Meat, Cancer, and the Cumulative Case for Ethical Vegetarianism

Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. The case for ethical vegetarianism starts with several uncontroversial premises. Virtually everyone agrees that:

(1) It is wrong to cause a conscious sentient animal to suffer for no good reason.

Causing an animal to suffer for no good reason is cruel, and our ordinary commonsense morality tells us in no uncertain terms that cruelty is wrong. A brief look at the public outcry concerning Michael Vick’s dog-fighting ring shows just how widely accepted premise (1) is. It is not just a few outspoken animal rights fanatics who hold this view. We all do. Animal abuse is a crime in all fifty states, and rightly so.

Similarly, most people also agree that:

(2) It is wrong to kill a conscious sentient animal for no good reason.

Even the most ardent defenders of the morality of using animals for food and as “tools” in scientific experiments admit that premises (1) and (2) are true and acknowledge that (1) and (2) capture something central to our moral relationship to animals. For example, Carl Cohen, who has argued at length that animals don’t have rights, admits:

If animals feel pain (and certainly mammals do, . . .), we humans surely ought cause no pain to them that cannot be justified. Nor ought we kill them without reason. (Cohen, The Animal Rights Debate, p. 46) [To see Cohen’s commitment to (1) here, we need only recognize that justification proceeds in terms of reasons. We are justified in causing an animal pain if and only if we have a good reason for doing so. If there is no good reason to cause an animal pain, then causing that animal pain cannot be justified.]

Elsewhere, Cohen reiterates his commitment to (1) and (2):

Our obligations to animals arise not from their rights, I believe, but from the fact that they can feel pain and from the fact that we, as moral agents, have a general obligation to avoid imposing needless pain or death” (Cohen, The Animal Rights Debate, p. 226).

Similarly, Peter Carruthers acknowledges that sentient animals deserve moral consideration when he explicitly endorses (1):

. . . it will be useful to have a rough idea at the out-set of what our common-sense morality tells us about the status and appropriate treatment of animals. . . . Most people hold that it is wrong to cause animals unnecessary suffering. Opinions will differ as to what counts as necessary. . . . But all will agree that gratuitous suffering—suffering caused for no good reason—is wrong. (Carruthers, The Animals Issue, p. 8)

The argument for the immorality of eating meat continues with two additional, undeniable premises:

(3) The animals that become that meat are killed.

No one disputes premise (3). There is also little dispute concerning the following premise:

(4) The animals that become that meat are reared in ways that subject them to intense pain and suffering for much of their lives.

Premise (4) is widely acknowledged. It is not in dispute that, in modern factory farms, animals are raised in massively overcrowded, unnatural warehouses. In these intensive confinement facilities, the animals are forced to stand on inappropriate surfaces that cause foot and leg injuries. They are also forced to stand in their own waste. The noxious fumes from the accumulated urine and feces cause lung problems in many of the animals. In addition, the animals are subjected to excruciating mutilations – including branding, dehorning, debeaking, tooth pulling, tail docking, and castration – all performed without anesthesia. Even those actively involved in the industry typically admit that these modern animal rearing practices cause animals severe pain and stress. At the time of slaughter, these frightened animals are inhumanely loaded onto trucks and shipped long distances to the slaughterhouse without food or water or protection from the elements. No one disputes that these actions cause the animals an enormous amount of pain and distress. [For more detailed descriptions of the conditions in which farm animals are raised, see here, here, and here. Those who have doubts as to the accuracy of these descriptions can view the graphic but accurate documentary "Meet Your Meat" here or here. Running time: 12 Minutes. If you do view the documentary, I suspect that you will agree that "raising," transporting and slaughtering animals in this way is, indeed, prima facie wrong and ought not be supported, absent a very compelling reason for doing so.]

Premises (1) – (4) are true, and together they entail:

(5) Raising animals inhumanely and killing them is morally wrong, unless there is a good reason for doing so.

Premise (5) leaves open the possibility that there might be circumstances in which it is permissible to inflict pain and suffering on an animal. Nevertheless, when considering (5), it is important to realize that not just any reason will do. We accept premises (1) and (2) is because we think that (i) unnecessary suffering is intrinsically bad and (ii) unnecessary killing is prima facie wrong. So, for a reason to be good enough to justify raising animals inhumanely and killing them, it must be sufficiently weighty to override both the intrinsic badness of their suffering and the prima facie wrongness of killing them. Trivial or insignificant reasons won’t do.

To derive the immorality of raising, killing, and eating animals from (1) – (5), one needs the following additional premise:

(6) The pain, suffering and killing of farm animals that inevitably results from meat production is gratuitous, i.e., it is done for no good reason.

How might one defend premise (6)? One could begin by noting that, in modern agriculture societies, no one needs to eat meat to survive, since all of our nutritional needs can easily be met with a plant-based diet. So, in support of (6), one can offer the following premise:

(7) In modern societies, meat consumption is in no way necessary for human survival.

Premise (7) is clearly true, but don’t take my word for it. Consider instead what the American Dietetic Association’s position paper on vegetarian diets has to say:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association (ADA) that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. (p. 748)

This same ADA position paper points out that:

Well-planned vegan, lacto-vegetarian, and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy and lactation. Appropriately planned vegan, lacto-vegetarian, and lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets satisfy nutrient needs of infants, children, and adolescents and promote normal growth. (p. 754-5)

Perhaps, eating meat, while not strictly necessary for our survival, is necessary for us to thrive and be optimally healthy. If we needed to eat animals in order to be optimally healthy, that would constitute a good reason to raise and kill them for food. [It wouldn’t be a good reason to cause them to suffer in the process, but it would be a good reason to raise and kill them for food.] The crucial question is this: Do we need to eat animals in order to be optimally healthy? The answer, according to the ADA, is “No.” Here is what the ADA position paper finds:

Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. (p. 748)

Consequently, not only is premise (7) above true, so is the following premise:

(8) In modern societies, not only is meat consumption not necessary for optimal human health, meat consumption is a contributing factor to the degenerative diseases (i.e., heart disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity, and prostate and colon cancers) that are the leading causes of death in such societies.

If the diseases associated with meat consumption as identified by the ADA don't convince you that there is no good reason to raise animal inhumanely and kill them for food, perhaps a few other meat-related diseases will do the trick. A recently published peer-reviewed study conducted by Amanda J. Cross and Michael F. Leitzmann (both from the Nutritional Epidemiology Branch of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America) entitled “A Prospective Study of Red and Processed Meat Intake in Relation to Cancer Risk” suggests that we can now add lung cancer, esophageal cancer, and liver cancer to the list of health problems associated with meat consumption—in this case red meat (defined in the study as: beef, pork, and lamb) and processed meat (defined in the study as: bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats [red and white meat], cold cuts [red and white meat], ham, regular hot dogs, and low-fat hot dogs made from poultry) were the culprits. The study was published in the December 2007 issue of the Public Library of Science’s journal PLOS Medicine.

The researchers analyzed data from the NIH-AARP Diet and Health study cohort which consisted of approximately 500,000 people aged 50–71 years at baseline (1995–1996), none of whom had previously had cancer at the time they entered the study. The researchers used a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to estimate hazard ratios. Their findings:

Statistically significant elevated risks (ranging from 20% to 60%) were evident for esophageal, colorectal, liver, and lung cancer, comparing individuals in the highest with those in the lowest quintile of red meat intake. Furthermore, individuals in the highest quintile of processed meat intake had a 20% elevated risk for colorectal and a 16% elevated risk for lung cancer. (p. 1973)

According to the Editor’s Summary of the study:

These findings provide strong evidence that people who eat a lot of red and processed meats have greater risk of developing colorectal and lung cancer than do people who eat small quantities. They also indicate that a high red meat intake is associated with an increased risk of esophageal and liver cancer, and that one in ten colorectal and one in ten lung cancers could be avoided if people reduced their red and processed meat intake to the lowest quintile. (p. 1984)

One can not only meet one’s nutrition needs without eating meat, one can meet them better without eating meat. Consequently, there is no good reason – no sufficiently weighty reason – to raise animals in inhumane conditions and kill them for food. Consequently, premise (6) above is true.

Taken together, premises (1) – (8) provide a compelling argument for the conclusion that it is morally wrong to raise animals inhumanely and kill them for food, and that, as a result, vegetarianism is morally required (whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available, which in modern societies is almost always).

