13 November 2006
What We Owe to Animals
The Center for Values and Social Policy at the University of Colorado at Boulder is sponsoring a debate (between David Barnett and Robert Hanna) about what we (humans) owe to animals. If you're in the area, you may want to attend. See here for details.
12 November 2006
Children and Heart Disease
According to this HealthDay News story, "Children with heart disease risk factors—obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol—already show indications of fatty build-up in their arteries that could cause heart attacks when they're adults." According to the story, the researchers found that "In many cases, children with heart disease risk factors showed early signs of atherosclerosis."
These findings are not new, but they do corroborate earlier findings. For example, in the revised and updated 7th edition of Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care (1998), Dr. Benjamin Spock and Dr. Steven Parker note that "The evidence in adults couldn’t be more compelling: excessive animal fat, cow’s milk, protein, and the high number of calories in the typical American diet have been linked to high cholesterol levels, coronary heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, and some cancers" (p. 327). They go on to note that "these diseases have their roots in childhood" (p. 327) and report that "Fatty deposits are now commonly found in the coronary arteries of children on a typical American diet by age three" (p. 327). Drs. Spock and Parker point out that by age 12, 70% of American children have plaque deposits in their coronary arteries and that by age 21 almost all young American adults have them (p. 327). Clearly, we are failing in this country where our children's health is concerned.
While the HealthDay News story doesn't provide much in the way of guidance to parents who would like to feed their children a heart-healthy, cancer-preventative diet, Dr. Spock provides that much-needed information. To curb the epidemic of atherosclerosis plaguing our country, Dr. Spock recommends feeding children over age 2 a plant-based diet devoid of meat, poultry, and dairy products (pp. 328-333). What should we be feeding our children? Again, according to Dr. Spock, we should be feeding them a diet centered around whole grains, green leafy vegetables and other vegetables, beans, fruits, nuts, and seeds (pp. 328-331). If you care about your children and want to help them avoid the scourges of coronary artery disease, stroke, diabetes, and some cancers, I encourage you to get a copy of Dr. Spock's enlightening book and read the chapter entitled "Raising Physically Healthy Children." Your children's future health is in your hands. As an added benefit, if you elect to eat that same plant-based diet, you will see health benefits as well.
This brings me to an idea that I borrow, with slight modification, from philosopher Peter Wenz [See his Environmental Ethics Today.]. The idea is that of synergistic ethics. According to synergistic ethics, when human beings simultaneously respect persons, animals, and the environment, typically all three benefit and we are left with a win, win, win situation. When humans stop eating animal products and instead eat a plant-based diet as described above, they will be consuming far less saturated fat and they will be consuming no dietary cholesterol whatsoever. As a result, they will greatly reduce their risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes (and all of its complications, including limb amputations), and some cancers. That is a significant human benefit. When we stop feeding meat and animal products to our children, their future health prospects improve dramatically. Another human benefit, and one we clearly owe our children. As more and more humans refrain from eating meat and other animal products, fewer and fewer animals will be subjected to the institutionalized cruelties inherent in factory farming and modern agribusiness. That is a significant benefit for the animals. If humans were to eat plant-foods directly, rather than cycle them through animals, we would need to grow far fewer crops [because, e.g., it takes 13 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef] and that would dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides and herbicides being pumped into our environment. A significant benefit for the environment. Eating grains directly would also significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, for according to David Pimentel, Professor of Insect Ecology and Agricultural Sciences at Cornell University, it takes an average of 28 kilocalories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 kilocalorie of animal protein, compared with 3.3 kilocalories of fossil energy to produce 1 kilocalorie of grain protein, making animal production on average more than 8 times less energy efficient than grain production. Pumping 8 times fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere would be another win for the environment, and one that would contribute to our national security to boot. The bottom line: We owe it to our children to do right by them and feed them an optimally-nutritious, heart-healthy, cancer-preventative plant-based diet as outlined above. Doing so will benefit our children, the animals, and the environment, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That is ethical synergy at work.
These findings are not new, but they do corroborate earlier findings. For example, in the revised and updated 7th edition of Dr. Spock's Baby and Child Care (1998), Dr. Benjamin Spock and Dr. Steven Parker note that "The evidence in adults couldn’t be more compelling: excessive animal fat, cow’s milk, protein, and the high number of calories in the typical American diet have been linked to high cholesterol levels, coronary heart disease, strokes, high blood pressure, diabetes, and some cancers" (p. 327). They go on to note that "these diseases have their roots in childhood" (p. 327) and report that "Fatty deposits are now commonly found in the coronary arteries of children on a typical American diet by age three" (p. 327). Drs. Spock and Parker point out that by age 12, 70% of American children have plaque deposits in their coronary arteries and that by age 21 almost all young American adults have them (p. 327). Clearly, we are failing in this country where our children's health is concerned.
While the HealthDay News story doesn't provide much in the way of guidance to parents who would like to feed their children a heart-healthy, cancer-preventative diet, Dr. Spock provides that much-needed information. To curb the epidemic of atherosclerosis plaguing our country, Dr. Spock recommends feeding children over age 2 a plant-based diet devoid of meat, poultry, and dairy products (pp. 328-333). What should we be feeding our children? Again, according to Dr. Spock, we should be feeding them a diet centered around whole grains, green leafy vegetables and other vegetables, beans, fruits, nuts, and seeds (pp. 328-331). If you care about your children and want to help them avoid the scourges of coronary artery disease, stroke, diabetes, and some cancers, I encourage you to get a copy of Dr. Spock's enlightening book and read the chapter entitled "Raising Physically Healthy Children." Your children's future health is in your hands. As an added benefit, if you elect to eat that same plant-based diet, you will see health benefits as well.
