On Rejecting Animal Use

Recently, in some darkened little corner of the interwebs, I found myself accused of having possibly hurt someone's feelings. The little corner was a spot which concerns itself with the promotion of veganism, and the "someone" had posted that she had recently located a nice Amish family that raised chickens in a comfortable setting, and that she was now consuming eggs and feeling "better" about doing so. As plainly as I could, I pointed out to her a few of the more obvious things, including that 1) once Ma Chicken's productivity declines, she ends up part of that nice Amish family's Sunday dinner and that 2) providing demand for eggs from this family would merely serve to contribute to an increase in the number of chickens who end up taking that last walk to the chopping block behind the barn.

I also pointed out that regardless of how supposedly comfortably these chickens are raised, the bottom line is that they're bred into wretched lives of being treated like food-producing machines. I asked her if this was what she really thought of non-human animals -- that they're things existing solely for our pleasure and convenience. I hoped not. She didn't answer, but I got a "tsk" or two from a few welfarists who suggested I'd had no business passing judgment on her choices, insisting to me that "every little bit counts" and that she was somehow "vegan-minded" and "on the right path". Why did I not praise her, they asked, since she was at least sourcing her eggs from someone purportedly treating their chickens a bit more kindly? Who was I to judge her for the best possible choices she was making for herself?

How is comforting oneself over one's continued use of animals either "vegan-minded" or on the "right path", though?

"If They're Happy and I 'Know' it, Clap Your Hands!"

I shared this, primarily, to re-emphasize that foregoing animal flesh while otherwise consuming animal products is still engaging in animal exploitation. We're kidding ourselves if we think that there is a difference between chomping down on a chicken leg or having a couple of scrambled eggs (or a bowl of dairy ice cream, and so on). And for those who try to lull themselves into thinking otherwise while they claim to support animal rights, or they express concern with not directly contributing to just plain old harming other animals, the truth is that there's no getting around the fact that using animals means perpetuating what is essentially for them a life of enslavement involving various forms of torture. Furthermore, regardless of how horrible that world is for them, respecting their rights and interests involves not thinking of them as things which exist for us to use in the first place. These are just the facts, though, as uncomfortable as it may be for some to weigh them.

I Ain't Clapping

As a vegan and as an abolitionist animal rights advocate, I avoid participating in animal exploitation. I don't condone others' doing so and I sure as hell don't applaud it or encourage it. If you tell me that you take the interests of non-human animals seriously but feel that you're doing "enough" by avoiding meat and sourcing your eggs from birds at the happy chicken farm down the street, I will tell you that consuming animal products other than meat is still animal exploitation, and that veganism should be the moral baseline for all who do claim to really take the interests of non-human animals seriously. I will say to you that you should go vegan, or at least take steps toward doing so. To hurt or shame you? No. To provide you with the facts so that you realize what your choices involve? Absolutely. After all, why should I lie when billions are dying every single year when they needn't?

If I refuse to acknowledge this or that form of animal exploitation as being more commendable than another, I am merely refusing to condone it and refusing to nod politely at any justifications given for it. I think we owe non-human animals -- as well as non-vegan animal advocates -- at least that much. Don't you?

--------------------------------------------------

To find out more about why vegetarianism falls short of offering justice to non-human animals and denies them their personhood, please read the following essays:

- My ramble from March 2010: "Why I Will Not Advocate Vegetarianism"
- Bob Torres' "Why Vegetarianism Isn't Enough"
- Dan Cudahy's "What Is Wrong With Vegetarianism"

Also, have a listen to this podcast by Gary L. Francione:

- "Commentary #6: Aspects of the Vegetarian/Vegan Debate"

For some advice on how to proceed when talking to others about what we owe nonhuman animals, read this blog post by Vincent Guihan: "They believe harm is wrong, but how do we get them to act on that?"

Flirting With Hypocrisy -- A 'Kinda' Diet

On Twitter, May 12, Alicia Silverstone spilled the beans that she'd eaten a BK Veggie Burger from Burger King while on the set of whatever project she's working on (probably the movie "Butter", a comedy to be released in 2012 that's about a competitive butter carver). So why did the self-described vegan and promoter of a "Kind Diet" eat a non-vegan burger? According to Silverstone, "cuz it was the only thing around that [she] could eat". I'll admit that I haven't spent a lot of time on movie sets. It's my understanding, though, that these things are generally catered and that at the very least, a vegan celebrity expecting to be on a movie set would be able to arrange to have vegan food made available to her -- even if it had to be ordered out. And of course, depending on location, one always has the option of packing a lunch to bring to work (I know, I know -- that doesn't sound very glamorous).

