In terms of welfare (i.e., overall well-being), there is great inequality among dogs. Some, such as my niece's Tag, are utterly spoiled. They have the best food money can buy, climate-controlled shelter, comfortable bedding, ample exercise, liberty to move about, toys to play with, and medical care (including control of parasites). Some dogs have their basic needs satisfied, but little more. Some, sadly, do not have their basic needs satisfied. (This latter category includes those that are abused.) Should we be concerned with this inequality? I don't see why we should. What we should be concerned with is not the gap between "rich" dogs and "poor" dogs, but the absolute welfare level of dogs. No dog should have its basic needs unsatisfied. Think of it as creating a floor below which no dog is allowed to fall. Once we create this floor, who cares whether some dogs are above it? Who cares that some dogs are spoiled when every dog has a decent life? Do you see the distinction I'm drawing? Inequality per se is morally irrelevant. What's important is welfare.
Now let's focus on human beings. Does anything change? It seems to me that it doesn't. One difference between human beings and dogs is that human beings can see how others live, can measure the gap between their own resources and those of others, and can envy those who have more. But why should any of this matter? Should we base public policy on envy? If people who have their basic needs satisfied are pained at the sight (or thought) of others who have more than they need, they have a problem; but it's not a problem for which there is a public solution. In other words, it's not a matter of justice. You hear a lot these days about the "gap" between rich and poor, and about how the gap is increasing rather than decreasing. How many of the poor for whom crocodile tears are being shed have their basic needs unsatisfied? How many are suffering for lack of food, fuel, shelter, clothing, or medical care? If any of them are, then we should be concerned with that, not with (1) how far they are from others or (2) whether they're getting farther from others.
Progressives (i.e., egalitarians) are trying to shift the debate from welfare to equality, because they know that, as regards human beings, they have lost the welfare argument. The best sign of this is the obesity epidemic among those at lower income levels. Far from having too little food, they have too much!
04 August 2007
03 August 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
The real thrust of the American Kennel Club’s opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634 as stated in “Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?” (Editorial Observer, July 30) is not economic but rather that creating a one-size-fits-all law such as mandatory spay and neuter is not a workable, enforceable solution to reduce the diverse demographics of the state’s shelter population.
Lawmakers, animal control officers and animal welfare organizations need to work together and delve into the origins of shelter subgroups—such as stray, feral or surrendered pets—to address the issues that bring them to the shelter.
California’s shelter populations have declined in recent decades, and most pet owners (70 percent dog, 84 percent cat) are acting responsibly and spaying/neutering their pets without government involvement. Targeted programs that address specific segments of the companion animal population and broad public education programs have been and can continue to be effective.
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications, American Kennel Club
New York, July 31, 2007
The real thrust of the American Kennel Club’s opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634 as stated in “Should Most Pet Owners Be Required to Neuter Their Animals?” (Editorial Observer, July 30) is not economic but rather that creating a one-size-fits-all law such as mandatory spay and neuter is not a workable, enforceable solution to reduce the diverse demographics of the state’s shelter population.
Lawmakers, animal control officers and animal welfare organizations need to work together and delve into the origins of shelter subgroups—such as stray, feral or surrendered pets—to address the issues that bring them to the shelter.
California’s shelter populations have declined in recent decades, and most pet owners (70 percent dog, 84 percent cat) are acting responsibly and spaying/neutering their pets without government involvement. Targeted programs that address specific segments of the companion animal population and broad public education programs have been and can continue to be effective.
Lisa Peterson
Director of Club Communications, American Kennel Club
New York, July 31, 2007
31 July 2007
Factory Farming
Here is a New York Times editorial opinion about factory farming. I have added the Factory Farm Map to the blogroll.
From the Mailbag
Hello,
My name is Chad and I am working with the easy-to-understand explanations web site HowStuffWorks.com. The site recently posted a section called “How Dog Fighting Works” in response to the Michael Vick court case. “How Dog Fighting Works” is a look into the illegal sport of dog fighting and gives readers information on the issues and its effects. Also readers can find other information on the history of the sport, dog fighting laws, and links to other articles about dogs and pet care. You can find the article here. I think it would be great if you could link this website on your blog so that your readers can get more information on this topic.
Thanks,
Chad Davis
My name is Chad and I am working with the easy-to-understand explanations web site HowStuffWorks.com. The site recently posted a section called “How Dog Fighting Works” in response to the Michael Vick court case. “How Dog Fighting Works” is a look into the illegal sport of dog fighting and gives readers information on the issues and its effects. Also readers can find other information on the history of the sport, dog fighting laws, and links to other articles about dogs and pet care. You can find the article here. I think it would be great if you could link this website on your blog so that your readers can get more information on this topic.
Thanks,
Chad Davis
30 July 2007
W. D. Ross (1877-1971) on Animal Rights
A general discussion of right or duty would hardly be complete without some discussion, even if only a brief one, of the closely related subject of rights. It is commonly said that rights and duties are correlative, and it is worth while to inquire whether and, if at all, in what sense this is true. The statement may stand for any one, or any combination, of the following logically independent statements:
Of these four propositions the first appears to be unquestionably true; a right in one being against another is a right to treat or be treated by that other in a certain way, and this plainly implies a duty for the other to behave in a certain way. But there is a certain consideration which throws doubt on the other three propositions. This arises from the fact that we have duties to animals and to infants. The latter case is complicated by the fact that infants, while they are not (so we commonly believe) actual moral agents, are potential moral agents, so that the duty of parents, for instance, to support them may be said to be counterbalanced by a duty which is not incumbent on the infants at the time but will be incumbent on them later, to obey and care for their parents. We had better therefore take the less complicated case of animals, which we commonly suppose not to be even potential moral agents.
It may of course be denied that we have duties to animals. The view held by some writers is that we have duties concerning animals but not to them, the theory being that we have a duty to behave humanely to our fellow men, and that we should behave humanely to animals simply for fear of creating a disposition in ourselves which will make us tend to be cruel to our fellow men. Professor D. G. Ritchie, for instance, implies that we have not a duty to animals except in a sense like that in which the owner of an historic house may be said to have a duty to the house. Now the latter sense is, I suppose, purely metaphorical. We may in a fanciful mood think of a noble house as if it were a conscious being having feelings which we are bound to respect. But we do not really think that it has them. I suppose that the duty of the owner of an historic house is essentially a duty to his contemporaries and to posterity; and he may also think it is a duty to his ancestors. On the other hand, if we think we ought to behave in a certain way to animals, it is out of consideration primarily for their feelings that we think we ought to behave so; we do not think of them merely as a practising-ground for virtue. It is because we think their pain a bad thing that we think we should not gratuitously cause it. And I suppose that to say we have a duty to so-and-so is the same thing as to say that we have a duty, grounded on facts relating to them, to behave in a certain way towards them.
Now if we have a duty to animals, and they have not a duty to us (which seems clear, since they are not moral agents), the first and last of our four propositions cannot both be true, since (4) implies that a duty of men to animals involves a right of men against animals, and (1) implies that this involves a duty of animals to men, and therefore (4) and (1) together imply that a duty of men to animals involves a duty of animals to men. And since the first proposition is clearly true, the fourth must be false; it cannot be true that a duty of A to B necessarily involves a right of A against B. Similarly, the second and third propositions cannot both be true; for (2) and (3) taken together imply that a duty of men to animals involves a duty of animals to men. But here it is not so clear which of the two propositions is true; for it is not clear whether we should say that though we have a duty to animals they have no right against us, or that though they have a right against us they have no duty to us. If we take the first view, we are implying that in order to have rights, just as much as in order to have duties, it is necessary to be a moral agent. If we take the second view, we are implying that while only moral agents have duties, the possession of a nature capable of feeling pleasure and pain is all that is needed in order to have rights. It is not at all clear which is the true view. On the whole, since we mean by a right something that can be justly claimed, we should probably say that animals have not rights, not because the claim to humane treatment would not be just if it were made, but because they cannot make it. But the doubt which we here find about the application of the term 'rights' is characteristic of the term. There are other ways too in which its application is doubtful. Even if we hold that it is our duty not merely to do what is just to others but to promote their welfare beyond what justice requires, it is not at all clear that we should say they have a right to beneficent treatment over and above what is just. We have a tendency to think that not every duty incumbent on one person involves a right in another.
(W. D. Ross, The Right and the Good [1930; repr., Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1988], 48-50 [italics in original; footnote omitted])
(1) A right of A against B implies a duty of B to A.What is asserted in (1) is that A's having a right to have a certain individual act done to him by B implies a duty for B to do that act to A; (2) asserts the converse implication; what is meant by (3) is that A's having a right to have a certain act done to him by B implies a duty for A to do another act to B, which act may be either a similar act (as where the right of having the truth told to one implies the duty of telling the truth) or a different sort of act (as where the right to obedience implies the duty of governing well); (4) asserts the converse implication.
(2) A duty of B to A implies a right of A against B.
(3) A right of A against B implies a duty of A to B.
(4) A duty of A to B implies a right of A against B.
Of these four propositions the first appears to be unquestionably true; a right in one being against another is a right to treat or be treated by that other in a certain way, and this plainly implies a duty for the other to behave in a certain way. But there is a certain consideration which throws doubt on the other three propositions. This arises from the fact that we have duties to animals and to infants. The latter case is complicated by the fact that infants, while they are not (so we commonly believe) actual moral agents, are potential moral agents, so that the duty of parents, for instance, to support them may be said to be counterbalanced by a duty which is not incumbent on the infants at the time but will be incumbent on them later, to obey and care for their parents. We had better therefore take the less complicated case of animals, which we commonly suppose not to be even potential moral agents.
It may of course be denied that we have duties to animals. The view held by some writers is that we have duties concerning animals but not to them, the theory being that we have a duty to behave humanely to our fellow men, and that we should behave humanely to animals simply for fear of creating a disposition in ourselves which will make us tend to be cruel to our fellow men. Professor D. G. Ritchie, for instance, implies that we have not a duty to animals except in a sense like that in which the owner of an historic house may be said to have a duty to the house. Now the latter sense is, I suppose, purely metaphorical. We may in a fanciful mood think of a noble house as if it were a conscious being having feelings which we are bound to respect. But we do not really think that it has them. I suppose that the duty of the owner of an historic house is essentially a duty to his contemporaries and to posterity; and he may also think it is a duty to his ancestors. On the other hand, if we think we ought to behave in a certain way to animals, it is out of consideration primarily for their feelings that we think we ought to behave so; we do not think of them merely as a practising-ground for virtue. It is because we think their pain a bad thing that we think we should not gratuitously cause it. And I suppose that to say we have a duty to so-and-so is the same thing as to say that we have a duty, grounded on facts relating to them, to behave in a certain way towards them.
Now if we have a duty to animals, and they have not a duty to us (which seems clear, since they are not moral agents), the first and last of our four propositions cannot both be true, since (4) implies that a duty of men to animals involves a right of men against animals, and (1) implies that this involves a duty of animals to men, and therefore (4) and (1) together imply that a duty of men to animals involves a duty of animals to men. And since the first proposition is clearly true, the fourth must be false; it cannot be true that a duty of A to B necessarily involves a right of A against B. Similarly, the second and third propositions cannot both be true; for (2) and (3) taken together imply that a duty of men to animals involves a duty of animals to men. But here it is not so clear which of the two propositions is true; for it is not clear whether we should say that though we have a duty to animals they have no right against us, or that though they have a right against us they have no duty to us. If we take the first view, we are implying that in order to have rights, just as much as in order to have duties, it is necessary to be a moral agent. If we take the second view, we are implying that while only moral agents have duties, the possession of a nature capable of feeling pleasure and pain is all that is needed in order to have rights. It is not at all clear which is the true view. On the whole, since we mean by a right something that can be justly claimed, we should probably say that animals have not rights, not because the claim to humane treatment would not be just if it were made, but because they cannot make it. But the doubt which we here find about the application of the term 'rights' is characteristic of the term. There are other ways too in which its application is doubtful. Even if we hold that it is our duty not merely to do what is just to others but to promote their welfare beyond what justice requires, it is not at all clear that we should say they have a right to beneficent treatment over and above what is just. We have a tendency to think that not every duty incumbent on one person involves a right in another.
(W. D. Ross, The Right and the Good [1930; repr., Indianapolis/Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company, 1988], 48-50 [italics in original; footnote omitted])
Mandatory Sterilization
Should there be a law that mandates spaying and neutering of dogs and cats? See here for Verlyn Klinkenborg's column.
29 July 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “States Try to Weigh Safety With Dog Owners’ Rights” (news article, July 23):
Any law that deems a dog as dangerous or vicious based on appearance, breed or phenotype is unfair and discriminatory. Canine temperaments are widely varied, and behavior cannot be predicted by physical features. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
As an organization comprising dog trainers, behaviorists and other animal professionals, the Association of Pet Dog Trainers is aware that any dog can bite, any dog can maim and any dog can kill. A dangerous or vicious dog is a product of a combination of individual genetics, upbringing, socialization and lack of proper training.
Designating certain breeds as inherently dangerous implies to the public that behavior is not effectively influenced (positively or negatively), by training, and also encourages the faulty perception of other breeds as being inherently safe.
The solution to preventing dog bites is the education of owners, breeders and the general public about aggression prevention through selection, socialization and training.
Richard Spencer
Executive Director, Association of Pet Dog Trainers
Greenville, S.C., July 24, 2007
Note from KBJ: Pit bulls and Rottweilers account for the vast majority of dog bites, including the most serious ones. See here. Are we to ignore this fact in order to avoid the charge of "discrimination"? It seems to me that discrimination against pit bulls and Rottweilers is eminently justified.