This brings me to an idea that I borrow, with slight modification, from philosopher Peter Wenz [See his Environmental Ethics Today.]. The idea is that of synergistic ethics. According to synergistic ethics, when human beings simultaneously respect persons, animals, and the environment, typically all three benefit and we are left with a win, win, win situation. When humans stop eating animal products and instead eat a plant-based diet as described above, they will be consuming far less saturated fat and they will be consuming no dietary cholesterol whatsoever. As a result, they will greatly reduce their risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes (and all of its complications, including limb amputations), and some cancers. That is a significant human benefit. When we stop feeding meat and animal products to our children, their future health prospects improve dramatically. Another human benefit, and one we clearly owe our children. As more and more humans refrain from eating meat and other animal products, fewer and fewer animals will be subjected to the institutionalized cruelties inherent in factory farming and modern agribusiness. That is a significant benefit for the animals. If humans were to eat plant-foods directly, rather than cycle them through animals, we would need to grow far fewer crops [because, e.g., it takes 13 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef] and that would dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides and herbicides being pumped into our environment. A significant benefit for the environment. Eating grains directly would also significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil, for according to David Pimentel, Professor of Insect Ecology and Agricultural Sciences at Cornell University, it takes an average of 28 kilocalories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 kilocalorie of animal protein, compared with 3.3 kilocalories of fossil energy to produce 1 kilocalorie of grain protein, making animal production on average more than 8 times less energy efficient than grain production. Pumping 8 times fewer greenhouse gases into the atmosphere would be another win for the environment, and one that would contribute to our national security to boot. The bottom line: We owe it to our children to do right by them and feed them an optimally-nutritious, heart-healthy, cancer-preventative plant-based diet as outlined above. Doing so will benefit our children, the animals, and the environment, while reducing our dependence on foreign oil. That is ethical synergy at work.
07 November 2006
A Vegan Ice Cream Paradise
If you like ice cream and care about animals, or if you like animals and care about ice cream, see here.
03 November 2006
30 October 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Meat Labels Hope to Lure the Sensitive Carnivore” (front page, Oct. 24):
Response to the introduction of “humanely raised” meat products is a good sign that consumers are finally starting to see through the veil erected by the factory farming industry to shield consumers from its behind-the-scenes cruelty.
The sad fact is that virtually no laws exist in the United States to govern the treatment of animals raised for food. The result has been a laundry list of institutionalized abuses—from 400-pound hogs crammed into two-foot-wide crates, to chickens packed five at a time into wire cages the size of a filing drawer.
Ten billion animals in the United States suffer these abuses each year. This fact, coupled with the uncertainty behind “humane” labeling, makes it clear that the best way to stop the suffering of animals remains to simply stop eating them.
Ariana Huemer
Oakland, Calif., Oct. 25, 2006
To the Editor:
For many who eat meat yet understand that there are ethical problems involved in where their food comes from, labeling is a serious business.
If farmed animals must give up their lives to feed people, those curtailed lives should at least be pleasant, not abusive, and their deaths painless.
Since the government does not ensure these animals’ quality of life, it should at least make sure that concerned meat eaters are not misled by the labels.
Miriam M. Reik
New York, Oct. 24, 2006
To the Editor:
Whole Foods has taken a huge step in the right direction by insisting on humanely raised animals. Unfortunately, these animals will very likely reach an inhumane end at the largely unregulated slaughterhouses, where the few federal standards on the books are rarely enforced.
The best course of action to ensure the humane treatment of our nonhuman animal friends? Go vegetarian.
Jane Shakman
Ossining, N.Y., Oct. 25, 2006
To the Editor:
For the past five years, the Animal Welfare Institute has had the privilege of working with Mike Jones, the North Carolina pig farmer you profile. He is one of our “animal welfare approved” farmers whose care and concern for his hogs provide an example for how animals, farmers and consumers can benefit from a return to humane farming practices.
A disturbing trend in the marketing of humane foods is one that our standards address head on: double-standard certification, where a label program rewards one animal product for adherence to so-called humane standards while permitting the bulk of animals in other product lines to be raised using cruel practices.
This allows agribusiness to maximize profits and control the market by displacing family farmers, like Mr. Jones, who raise all their animals according to high standards.
Consumers deserve to know which operations truly treat all of their animals well.
Cathy Liss
President
Animal Welfare Institute
Washington, Oct. 24, 2006
To the Editor:
“Certified humane,” “cage free” and “free farmed” are not mere marketing terms, designed to boost sales. In fact, they represent an effort by certain farmers to abandon the cruel practices of modern meat production.
Many consumers are seeking out certified humane meats because of the factory farm practices like crate confinement of veal calves; the foot lacerations and infections routinely suffered by chickens kept from birth to death in wire cages; the painful injuries suffered by cows and pigs forced to stand on concrete; and the large amounts of prophylactic antibiotics applied to tamp down the resulting constant infections.
You note the cutting off of tails (which are the only means by which cows can swat biting flies and scratch itches), but the suffering of animals goes on wholesale in the industrialized meat industry.