BK Veggie Burgers have been discussed to death in vegan circles because they're absolutely not animal-free. Even Burger King is quick to point out on its site that the burgers contain dairy and eggs, stating alongside the ingredients they list for it: "This is not a vegan product". So Alicia ate first (tweeting that "it was DELICIOUS") and asked later, finding out the following day that what she'd eaten wasn't vegan. Nobody's perfect, right? We all make mistakes. It's easy to point out that Silverstone could have at least asked first. However, what I found most troubling were the following tweets:

"if you are in a crunch and need a super quick yummy flirt meal, the burger king veggie burger is so yummie..."

"so i wont eat it again cause i know whats in it, but if you are a flirt, or you are desperate and need to eat something, get it!!"

"much better than getting a regular burger!"

So vegan Silverstone won't eat it again, since she knows "what's in it", but decided to use Twitter to suggest to vegan-wannabes or vegans who are "desperate" (apparently, like vegan Hollywood starlets on movie sets who can't find anything to eat) to purchase and eat the product. Furthermore, she added that it's somehow "much better" than getting a regular burger. Why? Because it's meatless? One almost wonders why Silverstone bothers cutting dairy and eggs out of her own "kind" diet if she thinks that eating the flesh of animals is what's most ethically problematic.

It's frustrating enough to read an account of someone who should know better and who is in a position of great privilege who failed to take her veganism seriously enough to ask a few basic questions before consuming animal products. What's worse, though, is that she would assert that those animal products are now off limits for her, but recommend them for others "flirting" with veganism or for "desperate" vegans. And state that somehow, a burger containing dairy and eggs is "better" than a regular hamburger, conveying the false message that eating animal flesh is more of a moral problem than consuming animal secretions.

Things Overheard

Sometimes you hear someone say something and it makes so little sense that you almost do a double-take. Think "Dan Quayle". In this case, something I read had that effect on me:

[T]he treatment of animals that land on our grocery store shelves each day is deplorable. [...] While I am not vegetarian, I do make vegetarian choices on a regular basis in an effort to lessen my meat consumption.

What on earth does it mean to make "vegetarian choices"? Eating an apple? Having a bowl of cereal with soy milk? Having a bowl of cereal with dairy milk? Eating an apple somewhere between having pepperoni pizza for lunch and a T-bone steak with egg salad for dinner? This is where concern about treatment seems to fall short, with the "every little bit counts" mentality shows itself to be ineffective, as does this half-hearted lip-service to animals called 'vegetarianism'.

I'm just sayin'.

---------------------------

Speaking of paying lip-service to animals: In an article on "flirting" with Alicia Silverstone's Kind Diet, an aspiring foodie was no doubt chuckling to herself at her own cleverness when she wrote:

I decided to be kind to myself and try this diet in moderation. After all, who can go cold turkey from donuts, ice cream and fried onion rings? Plus, Easter is coming and I can’t miss pigging out on the Easter ham.

It seems to have become the latest thing to review vegan cookbooks and intersperse parts of the actual review with references to delectable animal flesh--where eating animals (or animal products) is presented as the equivalent of eating a decadently fattening slice of cake. Such is the new interest in so-called ethical eating.

Shuffling Out This or That Animal Part as Self-Deprivation

I stumbled across an upbeat little lifestyles piece in the Denton Daily news early this morning ("Lenten sacrifice prompts family to try vegetarianism"), which had I been caffeinated, would have possibly left me shaking my head a little. Just a little. As a vegan, I sometimes encounter people who will say things to me from across a table like: "It's a real shame that you can't try this; you don't know what you're missing!" More often than not, the mindset underlying this is revealed more clearly when folks come right out and tell me that "it must be so hard to not be able to eat anything normal". I always reassure them that when it comes to what I eat, I do just fine, and that if anything, going vegan has left me eating a wider and more healthy variety of foods. I hardly view it as a sacrifice to have made changes in my life that leave me lessening the role I had previously played in the cycle by which animals are bred and then slaughtered for our use--whether as food, personal care products, clothing, entertainment (and so on). So it irks me when I see mainstream media articles describing veganism as hard, or as being about self-sacrifice, when veganism is actually quite easy once you get the hang of it, and is less self-sacrifice than it is a relief.

