Months after the downer-cow scandal of last winter, USDA chief Ed Schafer announced plans to ban all downer cows from the food supply.
The rule involves cows that get sick after an initial inspection by veterinarians before slaughter. Under old rules, such cows could be reinspected by vets and then cleared for slaughter if the vet decided they posed no threat.
In the press release announcing the proposed new rules, Shafer had this to say:
Last year, of the nearly 34 million cattle that were slaughtered, under 1,000 cattle that were re-inspected were actually approved by the veterinarian for slaughter. This represents less than 0.003 percent of cattle slaughtered annually. As you can see, this number is minimal.
If I'm understanding him correctly, the secretary is saying the problem was always pretty small and thus never much of a big deal -- and will, at any rate, be solved by this new rule.
I think he's being cheeky; I think pressure on packers to force sick cows through the slaughter line and into the food supply will remain strong.
First of all, the "under 1,000" number reflects cases where the beefpacker followed proper procedure: identified downers, had them inspected and approved by vets, and ushered them into the food supply.
But at Westland/Hallmark, the California beefpacker that sparked the downer controversy in the first place, procedure broke down. To avoid having sick cows deemed "downers" and thus in need of re-inspection, workers tried to make them walk -- by subjecting them to all manner of torture.
How many downer cows made it down the kill line that way in 2007? Well, Shafer has no comment on that. There's no way of knowing -- but we do know that downergate revealed all manner of gaps in the meat-safety system.
Then there's the structural issues that create incentives to a) make cows sick, and b) force them through the kill line. To illustrate, let's review a few of the facts of the scandal at Westland/Hallmark, the California beefpacker that sparked the downer controversy in the first place.
• The unfortunate beasts being led to slaughter were spent dairy cows on their way to becoming hamburger meat for schoolchildren. Conventional dairy farming is an incredibly low-margin activity; slaughtering the old cows for meat is an important source of income for dairy farmers.
Conventional dairy farming is also a brutal process for cows; by the time they've been squeezed to the last drop of their production abilities, they're in pretty sad shape, pumped full of all manner of stuff that isn't good for them: corn (which ruins their livers), ethanol waste products (corn stripped of its starch, with industrial residues added), hormones, and antibiotics. The USDA downer ban will not prevent spent dairy cows from entering the food supply -- except ones that are too sick to walk.
• Westland/Hallmark was a relatively small company ($100 million in annual sales), competing against giants like Cargill ($75 billion "and growing") and Tyson ($27 billion). Westland/Hallmark had developed a niche selling to the federal government's school-lunch program -- at $1.42 per pound of hamburger meat, the L.A. Times reported in February. Small meatpackers operate under razor-tight profit margins, and will continue to have an incentive to squeeze as much revenue as possible out of any cow that comes their way.
The new rule amounts to a necessary but insufficient measure. Of course we need to keep downer cows out of the food supply. But the change does nothing to improve the sick food system that pressures farmers to make cows sick in the first place -- and that gives processors incentive to push those sick cows onto our plates.
Shafer has spoken forcefully about banning downer cows. What does he have to say about the latest market-share grab in the beef industry -- the one that will end with three massive companies slaughtering as much as 90 percent of U.S. cows?
What will he say about corporate machinations in the dairy industry, wherein -- according to recent lawsuits -- mega-processor Dean Foods has been colluding with a corrupt dairy farmers' cooperative to hold down the milk price paid to farmers? Again, low prices drive farmers to squeeze as much milk out of their cows as they can, by any means necessary -- and sell the abused beasts' bodies to the meat industry when they can no longer deliver milk.
Until these structural issues are confronted head on, it seems risky to trust what comes out of our meatpacking plants -- regardless of the new USDA downer ban.
Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Soda lobby gets its game on
Comments
View as Threaded
human power Posted 3:50 pm
23 May 2008
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:53 pm
23 May 2008
Human Power's question, "Do sane people still eat meat?," is a good one. To it should be added, "Do people with a heart still eat meat?"
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
joeblueskies Posted 10:35 pm
23 May 2008
Bacon, the gateway meat.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:16 pm
25 May 2008
The answer would be NO.
