut.]

Throughout American history, horses have been respected and revered in a way that other farm animals have not been (perhaps because of the indispensable role horses played in the pioneers' westward expansion, together with the close personal bond that many people form with their horse companions). One result of this respect and reverence is that it is illegal to sell horse flesh for human consumption in the U.S. Why then are there any horse-slaughtering plants in the U.S.? Answer: Because it is not illegal to export horse flesh for human consumption elsewhere. The laws that banned selling horse flesh for human consumption were designed to protect horses from slaughter, but the original intent of these laws has been circumvented by laws that now allow the export of horse flesh to Europe and Japan.

Despite the fact that horses suffer terribly from inhumane handling and transport and inhumane treatment at the slaughter plant, the Ag Committee, as noted above, is on record opposing H.R. 503, under the guise of concern for the humane treatment of horses. For example, Ag Committee Chairman Goodlatte opposes H.R. 503 on the grounds that "it left too many unanswered questions that would detrimentally affect the welfare of America's horses." Just how no longer being inhumanely transported and slaughtered would detrimentally affect these horses' welfare, Goodlatte did not say. Goodlatte did say this: "this is not a bill that will improve the treatment of horses. Too little has been done to deal with the consequences of destroying a legitimate industry by government fiat. If anything, H.R. 503 in its current form will lead to more suffering for the horses it purports to help." Again, it remains unclear how banning the inhumane transport and slaughter of horses would lead to more suffering for them. But it is clear from his remarks that Goodlatte would like to protect the "legitimate" horse-slaughtering industry.

Now look at some of the amendments to H.R. 503 that are supposedly designed to "protect horses." Here is the fifth amendment proposed by Rep. King:

This amendment of H.R. 503 would provide that horses could not be shipped, transported, moved, delivered, received, possessed, purchased, sold, or donated to be slaughtered at a plant that is not in existence on the date of the enactment of this act.

How does that help horses? It doesn't. It does, however, greatly help the only three horse-slaughtering plants in the U.S. permanently corner the horse-slaughtering market. I don't know who runs the horse-slaughtering plants in Texas, but the horse-slaughtering plant in Illinois—Cavel International—is owned by a Belgian company, which grosses $48 million in annual sales. See story about Cavel International here.

What King's Amendment #5 does do is effectively gut H.R. 503 and leave the status quo in place. A boon for Cavel. Not much to write home about for the 100-300 thousand horses who will suffer as a result.

Look at the amendment proposed by Rep. Peterson: "This amendment to H.R. 503 would make H.R. 503 a pilot program for the states of Kentucky and New York." Since neither of these states has any horse-slaughtering plants, its not clear how this amendment serves to ensure that horses are treated humanely.

Here is Rep. Conway's proposed amendment: "This amendment to H.R. 503 would require the secretary to compensate any horse owner who, no longer having the option of selling a horse for processing, suffers a loss in value of his horse and incurs the cost of euthanasia and disposal of the horse." Gee, I wonder if Conway would support a bill that would require the government to compensate people for the cost of having their cats and dogs euthanized. Perhaps the government should pay the full cost of human funerals, too. If we're going to compensate people for the costs of their horse losses, should we compensate them for the cost of their human losses as well?

Rep. King's third amendment would exempt horses that are owned or controlled by a state or political subdivision of a state or by an individual who purchased the horse from a state or local government. Not much benefit here for state-owned horses. I assume that many state-owned horses are used in the line of duty by police forces and the like. Inhumane transport and slaughter seems an unfitting way to thank these horses for their years of service.

Rep. King's second amendment would exempt horses that will be processed for charitable or humanitarian relief purposes. Once again, Rep. King is clearly looking out for the horses' best interest.

Make no mistake about it, those on the Ag Committee who oppose H.R. 503 do not have the interests of horses in mind. What they do have in mind is protecting the corporate profits of Cavel International, as well as the profits of horse owners. Anyone who favors the humane treatment of animals should write their representatives and encourage them to support H.R. 503 in its original unamended form!

Best wishes,

Mylan [Engel]

Organic Milk

Mylan Engel sent a link to this.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Barun Mitra claims that the tiger could “buy its way out of the extinction it faces” if the breeding and sale of parts from captive-bred tigers for traditional Chinese medicine were allowed (“Sell the Tiger to Save It,” Op-Ed, Aug. 15).

But re-opening any trade would ensure it’s open season on the world’s remaining wild tigers. Everywhere they live, these magnificent cats fall victim to poisoning, shooting, electrocution and snaring for their skins, bones and other body parts.

If China were to lift its 1993 ban on domestic trade in tiger parts, the incentives for poachers would be even greater, as there would be no way to distinguish the bones of “farmed” tigers from those of wild tigers. Poachers could wipe out what remains of wild populations while “laundering” their goods through legal trade channels.

A better way to conserve tigers is the simplest. We have seen the rapid recovery of fast-breeding tiger populations wherever they and their prey are protected and given adequate space. Save the Chinese farms for ducks and pigs. Save the wildlands of Asia for their tigers and the millions of other species protected in tiger reserves.

Eric Dinerstein
Washington, Aug. 15, 2006
The writer is chief scientist of the World Wildlife Fund.

To the Editor:

Although Barun Mitra makes a provocative argument for tiger “farming,” there is still something morally odious about breeding an endangered species to satisfy human lust for an exotic animal’s body parts.

Kate James
Davis, Calif., Aug. 16, 2006

Grouse Hunting

See here.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “A Chinese Outcry: Doesn’t a Dog Have Rights?” (news article, Aug. 10):

This sad story was just another reminder that with all its economic progress, China has a long way to go when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable of its residents.

Carol Derby
Washington, Aug. 10, 2006

St Francis Foundation for Animals

See here.

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary

The good folks at Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary have started a blog, which I will add to the blogroll.

Horses and Cows

Read this. Is there a morally relevant difference between cows and horses that could justify opposing the slaughter of horses but not opposing the slaughter of cows? How many of those who agitate against horse slaughter eat beef?

Turtlenapping

Shelbie kidnapped another turtle this morning. (See here for background.) I thought something was up when she didn't meet me at the street crossing. I noticed when she ran up that she was carrying something, which she promptly dropped. Sure enough, it was a turtle—just like this. This one was the size of a baseball cut in half. It's already over 90º Fahrenheit, with a forecast for 100º, so I couldn't leave the turtle there. I carried the critter half a mile back to the creek. I waited a few minutes to see what would happen. The turtle eventually poked its head out, looked around, and scampered (if that's the appropriate word for how a turtle moves) into the reeds.

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary

See here. If you want to know the difference between free-range eggs and battery eggs, see here. If you want to learn about humane farming, see here. If you want to learn where milk comes from, see here and here. If you want to learn where meat comes from, see here.

Going Hollywood

Farm Sanctuary is having a Hollywood party for the animals. See here.

Scully

Here is an interview with animal-rights advocate Matthew Scully, who happens to be a conservative. Thanks to Khursh Mian Acevedo for the link.

From the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed.

speciesism

[f. species n. + -ism.]

Discrimination against or exploitation of certain animal species by human beings, based on an assumption of mankind's superiority.

1975 R. D. Ryder Victims of Sci. 16, I use the word ‘speciesism’ to describe the widespread discrimination that is practised by man against other species... Speciesism and racism both overlook or underestimate the similarities between the discriminator and those discriminated against. 1976 New Society 3 June 544/1 If racism and sexism are wrong, what abut speciesism? Peter Singer apologises for using this graceless term. 1979 Listener 7 June 777/1 ‘Speciesism’ is intended to convey the idea that one animal species, human beings, supposes that it has the right to exploit other species. 1982 Times 8 Apr. 13/1 Animals have rights... There are forms of ‘speciesism’ as corrupting as ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’.

Hence speciesist a. and n.

1975 R. D. Ryder Victims of Sci. 21 The main speciesist defence of cruelty to animals is that mankind benefits—in terms of knowledge, economy or sport, for example. 1977 Daily Tel. 5 May 16 A demonstrating mob of anti-speciesists, perhaps accompanied by species even odder than themselves, may soon be..cawing, roaring and singing..at your door. 1978 Nature 9 Nov. 122/2 Gould is, in general, rather good at puncturing human speciesist vanity, and in particular he will have nothing to do with the myth that evolution represents progress toward man.

The Politically Correct Frankfurter

See here.

Science, Ethics, and Moral Status

Here is an essay by the philosopher Harlan B. Miller.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "It Died for Us," by Frank Bruni (Critic's Notebook, Week in Review, June 25):

There is no ethical difference between eating a dog, cat, chicken, pig or fish. If anything, eating your dogs or cats would be morally preferable, since they would have led a good life until you killed them.