Re “States Try to Weigh Safety With Dog Owners’ Rights” (news article, July 23):
Any law that deems a dog as dangerous or vicious based on appearance, breed or phenotype is unfair and discriminatory. Canine temperaments are widely varied, and behavior cannot be predicted by physical features. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
As an organization comprising dog trainers, behaviorists and other animal professionals, the Association of Pet Dog Trainers is aware that any dog can bite, any dog can maim and any dog can kill. A dangerous or vicious dog is a product of a combination of individual genetics, upbringing, socialization and lack of proper training.
Designating certain breeds as inherently dangerous implies to the public that behavior is not effectively influenced (positively or negatively), by training, and also encourages the faulty perception of other breeds as being inherently safe.
The solution to preventing dog bites is the education of owners, breeders and the general public about aggression prevention through selection, socialization and training.
Richard Spencer
Executive Director, Association of Pet Dog Trainers
Greenville, S.C., July 24, 2007
Note from KBJ: Pit bulls and Rottweilers account for the vast majority of dog bites, including the most serious ones. See here. Are we to ignore this fact in order to avoid the charge of "discrimination"? It seems to me that discrimination against pit bulls and Rottweilers is eminently justified.
28 July 2007
Another Leap Forward for Mankind
Science per se is neither good nor bad. It all depends on how it is used. What do you think of this use?
25 July 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
“For ‘Animal Precinct,’ Reality Subject to Dispute” (news article, July 23) missed the entire point of comprehensive animal welfare: that effective animal welfare requires both response and prevention. Response is what our humane law enforcement officers do; the prevention aspect is then taken care of by the other resources of the A.S.P.C.A., be they medical, behavioral, placement or training and education so that, in the long run, the cycle of cruelty to animals is broken.
The real story here is our tireless commitment to fighting animal cruelty. We constantly stretch our limited resources to save lives as a nonprofit organization. We would welcome greater public support for our programs, which set a shining example for animal welfare across the nation.
Edwin Sayres
President and Chief Executive
A.S.P.C.A.
New York, July 23, 2007
“For ‘Animal Precinct,’ Reality Subject to Dispute” (news article, July 23) missed the entire point of comprehensive animal welfare: that effective animal welfare requires both response and prevention. Response is what our humane law enforcement officers do; the prevention aspect is then taken care of by the other resources of the A.S.P.C.A., be they medical, behavioral, placement or training and education so that, in the long run, the cycle of cruelty to animals is broken.
The real story here is our tireless commitment to fighting animal cruelty. We constantly stretch our limited resources to save lives as a nonprofit organization. We would welcome greater public support for our programs, which set a shining example for animal welfare across the nation.
Edwin Sayres
President and Chief Executive
A.S.P.C.A.
New York, July 23, 2007
From the Mailbag
Hey there-
I thought you might be interested in letting your readers know about the site we just created to start an organized boycott of Nike until they drop Vick's lucrative endorsement deal.
What Vick did to those dogs is sickening, and the fact that Nike continues to sell products with Vick's name is even more disgusting.
We just launched the site this afternoon and are hoping it will really take off.
Let me know if you would like any more information or if you think you could post something on this.
thanks,
rusty trump
I thought you might be interested in letting your readers know about the site we just created to start an organized boycott of Nike until they drop Vick's lucrative endorsement deal.
What Vick did to those dogs is sickening, and the fact that Nike continues to sell products with Vick's name is even more disgusting.
We just launched the site this afternoon and are hoping it will really take off.
Let me know if you would like any more information or if you think you could post something on this.
thanks,
rusty trump
24 July 2007
Rattus Rattus
23 July 2007
From the Mailbag
To whom it may concern,
Please consider posting a link on your Web site to this Orange County Register Morning Read story on feral cats that are taught to be good citizens by being cared for by foster families.
Julie Anne Ines
News Assistant
Orange County Register
Please consider posting a link on your Web site to this Orange County Register Morning Read story on feral cats that are taught to be good citizens by being cared for by foster families.
Julie Anne Ines
News Assistant
Orange County Register
19 July 2007
It's Back! The Horror of Horse Slaughter in DeKalb
Think of your favorite horror film: A brutal ruthless killer is on the loose, slashing hapless innocent victims to death right and left. After witnessing hours if not days of senseless killing, someone finally musters the courage to take on the killer and delivers what has to be a devastating blow. The vicious villain has finally been destroyed, once and for all. We relax and let out a sigh of relief, and just as we let our guard down, the wicked monster suddenly reemerges (from the flames or the lake or the bathtub or the earth itself) to kill again and again.
In DeKalb, Illinois, that monster is Cavel International, the only remaining plant in the U.S. that slaughters horses for human consumption. Since it is illegal to sell horse meat for human consumption in the U.S., you might wonder how it is that Cavel has been able to brutally slaughter horses for human consumption right here in the U.S. The answer is the proverbial loophole. One can't kill horses for human consumption within the U.S., but that leaves open the possibility of slaughtering horses for human consumption abroad. Cavel, a Belgian company, kills horses in Illinois for export to Europe.
In response to citizen outrage over horses being slaughtered in Illinois, the Illinois legislature decided to tie off the loophole for good by passing House Bill 1711. This bill amends the Illinois Horse Meat Act by banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption and also banning the possession, import or export of horse meat for human consumption. On May 24, Governor Rod Blagojevich signed the bill into law. Finally, the vicious killer, Cavel International, would have to close its doors for good. Illinoisans breathed a collective sigh of relief.
But with millions of dollars on the line, the killer Cavel wouldn't be dispatched so easily. Less than 24 hours later, Cavel was back—this time in court seeking an injunction to prevent the new law from taking effect on the grounds that it interferes with international commerce. [Apparently, Belgian citizens must have a say regarding what businesses can be engaged in in the state of Illinois!] Numerous court motions and counter-motions ensued. [A timeline of these legal proceedings is available here.] Then, on July 5, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Kapala ruled that the new law was constitutional and violated no state or federal laws and ordered Cavel to close down its operations permanently. A dagger straight to the heart of Cavel. At long last, the monster was dead.
Or so we thought! [See the Northern Star story "Cavel's Doors Closed Forever" here, and see my post of two days ago.] Sadly, the horror continues. On July 16, Cavel appealed Judge Kapala's ruling. Yesterday, the federal appeals court granted an injunction allowing Cavel to resume killing horses in its DeKalb facility while it awaits a final decision on its appeal of the amended Illinois Horse Meat Act. [See this Daily Chronicle story for details.] The Daily Chronicle quotes Cavel Manager Jim Tucker as saying that the plant "will be operating soon." It's unclear when the appellate court will rule on the case, but since no court date has even been set yet, it will probably be weeks if not months before the final ruling is made. While we wait for the ruling, hundreds of innocent horses will be killed in true horror-film fashion—their heads smashed by captive-bolt pistols, their throats slit by the slashing knives of Cavel employees. You can learn more about the harsh realities of horse slaughter here and here. An 8-minute film documenting the horror of perfectly healthy horses being slaughtered for no good reason can be viewed here.
Freddy Krueger and Alien have nothing on Cavel. The only difference is: Cavel's victims are real.
In DeKalb, Illinois, that monster is Cavel International, the only remaining plant in the U.S. that slaughters horses for human consumption. Since it is illegal to sell horse meat for human consumption in the U.S., you might wonder how it is that Cavel has been able to brutally slaughter horses for human consumption right here in the U.S. The answer is the proverbial loophole. One can't kill horses for human consumption within the U.S., but that leaves open the possibility of slaughtering horses for human consumption abroad. Cavel, a Belgian company, kills horses in Illinois for export to Europe.
In response to citizen outrage over horses being slaughtered in Illinois, the Illinois legislature decided to tie off the loophole for good by passing House Bill 1711. This bill amends the Illinois Horse Meat Act by banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption and also banning the possession, import or export of horse meat for human consumption. On May 24, Governor Rod Blagojevich signed the bill into law. Finally, the vicious killer, Cavel International, would have to close its doors for good. Illinoisans breathed a collective sigh of relief.
But with millions of dollars on the line, the killer Cavel wouldn't be dispatched so easily. Less than 24 hours later, Cavel was back—this time in court seeking an injunction to prevent the new law from taking effect on the grounds that it interferes with international commerce. [Apparently, Belgian citizens must have a say regarding what businesses can be engaged in in the state of Illinois!] Numerous court motions and counter-motions ensued. [A timeline of these legal proceedings is available here.] Then, on July 5, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Kapala ruled that the new law was constitutional and violated no state or federal laws and ordered Cavel to close down its operations permanently. A dagger straight to the heart of Cavel. At long last, the monster was dead.
Or so we thought! [See the Northern Star story "Cavel's Doors Closed Forever" here, and see my post of two days ago.] Sadly, the horror continues. On July 16, Cavel appealed Judge Kapala's ruling. Yesterday, the federal appeals court granted an injunction allowing Cavel to resume killing horses in its DeKalb facility while it awaits a final decision on its appeal of the amended Illinois Horse Meat Act. [See this Daily Chronicle story for details.] The Daily Chronicle quotes Cavel Manager Jim Tucker as saying that the plant "will be operating soon." It's unclear when the appellate court will rule on the case, but since no court date has even been set yet, it will probably be weeks if not months before the final ruling is made. While we wait for the ruling, hundreds of innocent horses will be killed in true horror-film fashion—their heads smashed by captive-bolt pistols, their throats slit by the slashing knives of Cavel employees. You can learn more about the harsh realities of horse slaughter here and here. An 8-minute film documenting the horror of perfectly healthy horses being slaughtered for no good reason can be viewed here.
Freddy Krueger and Alien have nothing on Cavel. The only difference is: Cavel's victims are real.
Dog Fighting
Is there anything creepier than dog fighting? How could someone support, much less organize, such a vile practice? Dogs evolved with humans. They are our trusted friends and companions. To train them to fight one another, and then to kill the losers of these fights, is barbaric beyond words. Michael Vick should be punished to the full extent of the law if he is convicted of the charges filed against him. I also hope that the National Football League banishes him. I'm tempted to say that the man is sick, but that would exculpate him. He's vicious.
17 July 2007
Horse Slaughter No More
For several years, conscientious U.S. citizens have been struggling to bring an end to the inhumane practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption. Happily, that struggle is finally over. As reported in this Northern Star story, on July 5, 2007, Cavel International, the last remaining horse slaughterhouse operating in America, was ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Kapala to close down its operations permanently. For previous posts on the ethical issues surrounding the slaughtering of horses for human consumption, see here, here, and here. Additional AP stories about the forced closing of Cavel International are available here and here.
07 July 2007
From the Mailbag
Dear Keith,
I have discovered this essay by David Oderberg called "The Illusion of Animal Rights."
I thought that you may be interested in it.
Affectionately,
Paul Barnes
I have discovered this essay by David Oderberg called "The Illusion of Animal Rights."
I thought that you may be interested in it.
Affectionately,
Paul Barnes
05 July 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Don’t Cry Over rBST Milk,” by Henry I. Miller (Op-Ed, June 29):
Monsanto’s genetically engineered hormone has not held up to scrutiny. When recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH; also known as rBST) is used, it elevates levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 in milk, which has been linked to increased risk of breast, prostate and other cancers. No wonder rBGH has been banned in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
Seventy-four percent of Americans are concerned about negative long-term health effects from rBGH, while Starbucks, Publix and Safeway supermarkets and others have refused to use rBGH in many locations.
I dispute Dr. Miller’s assertion that rBGH-injected cows can help reduce milk prices. The only national study on the subject contradicts his claims. Farms using rBGH are likely to use more grain, water, fuel, emit more greenhouse gases and spend more on feed and other inputs, offsetting any economic gains.
Dr. Miller’s argument distracts from the real concerns over rBGH. Consumers are right to be wary; rBGH threatens to undermine the safety of nature’s most perfect food.
Andrew Kimbrell
Executive Director
Center for Food Safety
Washington, June 29, 2007
To the Editor:
Henry I. Miller argues that we should “embrace” the use of bovine growth hormone (rBST) in order to feed people more cheaply, save the environment and so on. He characterizes opponents of rBST as “cynical,” but I read Dr. Miller’s arguments as cynical.
I have no idea if rBST is safe. But I do know that the dairy industry and its lobbyists do not want to require labeling milk produced with rBST. In fact, they are so intent on reducing information available to consumers that they are lobbying to prevent dairies from labeling their milk as “rBST-free”!
There’s good reason for cynicism.
George Entenman
Chapel Hill, N.C., June 29, 2007
To the Editor:
Henry I. Miller’s Op-Ed article provides a welcome breath of fresh air.
Anticorporate activists have campaigned against this and other ag biotech products for years in denial of the demonstrated environmental, economic and health benefits. It is most welcome to see the facts finally given some exposure.
The data speak to a clear reality: If we are to meet the challenges of feeding and clothing a growing population in the 21st century without totally despoiling the planet, we will need all the tools we can find.
Biotech is already making huge contributions toward meeting these challenges, and more to follow. There is in reality no greener approach than biotechnology.
L. Val Giddings
Silver Spring, Md., June 29, 2007
The writer, a consultant, was vice president for agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group, from 1997 to 2005.
To the Editor:
I read in horror Henry I. Miller’s latest recommendation for biotechnology in food. Is this really the conversation we want to be having about nutrition—how to pump cows full of even more chemicals to keep up with our ravenous, fat-laden diets?