Consumers with a conscience will continue to seek out meats produced by methods we approve of, and Whole Foods should be commended for widening the availability of such ethical foods.
Jay Weinstein
New York, Oct. 24, 2006
The writer, a chef, is the author of a book about the humane production of food.
Re “Meat Labels Hope to Lure the Sensitive Carnivore” (front page, Oct. 24):
Response to the introduction of “humanely raised” meat products is a good sign that consumers are finally starting to see through the veil erected by the factory farming industry to shield consumers from its behind-the-scenes cruelty.
The sad fact is that virtually no laws exist in the United States to govern the treatment of animals raised for food. The result has been a laundry list of institutionalized abuses—from 400-pound hogs crammed into two-foot-wide crates, to chickens packed five at a time into wire cages the size of a filing drawer.
Ten billion animals in the United States suffer these abuses each year. This fact, coupled with the uncertainty behind “humane” labeling, makes it clear that the best way to stop the suffering of animals remains to simply stop eating them.
Ariana Huemer
Oakland, Calif., Oct. 25, 2006
To the Editor:
For many who eat meat yet understand that there are ethical problems involved in where their food comes from, labeling is a serious business.
If farmed animals must give up their lives to feed people, those curtailed lives should at least be pleasant, not abusive, and their deaths painless.
Since the government does not ensure these animals’ quality of life, it should at least make sure that concerned meat eaters are not misled by the labels.
Miriam M. Reik
New York, Oct. 24, 2006
To the Editor:
Whole Foods has taken a huge step in the right direction by insisting on humanely raised animals. Unfortunately, these animals will very likely reach an inhumane end at the largely unregulated slaughterhouses, where the few federal standards on the books are rarely enforced.
The best course of action to ensure the humane treatment of our nonhuman animal friends? Go vegetarian.
Jane Shakman
Ossining, N.Y., Oct. 25, 2006
To the Editor:
For the past five years, the Animal Welfare Institute has had the privilege of working with Mike Jones, the North Carolina pig farmer you profile. He is one of our “animal welfare approved” farmers whose care and concern for his hogs provide an example for how animals, farmers and consumers can benefit from a return to humane farming practices.
A disturbing trend in the marketing of humane foods is one that our standards address head on: double-standard certification, where a label program rewards one animal product for adherence to so-called humane standards while permitting the bulk of animals in other product lines to be raised using cruel practices.
This allows agribusiness to maximize profits and control the market by displacing family farmers, like Mr. Jones, who raise all their animals according to high standards.
Consumers deserve to know which operations truly treat all of their animals well.
Cathy Liss
President
Animal Welfare Institute
Washington, Oct. 24, 2006
To the Editor:
“Certified humane,” “cage free” and “free farmed” are not mere marketing terms, designed to boost sales. In fact, they represent an effort by certain farmers to abandon the cruel practices of modern meat production.
Many consumers are seeking out certified humane meats because of the factory farm practices like crate confinement of veal calves; the foot lacerations and infections routinely suffered by chickens kept from birth to death in wire cages; the painful injuries suffered by cows and pigs forced to stand on concrete; and the large amounts of prophylactic antibiotics applied to tamp down the resulting constant infections.
You note the cutting off of tails (which are the only means by which cows can swat biting flies and scratch itches), but the suffering of animals goes on wholesale in the industrialized meat industry.
Consumers with a conscience will continue to seek out meats produced by methods we approve of, and Whole Foods should be commended for widening the availability of such ethical foods.
Jay Weinstein
New York, Oct. 24, 2006
The writer, a chef, is the author of a book about the humane production of food.
29 October 2006
Feral Hogs
Here is a New York Times story about the hunting of wild pigs. Ceteris paribus, it's better (morally) to eat the flesh of a wild pig than it is to eat the flesh of a factory-farmed pig, since the latter suffers a great deal (more). I'm not saying it's right to eat the flesh of a wild pig; I'm saying it's better. I'm making a comparative claim. I'm pretty sure Peter Singer would agree with me (for what that's worth).
24 October 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
I have my students do actual dissections, not only because they get a sense of the difference in tissue textures, strength, smells and so on, but also to give them a sense of humility.
Dissections are hard to do; it’s easy to cut too deep or not deep enough, and it’s hard to tell organ from organ, let alone nerve from muscle. I think it is important that students recognize how much effort went into discovering what we know, and how much more they will need to learn.
Do the school districts that feel they cannot afford a chemistry lab or dissection kits feel the same way about their sports programs?
Nat Eddy
Deep River, Conn., Oct. 20, 2006
I have my students do actual dissections, not only because they get a sense of the difference in tissue textures, strength, smells and so on, but also to give them a sense of humility.
Dissections are hard to do; it’s easy to cut too deep or not deep enough, and it’s hard to tell organ from organ, let alone nerve from muscle. I think it is important that students recognize how much effort went into discovering what we know, and how much more they will need to learn.
Do the school districts that feel they cannot afford a chemistry lab or dissection kits feel the same way about their sports programs?
Nat Eddy
Deep River, Conn., Oct. 20, 2006
23 October 2006
From the Mailbag
Hi guys.
Have been reading your animal ethics blog. Really good stuff. I just noticed that M. Engel is a contributor—it was partly down to an Engel paper I read around 4 years ago that I began to take animal issues seriously!
Sorry to plug so blatantly, but I thought you might be interested in our site where we cover animal ethics fairly frequently; normally in the form of objections to the media and so on.
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
Ed Brown.
