Feeling the Love, Whole Foods Style

Abby Bean from over yonder at A (soy) Bean shared a particularly well-captioned photo on Facebook this morning that left me slowly shaking my head. "Now they're just purposely being antagonistic," she wrote of it.  It's a shame they couldn't share some of that love with the cows.

(Check out her review from late last May of Saf Restaurant, an actual vegan restaurant located in Whole Foods Kensington in London in the UK.  Between the mediocre fare and the "happy meat" signs lining its stairwell, it sounds like a bit of a joke on the vegans who haplessly wander into it.)

Finally: Abolitionist Animal Rights at AR2013

Gary L. Francione (to the right) addresses the crowd during his debate with Bruce Friedrich.(Photo sourced from FARM's Facebook page.)

(The following is a guest post by New York City vegan and environmental activist, Demosthenes Maratos, who attended the conference and presented on a panel discussing "Externalities of Animal Abuse". Demo very kindly agreed to let me share his experience at the conference with My Face Is on Fire readers and I'm very grateful that he took the time to write down all that he did. I truly wish I had been able to attend, but Demo's words leave me feeling as if I have.)

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

I’m not at all a morning person, so in my truest form, I was late making it down to the 500-seat Plaza room at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center Hotel Saturday morning.

When I arrived, the room was already filled to the point where people had assembled outside the door and in the hallway to hear Professor Gary Francione’s first-ever presentation at the National Animal Rights conference. I pushed my way through the crowd assembled in the hallway and found a spot way in the back to stand for the presentation. It took me a minute or two to comprehend just what was going on.

Some back-story: At least a month and a half earlier a friend and I were exchanging email messages about whether this day would ever actually happen. There was some concern expressed about whether Professor Francione would be given the freedom to present whatever he wanted or whether he would in any way be censored by the organizers. I remember my friend distinctly saying that Francione would likely just give his usual talk on veganism as the moral baseline and that the organizers need not be concerned.

Back to the Plaza room: I quickly realized that every single chair in the 500-seat banquet room was filled and that more had been brought in to accommodate the assembled crowd. Still not enough, attendees of the conference were standing, kneeling and sitting in the last remaining bits of floor space unoccupied by chairs or other attendees. I found out later from the organizers that they estimated the room to have had 800 or more individuals in attendance that morning. After having taken in the magnitude of the crowd, I focused on what was being presented. I remembered the conversation with my friend about “his usual talk about veganism,” but that was not the case today. To their credit, the organizers (Farm Animal Rights Movement or FARM) allowed Francione to present exactly what he wanted. And boy, did he. Within minutes of my arrival, right there on the screen in front of the packed Plaza room was a PowerPoint slide showing the now infamous 2005 Animal Rights International letter to Whole Foods’ John Mackey. The letter, written by Peter Singer and signed by practically every major animal welfare organization, praised Whole Foods for having adopted “humane” treatment standards for raising and killing sentient creatures.

Allow me to put this all into perspective. The mainstream animal advocacy movement has wholly shunned Professor Francione since his 1996 book Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement critiqued the emergence of “new welfarists” as doing the animals more harm than good, and animal welfare reform as ineffective in ever leading to animal liberation. For 17 years he has been called controversial, divisive, or a traitor by many in the mainstream animal advocacy movement. And as I would find out later from a conversation with Francione, he was also on the receiving end of death threats after the book’s release.

While continuing his writing and lecturing (the author of four additional books since 1996, including the newly-released e-book, Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals), Francione had never been asked to speak at FARM’s National Animal Rights Conference. When I inquired as to why that was the case at last year’s conference, the answers from FARM organizers ran the gamut from “we don’t think he will come” to “we think he will go over his allotted time” to “we think he will be critical of the work of other groups”. They were right on the last one, but without ever asking, they would never have known whether he’d accept an invitation or go over his allotted time. For the record, going over one’s allotted time is something pretty much every presenter at the conference does. Myself included… oops.

But now Francione was standing at the podium, 800 people in attendance, including a veritable who’s who of animal welfare leaders (Paul Shapiro from HSUS, Nathan Runkle and Matt Rice from Mercy For Animals, Melanie Joy of Carnism Awareness, Action Network, Bruce Friedrich, Nick Cooney and Gene Bauer from Farm Sanctuary, Erica Meier of Compassion Over Killing, and others from Vegan Outreach, PeTA, The Humane League, etc) - in other words, some of the very people whose work Francione has very strongly disagreed with. Of course, he wasn’t simply standing there. He was now meticulously outlining how the mainstream animal rights movement had lost its way, how welfare reforms were a giant step backward, and how industry collaboration had drained the movement of its integrity. And he was doing so with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, which Francione admitted to be doing for the first time ever.

His hour-long presentation discussed, among other things, how welfare reforms would happen anyway as industry strived to cut costs and increase market share, how activists should never seek to aid industry in making animal exploitation more profitable, how welfare campaigns actually make the public feel better about animal exploitation and how they actually encourage continued animal use by making people think that they can discharge their moral obligations to animals without ending animal use in their own lives, how incongruous sexist campaigns like “Veggie Love Casting Session” are to a movement seeking to liberate one group of oppressed individuals by exploiting another group, and how making moral distinctions between different forms or exploitation (i.e. single issue campaigns, the promotion of Meatless Monday) does not shift the paradigm from animals as exploitable things to beings worthy of our moral concern.

Francione’s presentation was met with spontaneous outbursts of applause throughout and ended with a rousing standing ovation from at least half of the jam-packed room. Considering the welfare-dominated environment in which he was presenting, it was spectacular to be party to it all.

An hour later, I was back in the Plaza room witnessing a similar scene. Having this time arrived early I saw the 500 seat room being packed to capacity with more than a hundred additional chairs being brought in to accommodate the crowd, and still a few hundred others having to sit, stand, or kneel on the floor. My partner and I grabbed two of the chairs being brought in and were seated in the front row, to the left of the dais awaiting the debate between Gary Francione and Farm Sanctuary’s Bruce Friedrich. After a brief welcome, introduction, and explanation of the debate format from moderator and World Peace Diet author, Will Tuttle we were under way. The format: Francione and Friedrich each had 10 minutes for an opening statement, followed by 25 minutes of audience questions and answers, and concluding with a 2-minute summation from each presenter.

Francione presented his position first, and without the aid of a PowerPoint presentation this time he carefully began by outlining, as he’d done in his morning plenary, that veganism should be the moral baseline of any movement concerned about animal rights. He continued that there is no evidence to indicate that making exploitation more 'humane' advances toward the abolition of exploitation, and offered the comparison of placing animals that will inevitably die for palate pleasure in bigger cages being akin to torturing a prisoner on a padded water board. He went on to argue that we have had animal welfare laws for nearly two hundred years, and yet we now exploit more animals in more horrible ways than at any time in the past. He added that “to the extent that animal welfare reform raises consciousness about animals, it merely reinforces the notion that animals are things that we are entitled to use if our treatment of them is 'humane' and facilitates the continued acceptance of exploitation, which is characterized as meeting that standard." Later, Francione concluded his statement by saying that there is no way one could advocate for bigger cages (or another reform) without taking the stance that those conditions are morally desired and that consuming animals produced under those conditions is ethically acceptable. “You promote "happy" exploitation whether or not you think you are,” he said.