Dairy is the No. 1 source of saturated fat in the American diet. It is also full of cholesterol and hormones (natural and otherwise). Trying to make unhealthy foods cheaper by genetically modifying them is absolutely the wrong direction to be moving.
How about spending all that time, energy and money on something productive, like figuring out how to get fatty foods out of the American diet and replaced with whole real fruits, vegetables, beans and grains.
It would make my life as a dietitian a lot easier.
Susan Levin
Washington, June 29, 2007
To the Editor:
Urging more hormone injection of cows to increase milk production is backward. It suggests there’s a milk shortage. The United States has long vastly overproduced milk. In recent years, the government accumulated a $1 billion stockpile of powdered milk from excess production.
Consumers want less use of drugs and chemicals in milk production, not more, as shown by skyrocketing organic milk purchases. Such hormones may increase the risk of breast, colon and gastrointestinal cancers, according to a University of Illinois study.
In cows, the hormones have been shown to increase lameness, udder infections and bone cancer. Europe and Canada outlawed using hormones on dairy cows because of such human and animal health concerns.
Increasing rBST milk would just move food production in the wrong direction.
Bill Niman
Nicolette Hahn Niman
Bolinas, Calif., June 29, 2007
The writers are cattle ranchers.
To the Editor:
Dr. Henry I. Miller’s article about the benefits of rBST is correct and thoughtful. Sustainable agricultural in the future, of necessity, will be largely sustainable intensive agriculture—an agriculture that produces more (and often better) food, fiber and fuel on a smaller environmental footprint.
Dr. Miller has clearly stated the evidence that shows rBST to be part of sustainable agriculture: more milk that is identical to all other milk, produced by fewer cows with reduced environmental impacts.
As a society, we can make sensible choices to promote sustainable agriculture. Choosing rBST is one such sensible choice.
Drew L. Kershen
Norman, Okla., June 29, 2007
The writer, a law professor, collaborated with Dr. Miller on a published article in Nature Biotechnology and on a book chapter several years before the published article in Nature Biotechnology.
To the Editor:
What parent or teacher has not noticed that girls are maturing far earlier than they used to? Years are being stolen from their childhoods. These added years will extend the time their bodies deal with adult hormones.
There is as yet no medical research showing the cost of several extra years of hormones flooding the system. Since this is a new phenomenon in our lives, we can’t know the ultimate costs to our children.
But for Henry I. Miller to write blithely of the benefits of rBST to farmers, and to Monsanto, without considering the effects on our children is shortsighted at best. If the Food and Drug Administration chooses to value benefits to business above the health of our children, we should at least be informed of its decision.
Label the milk that is rBST produced. Place obvious labels, and then let parents choose the milk they deem best for their children.
Sally E. Carp
Staten Island, June 29, 2007
Re “Don’t Cry Over rBST Milk,” by Henry I. Miller (Op-Ed, June 29):
Monsanto’s genetically engineered hormone has not held up to scrutiny. When recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH; also known as rBST) is used, it elevates levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 in milk, which has been linked to increased risk of breast, prostate and other cancers. No wonder rBGH has been banned in Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
Seventy-four percent of Americans are concerned about negative long-term health effects from rBGH, while Starbucks, Publix and Safeway supermarkets and others have refused to use rBGH in many locations.
I dispute Dr. Miller’s assertion that rBGH-injected cows can help reduce milk prices. The only national study on the subject contradicts his claims. Farms using rBGH are likely to use more grain, water, fuel, emit more greenhouse gases and spend more on feed and other inputs, offsetting any economic gains.
Dr. Miller’s argument distracts from the real concerns over rBGH. Consumers are right to be wary; rBGH threatens to undermine the safety of nature’s most perfect food.
Andrew Kimbrell
Executive Director
Center for Food Safety
Washington, June 29, 2007
To the Editor:
Henry I. Miller argues that we should “embrace” the use of bovine growth hormone (rBST) in order to feed people more cheaply, save the environment and so on. He characterizes opponents of rBST as “cynical,” but I read Dr. Miller’s arguments as cynical.
I have no idea if rBST is safe. But I do know that the dairy industry and its lobbyists do not want to require labeling milk produced with rBST. In fact, they are so intent on reducing information available to consumers that they are lobbying to prevent dairies from labeling their milk as “rBST-free”!
There’s good reason for cynicism.
George Entenman
Chapel Hill, N.C., June 29, 2007
To the Editor:
Henry I. Miller’s Op-Ed article provides a welcome breath of fresh air.
Anticorporate activists have campaigned against this and other ag biotech products for years in denial of the demonstrated environmental, economic and health benefits. It is most welcome to see the facts finally given some exposure.
The data speak to a clear reality: If we are to meet the challenges of feeding and clothing a growing population in the 21st century without totally despoiling the planet, we will need all the tools we can find.
Biotech is already making huge contributions toward meeting these challenges, and more to follow. There is in reality no greener approach than biotechnology.
L. Val Giddings
Silver Spring, Md., June 29, 2007
The writer, a consultant, was vice president for agriculture of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a trade group, from 1997 to 2005.
To the Editor:
I read in horror Henry I. Miller’s latest recommendation for biotechnology in food. Is this really the conversation we want to be having about nutrition—how to pump cows full of even more chemicals to keep up with our ravenous, fat-laden diets?
Dairy is the No. 1 source of saturated fat in the American diet. It is also full of cholesterol and hormones (natural and otherwise). Trying to make unhealthy foods cheaper by genetically modifying them is absolutely the wrong direction to be moving.
How about spending all that time, energy and money on something productive, like figuring out how to get fatty foods out of the American diet and replaced with whole real fruits, vegetables, beans and grains.
It would make my life as a dietitian a lot easier.
Susan Levin
Washington, June 29, 2007
To the Editor:
Urging more hormone injection of cows to increase milk production is backward. It suggests there’s a milk shortage. The United States has long vastly overproduced milk. In recent years, the government accumulated a $1 billion stockpile of powdered milk from excess production.
Consumers want less use of drugs and chemicals in milk production, not more, as shown by skyrocketing organic milk purchases. Such hormones may increase the risk of breast, colon and gastrointestinal cancers, according to a University of Illinois study.
In cows, the hormones have been shown to increase lameness, udder infections and bone cancer. Europe and Canada outlawed using hormones on dairy cows because of such human and animal health concerns.
Increasing rBST milk would just move food production in the wrong direction.
Bill Niman
Nicolette Hahn Niman
Bolinas, Calif., June 29, 2007
The writers are cattle ranchers.
To the Editor:
Dr. Henry I. Miller’s article about the benefits of rBST is correct and thoughtful. Sustainable agricultural in the future, of necessity, will be largely sustainable intensive agriculture—an agriculture that produces more (and often better) food, fiber and fuel on a smaller environmental footprint.
Dr. Miller has clearly stated the evidence that shows rBST to be part of sustainable agriculture: more milk that is identical to all other milk, produced by fewer cows with reduced environmental impacts.
As a society, we can make sensible choices to promote sustainable agriculture. Choosing rBST is one such sensible choice.
Drew L. Kershen
Norman, Okla., June 29, 2007
The writer, a law professor, collaborated with Dr. Miller on a published article in Nature Biotechnology and on a book chapter several years before the published article in Nature Biotechnology.
To the Editor:
What parent or teacher has not noticed that girls are maturing far earlier than they used to? Years are being stolen from their childhoods. These added years will extend the time their bodies deal with adult hormones.
There is as yet no medical research showing the cost of several extra years of hormones flooding the system. Since this is a new phenomenon in our lives, we can’t know the ultimate costs to our children.
But for Henry I. Miller to write blithely of the benefits of rBST to farmers, and to Monsanto, without considering the effects on our children is shortsighted at best. If the Food and Drug Administration chooses to value benefits to business above the health of our children, we should at least be informed of its decision.
Label the milk that is rBST produced. Place obvious labels, and then let parents choose the milk they deem best for their children.
Sally E. Carp
Staten Island, June 29, 2007
04 July 2007
Food Labeling
It's outrageous that powerful industries, such as the beef industry, are able to prevent labeling of food to show where it originated. Consumers have a right to know not only the nutritional value (if any) of the foods they eat, and not only whether it was organically produced, but where it originated. See here for a New York Times editorial opinion on this topic. One way for meat-eaters to send a message to the beef industry is to stop consuming beef.
02 July 2007
From the Mailbag
Dear Keith,
I work with Wesleyan University Professor Scott Plous (founder of Social Psychology Network), and I'm writing to let you know of a new web site related to animal protection.
The site uses a unique interactive technology to offer "human-like" interviews that probe the ethical dimensions of diet and lifestyle choices. This probing often leads people to examine their own practices and to better understand the choices made by others.
Please stop by for a visit, take the interview as a meat eater to see how it works (regardless of whether you eat meat), and consider adding a link to eInterview.org from your web site. You are also welcome to contact Professor Plous for further information.
With kind regards,
Jen Spiller
Wesleyan University
I work with Wesleyan University Professor Scott Plous (founder of Social Psychology Network), and I'm writing to let you know of a new web site related to animal protection.
The site uses a unique interactive technology to offer "human-like" interviews that probe the ethical dimensions of diet and lifestyle choices. This probing often leads people to examine their own practices and to better understand the choices made by others.
Please stop by for a visit, take the interview as a meat eater to see how it works (regardless of whether you eat meat), and consider adding a link to eInterview.org from your web site. You are also welcome to contact Professor Plous for further information.
With kind regards,
Jen Spiller
Wesleyan University
29 June 2007
17 June 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
“My Dog Days,” by Arthur Phillips (Op-Ed, June 10), gave me those warm, fuzzy feelings and made my eyes tear.
People who adopt from animal shelters will tell you that it’s not only a rewarding experience, but also that shelters are filled with a smorgasbord of the most amazing, delightful, intelligent dogs you’ll ever find on the planet.
There are puppies with puppy breath and slobbery kisses; young dogs with enthusiasm, devotion and intelligence; older dogs with patience, loyalty and wisdom. You can find purebreds, mixed breeds and designer dogs. But one thing they all have in common is the strongest desire imaginable to love you, protect you and bond with you.
When that happens, you’ll understand the bond between human and companion animal of which Mr. Phillips wrote.
Sherrill Durbin
Tulsa, Okla., June 12, 2007
To the Editor:
It’s strange, I have started to do the same thing as Arthur Phillips—counting my years by my beloved whippet, Gracie. Cherishing her puppy days but also cherishing every moment we have together, and all the smiles and laughs because of her.
Life is so much better with a dog friend at your side.
Karen Benzel
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., June 11, 2007
Note from KBJ: I concur.
“My Dog Days,” by Arthur Phillips (Op-Ed, June 10), gave me those warm, fuzzy feelings and made my eyes tear.
People who adopt from animal shelters will tell you that it’s not only a rewarding experience, but also that shelters are filled with a smorgasbord of the most amazing, delightful, intelligent dogs you’ll ever find on the planet.
There are puppies with puppy breath and slobbery kisses; young dogs with enthusiasm, devotion and intelligence; older dogs with patience, loyalty and wisdom. You can find purebreds, mixed breeds and designer dogs. But one thing they all have in common is the strongest desire imaginable to love you, protect you and bond with you.
When that happens, you’ll understand the bond between human and companion animal of which Mr. Phillips wrote.
Sherrill Durbin
Tulsa, Okla., June 12, 2007
To the Editor:
It’s strange, I have started to do the same thing as Arthur Phillips—counting my years by my beloved whippet, Gracie. Cherishing her puppy days but also cherishing every moment we have together, and all the smiles and laughs because of her.
Life is so much better with a dog friend at your side.
Karen Benzel
Carmel-by-the-Sea, Calif., June 11, 2007
Note from KBJ: I concur.
13 June 2007
11 June 2007
R. M. Hare (1919-2002) on Animals
This line of reasoning also helps to explain why we recognize certain duties towards both men and animals, but certain others towards men only. For example, nobody would be thought to be oppressing animals because he did not allow them self-government; but, on the other hand, it is generally thought to be wrong to torture animals for fun. Now why is it that we do not acknowledge a duty to accord animals self-government? It is simply because we think that there is a real and relevant difference between men and animals in this respect. We can say 'If I were turned into an animal, I should stop having any desire for political liberty, and therefore the lack of it would be no hardship to me'. It is possible to say this even of men in certain stages of development. Nobody thinks that children ought to have complete political liberty; and most people recognize that it would be foolish to introduce the more advanced kinds of political liberty all at once in backward countries, where people have not got to the stage of wanting it, and would not know what to do with it if they got it. So this mode of reasoning allows us to make the many distinctions that are necessary in assessing our obligations towards different kinds of people, and indeed of sentient beings. In all cases the principle is the same—am I prepared to accept a maxim which would allow this to be done to me, were I in the position of this man or animal, and capable of having only the experiences, desires, &c., of him or it?
(R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963], 222-3 [italics in original])
(R. M. Hare, Freedom and Reason [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963], 222-3 [italics in original])
10 June 2007
01 June 2007
May Statistics
This blog had 2,708 visitors during May, which is an average of 87.3 visitors per day. That makes it the second-best month ever, not far behind April 2007. Thanks for visiting. I hope you are making use of the bibliography in the sidebar. If there is a website that you think should be added to the blogroll, please bring it to my attention. If you're a publisher and want your book listed, please send it to me for review.
31 May 2007
Organic Milk
My cousins Craig and Kevin Hicks are dairy farmers, specializing in organic milk. They also sell pasture-fed beef and pasture-fed chicken. I spent some of the best times of my life on their farm in North Branch, Michigan. Here is their website.