According to a 2003 Gallup Poll, 96 percent of Americans believe that animals deserve some legal protection from harm. Yet the almost 40 land animals each American eats every year have their bodies mutilated without pain relief. They're given growth-promoting drugs that often cripple them and are cooped up in their own waste for their entire lives, denied even a modicum of pleasure. They're slaughtered in ways that would be illegal in the European Union.

Every stage of the process would warrant felony cruelty charges were dogs or cats so abused.

If you oppose cruelty, try vegetarianism.

Bruce G. Friedrich
Norfolk, Va., June 25, 2006
The writer is vice president for international grass-roots campaigns, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

To the Editor:

If we lived in the land of the Houyhnhnms as imagined by Jonathan Swift, the horses would be in charge and we poor Yahoos would be a lower order under them.

But we live in a world where Homo sapiens is in charge, and other orders are subject to our whims and rules. And so, as long as animals are treated with a measure of respect, we need them to satisfy our hunger. We also use them as sled dogs, racehorses, pets and draft animals. Is that cruel? Humane treatment means what humans decide.

I, for one, will continue to enjoy lobster and beefsteaks. Others choose to fight against their definition of cruelty by committing cruel acts.

Carl Gutman
Albuquerque, June 26, 2006

To the Editor:

Perhaps Whole Foods should consider no longer selling processed lobster meat as well as live lobsters. Processed lobster comes from lobsters that die inside enormous automated crushing machines. They are loaded alive into a cylinder, and the water around them is compressed to several times the pressure found in the deepest trenches of the ocean.

Tests by animal-welfare experts are under way, but it is not yet clear how long the lobsters suffer inside these high-pressure processors before they die.

While perhaps more humane than boiling alive, it is certainly not more humane than pithing a lobster with a kitchen knife before you put it in the pot.

Trevor Corson
Washington, June 25, 2006
The writer is the author of a book about the biology of lobsters.

To the Editor:

Frank Bruni's Critic's Notebook raises the fundamental question underlying every consumer and lifestyle choice we make: What is our purpose in this life?

If our purpose is to maximize our own pleasure or convenience, we are likely to allow all kinds of suffering in the name of our palate, our taste in clothing and our desire for the highest return on our investments. Any consequences of those decisions are a kind of collateral damage.

But if our purpose is to reduce suffering whenever we can, we derive happiness from the knowledge that our choices are minimizing the collateral damage, while raising the consciousness of the collective.

Mary Martin
Jupiter, Fla., June 25, 2006

To the Editor:

Frank Bruni's essay illustrates the frustration I'm feeling in regard to, well, just about everything.

I volunteer at an animal shelter. The question I hear is, "Well, what about the animals you don't have room for?" I also mentor a child, and I hear, "Well, what about all the other children at her school?"

I stopped eating chicken when I learned about the torture they endure at factory farms, and the question is: "Well, what about cows? Don't you care about them?"

I care about cows, and about homeless animals, and tortured prisoners, and our soldiers dying in Iraq, and children growing up in poverty, and rapes in Congo, and our national debt, and North Korean missiles. What can I do?

With that said, I will not eat chicken or foie gras, and I will not drop a live lobster into a pot of boiling water.

Celia Ballew Jones
Richmond, Va., June 25, 2006

Eating Rightly

Here is a review of two books on the ethics of food.

From the Mailbag

Dear Keith:

I wanted to thank you once again for sponsoring me in this year's "Trails for TAILS" bike-a-thon. Thanks to you and my other supporters, my ride netted a grand total of $1519.50 for TAILS Humane Society!!! You should be receiving a receipt from TAILS by the end of the week. Thanks so much for your support! I really appreciate it!

All the best,

Mylan [Engel]

p.s. Keith, you should see the TAILS shelter. It's impeccably clean, warm, and inviting. Every time I've ever stopped by there, it has been filled with volunteers and with people looking to adopt animal companions. All would-be adopters undergo a careful screening before being allowed to adopt an animal to ensure that animals are placed in loving homes. It's what a shelter should be!

Tragedy

Several months ago, during one of my walks with Shelbie, she brought a turtle from the stream along which we had passed. It was a box turtle, about the size of a softball. Shelbie must have known (or sensed, if “known” is too strong) that it was alive, because she rarely carries rocks or other objects (although she did when she was a puppy). To her, it was a toy—something to play with. I removed the turtle from her mouth and carried it back to the stream. The same thing happened a week or so ago. Whether it was the same turtle, I don’t know; but it was the same size and type.

Fast forward to yesterday evening. As I came around the school in the dark, I saw an object in the grass. I walked over to inspect. It was the turtle, lying on its back. I hoped it was living, but it was dead. There were ants on its head and legs. Putting two and two together, I concluded that Shelbie had carried the turtle from the stream again (perhaps the night before) and deposited it—on its back—on the grass. The turtle was apparently unable to right itself and died of exposure. It’s been very hot lately.

I spontaneously said, “You killed that turtle, Shelbie; you murderer.” I didn’t mean this, obviously. Shelbie is not a moral agent, like you and me, and hence not a murderer. She harmed the turtle, in the sense of setting back its interests, but is not responsible for it. It would be silly to blame her or punish her for something over which she had no control. Imagine saying, “Shelbie, dammit, you should have known that taking that turtle out of the stream might result in its death.” While she can be conditioned to act one way rather than another (like human children), she can’t reason, act on principle, or respect others. She lives in an amoral world. Human children become moral agents after a time, but animals such as Shelbie never do.

This is why it’s fallacious to infer from the fact that animals kill each other (via predation) that it’s morally permissible for humans to kill and eat animals. There’s a morally relevant difference between the cases, namely, that humans are moral agents and animals are not. Humans are responsible for their conduct; animals are not. Humans can control their behavior; animals cannot. Humans can survive, even flourish, without meat; carnivorous animals cannot. It may be permissible to eat meat, but not because animals do it.

Addendum: I said that Shelbie is not responsible for the turtle’s death, even if she caused it, but that doesn’t mean I’m not responsible. Just as a parent is responsible for his or her child’s behavior, I’m responsible for Shelbie’s behavior. Of course, one can’t be blamed for something unless one was at least negligent. Was I negligent? I knew that Shelbie had a tendency to carry turtles away from the stream, so perhaps I should have watched her more carefully. (I’m assuming for the sake of argument that it was Shelbie who carried this turtle.) From now on, I will. By the way, what evolutionary value is there in a turtle’s having a shell so tall that it can’t right itself when it gets turned over? This seems like bad engineering, and natural selection is not a bad engineer. The advantage of such a shell must outweigh the obvious disadvantage.

Aquaculture

Here is a New York Times story about fish farming. Please don't write to me to say that I'm endorsing fish farming by linking to a story about it. That's absurd. This blog is designed to stimulate reflection on (and discussion of) the moral status of nonhuman animals. Do your own thinking. Don't look to me for guidance. By linking to this story, all I'm saying is, "Fish farming is taking place; here is a story about it. This practice, like any practice, has a moral dimension. Feel free to reflect on the practice and decide whether it's defensible."

From the Mailbag

Why are you assisting in the promotion of the humane murder of cattle by linking to the article on organic beef?

Note from KBJ: Readers of this blog should infer nothing whatsoever about my beliefs or attitudes from the mere fact that I link to something. The New York Times story to which I linked raises ethical issues about animals. This is the Animal Ethics blog. Isn't that enough?

Organic Beef

Here is a New York Times story about organic beef.

Farm Sanctuary

See here. The New York Hoe Down is coming in August. If you want to sign up for action alerts and updates, click here.

A Bibliography

Here is Patrick S. O'Donnell's bibliography on animals.

Improving the Angling Experience

Here is a New York Times editorial opinion about creatine-enhanced trout—designed to improve the angling experience.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "Debate on Global Warming Has Polar Bear Hunting in Its Sights" (front page, May 27):

Nature creates the magnificent polar bear, and the response of the man featured in your article was to kill one simply because it is there.

There was no urgency on the man's part for food or warmth to keep himself alive. Just blood lust—and that is morally repugnant.

Terence Rafferty
St. Paul, May 27, 2006

Wild in the City

Here is a New York Times story about wild animals who stumble into urban areas.

Doing Right by Our Wild Neighbors

See here.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Jane Schwartz asks why those of us not directly connected to a racehorse might care so much about its well-being. It may very well be because of the undeniable beauty of these majestic animals as they race around the track.

But I believe in another aspect of the human emotional spectrum: guilt.