The Bottom Line:

The cumulative case for ethical vegetarianism is all the stronger when we realize that not only are there no good reasons to raise and kill animals for food, there are good reason not to. Keith has made the point before that the case for vegetarianism is overdetermined. He’s right. There are environmental reasons for becoming vegetarian. There are health reasons for becoming vegetarian. And there are ethical reasons for becoming vegetarian. What I have argued here is that the compelling health reasons for vegetarianism serve to strengthen the moral argument for vegetarianism by undermining the only reasons potentially good enough to override the prima facie wrongness of harming and killing animals for food. Absent such an overriding reason, the prima facie case for ethical vegetarianism provides us with an all-things-considered ultima facie reason for the immorality of eating meat. What’s good for us is good for the animals. Ethical synergy at work.

From the Mailbag

Hi Keith,

I've created an animal rights slide show for use in my own class and figure there might be someone out there who would want to use/watch/whatever. There's a link and description here, if you'd be willing to post at Animal Ethics.

Thanks,
Jean Kazez

Think Bush Is a Pro-Animal Environmentalist? Think Again!

According to this AP Newswire issued yesterday: "President Bush exempted the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using sonar in its anti-submarine warfare training off the California coast — a practice critics say is harmful to whales and other marine mammals. . . . A federal judge in Los Angeles had issued a preliminary injunction earlier this month requiring the Navy to create a 12-nautical-mile, no-sonar zone along the California coast and to post trained lookouts to watch for marine mammals before and during exercises. Sonar would have to be shut down when mammals are spotted within 2,200 yards, under the order.
The court found that using mid-frequency active sonar violated the Coastal Zone Management Act and Bush exempted the Navy from a section of that act. . . . Critics contend sonar has harmful effects on whales, possibly by damaging their hearing, and other marine mammals worldwide. The National Resources Defense Council's lawsuit alleges the Navy's sonar causes whales and other mammals to beach themselves."

The NRDC's press release in response to the Bush administration's actions can be found here.
For more information about the effect of sonar on marine mammals, see the NRDC's extremely comprehensive report: “Sounding the Depths II: The Rising Toll of Sonar, Shipping and Industrial Ocean Noise on Marine Life.”

More information about Bush's decision to allow the Navy to conduct sonar exercises and the impact these exercises will have on whales and other aquatic mammals can be found in this Washington Post column and also in dot.earth's recent post "The White House and the Whales."

Last week, I linked to a dot.earth post on Japan's whaling industry which reported that, under intensifying pressure from Australia and the United States, Japan put off plans to kill 50 humpback whales this year but still intends to kill up to 935 minke whales (a small and relatively abundant species) and 50 finbacks (the second largest whale) as part of a "scientific research project". Why does the Bush administration think that it is wrong for the Japanese to kill whales but permissible for the U.S. Navy to do so? If you care about the well-being of aquatic mammals, contact your Senators and Congresspersons and urge them to outlaw the Navy's coastal sonar exercises.

Note from KBJ: I'm surprised by your title, Mylan. Whoever thought President Bush was a pro-animal environmentalist? People like Adolf Hitler are pro-animal environmentalists! The point, of course, is that there is no necessary connection between (1) a person's attitude toward animals or the environment and (2) his or her normative political theory. You and I, for example, share a concern for animals, but I'm a conservative and you're a progressive.

Want to Help Feed Homeless Animals?

The Animal Rescue Site is having trouble getting enough people to click on it daily to meet their quota of getting free food donated every day to abused and neglected animals.

It takes less than a minute to go to their site and click on the purple box "Click here to give" to fund food for animals for free.

It doesn't cost you a thing. The Animal Rescue Site's corporate sponsors/advertisers use the number of daily visits to donate food to abandoned/neglected animals inexchange for advertising. Here's the web site: http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com. Pass it along to people you know and urge them to pass it along, as well. Helping to feed animals is just a click away.

If you were wondering, Snopes.com says this is legitimate. See here for the Snopes report on the Animal Rescue Site.

Cloned Meat

Here is a New York Times story about the cloning of animals for meat.

Fishing

Here is a New York Times story about seafood.

Whale Hunting

Andrew Revkin writes the Dot Earth blog for the New York Times. You can find his recent post on the current state of whale hunting here.

About Dot Earth

By 2050 or so, the world population is expected to reach nine billion, essentially adding two Chinas to the number of people alive today. Those billions will be seeking food, water and other resources on a planet where, scientists say, humans are already shaping climate and the web of life. In Dot Earth, reporter Andrew C. Revkin examines efforts to balance human affairs with the planet’s limits. Supported in part by a John Simon Guggenheim Fellowship, Mr. Revkin tracks relevant news from suburbia to Siberia, and conducts an interactive exploration of trends and ideas with readers and experts.

If you haven't already done so, check out Dot Earth.

From the Mailbag

Hey there,

Just discovered your nice blog on animals and ethics. I've touched on relevant issues off and on, but most specifically in a 2004 piece on arguments for and against whale hunts.

I've linked back to that story in my latest post on Japan v Greenpeace saga on my Dot Earth blog. www.nytimes.com/dotearth

I'm going to add Animal Ethics to my blogroll. A very under-appreciated arena.

Best,

Andy
--
Andrew C. Revkin
The New York Times / Science
620 Eighth Ave., NY, NY 10018
www.nytimes.com/revkin

Mr Ed, Trigger, and My Friend Flicka

Here is a New York Times story about horse slaughter.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Bearing Up” (Op-Ed, Jan. 5):

In contrast to the arguments made by Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the scientific literature is very clear that polar bear survival is highly threatened in the wild.

Because polar bears are at the top of the marine food chain, their bodies accumulate persistent organic pollutants that disrupt their reproductive systems. They are also endangered by a loss of habitat, as energy companies encroach on more and more of their territory for oil and gas operations.

But most important, they are beginning to starve, because the sea ice they depend on for hunting seals, their main food, is melting at a very rapid rate because of global warming.

We must recognize the shortsighted nature of Governor Palin’s appeal not to list the polar bear as endangered. While Alaska is increasingly devastated by global warming—melting glaciers, permafrost and sea ice, as well as the severe impacts on wildlife, ecosystems and people—she seems to be working not to protect the polar bear or ultimately the citizens of her state, but to make sure nothing gets in the way of energy company plans for expansion.

Eric Chivian
Boston, Jan. 7, 2008
The writer is director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School.

To the Editor:

The argument made by Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska—that the Fish and Wildlife Service should not list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act because science doesn’t support doing so—doesn’t persuade.

While Governor Palin correctly describes bear population increases since 1973, when the circumpolar states signed a treaty in response to overhunting, she discounts the mounting evidence that these populations are nonetheless at risk.

Polar bear specialists have shown that diminishing summer sea ice has led to health risks and mortality for the bears, as well as a general population decrease. Some populations could vanish within 100 years.

Though hunting still plays a role and led to a bilateral treaty with Russia, ratified last September, climate change is the major threat to polar bears today.

Governor Palin thinks the proposed listing is a backdoor way of forcing the federal government to change course on global warming policy, but it does no such thing. Instead, it simply seeks to protect bears in the absence of a better national approach to climate change.

If Governor Palin is serious about wanting wildlife policy linked to science, she should examine the studies that her state wildlife officials seem to have ignored. They all say the same thing: polar bears need our help.

James Tierney
Brookline, Mass., Jan. 8, 2008

To the Editor:

I find it interesting that Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska does not mention that placing the polar bear on the endangered species list would trigger protections that could prevent oil drilling in one of its important habitats, as a Jan. 2 editorial pointed out.

Even at 79 years old and with an admittedly faulty memory, I remember that editorial, but apparently the governor hopes other readers won’t remember!

Jeanne M. Storm
Chester, Vt., Jan. 5, 2008

From the Mailbag

Hello, I saw your blog and thought you might be interested in visiting my new forum. I've set a spot aside for interest in animals and animal issues. It's not a vegetarian forum, but I am interested in getting all sides in the animal debates (I guess I'd be called a moderate). The site is www.globechat.org. When you visit, scroll down and you'll see a forum called critter corner. I'd like to invite you and your readers to post and join in the conversations.

Thanks,
— AZ

WWF

Here is the gift center of the World Wildlife Fund.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Tiger on the Loose: Can It Happen Here?” (news article, Dec. 27):

It’s little wonder that Tatiana, the tiger that escaped from the San Francisco Zoo, longed for her freedom. An Oxford University study published in the journal Nature found that wide-ranging carnivores like tigers and other big cats “show the most evidence of stress and/or psychological dysfunction in captivity.”

Tigers are designed by nature to roam far and wide, hunt, claim territory and seek out mates. In captivity, they are denied everything that comes naturally to them and pose a serious danger to the public and keepers alike from attacks and escapes.