Again, Francione’s 10-minute opening statement was met with outbursts of applause from the assembled crowd, and another stirring standing ovation from half of those in attendance.

Bruce Friedrich then took to the podium and began, as he so often does, with the same joke, “Did people hear that Bill Gates bought the Seattle Times this morning?” But before he could deliver the punch line, someone from the audience shouted it out, “Yeah, he buys it every morning.” Friedrich appeared disappointed.

Friedrich’s presentation began with statement that he was abolitionist and that he and Farm Sanctuary were working towards their ultimate goal of animal liberation. He failed in my estimation, however, to convince me of that fact. Simply saying something doesn’t make it so. But I digress. He continued that animal welfare reforms do help animals and that they shift the paradigm towards animal liberation. With the use of PowerPoint he juxtaposed a slide of pig in a gestation crate with a slide of a group of pigs in cage free confinement and claimed that this was a significant improvement for the animals suffering right now. He did the same thing with a slide of hens in battery cages and hens in cage-free confinement and added the claim that the switch from one form of confinement to the other would spare millions of animals from misery. He attempted to prove his point by presenting the Kansas State University study entitled “U.S. Meat Demand: The Influence of Animal Welfare Media Coverage”, which he argued, demonstrated that media attention to animal welfare issues in the past decade resulted in “significant negative effects on U.S. meat demand” and were leading to veganism. Or as Friedrich said, vegetarianism, since he continues to use those terms interchangeably.

In what appeared to be a attempt at winning audience support, Friedrich, unfairly in my opinion, used another slide depicting a pig named Julia and said that she and her babies were saved as a result of a gestation crate ban and were now living out their lives at Farm Sanctuary. How does that work exactly? This went unexplained and unquestioned and seemed to imply that pigs get to go to sanctuaries immediately after a crate ban. 

Friedrich’s presentation also received sporadic and supportive applause throughout, and at its conclusion, it garnered a standing ovation by half of the attendees in the room. It seemed more boisterous to me and included hooting and hollering. More on that later.

When it came time for audience members to ask questions and/or comments, better than twenty individuals made their way to the microphone positioned near the front of the room. Of the questions I remember, one was from a woman employed by The Humane League and who has a relevant interest in the outcome of the debate. She asked both debaters to talk about what type of vegan outreach they’ve done, but specifically asked Francione, “What do you do besides Facebook?” Clearly intended to imply that all Francione does is use Facebook, it was obviously a “planted” question. After all, Francione has written numerous books, he teaches and lectures internationally, he blogs, he podcasts, and let’s face it, he doesn’t subscribe to the model that one needs to work within a organizational structure to be effective. Yet, here he was having to defend his use of Facebook, which he did commendably enough in outlining how without much in the way or resources he was reaching thousands and getting 400 emails a day concerning the abolitionist approach. But the question was clearly designed to set up Friedrich to rattle off a list of welfare campaigns and claim that it was abolitionist vegan education.

For anyone astute enough to notice, it was a contrived question with the intention of supporting Friedrich’s position. Another audience member commented that he felt the debate seemed to center around either promoting welfare reforms and/or promoting veganism. He added that there should be another position presented, and if I understood him correctly, he was interested in seeing bans on different forms of exploitation rather than simply regulating conditions within that exploitation. Friedrich responded by thanking him for his question and different point of view and added that Francione and he admittedly did not go over every position during the debate.

Towards the end of the question and answer portion of the debate, Nick Cooney, Founder of The Humane league and now Compassionate Communities Manager at Farm Sanctuary was either given or somehow commandeered a wireless microphone to ask a question from the back of the room. It was not only rude (at least 15 audience members were waiting patiently in line for their turn to ask a question,) but it was also very much another “planted” question.

Unknowing attendees may not have realized who was asking the question or that Cooney, who remember works for the same organization as Friedrich, was asking the question of his colleague, but it seemed clear to me that it was an attempt to bring the conversation back to the Kansas State Study. I don’t remember his exact phrasing, but his “question” went something like, “Bruce, can you elaborate further on the study you referenced earlier about how welfare reforms save millions of animals?”

As an aside, and for those who may not know, Cooney has a history of this sort of disingenuous behavior. In August of 2012, Paul Shapiro, Vice President of Farm Animal Protection at the Humane Society of the United States wrote an article for the online blog, Food Day in which Shapiro encouraged readers to eat more vegetables. Among the “planted” comments by many of Shapiro’s colleagues and friends (all of which are still there to be read,) Cooney, using his own name, posted a comment that said something to the effect of, “Thank you Mr. Shapiro, I’m glad you brought this issue to my attention. I’ve been eyeing all those yummy looking meat alternatives in my grocery store and you’ve encouraged me to try them.” After being summarily criticized by others in the animal rights community as dishonest and disingenuous to have pretended to be an omnivore (Cooney is vegan) who just happened upon the article and was influenced by it, the comments were taken down.

Friedrich used this “question” to again make the case for the validity of the Kansas State Study, which Francione quickly challenged. Saying, that the study does not say that welfare campaigns have resulted in any actual decrease in consumption. Rather, he explained, “it says that demand, measured over an approximately ten-year period, did not increase as much as the authors would have thought if media attention on welfare issues had not increased.” He added that animal consumption is increasing but it did not increase as much with respect to pigs and chickens and that may or may not have had anything to do with animal welfare measures, and any decrease in demand may very well reflect a shift to fish, eggs, dairy products since the authors defined those as non-meat 

items.

Friedrich kept insisting that the study indicated both an overall reduction in animal consumption and that it was the result of welfare reform. Francione again challenged that this was theorized, and with zero evidence to back it up it was merely correlation not causation. Francione went on to encourage the audience to read the entire study for themselves and not take any one’s word for it.

More than a handful of attendees were left without time in the schedule to ask questions and they were asked to return to their seats.

Friedrich received the most raucous applause from the assembled crowd, which was again filled with a veritable who’s who of animal welfare leaders and their supporters. I wouldn't base it all on cheering, however. Francione, to my knowledge, did not even announce publicly that he would be speaking at the conference. And remember, this conference has long been dominated by welfarist organizations. All of which employ colleagues, friends, and peers of Friedrich, and all of whom knew to show up in opposition. Some of them were visibly not very happy to be hearing disagreement with their work, especially in front of a crowd that normally fawns all over them. Their cheers were the only way to voice their dissatisfaction. It was expected.