We breed and train these horses for selfish purposes—to race around a track for our enjoyment, as well as for prize money for the owners and winnings for the bettors.

The supposed goal of these events is to find the fastest horse. But is this knowledge really worth the risk to the health of the horse?

I'm not an animal rights activist, but I'm of the opinion that most racehorses would be just as "happy" roaming free on farms.

So maybe seeing Barbaro or Ruffian pull up lame triggers a wee bit of guilt in us. The entertainment value we derive from the horse's efforts is tempered by the knowledge that we put the animal in an unnecessarily dangerous situation.

Diane Firstman
Brooklyn, May 22, 2006

Animal Rights in Germany

Here is the schedule for an upcoming conference on animal rights at The University of Heidelberg. (Click "English" and then "Schedule.") Note that my friend Mylan Engel (who informed me of the conference) is on the list of speakers. Give 'em hell, Mylan! (I mean, persuade hard!)

From the Mailbag

Hi Keith,

Here is a link to an excellent article on the Adam Durand/Wegmans Chicken Factory trial, but I thought you might also be interested in a segment of tonight's ABC "Primetime" story.

First some background, in case you haven't had a chance to read the more detailed article. In 2004, three members of a NY-based group called "Compassionate Consumers" entered Wegmans Egg Factory outside of Rochester, NY, in the middle of the night to videotape the conditions of the birds in the factory (after the company repeatedly refused to give them a tour of the facility). Their intent was just to document the conditions of the birds, but they found 11 birds that were so near death that they needed immediate veterinary care. So, they rescued these 11 birds. As a result, they were charged with felony burglary. As a philosopher, a lawyer, and an animal advocate, I thought the case might be of particular interest to you.

Tonight (Thursday, May 11 at 9:00 p.m. central time), ABC "Primetime" will be running a story about Compassionate Consumers' investigation into Wegmans egg farm and the documentary video that got Adam Durand, Megan Cosgrove, and Melanie Ippolito arrested for trespassing and rescuing 11 hens. It will be interesting to see how ABC depicts these three compassionate consumers. Will they be portrayed as brave compassionate heroes or animal rights wackos? Will Durand be the villain or will Wegmans??? We'll see!

Best,
Mylan

Eating Right

The following is an excerpt from the book The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter
by Peter Singer and Jim Mason
Published by Rodale; May 2006; $25.95US/$34.95CAN; 1-57954-889-X
Copyright © 2006 Peter Singer and Jim Mason

Behind the Label: "Animal Care Certified" Eggs
The carton of Country Creek eggs that Jake Hillard picked up at WalMart carried the name Moark Productions, one of America's largest producers of eggs. It also bore a red seal saying Animal Care Certified. We asked Jake if the seal signified anything to her. "Well, it seemed to imply that they followed some standard of humane animal care," she said. "I get the general impression that the chickens are cared for better than by some companies, but I don't know by how much."

Jake's vagueness about the Animal Care Certified seal wasn't surprising. Most Americans know little about how their eggs are produced. They don't know that American egg-producers typically keep their hens in bare wire cages, often crammed eight or nine hens to a cage so small that they never have room to stretch even one wing, let along both. The space allocated per hen, in fact, is even less than broiler chickens get, ranging from 48 to 72 square inches. Even the higher of these figures is less than the size of a standard American sheet of typing paper. In such crowded conditions, stressed hens tend to peck each other—and the sharp beak of a hen can be a lethal weapon when used relentlessly against weaker birds unable to escape. To prevent this, producers routinely sear off the ends of the hens' sensitive beaks with a hot blade—without an anesthetic.

As for the cages themselves, they are in long rows, sometimes stacked three and four tiers high. That way, in a single building, tens of thousands of hens can be fed, watered, and have their eggs collected by machines. Artificial lighting is used to mimic the longest days of summer, to induce the hens to lay the maximum number of eggs all year round. A year of this leaves the hens debilitated, and they start to lay fewer eggs. Many American producers then cut off their food and starve them for as long as two weeks until they go into molt, which means they lose their feathers and cease to lay eggs. Some die during this period, and the survivors lose about 30 percent of their body weight. They are then fed again, and their laying resumes for a few more months before they are killed.

Although animal advocates have been describing these conditions since the 1970s, until recently the American media have ignored them. That is changing, and much of the credit for that change must go to Paul Shapiro and Miyun Park, two young activists who at the time ran an organization called Compassion Over Killing. Paul learned about factory farms when he was 14 years old, and he started COK as a club at his high school. The club outgrew high school and attracted volunteers, among them Park, who became president a year later. The two led fur protests, sit-ins, and plenty of in-your-face street activism.

Troubled by the knowledge that within a 100-mile radius of where they lived millions of hens were suffering in cages, unseen by the people who bought the eggs the hens laid, Shapiro and Park tried a different tactic. In 2001 they began driving around rural Maryland locating egg factory farms by day and entering them with video cameras by night. Their videos show dead hens rotting in cages, hens with necks and feet caught in the wire mesh, and hens who had fallen into the manure pit beneath the batteries of cages. They also show COK members gently holding sick and injured birds and taking them away to get veterinary care. This was powerful stuff, and it won Park and Shapiro the attention of writers at The Washington Post. The paper's expose opened the door for a string of favorable stories about COK's open rescues in The New York Times and other national media.

Throughout the media brouhaha, no COK members were ever charged with trespassing or theft of birds, presumably because the egg companies did not want to acknowledge that the videos had been taken in their sheds. There was something different about this kind of animal welfare activism, and it helped win the sympathy of the media. Shapiro explains it like this: "We were regular people who were acting in the only decent way that you could when faced with such egregious cruelty. We weren't damaging property, we weren't hiding our identities. We just simply went in there and videotaped ourselves providing aid to sick and injured animals."

Once Shapiro and Park had opened up the issue, reporters had no difficulty in finding credible experts who could attest to the conditions inside the egg factories. McDonald's has called Dr. Temple Grandin, a "preeminent animal behavior expert" and taken her advice on animal welfare issues. About the egg industry; she was characteristically plain spoken:

When I visited a large egg layer operation and saw old hens that had reached the end of their productive life, I was horrified. Egg layers bred for maximum egg production and the most efficient feed conversion were nervous wrecks that had beaten off half their feathers by constant flapping against the cage . . . The more I learned about the egg industry the more disgusted I got. Some of the practices that had become "normal" for this industry were overt cruelty. Bad had become normal. Egg producers had become desensitized to suffering.

United Egg Producers, the industry trade association representing most of the country's egg production, was concerned about the bad publicity the egg industry was getting. Its experts must also have been well aware that the entire European Union—twenty-five nations, with a much larger population of both humans and hens than the United States—was in the process of phasing out the battery cage, insisting that all hens have a place to perch, litter to scratch in, a nesting box to lay their eggs in, and about twice the space that most U.S. hens are granted. As for starving hens in order to force them to molt, that had long been illegal in the European Union. But United Egg Producers didn't recommend that its members follow Europe's example. It opted for a few minor changes and plenty of spin. Egg producers who followed a new set of voluntary guidelines would be allowed to stamp their egg cartons with a colorful seal stating that the eggs were "Animal Care Certified."

But the new guidelines were only a marginal improvement on the existing situation. They allowed each hen 67 square inches of space—by 2008. Dr. Joy Mench, professor of animal science at the University of California, Davis, and a member of UEP's own Advisory Committee, is on record as calling 80 inches a "meager" space allowance that is "barely enough for the hen to turn around and not enough for her to perform normal comfort behaviors." The UEP program also permits producers to continue to sear off part of the beaks of their chickens with a hot blade, without pain relief. A chicken's beak is its major organ for interacting with the ground and for picking up seeds or worms, and it is full of nerve endings. Professor Ian Duncan, who holds a chair of animal welfare at the Department of Animal and Poultry Science at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and has done decades of research on the welfare of chickens, says that "beak trimming leads to both chronic and acute pain." When asked on National Public Radio what she thought about the procedure, UEP's advisor Professor Joy Mench pointed out that for chickens, their beak is their main way of exploring, touching, and feeling things. "So," the interviewer asked, "cutting off the beak is a big deal, if you're a hen?" Mench replied: "It's definitely a big deal."

At the time of Jake's egg purchase, the UEP "Animal Care Certified" guidelines also permitted starving birds to make them molt. It doesn't really take an expert to say that this is going to make them suffer. In the National Public Radio interview, Mench didn't resort to scientific jargon: "The bird is starved. Yes, the bird is starved. I don't like to see hungry animals not being given food."