Have been reading your animal ethics blog. Really good stuff. I just noticed that M. Engel is a contributor—it was partly down to an Engel paper I read around 4 years ago that I began to take animal issues seriously!
Sorry to plug so blatantly, but I thought you might be interested in our site where we cover animal ethics fairly frequently; normally in the form of objections to the media and so on.
Thanks, and keep up the good work!
Ed Brown.
16 October 2006
Housekeeping
Now that Mylan Engel has joined this blog, I'm doing some things that I meant to do long ago. First, I alphabetized the blogroll. I haven't checked the links yet, but I will. Some of them may not work. If you'd like something to appear in the blogroll, send me a link and I'll take a look. The idea is to make this blog useful, both as a scholarly research tool and as a way for ordinary people (i.e., nonscholars) to learn about animal ethics. Second, I've begun compiling a chronological list of books on animal ethics. (See the sidebar.) For the time being, it's limited to books (i.e., monographs and anthologies). Perhaps later, when all the books in my personal collection have been listed, I'll expand it to include articles. If you're a publisher, editor, or author and would like a book listed, write to me. I may already have your book. If not, you can send it to me. The citations will conform to the Chicago Manual of Style—except that I will omit publication details. Thanks for visiting. I hope you come back on a regular basis. I also hope you tell your friends about this blog. Links are appreciated.
15 October 2006
Forty Grand
It's fitting that this blog just had its 40,000th visitor, because today the blog's membership increased 100%—from one to two. My longtime friend Mylan Engel, whom I've known for more than 20 years, joined the blog. (His first post appears immediately below this one.) Thanks for accepting my invitation, Mylan. To readers: Please don't expect Mylan (or me) to post on a regular basis. As you know, I haven't posted much in recent months. Mylan knows that he is free to post as often as he wants, but he's busy with scholarly work and other things, such as saving animals. Please check the blog from time to time to see whether anything new appears, and feel free to link to this blog on your own blog, if you have one. By the way, I enabled comments. I believe commenters have to register, and, most importantly, I believe I have to approve each comment before it appears. I will approve comments that (1) are civil and (2) advance the discussion of the moral status of nonhuman animals. If you came here to abuse Mylan or me, please leave—and don't come back.
Addendum: I'm pleased to see that typing "animal ethics" into Google brings up this blog as the first item.
Addendum: I'm pleased to see that typing "animal ethics" into Google brings up this blog as the first item.
"Disposable" Animals
Here is a story about Wade Pilloud, a school principal who shot and killed two orphaned kittens on school property in Indus, Minn.
Why is it that people in our society view animals as disposable? I suspect that part of the reason is they are conditioned to think that way from an early age. Pilloud claims that he shot the kittens to prevent them from suffering and starvation. Surely, there were ways to prevent these two kittens from suffering and/or starving to death other than shooting them to death. While the story doesn't provide details as to how old these kittens were, presumably they could have been hand fed and nursed out of infancy and then fostered out to good homes. Think about what a positive message saving these kittens would have sent to all of the kids in the school, namely, that animals' lives matter and ought to be respected. Unfortunately, the message that was actually sent to the students by this unthinking principal was that animals are disposable—that it is o.k. to kill them for convenience. When children see adults behaving that way, they come to think that such behavior is acceptable, and the cycle continues for another generation.
Sadly, the students probably learned another lesson as well: How to do the unspeakable—e.g., kill an innocent kitten—with a good conscience! The art of rationalization: "I didn't want those kittens to suffer." As if killing these kittens were the only possible way to prevent them from suffering and starving to death. It is one thing to kill a horribly injured animal to put her out of her misery. It's quite another to kill two healthy kittens whose mother was killed by a lethal animal trap. [One wonders why there was such a dangerous animal trap on or near the vicinity of the school in the first place.]
Another disturbing thing about the story is how the kittens themselves are almost entirely absent referents. Pilloud said, "the shooting endangered no one." Well, it certainly endangered the two kittens. But they are "no ones". They don't count. The people who were upset with Pilloud's actions don't seem to care that two innocent kittens were needlessly killed. They only seem worried that the shooting might have put children at risk. Again, the kittens are nearly invisible victims in the story. Also, look at the alleged crimes Pilloud is charged with: "felony possession of a firearm on school property" and "reckless discharge of a firearm." There is no suggestion that he be charged with "animal abuse". Once again, the victims are absent.
It is bad enough that two kittens had to needlessly lose their mother to a lethal animal trap [Such traps should be outlawed. Unfortunately, these traps remain legal because of the powerful fur industry lobby. If you don't want your companion animal to be killed by such a trap, boycott the fur industry and the companies who make these traps!]. It's even worse that these innocent kittens were rewarded for their first misfortune by being needlessly killed themselves.
It's doubtful that Pilloud will be convicted of any crime, and even if he is, it is doubtful that he will see any jail time. He did, however, receive a retirement settlement from the school district. So, in all likelihood, he will get to live out the rest of his life in comfortable surroundings. Unfortunately, the kittens no longer have that option.
Why is it that people in our society view animals as disposable? I suspect that part of the reason is they are conditioned to think that way from an early age. Pilloud claims that he shot the kittens to prevent them from suffering and starvation. Surely, there were ways to prevent these two kittens from suffering and/or starving to death other than shooting them to death. While the story doesn't provide details as to how old these kittens were, presumably they could have been hand fed and nursed out of infancy and then fostered out to good homes. Think about what a positive message saving these kittens would have sent to all of the kids in the school, namely, that animals' lives matter and ought to be respected. Unfortunately, the message that was actually sent to the students by this unthinking principal was that animals are disposable—that it is o.k. to kill them for convenience. When children see adults behaving that way, they come to think that such behavior is acceptable, and the cycle continues for another generation.