30 May 2007
27 May 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Your overture in “My Dear Fellow Species” (Week in Review, May 20) to the 150th anniversary celebration of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” through his letters is a fine attempt to briefly summarize his personality.
But in a Darwin letter of April 3, 1880, which I have, where he thanks Georg Heinrich Schneider for sending him a copy of his recently published treatise “Der thierische Wille”—a valuable contribution to animal psychology—Darwin seems to sum up his life’s work in one sentence: “Everything about the minds of animals interests me greatly.”
Fittingly, few words, much content!
Alfred S. Posamentier
River Vale, N.J., May 20, 2007
Your overture in “My Dear Fellow Species” (Week in Review, May 20) to the 150th anniversary celebration of Charles Darwin’s “Origin of Species” through his letters is a fine attempt to briefly summarize his personality.
But in a Darwin letter of April 3, 1880, which I have, where he thanks Georg Heinrich Schneider for sending him a copy of his recently published treatise “Der thierische Wille”—a valuable contribution to animal psychology—Darwin seems to sum up his life’s work in one sentence: “Everything about the minds of animals interests me greatly.”
Fittingly, few words, much content!
Alfred S. Posamentier
River Vale, N.J., May 20, 2007
23 May 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Death by Veganism,” by Nina Planck (Op-Ed, May 21):
I am a nutritionist who testified as an expert witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial of the parents of Crown Shakur. As the lead prosecutor in this case told the jury, this poor infant was not killed by a vegan diet. He was starved to death by parents who did not give him breast milk, soy-based infant formula or enough food of any kind.
Well-planned vegan diets are healthful for pregnant mothers and their infants, as well as for older children, according to a large body of scientific research. Contrary to Ms. Planck’s assertions, there are healthy plant-based sources of docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA; calcium can be absorbed about as readily from soy milk as from cow’s milk; and soy does not inhibit growth.
Studies have found that vegan children are within the normal ranges for weight and height, and I personally know vegan mothers and vegan children who are healthier than many of their omnivorous peers.
Amy Joy Lanou
Washington, May 21, 2007
The writer is senior nutrition scientist, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
To the Editor:
Nina Planck’s article touches on a particularly important topic. Her use of the term food “fashion” is appropriate: many people today do not make informed choices about their diet; rather, they are influenced by trends, advertising and the political correctness of food.
Many adults do not understand the difference between feeding a baby, a child and themselves. Babies and young children who do not receive a balanced diet, with complete proteins, fats and vitamins, face potential lifelong developmental and cognitive delays. The medical journal Lancet recently published findings showing that children who are not adequately nourished in the first five years of life sometimes never catch up to their peers.
A diet that may be adequate for an adult is not always good for a baby or a child. Feed your children properly now; they will thank you later.
Ross Smith
New York, May 21, 2007
To the Editor:
I am shocked by the ignorance of the recent outcry against vegan diets in the media, most recently Nina Planck’s article about the dangers and irresponsibility of vegan diets during pregnancy and infancy. What these naysayers consistently neglect is that vegan diets, as with all other restricted diets, must be well planned.
It is not enough to simply cut animal products (or carbohydrates, or calories) out of one’s diet. Without a concerted effort by the consumer, restricted diets of any kind may fail to provide adequate nutrition.
Generalizing from a handful of ignorant vegans to the entire vegan population does a disservice to those of us who have spent years educating ourselves on human nutritional needs and how to meet them on a plant-based diet.
Well-planned vegan diets have been shown repeatedly to be sufficient, and even beneficial at all stages of life, including during pregnancy and infancy.
Nicole Speer
Boulder, Colo., May 21, 2007
To the Editor:
“Soy milk and apple juice” is not a vegan diet. Such a regimen would jeopardize anyone’s health, whether infant or adult.
Although vegans do not eat foods derived from animals, we do eat everything else—and enjoy a delicious array of high-nutrient foods, including grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits and herbs prepared in tantalizing combinations and textures. It is well settled that a balanced diet of these foods provides the same essential amino acids that Nina Planck finds in an egg.
I’ll leave the question of infant care to the physicians, but I know firsthand that an adult vegan can enjoy robust physical health without contributing to the cruel suffering of animals on today’s factory farms.
Lynette C. Kelly
New York, May 21, 2007
To the Editor:
Thank you for publishing Nina Planck’s excellent article, “Death by Veganism.”
It’s appalling that anyone would think that a diet based on a dubious morality would build a human infant. Children need protein.
George Mazzei
St. Petersburg, Fla., May 21, 2007
To the Editor:
“Death by Veganism,” by Nina Planck, strays far from the truth about vegan diets. I’ve raised a vegan child since conception. Although I am a 5-foot-1, 98-pound woman, and my husband is 5-foot-8 and 145 pounds, both of us having grown up on meat and dairy, our son was a long 22 inches and 8 pounds 9 ounces at birth.
His pediatrician marveled at his outstanding health. She warned us to expect him to have colds and fevers regularly once he started day care, but he got sick only once during his first three years of life. He’s now 13 and remains healthy and strong.
Yes, vegans need to ensure that their children get proper nutrition, including vitamin B12 and omega-3s, but this is easy to do. What’s harder is having a child who eats the typical American diet stay healthy.
Zoe Weil
Surry, Me., May 21, 2007
Re “Death by Veganism,” by Nina Planck (Op-Ed, May 21):
I am a nutritionist who testified as an expert witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial of the parents of Crown Shakur. As the lead prosecutor in this case told the jury, this poor infant was not killed by a vegan diet. He was starved to death by parents who did not give him breast milk, soy-based infant formula or enough food of any kind.
Well-planned vegan diets are healthful for pregnant mothers and their infants, as well as for older children, according to a large body of scientific research. Contrary to Ms. Planck’s assertions, there are healthy plant-based sources of docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA; calcium can be absorbed about as readily from soy milk as from cow’s milk; and soy does not inhibit growth.
Studies have found that vegan children are within the normal ranges for weight and height, and I personally know vegan mothers and vegan children who are healthier than many of their omnivorous peers.
Amy Joy Lanou
Washington, May 21, 2007
The writer is senior nutrition scientist, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
To the Editor:
Nina Planck’s article touches on a particularly important topic. Her use of the term food “fashion” is appropriate: many people today do not make informed choices about their diet; rather, they are influenced by trends, advertising and the political correctness of food.
Many adults do not understand the difference between feeding a baby, a child and themselves. Babies and young children who do not receive a balanced diet, with complete proteins, fats and vitamins, face potential lifelong developmental and cognitive delays. The medical journal Lancet recently published findings showing that children who are not adequately nourished in the first five years of life sometimes never catch up to their peers.
A diet that may be adequate for an adult is not always good for a baby or a child. Feed your children properly now; they will thank you later.
Ross Smith
New York, May 21, 2007
To the Editor:
I am shocked by the ignorance of the recent outcry against vegan diets in the media, most recently Nina Planck’s article about the dangers and irresponsibility of vegan diets during pregnancy and infancy. What these naysayers consistently neglect is that vegan diets, as with all other restricted diets, must be well planned.
It is not enough to simply cut animal products (or carbohydrates, or calories) out of one’s diet. Without a concerted effort by the consumer, restricted diets of any kind may fail to provide adequate nutrition.
Generalizing from a handful of ignorant vegans to the entire vegan population does a disservice to those of us who have spent years educating ourselves on human nutritional needs and how to meet them on a plant-based diet.
Well-planned vegan diets have been shown repeatedly to be sufficient, and even beneficial at all stages of life, including during pregnancy and infancy.
Nicole Speer
Boulder, Colo., May 21, 2007
To the Editor:
“Soy milk and apple juice” is not a vegan diet. Such a regimen would jeopardize anyone’s health, whether infant or adult.
Although vegans do not eat foods derived from animals, we do eat everything else—and enjoy a delicious array of high-nutrient foods, including grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits and herbs prepared in tantalizing combinations and textures. It is well settled that a balanced diet of these foods provides the same essential amino acids that Nina Planck finds in an egg.
I’ll leave the question of infant care to the physicians, but I know firsthand that an adult vegan can enjoy robust physical health without contributing to the cruel suffering of animals on today’s factory farms.
Lynette C. Kelly
New York, May 21, 2007
To the Editor:
Thank you for publishing Nina Planck’s excellent article, “Death by Veganism.”
It’s appalling that anyone would think that a diet based on a dubious morality would build a human infant. Children need protein.
George Mazzei
St. Petersburg, Fla., May 21, 2007
To the Editor:
“Death by Veganism,” by Nina Planck, strays far from the truth about vegan diets. I’ve raised a vegan child since conception. Although I am a 5-foot-1, 98-pound woman, and my husband is 5-foot-8 and 145 pounds, both of us having grown up on meat and dairy, our son was a long 22 inches and 8 pounds 9 ounces at birth.
His pediatrician marveled at his outstanding health. She warned us to expect him to have colds and fevers regularly once he started day care, but he got sick only once during his first three years of life. He’s now 13 and remains healthy and strong.
Yes, vegans need to ensure that their children get proper nutrition, including vitamin B12 and omega-3s, but this is easy to do. What’s harder is having a child who eats the typical American diet stay healthy.
Zoe Weil
Surry, Me., May 21, 2007
22 May 2007
21 May 2007
The Perils of Veganism
Do fetuses and infants need animal products in order to survive and flourish? See here.
19 May 2007
18 May 2007
Freedom of the Will
Do fruit flies have free will? See here for what appears to be an affirmative answer. If fruit flies have free will, then it's possible for them to suffer from weakness of the will.
10 May 2007
Veganism
Here is a tragic story about misguided vegans. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) famously said that "There is no difficulty in proving any ethical standard whatever to work ill if we suppose universal idiocy to be conjoined with it . . ." (Utilitarianism [1861], chap. 2). The same could be said of any diet.
04 May 2007
Equine Breakdown
Here is a New York Times op-ed column about measures that are being taken to prevent injuries to race horses. Does anyone out there advocate abolition of horse racing? If so, on what ground?
02 May 2007
April Statistics
There were 2,825 visitors to this blog during April. That's an average of 94.1 visitors per day, which is a record. Thanks for visiting. I hope to do more posting during the summer months, when I have more time. By the way, if you're a publisher and would like one of your books listed in the bibliography, please send me a copy for review.
27 April 2007
From the Mailbag
Good morning professor [KBJ]
I hope all is well. I wrote to you about a year ago to inform you of my decision to stop eating meat. At the time you advised that I should do so slowly, rather than just stopping one day. At the time, I decided to continue eating fish, just to make sure that I wouldn't crave too much. It was helpful to keep me sane.
A year later, I want to say that I have been very successful. I have eaten meat 1 time in 1 year, by accident. In May, I ordered some dirty rice and ate it on reflex, only realizing what I had done about 3/4 of the way through (at which time I stopped). Since then not a piece of land-animal has gone into my mouth on purpose, and rarely by accident (I have, I am sure, eaten some by product, such as gelatin, inadvertently, though I read ingredients on everything I eat now). I have also stopped eating fish for the most part, though on occasion the craving is unbearable, likely because I have not found a good source of Omega-3 fatty acids.
Anyhow, I just wanted to let you know as a testament—I had lived 22 years on a nearly carnivorous diet, and I can't imagine anyone less likely to do so. However, I certainly feel an air of accomplishment in altering my diet—it is fulfilling to know that I have made an ethical decision as a result of reason and not simply because it 'feels right.'
Regards,
Shelby
I hope all is well. I wrote to you about a year ago to inform you of my decision to stop eating meat. At the time you advised that I should do so slowly, rather than just stopping one day. At the time, I decided to continue eating fish, just to make sure that I wouldn't crave too much. It was helpful to keep me sane.
A year later, I want to say that I have been very successful. I have eaten meat 1 time in 1 year, by accident. In May, I ordered some dirty rice and ate it on reflex, only realizing what I had done about 3/4 of the way through (at which time I stopped). Since then not a piece of land-animal has gone into my mouth on purpose, and rarely by accident (I have, I am sure, eaten some by product, such as gelatin, inadvertently, though I read ingredients on everything I eat now). I have also stopped eating fish for the most part, though on occasion the craving is unbearable, likely because I have not found a good source of Omega-3 fatty acids.
Anyhow, I just wanted to let you know as a testament—I had lived 22 years on a nearly carnivorous diet, and I can't imagine anyone less likely to do so. However, I certainly feel an air of accomplishment in altering my diet—it is fulfilling to know that I have made an ethical decision as a result of reason and not simply because it 'feels right.'
Regards,
Shelby
25 April 2007
Does Your Dog Love You?
Ever wonder whether your dog loves you? If you want to find out, then study his/her tail wag. According to a recent study published in the March 20 issue of Current Biology, when dogs feel fundamentally positive about someone, their tails wag more to the right side of their rumps. More information about the study and asymmetric tail-wagging responses can be found in this New York Times article.
California Hoe Down
See here.
Addendum: I got to wondering about the origin of the term "hoe down." Here is what I found in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed.:
Addendum: I got to wondering about the origin of the term "hoe down." Here is what I found in the Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed.:
hoe-downThis is not very illuminating, is it? I suspect the term comes from the practice of laying one's hoe down (i.e., taking a break from work) in order to frolic in the field.
A noisy, riotous dance; = breakdown 2.
