Thank you to everyone who has been so supportive and responded positively to my first blog post. It's been very encouraging to find so many like-minded people.
Anyone interested in this issue will want to read where did the movement’s morals go? This blogger also wrote another very important post, veganism: necessary but not sufficient.
Friday, June 22, 2012
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Wrong Direction
My fellow animal advocates:
The problem, though, was that I didn’t question the core philosophy, motives, or strategies of the organizations with whom I was collaborating. Nor did I continually refine my own philosophy and what message I wanted to send through my advocacy work.
I have raised my feelings and concerns about this issue to quite a few fellow animal advocates and most of them were disturbed and started rethinking which organizations they felt comfortable supporting. Many of them asked me to provide them with the complete results of the research that I had done on this issue and so I decided to compile it all in a logical manner and make it available for anyone interested in this topic. The main reason why I spent so much time putting all of this together is that I am concerned about the direction the animal rights movement is going in and don’t think things will change for the better unless we are all fully informed about what the large organizations are actually doing and how these strategies don’t make sense and are not working.
The information I gathered is broken into the following sections:
ANIMAL
ORGANIZATION POINTS (AND MY RESPONSES)
I have not seen any real scientific evidence to support these two claims. The only evidence ever provided is all anecdotal. But there is plenty of that sort of evidence to indicate the exact opposite − that when animal organizations endorse animal products and declare them “humane,” people who used to be vegetarians or vegans now feel comfortable eating animals and people who might have become vegetarian or vegan now feel that they don’t have to because “humane” animal products are available. I have worked on vegan issues for over 15 years, tabling, leafleting, etc. and, during the past seven or eight years, more and more people every year tell me, “It’s okay, don’t worry, I only eat animal products who were treated ‘humanely’.” (See articles below which further demonstrate my point.)
This claim is particularly condescending and indicates that the organizations are making gross assumptions about their supporters and the general public. All of the people who I know personally who work at these organizations are themselves ethical vegans because at some point in their lives they opened their hearts and minds to a new paradigm. Do they think that others are less compassionate, less logical, less insightful, and less smart than they are? We animal advocates cannot control how the public responds to the truth – we can only give it to them. And if we do so in a respectful, compassionate manner, then we are following our own principles and convictions. However, by constantly sending out the message that it is possible to use and kill animals in an ethical manner (which is exactly what treatment campaigns do), animal organizations are reinforcing what many consumers want to believe and what the animal product businesses are telling them. That should not be the mission of animal advocacy organizations.
They claim that they have to help animals who are suffering now
Of course we all would like to see animals suffer less. But that doesn’t mean that the animal organizations have to praise and endorse the animal product businesses (which are only greenwashing their behavior) and spend millions and millions of dollars and countless other resources to work on these treatment campaigns which don’t ever really do much to relieve suffering, which are typically phased in over many years, which include countless exceptions, and which are not easily enforceable. All of those resources could be much more effectively spent on sincere honest vegan education campaigns. (See below details regarding the effusive praise and endorsements given to animal product businesses and three treatment campaigns which demonstrate my point.)
They claim that they don’t encourage people to eat animals and they do promote veg eating
ARTICLES
REGARDING HOW FORMER VEGETARIANS/VEGANS RETURN TO EATING ANIMALS BECAUSE OF THE
“HUMANE” ANIMAL PRODUCT TREND
Return of the Meat-Eaters: Many Lapsed Vegetarians
Become ‘Ethical Omnivores’
(Time, 2011)
The kinder side of veal (Washington Post, 2009)
HSUS INTERVIEWS,
BLOGS, NEWS RELEASES, AND WEB SITE PAGES WHICH INDICATE ITS PHILOSOPHY,
POSITION, AND STRATEGIES
Wayne Pacelle (HSUS President and self proclaimed ethical vegan for 30 years) repeats the same mantra here, here, here, here, and here.
In this article, this video, this piece, and this article, Pacelle states the following:
“[I’m] not out to liberate all beasts at all costs”
“I’m a vegan but people are going to eat meat and if they’re going to eat meat they shouldn’t allow/tolerate the animals to be treated this way.” (Not once did he encourage Ellen’s viewers to go vegan or explain to them that being vegan is the only way to have a compassionate diet)
When responding to accusations by the Missouri Farm Bureau that HSUS wants to end animal agriculture, Pacelle lays out all the reasons why these claims are false.
Pacelle spoke at TEDx Manhattan and TEDx Fruitvale
In Pacelle’s book, The Bond: Our Kinship with Animals, Our Call to Defend Them
HSUS has on its board of directors John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods which is one of the largest purveyors of animal products in the United States.
HSUS helped develop and plan the Wolfgang Puck Company’s “humane farm animal treatment program.”
At the 2008 HSUS Genesis Awards (which uses the slogan “cruelty can’t stand the spotlight”), Puck was honored and given special recognition.
Pacelle suggests that egg buying consumers should choose “higher welfare” choices such as “cage-free,” “free-range,” and “organic” options that offer the animals a better life than that of their caged counterparts. And HSUS also spends a considerable amount of money and other resources on a campaign which promotes “cage-free” eggs, and is working on legislation with the United Egg Producers which would supposedly set so-called “humane” standards on egg farms.
However, HSUS states on its site that the majority of egg labels have little relevance to animal welfare or, if they do, they have no official standards or any mechanism to enforce them. It goes on to describe how hens from these so-called “higher welfare” facilities lead horrible lives involving beak cutting, forced molting, and how the male chicks are killed at birth.
In an interview, Farm Sanctuary co-founder and president, Gene Baur went on record saying that “compassion and slaughter do not go together.”
However, Baur sat on the advisory board of the Whole Foods Animal Compassion Foundation whose mission was to convince consumers that raising animals for food and then killing them can be humane and compassionate.
Farm Sanctuary lent its animal advocacy name to and helped plan Wolfgang Puck’s “humane” animal treatment program.
Recently, Baur applauded Chipotle for its television advertisement showing how “wonderful” non-factory farms are and said “efforts like Chipotle's, which educate the public about industrialized animal production, are a step in the right direction.” At the end of the ad, the farmer puts a crate in a Chipotle truck. One has to assume it’s a dead cow or pig.
In one of its pamphlets, MFA explains that “humane” animal products are a myth.
However, a few years ago, Mercy For Animals spent valuable resources on a campaign to convince Trader Joe's to pledge to sell only “cage-free” eggs.
HSUS encouraged its Ohio supporters to attend an Ohioans for Humane Farms fundraising event at which chickens, cows, goats, and lambs were on the menu. See the invitation here (on the video starting at 0:28).
Bruce Friedrich, Farm Sanctuary Senior Director for Strategic Initiatives and former PETA vice president, wrote that eating animals is “indefensible” and continued with “eating meat supports cruelty so severe that it would warrant felony cruelty charges were dogs or cats so horribly abused -- and that's true even of so-called ‘humane’ farms.”
LEGISLATIVE
CAMPAIGNS THAT DO VIRTUALLY NOTHING FOR ANIMALS BUT INSTEAD WASTE ENORMOUS
AMOUNTS OF VALUABLE RESOURCES and HELP ANIMAL ORGANIZATIONS RECRUIT MEMBERS AND
RAISE FUNDS
HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, and other organizations spent an enormous amount of volunteer time and just under $1.4 million on this ballot initiative.
At the time of the initiative, there were only two hog farmers in the state of Florida who would be affected by this amendment and that is one of the major reasons why there was minimal opposition to the amendment.
25992. Exceptions. This chapter shall not apply:
HSUS reached an agreement with the United Egg Producers (UEP) to work together on this federal bill which, according to HSUS, is “a solution that balances animal welfare and the economic realities of the industry” and will “improve housing for egg-laying hens and provide a stable future for egg farmers.”
HSUS enthusiastically supports this bill and has made it a top legislative priority in Congress. This, of course, seems to indicate that the organization will spend a significant amount of resources on trying to get the bill passed.
However, other national animal organizations (even those which support some “welfare” campaigns) are not in favor of this legislation which they see as not just a huge waste of resources but a gigantic step backwards.
Other organizations which oppose this legislation include Last Chance for Animals, Action for Animals, and Northwest Animal Rights Network.