After the debate, Francione made his way to the spacious foyer outside the Plaza room where conference sponsor tables were set up. Francione was provided with his own table to promote his new eBook. Once there, a seemingly endless stream of conference attendees had gathered in a line to seek him out to talk to him, to discuss points he made, or to meet him for themselves. In some cases it was an orderly line where people waited their turn, in others instances attendees had gathered around the table informally for a group conversation. This scene literally went on for hours, five straight hours to be exact. Person after person after person wanted to engage him in conversation. It wasn’t until the foyer began to fill up with those attending the conference banquet and awards ceremony that Francione and his assistant could think about making an exit. That however, was short-lived as they could not walk more than a few steps before being stopped again.

The distance from Francione’s table to the escalator leading to the main lobby and hotel exit was no more than a hundred and fifty feet. But it took them another hour to walk that distance as more and more people wanted to ask questions and interact with Francione. Finally at the foot of the escalator and the group gathered at just about five or six individuals, Eddie Lama of The Witness recognized Francione. The two made eye contact, but the old friends couldn’t believe whom they were seeing. They embraced and someone snapped a picture. Shortly thereafter-another old friend walked by. This time it was Shirley McGreal, founder of International Primate Protection League, who recognized both Francione and Lama and the three had their picture taken together. After all was said and done, Francione left the Hilton Mark Center nearly 12 hours after he arrived.

My take on the debate: At a conference that has traditionally been dominated by regulationst ideologies, Gary Francione had everything to gain, while Bruce Friedrich had much to lose. Regardless of how any of us might have called it (I personally happen to think Francione's arguments were and are more effective) the winner was Francione. Exposing 800 people to the abolitionist approach, many of who are brand new to the movement, there were bound to be people who were moved to consider his point of view, and for him to win over new supporters (I spoke to a number of them). That's a win in my book. In Friedrich's case, attendees learned nothing new and I spoke to no one who was moved to reconsider their position and support his. His supporters remained his supporters. Having witnessed the events of the morning, afternoon and into the early evening of Saturday June 29^th, I can honestly say it was a thing of beauty to behold.

In the hours after the debate, while many of us conference goers were discussing the day’s events and our thoughts on who had won, I heard something interesting from a friend. He happened to overhear a conference sponsor tell a colleague that if Francione were invited again, he and others would pull out of next year's conference. It seems evident that some felt threatened by Francione’s presence and did not take kindly to being challenged on the merits or their work.

Of course being challenged isn't about posturing and nitpicking so much as it is a very much warranted criticism of how many organizations are going about setting things back for the very animals they claim to be "helping". Frankly, when welfare reform is criticized, the response is too often to ignore the substance of the argument and claim that the critic is being “divisive” or “too idealistic”. This is not helpful to a useful discussion and seems only designed to prevent people from considering the message. Abolitionists like Francione have for far too long been painted with that broad brush. It’s insidious and it needs to stop.

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

For those of you who weren't present at AR2013 to hear the Francione/Friedrich debate, here's an unofficial video taken of it by an audience member. Enjoy!

Ethical Purchasing – Are The Boundaries Being Confused?

(The following is a guest post from Grumpy Old Vegan. I approached him yesterday about elaborating upon a few posts he's recently made on his Facebook page concerning boycott campaigns being mounted by vegans against certain plant-based ingredients or products. He kindly agreed to do write a piece for My Face Is on Fire. Here it is below.)

"Ethical Purchasing – Are The Boundaries Being Confused?"

As we know, the primary purpose of veganism as the moral baseline of animal rights is to adopt a way of life which avoids, as far as is practicably possible, involvement in any form of exploitation of nonhuman animals. With around 60 billion animals being exploited annually in the meat, dairy and egg production industries it is hardly surprising that food tends to be the main focus of veganism and vegans are not only concerned with ensuring that no animal products are included in their diet but also naturally inclined to consider related issues such as the environmental impact of food production and its effect on wildlife, support for fair trade agriculture, GM crops and ethical purchasing of manufactured food products.

However, there appears to be an increasing tendency for those with a particular interest in such issues, often initiating campaigns to support their views, to imply that certain non-animal food products are ‘not vegan’ and that those using them are ‘unvegan’. I will give two examples to illustrate the point and explain why such implications could be problematic.

Firstly, palm oil. While the destruction of Indonesian rainforests for palm plantations is undoubtedly an environmental and ecological disaster as are its consequences to wildlife, palm oil is clearly not an animal product. Since it is made from the nuts and fruit of the palm and no animals are directly exploited in the process it is a vegan product. Indeed, it is the forest itself being exploited with the timber gathered from clearances also providing a valuable cash crop. If we are concerned about any impacts on wild animals from palm oil production, is there any substantive moral reason why we should not be equally concerned with, for example, the clearance of Brazilian rainforest to grow soybeans or the impact of plant agriculture on small mammals (often used as a reason to debunk veganism)? In addition, most of the campaigns relating to palm oil are speciesist. There are many species affected by rainforest clearance but they rarely get a mention, orangutans being the focus. Presumably this is because they are ‘like us’, absolutely no reason to give them moral precedence over other species. What vegans should be doing is educating others to reject speciesism and consider all animals when considering their position on ethical consumption. 

The use of palm oil is now almost endemic and it is included as an ingredient in a vast number of products, both vegan and non-vegan. This has given rise to the suggestion that a number of specifically named vegan products containing palm oil should be avoided, problematic for similar reasons to those given in summary below.

Secondly, avoiding vegan products supplied by companies associated with non-vegan products. Please note, this is a very different situation from avoiding companies involved in direct exploitation such as those which test on animals. As an example I will cite the recent widely-circulated suggestion that vegans should avoid ‘Silk’ soya products because the brand is now owned by Dean Foods, the largest dairy producer in the US. In fact, ‘Silk’ is an Alpro brand and Alpro as a company was purchased by Dean Foods in 2009. Any ‘boycott’ would therefore necessarily need to include all Alpro products and other brands such as ‘Provamel’.

In the case of large corporations, expecting ethical purchasing decisions (or even widespread boycotts) to have any economic impact on them is optimistic in the extreme. Even if Dean Foods stopped manufacturing vegan products altogether it would have no impact on the volume or profitability of their dairy production because the demand would still exist. Surely animals would be better served by vegans supporting such brands and convincing non-vegans to switch from dairy and use them? In addition, how can we reasonably expect a demand-driven industry to continue to produce existing vegan products and introduce more vegan alternatives if vegans themselves start avoidingthem? If we managed to unravel all the corporate entanglements out there we would surely find ourselves with a very long list of companies and products to avoid! Also, where is the line drawn? For example, do we avoid stores which sell animal products in addition to vegan products? How is this issue rationalised it on a general, rather than personal, basis?