[1807 W. Irving Salmagundi 7 Mar. 98 As to dancing, no Long-Island negro could shuffle you ‘double trouble’, or ‘hoe corn and dig potatoes’ more scientifically.] 1841 Picayune (New Orleans) 14 Jan. 2/1 He looks and walks the character to the life, and some of his touches are of the genuine ‘hoe down’, ‘corn-field’ order. 1849 T. T. Johnson Sights Gold Region iv. 38 One of our party commenced a regular hoe-down, knocking his shins with heavy boots. 1855 Knickerbocker XLVI. 227 Rude, high-legged reels and ‘hoe-downs’. 1860 in Bartlett Dict. Amer. (ed. 3). 1885 Libr. Mag. (N.Y.) July 1 They [negroes] danced their vigorous hoe~downs, jigs. 1919 T. K. Holmes Man fr. Tall Timber vii. 84 A medley of old-time hoe-downs and jig music. 1961 Times 30 Mar. 6/7 The hoe-down sequence in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. 1963 Punch 3 July 23/3, I was invited to the last hoe-down. 1967 ‘J. Munro’ Money that Money can't Buy ix. 114 Two more cowboys appeared... They played hoe-down music. 1969 Guardian 2 Sept. 8/2 The atmosphere was that of..a hoedown in—well, perhaps in Hibbing, Minn.
22 April 2007
From the Mailbag
Hi Keith,
Here are some links to some exceptionally moving and informative online audio lectures on vegetarianism & animal ethics from a Christian perspective. They are by Matt Halteman, an excellent philosopher from Calvin College. I bet all your readers—religious and secular—would learn a lot from these talks and be inspired. If you would inform them of this resource, that'd be great.
Nathan Nobis
Here are some links to some exceptionally moving and informative online audio lectures on vegetarianism & animal ethics from a Christian perspective. They are by Matt Halteman, an excellent philosopher from Calvin College. I bet all your readers—religious and secular—would learn a lot from these talks and be inspired. If you would inform them of this resource, that'd be great.
MP3: "Animal Rights & Christian Responsibility"Thanks,
MP3: "Living Toward the Peaceable Kingdom"
Notes: "Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation"
Notes: "Animal Rights and Christian Responsibility"
Nathan Nobis
18 April 2007
Earth Day Lecture
Since a number of "Animal Ethics" readers reside in the northern Illinois area, I thought I would call your attention to an exciting lecture that is taking place on Northern Illinois University's campus. This Earth Day, Sunday, April 22, at 6:00 p.m., Kathie L. Jenni, Ph.D. (who has occasionally posted comments on this blog) will present a lecture entitled “The Best Kept Environmental Secrets: How We Can Hurt or Help the Planet Every Day.” The lecture will take place in Wirtz Auditorium on NIU’s Main Campus in DeKalb, IL. Dr. Jenni is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Redlands in Redlands, California, where she has taught for the past 18 years. She specializes in Environmental Ethics, Human-Animal Ethics, and Moral Psychology. Some of her notable publications include: “The Power of the Visual,” “Western Environmental Ethics,” “Vices of Inattention,” and “The Moral Responsibilities of Intellectuals.”
Professor Jenni made her debut appearance in DeKalb in September 2002 when she presented her paper “The Power of the Visual” at the Northern Illinois Ethic Consortium’s inaugural conference Ethics in Contemporary Life. The NIU community is fortunate to have such a dynamic lecturer return to NIU.
Professor Jenni has won numerous teaching awards including: an Outstanding Teaching Award at Redlands, a prize for Outstanding Teaching in the Humanities from the Graves Awards Foundation at Pomona College, and an Innovative Teaching Award for her Community Service Learning course on human-animal ethics at Redlands. I am fortunate to have seen Professor Jenni lecture on a number of occasions and have always found her lectures to be thoughtful, provocative, and insightful, while remaining readily accessible in terms of their content. Her coming Earth Day lecture couldn't be more timely in light of our increasing awareness of global warming and other human-induced negative impacts on the environment.
Professor Jenni’s Earth Day Lecture is co-sponsored by NIU’s Department of Philosophy and NIU’s Vegetarian Education Group [VEG]. VEG is a non-profit student organization dedicated to educating the NIU community and surrounding area about the multi-dimensional benefits (human health, environmental preservation, animal welfare, and personal enrichment) of plant-based nutrition. More information about VEG can be found here.
Professor Jenni’s lecture is FREE and open to the public. If you are in the area and have an interest in animals and the environment, I hope you will join us for this special Earth Day event.
Professor Jenni made her debut appearance in DeKalb in September 2002 when she presented her paper “The Power of the Visual” at the Northern Illinois Ethic Consortium’s inaugural conference Ethics in Contemporary Life. The NIU community is fortunate to have such a dynamic lecturer return to NIU.
Professor Jenni has won numerous teaching awards including: an Outstanding Teaching Award at Redlands, a prize for Outstanding Teaching in the Humanities from the Graves Awards Foundation at Pomona College, and an Innovative Teaching Award for her Community Service Learning course on human-animal ethics at Redlands. I am fortunate to have seen Professor Jenni lecture on a number of occasions and have always found her lectures to be thoughtful, provocative, and insightful, while remaining readily accessible in terms of their content. Her coming Earth Day lecture couldn't be more timely in light of our increasing awareness of global warming and other human-induced negative impacts on the environment.
Professor Jenni’s Earth Day Lecture is co-sponsored by NIU’s Department of Philosophy and NIU’s Vegetarian Education Group [VEG]. VEG is a non-profit student organization dedicated to educating the NIU community and surrounding area about the multi-dimensional benefits (human health, environmental preservation, animal welfare, and personal enrichment) of plant-based nutrition. More information about VEG can be found here.
Professor Jenni’s lecture is FREE and open to the public. If you are in the area and have an interest in animals and the environment, I hope you will join us for this special Earth Day event.
Veal Is Back
Have a taste for veal? You can now eat it with a clear conscience—at least if you're a utilitarian. See here.
15 April 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Japan’s Whaling Obsession” (editorial, April 1): Japan strongly supports the international protection of endangered whale species and advocates for the sustainable harvest of species in abundance only.
Whaling for scientific research is indispensable to establish the proper conservation of whales and ocean resources. Japan is sincerely committed to researching whales’ dietary habits and nutrition status, as well as the shift in whale populations by age over time.
Such studies provide valuable analytical data that reveals much about the whales’ life, their status and their environmental surroundings, information that is not obtainable through simple visual observation.
Scientific research from Japan has been highly commended by the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee.
Jiro Okuyama
Dir., Japan Information Center
Consulate General of Japan
New York, April 4, 2007
Re “Japan’s Whaling Obsession” (editorial, April 1): Japan strongly supports the international protection of endangered whale species and advocates for the sustainable harvest of species in abundance only.
Whaling for scientific research is indispensable to establish the proper conservation of whales and ocean resources. Japan is sincerely committed to researching whales’ dietary habits and nutrition status, as well as the shift in whale populations by age over time.
Such studies provide valuable analytical data that reveals much about the whales’ life, their status and their environmental surroundings, information that is not obtainable through simple visual observation.
Scientific research from Japan has been highly commended by the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee.
Jiro Okuyama
Dir., Japan Information Center
Consulate General of Japan
New York, April 4, 2007
10 April 2007
From the Mailbag
Hi
I have a friend who lives in San Diego, CA who has recently run into some problems with her apartment management. This month the management posted announcements stating that as of January 2007 (3 months ago, even though announcements were only posted this month) their new policy was that all cats must be declawed on their front feet, or else cat owners will face eviction. My friend is horrified by this. Not only does she have no intention whatsoever of declawing her cats, she wants to stop the management from requiring this of its tenants. She has written about this on her blog. Thank you.
Jane Keeler
I have a friend who lives in San Diego, CA who has recently run into some problems with her apartment management. This month the management posted announcements stating that as of January 2007 (3 months ago, even though announcements were only posted this month) their new policy was that all cats must be declawed on their front feet, or else cat owners will face eviction. My friend is horrified by this. Not only does she have no intention whatsoever of declawing her cats, she wants to stop the management from requiring this of its tenants. She has written about this on her blog. Thank you.
Jane Keeler
06 April 2007
From the Mailbag
Dear Keith,
Your blog is great! I'm always excited to find new internet sources for animal theory. I thought you might be interested in the new AnimalBlawg, an animal law blog by law students.
Also, I don't know if you attended the Future of Animal Law conference last weekend in Boston, but it had a panel on valuable alliances for the animal movement, including religious and ethical alliances, that I thought you might be interested in. I've copied a blog post about this panel below.
Thanks! I look forward to reading your future posts!
Jennifer Dillard
Your blog is great! I'm always excited to find new internet sources for animal theory. I thought you might be interested in the new AnimalBlawg, an animal law blog by law students.
Also, I don't know if you attended the Future of Animal Law conference last weekend in Boston, but it had a panel on valuable alliances for the animal movement, including religious and ethical alliances, that I thought you might be interested in. I've copied a blog post about this panel below.
Thanks! I look forward to reading your future posts!
Jennifer Dillard
04 April 2007
From the Mailbag
Hello Keith:
I recently completed a documentary on the science, ethics, and politics of animal agriculture entitled "Beyond Closed Doors." The film contains personal interviews with prominent professionals such as Dr. Temple Grandin, Dr. Bernard Rollin, Dr. John Webster, Steve Wise, and many others.
I mention this because we are receiving a fair amount of requests for the documentary for use in education at the university level. The documentary is not short on topics for substantive debate including "humane meat," productivity vs welfare, "animal terrorism laws," and of course the American Veterinary Medical Association's role in welfare reform.
If you are able to post something on this documentary I would be grateful. The documentary website is Sandgrainfilms.com. The bios of those in the film can be viewed on the site.
Thanks.
Hugh Dorigo
Producer
Sandgrain Films LLC
I recently completed a documentary on the science, ethics, and politics of animal agriculture entitled "Beyond Closed Doors." The film contains personal interviews with prominent professionals such as Dr. Temple Grandin, Dr. Bernard Rollin, Dr. John Webster, Steve Wise, and many others.
I mention this because we are receiving a fair amount of requests for the documentary for use in education at the university level. The documentary is not short on topics for substantive debate including "humane meat," productivity vs welfare, "animal terrorism laws," and of course the American Veterinary Medical Association's role in welfare reform.
If you are able to post something on this documentary I would be grateful. The documentary website is Sandgrainfilms.com. The bios of those in the film can be viewed on the site.
Thanks.
Hugh Dorigo
Producer
Sandgrain Films LLC
Wild Thing
Look at all the animals you can kill, butcher, cook, and eat in one city. It makes me want to go out and slaughter a gopher.
03 April 2007
From the Mailbag
Dear Keith,
Hi. I love your blog. I wrote the following for a blog on the Animals and Religion Forum on the Best Friends Animal Network website. I just wanted to share it with you:
I was at a book signing recently for my book (All Creatures of Our God and King: What God's Word Says About Animals) and I was approached by a man who asked me the following question: "Why would anyone want to write a book about what the Bible says about animals? Doesn't it just tell us to kill them all?" Sadly, this kind of reaction is not uncommon. So many people today do not realize how God feels about the animal kingdom, His own special creation.
This Easter, I would like to share an important Biblical truth. When Jesus died on the cross, He didn't just save us humans—He died for the animals, too. Prior to Jesus' death on the cross, animal sacrifices were a common and vital part of every family's worship experience. Lambs, goats, birds were sacrificed at home, at temples and on altars themselves. The animals took the place of humans. We humans did not have to die for our sins—innocent, pure animals took our place. Through the course of history, countless animals died to save human souls. Before the time of Jesus, humans found their salvation through animal sacrifice. When Jesus died on the cross, He became the one and only sacrifice. He died to pay for all our sins forever and ever. Animal sacrifice was no longer necessary.
The Bible says that we have a savior who can sympathize and identify with us because He has been a man, tempted in every way, just as we are (Hebrews 4:15). Well, Jesus can also certainly identify with animals. He and the animals in the Old Testament experienced something no one else on earth has—giving their lives for the sins of others—sacrificing themselves to bring others closer to God.
So, friends, Jesus is not only the lover of our souls—He is a lover of the animals as well.
Happy Easter,
Teri Wilson
Hi. I love your blog. I wrote the following for a blog on the Animals and Religion Forum on the Best Friends Animal Network website. I just wanted to share it with you:
I was at a book signing recently for my book (All Creatures of Our God and King: What God's Word Says About Animals) and I was approached by a man who asked me the following question: "Why would anyone want to write a book about what the Bible says about animals? Doesn't it just tell us to kill them all?" Sadly, this kind of reaction is not uncommon. So many people today do not realize how God feels about the animal kingdom, His own special creation.
This Easter, I would like to share an important Biblical truth. When Jesus died on the cross, He didn't just save us humans—He died for the animals, too. Prior to Jesus' death on the cross, animal sacrifices were a common and vital part of every family's worship experience. Lambs, goats, birds were sacrificed at home, at temples and on altars themselves. The animals took the place of humans. We humans did not have to die for our sins—innocent, pure animals took our place. Through the course of history, countless animals died to save human souls. Before the time of Jesus, humans found their salvation through animal sacrifice. When Jesus died on the cross, He became the one and only sacrifice. He died to pay for all our sins forever and ever. Animal sacrifice was no longer necessary.
The Bible says that we have a savior who can sympathize and identify with us because He has been a man, tempted in every way, just as we are (Hebrews 4:15). Well, Jesus can also certainly identify with animals. He and the animals in the Old Testament experienced something no one else on earth has—giving their lives for the sins of others—sacrificing themselves to bring others closer to God.
So, friends, Jesus is not only the lover of our souls—He is a lover of the animals as well.