Interestingly, just two years ago, HSUS indicated how shady it thinks its new partner is by asking the U.S. Department of Justice to initiate a criminal investigation of the UEP and several of its members. The request was based on insider information that shows that egg industry executives allegedly fixed egg prices in an intentional scheme that caused prices to rise as much as 45 percent between August 2007 and March 2008—the fastest pace in 30 years. According to Jennifer Fearing, chief economist for The Humane Society of the United States, "Factory farming interests claim they cannot afford to give hens enough room to spread their wings, yet they're gouging consumers through secret deals, collusion and retaliation. Consumers and animals continue to suffer while the egg industry cuts corners and lines its pockets."
A FEW OF THE OTHER
INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL ADVOCATES AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO AGREE WITH MY POINT OF VIEW
AND WHO ARE SPREADING THE CLEAR STRONG MESSAGE THAT VEGANISM IS A MORAL
IMPERATIVE AND THE ONLY WAY TO END ANIMAL EXPLOITATION AND SUFFERING
Please, let’s hold each other accountable, even when that’s difficult to do (and yes, even when we know there are good, well-intentioned individuals inside groups). Please, let’s firmly stand together to say that this is not okay. Please, let’s change course. Please, let’s stop making excuses for what is inexcusable. Please, animal rights advocates, let’s fight for what we actually believe and stop supporting groups and campaigns that are less than honest, that do not reflect what we know to be right and just, and that give credibility and the “humane” label to the exploitation and killing of animals. Let’s show more loyalty to the nonhuman animals than to the groups that keep selling them out.
If living ethically is important to you, please remember that there is nothing humane about “humane” animal farming, just as there is nothing ethical or defensible about consuming its products. When confronted with the fundamental injustice inherent in all animal agriculture—a system that is predicated on inflicting massive, intentional and unnecessary suffering and death on billions of sentient individuals—the only ethical response is to strive to end it by becoming vegan, not to regulate it by supporting “improved” methods of exploitation.
[B]ut roughly 97% of the potential donors to animal charities eat chickens. Thus, few organized groups choose to risk their growth potential as the world’s forests are cut down for animal farms and animal feed. It’s easier for the heads of charities to maintain that a return to something like the old family farm will restore an “ethic” to our relationship with the planet and its life.
To read more, go here.
Boston Vegan Association
To the industry will go animal organization endorsements of an ever more bizarre array of “humane” products and “compassionate” practices. To the animal groups will go a pocketful of “partial victories” as well as a few gratuities like conference sponsorships and high profile publicity opportunities. By making the process so orderly and rational, by whittling it down to a few key players with an unspoken understanding of the arrangement, all parties involved will receive a regular supply of what they need to keep growing at a rapid clip. More money. More customers/members. More political connections. More ability to dictate the terms of public discourse.
To read more, go here.
My Face is on Fire (vegan education blog)
To read more, go here.
Alex Hershaft (President of Farm Animal Rights Movement)
Yes, we do support a gradual, incremental approach to animal liberation, but one vegan meal at a time – not one inch of cage space at a time. The distant goal must be a vegan world – not a world with animals in huge cages.
Yes, we do care about the suffering of billions of animals here and now, but we care even more about the hundreds of billions of animals yet unborn.
Yes, we do believe that welfare reforms work, but only when they are proposed and implemented by the meat industry, to lure caring consumers to their products – not when they are proposed and abetted by animal rights organizations, which are viewed as ethical beacons by their supporters.
When we ask for improvements in the treatment of animals we exploit, we are implying agreement with their exploitation. 97% of consumers favor improved treatment of animals, yet 98% continue to eat them. Welfare reforms are a win-win solution for consumers and the meat industry. Only the animals lose.
We are a movement based on the highest ethic of respect for life. Our challenge to the consuming public should be not “what is the right way to exploit and kill animals,” but “what gives us the right to exploit and kill animals?”
Unpopular Vegan Essays (blog written by Dan Cudahy who also co-authored Creative, Non-Violent Vegan Advocacy (A Beginner’s Guide)
Let us not measure our progress in insignificant welfare “victories”, which, during the short time they last, only serve to perpetuate the exploitation paradigm and make consumers feel better about their purchases of animal products.
There are significant business (fundraising) reasons why welfare efforts are essential to PETA and HSUS to thrive under the current system of industrial animal abuse. The business reasons can be summed up in the following eternal business cycle as follows: donations-campaigns-“victories”-donations-campaigns-“victories”-donations…; you-get-the-point. Since there are so many different ways in which we exploit and inflict cruelty on animals, the opportunities for the welfare-campaign business cycle will last literally centuries.
To read more, go here.
The following piece was taken from a book written by activists and scholars and edited by Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. Nothing in the book specifically references the animal rights movement but these points clearly could be applied to this very movement or any social justice cause.
[T]he NPIC [non-profit industrial complex] promotes a social movement culture that is non-collaborative, narrowly focused, and competitive. To retain the support of benefactors, groups must compete with each other for funding by promoting only their own work, whether or not their organizing* strategies are successful. This culture prevents activists from having collaborative dialogues where we can honestly share our failures as well as our successes. In addition, after being forced to frame everything we do as a “success,” we become stuck in having to repeat the same strategies because we insisted to funders they were successful, even if they were not. Consequently, we become inflexible rather than fluid and ever changing in our strategies, which is what a movement for social transformation really requires. And as we become more concerned with attracting funders than with organizing mass-based movements, we start niche marketing the work of our organizations. Framing our organizations as working on a particular issue or a particular strategy, we lose perspective on the larger goals of our work. Thus, niche marketing encourages us to build a fractured movement rather than mass-based movements for social change.
Almost twenty years ago, when
I began speaking up for animals, I lived in South Carolina and didn’t know any
other local grassroots activists. Therefore, I depended on the large
organizations for guidance. I conducted demos under their banners, distributed
their literature, supported their local efforts, signed their petitions,
responded to their action alerts, and donated money to them. I even worked as a
staff member for one of them for a short period.
Eventually, I became more
confident and started working independently on many different projects and when
I moved to Asheville, NC I also worked with an effective local organization on
many different issues and efforts. But I didn’t stop depending on the large
national groups to provide me with additional opportunities to advocate for
animals.
The problem, though, was that I didn’t question the core philosophy, motives, or strategies of the organizations with whom I was collaborating. Nor did I continually refine my own philosophy and what message I wanted to send through my advocacy work.
However, several years ago, I
began to closely examine the movement with a more critical eye and started
doing extensive research on the philosophies held by and strategies used by the
various organizations and individual leaders. After doing so, it became
apparent to me that the vast majority of the large national animal
organizations (with HSUS leading the way) are spending much or all of their
precious resources on reform and regulation campaigns and sending out positive
(albeit false) messages about “humane” animal products. I knew that this was
not the message and these were not the organizations with which I wanted to be
associated.
Instead, I realized that the
only message I wanted to send was a strong one of ethics, justice, and abolition.
I recognize that, as I advocate for animals, the people to whom I speak may
choose their own path toward the goal of compassion but I must always be
crystal clear in my principled message of veganism. And I must always be aware
of the fact that compassionate people will want to be told the truth – that
there is absolutely no way to use animals in a non-violent and non-exploitive
manner.
I have raised my feelings and concerns about this issue to quite a few fellow animal advocates and most of them were disturbed and started rethinking which organizations they felt comfortable supporting. Many of them asked me to provide them with the complete results of the research that I had done on this issue and so I decided to compile it all in a logical manner and make it available for anyone interested in this topic. The main reason why I spent so much time putting all of this together is that I am concerned about the direction the animal rights movement is going in and don’t think things will change for the better unless we are all fully informed about what the large organizations are actually doing and how these strategies don’t make sense and are not working.
The information I gathered is broken into the following sections:
1. Points made by staff members of these
animal organizations in response to me sharing with them my concerns (following
their points are my responses)
2. Articles which back up my argument that praising
and endorsing “humane” animal products does not create a situation in which fewer
animals are killed but, quite the contrary, makes people feel better about
eating animal products
3. Evidence that HSUS is the strong
determined leader of the ubiquitous “welfare” and “treatment” campaigns
4. Evidence that even the organizations which
used to focus on “usage” and vegan campaigns have gotten caught up in the
“welfare” and “treatment” trend
5. Examples of very expensive “treatment”
campaigns that don’t accomplish anything except make people feel better about
eating animal products
6.