In summary, while issues such as those mentioned undoubtedly provide information (which is valuable), the implication that ‘this is what vegans do’ makes veganism seem rather more complicated than it actually is, particularly to non-vegans who already often regard going vegan as difficult. Accusations that vegans who choose not to comply with the suggested actions are ‘not vegans’ are particularly distasteful.

We should be making it as easy as possible for non-vegans to switch in the first instance because this is the only way that demand for animal products will reduce. The basic tenets of veganism are not complicated so let us not inhibit vegan education by attaching a list of supplementary ‘rules and regulations’ to the fundamental message. Help people to stop consuming animal products first then give them the information to adjust their lives according to their individual circumstances and personal views but without turning information into mandatory requirements.

Hey Vegan, Can't You Take a Joke?

And so, yet another non-vegan has weighed in on what is or isn't proper behaviour for vegans. A few days ago in her "Plant Strong Diva in Chicago" column on Chicago Now's website, Ashley Gilday (who?) took a poke at vegans with a heap of exaggeration served up with a good dose of shaming. She describes herself in her bio-blurb as having had a spiritual awakening a year and a half ago which has supposedly left her following a "predominantly plant based diet" so that "the foods [she decides] to eat actually help others". She calls her column a "hub to educate", yet in her list of  "11 signs your vegan diet may be out of control", Gilday replaces an opportunity to educate with one to merely reinforce stereotypes and to both ridicule and guilt-trip actual vegans for their personal lifestyle choices (i.e. even in situations where no other people around them are even remotely affected by these choices).

The first "sign" she describes perpetuates the stereotype of the screeching angry vegan who has apparently been left friendless for constantly verbally assaulting his friends and family members at meal-time when they consume animal products. The funny thing about this is that, the odd social maladept aside, most vegans probably actually try to shift the focus from themselves at mixed meals with non-vegans. I tend to just focus on eating what's on my plate, not really caring to have someone start in on why the X or Y on her own are too delicious to give up, or--if it's known or comes up that I'm vegan--challenging me to explain why I think eating X or Y is wrong in the first place. I remember how an ex's mother would always tell everyone at the table "what a shame" it was that I couldn't have this or that item to see for myself what I was missing, which would always lead to some new-to-me relative of the ex's asking "why" I "couldn't". These are not conversations I wish to have when sitting across a table from most non-vegans. It's neither the right time nor place and leaves me just as uncomfortable as it might the non-vegans who'd get honest answers out of me. But I imagine that even merely responding honestly at all might be deemed offensive or inappropriate by Gilday.

Her second "sign" shames vegans who prefer to keep their food separate from animal products when it's prepared on something shared, like a grill. This reminds me of a story I shared in a blog post a year ago:

"I remember years ago how an ex had been questioned about my veganism by a friend who was hosting a barbecue to which we'd been invited. I think my ex had mentioned that there was no need to worry about me and that I'd just bring something to eat that needn't sit on the grill. His friend asked what the big deal would be in having food which had been cooked on or alongside ground meat. Without skipping a beat, my ex asked:

'Do you find the idea of eating feces revolting?'

'Well, yeah.'

'What about eating something cooked on something that had just been covered in feces?'

The conversation ended. I got a chuckle out of how he'd handled it, crudely--yet effectively--comparing one form of revulsion (e.g. stemming from moral reasons) to another. The comparison obviously doesn't apply for all vegans and it is quite a bit more nuanced than that. But to some, myself included, the idea of biting down into a piece of flesh that once belonged to a living someone is really no different than the idea of biting into something covered with a little bit less of that someone's body, and I'd no sooner voluntarily do either than I would if feces were substituted for the animal flesh. If that makes me extreme of difficult, then so be it."

As someone who admits that she continues to consume animal products, Gilday obviously cannot easily wrap her head around the idea that someone else might not want to eat food with another animal's fat or blood splattered on it. It's alright that she doesn't "get it" since she hasn't connected the dots where her own consumption choices are concerned. It's really unfortunate, however, that her supposed "spiritual awakening" left with an urge to ridicule those who actually do take other animals more seriously than she does.

A third "sign" perpetuates the whole "health nut vegan" stereotype, making a joke about one's skin being permanently tinted orange from drinking too much carrot juice. Har har.

A fourth perpetuates the decades-old "hippie eco-nut vegan" stereotype with a joke about living in a hemp-based tent in your parent's backyard. (I can't help but wonder at this point if Gilday has even ever met a vegan.)

The fifth exaggerates ingredient sourcing for vegans with a joke about only drinking wine "from an organic, sustainable farm that is 100% vegan". The funny thing about that is that I have non-vegan friends who will actually seek out organic wines from small producers, mostly to avoid additives. And so what if somebody wants to consume more ethically-grown products, including those grown using veganic farming methods? Everybody's on a "conscientious consumer" kick these days -- not just vegans. (Maybe she's just watched too many Simpsons episodes.)

The sixth "sign" is just a mean-spirited dig in which she takes another kick a the "hippie eco-nut vegan" stereotype. "You've stopped bathing," she writes. What does bathing or not bathing even have to do with veganism? Right. Nada.

Her seventh "sign", a joke about side salads, might be funny if not for the eye-roll inducer which preceded it. It's left seeming totally out of place on her otherwise unfunny list.

Her eighth "sign" about only eating raw fruits and vegetables is a dig at raw foodists and also has nothing to do with veganism.

Her ninth "sign" is just another take on the fifth, again mocking those who opt to source veganically-grown produce as if this somehow offends her. (I guess that Gilday may just have some strange personal attachment to animal faeces. Who knows?)

Her tenth "sign" involves a topic that too few (and yes, most especially Gilday) take the time to research adequately before passing judgment. It involves feeding cats and dogs plant-only foods. She says it's "cruel" when vegans do so. The truth is that dogs thrive on a "vegan" diet. Like humans, they are omnivores and their nutritional requirements can all quite easily be met eating a variety of plant-based foods. As for the issue of feeding cats, who are obligate carnivores? I've been on the fence about it for years and have generally avoided weighing in on the topic. Part of the reason is my own lack of success with my feline family, part of it involves a few frightening stories from trusted fellow abolitionists whose own cats have experienced medical complications after being fed plant-based fare. That being said, Gary L. Francione has recently been endorsing the work of Dr. Andrew Knight, who promotes carefully planned strictly vegetarian diets for both cats and dogs. Knight is a European Veterinary Specialist in Welfare Science, Ethics and Law and a fellow of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics and his website contains detailed information based on extensive research.

Her final "sign" was pretty much the last straw for me. She dredges up the stereotype of the neurotic and emaciated vegan to set up how restricting your diet too much is akin to suffering from orthexia nervosa, a disorder characterized by the avoidance of foods deemed unhealthy. References are often made to it in anti-vegan articles in mainstream media to undermine the validity of our not shrugging off the occasional eating of animal products, as if it's unthinkable that someone would actually want to be consistent in his or her ethical choice to reject animal exploitation.