Happy Easter,
Teri Wilson
02 April 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “Mr. Puck’s Good Idea” (editorial, March 26):
Thank you for writing about the restaurateur Wolfgang Puck and his desire to buy meat raised humanely. This issue is an important one and needs to be talked about. If we are to live in a more peaceful world, we must abandon the cruelty on our plates.
Kristina Cahill
Long Beach, Calif., March 27, 2007
To the Editor:
Livestock producers raise their animals under humane standards and under the care of a veterinarian. In the United States pork industry, the vast majority of the more than 100 million pigs raised each year are housed in climate-controlled buildings that protect them from the elements, illness and disease and that allow for individual care.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, management and husbandry are more important than the type of production system for ensuring the health and well-being of pigs.
As for the environment, the pork industry prides itself on being a zero-discharge industry.
Finally, organic doesn’t mean safe. While conventional food producers must demonstrate that pesticide residues are within established safety margins, organic growers are not subject to the same scrutiny despite the widespread use of biological pesticides and animal waste as fertilizer.
Dave Warner
Director of Communications
National Pork Producers Council
Washington, March 28, 2007
To the Editor:
Regardless of how “humanely” an animal is raised, it still has to be slaughtered to be eaten. That is never humane.
Eating dead animals and animal products is bad for people, bad for animals and bad for the planet. The next logical step for those who eat in restaurants is to demand more vegetarian-vegan options on their menus.
Judith Abeles
San Diego, March 26, 2007
Re “Mr. Puck’s Good Idea” (editorial, March 26):
Thank you for writing about the restaurateur Wolfgang Puck and his desire to buy meat raised humanely. This issue is an important one and needs to be talked about. If we are to live in a more peaceful world, we must abandon the cruelty on our plates.
Kristina Cahill
Long Beach, Calif., March 27, 2007
To the Editor:
Livestock producers raise their animals under humane standards and under the care of a veterinarian. In the United States pork industry, the vast majority of the more than 100 million pigs raised each year are housed in climate-controlled buildings that protect them from the elements, illness and disease and that allow for individual care.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, management and husbandry are more important than the type of production system for ensuring the health and well-being of pigs.
As for the environment, the pork industry prides itself on being a zero-discharge industry.
Finally, organic doesn’t mean safe. While conventional food producers must demonstrate that pesticide residues are within established safety margins, organic growers are not subject to the same scrutiny despite the widespread use of biological pesticides and animal waste as fertilizer.
Dave Warner
Director of Communications
National Pork Producers Council
Washington, March 28, 2007
To the Editor:
Regardless of how “humanely” an animal is raised, it still has to be slaughtered to be eaten. That is never humane.
Eating dead animals and animal products is bad for people, bad for animals and bad for the planet. The next logical step for those who eat in restaurants is to demand more vegetarian-vegan options on their menus.
Judith Abeles
San Diego, March 26, 2007
01 April 2007
March Statistics
This blog had 2,674 visitors during March. That's an average of 86.2 visitors per day, which is a record. Thanks for visiting. Do come back from time to time. I hope to write more substantial posts during the summer months, when I have no teaching duties.
31 March 2007
30 March 2007
A Good Day for Horses
Horses destined for inhumane slaughter in the U.S. can now breathe a sigh of relief, thanks to a recent ruling in a federal appeals court. According to this story in the Northern Star, a federal appeals court Wednesday ruled that the USDA can no longer inspect horse meat for a fee. Because animal flesh sold for human consumption abroad must be inspected by a USDA inspector, the court ruling may mean that the few remaining horse-slaughtering plants in the U.S.—including Cavel International in DeKalb, IL—may have to close up shop. Since the ruling prevents Cavel from inspecting any new horses for slaughter, the plant will have to halt operations after slaughtering the already inspected horses.
A previous post on the "Horse Slaughter Bill" (H.R. 503), a bill designed to ban horse slaughter in the U.S., is available here. A detailed exchange concerning the ethics of eating horses, including several posts by me, can be read here. Other victories by animal protection advocates and their impacts are discussed here.
A previous post on the "Horse Slaughter Bill" (H.R. 503), a bill designed to ban horse slaughter in the U.S., is available here. A detailed exchange concerning the ethics of eating horses, including several posts by me, can be read here. Other victories by animal protection advocates and their impacts are discussed here.
28 March 2007
Entrenchment
Somebody persuade me that this is progress. I can't help but think that, by improving the lives of the animals who are killed to satisfy human gustatory preferences, we are entrenching the idea that animals exist for human use. All we are doing by improving the lives of farmed animals is allowing people to eat meat with a better conscience. This will have the perverse effect of increasing, rather than decreasing, the number of animals killed. Burger King will be delighted by that, for it wants to kill as many animals as possible—not because it hates animals, but because it views them as a means to an end, the end being profit. How can that be progress?
26 March 2007
22 March 2007
21 March 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
I appreciate Nicolette Hahn Niman’s efforts in raising awareness about the conditions in which pigs are raised (“Pig Out,” Op-Ed, March 14), but I was struck by her comment that it is incumbent on us to ensure that animals have decent lives because we ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. This doesn’t ring true, suggesting as it does that we actually ask the animals to make a sacrifice for our sake.
What we are doing is raising and then killing animals so that we can eat them. They don’t volunteer.
If we’re going to raise farm animals and then kill them to eat them, we should say so.
Catherine di Lorenzo
Woodbine, Ga., March 14, 2007
To the Editor:
Contrary to the assertions in Nicolette Hahn Niman’s attack on modern pork production, America’s 67,000 pork producers treat their animals humanely. They do so because it’s the moral and ethical thing to do, and it’s in their best economic interest.
For many producers, treating pigs humanely means raising them in climate-controlled facilities; safeguarding them from biosecurity hazards and the threat of diseases; placing sows in crates to stop them from fighting with one another and protect their piglets from being crushed; to ensure that they get the feed and water needed; and to better monitor their health.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, management and husbandry are more important for ensuring the health and well-being of pigs.
And while producers do use antibiotics to keep their pigs healthy, drugs are F.D.A.-approved and used judiciously, and administered responsibly under the direction of a veterinarian.
Jill Appell
Pres., Natl. Pork Producers Council
Altona, Ill., March 14, 2007
Note from KBJ: Replace "animals" and "pigs" with "slaves" in the second letter and see what happens. You get a justification of slavery!
I appreciate Nicolette Hahn Niman’s efforts in raising awareness about the conditions in which pigs are raised (“Pig Out,” Op-Ed, March 14), but I was struck by her comment that it is incumbent on us to ensure that animals have decent lives because we ask them to make the ultimate sacrifice for us. This doesn’t ring true, suggesting as it does that we actually ask the animals to make a sacrifice for our sake.
What we are doing is raising and then killing animals so that we can eat them. They don’t volunteer.
If we’re going to raise farm animals and then kill them to eat them, we should say so.
Catherine di Lorenzo
Woodbine, Ga., March 14, 2007
To the Editor:
Contrary to the assertions in Nicolette Hahn Niman’s attack on modern pork production, America’s 67,000 pork producers treat their animals humanely. They do so because it’s the moral and ethical thing to do, and it’s in their best economic interest.
For many producers, treating pigs humanely means raising them in climate-controlled facilities; safeguarding them from biosecurity hazards and the threat of diseases; placing sows in crates to stop them from fighting with one another and protect their piglets from being crushed; to ensure that they get the feed and water needed; and to better monitor their health.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, management and husbandry are more important for ensuring the health and well-being of pigs.
And while producers do use antibiotics to keep their pigs healthy, drugs are F.D.A.-approved and used judiciously, and administered responsibly under the direction of a veterinarian.
Jill Appell
Pres., Natl. Pork Producers Council
Altona, Ill., March 14, 2007
Note from KBJ: Replace "animals" and "pigs" with "slaves" in the second letter and see what happens. You get a justification of slavery!
20 March 2007
18 March 2007
Animal Minds
The March 11, 2007 episode of the Stanford University radio program "Philosophy Talk" focuses on animal minds. Stanford Philosophy Professors John Perry and Ken Taylor host the show. Their guest is Colin Allen of the Center for the Integrative Study of Animal Behavior, Indiana University, Bloomington. Also featured on the show are Dr. Irene Pepperberg and her African gray parrot Alex. The episode provides a fascinating look into the nature of animal minds and animal cognition. You can hear the entire episode here.
17 March 2007
16 March 2007
Julian H. Franklin on the Use of Animals in Research
To inflict death or pain on animals for scientific or medical research is wrong morally, and ought to be prohibited. This follows from everything said in the text about the rights of animals. This does not mean that animals may never be deliberately harmed or become subjects of research. They may be killed in order to protect the health of humans (and other animals) if they are infected with a serious disease and cannot be quarantined. They may be used in benign research such as teaching chimpanzees to understand and use sign language. But even when the purpose of research is to benefit the animals themselves, inflicting pain or death in the process of research is wrong. Animals cannot give consent. Hence, unlike humans, they cannot be called upon to sacrifice even for the good of other animals.
(Julian H. Franklin, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], 125)
(Julian H. Franklin, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], 125)
15 March 2007
Scapegoating
I don't understand the logic of this. PETA is offensive, so everyone should eat an animal? What did the animals do? Are animals responsible for the idiotic and counterproductive things PETA does in their name? I've said it many times and I'll say it again: PETA is the worst thing ever to happen to animals. It is a disgraceful, revolting organization.
14 March 2007
Factory Farms
Here is a New York Times op-ed column about pork production. Notice that the author is not opposed to the use of nonhuman animals as resources for human consumption. She simply wants to minimize their suffering before they are killed (painlessly?) and their bodies dismembered and processed. Notice that we (including, I assume, the author) would never allow such treatment of a human being. I wonder how the author justifies the double standard. Perhaps she would argue that there is no double standard, i.e., that there is a morally relevant difference between human animals and nonhuman animals that justifies the difference in treatment. I can't imagine what it is. Are the lives of nonhuman animals less important, to them, than your life is to you?
11 March 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
Re “We Eat Horses, Don’t We?,” by Christa Weil (Op-Ed, March 5):
Ms. Weil’s paean to horsemeat should be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that horsemeat has at times been part of humanity’s diet is not in dispute. But yesterday’s hardship food is today’s gourmet treat.
Horses slaughtered in America today go not to feed the poor and the hungry but to satisfy the esoteric palates of wealthy diners in Europe and Japan. The issue is not whether slaughtering horses is un-American, but that it is inhumane and wholly unnecessary.
Yes, all food animals should meet a dignified end. But horses are not cows, pigs or chickens. Americans do have a special relationship with horses, and how we treat them reveals much about our own humanity and how far we have evolved.
Horse slaughter for meat export is just plain wrong. Congress passed an amendment to the House Agriculture Appropriations bill that defunded the Agriculture Department’s horse slaughter-related activities, but that did not solve the problem. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act is needed to ensure that a permanent ban on slaughter is enacted.
John Hettinger
Pawling, N.Y., March 5, 2007
The writer is an owner of Fasig-Tipton, North America’s oldest thoroughbred auction house.
To the Editor:
Why would publicizing the ill treatment of slaughter-bound horses detract from the “undue suffering of other food animals,” as Christa Weil suggests?
On the contrary, if Ms. Weil is truly concerned about the ill treatment of other slaughter-bound animals, the horse could well serve as a poster animal for the cause.
Moreover, her defense of horsemeat on the grounds that it is “a traditional hardship food” is specious.
Our American horses are not being shipped to the hungry in Africa; they are being served in the most pricey restaurants in France, Belgium and Japan.
Hope Ryden
New York, March 5, 2007
The writer is the author of a book about America’s last wild horses.
Re “We Eat Horses, Don’t We?,” by Christa Weil (Op-Ed, March 5):
Ms. Weil’s paean to horsemeat should be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that horsemeat has at times been part of humanity’s diet is not in dispute. But yesterday’s hardship food is today’s gourmet treat.
Horses slaughtered in America today go not to feed the poor and the hungry but to satisfy the esoteric palates of wealthy diners in Europe and Japan. The issue is not whether slaughtering horses is un-American, but that it is inhumane and wholly unnecessary.
Yes, all food animals should meet a dignified end. But horses are not cows, pigs or chickens. Americans do have a special relationship with horses, and how we treat them reveals much about our own humanity and how far we have evolved.
Horse slaughter for meat export is just plain wrong. Congress passed an amendment to the House Agriculture Appropriations bill that defunded the Agriculture Department’s horse slaughter-related activities, but that did not solve the problem. The American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act is needed to ensure that a permanent ban on slaughter is enacted.
John Hettinger
Pawling, N.Y., March 5, 2007
The writer is an owner of Fasig-Tipton, North America’s oldest thoroughbred auction house.
To the Editor:
Why would publicizing the ill treatment of slaughter-bound horses detract from the “undue suffering of other food animals,” as Christa Weil suggests?
On the contrary, if Ms. Weil is truly concerned about the ill treatment of other slaughter-bound animals, the horse could well serve as a poster animal for the cause.
Moreover, her defense of horsemeat on the grounds that it is “a traditional hardship food” is specious.
Our American horses are not being shipped to the hungry in Africa; they are being served in the most pricey restaurants in France, Belgium and Japan.
Hope Ryden
New York, March 5, 2007
The writer is the author of a book about America’s last wild horses.
Julian H. Franklin on Animals and Plants
Animals as well as humans can suffer pain, deprivation, and unwanted death. Vegetables cannot. Hence there is a very fundamental and relevant sense in which we cannot harm a vegetable. Anything we do to a head of lettuce or the bloom of a flower can be harmful (or beneficial) to one or more sentient beings who feed on these or otherwise enjoy them. The head of lettuce and the flower, however, feel nothing and regret nothing so far as we know. An exception for vegetables is thus consistent with the categorical imperative; an exception for humans with respect to eating animals is not.