Canis. I understand what you are saying, but in my opinion HSUS, is making a process. Okay there can be two paths:
a) Humans avoid eating animals for their own health sake
b) Humans avoid eating animals for the animal kindness.
I believe humans are too selfish, and therefore will chose opinion A more than they will ever chose opinion B. - Regardless, which opinion the result is the same. - The animals can live their life in peace and away from abuse, cruelty, and slaughter.
I believe humans are too selfish, and therefore will chose opinion A more than B. - Regardless, which opinion the result is the same. - The animals can live their life in peace and away from abuse, cruelty, and slaughter.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:24 pm
25 May 2008
Please explain the "health-giving qualities you get from no other food source" - I am little confused about what you are talking about?
p.s. - I am life time vegetarian - now a vegan -and in excellent, so please make your explanation the best you can.
Thanks.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 7:03 pm
26 May 2008
Being an omnivore also does not require that someone eat meat every day -- as if the choice was either animal products and milk or only vegetables.
It is possible to raise animals "humanely". Pet owners do. Those who use draft animals do. And many small farmers who raise chickens, sheep, and cows do. What is "inhumane" to both humans and animals is the industrial model that dominates our food supply.
No matter how ethically superior a vegan diet may be, most people will continue to eat animals.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
joeblueskies Posted 10:00 pm
26 May 2008
Your body cannot make EFA's. While some are available from plants, animal products are a good source.
Some people are "obligate carnivores" as they cannot make long-chain fatty acids from other EFA's
You want to consume EFA's in a way that maintains balance between between Omega 3 and omega 6s. Excessive grain consumption causes Omega 6 imbalances, interfering with prostaglandin production, leading to inflammations and many other problems. Corn-fed feedlot beef is high in Omega 6s which is a problem.
Certain fats, from animals and tropical oils - have antimicrobial properties, which are good in your system.
Certain vitamins are only fat-soluble, such as A, D, K, E, and animal products are a very good source. Animal fats are the only source for A and D, I believe. Eating them in a whole food means you also get the naturally occurring cofactors with them.
Stearic acid, a main component in beef fat, lowers cholesterol and is actually good for the heart. Fallon claims it is a preferred food for the heart.
Arachondic Acid is found only in animal fats, and has important functions in brain cells and the cell membranes.
Meat is an excellent source of trace minerals, especially zinc and iron.
Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) is found in the milk and meat of grass-fed animals. Feeding them grain causes it to disappear. It has strong anti-cancer properties, and especially linked to breat cancer prevention. If I was a female vegan with a family history of breat cancer, I would seriously investigate this.
Usable Vitamin B12 occurs only in animal products.
Meat is a principle source of phosphorus for most people.
That is simply a high-level data dump, and there are many other points that could be made. If you are interested, I would urge you to investigate more - Fallon's book is a great place to start, or go to http://www.westonaprice.org. She is the executive director fo the Weston Price Foundation. Grass-fed beef, for example, is a food with a completely different nutrtitional profile from grain-fed beef. The same goes for poultry raised in pastures where they can eat greens and insects as a significant dietary component. Lastly, I know that serious vegans and vegetarians have thought through many of these issues and found ways of combining grains and legumes, and other complex dietary solutions to many of these issues. But they still need to take vitamin supplements. In my opinion, ingesting them as a single ingredient supplement, rather than as a part of a whole food, bound together with their various cofactors, is only a pale imitation of the real thing. That is basically the thesis of Michael Pollan's latest book, "In dDefense of Food".
Lastly, regarding the ethical treatment of animals, not eating domestic animals is NOT being kind to them and letting them live their lives. It is condemning them to extinction. Even the most cursory investigation of the fate of heritage breeds in this era of industrial agriculture will reveal that.
Bacon, the gateway meat.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 11:15 pm
26 May 2008
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:27 am
27 May 2008
1)Mahatma Ghandi - please do not quote my vegetarian hero to support your a animal eating arguments! Mahatma Ghandi was a vegetarian, and not only due to his religious connections either, but rather due to moral and ethical way of life.
2)"It is possible to raise animals "humanely". Pet owners do". - How many pet owners slaughter their pets and than eat them? - I for one have not seen anyone participate in that sick way!