Statements from
other organizations and individuals who share my beliefs regarding this issue
and who are disseminating a message not about how we should treat the animals we
use but about how animals are not ours to use at all
Every day I find new evidence
to support this argument so I feel it is crucial that all of us animal
advocates who believe that animals are not ours to use should stand up and say
that very loudly and clearly and not support “treatment” campaigns that waste
resources and do not make an impact on how many animals are killed every single
day. If we all joined our voices and resources together to send out this
message, just think what could be accomplished.
Respectfully and for the
animals,
Leslie Armstrong
June 8, 2012
PS I invite and would appreciate
your responses and comments, however, request that you read the entire essay
before responding.
PPS I checked the hyperlinks
right before I posted this but if they are broken; you can either do a Google
search or ask me for the original source.
ANIMAL
ORGANIZATION POINTS (AND MY RESPONSES)
They claim that treatment campaigns (like Proposition 2 in
California which set bare minimum standards for the care of farmed animals) make
people think about where the animals they eat come from and then many of them
go on to become vegetarians
They claim that if people start eating “humane” or “higher
quality” animal products, that it can be the first incremental step toward them
becoming vegan
I have not seen any real scientific evidence to support these two claims. The only evidence ever provided is all anecdotal. But there is plenty of that sort of evidence to indicate the exact opposite − that when animal organizations endorse animal products and declare them “humane,” people who used to be vegetarians or vegans now feel comfortable eating animals and people who might have become vegetarian or vegan now feel that they don’t have to because “humane” animal products are available. I have worked on vegan issues for over 15 years, tabling, leafleting, etc. and, during the past seven or eight years, more and more people every year tell me, “It’s okay, don’t worry, I only eat animal products who were treated ‘humanely’.” (See articles below which further demonstrate my point.)
They claim that the general public can handle treatment campaigns
more easily than graphic footage or the message that human animals do not have
the ethical or moral right to use other animals
This claim is particularly condescending and indicates that the organizations are making gross assumptions about their supporters and the general public. All of the people who I know personally who work at these organizations are themselves ethical vegans because at some point in their lives they opened their hearts and minds to a new paradigm. Do they think that others are less compassionate, less logical, less insightful, and less smart than they are? We animal advocates cannot control how the public responds to the truth – we can only give it to them. And if we do so in a respectful, compassionate manner, then we are following our own principles and convictions. However, by constantly sending out the message that it is possible to use and kill animals in an ethical manner (which is exactly what treatment campaigns do), animal organizations are reinforcing what many consumers want to believe and what the animal product businesses are telling them. That should not be the mission of animal advocacy organizations.
They claim that they have to help animals who are suffering now
Of course we all would like to see animals suffer less. But that doesn’t mean that the animal organizations have to praise and endorse the animal product businesses (which are only greenwashing their behavior) and spend millions and millions of dollars and countless other resources to work on these treatment campaigns which don’t ever really do much to relieve suffering, which are typically phased in over many years, which include countless exceptions, and which are not easily enforceable. All of those resources could be much more effectively spent on sincere honest vegan education campaigns. (See below details regarding the effusive praise and endorsements given to animal product businesses and three treatment campaigns which demonstrate my point.)
They claim that their efforts are causing the animal exploiting
corporations to curb their worst practices
Whether the animal organizations
get involved or not, the animal product businesses are going to make most of
these very minor changes anyway or at least say they have made the changes. It’s
just good business because it provides them with positive public relations and,
in many cases, is actually more economically efficient. So, the question is − why
do these animal organizations do the following:
·
spend valuable
resources to achieve these (basically useless) results?
·
lend their
valuable animal advocacy name and give endorsements to animal product businesses?
·
effusively praise
the animal product businesses
·
consistently
voice their concern for the health and well-being of the animal product
industries?
I believe that there are
several answers to these questions, including:
·
the animal groups
get to increase their membership and fundraise off these campaigns and so-called “victories”
·
treatment
campaigns make their members (most of whom are not vegans) feel comfortable and
guilt free
They claim that they don’t encourage people to eat animals and they do promote veg eating
·
Farm Sanctuary,
Mercy For Animals, and PETA actually do encourage people to go veg and they do
consistently point out that being vegan is the “best” way to end suffering for
animals used for food. However, over the last several years they all have started
spending more of their precious resources and credibility on treatment
campaigns which is contradictory to their core message (see examples below).
·
In interviews,
news releases, blog pieces, etc, very very rarely does HSUS even add the caveat
that the only way to end suffering is for humans to stop consuming animal products
(see examples below).
·
On its Web site,
HSUS does have information about going veg and provides some veg resources but
this information is not featured prominently and is presented in such a way
that allows and leads viewers to believe that becoming a vegan is just one of
several equally valid ways of helping animals (see more information below).
·
By praising and
endorsing animal product businesses and working on treatment campaigns, the
animal organizations are, in effect, telling their supporters that it is okay
to eat animal products as long as they were raised “humanely.” And HSUS
literally puts its stamp of approval on animal products.
ARTICLES
REGARDING HOW FORMER VEGETARIANS/VEGANS RETURN TO EATING ANIMALS BECAUSE OF THE
“HUMANE” ANIMAL PRODUCT TREND
Return of the Meat-Eaters: Many Lapsed Vegetarians
Become ‘Ethical Omnivores’
(Time, 2011)
·
“Indeed,
it seems that the latest form of animal activism is not not eating
meat, but rather only eating ethical, sustainable meat”
Ex-vegan can admit: Butcher shop is healthy choice (The Beacon-News, 2011)
·
“Though we (the
writer is a former vegetarian) don’t eat much meat — what we do eat is free
range and organic”
·
“I’d been a vegan because I know the horrors
of the factory-farmed meat industry - once I knew where my meat was coming from
and how the animals were treated, I felt comfortable eating it again”
Some vegetarians beat a “humane” retreat back to meat (msnbc.com, 2011)
·
“A feisty vegetarian since age 12, Reed was a self-described “punk” who swore to
abstain from supporting corporations that he believed profited from mistreating
animals and has ‘vegan’ tattooed on his neck – but as a butcher, he is the key
to a better and more sustainable meat system”
·
“As the ethics
and interests of vegetarians and sustainable meat eaters become more shared,
the more crossover there is between the two groups”
Eating Animals
(the Atlantic, 2011)
·
“A group of longtime vegetarians and vegans converted to the idea that
flesh and other food from animals can be ethical”
·
“I realized I didn't
have a problem with meat - I had a problem with the inhumane practices of the
commercial meat industry”
·
“Once I met the
farmers who were striving to raise animals sustainably and ethically, I
overcame my aversion to consuming meat”
·
“Rather than urging
people to consume only plants, doesn't it make more sense to encourage them to
eat an omnivorous diet that is healthy, ethical, and ecologically sound?”
Meet the Ethical Butcher (MOTHER NATURE NETWORK, 2010)
·
“Reed (a butcher
and former ethical vegetarian/vegan) has no regrets and is now an enthusiastic
meat eater who wants to shift meat consumption to a model that’s sustainable
and from local farms”
Flesh Mob: New York’s Vegetarians Have Come Down With
Some Serious Bloodlust (New York
Press, 2010)
·
“Many New York
vegetarians are giving up the greens and developing a taste for flesh.”
·
“People were
encouraged to avoid meat with scary PETA videos and horror stories about
factory farming, but these days, newly carnivorous New Yorkers are able to
cushion their consciousnesses with locally grown, free range and
all-around-happy meat. It’s guilt free grub, and there’s no shortage of eaters
buying into it.”
·
“I suddenly woke
up to the fact that I had access to meat I feel great about,” says Gabrielle
Langholtz, editor of Edible Brooklyn and Edible Manhattan
magazines (and former vegan). “I thought all meat was produced in this horrific
way, but now I eat some meat raised by my husband or raised on pasture, on
green grass under blue sky.”