(Julian H. Franklin, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], 45 [endnote omitted])
(Julian H. Franklin, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], 45 [endnote omitted])
Remote-Control Hunting
See here. Is this sort of hunting any worse, morally, than the traditional sort?
10 March 2007
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
As sponsors of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, we take issue with Christa Weil’s views on the horsemeat industry (Op-Ed, March 5). The horse slaughter industry in the United States has nothing to do with feeding hungry people and everything to do with animal cruelty. The facts are these:
We urge our colleagues in the House and the Senate to take up the matter again and put an end to this barbaric practice.
(Senator) Mary Landrieu
(Rep.) Jan Schakowsky
(Rep.) Ed Whitfield
(Rep.) Nick Rahall
(Rep.) John Spratt
Washington, March 6, 2007
As sponsors of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, we take issue with Christa Weil’s views on the horsemeat industry (Op-Ed, March 5). The horse slaughter industry in the United States has nothing to do with feeding hungry people and everything to do with animal cruelty. The facts are these:
¶Most horses that end up slaughtered are bought by buyers acting on behalf of slaughterhouses. Many of these horses have been stolen or were surrendered to buyers who promised to care for them but who sell them to slaughter instead.Last September, the House voted 263 to 146 to pass this legislation. Congress ran out of time before the Senate could act.
¶The transport and subsequent slaughter of these animals is brutal. They are often crammed into trucks built for cattle and pigs and subjected to starvation, exposure and abuse. At the slaughterhouse, improper use of the stunning bolt frequently results in horses’ being shackled and dismembered while still conscious.
¶Every year, 100,000 horses are slaughtered at foreign-owned slaughterhouses in the United States to satisfy the palates of wealthy diners in Europe and Asia.
We urge our colleagues in the House and the Senate to take up the matter again and put an end to this barbaric practice.
(Senator) Mary Landrieu
(Rep.) Jan Schakowsky
(Rep.) Ed Whitfield
(Rep.) Nick Rahall
(Rep.) John Spratt
Washington, March 6, 2007
06 March 2007
Murderers and Animals
Phillip Barron submitted this blog post for your consideration. As I explained to him in e-mail, murderers are guilty of the most heinous offense, namely, taking innocent human life, whereas animals are not guilty of anything. That difference makes all the difference.
05 March 2007
Julian H. Franklin on Animal Rights
I don't expect that many readers will be converted to the cause of animal rights by reading this book. Indeed, the ability of intelligent and educated people to avoid confronting the issue, or to offer endless evasions and rationalizations of delay on a question as straightforward as vegetarianism, even when they have heard and (reluctantly) accepted the argument in favor, is astonishing as well as depressing. If they are to be swayed, the change is likely to come from witnessing the realities of the fate endured by animals. I have not reviewed these horrors here, because so many powerful accounts exist. Nor have I dealt with advances in the legal protection of animals both in practice and in theory. I have focused exclusively on moral theory.
Nevertheless, I believe that a good theoretical argument is worth the effort. It can reassure the committed, help the uncertain to decide, and arm the debater. There is a vital long-term benefit as well. If the idea of animal rights continues to be recognized intellectually, and if it grows in acceptance as a classroom subject, a good theory will help to solidify a cultural change toward greater concern for animals—a change that is already under way. I hope that this book will help this cause along.
(Julian H. Franklin, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], xvii-xviii)
Nevertheless, I believe that a good theoretical argument is worth the effort. It can reassure the committed, help the uncertain to decide, and arm the debater. There is a vital long-term benefit as well. If the idea of animal rights continues to be recognized intellectually, and if it grows in acceptance as a classroom subject, a good theory will help to solidify a cultural change toward greater concern for animals—a change that is already under way. I hope that this book will help this cause along.
(Julian H. Franklin, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], xvii-xviii)
My Friend Flicka
The author of this New York Times op-ed column argues that eating horse flesh is as American as apple pie.
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
The euthanasia of more than 1,000 dogs and cats at the main animal shelter in Las Vegas is surely a major tragedy in the sheltering field (news article, Feb. 16), and the rapid spread of diseases at a facility packed with 1,800 animals required swift action to prevent even more suffering and loss of life.
The Humane Society of the United States’ recommendation to euthanize animals after 72 hours at the shelter was specific to this situation and does not apply universally, as your article might suggest.
Shelters across the country are required to hold animals to let owners reclaim lost pets. For the Lied Animal Shelter, 72 hours is the standard hold period.
Our recommendation is that shelters determine which animals are adoptable during those hold periods, with those animals made available for adoption or placed in foster care or with rescue organizations.
The best though regrettable option for unadoptable (ill or aggressive) animals is to euthanize them to avoid prolonged suffering and confinement.
In Las Vegas, housing unadoptable animals for too long contributed to the overcrowding and allowed parvo, distemper and other diseases to incubate and rapidly spread through the shelter’s animal population.
Wayne Pacelle
President and Chief Executive
Humane Society of the U.S.
Washington, Feb. 20, 2007
The euthanasia of more than 1,000 dogs and cats at the main animal shelter in Las Vegas is surely a major tragedy in the sheltering field (news article, Feb. 16), and the rapid spread of diseases at a facility packed with 1,800 animals required swift action to prevent even more suffering and loss of life.
The Humane Society of the United States’ recommendation to euthanize animals after 72 hours at the shelter was specific to this situation and does not apply universally, as your article might suggest.
Shelters across the country are required to hold animals to let owners reclaim lost pets. For the Lied Animal Shelter, 72 hours is the standard hold period.
Our recommendation is that shelters determine which animals are adoptable during those hold periods, with those animals made available for adoption or placed in foster care or with rescue organizations.
The best though regrettable option for unadoptable (ill or aggressive) animals is to euthanize them to avoid prolonged suffering and confinement.
In Las Vegas, housing unadoptable animals for too long contributed to the overcrowding and allowed parvo, distemper and other diseases to incubate and rapidly spread through the shelter’s animal population.
Wayne Pacelle
President and Chief Executive
Humane Society of the U.S.
Washington, Feb. 20, 2007
04 March 2007
Great American Meatout
Barton Lewin asked me to publicize the Great American Meatout, which I am happy to do. See here.
02 March 2007
Bee-ing and Nothingness
See here. Maybe the bees went on strike to protest bee-zarre working conditions. Maybe they called in sick with the hives. Maybe they went to a Queen or a Honeydrippers concert, got stoned, and couldn't find their way back. Maybe they've become postcolonialists. Maybe they had an identity crisis: "To bee or not to bee; that is the question." Maybe they think their lives are none of our beeswax. Maybe, just maybe, they came to the realization that they were "born to bee wild."
From the Mailbag
Good afternoon:
I have been reading your blog today, and must admit that I have learned a great deal! Thank you!
I am writing to ask if you would consider listing The Happy Vegan in your links list. It would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
Birdie Pappalardo
I have been reading your blog today, and must admit that I have learned a great deal! Thank you!
I am writing to ask if you would consider listing The Happy Vegan in your links list. It would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
Birdie Pappalardo
01 March 2007
February Statistics
There were 2,113 visits to this site during February. That's an average of 75.4 visits per day, which is close to a record. Here are the figures for the past four months:
November: 77.5I apologize for the recent dearth of posts. Things will pick up. If you have a philosophical question about the moral status of animals (or a moral question about the philosophical status of animals), please ask it by e-mail. You can reach me by clicking "Contact" in the sidebar.
December: 74.0
January: 76.8
February: 75.4
28 February 2007
Hypocritical Hippies
There's only one thing you need to know about Whole Foods Market: It sells animal products, including meat. All the other stuff—organic foods, locally grown fruits and vegetables, environmentally friendly bags—is about status. Isn't it ironic that old hippies, who rejected the "establishment," have become status-seekers? The only difference between them and the "establishment" they once deplored is that they find status in different places. The old hippies who patronize Whole Foods Market don't give a damn about animals. If they did, they'd boycott the place.
22 February 2007
From the Mailbag
Hey Keith,
I wanted to drop you a line on this because I thought it would be up your alley. The animal advocacy group Compassion Over Killing has created a new website to bring attention to the fact that Morningstar Farms continues to use "battery eggs" from caged birds in their products. Here is the link. The site specifically names Gardenburger as a company that does not used caged chickens to get the eggs for their products and links to Gardenburger's statement on the practice.
Congrats on the new site launch, by the way. As a life-long PB&J eater (I also love PB & Miracle Whip, a concoction my father and uncle introduced me to at a young age) the stats were very interesting to check out. I'll probably blog about it on my personal site in the near future to help you get the word out. Good stuff.
Best, Chris
I wanted to drop you a line on this because I thought it would be up your alley. The animal advocacy group Compassion Over Killing has created a new website to bring attention to the fact that Morningstar Farms continues to use "battery eggs" from caged birds in their products. Here is the link. The site specifically names Gardenburger as a company that does not used caged chickens to get the eggs for their products and links to Gardenburger's statement on the practice.
Congrats on the new site launch, by the way. As a life-long PB&J eater (I also love PB & Miracle Whip, a concoction my father and uncle introduced me to at a young age) the stats were very interesting to check out. I'll probably blog about it on my personal site in the near future to help you get the word out. Good stuff.
Best, Chris
12 February 2007
From the Mailbag
Hello,
We've recently launched a new website, the PB&J Campaign. It takes a slightly different take on vegetarian advocacy—trying to quantify the effects of single meal decisions to protect the environment and improve animal welfare. At this point we're emailing websites and blogs that have related themes, our goal being to get the word out that the site exists.
Please let me know if you have any questions about it.
Cheers,
Bernard Brown
We've recently launched a new website, the PB&J Campaign. It takes a slightly different take on vegetarian advocacy—trying to quantify the effects of single meal decisions to protect the environment and improve animal welfare. At this point we're emailing websites and blogs that have related themes, our goal being to get the word out that the site exists.
Please let me know if you have any questions about it.
Cheers,
Bernard Brown
08 February 2007
Designer Meat
Bob Smith sent a link to this. My first reaction was revulsion. But is it any more revolting than factory farming?
06 February 2007
Animal Advocates' Successes Have Factory Farmers Running Scared
A column entitled "Ag Industry Threatened by Animal Rights" appeared in today's High Plains/Midwest Ag Journal [HPMAJ]. The column, which you can read here, is a call to arms to factory farmers to fight back against those individuals and organizations working to protect farm animals from the abuses inherent in factory farms. Recent victories by animal protection advocates have an increasing number of pro-factory-farming lobbyists worried about the future of animal agriculture. Consider some of the victories:
One outspoken proponent of factory farming cited in the HPMAJ column is "Trent Loos, a rancher, journalist and vocal livestock supporter." According to the HPMAJ column, "Loos told cattle producers the livestock industry must show the public that there are moral and ethical justifications for taking the life of an animal to feed a person. The industry is losing that argument in some segments of society, he said."
The reason that the industry is losing the argument is quite simple: There is no ethical justification for causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily. There is no ethical justification for treating an animal inhumanely for no good reason. There is no ethical justification for killing an animal for no good reason. Since no one in modern industrial societies needs to eat animals to survive or be optimally healthy, there is no good reason to raise and slaughter farm animals at all in modern societies, and there certainly is no good reason to raise them in cruel inhumane factory farms. If Loos thinks that animal agribusiness will win the argument on ethical grounds, he is sorely mistaken.
An increasing number of industry wonks appear to have come to the realization that they can't win on moral grounds, so they are trying a new tact: doublespeak. Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning. For example, "free roaming chickens" conjures up images of happy chickens running free and unfettered all about the barnyard, when in fact the label "free roaming chickens" just means chickens that were not raised in battery cages. Since chickens of the strain raised for meat production aren't typically raised in cages, the label "free roaming chicken" can legally be applied to chickens that were painfully debeaked and then permanently confined in an overcrowded shed with 100,000 other chickens each of whom had 7/10 of a square foot of floor space. These birds do not have to have access to the outdoors and are housed in such overcrowded sheds that they can barely move around, and yet, they are deceptively marketed as "free roaming" to conscientious compassionate consumers. Doublespeak at its worst. Animal agribusiness doublespeak takes on other forms as well.
Consider Charlie Stenholm, a former Texas Congressman turned agricultural lobbyist. According to the HPMAJ column, Stenholm is also concerned about the inroads being made by animal rights advocates where farm animals are concerned. Stenholm is a spokesperson for the "Horse Welfare Coalition"—a quintessential illustration of doublespeak, for the Horse Welfare Coalition is an inappropriately named organization that is working to keep horse slaughter legal in the United States. News flash: Slaughtering horses does not promote their welfare. In previous posts here and here, I discuss (i) horse slaughter as it is practiced in the U.S., (ii) reasons for banning horse slaughter in the U.S., and (iii) the bill intended to ban the practice.
As already noted, factory farming advocates are bound to lose the debate concerning the ethics of factory farming because there is no moral justification for raising animals in inhumane conditions when all of our nutritional needs can be met (and can be met better) with foods of plant origin. Since they cannot win the argument on moral grounds, they have resorted to deceptive doublespeak in an effort to bolster support for their inhumane practices. They have also resorted to a sort of Orwellian doublethink. Doublethink is the act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, fervently believing both, despite being notionally aware of their incompatibility—rather, being willfully unaware. Recall the disturbing illustrations of doublethink in Orwell's 1984:
We may not be able to stop Big Brother from encroaching on our freedoms, but we can stop supporting Big Farmer with our purchases. We can refuse to purchase products of pain deceptively marketed as "humane." As Peter Singer so aptly put it in Animal Liberation:
The Bottom Line: Those organizations and individuals who are working to ensure that animals receive the moral consideration they are due are winning. Factory farmers are worried about their future livelihoods, and they should be. Cruelty cannot stand the spotlight, and the Internet has made it impossible for factory farmers to hide the cruelty inherent in their intensive confinement operations. With documentary footage of factory farm conditions only a mouse click away, that spotlight on cruelty is shining brightly.