When I read articles like this one conveying that vegetarianism is difficult, particularly about it being hard to eat vegetarian in restaurants, I really have to roll my eyes. As many vegans know, if anything, the reason non-meat options in restaurants are generally also non-vegan is that they're generally saturated with dairy or eggs. Shuffling animal flesh out for other animal products certainly didn't leave me lacking options in most restaurants I'd encountered back before I became vegan. This article irked me a little, as well, because of its reiteration of what's now become standard in most food-related articles discussing so-called ethical eating--presenting the eating of animal flesh as either funny or sexy. In this case, the piece's writer quotes her youngest daughter as quipping in response to their discussion of going vegetarian for lent: “Are you kidding? I’m going to the grocery and getting a steak!” I mean, in someone's mind, is this really a Hallmark moment?

Another thing the article illustrates is how the slippery sloping involved in the shuffling out of one animal product for another that led to the big fish-eating 'vegetarian' trend has now led to the mainstream acceptance of the definition of 'vegetarianism' as including the eating of fishes. This is less ethically problematic, really, than it is irksome that the definition of a term that denotes a diet excluding the consumption of animal flesh is now assumed to include the consumption of the flesh of some animals deemed less worthy. The pescatarianism thing used to really get under my skin, but the truth is that now it pretty much makes sense to me that it evolved and that many once-upon-a-time vegetarians are now also shuffling fish in and out of their diets and not viewing it as morally inconsistent to do so.

The truth is that it's not. All of this just merely adds more weight to the argument that if you do really take the interests and rights of nonhuman animals seriously, you should go vegan. It also adds weight to the argument that it really makes no sense for vegans to promote a vegetarian diet. Animal exploitation is animal exploitation, whether it involves using animals for their flesh, their secretions, their skin/fur, their ability to entertain us, et al. To condemn one and condone the other is inconsistent and confusing. Don't we owe nonhuman animals more than that?

Why I Will Not Advocate Vegetarianism

Honesty as "Bashing"

A vegetarian blogger recently lambasted me on Twitter for having called for consistency in animal advocacy by asking vegan activists not to mince words or water down their message to advocate anything other than veganism. I pointed out that to endorse anything less makes as much sense as endorsing part-time murder or part-time child abuse. If one takes the interests and rights of nonhuman animals seriously, how can one reconcile this with supporting someone else's continued exploitation of animals? The blogger took issue with this and used it as an opportunity to promote a post he wrote ("Veganism is a Part of Vegetarianism") accusing those calling for veganism of being "vegetarian bashers". In this piece, VegBlogger asserts that it is "counterproductive to vegetarianism as a whole (which includes veganism) to bash vegetarians or vegetarianism" and makes clear that "bashing", in this case, means:

1. that "they are doing no good" (i.e. to point out that animal exploitation other than the actual consumption of animal flesh is immoral), and
2. telling vegetarians that they are "the same as an omnivore" (i.e. to point out that there is no significant ethical difference when it comes to animal exploitation whether you consume the flesh or secretions of animals).

So here's the deal: In modern and common parlance, "vegetarianism" is understood to mean a plant-based diet that may or may not include the consumption of animal products such as dairy, eggs or honey. In terms of taking the interests and rights of nonhuman animals seriously, veganism is no more a "part" or "aspect" of vegetarianism than it is a part of omnivorism. It is not a subset of vegetarianism, which concerns itself with what one chooses to eat. Veganism isn't solely about diet, but is about making a commitment to nonhuman animals that involves refraining from exploiting them as far as is possible in all aspects of one's consumption (i.e. food, clothes, personal care products, entertainment, et al.). In his or her article, VegBlogger makes it clear that he or she views omnivorism (which involves the consumption of animal flesh) as a big bad by repeatedly portraying comparing vegetarianism to omnivorism as the "hurling" of "insults" at vegetarians. Basically, one would assume by this that VegBlogger views the consumption of animal flesh itself as immoral, but stops short of viewing the consumption of animal secretions (or any other exploitation of animals) as ethically problematic and thinks that it's rude that others should view the consumption of animal secretions as such and be forthright about it.

It Is What It Is

The truth is that there is as much--often more--suffering involved in dairy or egg consumption as there is in meat consumption. There is no less death involved. Calves are taken from their mothers and sent off to slaughter in the dairy industry, male chicks are killed--sometimes ground alive--in the egg industry. In both industries, the the milk-producing cows and egg-laying hens' daily lives are filled with misery and as soon as their production goes down, they're sent off to slaughter, as well, to in turn be used for food. When one consumes animal products, one continues to commodify nonhuman animals--to treat them as things that exist to satisfy our selfish urges. One continues to be complicit in all of this. This isn't just a matter of opinion leading to the unwarranted wagging of a finger. The facts are what they are and to try to convince oneself otherwise (i.e. that the consumption of animal products like dairy and eggs is less ethically problematic than the consumption of animal flesh) is self-delusional; to perpetuate that sort of confusion in others who choose to continue exploiting animals is both dishonest and misleading. If a vegetarian who consumes animal products finds the truth "insulting" or offensive, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't alter the facts.