3)Thank you for agreeing that the vegan diet is "ethically superior", however majority of people do not follow the vegan diet to be "superior". They do it do be kinder.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:49 am
27 May 2008
Erm,,,, Sorry, I can not listen to your "Animal fats are the only source for A and D, I believe." - Dude ever heard of the sun, - great provider of Vitamin D, and what about carrots, spinach, bell peppers, kale, and turnip greens - all great providers of Vitamin A.
You also wrote "beef fat, lowers cholesterol" -Surely you do not believe that. If you do, I am sure your doctor is making lots of money from your health woes!
See the problem is people read article that support their beliefs that humans must eat animals and therefore find research that call up upon eating animals.
How about you actually look into finding natural sources of all your nutrient in plants based diet. I bet your. - http://www.tryveg.com -
You can eat whatever you want, but to say that vitamins A and D can only be found in aniamsl - now thats just crazy talk!
Permalink
billgee Posted 1:05 am
27 May 2008
They are dirty, stupid, insane animals.
If you cook 'em you better clean em.
If you dont, you better clean em.
What do you need any meat for.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 1:23 am
27 May 2008
In general, there are two categories of vitamin A, depending on whether the food source is an animal or a plant.
Vitamin A found in foods that come from animals is called preformed vitamin A. It is absorbed in the form of retinol, one of the most usable (active) forms of vitamin A. Sources include liver, whole milk, and some fortified food products. Retinol can be made into retinal and retinoic acid (other active forms of vitamin A) in the body.
Vitamin A that is found in colorful fruits and vegetables is called provitamin A carotenoid. They can be made into retinol in the body.
My understanding is that one can overdose on vitamin A from animals (e.g., polar-bear liver), but that one's body converts provitamin A carotenoid into retinol only what it needs.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 8:59 am
27 May 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
http://history1900s.about.com/od/people/a/gandhi.htm
I do not advocate meat eating or veganism. I simply want to make clear that very few choices, including what to eat, are black and white/either or. There are alternatives to inhumane and unhealthy industrial meat processing.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:02 am
27 May 2008
It's all about consumer choice, don't you see? Forget that consumers have little influence over the context under which their choices are made. Forget that no consumer in history has ever woken up one morning and said to herself, "Today, I want a burger from a cow that's been forced to eat foods that make it sick, some of which are industrial waste products; and stuffed into a pen with thousands of other cows, standing in their own waste -- which will then become a massive waste-disposal problem; then marched with electric prods into a line and killed without regard to pain or fear; and then butchered by workers bearing sub-living wages and sky-high injury rates; and then shipped hundreds or thousands of miles in refrigerated trucks."
Forget that those conditions exist not to please consumer desire, but rather the profit dictates of the meat industry.
Rather than focus on holding industry and government responsible, let's try to shame every single consumer into quitting meat. And while we're at it -- just for grins -- let's forget or ignore the fact that animals play a key role in sustainable agriculture -- and that organic-eating vegans rely on vegetable farms that rely on animals for soil fertility. And all the while, let's remember to congratulate ourselves, loudly and publicly, about how awesome our own diet is.
Deal? Come on, Green Granny, get with the program! The system is quaking in its boots!
Victual Reality
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 11:51 am
27 May 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
joeblueskies Posted 12:15 pm
27 May 2008
Now that is truly a joke - Sally Fallon and Jo Robinson financed by the meat and Dairy industry?! That is "research?" They are supported by individual diversified family farmers, maybe, but hardly the industry. Jo's EatWild.com is a fabulous public service site that leads you to where you can buy locally produced grass-fed meats and dairy products in all 50 states. She is an important resource keeping these farms viable.
Bacon, the gateway meat.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 12:43 am
28 May 2008
Tom, - When I started reading your accounts of appalling animal abuse and meat & dairy industries. I was very impressed with your writing. I still do applauded you for bringing these stories to us. However why do you seem to think that my veganism is not a political stance. I believe it is a simple demand and supply. If you do not demand abused dead animals than there are no/less abused dead animals. Can you honestly telling me that just because a animal is raised locally there is absolutely no abuse caused to the animal?