5 Ways You Can Eat Ethically and Still Have Bacon (Take Part, 2010)
·
“When you buy
meat, buy the right meat”
·
“Look for
grass-fed, organic, or locally raised meat”
Veggies take a blow as Red Bamboo brings in meat (The Brooklyn Paper, 2009)
·
“This
year, “Brooklyn Goes Veg” week was cancelled for lack of interest altogether. Last year, during the second — and as it turned out, last — year of the
fortnight of legumes and seitan, vegetarian proprietors were already saying
their customer base was in steep decline”
·
“Organic, free-range, “humanely slaughtered” meats are now all the rage”
No More Sacred Cows (Newsweek, 2009)
·
“Thanks to the
cachet attached to high-end meat, they (former vegetarians) are having their
burgers without sacrificing the moral high ground”
VEGETARIAN BUTCHERS (Gourmet, 2009)
·
“Not too long
ago, to be a thoughtful eater meant being a vegetarian”
·
“We’re
experiencing a new movement of people who can stand behind the meat that they
consume and support local farmers”
·
“Eggleston, who
had been a vegetarian for more than a decade, resumed eating meat when he
started producing it as a livestock farmer and felt able to create a new
reality of how animals were raised”
·
“Former
vegetarians are the perfect leaders of the movement for sustainable, humanely
raised meat”
Britain embraces the new faux gras (Grist, 2009)
·
“Customers appear
to be increasingly happy to substitute faux gras (poultry liver without the
forced feeding) for the real thing”
·
“Sales of the new
product surged by almost 60 percent in 2009”
The kinder side of veal (Washington Post, 2009)
·
“The week after
"The F Word," chef Gordon Ramsay's popular television program, aired
an episode about British veal (from so-called “humanely” raised calves), sales
(of the product) at grocer Waitrose jumped 45 percent”
Back in Rack
(MetroActive, 2008)
·
“Visitors can
visit the ranch, see the pigs, ask questions and be as convinced as I was when
I toured the ranch that these animals lived large and rooted around to their
hearts' content. Maybe this is part of why meat is back on the menu”
·
“Ranchers began
putting pigs on their pastures, letting them roam and forage freely before
taking them down to the road to be slaughtered, and then selling the all-natural,
artisan-butchered cuts at farmers markets and small local restaurants. All of
this expands the possible solutions to the "omnivore's dilemma”
·
“Centering on the
issue of choosing what to eat when you can eat everything and anything, the
dilemma seems to have eased, thanks to the growth of traditionally raised,
naturally fed and humanely treated animals”
·
“So given the
increasing availability of small-farm-pastured, sustainably produced meat, are
former vegetarians turning into omnivores?
‘For sure,’ says farmer Dunlop, himself a vegetarian for a dozen years.
‘I was in the same boat when I was in school, and did homework on factory farms
and saw the suffering, the incredible stress that these animals undergo,’ he
recalls. ‘But I started eating meat again once I began raising my pigs’"
·
“Chef Sims
doesn't keep statistics, but he does have the kind of anecdotal evidence that
confirms Dunlop's hunch. ‘Once I started putting Niman Ranch, humanely raised
meat on our menu a year ago,’ says Sims, ‘two friends of mine, both vegetarians
for over 17 years, started eating meat again at our restaurant’"
·
“A growing number
of vegetarians are starting to eat humanely raised meat”
·
(Those) who have
recently converted from vegetarianism, eating sustainable meat purchased from
small farmers is a new form of activism—a way of striking a blow against the
factory farming”
·
“Former vegetarians
are some of the most outspoken proponents of eating meat”
·
“I love animals,
and we should not support anything but ethical ranching”
·
“Mollie Katzen,
author of the vegetarian bible the Moosewood Cookbook, is experimenting with
meat again and says ‘now that cleaner, naturally fed meat is available, it's a
great option for anyone who's looking to complete his diet’”
Veal to Love, Without the Guilt (The New York Times, 2007)
·
“At Wolfgang
Puck’s restaurant Spago in Beverly Hills, Calif., Wiener schnitzel from
humanely raised veal is the third most popular item”
·
“The changes in
the industry have had a measurable impact on sales - D’Agostino, the 20-store
supermarket chain in New York, said that its sales of veal have jumped 35
percent since it began carrying “certified humane” veal only”
·
“People like
Elaine Burden of Middleburg, Va., who stopped eating veal about 10 years ago,
have come back – ‘I’m delighted we can have it again,’ she said”
·
“Even a
vegetarian can have a change of heart - Zach Schulman considers himself mostly
vegetarian and said ‘it (eating “humanely” raised veal) makes sense from an
ethical standpoint, and it makes sense sustainably and in terms of supporting a
small local farm’”
Caring Carnivore (yoga JOURNAL, 2006)
·
“It makes her
feel better about the fact that she now eats meat - she looks for humanely
raised organic meat, paying more because she knows she's getting something
that's better for the animals”
HSUS INTERVIEWS,
BLOGS, NEWS RELEASES, AND WEB SITE PAGES WHICH INDICATE ITS PHILOSOPHY,
POSITION, AND STRATEGIES
(My comments are in
parentheses.)
Wayne Pacelle (HSUS President and self proclaimed ethical vegan for 30 years) repeats the same mantra here, here, here, here, and here.
“every animal has the same
will to live as humans” ( it’s disconcerting and confusing when he constantly
implies that eating “humane” animal products - which involves killing animals -
is equally as beneficial to the animals as going vegan)
In this article, this video, this piece, and this article, Pacelle states the following:
“We don’t say you must be
vegan”
“I don’t think everyone needs to adopt a
vegetarian diet to make a difference.”
“[I’m] not out to liberate all beasts at all costs”
“We think [animal] farming is a noble
profession”
“I’m a vegan but people are going to eat meat and if they’re going to eat meat they shouldn’t allow/tolerate the animals to be treated this way.” (Not once did he encourage Ellen’s viewers to go vegan or explain to them that being vegan is the only way to have a compassionate diet)
HSUS responded to Hormel’s announcement about phasing
out gestation crates in a news release, and in a CNN interview
·
“Great news from
Hormel. We thank Hormel.”
·
“It’s progress
and welcome news”
In response to Bon Appétit’s new “farm animal” “welfare”
policies
·
“it turned ‘very
good’ into ‘great,’ setting a new high water mark in the food-service
sector”
HSUS responded to McDonald’s announcement that it will
require its U.S. pork suppliers to outline their plans to phase out the use of
gestation stalls in a news release, a Huffington Post piece, and in a CNN interview
·
“it’s important
and promising.”
·
“so excited”
·
“yielded
significant results for animals and made today's progress possible
·
“Everyone who has
worked to give a voice to breeding pigs should take pride in this advancement”
Discussing how HSUS is working closely with the United
Egg Producers (UEP) to work on federal legislation (Egg Products Inspection Act
Amendments of 2012 – see details below) that would supposedly set minimum
standards for how the hens used by the egg industry are to be treated, in a news release and during a NPR interview
·
“enthusiastically
support legislation”
·
“improve housing
for egg-laying hens and provide stable future for egg farmers”
·
“a solution that
balances animal welfare and the economic realities of the industry”
·
“figure out a
pathway that’s good for the industry and better for animals”
·
“an important and
welcome move”
·
“a positive,
tremendously significant step.”
In a blog entitled Better Days Ahead for Farm Animals in Ohio, regarding
the ballot initiative which supposedly would create minimum standards of care
for animals used by the agriculture industries
·
“we need to sit
down with people with a different orientation and find common ground”
When outlining so-called progress for “farm animals” in
Ohio, Omaha, and Illinois, Pacelle reassures farmers
·
“(HSUS) embraces
a pathway forward for animal agriculture”
When responding to accusations by the Missouri Farm Bureau that HSUS wants to end animal agriculture, Pacelle lays out all the reasons why these claims are false.
When responding to the passage of Prop 2 in California
(which supposedly set minimum standards for how the animals used by the animal
agriculture industry are treated – see details below)
·
“as a result,
you’ve brought forth a new, more compassionate age.” (Saying this about using
and killing animals is like saying someone is more pregnant. You either are or
you aren’t. And when animals are used for food, it is not compassionate – there
is no more or less about it.)