On November 5th, 2002, more than two and a half million Floridians voted "Yes" on Amendment 10 to amend the state constitution and prohibit the use of gestation crates, narrow metal cages where breeding pigs are kept for most of their lives. The full text of the amendment is available here.With successes like these, factory farmers do have cause for worry. The dark secret behind factory farm profits—cruel and inhumane animal husbandry—is getting out. Factory farmers treat animals inhumanely for no good reason. Since morally decent individuals oppose treating animals inhumanely for no good reason, factory farming is becoming an increasingly hard sell. Nevertheless, as the HPMAJ column linked to above reveals, those who profit from treating farm animals inhumanely are not ready to throw in the towel just yet.
On November 7, 2006, Arizonans voted overwhelmingly, by 62 percent, in favor of Proposition 204, to ban the cruel and intensive confinement of veal calves and pregnant pigs on industrialized factory farms. The proposition outlaws raising pregnant sows in gestation crates and raising calves in veal crates, making Arizona the first state in the Union to ban veal crates. To learn more about Arizona's precedent-setting victory for farm animals, see here.
September 7, 2006, a bill banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption(H.R. 503) was approved in the U.S. House of Representatives with overwhelming support in a 263-146 vote.
One outspoken proponent of factory farming cited in the HPMAJ column is "Trent Loos, a rancher, journalist and vocal livestock supporter." According to the HPMAJ column, "Loos told cattle producers the livestock industry must show the public that there are moral and ethical justifications for taking the life of an animal to feed a person. The industry is losing that argument in some segments of society, he said."
The reason that the industry is losing the argument is quite simple: There is no ethical justification for causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily. There is no ethical justification for treating an animal inhumanely for no good reason. There is no ethical justification for killing an animal for no good reason. Since no one in modern industrial societies needs to eat animals to survive or be optimally healthy, there is no good reason to raise and slaughter farm animals at all in modern societies, and there certainly is no good reason to raise them in cruel inhumane factory farms. If Loos thinks that animal agribusiness will win the argument on ethical grounds, he is sorely mistaken.
An increasing number of industry wonks appear to have come to the realization that they can't win on moral grounds, so they are trying a new tact: doublespeak. Doublespeak is language deliberately constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning. For example, "free roaming chickens" conjures up images of happy chickens running free and unfettered all about the barnyard, when in fact the label "free roaming chickens" just means chickens that were not raised in battery cages. Since chickens of the strain raised for meat production aren't typically raised in cages, the label "free roaming chicken" can legally be applied to chickens that were painfully debeaked and then permanently confined in an overcrowded shed with 100,000 other chickens each of whom had 7/10 of a square foot of floor space. These birds do not have to have access to the outdoors and are housed in such overcrowded sheds that they can barely move around, and yet, they are deceptively marketed as "free roaming" to conscientious compassionate consumers. Doublespeak at its worst. Animal agribusiness doublespeak takes on other forms as well.
Consider Charlie Stenholm, a former Texas Congressman turned agricultural lobbyist. According to the HPMAJ column, Stenholm is also concerned about the inroads being made by animal rights advocates where farm animals are concerned. Stenholm is a spokesperson for the "Horse Welfare Coalition"—a quintessential illustration of doublespeak, for the Horse Welfare Coalition is an inappropriately named organization that is working to keep horse slaughter legal in the United States. News flash: Slaughtering horses does not promote their welfare. In previous posts here and here, I discuss (i) horse slaughter as it is practiced in the U.S., (ii) reasons for banning horse slaughter in the U.S., and (iii) the bill intended to ban the practice.
As already noted, factory farming advocates are bound to lose the debate concerning the ethics of factory farming because there is no moral justification for raising animals in inhumane conditions when all of our nutritional needs can be met (and can be met better) with foods of plant origin. Since they cannot win the argument on moral grounds, they have resorted to deceptive doublespeak in an effort to bolster support for their inhumane practices. They have also resorted to a sort of Orwellian doublethink. Doublethink is the act of holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously, fervently believing both, despite being notionally aware of their incompatibility—rather, being willfully unaware. Recall the disturbing illustrations of doublethink in Orwell's 1984:
WAR IS PEACEJust as Big Brother wants us to accept the above slogans, Big Farmer expects us to embrace the following oxymoronic slogans where farm animals are concerned:
SLAVERY IS FREEDOM
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
CONFINEMENT IS FREEDOMBig Farmer may well have bought into his own lie—that is, of course, one of the hallmarks of doublethink; but those of us wishing to be conscientious, ethical consumers should see Big Farmer's doublethink and doublespeak for what it is: a deceptive marketing ploy. Calling an inhumane practice "humane" does not make that practice humane. Referring to battery-cage confinement, gestation-crate confinement, veal-crate confinement, and unanesthetized mutilations (including branding, castration, debeaking, tooth pulling, and tail docking) as "Acceptable Handling Practices" does not make those practices morally acceptable or humane. Any organization that is working to keep horse slaughter legal is not concerned with promoting horse welfare, regardless if it happens to be called the Horse Welfare Coalition.
SLAUGHTER IS WELFARE
CRUELTY IS HUMANE
We may not be able to stop Big Brother from encroaching on our freedoms, but we can stop supporting Big Farmer with our purchases. We can refuse to purchase products of pain deceptively marketed as "humane." As Peter Singer so aptly put it in Animal Liberation:
The people who profit by exploiting large numbers of animals do not need our approval. They need our money. The purchase of the corpses of the animals they rear is the main support the factory farmers ask from the public. They will use intensive methods as long as they can sell what they produce by these methods. . . Hence the need for each one of us to stop buying the products of modern animal farming. . . Until we boycott meat, and all other products of animal factories, we are, each one of us, contributing to the continued existence, prosperity, and growth of factory farming and all of the cruel practices used in rearing animals for food.We have a choice. We can willfully contribute to the prosperity of factory farmers who profit from the mistreatment of animals, or we can refuse to support factory farmers with our purchases and purchase cruelty-free plant-based meals instead. We can willingly support an industry that uses doublespeak to mislead the public about the conditions in which its animals are raised, or we can boycott those very animal agribusiness industries. When we do boycott animal agribusiness by shifting to a plant-based diet, we reduce our contribution to unnecessary animal suffering; we reduce our risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hypertension, and some forms of cancer; we support a much more environmentally and ecologically friendly form of agriculture; and we support a form of agriculture that is sustainable and that reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Since there are so many reasons to shift to a plant-based diet, it's no wonder that factory farmers are running scared.
The Bottom Line: Those organizations and individuals who are working to ensure that animals receive the moral consideration they are due are winning. Factory farmers are worried about their future livelihoods, and they should be. Cruelty cannot stand the spotlight, and the Internet has made it impossible for factory farmers to hide the cruelty inherent in their intensive confinement operations. With documentary footage of factory farm conditions only a mouse click away, that spotlight on cruelty is shining brightly.
05 February 2007
Stephen H. Webb
Here is the website of Stephen H. Webb, who is professor of religion and philosophy at Wabash College. Here are some of Dr Webb's essays on animals and vegetarianism. I continue to be astounded by the assumption that concern for animals is a secular, progressive cause. There are many atheists and progressives who don't care a whit about animals. There are many theists and conservatives (such as Dr Webb) who care a great deal about animals. Can we put this stupid assumption behind us and work together?
04 February 2007
03 February 2007
The Other White Milk
Big Pork is coming down hard on The Lactivist. See here. (Thanks to Mindy Hutchison for the link.)
01 February 2007
From the Mailbag
Dear Keith,
Hope you are well—I enjoyed reading "Simplifying the Case for Vegetarianism"—thanks again.
I also wanted to say that I immediately thought of the question you signed off with on your recent post entitled "Crates" after reading this today.
The article and the comments that accompany it throw up many other interesting points in their own right; not least relating to the many creative, convenient myths that people create to justify their flesh-eating habits. Thought you might find it of some interest.
Best
Richard
Dr. Richard J White
Faculty of Development and Society
Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus
Howard Street
Sheffield S1 1WB
Hope you are well—I enjoyed reading "Simplifying the Case for Vegetarianism"—thanks again.
I also wanted to say that I immediately thought of the question you signed off with on your recent post entitled "Crates" after reading this today.
The article and the comments that accompany it throw up many other interesting points in their own right; not least relating to the many creative, convenient myths that people create to justify their flesh-eating habits. Thought you might find it of some interest.
Best
Richard
Dr. Richard J White
Faculty of Development and Society
Sheffield Hallam University
City Campus
Howard Street
Sheffield S1 1WB
January Statistics
This blog had 2,383 visitors (visits, actually) during January. That's a record. Alas, it's not the best monthly average. November (which has only 30 days) had an average of 77.5 visitors per day. December had an average of 74.0 visitors per day. January had an average of 76.8 visitors per day. Hey, at least we're consistent! Here is a chart showing readership (visitorship?) since the blog's inception (click to enlarge):
Thanks for visiting! Y'all come back now, y'hear?
Thanks for visiting! Y'all come back now, y'hear?
31 January 2007
Canis Lupus
Here is a New York Times editorial opinion about the wolf. When I was in law school, many years ago, I wrote a lengthy term paper entitled "The Legal Status of the Wolf (Canis Lupus) in Michigan, 1805-1982" for a graduate history course I was taking. A copy of the paper was deposited with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in East Lansing, where I did much of my research, but it has never been published. Would anyone be interested in reading it? If so, I can scan, upload, and link to it in this blog.
From Today's New York Times
To the Editor:
An addendum should be made to your editorial’s point that all horses deserve the “generosity of conscience” that was expended to save Barbaro.
Just days before Barbaro was humanely put down, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act was reintroduced in Congress. In an incredible juxtaposition to the fanfare of Barbaro, more than 100,000 horses were slaughtered last year in the United States and shipped to Europe and Japan for human consumption.
Each one of these animals suffered extreme cruel and inhumane conditions in the transportation and slaughter process.
Surely a nation and a national press that can expend so much attention on the life and death of one racehorse should be able to muster the compassion to pass legislation that would end this cruelty.
Brad Goldberg
President
Animal Welfare Advocacy
Mamaroneck, N.Y., Jan. 30, 2007
An addendum should be made to your editorial’s point that all horses deserve the “generosity of conscience” that was expended to save Barbaro.
Just days before Barbaro was humanely put down, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act was reintroduced in Congress. In an incredible juxtaposition to the fanfare of Barbaro, more than 100,000 horses were slaughtered last year in the United States and shipped to Europe and Japan for human consumption.
Each one of these animals suffered extreme cruel and inhumane conditions in the transportation and slaughter process.
Surely a nation and a national press that can expend so much attention on the life and death of one racehorse should be able to muster the compassion to pass legislation that would end this cruelty.
Brad Goldberg
President
Animal Welfare Advocacy
Mamaroneck, N.Y., Jan. 30, 2007
30 January 2007
Barbaro
It's a sad day for horse lovers. Barbaro, the magnificent thoroughbred who broke his leg two weeks after winning the 2006 Kentucky Derby (I watched both races live), was put to death after taking a turn for the worse in his recovery. See here for the New York Times story. Barbaro's killing is a case of euthanasia. The word "euthanasia" means good, gentle, or easy (eu) death (thanos). It may sound odd that there could be a good, gentle, or easy death, since death destroys the possibility of enjoyments, activities, projects, and experiences, which give our lives value and meaning; but if one's life is racked with pain and there is little or no prospect of recovery, death can seem, and be, preferable. The paradigm case of euthanasia is where a sentient being is terminally ill, will die soon anyway, and is in great pain. Death is a release or escape from this predicament. Euthanasia is often called mercy killing, for obvious reasons: Its motive is mercy. It is done for the sake of the being who is killed, rather than for the sake of some other being or beings or of society generally.
You've probably heard the word "euthanasia" applied to dog pounds. But this is inappropriate. Many or most of the dogs who are put to death in pounds are perfectly healthy. They are not terminally ill; they will not die soon anyway; and they are not in pain, much less in great pain. They are killed not for their sake but because society is unwilling to provide for them. (Don't confuse society with government. This is not a call for greater taxation, which is coercive and therefore presumptively wrong.) I'm not saying it's wrong to put such animals to death. That's a debatable issue. I'm saying that, if we do put them to death, we shouldn't call it euthanasia, for that implies something false, namely, that the killing is done for the sake of the animal. It's convenience killing, not mercy killing. How would you like to be killed out of convenience to others?
You've probably heard the word "euthanasia" applied to dog pounds. But this is inappropriate. Many or most of the dogs who are put to death in pounds are perfectly healthy. They are not terminally ill; they will not die soon anyway; and they are not in pain, much less in great pain. They are killed not for their sake but because society is unwilling to provide for them. (Don't confuse society with government. This is not a call for greater taxation, which is coercive and therefore presumptively wrong.) I'm not saying it's wrong to put such animals to death. That's a debatable issue. I'm saying that, if we do put them to death, we shouldn't call it euthanasia, for that implies something false, namely, that the killing is done for the sake of the animal. It's convenience killing, not mercy killing. How would you like to be killed out of convenience to others?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