You don't even have to go through the entire list to realize that her main goal in writing her piece was more malicious than educational or informative. She ends the whole thing using words like "balance" and counsels her vegan readers to not "let [their] new diet and lifestyle isolate [them] from [their] friends, family and peers". The not-so-hidden message is the same one Vegan Outreach spews, arguing that vegans should opt to play fast and loose with their ethical choices when around others lest they alienate or offend non-vegans and convince them that veganism is "too hard" or just plain kooky and extremist.

Want to convince someone that animal exploitation is wrong and to go vegan? Don't ask about the eggs or dairy in that restaurant veggie burger. Accept that slice of cake from your coworker with a smile, pretending that's not cream cheese frosting on it. Perish the thought that you should not guzzle down that iced tea because you noticed honey listed in the ingredients! I mean, they're only bees, right?

They're only chickens.

They're only cows.

When Non-Vegans Write About Veganism, Revisited

It is becoming more normal than not, isn't it? Non-vegans are all over mainstream media talking about their on/off again or temporary plant-only diets and then weighing in on "how to go vegan" or on "what it's like to be vegan". So the general public reads these articles and is left thinking that if it appeared in such-and-such a publication or on such-and-such a website that it must be right. You've read the articles, I've written about the articles. There's no need for much context, since we've seen it all play out before. What we really need to start doing, however, is to dig in our heels to stop this rebranding of the word "vegan" and to educate people about what truly rejecting animal exploitation is all about.

The Latest

Someone called Kevin Powell recently wrote a semi-autobiographical and semi-instructional piece for Huffington Post on how (not) to be a vegan ("Why and How I Became a Vegan"). According to his write-up page, Powell has written for everyone from Rolling Stone to Esquire and The Washington Post. (An aside: I really have to wonder if getting to write for major publications has more to do with connections than talent, since I so very often see folks with heaps of credentials who either can't research or can't write, or in a case like Powell's, jump on bandwagons and then completely misrepresent lifestyles they obviously do not understand and then try to present arguments less coherent than a cranky toddler's protests against having to go to bed.)

The problem with Powell' involve two things he conveys explicitly in his article about "why" and "how" he became vegan: The first is that he believes that veganism is a personal choice about one's own consumption and that vegans should mind their own business when it comes to others around them who choose to continue to use animals. (More implicitly, it's that same old shaming of vegans have the audacity to actually express aloud that it's wrong for other animals to be exploited.) The second thing that's conveyed is that veganism is a diet and that this diet leaves room for the occasional consumption of meat, dairy or eggs to avoid hurting other humans' feelings. Basically, this is that other sort of backhanded shaming that implies that, even when minding their own business, it's rude for vegans to be consistent about sticking to their ethical principles. In Powell's world, refusing to occasionally consume animal products seems to make you an asshole.

"How To"

Powell starts off immediately by cautioning people to take it very slowly and to get professional medical advice if going vegan. I'm all for doing things right and think that most people--whether vegan or non-vegan--could benefit from a consultation or two with a decent progressive nutritionist. That said, I can't help but think that Powell makes it sound right off the bat as if switching to a plant-only diet is a horribly risky thing to do. Like Powell, I'm no medical professional, but from personal experience and anecdotes from others, I have to say that I think that getting a good book or two about nutrition and bookmarking some reliable sites featuring menu ideas or vegan-friendly recipes would probably benefit most people more than talking to a general practitioner, given how little training most ordinary doctors receive on the subject of nutrition. (Of course, if you have a pre-existing health condition, that's another story and since this really isn't what I want to focus on about his piece, I don't want to overstate anything about this cautionary tone he sets, so let's move on.)

"Veganism" as a Personal Choice

Powell describes his transition to veganism, which he inadvertently ends up defining as his voluntarily eating and exploiting animals whenever it seems like a good idea. He's "stuck" to veganism, he says, "except when [he has] had little to no choice but to eat fish in certain heavily fish-based cultures/communities [he's]visited internationally" (lest he "insult the customs and traditions" of his hosts). Not eating animals or animal products also seems to risk offending others closer to home and so Powell leaves himself another out to consume animal products:

I likewise bend the veganism rule for specific holiday gatherings with my mother here in America because, well, she is my mother and dinner with her is sacred and important and I do not take that for granted as my mom gets older. And my mother ain't trying to understand why I do not eat meat, seriously.

One can't help but wonder how often Powell "bends" his dining rules given that someone's not understanding his supposed "veganism" is a good enough reason for him to not stick to his guns. One just as quickly stops wondering, though, when he leaves no doubt whatsoever that his personal interpretation of the term is just plain ol' meaningless:

I do not care if other vegans say my way is not veganism. I say yes it is because anyone who knows me knows that my lifestyle has become very vegan-centered. One day I hope to even wear clothes and footwear on a daily [sic] that are vegan-based. That is how focused I am about living a vegan life.

Vegan-centered, eh? He doesn't even consistently adhere to a plant-only diet and although he does state that he uses home and personal products which aren't tested on or derived from animals, he admits that his clothes contain animal products. But don't tell him that eating other animals or wearing their fur and/or skin is not what "veganism" is about, 'cause he really doesn't care what anybody else thinks veganism is or isn't.

Powell makes it clear that as much as he isn't interested in having anyone clarify to him whether veganism makes room for varying types of deliberate--and easily avoidable--animal use, he's also more or less unconcerned about others' animal use: "I would certainly marry a woman who eats fish or chicken. That does not bother me, although I would prefer to marry a vegan." Along with this, he states that all he would ever ask of others is that they be more "mindful" of what they consume; he insists that he would never "shov[e] the way [he] see[s] things in terms of meat-eating vs. no meat-eating down people's throats". His purportedly being "vegan" is just a matter of "opinion". It's a personal choice.

Vegan Voices

So? Yet another non-vegan who is presented as a reliable and somewhat authoritative voice ends up making a mockery of the whole notion of rejecting animal exploitation. It's nothing new, yet it's still troubling. This ongoing rebranding of the word "vegan" seems to have become disheartening enough to some bona fide vegans that a few have suggested that the word should be tossed to the wayside altogether rather than defended. Worse is that as the word continues to get co-opted and misrepresented, the public becomes increasingly confused about what it is that we owe other animals, hearing that even self-described vegans believe it's OK to throw back an occasional pork chop or glass of chocolate dairy milk from time to time.

Powell's made a "choice", yes, but that choice has nothing to do with veganism. Shame on the Huffington Post for publishing yet another misinformed and badly written piece about not being vegan.