·
“people do not
want their farm animals treated with wanton cruelty.”(I guess he thinks that
people are okay with these animals being treated with just regular cruelty)
·
“There is no
valor in defending the abuse of animals” (but that is exactly what HSUS is
doing by endorsing the animal agriculture industries)
·
“millions of
California voters chose stewardship, responsibility, mercy, care and
selflessness.” (Killing animals is not responsible, merciful, or careful. What
is accurate is that millions of Californians want to eat animals but also want
to not feel guilty about it and Prop 2 give them that opportunity)
Pacelle spoke at TEDx Manhattan and TEDx Fruitvale
·
“whether we’re
vegan, vegetarian, or a carnivore, we can all make choices (he touts using “higher
welfare” animal products) that have ‘better’ consequences for the animals”
·
“There are now
many small farmers who are properly caring for the animals”
·
“….in the past,
animals were in outdoor settings where they interacted with each other and had
a decent life. And yes, they are going to have at least one day when they go to
slaughter but the rest of their life does not need to be one of misery and deprivation.” (Interestingly, in the documentary, Free
Range, the following was said by a
so-called “humane” animal farmer. “[We treat] animals properly, with respect”
(4:12). “They have a very good life. They just have one bad day at the end”
(4:55))
·
“They
[animals used for food) were going to be slaughtered at some point but they
were going to have a decent life.”
·
“People are going to continue to eat meat”
·
“One thing that we share is the belief that
all animals, including those raised for food, deserve some semblance of
protection from abuse.” (The term “semblance” according to Webster’s means “outward and often specious appearance or show” which makes sense
because animals who are used for food only get pretend
protection from abuse – the killing part makes that pretty obvious.)
·
“we believe
in the spirit of cooperation and in finding practical solutions that work for
consumers, retailers and producers” (what about solutions for the animals?)
HSUS Vice President for Farm Animal Protection, Paul
Shapiro, stated in one interview and confirmed it in another interview
HSUS “does not
have an ‘anti-meat’ agenda, is not plotting the demise of animal agriculture”
In Pacelle’s book, The Bond: Our Kinship with Animals, Our Call to Defend Them
·
“The old
standards of animal husbandry, which at their best, showed a decent respect for
the natures and needs of farm animals and obvious ethical boundaries” (page
105)
·
“If animals are
going to be raised for food, and be slaughtered for us, then we owe them
something in return, and it starts with a little more respect and kindness.” (page
134) (what is respectful, ethical, or kind about killing sentient beings?)
·
Pacelle does say
that he stopped eating meat and states that humans don’t have to eat animal
products to be healthy and so the only justification left is that we do so for
taste and pleasure but he never suggests that readers do the same. The
following terms are not included in the book’s index: Vegan, Vegetarian, Diet,
or Plant-based diet.
·
At the end of the
book, Pacelle includes the section 50
Ways to Help Animals. In the item about farmed animals, instead of
reminding readers that the only way to eat compassionately is to eat an all
plant-based diet, he obfuscates once again and gently suggests the Three Rs of Eating (the linchpin of the HSUS Humane
Eating campaign – Reducing the
consumption of animal-based foods, Refining the diet by avoiding products from
the worst production systems, and Replacing animal-based foods with plant-based
foods). After he listed the third R – Replace meat and other animal based foods
with vegetarian foods – he added, “as you are comfortable doing so.” (Further
helping readers assuage their guilt about causing the killing of animals.)
The HSUS Web site
·
The page
entitled, Eating humanely Doesn’t Have to Be All Or Nothing, gently suggests to readers that they might want to “take a significant first step by becoming a
flexitarian”
·
HSUS is a big
proponent of being veg only one day per week, as seen here, here, here, and here (not
once in these pieces does it say that to truly eat compassionately, meatless
Tuesdays should be added, then meatless Wednesdays, etc.)
·
On its Humane
Eating and Statement on Farm Animals and Eating with Conscience Web site pages, HSUS promotes embracing the 3 Rs
which puts out the message that – in regard to eating humanely – eating a vegan
diet is on equal footing with eating “humanely” raised animal products
1.
Reducing the
consumption of meat and other animal-based foods
2.
Refining the diet
by avoiding products from the worst production systems (e.g., switching to
cage-free eggs)
3.
Replacing meat
and other animal-based foods in the diet with plant-based foods
·
HSUS does have
vegetarian recipes and a vegetarian guide on its site but they are not
prominently featured
·
The HSUS Guide to Meat-Free Meals boldly features
− as a veg role model − a food reporter who eliminated some animal products
from his diet for health reasons but still happily eats them after 6 pm each
day. (Could they not find anyone who is animal product free all the time?)
HSUS AND OTHER ANIMAL ORGANIZATIONS MAKE HYPOCRITICAL, CONTRADICTORY, CONFUSING, AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS AND EXHIBIT HYPOCRITICAL, CONTRADICTORY, CONFUSING, AND MISLEADING BEHAVIOR
When reporting
HSUS successes, Pacelle states that its mission is to prevent cruelty in the
first place (a much repeated mantra). And, as mentioned previously, Pacelle
consistently states that “every animal has the same will to live as humans”
HSUS has on its board of directors John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods which is one of the largest purveyors of animal products in the United States.
HSUS helped develop and plan the Wolfgang Puck Company’s “humane farm animal treatment program.”
Pacelle effusively
praises Puck for serving animals who
were raised and killed using so-called “humane” standards.
At the 2008 HSUS Genesis Awards (which uses the slogan “cruelty can’t stand the spotlight”), Puck was honored and given special recognition.
In 2007, a HSUS-sponsored
conference gave a forum to
a panel of so-called “humane” animal killers, including Nicolette Niman of
Niman Ranch, which at the time was responsible for the deaths of 1000s of
animals per week.
HSUS
is a partner with Certified Humane which puts the HSUS stamp of approval on so-called
“humane” animal parts.
HSUS recently put an animal
killer on its payroll when it hired Joe Maxwell, a pig farmer, as its director of rural affairs. Mr. Maxwell’s job is to provide more marketing opportunities for so-called “humane” animal
killers. Maxwell (along with his partners) sends 1,000 pigs every week to be
killed.
Pacelle suggests that egg buying consumers should choose “higher welfare” choices such as “cage-free,” “free-range,” and “organic” options that offer the animals a better life than that of their caged counterparts. And HSUS also spends a considerable amount of money and other resources on a campaign which promotes “cage-free” eggs, and is working on legislation with the United Egg Producers which would supposedly set so-called “humane” standards on egg farms.
However, HSUS states on its site that the majority of egg labels have little relevance to animal welfare or, if they do, they have no official standards or any mechanism to enforce them. It goes on to describe how hens from these so-called “higher welfare” facilities lead horrible lives involving beak cutting, forced molting, and how the male chicks are killed at birth.
Here and here, Farm Sanctuary
explains that using animals for food can never be humane and gives reasons why
such terms as “cage-free” and “free-range” are meaningless:
·
“When animals are
seen primarily as production units or commodities for sale - whether by factory
farms or so-called “humane” operations - the animals’ welfare tends to be
secondary to economic concerns.”
·
“Regardless of
the welfare standards followed at any farm, all animals raised for food are
slaughtered at young ages...” No matter how well they are treated, these
animals’ lives are cut drastically short.”
·
“According to
Webster’s Dictionary, “humane” means “characterized by kindness, mercy or
compassion.” Commodifying and slaughtering sentient animals is incompatible
with this definition.”
·
“Labels such as
“free range,” “free roaming,” and “cage free” provide no assurance that animals
are treated humanely, and animal suffering is common despite labels suggesting
otherwise”
In an interview, Farm Sanctuary co-founder and president, Gene Baur went on record saying that “compassion and slaughter do not go together.”
However, Baur sat on the advisory board of the Whole Foods Animal Compassion Foundation whose mission was to convince consumers that raising animals for food and then killing them can be humane and compassionate.
Farm Sanctuary lent its animal advocacy name to and helped plan Wolfgang Puck’s “humane” animal treatment program.