These acts of independence are often their last, as, like Tatiana, most animals who attempt to follow their natural instincts are killed.

How many people and animals must pay with their lives before we acknowledge that big cats don’t belong in captivity?

Jennifer O’Connor
Norfolk, Va., Dec. 28, 2007
The writer, on the staff of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, writes for its Animals in Entertainment Campaign.

Canis Lupus

Here is a New York Times story about wolves.

Make This the Year You Do Right by Animals

As another year begins, most of us find ourselves reflecting on our lives and resolving to improve ourselves and our lives in various ways. These resolutions typically fall into one of two categories: (1) resolutions to acquire some desirable trait or better-making habit, e.g., resolving to exercise regularly; and (2) resolutions to eliminate some undesirable trait or worse-making habit, e.g., resolving to quit smoking. Sometimes resolutions from each category mirror each other, e.g., the resolution to improve one's health and the resolution to quit smoking. Most New Year's resolutions are primarily self-regarding, like resolving to get in better shape and resolving to eat fewer sweets. Some resolutions, however, are primarily other-regarding, like resolving to help others in various ways, e.g., resolving to volunteer at the local soup kitchen, or resolving to donate a certain amount of one’s paycheck each month to an organization working to curb global hunger and poverty.

As you might expect with 66% of Americans being overweight, out of shape, and in poor physical condition, the most popular resolutions include the following:

1. Lose weight.
2. Quit smoking.
3. Exercise more.
4. Eat right.
5. Get in better shape/become more healthy.
6. Drink less alcohol.
7. Spend more time with family and friends.
8. Get out of debt.
9. Try something new or learn something new.
10. Get organized.

I suspect that many, if not most, of these resolutions are on your list of resolutions, as well. Last year, I encouraged readers to add one more resolution to their lists:

11. Stop supporting unnecessary animal cruelty in all of its forms.

Now that 2008 has arrived, I'd like once again to encourage new and old readers alike to make this the year that they stop supporting animal cruelty in all of its forms. If you currently eat meat, make a commitment to reduce your consumption of animals in January and stop eating them altogether in February. If you are already a vegetarian, make this the year that you decide to go vegan.

Below, I offer several reasons as to why you should add resolution 11 to your list of resolutions, but first a reality check. Most people who have made resolutions like 1-10 above will have failed to keep them by the end of January. One reason people generally aren't able to stick to resolutions like 1-10 is that, so stated, these resolutions are vague and imprecise with no clear objective in sight. Lose weight. How much? Quit smoking. How and by when? Exercise more. How much more? Eat right. What counts as eating right? Get in better shape. By what standards?

Since the New Year's resolutions you have made for 2008 are your resolutions, I assume that you would actually like to succeed in keeping them. To increase the likelihood of keeping your resolutions, experts recommend that you try to make your resolutions concrete and precise. For example:

1. Lose weight—I will lose 10 pounds by March 15th.

2. Quit smoking—I will join a smoking cessation program in consultation with a physician and quit smoking by the end of February.

3. Exercise more—I will walk or jog or stationary cycle or X [plug in your preferred form of aerobic exercise for X] 30 minutes a day and do strength conditioning twice a week.

4. Eat right—I will eat a diet low in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and high in complex carbohydrates and fiber; and I will limit my consumption of empty calories like those found in sweets, soda pop, and trendy high-calorie coffee drinks and energy drinks.

5. Get in better shape/become more healthy—By May 1st, I will have lowered my systolic and diastolic blood pressure by 10 points each, lowered my total plasma cholesterol by 30 points, lowered my resting heart-rate by 5 beats per minute, lowered my body mass index (BMI calculator) by 2 points. [The numbers provided are just by way of illustration. Since people vary in the degree to which they are in or out of shape, individuals need to determine their own fitness and health improvement goals, in consultation with a physician.]

6. Drink less alcohol—I will not consume more than the recommended one to two alcoholic beverages per day.

7. Spend more time with family and friends—I will do X in the evening with my spouse or partner, and I will do Y with my kids on the weekend (where you and your family and friends fill in the variables appropriately).

8. Get out of debt—I will pay off some specific amount of debt by March 31st.

9. Try something new or learn something new—I will try out a new healthy habit, or I will try to learn how to do X.

10. Get organized—E.g., I will clean out one closet each weekend for the next 6 weeks, or I will spend 20 minutes each evening sorting through a pile of papers, etc.

Specific resolutions like those just listed are easier to follow; they allow you to track your success, and they can be fully accomplished.

What about resolution 11? Like the original 1-10, resolution 11 is also vague on details. Stop supporting unnecessary animal cruelty in all of its forms. How? What can I do to stop supporting unnecessary animal cruelty, and is it difficult to do so?Here are some surprisingly simple things you can do to stop supporting unnecessary animal cruelty:

(a) Stop eating animals.

(b) Stop eating animal products.

(c) Eat delicious plant-based meals centered around whole grains, fruits, vegetables, beans, and in moderation nuts, instead.

(d) Stop wearing animals—Don’t purchase or wear garments made of fur or containing fur trim; don't purchase garments advertised or labeled as "faux fur" since these garments may be made of real fur mislabeled as faux fur (for details, see my previous post on mislabeled dog fur jackets here); don’t purchase leather, and as your leather garments wear out, replace them with nonleather alternatives. Don’t wear wool.

(e) Don’t purchase cosmetics or personal care products that were tested on animals when equally effective cruelty-free products are available.

(f) Don’t purchase cosmetics or personal care products that contain animal ingredients.

(g) Purchase cruelty-free cosmetics and personal care products instead. Cruelty-free shopping guides that list companies that don't test their products on animals are available here, here and here.

(h) Don’t attend circuses that contain nonhuman animal acts.

(i) Do attend socially conscious circuses like Cirque de Soleil that exclusively feature human performers.

(j) Donate only to Humane Charities that don't test on animals. A list of Humane Charities is available here.

At first blush, the list of changes that are required in order to stop supporting unnecessary animal cruelty may seem daunting, but in reality, quite the opposite is the case. First, since there are so many things that you can do to stop supporting unnecessary animal cruelty, you can start with any one of these sub-resolutions (a)-(j) and then, once that sub-resolution has been accomplished and thoroughly ingrained in your behavior, you can move on to the next way you can stop supporting cruelty. In short, breaking resolution 11 into a number of easily accomplished specific sub-resolutions makes it more likely that you will accomplish at least part of your over-arching goal of reducing your contribution to unnecessary animal cruelty. Second, many of the things you can do to stop supporting animal cruelty—like not buying or wearing fur or fur trim—require minimal effort and no expense!

Where should you begin? Obviously, since not buying and not wearing fur requires minimal effort and no expense, that's a good place to start. Of course, since that is so easily accomplished, you may have already fully succeeded in carrying out that aspect of resolution 11 long ago. What to do next?

I recommend trying to accomplish sub-resolutions (a), (b), and (c) next. Why? Because doing (a), (b), and (c) will help you accomplish many of your other resolutions. Moderately to seriously overweight people who eliminate all meat and all animal products from their diets and replace those animal-based foods with plant-based foods almost always lose 10-20 pounds with no other behavioral changes. If you are serious about losing weight and improving your health, try out a cruelty-free vegan diet for three months. [You can download a "Vegan Starter Kit" from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine here.] If you are like most people, you will be amazed at (i) how much weight you will lose, (ii) how much better you will feel, and (iii) how much more energy you will have. One virtue of a low-fat vegan diet is that you can eat as much vegan food as you like and still lose weight. Switching to a vegan diet devoid of meat and animal products also almost always results in significantly lower plasma cholesterol levels. A vegan diet also reduces the risk of heart disease and some cancers, while lowering blood pressure, and is, thus, an extremely effective means of helping you to achieve your goal of improved health. By eating a low-fat vegan diet centered around whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes, you will be eating right. And, of course, by experimenting with all sorts of new vegan dishes, you will be learning a new healthier way of cooking and eating. Free recipes can be found at The Vegan Chef and Vegan Connection. Free Fat-free vegan recipes can be found at Fatfree Vegan. So, if you are serious about losing weight, improving your health, eating right, and trying something new, switching to a cruelty-free vegan diet will single-handedly help you accomplish all of these goals.

But wait. There's more! For no extra charge, switching to a vegan diet also dramatically reduces your contribution to unnecessary animal suffering. If you are like most people, you think that it is seriously morally wrong to contribute to unnecessary animal suffering. Switching to a vegan diet will help you to live your life in accordance with your own deeply held moral values and will, thereby, help you to live an authentic life, i.e., a meaningful life of integrity. When looking for ways to better ourselves in the New Year, we should look for ways to better ourselves physically, emotionally, and ethically. Making an effort to live our lives in a manner consistent with our most deeply held moral values is one of the most important steps we can take toward being our best selves.