On Stepping Stones and Shuffling

Some, like VegBlogger, insist that an exception should be made for vegetarianism (i.e. the consumption of animal products other than flesh) since vegetarianism is a "stepping stone" to veganism. The example often brought up is that most vegans were once vegetarians; most vegans were once omnivores, too, yet few would jump at positing a causal relationship there. The reality is that vegetarianism is no more a stepping stone to veganism than any other altered form of omnivorism is a stepping stone to veganism. If anything, humans sometimes get lulled into complacency by deluding themselves that they're doing enough by merely cutting out this or that animal product. I know this firsthand--I was a lacto-vegetarian for many years and I truly wish that, rather than pat me on the back and reassure me that I was doing enough, someone had actually talked to me about veganism.

Thinking that shuffling out this or that animal product is "enough" is like telling oneself that it's alright to beat the hell out of one's child on Tuesdays as long as one refrains from doing so the rest of the week. An accusation often thrown at vegans for being unequivocal about vegan advocacy is that we present an "all or nothing" dilemma that purportedly sends so-called potential vegans back to their omnivorous ways. If my neighbour told me that she only beats her child on Tuesdays and I told her that she needed to stop completely, would it make sense to accuse me of sending her back to beating her child everyday by taking an "all or nothing" approach to the situation? Would it make sense to accuse me of "insulting" her if I asked her to stop altogether? Would it make sense to say that I was "insulting" every other person who chooses to beat his or her child on one single day a week (i.e. rather than everyday) since I was ignoring that "every little bit counts"? Of course not. So why is it such an issue when we're discussing the interests of nonhuman animals? Is it because their interests are not as significant to some as those of humans? Is that not speciesist?

We owe nonhuman animals more than to let human feelings trump nonhumans' rights to not be used as things. I also think I owe my fellow humans more than to lie to them about what we owe those nonhuman animals. I'd like to give my fellow humans enough credit to think that they can handle the truth and act accordingly, rather than mislead them into continuing to exploit nonhumans, which is what I'd be doing by advocating vegetarianism or any other type of nonhuman animal consumption.

Further Information

For more information on why we should persevere in educating others about veganism and why stopping short by endorsing vegetarianism as an ethically significant "step" is problematic, please visit The Abolitionist Approach website to read these three essays:

"Vegetarianism as a "Gateway" to Veganism?"
"Some Comments on Vegetarianism as a "Gateway" to Veganism"
"Vegetarianism First"

Also visit Dan Cudahy's Unpopular Vegan Essays blog to read his essay "What Is Wrong with Vegetarianism".

Go vegan. It's the right thing to do and it's an easy and healthy thing to do.

Another Fundraising Fail from the Humane Something or Other

It feels like it was just yesterday that HSUS was embarrassing itself by holding a fundraiser to raise money for its "Save the Seals" campaign by handing out animal-based appetizers to event attendees gathered to pressure the Canadian government to end its annual seal hunt. Oh, yeah... The event was held in a hip non-vegan restaurant in Washington, DC that featured--and still features--PEI mussels on its menu. It should not be much of a surprise that its "separate lobbying affiiliate", the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), should end up following suit with its own fundraising fail.

What's it all about? Apparently it's about having a party. A whole bunch of them, really. The friendly folks behind HSLF (including its president Mike Markarian, who is also HSUS' Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer) are asking those who "care" about animals to register to host what they're calling a "Let's Pass a Law" party on October 25. Not only do party attendees get to help HSLF by raising funds, BUT they get to participate in a conference call in which the winner of the "There Oughta Be a Law" contest will be announced. The idea, I guess, is that you submit ideas for a new federal animal protection bill and a panel of judges will pick a winner. (Parties and contests, oh my! How much more feel-good could it get, really?)

I was curious about guidelines HSLF is offering for these parties, particularly in terms of what food / drinks should be served. In the Party FAQ section concerning how to set one up, HSLF reminds hosts:

If you want to make sure your event stays under budget try to have a pot-luck or solicit food donations from local restaurants or stores. If you would like to make your event an upscale fundraiser, serve wine and delicious food to your guests. Remember, this is your party; you can design it to fit your needs and budget.

So, no mention is made of serving animal-product free (i.e. vegan) food, which HSUS staff and supporters often tout as being a supposed rule of thumb for ordinary fundraisers thrown by HSUS, itself.