Tom, please do not give me lecture on consumers rights. I am consumer activist. I buy local fruits, vegetables, organic grain. I go out of my way to buy house cleaning/personal products that are truly environmentally friendly (versus just a green coloured lable). I spend more money to buy something I ethically agree with than support big business that causes so much destructions to humans and animals. - My veganism is as much about political activism as it is about my inner peace and wealth.
I can not politically protest for better animal treatment and still at the end of the day eat the animal. - what is the point in that?
When you really want change, you stop the demand of the supplies. - It does not get simpler than that!
Joeblueskie, - I will not be quitting my day job - but that's because I make too much money in my current profession! Now whether it is a small family farm or Tyson, - the definition is the same. I agree the conditions are extremely different. But the result is the same. Animal killed for meat for people to eat.
Permalink
joeblueskies Posted 3:28 am
28 May 2008
So - you probably want a ready steady source of organically-grown produce. I think you missed Tom's earlier comment about the necessity for good soil to grow that produce, and the need for animals to produce the manure to build the good soil. The main source for conventional nitrogenous fertilizers is natural gas. Giving where all hydrocarbon fuel prices are going, producers around the country are turning to alternative fertilizer sources. Animal manures are in high demand.
Where I live, in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, we have a LOT of poultry houses. Poultry litter from the houses used to be a big problem for the producers to get rid of. Now there is an increasing demand for it as a fertilizer and soil builder. It works better for the farmers to put that down on a field than to pay double or triple what they used to for a truck of urea fertilizer.
The point is that these systems are linked. I am not shilling for the poultry producers, but you need to feed the soil somehow to produce the vegetables you want. You can't build a wall around them, and say "I want that, but not that". So you need to build integrated systems. City dwellers CAN wall off the systems, at least in their own minds, because they are so removed from the point of production, and the earth. This allows them the luxury of maintaining their sense of moral superiority - "I do THAT (good), not THAT (bad)". They don't really see where it all comes from.
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are tapped into a system where the only animal life involved is the human beings(and maybe some honeybees as pollinators), and everything else consists of happy benign plants. Somehow, I tend to doubt it.
Bacon, the gateway meat.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:33 am
28 May 2008
He seems also oddly to have targeted poor Green Granny, who, far from being an extremist, seems interested in recommending a moderate course.
Other than that, he is absolutely right. The meat industry will not be reformed any time soon by the creeping and unsteady advance of vegetarianism across the land.
Meanwhile, JavaEarth, take heart; you are not alone.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:11 pm
28 May 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:23 pm
28 May 2008
I would very much appreciate your expanding on the role of animals in "diversified ag." Earlier in this thread you wrote that "organic-eating vegans rely on vegetable farms that rely on animals for soil fertility." That connexion is not well-known, by me at least, but I daresay by most of us.
Ideally, how should those of us who are farmers be living with the traditional barnyard critters? (And others, perhaps: emus?; llamas?; water buffalo?) What would we be responsibly asking of them, in a way that could still be called "humane"?
Does your agritourism place in NW NC manifest your ideal, in that regard?
I hope you know me well enough by now that I ask only for information, with no prejudice or predisposal to condemn and attack. I have great respect for you, and wish you success in all you are trying to accomplish. And I very much regret that the cause of animal rights, which in fact I promote, has been poorly understood by too many, and has moved them to excesses of meanness.
Fortunately they have not made themselves known in Gristmill very often. And of course I do not count among them my friend and comrade JavaEarth, who does us all an excellent service by ever reminding us of the animals' perspective.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 4:53 pm
28 May 2008
To sum up the author's thesis: we did not unilaterally domesticate farm animals; it was more an evolutionary covenant. Their evolutionary success is proven by the fact that they now account for the bulk of animals living in the world. The effect of that covenant -- on farm animals, on humans, and on formerly wild spaces -- has been one of the most profound transformations in the history of the earth.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:14 pm
28 May 2008
Of course it is absolutely absurd, when we think about the situations of real individual animals. No non-human animal is able to enter into a covenant; and no non-human animal can speak legally bindingly for his/her descendants.
And, worse than absolutely absurd, the metaphor is evil, when (as I fear perhaps it may be in Pollan's case -- and I generally like Pollan a great deal) it is used to justify carnivory, and other forms of animal exploitation.