Like resolution 7, resolution 11 is primarily an other-regarding resolution (even though those who respect animals and refuse to eat them will experience profound health benefits as a result). Its primary focus is the well being of other sentient beings. Since other beings are affected by our other-regarding behavior, other-regarding resolutions may be easier to stick to than purely self-regarding resolutions. After dieting for a few weeks, one might rationalize as follows, "Oh well, I don't really mind carrying around 20 extra pounds. I just read that 'curviness' is in this year. Plus, if I lost weight, I'd have to buy new clothes." But if one keeps in mind the animals that one is trying to help, one might be more inclined to stick to one's resolutions. Plus, as Kathie Jenni rightly points out here, when it comes to doing right by animals, one can always take steps to reinforce one's motivation.

Suppose you find yourself about to give up on one of the sub-resolutions of resolution 11 that you have set for yourself, e.g., sub-resolution (a). Then, you can stop and remind yourself of one of the main reasons you resolved to stop eating meat in the first place, namely, your desire not to support the kinds of cruelty inherent in modern animal agriculture. If you feel yourself losing your resolve, take 12 minutes to re-view the documentary "Meet Your Meat" here or here. Or, suppose you're thinking about back-sliding on sub-resolution (d) and purchasing a fur-trimmed garment. Then, take 2 minutes and re-view this video of raccoon dogs being skinned alive. After seeing these documentary videos, I think you'll find all the strength you need to steel your resolve not to purchase such products of pain.

The Bottom Line:

Elsewhere in this blog (see here, here, and here), I have written about ethical synergy, the regularly observed phenomenon that simultaneously showing respect for persons (including oneself), animals, and the environment typically benefits all three groups (including oneself). Resolving to do right by animals and to stop supporting unnecessary animal cruelty is yet another powerful example of ethical synergy at work. As we have just seen, resolving to do right by animals is a great way to do right by oneself. By not ingesting animals you will not only not be supporting the unnecessary animal cruelty inherent in modern animal agriculture, you will also be taking positive steps toward improving your health, eating right, and losing weight, steps much more likely to result in permanent weight loss and improved cardiovascular health than unhealthful fad diets that cannot be sustained for the long haul. By not purchasing exorbitantly expensive fur coats and fur-trimmed coats, you will be actively boycotting animal cruelty while simultaneously saving money that can be applied toward resolution 8, i.e., that of getting out of debt. Doing right by animals makes us better people in countless ways, and that, of course, is the main reason we make New Year's Resolutions in the first place. Join me in resolving to do right by animals in 2008. Make this the year you go cruelty-free. Do it for the animals. Do it for yourself.

Wishing you a Happy Healthy Humane New Year!

Animal Rights

Here is an essay by Wesley J. Smith.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Locavore, Get Your Gun,” by Steven Rinella (Op-Ed, Dec. 14):

To the animals being slaughtered, it does not matter whether their killers are local or whether they will be eaten or displayed on a wall. Their suffering is the same.

Hunting is cruel and cowardly, and any attempt to rationalize or gain acceptance for it as a sport does not eradicate this fact. There are no “lofty pedestals” for those without compassion or empathy for other creatures.

It’s time to stop pandering to hunters and the gun lobby and turn to humane measures to control the deer population and outlaw this barbaric pastime.

Rebecca Sunshine
Hartsdale, N.Y., Dec. 16, 2007

Collisions

Here is a New York Times story about the growing problem of vehicle-animal collisions.

Animal Rights and Animal Responsibilities

Should animals be doing more for the animal-rights movement? See here for the surprising answer.

From the Mailbag

The horrific practice in China of skinning cats and dogs alive for their fur must go down as one of the worst cases of sustained mass cruelty to animals in human history. Every year, more than 2,000,000 cats and dogs are skinned alive in China for their fur. They are left to die slowly in shock and excruciating agony and their bodies fed to the other animals being reared for the slaughter. The horror must be stopped.

The Animal Saviors Awareness Campaign is taking the fight to the Chinese government. Please help. Visit http://animalsaviors.org/ and decide for yourself. Every day another 5,479 plus defenseless animals die in terror and unspeakable pain. Now is the time for action.

Sentiment + Action = Results

Peter Steele
Campaign Director
Animal Saviors Awareness Campaign

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “An 8-Second Ride Lures Sponsors Beyond the Rodeo” (Advertising column, Dec. 11):

So bull riding could represent the next big thing in corporate sports sponsorship. Even private equity is getting in on the action, with one manager believing this could be the next Nascar.

This is music to the ears of advertisers. But bulls are not cars, but rather living beings that experience pain and suffering.

If there were transparency to the public spectacle of bull riding, it would be clear that this is a frantically scared animal desperately trying to escape. Bull riding events in rodeos are notorious for using spurs, flank straps and electric prods to promote bucking and to control the bull.

The use of animals in entertainment when animal cruelty is involved is deplorable, whether it is dog fighting or bull riding. Corporations should reject the notion that this is a sport worthy of their ad dollars.

Brad Goldberg
President, Animal Welfare Trust
Mamaroneck, N.Y., Dec. 11, 2007

Culling the Herd

The National Park Service has announced a plan to cull the Rocky Mountain National Park elk herd with sharpshooters.

The Politics of Meat

Here is a Wall Street Journal column about foie gras.

Canis Familiaris

Here is a New York Times story about man's best friend.

Twenty Years Ago

12-8-87 . . . There was a senseless killing last night. Someone entered the premises of the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, cut the lock on the bighorn sheep exhibit, and shot the male bighorn to death. Then—and here's the grisly part—the assailant cut the sheep's head off. It has not been found. Police officers speculate that the killing was cult related. Tucson, like other communities in the southwest, has satanistic, witch, and other occult groups. There was a full moon Saturday night, which may have had something to do with it. Whatever the circumstances, I can't help but think of the killing as a murder. It was obviously premeditated, the sheep was defenseless against a high-powered rifle, and the assailant mutilated the body. Needless to say, animal-rights and other groups are up in arms. If apprehended, the suspect should be tried and convicted of murder. He or she is an evil person.

Housekeeping

To post comments on this blog from now on, you must use your full name. No pseudonyms, nicknames, noms de plume, or online personae. Don't be a coward. If you have something to contribute to public discourse, take responsibility for it. You know who Mylan and I are; why should we and the other readers not know who you are? Think about it.

Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon on Climate Change

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO₂, CH₄, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed.

We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO₂ will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people.

The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies.

Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO₂ produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased.

Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO₂ in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO₂ increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

(Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons 12 [2007]: 79-90, at 90 [parenthetical reference omitted])

Fourth Anniversary

I started this blog four years ago today. Where did the time go? There have been 74,220 visitors to the blog. That's an average of 50.8 per day (counting the leap-year day of 2004). The blog's readership has increased each year. Here are the figures:

First year: 12,007 visitors
Second year: 14,655 visitors
Third year: 16,158 visitors
Fourth year: 31,400 visitors

Thank you for visiting. I will try to pick up the pace of my posting. Mylan vows to do the same.

Addendum: Here is the blog's first post. Here is the first-anniversary post. Here is the second-anniversary post. Here is the third-anniversary post.

From the Mailbag

Dear Animal Ethics bloggers:

We posted a story today about Matthew Hiasl Pan. I hope you’ll take a look.

Thanks, and all best,

Jessica Bennett
Blog Editor
Beacon Press

Twenty Years Ago

11-27-87 . . . Today—the day after Thanksgiving—is traditionally the busiest retail sales day of the year. Needless to say, I stayed away from the stores. But I saw on television that certain animal-rights activists demonstrated against the wearing of furs. It was obviously orchestrated; and it succeeded in getting television, radio, and newspaper attention. The message is that wearing fur is wrong. Apparently, the primary consumers of furs these days are young, career-oriented women. They consider furs a luxury item, a sign that one has “made it” in the business world. They’re also soft and feminine, which plays into another tradition besides conspicuous consumption. One woman on television, trying on a fur, exclaimed “I wouldn’t mind finding this under my Christmas tree!”. I agree with the protesters that producing, selling, buying, and wearing furs is wrong. I’m not sure I agree with their tactics, however. Demonstrations may raise people’s consciousness, but they also alienate. We need empirical studies to determine which effect predominates.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

It is disappointing that our government plans to keep approximately 550 chimpanzees in the laboratories where they reside, rather than provide them a sanctuary they deserve (“After Hard Labor, a Soft Landing,” special Giving section, Nov. 12).