Finally, we shouldn't forget that the eggs that produce laying hens also produce equal numbers of male chicks. Since male chicks don't lay eggs, the egg industry doesn't want them. The broiler industry doesn't want them either, for they are not bred to gain weight rapidly, as broiler chickens are. Temple Grandin discovered what many hatcheries do with them: "They were throwing live animals in the dumpster to get rid of them. I was going, 'What? They were doing what?' Nobody would throw a live calf in a dumpster. These people forgot this is a live animal." The UEP guidelines don't require producers to avoid buying from hatcheries that use this method of disposing of male chicks.

Certified What?
In 2002, when UEP announced that they would release a set of standards for animal welfare, Paul Shapiro and Miyun Park were hopeful. "We were naive enough," Shapiro says, "to think that they might voluntarily reform. Then we read the guidelines and saw that they would permit barren battery cages, beak searing, and forced molting through starvation." Now Shapiro and Park were even more outraged than before: "This was not just a case of animal cruelty, it had become a case of consumer fraud," Shapiro says. So they decided to go back to some of the egg farms where they had done their open rescues a year or so before. "We knew what the conditions were like back then and now here they are 'Animal Care Certified', so we thought, 'OK let's see if there's been any change'. We found the conditions were exactly the same. There is no noticeable difference between the photos of 2003 and those of 2001."

In June 2003, COK filed petitions with the Better Business Bureau objecting to UEP'S "Animal Care Certified" logo as false advertising. After examining documents submitted by UEP and COK, the Better Business Bureau ruled that the "Animal Care Certified" seal was misleading and should be discontinued. The egg trade group appealed, but the appeal board upheld the earlier ruling. More months passed, and UEP made no changes in its "Animal Care Certified" program. In August 2004, the Better Business Bureau determined that UEP was failing to comply with its ruling and formally referred the matter to the Federal Trade Commission for law enforcement action.

The pressure on the egg producers was mounting. In May 2005, UEP announced that it was recommending that egg producers switch to a molting process that does not involve starving hens and that this recommendation would, from January 1, 2006, become a requirement of a new animal care certification program. Producers should use a feed with lower protein levels instead of taking away food entirely, UEP now said. Then, in September 2005, after being "encouraged" by the Federal Trade Commission to do more, the egg trade body announced it was dropping the "animal care certified" logo and replacing it with one saying "United Egg Producers Certified: Produced in compliance with UEP animal husbandry guidelines." That may be literally accurate, but many consumers will still assume it means good animal welfare, when the truth is very far from that.

Reprinted from: The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by Peter Singer and Jim Mason © 2006 Peter Singer and Jim Mason. Permission granted by Rodale, Inc., Emmaus, PA 18098. Available wherever books are sold or directly from the publisher by calling (800) 848-4735 or visit their website at www.rodalestore.com.

Author
Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values. He first became well known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2005, Time magazine named him one of the world's 100 most influential people.

Jim Mason is the coauthor of Animal Factories (with Peter Singer) and the author of An Unnatural Order: Why We Are Destroying the Planet and Each Other, which John Robbins, author of the best-selling Diet for a New America, calls "a wonderful and important book." He is also an attorney and the fifth generation of a Missouri farming family.

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary

See here for the latest news.

Peter Singer

One of my readers sent a link to this story about Peter Singer.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "A Retirement Villa in the Desert for the Chattering Class of Birds" (front page, April 29):

William Blake wrote, "A robin redbreast in a cage/Puts all Heaven in a rage."

Though clearly the birds at the Oasis sanctuary are lucky to be there, and lucky to be alive, I hope that reading about them will make people rethink any idea of purchasing and condemning to a caged life an animal whose natural right it is to soar across the heavens.

Karen Dawn
Pacific Palisades, Calif.
April 30, 2006

Vegan Freaks

Here is a vegan blog. I will add it to the blogroll.

From the Mailbag

Dear Keith,

Thanks again for sponsoring me 50 cents a mile in this year's Trails for TAILS bike-a-thon!!! I wanted to give you an update on my ride. I managed to complete the entire 55 miles in 3 hours and 50 minutes. The first 27.5 miles were quite easy and enjoyable with a nice tail wind. The last 27.5 miles heading back into that same 20 mph wind were quite a challenge. Fortunately, there were eight of us doing the 55-mile ride, and some of us were able to draft with each other, which made the return trip a bit more manageable.

You can mail your pledge to me at: [address omitted]

Please make your check payable to: TAILS

Thanks so much for your support. I really appreciate it. It definitely made the ride worth it!

All the best,

Mylan

p.s. If you need a receipt from TAILS Humane Society for tax purposes, please let me know, and I'll see to it that they send you one. If you do desire a receipt, please furnish me the address where you would like them to send it.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "A New Crime Fighter, for $10 in Hay and Oats" (front page, April 18):

Sherman Day Thacher, founder of the Thacher School, always said, "The outside of a horse is good for the inside of a boy." This is as true for the citizens of our cities as it is for young men and women even today.

Horses are, and have always been, magical: big, strong, beautiful, lithe—and when trained, courageous. Ironically, these fabulous beasts humanize police officers and help to lend an atmosphere of dignity and elegance to our urban streets. They are the ultimate all-terrain vehicles. They inspire awe (and fear if necessary), and nearly every kid wants to ride one, or at least pet one.

New York City is wise to make this investment. The streets will be safer; the tourists and locals will love them; the police officers will be seen for who they are: protectors, defenders and, yes, even friends.

Michael K. Mulligan
Ojai, Calif., April 18, 2006
The writer is head of school of the Thacher School.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Thank you for "Salads or No, Cheap Burgers Revive McDonald's" (front page, April 19), exposing McDonald's salad scam. Calling something a salad doesn't make it healthy. Except for the apple walnut variety, all the fast-food giant's premium salads are nutrition disasters.

The bacon ranch salad with crispy chicken packs 31 grams of fat, almost half of the daily allotment and a whopping 70 percent of the daily recommended amount of salt.

Essentially, McDonald's has dumped the contents of its chicken sandwiches on top of some lettuce and served it up with a creamy dressing. Touting its premium salads gives the false impression that the company sells healthy food and that customers have choices.

This is another lawsuit waiting to happen: making people think they are eating healthy when they aren't.

Michele Simon
Founder and Director
Center for Informed Food Choices
Oakland, Calif., April 19, 2006

Deconstructing Dinner

Here is a review of a new book about food production.

When Deer and Humans Clash

See here.

From the Mailbag

Dear Professor Burgess-Jackson:

I see that you are promoting a fundraising event for the Tails Humane Society. Maybe you can clear up something for me, because I've never really understood the point of animal shelters. Seems to me that humane societies help one set of animals at the expense of another set of animals. With very few exceptions, the dogs and cats that are adopted from animal shelters will live out their lives eating cows, pigs, chickens, fish, and god-knows-what-other-critters are found in commercial pet food. So what have we really gained? At best, we're killing Peter to save Paul.

Sincerely yours,
Edgar Marsalla

From the Mailbag

Dear friends and former sponsors!

Five years ago each of you sponsored me in the "Trails for TAILS" bike-a-thon, all of the proceeds of which went to the TAILS Humane Society. At that time, TAILS had a dream: that of building a state-of-the-art NO KILL animal shelter. Today, thanks to your support and the support of others like you, that dream is a reality! Please check out the shelter and all of the impressive work it is doing.

Naturally, it takes money to run a shelter of this caliber, and so, once again, I turn to you for your possible support. On Saturday, April 22, I will be cycling 55 miles in the sixth annual "Trails for TAILS" bike-a-thon, all of the proceeds of which will again be donated to TAILS Humane Society. Five years ago, thanks to your help, I was able to raise $900 for TAILS. I hope to be able to raise that much again this year. Of course, to do so, I need sponsors to pledge their support. Pledges may take the form of a flat donation or a per-mile pledge. I would be extremely grateful, if any of you were willing to sponsor me 10 cents, 25 cents, 50 cents, or even $1.00 a mile (or anything in between) in this year's bike-a-thon. If you do sponsor me, your donation to TAILS Humane Society is fully tax deductible [Surely that sounds good on April 16!!!]. If you are willing to sponsor me, please drop me a short reply and let me know the amount per mile (or flat donation) that you are pledging. After I complete the ride, I will email you back with the number of miles completed [hopefully 55!], and you can send me a check made out to TAILS Humane Society for the amount that you pledged. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!!!

My best to all of you!