There may indeed be justifications for carnivory. But that the original spokesman for Human Beings and the original spokesman for Animals once upon a time signed a contract, binding on all future Human Beings and Animals, with the agreement that the Animals should always let themselves be slaughtered whenever that suits the Human Beings, is not one of them.
("Look, Mr. Lamb, your party's authorized agent signed on the line, in ink, agreeing to the slaughter clause. All the paper work is dated and correct. If you have any questions, your lawyers can call our lawyers. Meanwhile, I see [looking at the computer screen] that a number of you -- ooh, a lot of you, a whole lot of you -- are expected at the trucks at 5 AM ... ")
We might recall that one of the evilest uses of any biblical text was the very convenient interpretation of Genesis 9.25-27, Noah's curse of his disrespectful son Ham's son Canaan into slavery to the respectful son Shem, to justify the enslavement of Africans (descendants of Ham) by Europeans and Euro-Americans (descendants of the third brother, Japhet, as respectful as Shem).
We are ingenious at finding legal justifications for morally questionable actions.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 8:42 pm
28 May 2008
The (I gether in your view, ugly) fact is, our human ancestors evolved as omnivors. Raising livestock (or fish) was an alternative to hunting (and fishing). Many cultures -- both hunters and herders -- have stressed the importance of treating animals kindly or with reverence while they are still alive, even though in the end they may kill them and eat them. You may feel that humans should now move beyond that, but we cannot deny that livestock raising has been an integral part of agriculture from the dawn of civilization.
My understanding is that crop nutrients CAN be recycled without manure -- e.g., through composting -- but moving to that model will require training a lot of farmers in how to do it optimally.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:30 pm
28 May 2008
And I certainly do not hold it against our human ancestors, close kin to omnivorous chimpanzees, that they themselves hunted and killed other animals, and ate the meat of those animals.
"My view" is that we have evolved, not just physically and socially but ethically as well; and not only that, but that we are continuing to evolve.
That evolution, in part, is why Philosophy is one of the four great paths to Truth, along with Art, Religion and Science. We must always question the foundations of everything we do, say and think; and that is the function of Philosophy.
(And that is why I am so infuriated with the terrorist-style, self-righteously condemnatory animal-rightsists, with whom I have nothing to do: inasmuch as they believe "animal rights" to be simply a fixed cause to be fought for, they are impatient, anti-intellectual fools, not recognizing that animal-rights ethics needs to evolve, and needs to be carefully considered, like any other philosophical discipline.)
Stephen Budiansky's book appeared a while ago, in the early 1990s. Animal-rights ethics has developed a great deal since then.
It may indeed be true -- it seems likely enough -- that several kinds of mammals and birds found it to their advantage to hang around in the vicinity of human beings, a long time ago, whether because they were fed regularly, or because they were protected from predators.
But that hardly amounts to signing a contract.
In any case, any such contract would be abrogated by the human side, once the animals were confined.
And it was abrogated at least as seriously again, once the confined animals were led to have sex with mates of the humans' choosing. Or not; maybe they were never given the opportunity to have sex; maybe they were simply bashed, killed, skinned, and eaten.
So far as evolutionary biology goes, it is silly to pretend that domestication has been an advantage, simply because there are countless dogs and cats and chickens and cows and so forth. Once the original cooperative animals tended to stay put, and breed, things were OK, evolution-wise, so long as those animals had an opportunity to move about and meet their less-tame still-wild kin.
But once the human beings erected barriers, that changed everything.
And even more changed, once your human masters told you with whom you could have sex (whether or not you really felt anything for that mate), and with whom you could not (whether or not you really had a deep feeling for someone over the fence).
Today, right now, there are billions of galliform and anseriform birds, and artiodactyl mammals, a small number of perissodactyls too (horses), held in captivity, almost everywhere in painful stressful circumstances.
Is any one of them pleased by Budiansky's "contract"? Does any one of those chickens consider, "Well, we signed the contract, and now there are a billion of us, so isn't that grand, even as I am crammed in this stifling cage with my beak cut off, and there is no one to care how frightening my death will be, but that is OK, it is all taken care of in the contract, and the evolutionary drive of our species has succeeded"?