In 2011, Farm Sanctuary
hosted the National Conference to End Factory Farming which featured many speakers who promote
animal farming (as long as it’s “sustainable” or “humane”) and some who profit
from animal killing. Also participating were high ranking officials from Compassion Over Killing, Mercy For Animals, and HSUS.
Recently, Baur applauded Chipotle for its television advertisement showing how “wonderful” non-factory farms are and said “efforts like Chipotle's, which educate the public about industrialized animal production, are a step in the right direction.” At the end of the ad, the farmer puts a crate in a Chipotle truck. One has to assume it’s a dead cow or pig.
Mercy For Animals President Nathan Runkle blogged that “The best way to truly live humanely is to
withdraw your support of the meat, dairy and egg industries by transitioning to
a kind and compassionate vegan lifestyle.”
In one of its pamphlets, MFA explains that “humane” animal products are a myth.
In the video, Fowl Play, which was produced by Mercy For Animals, both its
investigator and its veterinary expert explain how hens in “cage-free” facilities are forced to
endure extreme cruelty.
However, a few years ago, Mercy For Animals spent valuable resources on a campaign to convince Trader Joe's to pledge to sell only “cage-free” eggs.
Mercy For Animals, along with
Farm Sanctuary, HSUS, Compassion Over Killing, and several other national
animal organizations joined ranchers, animal farmers, and animal product
sellers to endorse Ohioans
for Humane Farms whose mission is to “protect” animals by
advocating for “humane” animal farming practices. This coalition worked on a
ballot initiative which sent consumers a positive message about eating so-called
“humane” animal products.
Mercy For Animals declared
itself a “proud ally”
of OHF and provided
significant support for its ballot initiative.
HSUS encouraged its Ohio supporters to attend an Ohioans for Humane Farms fundraising event at which chickens, cows, goats, and lambs were on the menu. See the invitation here (on the video starting at 0:28).
Bruce Friedrich, Farm Sanctuary Senior Director for Strategic Initiatives and former PETA vice president, wrote that eating animals is “indefensible” and continued with “eating meat supports cruelty so severe that it would warrant felony cruelty charges were dogs or cats so horribly abused -- and that's true even of so-called ‘humane’ farms.”
However, Friedrich sits on the board of Farm Forward whose mission is to promote animal agriculture by “increasing the
market share of more ‘humane’ sustainable family farms.” The organization’s
board also includes several members who benefit financially from killing
animals, including the president of the Poultry Institute. Recently, Farm
Forward took on the job of administering a $151,000 grant from the American Society for
the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
(ASPCA) which will help a poultry ranch “humanely” raise and sell more chickens
and turkeys.
Friedrich also declared
that a weak and unenforceable bill that might sometime in the distant future minimally
change the way hens on egg farms are housed is a “victory.”
Peter Singer’s organization
(Animal Rights International), HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, PETA, Mercy For Animals, Vegan
Outreach, Compassion Over Killing, and other animal organizations signed a letter to Whole
Foods President John Mackey praising his corporation for setting farm animal
“compassionate” standards.
Peter Singer (referred to by
some as the father of the animal rights movement), argues only
against “factory farming” and suggests that instead of eating animals from
factory farms, compassionate people should choose either vegan foods or animal
products from producers who allow them to live a decent life
In 2007, Compassion Over Killing
changed the name of its magazine from Abolitionist to Compassionate
Action.
HSUS Vice President Paul
Shapiro founded Compassion Over Killing and, during his tenure there, the organization’s
magazine continually made statements confirming its abolitionist stance,
including, “…promoting veganism must be a high
priority for any
organization that claims to be working for animal liberation” and “…promoting veganism ought to be the primary focus of the American animal rights movement.”
In 2004,
Shapiro explained in a Christian Science Monitor article that the
“cage-free” label usually means that the hens are “packed side by side in
massive sheds.”
However, Shapiro now appears
to be very comfortable sitting
down with Wolfgang Puck for a
congenial conversation about how the animals the chef serves were supposedly
treated “humanely” before they were killed.
In 2002, Miyun Park, the
long-time president of Compassion Over Killing, stated that “…animals
cannot liberate themselves. The only hope they've got is that enough caring
people will do everything in their power to finally free them from the enslavement
they've been forced to endure for far too long.” That same year, she also declared, “The abuses forced upon
farmed animals at livestock auctions, factory farms, and slaughterhouses are
horrifying. Anyone who cares about animals should refuse to support such
cruelty by going vegetarian."
However, Park is now the executive director of Global Animal Partnership (GAP), an organization whose mission is – not to
free animals from enslavement – but to “improve”
their lives as they are being enslaved. This organization’s board includes
ranchers, animal farmers, and animal product sellers.
In their biographies on the
GAP site, all the other key players provide specific information about the
organizations or companies with which they have been associated. However,
Park’s bio doesn’t mention that she worked for Compassion Over Killing.
Instead, it only states that she
has “worked to improve the welfare of farm animals.” And in her bio, Park
states that she believes that “the multi-stakeholder foundation on which our
organization is firmly rooted can bring about the greatest advancements—for
animals, producers, consumers, and purveyors alike.”
LEGISLATIVE
CAMPAIGNS THAT DO VIRTUALLY NOTHING FOR ANIMALS BUT INSTEAD WASTE ENORMOUS
AMOUNTS OF VALUABLE RESOURCES and HELP ANIMAL ORGANIZATIONS RECRUIT MEMBERS AND
RAISE FUNDS
Amendment
to the Florida Constitution re Gestation Crates
HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, and other organizations spent an enormous amount of volunteer time and just under $1.4 million on this ballot initiative.
At the time of the initiative, there were only two hog farmers in the state of Florida who would be affected by this amendment and that is one of the major reasons why there was minimal opposition to the amendment.
Below are the substantive
sections of the resulting law.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any
person to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig
during pregnancy, on a farm in such a way that she is prevented from turning
around freely.
(b) This section shall not apply:
(1) when a pig is undergoing an
examination, test, treatment or operation carried out for veterinary purposes,
provided the period during which the animal is confined or tethered is not
longer than reasonably necessary.
(2) during the prebirthing period.
(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) “enclosure” means any cage,
crate or other enclosure in which a pig is kept for all or the majority of any
day, including what is commonly described as the “gestation crate.”
(2) “farm” means the land,
buildings, support facilities, and other appurtenances used in the production
of animals for food or fiber.
(3) “person” means any natural
person, corporation and/or business entity.
(4) “pig” means any animal of the
porcine species.
(5) “turning around freely” means
turning around without having to touch any side of the pig’s enclosure.
(6) “prebirthing period” means the
seven day period prior to a pig’s expected date of giving birth.
(d) A person who violates this
section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082(4)(a), Florida Statutes (1999), as amended, or by a fine
of not more than $5000, or by both imprisonment and a fine, unless and until the
legislature enacts more stringent penalties for violations hereof. On and after
the effective date of this section, law enforcement officers in the state are
authorized to enforce the provisions of this section in the same manner and
authority as if a violation of this section constituted a violation of Section
828.13, Florida Statutes (1999). The confinement or tethering of each pig shall
constitute a separate offense. The knowledge or acts of agents and employees of
a person in regard to a pig owned, farmed or in the custody of a person, shall
be held to be the knowledge or act of such person.
(g) This section shall take effect six years
after approval by the electors.
One could logically argue the
following points about this law:
·
It is still legal
to confine animals in any size enclosure for up to 49% of any day
·
It is still legal
to confine animals in enclosures all the time as long as the enclosure is large
enough for the animals to lie down, stand up, and fully extend his or her limbs
and turn around freely
·
The exceptions involve vague definitions which
will make the law difficult to enforce (see below for more information
regarding enforcement)
·
The consequences for violators are very
limited and, if anyone was actually fined, they would most likely see the fine
as just the price of doing business
25990. Prohibitions.
In addition to other applicable provisions of
law,
a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a
farm,
for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents
such
animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully
extending his or her limbs;
and
(b) Turning around freely.
25992. Exceptions. This chapter shall not apply:
(a) During scientific or agricultural research.
(b) During examination, testing, individual treatment or operation
for veterinary purposes.
(c) During transportation.