Sadly, the students probably learned another lesson as well: How to do the unspeakable—e.g., kill an innocent kitten—with a good conscience! The art of rationalization: "I didn't want those kittens to suffer." As if killing these kittens were the only possible way to prevent them from suffering and starving to death. It is one thing to kill a horribly injured animal to put her out of her misery. It's quite another to kill two healthy kittens whose mother was killed by a lethal animal trap. [One wonders why there was such a dangerous animal trap on or near the vicinity of the school in the first place.]
Another disturbing thing about the story is how the kittens themselves are almost entirely absent referents. Pilloud said, "the shooting endangered no one." Well, it certainly endangered the two kittens. But they are "no ones". They don't count. The people who were upset with Pilloud's actions don't seem to care that two innocent kittens were needlessly killed. They only seem worried that the shooting might have put children at risk. Again, the kittens are nearly invisible victims in the story. Also, look at the alleged crimes Pilloud is charged with: "felony possession of a firearm on school property" and "reckless discharge of a firearm." There is no suggestion that he be charged with "animal abuse". Once again, the victims are absent.
It is bad enough that two kittens had to needlessly lose their mother to a lethal animal trap [Such traps should be outlawed. Unfortunately, these traps remain legal because of the powerful fur industry lobby. If you don't want your companion animal to be killed by such a trap, boycott the fur industry and the companies who make these traps!]. It's even worse that these innocent kittens were rewarded for their first misfortune by being needlessly killed themselves.
It's doubtful that Pilloud will be convicted of any crime, and even if he is, it is doubtful that he will see any jail time. He did, however, receive a retirement settlement from the school district. So, in all likelihood, he will get to live out the rest of his life in comfortable surroundings. Unfortunately, the kittens no longer have that option.
14 October 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “‘It Was Love at First Sight,’ and So, Before Long, Benny Mason Got Hitched” (news article, Oct. 9):
Can there be any doubt that horses do not belong in the city? Life on the streets of Manhattan is miserable for these horses that have to pull oversized loads in heavy traffic, where they are constantly avoiding collisions with careless and impatient drivers, and in arduous weather conditions.
In the summer, they breathe in lung-searing exhaust fumes and plod along scorching asphalt. In the winter, they endure freezing temperatures.
It’s unfathomable that anyone can support these rides. How many dead horses and hospitalized people will it take before the City Council bans them?
Jennifer O’Connor
Norfolk, Va., Oct. 11, 2006
The writer, on the staff of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, writes for its Animals in Entertainment Campaign.
Re “‘It Was Love at First Sight,’ and So, Before Long, Benny Mason Got Hitched” (news article, Oct. 9):
Can there be any doubt that horses do not belong in the city? Life on the streets of Manhattan is miserable for these horses that have to pull oversized loads in heavy traffic, where they are constantly avoiding collisions with careless and impatient drivers, and in arduous weather conditions.
In the summer, they breathe in lung-searing exhaust fumes and plod along scorching asphalt. In the winter, they endure freezing temperatures.
It’s unfathomable that anyone can support these rides. How many dead horses and hospitalized people will it take before the City Council bans them?
Jennifer O’Connor
Norfolk, Va., Oct. 11, 2006
The writer, on the staff of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, writes for its Animals in Entertainment Campaign.
12 October 2006
09 October 2006
06 October 2006
Deontology for Humans, Consequentialism for Animals
Here is a sad story about animals who have been treated as mere means to human ends.
04 October 2006
James Griffin on Environmental Ethics
The history of ethics is a history of successive extensions of the boundaries of concern—from family to community, from community to humanity, from humanity to animals. What is now being attempted is a further extension to the environment. Will environmental ethics always see itself as constrained to find a link to someone’s interests? Our obligations to individual animals, as bearers of interests, tell us nothing about the respect that we may owe to their species—or, in general, to the environment. Environmental ethics is itself in its infancy, and may develop in either of two ways. We may be able to develop it by developing the resources of an already established ethical tradition. Or we may find that the problems it presents are so discontinuous with the concerns that shaped older ethics that we must develop quite new concepts, which would then have in some way to be tied in with our old ones. There have been distinguished attempts to follow the first course, but my guess is that in the end we shall have to follow the second. I suspect that we should see environmental ethics as a search for responses that are ‘fitting’ or ‘appropriate’. There are things in the environment—a virgin forest, say, or the ecosystem of a coral reef—to which the appropriate response is awe or wonder, and the appropriate behaviour is the behaviour that awe and wonder prompt. That there need be no interests at stake does not mean that there are no appropriate or inappropriate actions. It is probably better to speak, though, in terms of appropriate and inappropriate actions rather than in terms of forests’ having ‘rights’ and humans’ having ‘duties’ to them.
(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 126-7 [endnotes omitted])
(James Griffin, Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996], 126-7 [endnotes omitted])
25 September 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Leafy Green Sewage” (Op-Ed, Sept. 21):
Nina Plank [sic] speaks to a symptom of our addiction to industrial agriculture and our insistence on year-round availability of all foods.