I got a little (hopeful?) excited when I found a link they provided to "tips and advice" from someone they called a "seasoned host" for their Party Animals events, a woman called Debra Berger who is described as a Georgia animal advocate. Then I read this:

HSLF: What tips do you have for hosting a great party to help animals?
DB: The best way for hosts to ensure happy guests is by serving lots of delicious vegetarian (my emphasis) and/or vegan food, and making sure you have enough.

Basically, HSLF is organizing a big fundraising campaign to get people on board to raise money for them and to participate in a fun contest to come up with suggestions for animal protection laws. And it couldn't even bring itself to take the opportunity for the slightest little bit of vegan education? Did it think that it would be too off-putting to suggest to people throwing these parties for them to purportedly "help" animals to actually not serve animal products as food?

Considering that there is as much (and often more) suffering in the lives of egg-laying hens and dairy cows than in the lives of animals raised for their flesh, and given its affiliate HSUS' focus on the treatment versus the use of nonhuman animals, you'd think that someone--anyone--over there might have thought it a good idea to promote the serving of vegan food at these oh-so-fun parties. The fact that they're not merely drives home that these fundraising events are more about making humans feel good about themselves than they are about helping nonhuman animals (see Prof. Gary L. Francione's essay "A Revolution of the Heart" to learn more about welfarist organizations and their selling of indulgences). The truth is that these events really have little to do with taking the interests of animals seriously or with moving towards ending the exploitation of nonhuman animals. These events are about raising money. Period.

Do you really want to help nonhuman animals? Go vegan. If you already are vegan, then talk to others about veganism. Please don't throw your money at an organization that promotes the continued exploitation of nonhuman animals.

(If you're on Twitter, please sign this Twitition started by Prof. Francione, asking HSUS to have one--just a wee single one--"Go Vegan!" campaign.)

ETA: I fixed the first link in my post. It was meant to connect to this story on the Abolitionist Approach website.

On Why You Cannot Abolish the Use of Animals While Encouraging the Use of Animals

I have been involved in more than a handful of discussions or exchanges over recent months where I have been informed of the "need" for animal activists to present a united front and that my promotion of the abolitionist approach with veganism as an absolute moral baseline is "counterproductive" and "off-putting" to new potential vegans--that the abolitionist approach to animal rights, in and of itself, is purportedly "off-putting". Is "off-putting" just a euphemism for "not easy", though? I agree that advocating for veganism as an absolute moral baseline isn't offering anyone whose second nature it is to view nonhuman animals as food (or more generally, as our property and ours to use) anything resembling instant gratification.

What it does offer, however, is simplicity and consistency. What it does allow is an opportunity for a human individual to remove herself from a cycle that causes unnecessary suffering and ends in slaughter. What it does allow is for (depending on where you source your stats) anywhere from 20-30 animals a year to not be slaughtered for the most superficial of human whims. What it does allow is the sort of opportunity for the sort of clarity and critical thinking which will leave you understanding that "veganism doesn't require perfection, is simple and straightforward, and does not involve a cultish religiosity but simple reasoning based on evidence to make moral decisions".

It was suggested to me the other day that my having disagreed with a fellow vegan over whether we, as vegans, should be promoting vegetarianism had been "mean" and lacking in "compassion for other humans". The truth is, though, that this isn't some sort of childhood interaction where we are gingerly picking team members to play dodge ball. If I express disagreement with a certain approach, it is because based on what I have observed or learned, that approach has been ineffective (or worse, that it is logically flawed before even getting off the ground). Call me compulsive, but I would feel almost just as strongly about pointing out to someone that he cannot start his BMW with a Popsicle stick or a lit stick of dynamite. Add to this that we are talking about differences in approaches to animal advocacy that affect the lives of billions of individuals every single year, and how could I not voice my disagreement? Why would I not? Disagreeing with ideas is just that--disagreement. Discussion and debate need not be stifled by being dragged down to the personal and there's far too much at stake right now to get tripped up over personal niceties or posturing when the focus needs to be on the work at hand.

Being what some call more flexible by promoting vegetarianism may make me seem more amiable, but other than making me seem more warm and fuzzy, who does it really benefit in the end? We have already seen that, however emphatically some may choose to assert otherwise, vegetarianism is not some sort of gateway to veganism and that (as expressed in the following quote by Gary L. Francione) its promotion does nothing but spread confusion:

If we promote any variety of vegetarianism short of veganism, we reinforce the false belief that there is a distinction between meat and dairy or other animal products. So even if vegans usually start off as vegetarians, we ought still to be promoting veganism. I should add that it remains a question in my mind as to whether those taking vegetarian “first steps” do so precisely because that is what they are being advised to do by animal advocates who are confused on this issue.