"Sender" Responds

Twitterspat

So a few weeks ago, I noticed on Twitter that someone with the handle "95PercentVegan" was following me. I was sitting at the coffee shop and rolled my eyes a little thinking "not again" and although I hardly ever tweet anymore except to retweet the odd music-related thing, I decided to challenge them on their misuse of the term "vegan". We exchanged a few tweets, mine sort of half-hearted, since this song's just getting so old.

MFIoFV: There is no such thing as being 95% vegan.

95%Vegan: We would respectfully disagree from a nutritional and mathematical viewpoint.

MFIoFV: Veganism is an ethical lifestyle that rejects animal exploitation. It's not a diet.

95%Vegan: With due respect, you miss the point. Reducing animal exploitation is a vast improvement over what is happening now.

MFIoFV: I am talking about the definition of veganism. You can no more be 95% vegan than you can be 95% celibate.

MFIoFV: In shrugging off some animal use, you're condoning it and communicating that it's sometimes OK to exploit animals.

95%Vegan: As a clinician, I am in the business of helping people reach their nutritional goals; not cater to those with an all or one agenda. We wish you the best. For more information, you can see our blogs at 95perecentvegan.com.

I found things to do. I had litter-boxes to clean, rhubarb to pick, friends to hang out with. A few days later, I sent two final tweets.

MFIoFV: But slaughtering animals is "all or nothing". Veganism, by definition, rejects all easily avoidable animal exploitation.

MFIoFV: Veganism isn't a health fad or diet. You're grossly misusing the term to cash in on its popularity. That's shameful/misleading.

Unsurprisingly, there was no further response to this on Twitter. The folks running the "95% Vegan" site are, of course, promoting a diet that revolves around the nutritional benefits of eating more plant-based foods. They've read their Pollan and their Bittman; they likely have a dog-eared copy of The China Study kicking around somewhere. They've actually trademarked the term "95% Vegan" (no, seriously) and have a book coming out. I say "they" when the two who seem behind it are a Dr. Jamie Knoll and an attorney called Caitlin Herndon. With their matching white-blonde hair, they could easily be mother and daughter.

I was a little surprised to received a brief follow-up to my Twitter exchange from my friend Michael a few days later (check out his great mostly music-related podcast MikeyPod,). He told me that the 95% Vegan folks had apparently written a post on their site to defend their facilitating the continuation of others' animal exploitation. I waited until I'd gotten home and had kicked back with a half-beer before trying to find their site. I suspected there would be more eye-rolling and was right. In their piece, they take issue with my assertion that in promoting their so-called 95% vegan "diet" they are condoning animal exploitation; they then attempt to make a clumsy case that veganism is in fact a diet, and that it is unreasonable to expect people to ever forego more than 95% of the animal products they choose to eat.

"Dietary" Vegans

In their post, they ask that people (like bona fide vegans?) who disagree with them "respect that there is a difference between ethical vegans and dietary vegans". They elaborate that someone may indeed choose to be a "dietary vegan" for ethical reasons but that their main concerns are ensuring their good health via what they choose to inset into theirs gobs. They then embark on a confusing attempt to co-opt the term "vegan" by starting off with the claim that a vegan diet is indeed a diet as per the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics which seems to use "vegan diet" synonymously with "strict vegetarianism".

The thing is that a "vegan" diet is "vegan" in the sense that you can call a bottle of shampoo that's free of animal ingredients and hasn't been tested on animals a bottle of "vegan" shampoo. But using that vegan shampoo no more makes you a vegan than eating a "vegan" diet makes you a vegan. The term has become shorthand to qualify "something which vegans can consume". I usually try to use "vegan-friendly" when I think to do so, but but use the shorthand, too. The thing is that it makes about as much sense to me to talk of "dietary" veganism as it would to talk about "hair-care-atary" veganism.

If the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (or anyone else's) uses the term to denote a mere diet and of whether it (or anyone else) uses the word "vegan" to describe someone who adopts such a diet (while otherwise continuings to provide demand for animal exploitation), so what? The word has actual documented historical origins that show how it was intended to encompass so much more than just diet. At its root was the issue of animal exploitation. It is bizarre to me that two women who seek to start yet another fad diet, one focused strictly on health and with little regard for the question of the ethics of animal use, would so tenaciously cling to their choice to use the word "vegan" to describe any aspect of what it is they are trying to do.

Gimme That Old-Time Non-Violence

One of the arguments they attempt to develop on their article to support their shrugging off some animal use is that, in the history of the world, there has never been a 100% vegan culture. Therefore, they present it as extremist and "radical" that anyone would expect anyone self-describing as a vegan to actually strive reject more than 95% or so of his or her own animal use. Oh, they feel for us kooky radicals with our zany compassionate beliefs, but they make it clear that expecting others to embrace a stance condemning violence towards other beings is no different than pushing religion on someone. In fact, they bring up the American Vegan Society's initial ties to Jainism and state that although they view the concept of promoting non-violence towards others as "beautiful", that, at the end of the day, it's just another "religion".

"Veganism Is Just Too Haaaaaaard!!"

According to the folks at 95% Vegan, expecting others to be willing and able to give up a favourite food forever is prohibitive and mean. They suggest that pointing out that someone shouldn't eat this or that is tantamount to guilt-tripping them and that it sets them up for repeated and certain failure. Basically, they appear to make no distinction between nagging someone on a health or weight-loss diet about eating an off-limits treat and pointing out to someone who wants to self-describe herself as vegan that a certain food contains animal products. In the end, Jamie Knoll's goal is to make sure that her clients enjoy the benefits of a healthier diet that's mostly comprised of plant-based foods, but that they also get to indulge themselves in animal products "without having to be perfect". What she presents as "veganism" is no different to her than absolutely any other fad diet and (regardless of a few token mentions of factory farming), has almost nothing to do with ethics.

"Every Little Bit Counts!!"

The article ends with a finger wag, an assumption and some bad math.

Them: Shouldn't animal rights advocates who want to see an end to the consumption of other animals' flesh and secretions be grateful that she and her partner are pushing a diet that encourages people be "95% vegan"?

Me: This makes the mistaken assumption that someone who consumes a largely plant-based diet and who otherwise continues to participate in the exploitation of others is a "type" of vegan. Although the large majority of animals raised for human use do end up on supermarket shelves, animal ingredients are insidiously found in all kinds of other non-food related items and exploitation may occur in all kinds of other contexts. What they do in advocating a largely plant-based diet for health reasons doesn't address the horrible speciesism which underlies society's belief that other animals are ours to use.

Them: "Do you mean to tell me that cutting out 95% of animal exploitation is still condoning animal exploitation?"

Me:  Shrugging off--and even high-fiving, as they seem to do--someone's occasional consumption of animal products because of that person's cravings or taste preferences is indeed condoning continued animal exploitation. Not addressing all of the other non-dietary areas in which folks provide demand for animal products is indeed (albeit less directly) condoning continued animal exploitation. So, yes. Yes, they are condoning animal exploitation. Worse is that they're qualifying their doing so as "vegan". Furthermore, cutting out approximately 95% of the animal products one eats is not cutting out 95% of one's overall animal exploitation.