We have not only shortchanged the lives and diets of the animals, but have also created a system that allows consumers to be vegetarians and still be poisoned by meat.
Traceability is critical, and the best way to ensure it is not through more government regulation and big business, but through stronger relationships with the individual farmers who grow our food.
Todd Wickstrom
Ann Arbor, Mich., Sept. 21, 2006
The writer is a co-founder of Heritage Foods USA.
Re “Leafy Green Sewage” (Op-Ed, Sept. 21):
Nina Plank [sic] speaks to a symptom of our addiction to industrial agriculture and our insistence on year-round availability of all foods.
We have not only shortchanged the lives and diets of the animals, but have also created a system that allows consumers to be vegetarians and still be poisoned by meat.
Traceability is critical, and the best way to ensure it is not through more government regulation and big business, but through stronger relationships with the individual farmers who grow our food.
Todd Wickstrom
Ann Arbor, Mich., Sept. 21, 2006
The writer is a co-founder of Heritage Foods USA.
21 September 2006
15 September 2006
14 September 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Venezuela’s Passion: Twisting the Tail of an Angry Beast” (news article, Sept. 10):
The use of animals for human entertainment is always disturbing and cruel, whether it is at a rodeo, a bullfight or the circus.
What this article describes, though, is truly horrendous. I cannot imagine the pain inflicted on this poor bull.
I hope that we as a species will realize someday that treating animals as not feeling pain has its repercussions.
In a very macho culture, this practice is surely the height of cowardice.
Who are really the angry beasts?
Nancy Correa
Wethersfield, Conn., Sept. 10, 2006
Re “Venezuela’s Passion: Twisting the Tail of an Angry Beast” (news article, Sept. 10):
The use of animals for human entertainment is always disturbing and cruel, whether it is at a rodeo, a bullfight or the circus.
What this article describes, though, is truly horrendous. I cannot imagine the pain inflicted on this poor bull.
I hope that we as a species will realize someday that treating animals as not feeling pain has its repercussions.
In a very macho culture, this practice is surely the height of cowardice.
Who are really the angry beasts?
Nancy Correa
Wethersfield, Conn., Sept. 10, 2006
13 September 2006
Peter Singer Unplugged
My friend Joe Culotta informs me that Peter Singer, who has been called "the dangerous philosopher," will be the guest on KCBI radio this afternoon at 5:00 Central Time. It's a Christian radio station, so the discussion should be interesting. (I don't know the topic, if there is one.) If you're in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, you can listen to the program by tuning your radio to 90.9 FM. If you're out of town, you can have it streamed via your computer. See here for details.
Addendum: I just listened to the entire one-hour radio program. Peter Singer did not appear; nor was there any mention of him. You got some 'splainin' to do, Joe! To those of you who relied on me to your detriment, I'm sorry.
Addendum: I just listened to the entire one-hour radio program. Peter Singer did not appear; nor was there any mention of him. You got some 'splainin' to do, Joe! To those of you who relied on me to your detriment, I'm sorry.
12 September 2006
Extremism in Defense of Liberty
One of my readers sent a link to this essay about animal-rights extremism.
11 September 2006
10 September 2006
Horses
The following propositions are inconsistent:
1. It is wrong to slaughter horses for human consumption.Nobody can accept all three of these propositions. Which do you reject?
2. It is not wrong to slaughter cows for human consumption.
3. There is no morally relevant difference between slaughtering horses for human consumption and slaughtering cows for human consumption.
08 September 2006
06 September 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Mark Derr’s criticism of Cesar Millan misses an essential point: Most dog owners and, unfortunately, most so-called dog trainers, are not behaviorists or animal ethologists. And most dog owners cannot afford to hire someone who will take weeks or months to train an unruly pet.
Mr. Millan’s formula of exercise, discipline and affection works on all but the most extreme cases because the dog is, first and foremost, an animal with needs that cannot be ignored.
Chief among these is the need for exercise, which in most families is also a need of the human members that goes unmet.
Exercise works wonders because it satisfies much of the natural need for play that can quickly turn to aggression if not fulfilled.
Many dog owners believe that they can love their dogs into good, companionable behavior, and become frustrated or frightened when that love proves inadequate to the task.
Mr. Derr’s point, that dominance is not the answer, simply ignores the more salient and central message of Cesar Millan’s method: that dogs, and people, need structure to feel secure.
Julie Shemitz
Sherman Oaks, Calif., Sept. 1, 2006
Mark Derr’s criticism of Cesar Millan misses an essential point: Most dog owners and, unfortunately, most so-called dog trainers, are not behaviorists or animal ethologists. And most dog owners cannot afford to hire someone who will take weeks or months to train an unruly pet.
Mr. Millan’s formula of exercise, discipline and affection works on all but the most extreme cases because the dog is, first and foremost, an animal with needs that cannot be ignored.
Chief among these is the need for exercise, which in most families is also a need of the human members that goes unmet.
Exercise works wonders because it satisfies much of the natural need for play that can quickly turn to aggression if not fulfilled.
Many dog owners believe that they can love their dogs into good, companionable behavior, and become frustrated or frightened when that love proves inadequate to the task.
Mr. Derr’s point, that dominance is not the answer, simply ignores the more salient and central message of Cesar Millan’s method: that dogs, and people, need structure to feel secure.