"The Covenant says nothing about HOW the animals are treated" -- OK, fine. So where do the lawyers draw the line, between simple slaughter after a pleasant life, and constant cruelty and abuse throughout with an especially horrible death at the end?
Simply stated, that problem may look easy enough -- from a human perspective. But the fact is, given that the human beneficiaries have the voice, and the power, to say or do anything, and the animals are helpless prisoners, voiceless and powerless, this is hardly a level ground for a debate.
No, it is better that the human omnivores scrap the offensive "covenant" argument, and find something else to justify their meat-eating habit.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 12:44 am
29 May 2008
I'm referring to the nutrient loop -- something I knew shockingly little about when I showed up at Maverick Farms five years ago, a food-obsessed finance writer ready to farm. In our society, we seem to have a generalized ignorance about how things work -- even key things, like how food is created.
Plants need nitrogen to grow, and -- until the rise of synthetic nitrogen a century or so ago -- there was a more or less stable amount of usable nitrogen for plants in the world. What came out o the ground had to be returned to the ground, or fields lost fertility (a constant problem in the 10,000-year history of ag). Turns out that animals concentrate nitrogen and other nutrients in their waste, which, when spread over fields, rebuilds fertility.
Wendell Berry once famously wrote that the genius of industrial ag was to take a solution and create two problems. When agriculture was mixed, animal waste was spread on fields, and animals were fed crops, culls, and grass from those fields: a closed system. Now agriculture is highly specialized. The 10,000 -hog operation creates vast pools of toxic (from all the additives) waste that must be disposed off; and the 10,000-acre corn farmer needs to import vast amounts of fertility (artificial nitrogen) to keep his fields productive.
Now, I've been covering here on gristmill the mounting crises around the globe's complete dependence on synthetic nitrogen (derived from natural gas) and mined phosphorous and potassium. If we want to remove ourselves from this disastrous path, we'll need to develop a farming style that respects the old nutrient loop. Yes, Ron, we can recycle nutrients through composting -- though wouldn't the human waste now going into sewers have to come into play? Ehhh. We can and must also use "green manure" -- legumes, which have the magical power to fix free nitrogen from the air into the soil.
But given population pressure, mixed systems involving animals seem most efficient -- and thus necessary. I agree absolutely that we can't keep eating .75 pounds of meat a day, or drowning or coffee in oceans of warm milk. We need to start thinking about animal products as the special things they are, not throwaway commodities. And dialogs like these may be a good place to start.
Anyone interested in learning more about the nutrient loop should have a look at the work of Sir Albert Howard, whose book The Soil and Health I discussed here: http://grist.org/comments/food/2007/03/01/soil/
Victual Reality
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:09 am
29 May 2008
But you would need Garbo to make that work. Just possibly Bacall.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 2:23 am
29 May 2008
Veganism is not about self importance and virtue, as you keep writing. It is about wanting change in society. The aim is to stop animal (including humans) suffering, abuse and killing. Like you I too use sarcasms. However unlike you, I am not a writer. My words are less PC and more gut feelings of the changes I would like to see.
I understand we both want change. However I can not support the notion of eating animals. "Lets treat animals better so we can eat them later", is not a notion I agree with. I agree with "lets just treat animals better". That's it. There are so many options of eating better, healthier, non animals foods, so let's invest more in that.
See with your relation to (eating) animals, there is still a possibility for animal cruelty. Whereas my plight, tries to eliminate it.
We are both fighting the status quo. I very much hope that at least one us wins.
P.S. - of course we should use animal poo for their high Nutrient content - but that does not mean we need to kill the animals for it. Infact it would be better to not kill them, so they can make more Nutrient
Permalink
kmp Posted 2:28 am
29 May 2008
Yet post them he does; Tom, by his activism, his personal choice to farm sustainably, and by bringing to light (despite the endless resulting criticism) the very real evils of the industrial agriculture system, has likely done more to protect animals from cruelty than 1,000 vegans. Yet his very passion for the topic comes back to bite him, time and time again, with personal attacks on his choice to eat meat.
It must get tiring. I know I get tired of it, and I have far less "moral ground" on which to stand than Tom.