(d) During rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions,
4-H programs, and similar exhibitions.
(e) During the slaughter of a covered animal in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 19501) of Part 3
of Division 9 of the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to humane
methods of slaughter, and other applicable law and regulations.
(f) To a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig's
expected date of giving birth.
25993. Enforcement. Any person who violates any of the provisions
of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period
not to exceed 180 days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
One could logically argue the
following points about this law:
·
It is still legal
to confine animals in any size enclosure for up to 49% of any day
·
It is still legal
to confine animals in enclosures all the time as long as the enclosure is large
enough for the animals to lie down, stand up, and fully extend his or her limbs
and turn around freely
·
The exceptions to this law are many and will make
the law extremely difficult to enforce (see below for more information
regarding enforcement)
·
The consequences for violators are very
limited and, if anyone was actually fined, they would most likely see the fine
as just the price of doing business
HSUS reached an agreement with the United Egg Producers (UEP) to work together on this federal bill which, according to HSUS, is “a solution that balances animal welfare and the economic realities of the industry” and will “improve housing for egg-laying hens and provide a stable future for egg farmers.”
HSUS enthusiastically supports this bill and has made it a top legislative priority in Congress. This, of course, seems to indicate that the organization will spend a significant amount of resources on trying to get the bill passed.
In addition to HSUS, this
bill is supported by Farm Sanctuary, Mercy For Animals, Compassion Over
Killing, In Defense of Animals, and other national organizations.
However, other national animal organizations (even those which support some “welfare” campaigns) are not in favor of this legislation which they see as not just a huge waste of resources but a gigantic step backwards.
According to
Karen Davis, PhD, President of United Poultry Concerns, “Even if HR 3798 passes, the majority of hens will
remain entombed in battery cages on factory farms," "They will be
locked into a federal law administered by the USDA which does not even enforce
the 54-year-old 'Humane Slaughter Act.'"
According to Priscilla Feral, President of Friends
of Animals, “There is no such thing as an ‘enriched’ battery cage.
HR 3798 is an outrageous attempt by the egg industry and its cohorts to enrich
themselves at the expense of laying hens and the public at large”
According to
Nedim C. Buyukmihci, V.M.D., Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Medicine,
University of California who is regarded as an expert on farmed animals by many
in the animal advocacy community, including Compassion Over Killing and Mercy For Animals, “The cages defined
by the legislation will in no meaningful way reduce the unimaginable suffering
endured by the hens but will be used by the industry as a means of defending
this indefensible practice. Even if this legislation passes without amendments,
the situation would be worse for the hens because it would be setting a
disastrous precedent; battery cages would be codified in federal law.”
According to
Bradley Miller, National Director of the Humane Farming Association, "The egg industry is seeking to establish egg
factory cages as a national standard that could never be challenged or
changed by state law or public vote"
Other organizations which oppose this legislation include Last Chance for Animals, Action for Animals, and Northwest Animal Rights Network.
Interestingly, just two years ago, HSUS indicated how shady it thinks its new partner is by asking the U.S. Department of Justice to initiate a criminal investigation of the UEP and several of its members. The request was based on insider information that shows that egg industry executives allegedly fixed egg prices in an intentional scheme that caused prices to rise as much as 45 percent between August 2007 and March 2008—the fastest pace in 30 years. According to Jennifer Fearing, chief economist for The Humane Society of the United States, "Factory farming interests claim they cannot afford to give hens enough room to spread their wings, yet they're gouging consumers through secret deals, collusion and retaliation. Consumers and animals continue to suffer while the egg industry cuts corners and lines its pockets."
This bill includes an air quality provision which requires that (two years
after the bill is enacted) ammonia levels should not exceed 25 parts per
million which is the exact same maximum standard already required by the UEP certified guidelines. And
actually the UEP currently suggests that, ideally, the ammonia levels should be
less than 10 parts per million.
The bill also includes a provision which requires that (two years after
the bill is enacted) feed-withdrawal and water-withdrawal molting shall be
banned. This exact same ban is already required by the UEP certified guidelines and
has been in place since 2006.
Following are some of the
reasons why it is completely baffling why some of the largest animal advocacy
organizations support this bill:
1.
Its definitions confirm
how insignificant the bill is:
·
“adequate environmental
enrichments” includes perch space, dust bathing or scratching areas, and nest
space but won’t be specifically defined by the Secretary of Agriculture until a
later date
·
“free-range” is
defined as “not housed in caging devices” and “provided with outdoor access”
which could and usually does mean one small window for thousands of hens in a warehouse
·
“cage-free” is
defined as “not housed in caging devices” which can and usually does mean that
the hens are crammed into warehouses and don’t have even that small outdoor
access window
·
“enriched cages”
is defined as “116 square inches (less than a legal piece of paper) of
individual floor space per brown hen” and “101 square inches (7 more square
inches than a piece of letter size paper) of individual floor space per white
hen” and it means the hens are provided “adequate environmental enrichments” (see
above definition)
2.
The phase in
period is complicated and very long:
·
9 years after
enactment, new cages have to provide “adequate environmental enrichments”
·
15 years after
enactment, existing cages have to provide “adequate environmental enrichments”
·
3 years after
enactment, new cages have to provide 90 square inches of individual floor space
(less than a piece of letter size paper) for brown hens and 78 square inches of
individual floor space for white hens
·
6 years after
enactment, new cages have to provide 102 square inches of individual floor
space (less than a piece of legal size paper) for brown hens and 90 square
inches of individual floor space for white hens
·
9 years after
enactment, new cages have to provide 116 square inches of individual floor
space (still less than a piece of legal size paper) for brown hens and 101
square inches of individual floor space for white hens
·
12 years after
enactment, new cages have to provide 130 square inches of individual floor
space (less than a fed ex envelope ) for brown hens and 113 square inches of
individual floor space for white hens
·
15 years after
enactment, new cages have to provide 144 square inches of individual floor
space (less than most laptop computers ) for brown hens and 124 square inches
of individual floor space for white hens
·
4 years after
enactment, existing cages have to provide 76 square inches (less than a piece
of letter size paper) of individual floor space for brown hens and 67 square
inches of individual floor space for white hens
·
15 years after
enactment, existing cages have to provide 144 square inches (less than most
laptop computers ) of individual floor space for brown hens and 124 square
inches of individual floor space for white hens
·
Other complicated
phase-in provisions
3.
There are
significant exemptions:
·
Hens already used
for production are virtually not affected
·
Existing cages
put into operation between 1-1-08 and 12-31-11 will not be affected until 18
years after the date of enactment
·
Businesses with
less than 3,000 hens will never be affected
4.
Important points
and questions
·
Is this weak and unenforceable bill − which may or may not
be passed − worth HSUS agreeing to not do undercover investigations
of egg farms? Furthermore, while HSUS is working with the
UEP on this bill, it stands to reason that it will be very hesitant to
criticize the egg industry.
·
Even after the 15 year phase-in period, the birds will only
be provided with space that equals less than two sheets of paper and the hens
will – for the most part – still have to stand on wire caging.
·
Why are “enriched
cages” even included in this bill as a so-called improvement when its chief
supporter HSUS argues that
hens who live in enriched cages live a miserable and extremely unhealthy
existence?
·
What about all of the male chicks who are killed every day
at hatcheries as a result of the egg industry?
·
What about de-beaking the hens?
·
What about killing the hens when they no longer produce
enough eggs?
·
The “humane” labeling will make consumers feel guilt free
and, therefore, they will buy even more eggs
·
How will this law with so many extremely complicated
provisions be enforced? (see below for
more information regarding enforcement)
Enforcement of treatment
laws
1.
There are many
reasons to believe that the USDA and state agriculture departments are not
motivated to vigilantly enforce animal welfare laws.
2.
From a HSUS news release,
“The fact is, Congress and the USDA have been in the grip of the agribusiness
lobby for decades”
3.
In his book, The Bond, Pacelle states that the USDA
has poor oversight and that it does not conduct unannounced visits at
slaughterhouses (pages 102 and 103) and discusses how the USDA and the animal
food industries have an improper connection (page 108)
a.
“The agency [USDA]
has failed to follow its official interim policy”
b.