Julie Shemitz
Sherman Oaks, Calif., Sept. 1, 2006
04 September 2006
Crocodile Hunter
Can we learn something from this senseless death? Wild animals are not playthings. They do not exist to entertain humans; they are not resources for our use; and they most emphatically should not be captured, transported, and displayed (in zoos, carnivals, or circuses) for human amusement. We humans are one animal species among many on this planet. We do not own them or it. We must learn to live in peace with our fellow travelers. I liked Steve Irwin, and I'm sorry to hear of his premature death; but there's a moral here. Leave wild animals alone.
01 September 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Butterfly Kiss-Off,” by Jeffrey A. Lockwood (Op-Ed, Aug. 24):
The release of farmed butterflies into the environment risks serious harm to our wild butterflies, which play important roles as pollinators, early warning indicators of the state of the environment and natural nourishment for the human spirit.
Releasing farmed organisms into the environment can diminish the genetic fitness of and spread diseases to the wild populations. The farmed butterflies do not increase the number of butterflies (which is regulated by the availability of suitable habitat and the prevalence of diseases and predators), but can decrease the number of wild butterflies.
We do not expect that the Agriculture Department will soon ban “releasing” farm butterflies into the environment. But we believe that when people who buy farm butterflies and “release” them at weddings or after using them in schools learn that this harms wild butterflies and results in the abuse and death of the farmed butterflies, they will stop buying them.
Jeffrey Glassberg
President, North American Butterfly Association
Morristown, N.J., Aug. 24, 2006
Re “Butterfly Kiss-Off,” by Jeffrey A. Lockwood (Op-Ed, Aug. 24):
The release of farmed butterflies into the environment risks serious harm to our wild butterflies, which play important roles as pollinators, early warning indicators of the state of the environment and natural nourishment for the human spirit.
Releasing farmed organisms into the environment can diminish the genetic fitness of and spread diseases to the wild populations. The farmed butterflies do not increase the number of butterflies (which is regulated by the availability of suitable habitat and the prevalence of diseases and predators), but can decrease the number of wild butterflies.
We do not expect that the Agriculture Department will soon ban “releasing” farm butterflies into the environment. But we believe that when people who buy farm butterflies and “release” them at weddings or after using them in schools learn that this harms wild butterflies and results in the abuse and death of the farmed butterflies, they will stop buying them.
Jeffrey Glassberg
President, North American Butterfly Association
Morristown, N.J., Aug. 24, 2006
31 August 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Butterfly Kiss-Off,” by Jeffrey A. Lockwood (Op-Ed, Aug. 24):
I used to work in a kindergarten classroom in which the teacher ordered a butterfly kit. Yes, the kids loved it and were mesmerized at the sight of two butterflies that emerged unharmed from their cocoons.
Unfortunately, two other cocoons fell from their protective string at the top of the box. The butterflies emerged with broken wings, unable to fly. When the teacher released all four butterflies outside to fend for themselves, the uninjured ones fluttered off. But I knew the other two would meet a certain death.
I took the injured pair home to my backyard. I had to physically put them on the plants a few times a day so that they could get their nourishment. They lived out their short lives, uneaten by predators.
This “experiment” proved to me that butterfly kits are extremely fragile. Too often, they go to inappropriate areas and to people unequipped to take proper care of them.
If teachers want to teach the real “circle of life,” they should take the kids outside to find caterpillars native to their area and set up a habitat conducive to that species of butterfly.
Donna Dixon
Woodbridge, Va., Aug. 24, 2006
Re “Butterfly Kiss-Off,” by Jeffrey A. Lockwood (Op-Ed, Aug. 24):
I used to work in a kindergarten classroom in which the teacher ordered a butterfly kit. Yes, the kids loved it and were mesmerized at the sight of two butterflies that emerged unharmed from their cocoons.
Unfortunately, two other cocoons fell from their protective string at the top of the box. The butterflies emerged with broken wings, unable to fly. When the teacher released all four butterflies outside to fend for themselves, the uninjured ones fluttered off. But I knew the other two would meet a certain death.
I took the injured pair home to my backyard. I had to physically put them on the plants a few times a day so that they could get their nourishment. They lived out their short lives, uneaten by predators.
This “experiment” proved to me that butterfly kits are extremely fragile. Too often, they go to inappropriate areas and to people unequipped to take proper care of them.
If teachers want to teach the real “circle of life,” they should take the kids outside to find caterpillars native to their area and set up a habitat conducive to that species of butterfly.
Donna Dixon
Woodbridge, Va., Aug. 24, 2006
Reform or Abolition?
Here, courtesy of Khursh Mian Acevedo, is an essay by Peter Singer and Bruce Friedrich, who argue for the reform of factory farms. Some people, such as law professor Gary Francione, think that reform is counterproductive, in that it entrenches the idea that animals exist for human consumption. If we entrench this idea, they argue, it will make abolition—which everyone agrees is the ideal state—more rather than less difficult.
26 August 2006
25 August 2006
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Defying Law, a Foie Gras Feast in Chicago” (news article, Aug. 23):
Given Chicago restaurateurs’ juvenile reaction to the ban on foie gras, I have to wonder if they would go out and kick stray dogs if lawmakers passed legislation intended to protect homeless animals.
People are not permitted to engage in many actions that cause others to suffer—robbery, rape, property destruction, and so on. The foie gras ban is not fundamentally different because it is intended to prevent suffering in animals.
It should not be ignored simply because some people like the way foie gras tastes.
Ducks, like other animals, deserve protection, too.