I have an old university friend who claims to have been reading my blog for months because it "makes [him] think" (although Site Meter leads me to believe that his assertions have more to do with flattering me than reflecting any actual reading of anything in this blog). He's a vegetarian. He's been so for a good dozen years and if you ask him, he will insist to you that he's doing it to prevent animal suffering. While gobbling up his cheese omelet, he will insist to you that eating meat is wrong and when asked why he continues to consume animal products, will invariably answer that he's doing his "part" and doing "more than most" and that this is enough. The truth is that he's taken no meaningful steps whatsoever to alter his own role in the exploitation and slaughter of animals. Somewhere along the line, someone convinced him that vegetarianism was enough and there he sits. He hasn't gone vegan and has no intention of doing so, since his only goal is to minimize suffering, and he feels that in eschewing meat and opting for other animal products that he's somehow stacking points up in the plus column. These are the so-called small increments some would have me applaud for the sake of not being "off-putting"?

I'm no mover, I'm no shaker. I have never published a book on animal rights, nor have I penned a popular vegan cookbook. I hold no doctoral degree and am no expert in anything other than sorting out the muck in my own head (and even there, my expertise is tenuous at best and more of an ongoing learning experiment). My superpower, I guess, is that I have nothing to lose. I am just an ordinary Canadian vegan who has spent years reading and listening and ultimately realizing that some things just weren't working: I have friends who make annual donations to PeTA, but who continue to eat animals. I have friends involved in cat rescue, but who raise chickens for their eggs and flesh. I have friends who define themselves as "animal lovers" who were outraged over the recent Vick case, but who will verbalize--quite delightedly--their enjoyment of the taste of animal flesh within moments of calling Vick a monster for having gotten his own kicks by exploiting dogs. I have a friend who's able to articulate why it is that she believes that consuming cage-free eggs involves making an ethical choice that's supposedly superior to consuming eggs from chickens kept in battery cages, even though she's never purchased a so-called "humane" product in her entire life. Something's not working. It's just not. What's obvious is that there are overlapping layers of confusion about moral issues and about the status of nonhuman animals that need to be peeled back. Do we really want or need to add more?

For more information on why veganism is the only defensible moral position in terms of our consumption and use of nonhumans, read or listen to the following:

• These comments and this podcast commentary by Prof. Gary L. Francione at the Abolitionist Approach website.
• Vincent J. Guihan's podcast commentary at WOARadio.
• An excerpt from the upcoming 2nd edition to Bob and Jenna Torres' book Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World.
  
• Dan Cudahy's essay "What Is Wrong with Vegetarianism?" from his Unpopular Vegan Essays blog.
  
• Ken Hopes' piece "Lacto-Ovo-Vegetarianism Makes no Sense" from his Brockway Hall blog.
• Then, to find out more about the exploitation inherent in the egg industry, visit this site. Or for dairy, visit this one.

Lactovegan? Looks Like Someone's Yanking Chains

For those of you who follow Hungry Hungry Veganos on Twitter, you'll have read about this already today. It seems that someone has taken it upon himself (or herself) to set up a blog called lactovegan.com which is self-described as representing "compassion and consciousness". Supposedly born of the blogger's frustration with constantly having to explain himself while eating out and trying to describe his lacto-vegetarian dietary preferences, the blog instead introduces a completely contradictory and confusing term into the mix. What's that old saying? Two wrongs don't make a right?

You don't take a situation where to correct confusion over a term used to describe you, you introduce an even more confusing (and, by definition in this case, impossible) term to try to correct it. As is described in the blogger's initial post back in February:

Why invent a new term? In American society, the term vegan is very well understood. But, everybody has their own definition of vegetarianism. Depending upon indivdual [sic] interpretation, a vegetarian food may include dairy, eggs or fish. To overcome this vagueness in description of individuals who do not consume meat, eggs, fish etc. but do consume veggies and dairy, we use the term lactovegan.

Um, right. The term "vegetarian" isn't open to individual interpretation to the point where it includes eating animals (i.e. fish). Neither is the term "vegan" open to interpretation. If someone applauds the fact that in American society "the term vegan is very well understood", why would that person then feel compelled to go out of his (or her) way to co-opt the term to misrepresent and mangle it and make it "vague" as well?

Maybe I'm naive, but I can't help but think that this person's just out to yank chains. Then again, more stupid things have happened.

Conscientious Killing

A friend sent me a link last night to yet another article where attempts are made to justify a sense of ethical correctness to killing animals for food. The piece was posted on a site called Eco Child's Play which touts itself as being about "green parenting". The term "conscientious carnivores" is used to describe people who "just aren't ready" to stop eating animals but who are "honestly trying to live as green as possible". According to the piece's author, some of the purported reasons people won't stop eating meat are that they're "just not healthy without some animal protein in [their] diet and that there is some logic to the argument that humans are biologically omnivorous". The thing is that just because humans can eat meat, does not mean that they need to eat meat.