“The USDA’s own
Office of the Inspector General chastised the agency for its inconsistent
application of policies and regulations”
c.
“The problems
engendered by the USDA’s loophole are exacerbated by its lax enforcement”
d. “The agency has too often ignored complaints about
serious animal welfare abuses”
5.
The USDA
supposedly enforces certain humane laws but it also is mandated to
promote US agriculture products and, obviously, these two mandates create a
conflict of interest.
6.
According to
Marion Nestle, author of Safe Food: Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism, "A second reason for the friendliness is the revolving
door between government and industry. Job exchanges between industry lobbyists
and the USDA are especially common, not least because 500 or so department
officials are political appointees selected on the basis of party affiliation.
As early as 1974, reports identified numerous USDA officials who were
previously employed by the meat and dairy industries or who left the USDA to work
for those industries."
7.
The USDA’s budget
is so strained that it recently proposed
that it should turn over chicken slaughterhouse inspection duties to slaughterhouse
employees
8.
State agriculture
departments usually have very strong ties to the animal agriculture businesses
in their community. Just two examples:
·
A North Carolina
Department of Agriculture official tipped off a
turkey farmer about an upcoming raid which was triggered by animal abuse
allegations.
·
The Illinois
Department of Agriculture consistently ignores the state’s Humane Care for Animals Act and acts as
an obstacle to any humane legislation considered by lawmakers.
9.
In response to
the above referenced NC situation, Pacelle stated
“You’ve got a real unholy alliance between the industry and the government
agencies.” (02:30)
A FEW OF THE OTHER
INDIVIDUAL ANIMAL ADVOCATES AND ORGANIZATIONS WHO AGREE WITH MY POINT OF VIEW
AND WHO ARE SPREADING THE CLEAR STRONG MESSAGE THAT VEGANISM IS A MORAL
IMPERATIVE AND THE ONLY WAY TO END ANIMAL EXPLOITATION AND SUFFERING
Please, let’s hold each other accountable, even when that’s difficult to do (and yes, even when we know there are good, well-intentioned individuals inside groups). Please, let’s firmly stand together to say that this is not okay. Please, let’s change course. Please, let’s stop making excuses for what is inexcusable. Please, animal rights advocates, let’s fight for what we actually believe and stop supporting groups and campaigns that are less than honest, that do not reflect what we know to be right and just, and that give credibility and the “humane” label to the exploitation and killing of animals. Let’s show more loyalty to the nonhuman animals than to the groups that keep selling them out.
If living ethically is important to you, please remember that there is nothing humane about “humane” animal farming, just as there is nothing ethical or defensible about consuming its products. When confronted with the fundamental injustice inherent in all animal agriculture—a system that is predicated on inflicting massive, intentional and unnecessary suffering and death on billions of sentient individuals—the only ethical response is to strive to end it by becoming vegan, not to regulate it by supporting “improved” methods of exploitation.
The question is not, “How do
we treat the animals we’ve enslaved?”; but, “Why are they here in the first
place?”
The partnership between
animal welfare groups and industry to promote economically efficient animal
exploitation is considered a “win-win-win” not only for both sides of the
partnership, but for consumers as well. Consumers are assured that they can be
excused for their indulgences in the products of animal misery, due to these
so-called “higher standards” of welfare, and welfare groups win by receiving
tens of millions of donation dollars annually for acting as the industry
“regulators” and the developers of these ridiculous labels.
But the biggest winners, by
far, are the animal exploiters themselves, who not only receive consulting
advice by “welfare experts” and prominent animal activists, but are also given
awards and special endorsement from advocacy groups. The payoff they receive in
increased consumer confidence must have them laughing all the way to the bank.
Meanwhile, the most basic rights of an increasing number of animals are still
being sold out to fulfill the trivial desires of those who insist on consuming
and using the products that come from their bodies.
[B]ut roughly 97% of the potential donors to animal charities eat chickens. Thus, few organized groups choose to risk their growth potential as the world’s forests are cut down for animal farms and animal feed. It’s easier for the heads of charities to maintain that a return to something like the old family farm will restore an “ethic” to our relationship with the planet and its life.
To read more, go here.
Boston Vegan Association
The BVA rejects all forms of
advocacy that seek to reform, regulate, or otherwise make the human use of
animals more humane, on the grounds that such activities are counterproductive
to the goal of ending animal use. For the same reason, the BVA rejects all
forms of advocacy that seek to end only particular uses of animals. Instead,
the BVA commits its resources exclusively to nonviolent vegan education. The
BVA holds that educating people about veganism and vegan advocacy is the only
way to make progress toward ending animal use.
Humane Myth
Humane Myth
To the industry will go animal organization endorsements of an ever more bizarre array of “humane” products and “compassionate” practices. To the animal groups will go a pocketful of “partial victories” as well as a few gratuities like conference sponsorships and high profile publicity opportunities. By making the process so orderly and rational, by whittling it down to a few key players with an unspoken understanding of the arrangement, all parties involved will receive a regular supply of what they need to keep growing at a rapid clip. More money. More customers/members. More political connections. More ability to dictate the terms of public discourse.
To read more, go here.
My Face is on Fire (vegan education blog)
So perhaps, then, it isn't an
oversimplification to assess HSUS' goings on with the millions in donations it
receives as its -- quite literally -- investing in the continued practice of
treating nonhuman animals as things existing for human pleasure.
To read more, go here.
Alex Hershaft (President of Farm Animal Rights Movement)
Yes, we do support a gradual, incremental approach to animal liberation, but one vegan meal at a time – not one inch of cage space at a time. The distant goal must be a vegan world – not a world with animals in huge cages.
Yes, we do care about the suffering of billions of animals here and now, but we care even more about the hundreds of billions of animals yet unborn.
Yes, we do believe that welfare reforms work, but only when they are proposed and implemented by the meat industry, to lure caring consumers to their products – not when they are proposed and abetted by animal rights organizations, which are viewed as ethical beacons by their supporters.
When we ask for improvements in the treatment of animals we exploit, we are implying agreement with their exploitation. 97% of consumers favor improved treatment of animals, yet 98% continue to eat them. Welfare reforms are a win-win solution for consumers and the meat industry. Only the animals lose.
We are a movement based on the highest ethic of respect for life. Our challenge to the consuming public should be not “what is the right way to exploit and kill animals,” but “what gives us the right to exploit and kill animals?”
Unpopular Vegan Essays (blog written by Dan Cudahy who also co-authored Creative, Non-Violent Vegan Advocacy (A Beginner’s Guide)
Let us not measure our progress in insignificant welfare “victories”, which, during the short time they last, only serve to perpetuate the exploitation paradigm and make consumers feel better about their purchases of animal products.
There are significant business (fundraising) reasons why welfare efforts are essential to PETA and HSUS to thrive under the current system of industrial animal abuse. The business reasons can be summed up in the following eternal business cycle as follows: donations-campaigns-“victories”-donations-campaigns-“victories”-donations…; you-get-the-point. Since there are so many different ways in which we exploit and inflict cruelty on animals, the opportunities for the welfare-campaign business cycle will last literally centuries.
To read more, go here.
The following piece was taken from a book written by activists and scholars and edited by Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. Nothing in the book specifically references the animal rights movement but these points clearly could be applied to this very movement or any social justice cause.
[T]he NPIC [non-profit industrial complex] promotes a social movement culture that is non-collaborative, narrowly focused, and competitive. To retain the support of benefactors, groups must compete with each other for funding by promoting only their own work, whether or not their organizing* strategies are successful. This culture prevents activists from having collaborative dialogues where we can honestly share our failures as well as our successes. In addition, after being forced to frame everything we do as a “success,” we become stuck in having to repeat the same strategies because we insisted to funders they were successful, even if they were not. Consequently, we become inflexible rather than fluid and ever changing in our strategies, which is what a movement for social transformation really requires. And as we become more concerned with attracting funders than with organizing mass-based movements, we start niche marketing the work of our organizations. Framing our organizations as working on a particular issue or a particular strategy, we lose perspective on the larger goals of our work. Thus, niche marketing encourages us to build a fractured movement rather than mass-based movements for social change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)