Mylan Engel

Note from KBJ: Mylan and I were graduate students together at The University of Arizona. He's a good person. If you'd like to make a pledge, please click on his name immediately above this note and use the e-mail address at the bottom of his website. That way, I don't add to the amount of spam he receives. In case you're wondering, I have pledged 50¢ per mile. Go Mylan!

Second note from KBJ: Mylan writes: "Dear Keith, Thanks, thanks, thanks, thanks, and thanks! Thanks for posting my letter on your animal ethics blog, and thanks for the nice things you said about me there. I really appreciate it. [Thanks too for figuring out how to link to me without having to post my email address on your blog. I'm grateful not to have the additional spam!] Thanks very much for the 50 cent per mile pledge! And thanks for continuing to call attention to my 'The Immorality of Eating Meat'! I hope it gets some of your readers to rethink their eating habits. All the best, Mylan"

The Immorality of Eating Meat

Here is the best essay I've ever read on the moral status of nonhuman animals. Please read it. If you reject the conclusion, then, to be consistent, you must either deny the validity of the argument or reject a premise. In other words, there are three ways to respond to Engel's argument:

1. Deny its validity (i.e., claim that the conclusion does not follow from the premises).
2. Reject a premise.
3. Accept the conclusion.

Read the essay carefully and choose wisely.

Of Human and Non-Human Animals

Here is a new blog.

Brute Ethics

I continue to receive link requests. Here is a site called Brute Ethics.

From the Mailbag

Good day, Professor,

Long time—no communication. I hope the last year has been pleasant for you—it's a new baseball season, and a new chance for your beloved Rangers (good luck!).

If you recall, the last time I corresponded with you, I expressed my consideration of [Don] Marquis's theory of the morality of murder [i.e., killing], how it applies to animals, and whether I should stop eating meat. It's been nearly a year of churning this information in my head—and alas, I have still not come to a definitive conclusion for myself. I suspect that I lean on the idea side of the immorality of killing for food. I think that I am fighting what might be obvious here because of 22 years of being a ravenous carnivore.

That being said, a week and 3 days ago, I decided to cut meat out of my diet. Though I am not 100% sold on the immorality of eating meat, I decided that 1) I ought not to continue until I have a full opinion and 2) health reasons—I realized that my years of overeating are from a hardwired distaste for wasting meat on my plate.

I must say, the first several days were extremely difficult—but I have adjusted nicely and am actually already feeling some benefits. I feel I have made a somewhat intellectual moral decision, which is good for my pride. Also—physically I feel better, as I have been able to focus very closely on my diet and improved it quite a bit. I have cut out all beef, pork, poultry, game, etc—if it walks or flies, I'm not eating it.

My apologies for the novel—I just felt I should thank you for the introduction to the world of the meatless—I think that, should I decide to stick with this, I will be better for it.

And happy birthday tomorrow—hope your semester is going well.

Regards, X

SuperVegan

Here is a new website devoted to veganism. I will add it to the blogroll.

Birthday Girl

Shelbie is three years old today. See here.

Good News for Animals

See here.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "Firefighters Gone Vegan? Even Austin Is Impressed" (news article, March 26):

Cancer made me a widow at age 33 and robbed my 4-year-old and 1-year-old of their daddy.

While there are many factors that cause cancer and other serious, often terminal, health problems, diet is a big factor and one that we can control.

Study after study links the consumption of animal products (dairy products, eggs and meat) with heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, high blood pressure, obesity and other serious health problems.

The Agriculture Department has acknowledged an 80 percent increase in the number of chickens contaminated with salmonella.

Government warnings advise that eating certain fish can cause mercury poisoning.

Then there are mad cow disease, growth hormones, antibiotics, pesticides and now bird flu to worry about.

Bravo to the Austin, Tex., vegan firefighters for choosing to improve and protect their health with every delicious meal.

May we all choose to stop killing ourselves slowly with our food before it's too late, not to mention causing unimaginable suffering to billions of animals on factory farms and at slaughterhouses.

Monica Ball
Peoria, Ill., March 27, 2006

Strange Goings-On in Alabama

See here.

Seals

One of my readers asked me to link to this.

Addendum: If you'd like to send a message to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, go to this site.

Hunting

Here is a story about hunting from today's New York Times Magazine.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "Studies Suggest Pandemic Isn't Imminent" (news article, March 23):

Avian flu is already a pandemic: for avians. Human transmission is a global risk, but bird flu is already harming wildlife, poultry, food security and livelihoods.

Worldwide, more than 200 million birds have been killed or culled. In Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon and Egypt, primary protein sources and livelihoods have been lost.

In France, where the extreme Eastern European winter may have short-circuited east-west bird migration, its $7 billion poultry industry is experiencing losses.

Control is a quandary: the animal vaccine may render birds better viral carriers and negate the role of antibody testing used to track the spread.

Migrating birds, backyard fowl and intensified livestock farming are all undoubtedly involved. Funds are needed to prepare for a human pandemic. But preventing its spread will require real money to support nations suffering economic and nutritional losses, and to clean up industrialized poultry practices.

Paul R. Epstein, M.D.
Boston, March 23, 2006
The writer is associate director, Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School.

From the Mailbag

Dr. Burgess-Jackson,

Thank you for interviewing Professor Darian Ibrahim on your blog. What a refreshing read! It’s always nice to hear clear sanity in such a nasty and confused world.

All the best,
Dan Cudahy

Animal Law Blog

Here is a blog that's devoted to animal law.

Factory Farming

Peter Singer will lecture tomorrow at The University of Minnesota. To promote the lecture, he wrote a short essay for the school newspaper. (Thanks to Khursh Mian Acevedo for the link.)

Singer's Argument Against Certain Uses of Animals

Here is the latest version of my student handout on Peter Singer's argument against certain uses of animals. Two things are noteworthy. First, although Singer is a utilitarian, his argument does not presuppose utilitarianism. It is, however, consistent with it. Singer wants to persuade everyone, not just utilitarians. If he asserted or presupposed utilitarianism as a premise, then only those who subscribe to that theory would be persuaded by his argument. Second, as I explain on the handout, Singer is not categorically opposed to harming animals, any more than he is categorically opposed to harming humans. Utilitarians aren't categorically opposed to any action, even the killing of innocent humans. Whether harm is justified, in Singer's view, depends on how much harm is prevented thereby (or how much good produced). This must be determined on a case-by-case basis. What Singer insists on is that the interest of animals in not suffering be put on the scale. Many people, sadly, don't take animal suffering into account at all. They assign more weight to their gustatory pleasure than they do to horrific animal suffering.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

I'm very disappointed that The Times would run an article glamorizing bullfighting ("Matador for a Day," Escapes, March 10). Just because an activity is a tradition should not relieve us of basic decency.

Bullfighting is an extraordinarily cruel act toward another species. Remember, it is not a sport if the other team does not know it's playing. And especially so if the other team routinely ends up dead.

Jennifer Shorey
Miami, March 11, 2006

Animal Experimentation

Law professor Darian M. Ibrahim has written an essay about animal experimentation. If you would like to read it, click here, scroll, and download.

Cholesterol

I lifted the following from the website of the American Heart Association:

Your total blood cholesterol level
Your total blood cholesterol will fall into one of these categories:

Desirable—Less than 200 mg/dL
Borderline high risk—200–239 mg/dL
High risk—240 mg/dL and over

Here is some more explanation about each of these categories.

Desirable
If your total cholesterol is less than 200 mg/dL, your heart attack risk is relatively low, unless you have other risk factors. Even with a low risk, it's still smart to eat foods low in saturated fat and cholesterol, and also get plenty of physical activity. Have your cholesterol levels measured every five years—or more often if you're a man over 45 or a woman over 55.

Borderline high risk
People whose cholesterol level is from 200 to 239 mg/dL are borderline high risk. About a third of American adults are in this (borderline) group; almost half of adults have total cholesterol levels below 200 mg/dL.

Have your cholesterol and HDL rechecked in one to two years if:

Your total cholesterol is in this range.
Your HDL is less than 40 mg/dL.
You don’t have other risk factors for heart disease.

You should also lower your intake of foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol to reduce your blood cholesterol level to below 200 mg/dL. Your doctor may order another blood test to measure your LDL cholesterol. Ask your doctor to discuss your LDL cholesterol with you. Even if your total cholesterol is between 200 and 239 mg/dL, you may not be at high risk for a heart attack. Some people—such as women before menopause and young, active men who have no other risk factors—may have high HDL cholesterol and desirable LDL levels. Ask your doctor to interpret your results. Everyone's case is different.

High risk
If your total cholesterol level is 240 or more, it's definitely high. Your risk of heart attack and stroke is greater. In general, people who have a total cholesterol level of 240 mg/dL have twice the risk of coronary heart disease as people whose cholesterol level is 200 mg/dL.