The piece ends with the lauding of the Whole Foods and Trader Joe's supermarket chains as promoting and providing a plentiful array of vegan options and an assumption is made that because they do so, no vegan would ever criticize them for continuing to sell meat and other animal products. The "95% Vegan" diet promoters lump themselves into this, as if to say that since they promote a 95% plant-based diet, that it follows somehow that no vegan should have the nerve to criticize them for promoting that 5% non-vegan indulgence.

As the "Sender" who triggered this mess of an sad defence of their co-opting the term "vegan", I have to say that they really have no idea of where I was coming from and obviously no clear idea of what an actual vegan abolitionist animal rights advocate would think about Whole Foods or how it placates the general public about its continued consumption of other animals. The one point where a comparison would be apt, though, is this: Neither Whole Foods nor the so-called 95% Vegan website (or forthcoming book) are vegan. The diet's promoters ask whether their pushing the concept of a 95% plant-based diet leaves them condoning animal use, but in their attempts to refutre this, they merely end up reinforcing the obvious.

And they're still following me on Twitter!

Substitutes: Mayo

Mayo and Me

I was a kid raised on Miracle Whip. It fit in well alongside the Kraft processed cheese slices, canned Kam luncheon meat, white bread and Tang orange drink that were also fixtures in my mother's kitchen when I was growing up. It wasn't until I left home to head off to college that I had real mayonaise for the first time and it quickly became a condiment of choice on sandwiches. I had been a ketchup-loving kid and had never explored mustard, since my only exposure to it had come from the vile neon yellow stuff that squirted out of the plastic bottle in the fridge which only Mom ever seemed to use for her burgers or egg sandwiches. But mayo? Rich tangy mayo? It stuck. Or at least it did until around half-through my vegetarian years, as I found myself beginning to shuffle out dairy and egg-based products.

At some point, years later, one of the large supermarkets here began to carry Nayonaise. I brought home a jar of it one day and my non-vegetarian spouse at the time seemed overjoyed with it. It never quite clicked with me, though. I didn't like its funny aftertaste and it reminded me of a cheap blah variation of the Miracle Whip with which I'd grown up. Clutching my sandwiches protectively, I opted to explore the world of mustards instead and found myself falling for everything from creamy licorice-scented tarragon mustards to sharp and grainy Dijons. Imagine my surprise a few years later when I found myself noticing another vegan mayo contender in my grocer's refrigerated section.

Discovering Vegenaise was like discovering mayo all over again, except without the torture and slaughter. It felt rich and had a pleasant taste and for a short while, mustard got pushed aside and I indulged myself. Vegenaise won a spot in my fridge, but not for long -- or at least, it wasn't a permanent and everyday spot. Oil-based Vegenaise's 90 (versus soy-based Nayonaise's 35) calories per tablespoon was disheartening, particularly because I think that I could have made Vegenaise a food group. These days, I've learned to regard it as a treat. When I do buy it, it's usually with a specific purpose in mind, more often than not to make chickpea salad wraps or potato salad. (I've not tried Earth Balance's oil-based mayo since it's unavailable in these parts, but like Vegenaise, it also contains around 90 calories a tablespoon. (I would, of course, be quite happy to try it out if the friendly folks at Earth Balance ever decided to send me a care package containing a jar of it along with their Vegan Aged White Cheddar Flavor Puffs, their P.B. Popps and their Vegan Aged White Cheddar Popcorn to review. But I digress...)

I've never played around much with making vegan mayo myself. I tried a tofu-based recipe out of some 70s whole foods cookbook at some point while I was in college and experimenting with basic vegetarian recipes. It had used powdered soy milk and it was simply awful. Times have changed, though. These days, ready-made soy and other plant-based milks are plentiful, as our various textures of tofu. Over and above all of this, vegan cookbook authors and food bloggers have also been creating and experimenting with nut-based recipes for mayo. The tastes, textures, nutritional and caloric values all differ considerably, as do methods used to thicken them. I've gathered together a variety of recipes to make plant-based mayo from a number of the blogs or cookbook authors whose other recipes I've loved and whose mayo recipes come highly recommended. With the exception of this one, I'll skip over the overwhelming majority of tofu-based recipes out there; do a Google search and you'll find hundreds. Maybe in a future post, I'll indulge myself in an informal mayo testing of a number of them along with those here to compare and contrast.

First, though, here's a pretty informative post about the "science" of making mayo (it comes from a non-vegan who sometime last year decided to dabble with a 30-day plant-based diet -- I reckon that it didn't stick). Its focus is on the fact that all the egg yolk in animal-based mayo does is serve as an emulsifier. Find another emulsifier and you're all set. Seriously, read the article. Now, on to the recipes...

Cashews

The recipe that roped me into spending most of my day thinking about mayonaise today is by Claire at the must-bookmark Chez Cayenne blog. Over the weekend, she posted a recipe for Cashew Mayonaise that introduced me to the whole idea of using cashews to make mayo. I've only ever used them to make "cheese" before, so this is intriguing to me.

Isa Chandra Moskovitz has a recipe for Cashew Miso Mayo in her book Appetite for Reduction which she states outright shouldn't be expected to taste "exactly" like mayo, although it still does the trick on sandwiches and in salads. A Facebook friend told me that it's a staple in his home.

Susan Voisin of the wonderful FatFree Vegan Kitchen site posted one just last year for Tofu Cashew Mayonnaise. She throws in the suggestion to use cashew butter instead of soaked cashews to ensure a smooth consistency if using a regular blender or food processor (i.e. rather than a high speed blender or processor).

Almonds

Beverly Lynn Bennett, author of almost all of the vegan-related books of the Complete Idiot's Guide series, features an Almond Mayo recipe on her website. There are a number of similar ones scattered all across the internet, many warning of the absolute need for thorough soaking of the almonds and the use of a high-powered blender or processor, since they're more difficult to process into as creamy a texture as are cashews. You'll end up with mayo with a slightly grainy texture.


Plant-based Milks

The Vegan Epicurean blog has a recipe for a Reduced Fat Almond Milk Mayonaise which its creator admits doesn't have quite that right texture one expects from mayo, but it's an incredibly straightforward recipe. It's her soy milk variation on it for her basic Homemade Vegan Mayonaise recipe which intrigues me most, however, since she claims that it it's "just like egg mayonaise" and several of the comments left in response to it praise it for being similar to Vegenaise in taste and texture.

Others

If you dig around enough, you can even find simple flax-based recipes for mayo, like this one. And then there are the avocado-based mayo recipes that just sounds so very scrumptious.