Many chimpanzees in American labs are simply being warehoused—some for more than 50 years—wasting taxpayer money that could be spent better to help alleviate and cure human diseases.

The use of chimpanzees for research has declined significantly in the last decade mostly because of high costs and growing public opposition to relying on these animals in invasive experiments.

It is time to retire chimpanzees in labs to sanctuaries like Chimp Haven.

Kathleen Conlee
Washington, Nov. 13, 2007
The writer is a program director at the Humane Society of the United States.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Child Matadors Draw Olés in Mexico’s Bullrings” (front page, Nov. 19):

It is so sad to see children being taught to torture and kill calves. For what? The tradition and glory of bullfighting? Please!

Bullfighting is simply prolonged animal torture. Most children start life with a love and reverence of animals. Cruelty and disregard for them are taught. In this country, this lesson is usually less direct: that it is somehow logical to teach kids to love and respect animals while feeding them animals that have been raised and slaughtered in genuinely terrible conditions.

Our world would be a much better place if we could teach our children respect for all living creatures.

Edward L. Machtinger
San Francisco, Nov. 19, 2007

Note from KBJ: I would replace "living" with "sentient." How do you respect a plant?

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “The Bluefin Slaughter” (editorial, Nov. 17):

As a young man I was privileged to work for and to know Capt. Charles A. Mayo II of Provincetown, Mass. He was the legendary sport fishing captain of the Chantey I, II and III, the inventor of skip baits and a lover of the oceans.

On a late summer day in the 1960s, we stood on McMillan wharf in Provincetown harbor watching as the Silver Fox came steaming into port after setting the first purse seine around a school of giant bluefin tuna in Cape Cod Bay. My recollection is that it took an additional two beam trawlers to help Captain Silva bring in his catch of 600,000 pounds of tuna he had captured in one set of his net.

Captain Mayo told me to remember that day as the beginning of the end of tuna in the North Atlantic; how prophetic and how sad a day it was. Incidentally, the catch was all sold for cat food at less than 10 cents a pound.

We need to stop making holes in the world’s oceans.

Stephen E. Goldsmith
Wailuku, Hawaii, Nov. 17, 2007

From the Mailbag

Hi Mylan,

We just posted an article "Top 50 Vegan and Vegetarian Restaurants in the World." I thought I'd bring it to your attention just in case you think your readers would find it interesting.

Either way, thanks for your time!

Amy S Quinn

From the Mailbag

Hi Keith—

In case you want to put a link on Animal Ethics—here's a post about traditional Eskimo whaling and the perennial question, what to eat for Thanksgiving dinner. Complete with recipe!

Jean

Jimmy Carter, Cat Murderer

Those of you who think highly of Jimmy Carter might find this interesting.

Moment of Zen

"I did not become a vegetarian for my health. I did it for the health of the chickens." Isaac Bashevis Singer

Animal Altruism?

Dolphins appear to have saved a human from a shark. See here.

Statistics

This past October was the best month ever for this blog, in terms of number of visitors. There were 3,404 visitors during October, which is an average of 109.8 visitors per day. The previous record for monthly visitors was 2,825. If you're the author or publisher of a book on animal ethics, please send me a copy so that I can add it to the bibliography.

From the Mailbag

The inventor of the programming language LISP once proposed that the U.S. Declaration of Independence be debugged by adding a single syllable: change "equal, that" to "equal, in that." Abraham Lincoln made the same insert-an-“in" amendment (while changing the original spelling "unalienable" to "inalienable"). Details here.

Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

Note from KBJ: The expression "all men are created equal" is not an informative; it's a directive. It doesn't describe; it prescribes. It means the following: There are differences and there are differences; some differences make a moral difference and some do not; morally speaking, everyone is equal—in spite of our nonmoral differences (such as height, weight, age, sex, nationality, religion, skin color, and intelligence).

Note 2 from KBJ: Here is Peter Singer's essay "All Animals Are Equal." Singer is no fool, and neither was Thomas Jefferson. They knew that there are many differences among (respectively) animals and humans. What Singer is saying is that, in spite of their many and obvious differences, animals (including humans) have something morally relevant in common, namely, the capacity to suffer. (Actually, there may be some animals, such as insects, who lack this capacity.) Jefferson is saying that, in spite of their many and obvious differences, humans have something morally relevant in common, namely, possession of God-given rights.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Two Pigs” (The Rural Life, Oct. 25):

Thank you for another thoughtful piece by Verlyn Klinkenborg, who admirably makes the point that taking an animal’s life should not be a cavalier endeavor.

As a longtime vegan with three vegan-from-birth children, I would like to suggest that since vegetarians are generally healthier than meat eaters, there is no excuse for compassionate people to eat animals.

The American Dietetic Association, based on all the scientific evidence, states that vegetarians have “lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, Type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”

There is no moral difference between eating a dog or a pig, a cat or a chicken. For the same reason that most of us would not eat our pets, we should also not eat chickens, pigs or other animals.

John D. Borders Jr.
Louisville, Ky., Oct. 25, 2007

From the Mailbag

Hi Keith,

I love your blog and have added it to my blogroll. It would be great if you could do the same for me :-)

My blog is www.animalblog.co.uk

All The Best
Gill

Twenty Years Ago

10-27-87 Tuesday. I’m troubled by certain advertisements that have recently appeared on television. They’re apparently produced by the beef industry. The slogan is “Beef: Real Food for Real People”. I’ve seen two actors so far: James Garner and Cybill Shepherd. In the Garner ads, he talks about eating “real food” rather than vegetables and other fare, then sits back with a large, juicy steak. Music plays in the background. In the Shepherd ads, the setting is again Texas or someplace in the west. Men wear blue jeans and cowboy boots, while the women are dressed in traditional feminine clothing like dresses. The message of the ads is one of machismo, and specifically that only sissies and wimps eat vegetables and bread. The troubling thing is not that arguments are presented on behalf of beef-eating, but that they’re not. Instead, the beef industry has gone in for nonrational persuasion. The idea is to get viewers to associate beef with things that they already desire or value, such as hardiness, machismo, pretty women, and fast cars. Beef, they want us to believe, is part of a healthy and happy lifestyle. Needless to say, this is false, and if I get a chance to say it publicly, I will.

Flamingocide

Justice consists in giving each person his or her due. What do the culprits in this incident deserve?

Vegetarianism

Vegetarianism is overdetermined. If all you care about is animals, you should be a vegetarian. If all you care about is the natural environment, you should be a vegetarian. If all you care about is yourself, you should be a vegetarian. If all you care about is human beings, you should be a vegetarian. If all you care about is your children, you should be a vegetarian.

Twenty Years Ago

10-21-87 Wednesday. I had a nice discussion with Clark Wolf this afternoon. It ranged over music, politics, and philosophy, but the most interesting subject was how each of us came to discover and fall in love with philosophy. As I explained to Clark, I came at philosophy in an odd way. My original interest was narrow: animal rights. The book that started everything was Barry Holstun Lopez’s Of Wolves and Men [(New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1978); I finished reading this book on 28 December 1980]. That book exposed me to natural history (Aldo Leopold, Henry Beston, and Stephen Gould), wilderness (Roderick Nash), and moral philosophy (John Rodman and Peter Singer). Eventually these interests brought me to Joel Feinberg [1926-2004] and Tom Regan, and that opened up my philosophical world. After arriving at the University of Arizona to attend graduate school [in August 1983], my interests expanded even further, into other branches of philosophy. Now I’m interested in epistemology, philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of language. The metaphor that I chose to describe this process is a zoom lens. Originally, I said, I was focused on animals. But gradually I’ve pulled back the lens and begun to explore or examine other subjects within what is conventionally known as philosophy.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “New Battle of Logging vs. Spotted Owls Looms in West” (news article, Oct. 18):

Saving old growth forest and spotted owls is wise for many reasons, including controlling infectious diseases. Owls, kestrels and hawks are guardians of the fields. Just as lacewings and dragonflies keep mosquito populations in check, birds of prey eat rodents that can carry Lyme-bearing ticks, hantavirus, plague bacteria and other ills.

Preservation of nature is not just an abstract aesthetic issue; our future depends on survival of things that fit.

Paul R. Epstein, M.D.
Boston, Oct. 18, 2007
The writer is associate director, Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School.

Dog Update

This past Monday, I wrote about my attempt to help an overheated dog. Two days later, during my next run, I noticed that both dogs, instead of just one, were moving about freely in the fenced yard. It made my day. Today, things were the same. It would be a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy to infer that my talking to the owner caused him to untie his dog, but it's possible that my intervention made a difference. Next time I see the man, I'm going to thank him. Or maybe I should leave well enough alone. What do you advise?