You need more tests. Ask your doctor for advice. About 20 percent of the U.S. population has high blood cholesterol levels.

I received the results of my annual physical examination today. My total cholesterol is 115. My doctor wrote "fantastic!" I attribute it to two things: first, lifelong aerobic exercise (mainly bicycling and running); and second, a demi-vegetarian diet. As I've said many times in this blog, if you care only about yourself, and don't give a damn about animals, you'll eat very few animal products. I've had no dairy products (milk, cheese, ice cream, butter, or yogurt) since 1972. I've had no red meat (i.e., meat other than chicken and fish) since 1981.

Chimpanzee Society

Because individual interests diverge, conflict is inevitable. Because individual interests converge, cooperation is possible. See here.

Terrorism

Somebody explain to me how this helps animals.

Animals and Ethics

Here is Scott Wilson's entry "Animals and Ethics" from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Shelly Kagan on Animal Rights

In what is probably the broadest sense of the term, to say of something that it has moral rights is only to say that it has moral standing—that it counts from the moral point of view. In this sense, most of us believe that people and animals have rights of some sort, but books and rocks do not. That is to say, we think that people and animals matter, morally speaking, in their own right (unlike books and rocks). Put another way, if something has rights in this broad sense of the term, our treatment of it is not morally irrelevant, nor is it of mere derivative significance (due, perhaps, to possible effects on other things that do count in their own right).

(Shelly Kagan, Normative Ethics, Dimensions of Philosophy Series, ed. Norman Daniels and Keith Lehrer [Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998], 170-1 [italics in original])

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

"Which Cut Is Older? (It's a Trick Question)" (news article, Feb. 21) needlessly alarms consumers about a packaging system that the Food and Drug Administration has affirmed as safe three separate times.

The technology, similar to what other food manufacturers use to package many non-meat products, uses minute quantities of carbon monoxide.

The packaging provides distinct benefits for manufacturers, retailers and consumers. By maintaining the freshness and color of meat, the packaging prevents retailers from discarding safe products because of the unappealing and premature browning at the store.

The "sell by" or "use by" date that appears on most packages is there to help protect consumers from buying spoiled meat. When meat products go past their sell-by date, consumers will notice obvious indicators that the product is not safe to eat, including a bad odor, bulging packages and a slimy texture.

J. Patrick Boyle
President and Chief Executive
American Meat Institute
Washington, Feb. 23, 2006

Richard A. Posner on Vegetarianism

Because the academic mind prizes consistency, academic moralists believe that pointing out that a person’s moral beliefs or behaviors are inconsistent can be a powerful agent for moral change. They believe that if you point out to a meat eater that because he considers suffering a bad thing and animals suffer as a result of his diet he is being inconsistent, you may persuade him to become a vegetarian. But behavioral consistency is a weaker ordering principle than logical consistency. To defend a proposition and its negation is a lot more difficult than to tell a story that will make a unity of “inconsistent” behavior or reconcile one’s behavior with an inconsistent belief about how one should behave. The meat eater can distinguish between human and animal suffering; can deny that animals have to suffer in being killed for food (they can be killed painlessly, and since they do not know what is going to be done to them, they do not suffer psychologically in anticipation); can point out that his own consumption of meat is too slight to affect the number of animals killed; can even argue that to put animals on a par, as it were, with human beings could make us less sensitive to human suffering (could, for example, put the annual slaughter of tens of millions of turkeys for Thanksgiving on a level with the Holocaust); can point out that Genesis explicitly invites us to eat meat; or can equivocate, by confining his meat eating to the meat of animals raised and killed humanely, or to road kill, or by adopting the position that the moral philosopher R. M. Hare calls “demi-vegetarianism.” If you want to turn a meat eater, especially a nonacademic one, into a vegetarian, you must get him to love the animals that we raise for food; and you cannot argue a person into love.

(Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory [Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1999], 51-2 [italics in original] [footnote omitted])

Say No to Big Meat

The beef industry will do virtually anything to get you to consume its products. Take a gander at this. Why don't you send Big Meat a message that you don't like being manipulated? Boycott beef. Come to think of it, the beef industry processes its customers—you!—the same way it processes cows. You're a mere means to its ends.

Hounded, Cowed, & Badgered

Here is a cool new blog on animals and the law.

An Interview with Darian M. Ibrahim, B.S., J.D.

Darian Ibrahim is an associate professor of law at The University of Arizona. One of his scholarly interests is the legal status of nonhuman animals. I asked Professor Ibrahim whether he would "sit" for an interview via e-mail. He graciously agreed to do so. Rather than ask the questions all at once, I asked them one at a time, so that I could follow up on his answers. I hope you enjoy—and learn from—the interview.

KBJ: Tell us about your background, Professor Ibrahim. Where were you born and reared; where were you educated; what were your main influences? I'll ask specifically about animals in my next question.

DI: Thanks for having me. I grew up in Clemson, South Carolina, where I also went to undergraduate school and earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering. This was followed by law school at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. I gravitated toward corporate law, which I practiced first as a summer associate at a large firm in New York City, and then as an associate at a large firm in Atlanta. I worked in my father's small businesses while growing up, which may have had something to do with my choice of corporate law, and particularly corporate law as applied to small businesses, as a field of legal practice. I now teach and write on corporate law at Arizona.

KBJ: How and when did you become interested in animals? Would you say that you love animals, or only that you respect them? Did you take a course on animal law in law school? What did you think about Pierson v. Post, which I assume you studied in your property-law course? (You might want to state the facts of the case—and the court's ruling—for readers who are unfamiliar with it.)

DI: I became interested in animal rights after my wife and I decided to get a dog, which quickly led to two, and then three. Although I had always realized, as an intellectual matter, that there was much animal suffering in the world, the experience of rescuing dogs from bad situations (literally) brought it home for me. After struggling with the realization that the animals on my dinner plate were morally indistinguishable from the dogs I was doting on, I gave up eating meat and a few months later became a vegan.

I both love and respect animals, but more importantly, recognize that they have inherent value inconsistent with the law's treatment of them as mere property like tables and chairs. Pierson v. Post, which dealt with the claims of two hunters regarding ownership of a fox both were pursuing, illustrates that the law sees animals as nothing more than resources to be owned and used for human ends. I did not take a course on animals in law school—I'm not sure Cornell even offered such a course, or that it does now. My education on animal law has come primarily from the works of Rutgers law professor Gary Francione, who explains the importance of abolishing animal exploitation through the incremental eradication of the property status—a position I fully agree with.

KBJ: Is it important that those who agitate for animal rights be vegetarians? As you know, philosophers say that arguments stand or fall on their own merits. If this is so, then the fact that the person making the argument consumes animal flesh is irrelevant to whether the argument is sound. Even hypocrites can make sound arguments. And yet, many people think it a criticism of an argument that the person making it does not live in accordance with its conclusion. They say to the arguer, in effect, "Who are you to try to get me to abstain from meat, when you don't?" How do you make sense of all this?

DI: Great question. I think that veganism is mandatory for those who argue in favor of animal rights. Anything less is inconsistent and irrational. There is no logic in arguing that animal exploitation is wrong, on the one hand, but then supporting it through purchases and consumption, on the other hand. While the source of an argument may not matter logically if the argument is sound, as a practical matter it is unrealistic to ask others to stop eating animals if we as animal advocates will not even do so.

What I think is even more troublesome is that many animal advocates are not even arguing for or focusing on vegetarianism, let alone veganism, despite the fact that food accounts for 98% of our domestic animal use. The fallback position is often something to the effect of "eating animals is okay if they are treated humanely," which is the essence of the animal-welfare (as opposed to animal-rights) position. In my opinion, "humane treatment" is an oxymoron. Most of our uses of animals, including for food and experimentation, simply cannot be accomplished without inflicting tremendous suffering and also death upon the animals used. To think it can be otherwise is unrealistic. Whether one is an advocate of animal rights or animal welfare, the choice as I see it is either to avoid animal exploitation or to support it largely as is.

KBJ: Isn't there a morally relevant difference between factory-farmed meat and meat from free-range animals? Peter Singer argues that there is. Our first goal, he says, should be to end factory farming, since that is where most of the suffering occurs. Many people who do not object to the use of animals as resources find it troubling that the animals whose flesh they eat were made to suffer. It seems to me that there is room here for rational persuasion. Surely it would be a better world without factory farming than with it, even if animal flesh is still consumed. Do you agree?