So what about you folks? Do you have any favourite vegan mayo recipes to share? Do tell.

On Moving Forward

To my fellow abolitionist advocates:

"Silence, they say, is the voice of complicity.

But silence is impossible.

Silence screams.

Silence is a message,

just as doing nothing is an act."

- Leonard Peltier

No more silence; no more complicity. That being said, we have too much work to do to let ourselves get bogged down in bitterness and sniping, whether our own or that of others which may be directed at any of us.

As advocates, we each know ourselves and our true intentions. Rather than let ourselves be affected by the disparagement of those who stand off to one side with fingers pointing, we should let our work speak for itself. In terms of sussing out with whom we should choose to engage in our work? We should each take start taking the time--moving forward--to learn to know the hearts and minds of our fellow abolitionist advocates, rather than abide by others' opinions and proscriptions and end up shunning one another.

Over 95% of the North American population alone is still non-vegan. Let's stitch up a few tears and get on with building this grassroots educational movement together, yes?

On Sentience and Kinship

D.C., a vegan and former animal rights blogger once wrote: "I am vegan for precisely the same set of reasons I am not a cannibal." Most who would hear this would think that it sounds outrageous. How on earth could a person compare not eating other humans to not eating non-human animals? For D.C., though, basic sentience is the only relevant moral criterion that needs to be weighed when assessing whether or not it is ethical to eat or otherwise use another being.

All that matters is that they have an awareness. They have preferences and desires and they take steps to attain those desires. They are pleasure-seekers, whether this involves something as simple as seeking out the perfect warm sunbeam to have a comfortable nap or enticing another animal into a playful game. They have sounds and odours to investigate and itches to scritch. They are not just "alive" but they actively live their lives, making decisions and acting upon them. Like us, they form bonds of family and friendship. They have preferences and desires all their own and if we interfere with those in any way, they become visibly frustrated and disappointed.

We're used to seeing animals we call "pets" engaging in such behaviours--bonding, expressing wants and needs--and many of us accept these normal and even as a given when it comes to cats and dogs. However, our relationships with animals who are raised for human consumption are almost always invariably at arm's length. If we think of them at all, it's in a sort of almost generic sense. We think of them in groups--herds, flocks and so on. They're generic. They're anonymous. We associate them more with pieces of their bodies on plastic-wrapped styrofoam trays then we think of them as living beings. At least they are until we get to spend some time with them in settings where they are allowed to pursue their interests, to form bonds, to seek out sunbeams--in settings where they don't spend their short lives restrained, confined, mutilated and tortured.

A visit to an animal sanctuary provides us with the opportunity to actually meet individuals, each one with his or her own story and with his or her own distinct personality--his or her own preferences and desires. We can see first-hand the delight with which two goats frolic together and the calm contentedness of cows or bulls allowed to spend their afternoons lounging in whichever spot they deem most comfortable, occasionally enjoying the company of another bovine friend. We can be nuzzled curiously by a happy pig looking for a scratch, or held at bay by a turkey protecting a more skittish buddy. We can look into their eyes and see that they're neither generic nor anonymous and that they're most certainly not things with no interests of their own. They're individuals. They're persons. They engage the world around them and if they're lucky, they get to do it on their own terms or at least in a way that's as close to that as can possibly be provided to them as the refugees they are.

These interests they have need not be identical to ours to be valid any more than my interests need to be identical to those of my neighbour's to be valid. These interests need not even be particularly complex. The expectation that they be identical or that they be assessed according to their complexity--and their dismissal if they're deemed not sufficiently "human-like"--is speciesist. Too often, we display selective indignation over the use or treatment of other species based simply on how similar they are too us and how intelligent they are. We want our tuna to be "dolphin-safe", yet fail to see how the tuna himself has no more of an interest in ending up suffocated and killed than does a dolphin. (As an aside, the "dolphin-safe" label is actually fairly meaningless in terms of any guaranteed protection it offers dolphins when it comes to our consumption habits. Over 300,000 cetaceans around the world are killed annually as "by-catch" of the overall fishing industry, yet we're lulled into thinking that the "cuter" dolphins are safe as long as we purchase the right can of tuna, never mind what doing so entails for the tuna.)

Becoming vegan means recognizing that these individuals aren't ours to use and rejecting their continued use. Whether we enslave them to consume their secretions or to eat their flesh, to take their skin or fur or to entertain us, we're imposing our own arbitrary preferences and desires on them. The outcome of our doing so is that we breed them into lives of misery where they are treated as things. We kill billions of them each and every year--preventable deaths, preventable suffering. I had been vegan for several years when my friend Gary took me to visit my first sanctuary this past January. I had long-since learned to compartmentalize to a large extent that all of my family and all of my local friends continue to consume animals and animal products, even those of them who consider themselves animal lovers and who earnestly adore the non-humans in their immediate care. (We compartmentalize to stay sane, right?) It started off as a peaceful and wondrous afternoon spent with the cows, bulls, goats, horses, donkey, sheep, gees, turkeys, chickens, rabbits and pigs at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary. After that short time with them, though, I found myself unexpectedly and overwhelmingly sad, wishing that all of my non-vegan friends and family members could have been alongside me to meet these casualties of the industry, this industry that churns out the products for which their own consumption habits provide demand.

As an aside, I have to say that getting to spend time in the VA/DC area with my friend Gary (who's been vegan for over twice as long as I have) and then getting to talk to and break bread with other vegans was life-altering for me. I had never before in my life had the opportunity to spend so much time with others who get it. An afternoon's lunch with Gary Loewenthal of Compassion for Animals and longtime online vegan friends Valerie K. and Deb Durant (who volunteers at Poplar Spring Animal Sanctuary) left me feeling warmth and kinship. Meet-ups with Leila and Nicholas Vaughn who volunteer with the Peace Advocacy Network (PAN) left me feeling a sense of belonging. Then another lengthy afternoon's lunch with Robin Helfritch and Alexis Jonelle Cornell (and her guy Mike) of Open the Cages Alliance (OTCA) and Demo Maratos (Communications Director at the Sustainability Institute of Molloy College in NYC and someone who'd helped me cement my veganism on the old Vegan Freak Forums years ago) left me me a little overwhelmed. I realized then that coming back to my own stomping grounds would be hard. And it has been. I miss each and every one of them tremendously. It's knocked me out of my compartmentalization of others and has left me feeling a little lost, a little alienated. I miss my vegan friends.

Each time I look into the eyes of Sammy, Eli or Minou, I remember looking into the eyes of Poplar Spring's inhabitants and thinking a cat is a goat is a pig is a dog. A cat is a goat is a pig is a dog is me. We all want to be left alone to seek out that perfect sunbeam or that perfect scritch. But how to get others to get it? How do those of us who don't have the luxury of being surrounded by vegan friends manage to get those around us to get what to each of us has come to seem so obvious?