Dog Fighting

Here is an interview with Peter Singer.

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

It's still hot in North Texas. Today, while running in 84º heat (and excessive humidity), I noticed a dog lying on a slab of concrete in someone's back yard. It looked as though the dog was lying in the shadow of a basketball backboard. When I got done with my 3.1-mile run, I was drenched in sweat. I walked a quarter of a mile to the house to inspect. Sure enough, there was a black dog (a pit bull) lying in the three-by-three-foot shadow cast by a backboard on the concrete. The dog was tied to something and had only the small shadow to stay out of the blistering sun. The dog's black hair was soaking up the sun's rays. When I approached the fence, I noticed two things: (1) the dog was panting profusely; and (2) there was no water bowl.

I knocked on the door. Realizing that I was poking my nose into a stranger's affairs, I apologized to the man who answered the door. "Please don't get mad at me," I said; "I wanted to see whether anyone was home." I pointed out that the dog was trying to avoid the sun's heat by following the shadow across the concrete. The man said, "My dogs is [sic] fine." I asked whether the dog had water. "My dogs is fine," he repeated. By this time he was walking with me around the house, to where the dog was. A second dog came running up to the fence. That one was untied. The black dog got up and approached. I pointed to the small shadow on the concrete and explained that the dog would begin to have convulsions if he or she got overheated. The man said, "My dogs is fine." He insisted that the dog had water, but I didn't see a bowl. I figured I had done enough and walked home.

The man was clearly upset with me. I knew this was going to happen, but I decided to risk injury to myself for the sake of the dog. Had I done nothing, I would have felt guilty. Now, because of the man's anger at my officiousness, I'm afraid. It was a no-win situation. What would you have done? Perhaps I should have gotten the house number and called the Humane Society or Fort Worth Animal Control. I considered this, but decided that nothing would be done. It was either go to the house personally, risking the owner's wrath, or do nothing. Can you believe that people are so cruel to their dogs? I only hope that I gave the man something to think about.

SoyJoy

I enthusiastically recommend these. You can buy them from Amazon.com or from any of these retailers.

Mylan

Here is a profile of my friend and co-blogger Mylan Engel Jr. We went to graduate school together at the University of Arizona. I didn't like Mylan at the time, and I'm sure he didn't like me. Mylan worked in epistemology. I worked in ethics. Years later, after he had gone off to teach at Northern Illinois University and I had gone off to teach at the University of Texas at Arlington, we discovered that we had a shared interest in animal rights. I consider Mylan's essay "The Immorality of Eating Meat" the best thing I've read on the topic.

Obesity

On the relation between obesity and meat-eating, see here.

From the Mailbag

Greetings,

We need your help. As you know, the Animal Legal Defense Fund is committed to protecting the lives of animals everywhere. But you may not know that we have filed a lawsuit against Mendes Calf Ranch for its violation of California animal cruelty laws.

The ranch is a facility that dairy producers use to house and raise newborn calves while their mothers are milked. The babies are taken soon after birth and shipped away to live in Mendes’s cramped, filthy crates with barely enough room to move.

Day after day, these calves live by themselves in crates so small they can’t even turn around or lie down naturally. They must contort their bodies even to stand in the small space, which is often covered with their own excrement. (Video footage here.)

While our lawsuit to stop this cruel practice is pending in court, there is more we can do for these animals right now. We need to reach Mendes through the people they’re most likely to listen to: their clients.

Major dairy producers Land O’Lakes and Challenge Dairy get their milk from calves confined at Mendes Calf Ranch. It’s time to let dairy corporations know that these practices are unnecessary—and unacceptable.

We’re launching the Free Baby Mendes campaign to mobilize consumers and animal lovers to sign on to a letter we’ll deliver to Land O’Lakes and Challenge Dairy. We hope that you can help us spread the word.

Would you be willing to post something on your site about the campaign?

Information about the campaign can be found here. Also available are Free Baby Mendes banners for your website here.

Together, we can make a difference for these cows—as we work to make sure that animal cruelty laws are taken seriously. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
April Nockleby
Animal Legal Defense Fund
170 East Cotati Avenue, Cotati, CA 94931
Phone: (707) 795-2533 • Fax: (707) 795-7280
E-mail: info@aldf.org • Web: www.aldf.org

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Let the East Bloom Again,” by Richard T. McNider and John R. Christy (Op-Ed, Sept. 22):

The solution to scarcity of water in the United States could be solved rather quickly if more people became vegetarians.

Just think of the savings in water use if we didn’t have the need to raise millions of animals for human consumption!

On top of that, think of the growth of a healthier and slimmer population that wasn’t burdened by the costs of poor health brought on by animal consumption.

Roy Esiason
Granville, N.Y., Sept. 22, 2007

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Antibiotic Runoff” (editorial, Sept. 18):

As a microbiologist, I know that study after study has highlighted the human health threat from using antibiotics as feed additives for hogs, chickens and cattle, creating super-bugs—bacteria that no longer can be treated with antibiotics. While some chicken producers and poultry purchasers have taken steps to reduce antibiotic use, the hog industry remains largely resistant to change.

To address this problem, I have introduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (H.R. 962), which would phase out antibiotics use in livestock for growth or preventative purposes unless manufacturers could prove that such uses don’t endanger public health. It also provides money to help farmers adopt alternative approaches to preventing illness among their herds, like cleaner housing and natural supplements.

The American Medical Association, the Infectious Disease Society of America and the American Academy of Pediatrics are among the more than 350 health, agriculture and other groups nationwide that have endorsed this bill. To preserve the effectiveness of our antibiotics, all meat producers need to back away from the overuse of drugs.

Louise M. Slaughter
Member of Congress, 28th District, New York
Washington, Sept. 20, 2007

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

I applaud “Antibiotic Runoff,” your Sept. 18 editorial about the abuse of antibiotics in industrial hog farms. It not only brings light to a serious issue, but also begins to make the connection between factory farm practices and consumer choices.

Farmers of hogs and all other types of food employ such indefensible methods not because they are cruel or irresponsible, but because for decades their consumers have demanded that the food they produce be cheap and abundant.

The legislative and regulatory remedies you suggest are valid, but they will not solve the problem alone. Eliminating factory farms and the like will happen only when a majority of consumers recognize their shared responsibility for the food system and start paying farmers a fair price.

Lisa M. Hamilton
Mill Valley, Calif., Sept. 18, 2007

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Drummer Denies He Intentionally Spooked Horse That Died” (news article, Sept. 16):

As a New Yorker who cringes with disgust and shame every time I pass an overloaded horse-drawn carriage dragging tourists around the streets of this horribly congested city, I was shocked and appalled by yet another incident leading to the death of an innocent animal.

The recent report by the New York City comptroller points out the absolute failure of city agencies to protect these indentured slaves. Horse-drawn carriages in today’s congested cities are an absurd anachronism, as demonstrated by the frequent incidents of “spooked horses.”

For years, the public has had to endure tragic accidents, heat prostration, deaths and severe injuries to both people and horses. It’s time to put aside foolish romantic notions and reject the demands of a self-serving industry.

Thousands of New Yorkers and visitors have signed petitions demanding an end to the senseless tragedies and inhumane treatment of these gentle giants. Shame on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the City Council for ignoring the plight of these horses.

Zelda Penzel
New York, Sept. 16, 2007

Industrial Agriculture

The wrongness of factory farming is overdetermined. See here for one sufficient ground. By the way, the editorial board of the New York Times is progressive (as opposed to conservative). Why does it not call for the abolition of factory farming? Instead, it seeks to reform it. Animal rights is neither progressive nor conservative. Think of all the progressives—Michael Moore, for example—who either eat meat or go out of their way to ridicule vegetarians. (Moore looks like he has eaten one too many hamburgers.) Many progressives care only about human beings. Many conservatives care about animals as well as human beings. Why animal rights is considered a progressive cause is mind-boggling.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Audit Criticizes City on Care of Carriage Horses” (news article, Sept. 6):

While it’s commendable to finally see an official acknowledgment of the hideous conditions in which the carriage horses are forced to exist, the suggested remedies would just be a Band-Aid for an inherently inhumane situation.

No amount of regulation, advisory panel oversight or coordination by city agencies will change the fact that those horses are tired and broken, and their needs are not being met.

Now that the carriage industry is being held under a microscope, it’s clear that it puts a black mark on the city. There is only one way to avoid future noncompliance and free city resources that are already spread too thin—institute a ban.