A link is given to back up the statement concerning omnivorism, but the article to which it leads actually states outright that we "are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice." It goes on to state that the best "arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical and health concerns". Strange that this article would be referenced in a piece that's all about how to seek out happy cows to eat because although you want to pat yourself on the back for being "green", you're "not ready" to make the right choice.

It's a real shame that so many of those involved in environmentalism today are hopping on the "happy meat" bandwagon. It's alienating a lot of people who've been a part of the movement who aren't desperately seeking excuses to continue raising animals for food.

Meat Moves Over -- US Food Trends

Caterer Search, a hospitality industry website, has an article today about the steady rise in demand for meat-free options in eating establishments around the US. Unfortunately, many of the chefs quoted cite using oodles of cheese in their meat-free menu items, but not all of them. It's still quite interesting to read something like this on a trade website. The focus seems to be on the overall greater healthiness of meat-free options, as well as on the increasing diversity available as they're offered up on menus around the US. There are statistics on vegetarianism and references to the many reasons some people shun animal products, as well as the reasons some are now seeking to limit their consumption of them. It presents the trend in a completely positive light, which is good to see.

Richard Heinberg and What We Call Food

Richard Heinberg's November Museletter is out. He discusses the need to take a proactive approach towards agriculture to both avoid a food crisis as fossil fuels diminish, as well as to lessen its impact upon the environment -- particularly, to reverse agriculture's contribution to climate change. The way to do this, he says, is to start removing fossil fuels from what he calls "the food system" now instead of doing it when we've no other option. He cites a United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)'s report on the viability of small-scale organic agriculture in terms of its production equaling that of industrial agriculture and then proceeds to map out this incredible plan, examining all components of the food system, from soil and seed, to labour and distribution. He explains why genetically modified crops, so reliant on transportation and chemicals, will be useless in a world with diminishing oil supplies.

Heinberg discusses the need to shift to natural unprocessed foods and asserts that a "shift toward a less meat-centered diet should also be encouraged, because a meat-based diet is substantially more energy intensive than one that is plant-based". It's funny how although Heinberg has been a vegetarian himself for many, many years, he's so rarely addressed the issue of meat eating and how so much more fossil fuel reliant it is than a vegetarian (or better -- a vegan) diet.

I emailed my friend J. about it. He's an almost-vegan and he introduced me to Heinberg's work a few years ago. J. pointed out that Heinberg is likely aware that bringing up vegetarianism would alienate a large percentage of the population. I don't buy that, though. Heinberg's not afraid to advocate cutting back on our energy consumption, growing our own food in whatever garden space we can muster up, focusing on changing how we view community -- why on earth would he be cowed by fears of following his own assertions about lessening meat consumption to their logical (and optimal) conclusions? The article reminded me of the only reference I've read Heinberg really make to vegetarianism -- his own, as well as with regards to others.

It was a talk Heinberg gave for the Twenty-sixth E. F. Shumacher Lecture in 2006. Actually, the reference happened in the Q&A bit that happened after the talk, when Heinberg was asked why he wasn't addressing how much grain goes towards raising animals for food, and was asked what his stance was on eating lower on the food chain, he responded:

As a thirty-five-year vegetarian I’m a little biased. Yes, meat production is obviously extremely energy intensive and more so in this country than in many other places. [...] Over the past thirty-five years I have found that from a health standpoint many people don’t do well on a completely vegan or vegetarian diet, and I think we have to be realistic and take account of that. I also think, however, that we would be much healthier if we ate much less meat; that would help our collective survival prospects enormously as we go through this transition.

Many people don't do well on a completely vegan or vegetarian diet?? So why this perpetuation of this myth that vegetarianism and veganism aren't healthy? Where does Heinberg get this supposed "data", which sounds especially weird coming from someone who claims he's been a vegetarian for thirty-five years. It was disappointing when I'd first read it, and is still disappointing to read today, after reading Heinberg's weighing of the energy-intensiveness of plant-based vs. meat-based diets.

Steak Doesn't Grow on Trees

OK folks, repeat after me: A vegetarian is someone who refrains from eating the flesh of animals. Not just on Mondays or Thursdays. Not just during daylight hours. Not just when it's convenient. It's a definition, not a judgement.