DI: It is not possible to produce affordable meat, dairy, or eggs without factory farming. Commentators including James Rachels have recognized that large-scale food production necessarily involves much animal suffering and cruel methods. Even Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that "It is not practically possible to rear animals for food on a large scale without inflicting considerable suffering. Even if intensive methods are not used, traditional farming involves castration, separation of mother and young, breaking up social groups, branding, transportation to the slaughterhouse, and finally slaughter itself. It is difficult to imagine how animals could be reared for food without these forms of suffering. . . . The flesh of animals reared and killed with equal consideration for the welfare of animals while they were alive would be a delicacy available only to the rich." (Animal Liberation, 3rd ed., p. 160)

I think the "free-range" concept is very dangerous. Contrary to common opinion, it does not mean a return to family farming; rather, it is a non-legal, industry concept that allows corporations to charge more for animals who are treated largely the same as factory-farmed animals. It also allows consumers who might otherwise become vegetarians or vegans to continue purchasing animal products under the false premise that the products are "cruelty-free." (A quick search revealed this website discussing the free-range myth.)

Apart from my view that the humane treatment of exploited animals is possible only in theory, I disagree with Singer and others who claim that animal suffering is all that matters. I believe that animals have an interest in continuing to live above and beyond their interest in not suffering, and that to kill an animal for food or other human purposes under even the best circumstances is a moral wrong in and of itself. And I hope to convince those who think otherwise!

KBJ: Let's turn to the law, Professor Ibrahim. You mentioned that the law treats animals as "mere property." What is the alternative? Surely you're not advocating that animals be treated as persons for legal purposes. But what other legal status is there? What exactly would you like to see changed, and how would these changes play out in practice? In other words, describe what you would consider a just legal regime with respect to nonhuman animals.

DI: I am in fact advocating that animals be treated as legal persons, but only for very limited purposes. The law treats even artificial constructs such as corporations as legal persons for a multitude of purposes. For instance, corporations are considered persons under the Constitution's equal-protection clause enacted for the benefit of freed slaves. Given that, animal personhood does not seem that strange an idea to me.

Of course it is silly to say that animals should be given all the rights that human persons have. Rights should correspond to interests. Humans have an interest in education; animals do not. Therefore, only humans should attend schools. But both humans and animals are sentient, which means they both have interests in not suffering and in their own lives that should be respected. To classify animals as property by definition negates all of their interests. To classify animals as persons solely for purposes of recognizing that they are not human resources is what I would consider to be a just legal regime.

KBJ: What about insects, reptiles, and rodents? How would the law deal with these animals? Would you abolish hunting? How about rodeos, circuses, and zoos?

DI: If an animal is sentient, we should respect its interest in not suffering and continuing to live. Sometimes we do not know whether an animal is sentient—insects are a perfect example. But there is no doubt that the animals we eat, experiment on, hunt, and use for entertainment in rodeos, circuses, and zoos are sentient. Therefore, all of these activities must be abolished under the theory I adopt.

Interestingly, Professor Francione points out that there is already widespread agreement on most of this, if you really think about it. We all agree that because animals can suffer, we should not cause them to suffer without a good reason. Indeed, every state has an anticruelty law that purports to prevent "unnecessary suffering." The problem is that almost every use of animals these laws allow cannot be described as "necessary" in any sense of that word. It is not necessary to eat meat, and in fact it is bad for us—we only do so because we like the taste. But this is not necessity, it is something far less. So the problem is that we do not practice what we preach. If we did, we would not use animals for any of these unnecessary purposes because they cause unnecessary suffering—the very thing we claim to reject.

KBJ: Is there a prima facie obligation to obey the law? If so, under what circumstances is disobedience justified to protect animals? If you believe that disobedience is sometimes justified to protect animals, must it be nonviolent? I guess what I'm wondering is what you think about the tactics of organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). If you believe violence is sometimes permissible to protect animals, do you believe that it's prudent? Won't it alienate precisely the people you hope to bring around to your view of animals? I believe this is Peter Singer's position on violence. As a utilitarian, he won't rule it out categorically, but he thinks it is counterproductive. If you share his view, will you publicly condemn violence in behalf of animals, by ALF or others? And if you do condemn it, do you condemn it categorically or only conditionally? If only conditionally, what are the conditions in which it is justified?

DI: I categorically condemn violence as a means of protecting animals. I believe it alienates those who could be convinced, and is inconsistent with a movement whose ideal is based on peace and non-violence toward all beings. While I understand the frustration felt by those who engage in such tactics—the amount of animal suffering in the world is mind-boggling, after all—I think they are going about things in absolutely the wrong way.

KBJ: Name some people—lawyers, philosophers, scientists, laypeople—who have inspired you in your work on animal law. Please explain the nature and extent of the inspiration. Do you feel as though you are standing on the shoulders of giants? From whom have you learned the most?

DI: I am most inspired by the work of Gary Francione and his rights-based theory of animal law. The way he has combined philosophy and law to show how Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism and the property status of animals combine to eviscerate the force of animal protection laws is just brilliant, in my opinion. He has been criticized within the movement for drawing a hard line between animal rights and animal welfare, but I think he has many good reasons for doing so, which I attempt to expand on in my work. I think the rights position is far more coherent than the welfare position, even if the goal is simply to protect animals from suffering. I do not consider myself to be a radical person, actually—I am a corporate lawyer after all—but animal rights and veganism as its baseline makes sense to me.

I have learned the most from Professor Francione, and also a good deal from UCLA law professor Taimie Bryant. I very much hope to come to know other animal-law and animal-rights scholars as I continue my work, as I still have much to learn.

KBJ: What can humans learn from dogs?

DI: I learn the meaning of unconditional love and kindness from my three incredible dogs each day. What is also important is that nowadays the only animals with which most humans interact are the dogs or cats they keep as companions. As I said in my first answer, my dogs caused me to rethink my relationship with other animals, and ultimately to make the connection that I was harming these animals through my purchases and consumption of their flesh. If other people who love their dogs and cats also made this connection, I think there could be many, many more vegans in the world and a significant reduction in animal use and suffering. Also, whenever scientists "discover" that animals are intelligent or have distinct personalities, as we sometimes read about in the news, I imagine that anyone who lives with a dog or cat finds this rather obvious.

KBJ: Tell us about your animal-related scholarly projects. Can we expect a book from you anytime soon?

DI: I have three forthcoming law-review articles on animal law, each of which should be in print sometime in 2006. For those who might be interested, these will appear in the Journal of Animal Law & Ethics (Penn Law); the University of Chicago Legal Forum (Chicago Law); and Law & Contemporary Problems (Duke Law). Then I will turn to other projects that expand my work on the connection between corporate law and animal mistreatment, which I hope will include a book at some point. Animal law is a rapidly growing field, and I am thrilled to be a part of its expansion.

Thanks again for interviewing me—it has been a pleasure. And keep up the blogging!

KBJ: You're welcome, Professor Ibrahim. Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. Keep up the good work in behalf of animals.

Addendum: If you would like to read Professor Ibrahim's forthcoming essay on anticruelty statutes, click here, scroll, and download the essay from one of the four sites provided.

Addendum 2: If you enjoyed this interview and would like to see other interviews with professors, let me know.

Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900) on Reasoning to First Principles

I may begin by regarding some limited and qualified statement as self-evident, without seeing the truth of the simpler and wider proposition of which the former affirms a part; and yet, when I have been led to accept the latter, I may reasonably regard this as the real first principle, and not the former, of which the limitations and qualifications may then appear accidental and arbitrary. Thus, to take an illustration from the subject of Ethics, with which I am here primarily concerned, I may begin by laying down as a principle that "all pain of human or rational beings is to be avoided"; and then afterwards may be led to enunciate the wider rule that "all pain is to be avoided"; it being made evident to me that the difference of rationality between two species of sentient beings is no ground for establishing a fundamental ethical distinction between their respective pains. In this case I shall ultimately regard the wider rule as the principle, and the narrower as a deduction from it; in spite of my having been led by a process of reasoning from the latter to the former.

(Henry Sidgwick, "The Establishment of Ethical First Principles," Mind 4 [January 1879]: 106-11, at 106-7)

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Low fat is not the whole story. It is possible to have a very low-fat and unhealthy diet made up entirely of processed foods and animal products.

Fifty-one percent of our calories comes from processed foods; 42 percent from animal foods; 2 percent from white potato products; and just 5 percent from vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains and unprocessed nuts and seeds—foods that we know prevent disease and obesity.

We must make the healthy choice the easy and less expensive choice not just in schools, but in all parts of the community.