Jackie Vergerio
Portsmouth, Va., Sept. 6, 2007

Note from KBJ: I couldn't resist highlighting the metaphors.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “The School Cafeteria, on a Diet” (Business Day, Sept. 5):

While we need to ensure that healthier foods are sold in vending machines and served during school celebrations, parents should also know that the “strict nutrition standards” that govern federally subsidized school lunch programs still fall short of being truly healthy for children.

The United States Department of Agriculture purchases food, including high-fat meat and dairy products, under the direction of Congress based on agricultural surpluses and price support activities to help American agriculture producers.

These products are then dumped into schools as part of the National School Lunch program. High-fat, cholesterol-laden chicken nuggets and burgers meet requirements set by the U.S.D.A. in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, and schools can be reimbursed for selling them.

But like sodas and sugary snacks, meat and dairy products also play a role in our children’s expanding waistlines. The cheeseburgers and meat tacos our children eat at school also deserve our full attention.

Dulcie Ward
Washington, Sept. 6, 2007
The writer is a staff dietitian at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Raw Milk

Have you heard of the raw-milk movement? See here.

Feeding Fido and Fluffy

Here is a New York Times story about pet food.

Does the End Justify the Means?

How many of you think this sort of behavior helps animals, in the long run? How many of you think it hurts them?

From the Mailbag

Hello!

The volume „Tierrechte – eine interdisziplinäre Herausforderung“ (literally „Animal Rights – an interdisciplinary challenge“ has just been released from Harald Fischer Verlag (publisher), Germany. Basis of this collection are the interdisciplinary lectures on Animal Rights which took place from April to October 2006 at Ruprecht-Karls-University in Heidelberg (Germany). It was the first lecture series of its kind in german speaking world organized by the members of the Interdisziplinäre Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tierethik (literally “Interdisciplinary Study Group on Animal Ethics”) – an initiative of students.

25 well-known scientists, philosophers and politicians from Germany, Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands and the United States informed in a comprehensible manner and on a high level about the current status on animal ethics studies, answered open questions and introduced their approaches. The goal was to encourage scholars and students of the university of Heidelberg to a more intense discussion on this topic and enable to give a more detailed view on the university activities in our days.

The results of the lectures are written down in this book. It should support a stronger attention in research and teaching and should guide as the latest reference for all those who are dealing with the moral status of animals and related questions.

More information on the book can be found here.

Despite this book is written in german I address this to you because we know that there are a lot of german speaking visitors attending your blogs and this information might be interesting for them as well and because we want to show the English speaking world that Germany is catching up in the Animal Rights debate.

We would be pleased if you would support us by announcing the book in your Blog (Newsletters, Website etc.). We really appreciate it!

Thanks a lot!

Kind regards from Heidelberg, Germany

Matthias Müller
Interdisziplinäre Arbeitsgemeinschaft Tierethik
Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg
Deutschland

Jean Kazez

Here is a blog by one of my fellow graduate students at the University of Arizona. (I will add it to the blogroll.) Jean and I overlapped by one year: August 1987 (when she arrived in Tucson) to August 1988 (when I departed for College Station, Texas). Jean teaches philosophy just down the road from me at Southern Methodist University. Want to hear something weird? I mentioned Jean in my journal 20 years and four days ago (on 24 August 1987). I'm transcribing my journal to the computer in real time, 20 years after the fact; so four days ago I typed up the entry in which I mentioned Jean. She was new on campus at the time, so I got her name wrong. I called her "Jean Kazak." I have had no contact with Jean all these years, and today, out of the blue, she sent me an e-mail notifying me of a blog post about animals and telling me that she likes this blog. I hope I don't embarrass her by mentioning this.

Animals

Is there a morally relevant difference between hunting and dogfighting, such that only the latter is wrong? If there is no morally relevant difference between these activities, then either both are right or both are wrong. Which is it?

Addendum: Let me put it formally. The following propositions are inconsistent:

1. Hunting is morally acceptable.
2. Dogfighting is morally unacceptable.
3. There is no morally relevant difference between hunting and dogfighting.

Everyone must reject at least one of these propositions. Which do you reject?

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Virus Spreading Alarm and Deadly Pig Disease in China” (Business Day, Aug. 16):

Given our exportation of large-scale intensive confinement facilities, it is tragic, though not surprising, that disease is devastating the Chinese industry. With this industrialization often comes overcrowding, inadequate ventilation and related physiological stress—factors implicated as heightening the risk of disease outbreaks.

Though it may be too late for too many, we can only hope that diseased animals are not left in pain but are humanely euthanized to end their suffering.

In the long term, there is a glimmer of hope for China’s pigs. In 2005, a survey commissioned by the International Fund for Animal Welfare showed that the Chinese are similar to Americans in their concern for animals. Indeed, if public sympathy is changing in China regarding how we treat animals raised and killed for food, as it is here in the United States, then we can only expect future improvements in the welfare of farm animals.

Wayne Pacelle
President and Chief Executive, Humane Society of the United States
Washington, Aug. 16, 2007

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Suddenly, the Hunt Is On for Cage-Free Eggs” (front page, Aug. 12):

While this is a step in the right direction toward reducing the animal abuse inherent in all factory farming (from the chicken’s point of view), it’s still a long way from what nature intended.

Chickens enjoy being together in small flocks, sunning, dust bathing and scratching in the soil for food. The rooster watches over the flock protectively and often participates in a hen’s egg-laying ritual, an extremely important and private part of her life.

“Free range” does not solve the problem of painful debeaking, enormously oversized flocks or the unnatural isolation of the birds from other sexes and age groups.

Though chickens can live for 5 to 11 years, after two years, they are hauled away to slaughter just like battery-caged hens. All of the male hatchlings are either smothered or ground up alive.

Let chickens be chickens, and avoid the whole moral dilemma by going vegan.

Jean Bettanny
Port Townsend, Wash., Aug. 13, 2007

From the Mailbag

Dear Friends Who Love Animals,

I am writing to ask you to help me get the word out about a wonderful free service to your patrons/customers. Any links you can put up to our site will be helpful to them. Forwarding this email to any other people or groups who may be interested is also appreciated.

We are the Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains. We provide scriptural / spiritual support and free phone counseling to bereaved pet owners. Some of our professional Chaplains also provide other services (euthanasia visits, memorial services, congregational sermons, etc.) on a fee-for-service basis, while others perform them at no cost as part of their congregational ministry. Each Chaplain works independently to serve people and animals in need. To find Animal Chaplains in your area, go to our site at www.AnimalChaplains.com and click on "clergy list".

Our site also has many other free services, such as memorial readings, pet blessings, interfaith scriptural support, sermons on pet ownership, animal ministry support, guest book/blogs, etc. If you have a section of your website that assists your clients with pet loss support, we would appreciate being listed there. We thank-you for helping us to get the word out about the many free services available on AnimalChaplains.com to pet owners and the animals they love.

If we have corresponded before and you already have a link to our site, please forgive me for this duplicate email. Thank-you for the wonderful and important work you do.

Yours in peace and friendship,
Chaplain Nancy Cronk

From the Mailbag

Hello Keith, Mylan, and Jonathan

We stumbled across your very worthy site and read some recent posts . . . you have a very interesting blog! We’re going to go and have an in-depth look this morning, in the meantime, please take a look at our website.

It is an animated website aimed at educating and inspiring children about endangered species, and all of our characters actually exist in a real-life camp in Tanzania which protects black rhino and wild African hunting dogs . . . whilst employing a local workforce and improving school and water supplies for surrounding villages.

Unfortunately we cannot link to your site since ours is a protected safe site for children, but we would love to be included as one of your links.

Please have a look and let us know what you think!

Thanks so much—Amanda (one of the Dotty Humans)

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “An Ape Types in Iowa” (column, Aug. 9):

Gail Collins writes: “Human-ape conversation was a very hot topic back in the late 1960s, when researchers first taught a chimpanzee named Washoe to use sign language. It lost steam once it became clear that while the apes could put together simple statements and requests, they were not prepared to have discussions about their deepest feelings, hopes and dreams. The Great Ape Trust is the only place in America where this kind of research still goes on.”

In fact, the Language Research Center at Georgia State University has engaged in continuous social, cognitive and biobehavioral research on primates, including language training and research, since 1981. The bonobos at the Great Ape Trust learned their language skills at Georgia State and lived at the Language Research Center for two decades before moving to the Great Ape Trust in 1985.

Georgia State and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development still support language training and cognitive research with four chimpanzees, and do other cognitive research work with resident populations of macaques and rhesus monkeys.