There is no such thing as a ''part-time vegetarian'' or ''casual vegetarian''. Someone who only eats a little bit of meat some of the time is an omnivore who only eats a little bit of meat some of the time. It's like saying that someone can be a ''part-time Christian'' or ''casual Christian''. A ''flexitarian'' is an omnivore who doesn't eat a lot of meat. It's not a subcategory of vegetarianism, regardless of how desperately one wants to cling to a label that doesn't fit.

Yes, eating less meat is good for your health, good for the environment and good for the animals whose lives aren't lost to end up on your plate. That being said: Meat eating isn't vegetarianism.

Are you a good vegetarian guest?

This article in Thailand's Pataya Daily News on how to be a gracious vegetarian guest applies to anyone anywhere in this big ol' world. Years ago, shortly after first transitioning to vegetarianism, I used to feel a certain amount of anxiety upon receiving dinner invitations. Vegetarianism was new to me and not as widely known and accepted as it seems to be now. These days, I lose track of how often people tell me they have a niece who's vegetarian, or about how their teenager's boyfriend is a vegan -- that sort of thing. I used to feel awkward telling someone about my diet, wary of offering up an unwelcome hassle. Thankfully, I've learned to become a somewhat decent cook so that bringing a dish along not only lessens any potential burden on my host, but often triggers a light conversation about vegan cooking.People always seem pleasantly surprised that it's neither bland nor repulsive. Go figure!

McCartney's Meat-Free Monday

Paul McCartney's in the news this week. I just read a story this morning about how he's promoting the idea of a meat-free Monday in Britain. He's encouraging people to abstain from eating meat one day a week to help the environment, citing the UN's recent report on climate change which linked meat consumption to global warming. I think it's a great idea from an environmental perspective. In terms of animal rights, it's no more than a token gesture that will leave people feeling better about what they eat the rest of the week.
Around four years ago, I went to hear Canadian pop culture icon (and environmentalist extraordinaire) David Suzuki speak on one of his tours, he was also promoting the idea of non-vegetarians integrating a meat-free day into their routines. I've always wished Dr. Suzuki would publicly come around to vegetarianism (or even more so, veganism), especially considering the fact that he frequently addresses the environmental impact of factory farming, as well as its inherent cruelty and also often writes about the environmental impact of the Canadian fisheries industry. I've read here and there that the only animal products he consumes are fish and dairy, but haven't seen official confirmation of it.

Update from an August 23, 2012 article in the Globe and Mail:
"[I]note>We shun red meat, but eat eggs, chicken and fish. I'm not a breakfast guy. For me it's get up, have a coffee and go to work. My idea of a wonderful breakfast is leftovers from a Japanese meal the night before. It's called ochazuke: You take cold rice and pour hot tea on it and eat that with pickles and a bit of salmon.

"Our foundation works a four-day work week. Usually my workout is before dinner, so I come home and have a beer because after I work out the beer goes right to my head, so I get a buzz off of that. My wife has a nice Japanese meal for me. The one indulgence I have when travelling is Panago's thin-crust pizza with everything on it."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the animals we eat

The animals you eat are not those who devour others; you do not eat the carnivorous beasts, you take them as your pattern. You only hunger after sweet and gentle creatures who harm no one, which follow you, serve you, and are devoured by you as the reward of their service.
--Jean Jacques Rousseau, philosopher and novelist (1712-1778)

A sausage a day increases your cancer risk by 20%

A recent British study has shown that consuming 50 g of processed meat a day -- a sausage or around three strips of bacon -- can raise the likelihood that you'll develop cancer by 20%. The cancer in question is bowel cancer and according to the study, any processed meats preserved with salt or chemical additives will increase your risk. It's not just a question of cutting back; one of the researchers involved has stated that processed meats should be avoided completely.

Current reads

I picked up a discarded copy of Janet Barkas' The Vegetable Passion at a library book sale around a month ago. It's subtitled A History of the Vegetarian State of Mind and examines different periods throughout the history of vegetarianism, focusing on some obvious areas like its practice in India and by the early Greeks, as well as the movement that came much later in England. It also examines famous vegetarians like Tolstoy, and even Hitler (more infamous than famous, that one). Published in 1975, it definitely precedes the huge flurry of writing about vegetarianism that seems to be filling up bookstore shelves today in post-Peter-Singer days. From some snooping around online with Google, I'm assuming that it's well out-of-print.

Here's a not-so-kind review of it from Time, printed at the time of its publication. The reviewer didn't think much of Barkas' style and seeming lack of substance, but noted the importance and relevance of the of the subject matter, nonetheless. I'll share my own thoughts on the book at a later date, since I'm just a few dozen pages into it right now and am currently in over my head reading an Eliot Coleman book on organic farming (something about which I'll also be posting at a later date).