Canis, we all know, and appreciate, your passion for the protection and humane treatment of all animals. I respect that position and, in fact, applaud it. I respect even more that you generally manage to discuss the topic without overt personal attacks on those people who disagree, and without presenting it as the moral superior ground, but as something which should be, which must be, as natural as breathing. However, I cannot agree with your assessment of javaearth's statements, which I find to be argumentative, condescending, and not altogether coherent.
I'm sorry javaearth - no one here disrespects your decision to be a vegan. But your arguments might find a larger audience were you not virulently attacking the very people who are fighting the good fight against industrial agriculture. Realistically, even if the US were to start to transition to a completely vegan society (which seems highly unlikely, but, I guess is possible) such a transition would not happen overnight. Isn't it better to encourage change, in a more mindful direction, than it is to call us all animals abusers/baby killers/evil/heartless, etc., etc.,? And, are the people you really want to attack the ones who are supporting sustainable agriculture, fighting factory farms, and fighting for better conditions for the very animals you profess to love?
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:28 am
29 May 2008
Yes, Ron, we can recycle nutrients through composting -- though wouldn't the human waste now going into sewers have to come into play? Ehhh. We can and must also use "green manure" -- legumes, which have the magical power to fix free nitrogen from the air into the soil.
William Vogt, in his 1948 best-seller, Road to Survival, pointed out repeatedly that we were flushing away vast amounts of nitrogen down the toilet. Vogt's solution was to return human dung to the soil. But to paraphrase Wendell Berry, the genius of modern households was to take a solution and create two problems. Because our feces and household chemicals end up in the same place, applying sewage sludge to soils over an extended period can lead to the build-up of some undesirable chemicals and heavy metals in the soil.
Perhaps one thing we need to do urgently is to make composting toilets cool?
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 2:49 am
29 May 2008
To restore chickens, pigs, sheep, goats and cattle to the wild, and to get people to stop eating them, would be a tremendous undertaking. Many breeds would not survive, and most of the animals that did survive would surely not die of old age. Either people would need to cull the populations, or natural predators (like wolves) would have to be re-introduced to keep the populations in balance. Personally, I much prefer seeing the semi-wild pigs in the Corsican forests to fully "domesticated" pigs in CAFOs. But, of course, the only reason those pigs are in Corsica (an island) in the first place is because the locals eventually round them up, kill them and eat them.
I just mention this scenario not to suggest that it is one that cannot be considered, but to work through the consequences. As I am sure you are fully aware: separating humans from farm-animal species (except for those kept as pets) does not mean an end to all suffering (there would still be disease, injuries, attacks by predators), but a change in the way that the animals suffer. It would be a more natural life for them, for sure, and perhaps (but who am I to say?), worth the substantially increased freedom they would enjoy.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:05 am
29 May 2008
Of course we should use animal poo for their high Nutrient content - but that does not mean we need to kill the animals for it. In, fact it would be better to not kill them, so they can make more Nutrient.
Please explain. For any area of grassland, or area dedicated to growing crops to feed herbivores, there is a maximum carrying capacity. In conventional livestock farming systems, animals are born, eat, poop, grow, poop, breed (perhaps), poop, and are killed before they die of old age. If one simply let them instead live until they die of old age, once that maximum carrying capacity is reached the farmer would be faced with two choices: (a) do something to keep them from over-breeding; or (b) eat them or let them be eaten. Either way, the amount of food they eat and turn into manure would be no more than under a conventional system.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
javaearth Posted 3:22 am
29 May 2008
I have congratulated Tom on his excellent writing many times before. I am sorry if that seem to be over shadowed by my wanting less abused animals.
I am not trying to alienate anyone that wants to protect and care for animals. I have great respect for my local farmers. As a vegan I have even gone to my local dairy farmer and spoken to them about how much I respect them for their hard work and not selling their land to housing construction as so many others have on the last ten year in North Ogden, Utah.
I see the cows in the morning grazing on grass and enjoying the sun. And in the winter I see them protected in the barn away from the cold snow munching on the food the farmer is providing. - I feel happy seeing those cows everyday.