Nedim C. Buyukmihci
Dilley, Tex., Aug. 23, 2006
The writer is emeritus professor of veterinary medicine, University of California at Davis.
To the Editor:
I wonder why journalists almost never point out, when they note that ducks are missing a gag reflex, the additional and very important fact that ducks feed their young by sticking beaks down their throats.
This would lead to the question, “In what way would a duck interpret the way it is being fed for foie gras as a bad thing, given that it is fed this way from birth?”
Visits to foie gras farms in the United States show that the ducks are well treated, clean and otherwise live natural lives—in heavy contrast to many chickens, cows, turkey, non-grass-fed beef, farmed fish and so on.
Given that ducks receive perhaps the gentlest of all animal treatment in the food world, the derision of foie gras is perplexing.
Ann Evans
Brooklyn, Aug. 23, 2006
To the Editor:
As a dietitian, I am concerned with some Chicago restaurateurs’ idea of culinary rebellion. The foie gras ban is in effect because of animal cruelty issues, but people should also consider the health consequences of consuming this fatty product.
Foie gras derives approximately 85 percent of its calories from fat and contains a whopping dose of cholesterol. Fat and cholesterol are two things no one needs more of—especially the residents of Chicago, one of the fattest cities in the United States, where rates of childhood obesity are soaring.
This is a good time to celebrate that one less unhealthful food will be offered, as opposed to the “sticking it to the man” attitude.
Susan Levin
Washington, Aug. 23, 2006
Re “Defying Law, a Foie Gras Feast in Chicago” (news article, Aug. 23):
Given Chicago restaurateurs’ juvenile reaction to the ban on foie gras, I have to wonder if they would go out and kick stray dogs if lawmakers passed legislation intended to protect homeless animals.
People are not permitted to engage in many actions that cause others to suffer—robbery, rape, property destruction, and so on. The foie gras ban is not fundamentally different because it is intended to prevent suffering in animals.
It should not be ignored simply because some people like the way foie gras tastes.
Ducks, like other animals, deserve protection, too.
Nedim C. Buyukmihci
Dilley, Tex., Aug. 23, 2006
The writer is emeritus professor of veterinary medicine, University of California at Davis.
To the Editor:
I wonder why journalists almost never point out, when they note that ducks are missing a gag reflex, the additional and very important fact that ducks feed their young by sticking beaks down their throats.
This would lead to the question, “In what way would a duck interpret the way it is being fed for foie gras as a bad thing, given that it is fed this way from birth?”
Visits to foie gras farms in the United States show that the ducks are well treated, clean and otherwise live natural lives—in heavy contrast to many chickens, cows, turkey, non-grass-fed beef, farmed fish and so on.
Given that ducks receive perhaps the gentlest of all animal treatment in the food world, the derision of foie gras is perplexing.
Ann Evans
Brooklyn, Aug. 23, 2006
To the Editor:
As a dietitian, I am concerned with some Chicago restaurateurs’ idea of culinary rebellion. The foie gras ban is in effect because of animal cruelty issues, but people should also consider the health consequences of consuming this fatty product.
Foie gras derives approximately 85 percent of its calories from fat and contains a whopping dose of cholesterol. Fat and cholesterol are two things no one needs more of—especially the residents of Chicago, one of the fattest cities in the United States, where rates of childhood obesity are soaring.
This is a good time to celebrate that one less unhealthful food will be offered, as opposed to the “sticking it to the man” attitude.
Susan Levin
Washington, Aug. 23, 2006
22 August 2006
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:
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]
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]
21 August 2006
19 August 2006
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
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
15 August 2006
13 August 2006
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
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
11 August 2006
09 August 2006
Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary
The good folks at Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary have started a blog, which I will add to the blogroll.
05 August 2006
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?
01 August 2006
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.
31 July 2006
21 July 2006
18 July 2006
15 July 2006
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.
[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.
05 July 2006
29 June 2006
28 June 2006
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
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
27 June 2006
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!
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!
23 June 2006
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.
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.
18 June 2006
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."
12 June 2006
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?
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?
10 June 2006
06 June 2006
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.
04 June 2006
02 June 2006
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
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
29 May 2006
23 May 2006
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
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
22 May 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!)
11 May 2006
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
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
10 May 2006
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
08 May 2006
04 May 2006
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
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
26 April 2006
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.
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.
24 April 2006
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.
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.
23 April 2006
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
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
21 April 2006
19 April 2006
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
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
16 April 2006
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"
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"
12 April 2006
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).Read the essay carefully and choose wisely.
2. Reject a premise.
3. Accept the conclusion.
10 April 2006
06 April 2006
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
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
04 April 2006
02 April 2006
01 April 2006
29 March 2006
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
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
28 March 2006
27 March 2006
26 March 2006
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.
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.
23 March 2006
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
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
22 March 2006
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.)
20 March 2006
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.
15 March 2006
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
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
11 March 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.
10 March 2006
Cholesterol
I lifted the following from the website of the American Heart Association:
Your total blood cholesterol levelI 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.
Your total blood cholesterol will fall into one of these categories:Desirable—Less than 200 mg/dLHere is some more explanation about each of these categories.
Borderline high risk—200–239 mg/dL
High risk—240 mg/dL and over
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.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.
Your HDL is less than 40 mg/dL.
You don’t have other risk factors for heart disease.
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.
03 March 2006
Chimpanzee Society
Because individual interests diverge, conflict is inevitable. Because individual interests converge, cooperation is possible. See here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