Andria Simmons
Public Relations Coordinator
University Relations Dept.
Georgia State University
Atlanta, Aug. 10, 2007

Note from KBJ: By what right do we take these animals out of the wild? Please don't say that they were born in captivity. They're wild animals! They're not like dogs and cats, which evolved with humans. All of their natural urges are being frustrated. They are being deprived of their liberty. Wild animals should be left alone. They are not objects for our manipulation, study, or entertainment. If you're an alumnus of Georgia State University, please consider withholding your donations until this abominable research stops.

Bison

Buffalo meat is all the rage. See here.

Cage-Free Eggs

Here is a New York Times story about the latest hot thing.

Using Cows as a Mere Means to Their Ends

Here is a New York Times story about women who sacrifice cows on the altar of romance. What man wouldn't love a woman who's that shallow? I like the part about vegetarians being pretentious and neurotic. Could anything be more idiotic?

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

“A Factory Farm Near You” (editorial, July 31) is in a time warp.

Yes, concentrated animal feeding operations, or “factory farms” as you call them, are a key feature of modern agriculture. And, yes, they are increasing in number as farmers attempt to survive the challenges of modern global agricultural economics. But today these livestock operations don’t have to be unwelcome neighbors in their communities.

You did not mention the tremendous progress made in ensuring that these farms are environmentally sound. At least as far as hog farms are concerned, catastrophic manure spills are a thing of the past. In fact, the study cited in the editorial had to reach back eight years to 1999 to find a major environmental problem associated with hog farming.

America’s pork producers have met the environmental challenges and are proud of their achievements. The pork industry has acted on its own over the last decade to solve water-discharge problems and create top-shelf manure management systems. Producers like me are ready to comply with tough new Environmental Protection Agency regulations that protect the nation’s water supply, by adopting a policy of zero discharge into rivers and streams.

There are still challenges remaining, such as tackling the issue of unpleasant odors emanating from hog farms, and pork producers continue to address this issue. Recently they have invested millions of dollars into research conducted by Purdue University. But the progress of the last decade should not be ignored.

Jill Appell
President
National Pork Producers Council
East Altona, Ill., Aug. 1, 2007

One Mind at a Time

A reader sent a link to this column, which raises the perennial question of how best to change society. Resorting to violence against person or property is not in the long-term best interests of animals, as Peter Singer has argued. Those who break duly enacted laws should be punished. If they believe the law they've broken is unjust, they should take their punishment as a way of (1) demonstrating their sincerity and (2) opening a dialogue with those who disagree with them. This is what Martin Luther King Jr taught. It's called nonviolent civil disobedience. All of us are entitled to work within the political system to enact laws we believe just and to repeal or amend laws we believe unjust. All of us are entitled to spend our money in animal-friendly ways. (If you want, you can think of this as "punishing" those who use animals as resources.) I've been a proponent of animal rights for more than a quarter of a century. I am convinced that the best means of change, in the long run, is rational persuasion. Not force. Not coercion. Not manipulation. If you care about animals, as I do, you will work within the system to improve their lives. Yes, this will take time, for it means addressing individuals one by one, respectfully, showing that their own beliefs and values commit them (logically) to changing the way they treat animals. (See here for an example of this approach.) Nothing worth doing is quick, cheap, or easy. Think long-term. Do what's best for the animals, not what makes you feel good.

Addendum: In case you're wondering how a conservative such as me can support animal rights, I have just explained how. Conservatives are not opposed to change; that's a vicious progressive stereotype. They're opposed to exogenous change. Change that comes from within the system, practice, or institution, in response to the felt needs and desires of individuals, is perfectly acceptable to a conservative. Progressives, by contrast, seek to impose change from without. They are impatient with endogenous change. Another difference is that conservatives want change to be gradual, so that mistakes can be identified and corrected before they become disastrous. Progressives, by contrast, advocate abrupt change, which, while satisfying to those with an engineering mentality, is dangerous. It's interesting that when it comes to the environment, it's progressives who insist that, given the complexity and fragility of ecosystems, we should intervene cautiously, if at all. Society is every bit as complex and fragile as an ecosystem. Why should the same caution not apply there? In short, conservatives can and should work to change the way people treat animals. They should work within the political system to elect people who take animals seriously. They should work within the legal system to see that laws against abuse and neglect are enforced. They should spend their money in animal-friendly ways. Most importantly, they should engage in rational persuasion. I believe that rational persuasion is the most secure basis for change. You might say, cynically, that I believe this because I'm a philosopher. No. I'm a philosopher because I believe this.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

“Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?,” by Verlyn Klinkenborg (Editorial Observer, July 30), is right: “The rate at which dogs are purchased and euthanized in this country is not a sign of our affection for them. It’s a sign of our indifference.”

We’ve been educating, helping and begging people to spay and neuter their animals for years, but three million to four million cats and dogs still die in shelters every year because of simple math: too many animals, not enough worthy adoptive homes.

This crisis calls for mandatory spay and neuter legislation. Given the current dire shortage of homes, no breeding is responsible. Every time someone buys a puppy or kitten from a breeder, a shelter animal loses its chance at a home and pays with its life.

Breeders kill shelter animals’ chances to find good homes. It is time to practice your A B C’s (Animal Birth Control)! Animals aren’t possessions to use, abuse and throw away when we tire of them.

If people won’t be responsible for their animals on their own, it’s time to make carelessness criminal.

Daphna Nachminovitch
Norfolk, Va., July 31, 2007
The writer is the director of Domestic Animals and Wildlife Rescue & Information for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

“A Factory Farm Near You” (editorial, July 31) does not mention any issue of the morality of factory farming—treating living beings as factory products.

Cruelty to animals on such a scale should be the centerpiece of any discussion on raising animals for food. The problem is that there is no possible answer to why we allow such cruelty, other than that we are barbarians. Is that why we conveniently omit it from all discussion? Shame on us.

Mary de La Valette
Porter Cove, New Brunswick, July 31, 2007

Canine Inequality

In terms of welfare (i.e., overall well-being), there is great inequality among dogs. Some, such as my niece's Tag, are utterly spoiled. They have the best food money can buy, climate-controlled shelter, comfortable bedding, ample exercise, liberty to move about, toys to play with, and medical care (including control of parasites). Some dogs have their basic needs satisfied, but little more. Some, sadly, do not have their basic needs satisfied. (This latter category includes those that are abused.) Should we be concerned with this inequality? I don't see why we should. What we should be concerned with is not the gap between "rich" dogs and "poor" dogs, but the absolute welfare level of dogs. No dog should have its basic needs unsatisfied. Think of it as creating a floor below which no dog is allowed to fall. Once we create this floor, who cares whether some dogs are above it? Who cares that some dogs are spoiled when every dog has a decent life? Do you see the distinction I'm drawing? Inequality per se is morally irrelevant. What's important is welfare.

Now let's focus on human beings. Does anything change? It seems to me that it doesn't. One difference between human beings and dogs is that human beings can see how others live, can measure the gap between their own resources and those of others, and can envy those who have more. But why should any of this matter? Should we base public policy on envy? If people who have their basic needs satisfied are pained at the sight (or thought) of others who have more than they need, they have a problem; but it's not a problem for which there is a public solution. In other words, it's not a matter of justice. You hear a lot these days about the "gap" between rich and poor, and about how the gap is increasing rather than decreasing. How many of the poor for whom crocodile tears are being shed have their basic needs unsatisfied? How many are suffering for lack of food, fuel, shelter, clothing, or medical care? If any of them are, then we should be concerned with that, not with (1) how far they are from others or (2) whether they're getting farther from others.

Progressives (i.e., egalitarians) are trying to shift the debate from welfare to equality, because they know that, as regards human beings, they have lost the welfare argument. The best sign of this is the obesity epidemic among those at lower income levels. Far from having too little food, they have too much!

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

The real thrust of the American Kennel Club’s opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634 as stated in “Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?” (Editorial Observer, July 30) is not economic but rather that creating a one-size-fits-all law such as mandatory spay and neuter is not a workable, enforceable solution to reduce the diverse demographics of the state’s shelter population.

Lawmakers, animal control officers and animal welfare organizations need to work together and delve into the origins of shelter subgroups—such as stray, feral or surrendered pets—to address the issues that bring them to the shelter.

California’s shelter populations have declined in recent decades, and most pet owners (70 percent dog, 84 percent cat) are acting responsibly and spaying/neutering their pets without government involvement. Targeted programs that address specific segments of the companion animal population and broad public education programs have been and can continue to be effective.

Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications, American Kennel Club
New York, July 31, 2007