Amie Hamlin
Bellport, N.Y., Feb. 14, 2006
The writer is executive director, New York Coalition for Healthy School Lunches.

Journal of Animal Law and Ethics

Here is a new journal devoted to animals. I wish the editors would invite me to contribute. I'm a lawyer, a moral philosopher, and an animal-rights advocate.

Anticruelty Statutes

Darian Ibrahim is a law professor at The University of Arizona. If you'd like to read his essay on anticruelty statutes, click here, scroll, and download the essay.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "At Bronx Zoo, an Elephant Exhibit's End Plays Out in Elephant Time" (news article, Feb. 7):

The world's largest land mammals suffer in captivity, and so do the smallest.

Despite their small size, mice are thinking, feeling creatures with wants and needs and a capacity to suffer. In the lab, racks of tiny "shoe box" cages are routinely supplied only with a water bottle, a sprinkle of sawdust and lumps of processed chow to be nibbled through the bars.

Studies find that mice and rats are highly motivated to perform important natural behaviors like foraging, running, burrowing, climbing and choosing social partners. Thwarting them has harmful physical and psychological effects.

About half of the hundred million mice kept in labs suffer from pathological repetitive movement patterns commonly seen in animals confined in zoos.

Jonathan Balcombe
Washington, Feb. 8, 2006
The writer is a research scientist with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Dogs

Here is a New York Times op-ed column about our responsibilities to dogs.

Twenty-Five Years

Today is my silver anniversary. It's been 25 years since I consumed red meat. See here. No cow, pig, sheep, or deer has suffered or died on my account.

Four Forms of Influence

There are four ways to change the world:

1. Force.
2. Coercion.
3. Manipulation.
4. Persuasion.

Of the four, only the last is respectful of the person. I also believe that it's the most secure form of change. This is why I say that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is bad for animals. Its chosen methods are coercion (changing the law) and manipulation (appealing to emotion, rhetoric, vanity, celebrity, &c). If you really care about animals and want to make things better for them, you will try to persuade rationally. This involves showing your interlocutor that he or she already believes, without realizing it, that it's wrong to treat animals as resources for human use and consumption. Rational persuasion is not only the most effective means (in the long run) to helping animals; it's the right means. See here for a superb example of rational persuasion. I don't know how anyone can read this essay and not become a vegetarian.

Compassionate Conservatism

Khursh Mian Acevedo sent a link to this story.

Intrinsic Value

See here for my post on intrinsic value.

From the Mailbag

Dear Professor Burgess-Jackson:

I'm a law professor at the University of Arizona, where I see you earned your Ph.D. in philosophy. I write to you after discovering your animal ethics blog. One of my primary areas of scholarly interest is animal rights law—I teach and write in this area. I have a couple of working papers that I'd be happy to share with you (and your blog readers) if you have the interest. One addresses the deficiencies of anticruelty statutes; the other the deficiencies of the Animal Welfare Act and the "reduce, refine, replace" approach to opposing animal experimentation. A draft of the anticruelty statute paper will be ready this week—the other in about a month or so.

In any event, it's a pleasure to learn of your interest in this area.

Warm regards,

Darian M. Ibrahim
Associate Professor of Law
University of Arizona - Rogers College of Law
1201 E. Speedway Blvd.
Tucson, AZ 85721

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "Hidden Cost of Shark Fin Soup: Its Source May Vanish" (Manta Journal, Jan. 5):

It's very disturbing knowing what these fishermen are doing to these defenseless sharks. It is bad enough that they hunt these magnificent creatures, but then to cut off their fins and throw them back into the ocean to watch them slowly sink while trying their best to swim, this is beyond cruelty—it is murderous.

These sharks die a slow and painful death all in the name of food. Shame on anyone who eats shark fin soup, and also shame on any fishermen participating in this slaughter.

Tia Triplett
Los Angeles, Jan. 6, 2006

Peter Singer on the Importance of Vegetarianism

I advocate vegetarianism as something which “underpins, makes consistent, and gives meaning to all our other activities on behalf of animals” (Animal Liberation, p. 171). I remain convinced that for those concerned to change the situation of animals in our society, vegetarianism is of real practical importance. It provides an irrefutable answer to the oft-repeated claim that we need factory farms to feed our growing population. It allows the animal welfare campaigner to defeat ad hominem attacks, for instance: ‘How can you object to killing seals when you eat pigs and calves?’ By eliminating one’s personal involvement in the production of animals for food, it makes it easier to take a detached view of the animal industry, and to avoid compromising the interests of the animals with one’s own interest as a consumer of animals. Calling on the public not to buy the produce of factory farms can be an important part of a campaign against factory farming. It holds out a threatening prospect to farmers—one which is beginning to be noticed in farming magazines—and it enables those who support the campaign against factory farming to make a personal commitment which goes beyond signing petitions and writing letters to their elected representatives. One cannot convincingly ask others to do this if one does not do it oneself. (Unless one eats animal flesh in secret—which hardly seems worth the hypocrisy and risk of discovery involved.)

(Peter Singer, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 [summer 1980]: 325-37, at 336-7)

Peter Singer on the Vegetarian Movement

It might be said that the best solution would be neither the perpetuation of factory farming nor its sudden abolition, but a gradual phasing out which would allow the industry to be wound down in an orderly fashion. But this is likely to happen in any case. I have no illusions about seeing vegetarianism sweep America overnight. If the vegetarian movement succeeds at all, it will succeed gradually enough for factory farming to be phased out over many years. On utilitarian grounds, this is what we want.

(Peter Singer, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 [summer 1980]: 325-37, at 334)

The Vegan Family Cookbook

If you're interested in trying vegan cuisine, see here. Remember: It's not all or nothing. There's such a thing as cutting back on the amount of animal products one consumes. The animals you don't eat will thank you!

Animal Rights

Khursh Mian Acevedo sent a link to this page of quotations.

Peter Singer on Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism

There are three ways in which a utilitarian condemnation of the treatment of farm animals might fall short of entailing that we should switch to a vegetarian diet. Firstly, if the objection is not to all raising and killing of animals for food, but only to particular methods of raising and killing them, it would seem that we can avoid the necessity of vegetarianism by restricting our diet to the flesh of animals not reared or killed by methods involving suffering. Secondly, one might argue that, bad as factory farming is, the consequences of abolishing it are not clearly better than the consequences of continuing it. And thirdly, those who admit that it would be better if factory farming were abolished may deny that there is any utilitarian connection between this conclusion and the obligation to avoid consuming the products of factory farms.

(Peter Singer, “Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 9 [summer 1980]: 325-37, at 331)

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re "For Environmental Balance, Pick Up a Rifle," by Nicholas D. Kristof (column, Dec. 4):

Yes, deer overpopulation is a serious problem in parts of our country. But the correct solution in the short term includes the development and employment of birth-control techniques for deer. In the long term, the correct solution includes re-establishing ecological balance through the reintroduction of the predators that we hunted into local extinction.

Mr. Kristof defends hunting by calling it "natural," but not all "natural" activities (making war, for example) are morally acceptable.

The factors that make it generally immoral to kill a human are the same factors that make it generally wrong to kill a deer: making a sentient creature suffer and, more important, taking from that creature the thing that is of greatest value to it, the remainder of its life.

Hunting is not wrong where the practice is essential to maintaining human life. But it is wrong to hunt in the United States in the 21st century.

Howard Pospesel
Grand Island, Fla., Dec. 4, 2005

Vegan 4U

Here is a site that contains links about veganism.

Vegetarian Diets

One of my readers asked me for information about vegetarian diets. While researching the matter, I found this. I thought I'd share it with everyone.

Two Years of Animal Ethics

It's hard to believe, but I started this blog two years ago today. Here is the first post; here is the first-anniversary post. Where did the time go? As of this moment, there have been 26,662 visitors to the blog. That computes to 36.4 visitors per day, on average. Unless people are coming here by accident or mistake, this shows that the site is serving a purpose. I don't post as much as I once did, but the site is useful even if I never post again, for it contains many posts in its archive and many animal-related links. I wonder where the readers come from. Why are you here? Drop me a line to explain. By the way, my main blog is AnalPhilosopher. You will find a link to it in the sidebar.

Animal Rights

One of my readers brought this book to my attention. I don't own it and haven't read it, but I will.

Animal and Man at Princeton

Here is a newspaper report of a debate between Roger Scruton and Peter Singer on the moral status of nonhuman animals.

Animal Acres

Khursh Mian Acevedo brought this site to my attention.

Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness

Khursh Mian Acevedo brought this site to my attention.

Just Like the Old Days

Bison hunting is coming to Montana. See here and here.