However, those situations are rare. And there are far more abused animals. And that abuse occurs because their there is profit in producing animal meat. If there was decreased or no demand for those animals dead bodies do you think the same level of abuse would occur?
Permalink
javaearth Posted 3:33 am
29 May 2008
Majority of the animals that are eaten are unnaturally over breed. - In the US alone 10 billion animals are killed for food per year. - Those 10 billion animals are not reproducing naturally. So once humans stop over breeding the animals population will decrease.
What is wrong with "do something to keep them from over-breeding"
Why do we get to decide how many animals get to reproduce at what level? - Surely you do not think that this earth belongs only to us - or do you?
Permalink
javaearth Posted 3:34 am
29 May 2008
Majority of the animals that are eaten are unnaturally over breed. - In the US alone 10 billion animals are killed for food per year. - Those 10 billion animals are not reproducing naturally. So once humans stop over breeding the animals population will decrease.
What is wrong with "do something to keep them from over-breeding"
Why do we get to decide how many animals get to reproduce at what level? - Surely you do not think that this earth belongs only to us - or do you?
What is wrong with allowing an animal to live to its old age, like we do?
Permalink
javaearth Posted 4:08 am
29 May 2008
You can have your (internet) opinion of me, sure go ahead. But please do not put words into my mouth.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:31 am
29 May 2008
thanks for your very kind message.
This thread has got unusually tricky. Let me say simply that JavaEarth is someone whom I consider my friend (as I do you!; and Ron!; Tom himself too, for that matter). Her heart is definitely in the right place. But I have no control over her style (nor should I). She should say what she wants to say. But we should be wise enough to understand that the ad hominem attacks that now and again gush forth are not very important, and not to be taken personally; they should be regarded as icons, so to speak, of a more general high regard for the welfare of animals, to which I think we can all agree.
After all, we are all on the same side. We may prioritize our items a bit differently, with regard to the reform of the meat industry. But in the end, we want the same thing: the glad harmony of human beings and non-human animals in one (diffuse) community of living creatures on Earth.
And i for one am sitting on the edge of my seat, waiting for that arm of Phoenix to bring back some Martian polar ice, get the tea set ready, heat up the water, and see who may be coming over for a visit!
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:46 am
29 May 2008
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:38 am
29 May 2008
Not sure if you mean they give birth to more than they would in the wild. If so, you are probably right, at least in respect of the ones that are allowed to breed.
In the US alone 10 billion animals are killed for food per year. Those 10 billion animals are not reproducing naturally. So once humans stop over-breeding the animals [their]population will decrease.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what animals you have in mind, and their fate once people stop killing them for food (which means stopping to raise and house them, except as the exceptional pets).
After one of the hurricanes that struck Hawaii in the 1990s, a lot of chickens escaped from their small, backyard confinements. They started breeding in the wild. Without natural predators (except for mongooses, which had been imported years before and had themselves become pests), the chicken population soon grew to alarming proportions. Pigs that have escaped into the wild are now major problems in the few natural forests that remain in in the State.
Most cattle abandoned to their fate in Montana, Michigan, Minnesota, Canada and other such climates would not survive the winter. If left to graze the southern Great Plains, they would probably expand in number very quickly. And so would the population of cayotes.
What is wrong with "do something to keep them from over-breeding"?
What do you have in mind: birth-control pills (or injections) for cows and pigs? Tying the female animals' tubes? Castration for the males (presumably objectionable on animal-welfare grounds)? Who's going to pay for that?
Why do we get to decide how many animals get to reproduce at what level? -- Surely you do not think that this earth belongs only to us. Or do you?
This question sounds funny after your previous one.
Farmers are deciding how many animals get to reproduce at what level in order to select for the best traits from their perspective, and to match the population to the facilities they provide for the animals. That is not a judgement, that is a fact. A farm is, by definition, a place in which nature is under the control of humans. The other form of food production is called hunting and gathering. (Or just gathering, if you prefer.)
I'm going to ignore the gratuitous insinuation in the remaining questions.
What is wrong with allowing an animal to live to its old age, like we do?
Nothing, per se, nor did I suggest there was. But if you are looking to restore the natural conditions for animals, living to a ripe old age is an exception for herbivores. Normally they are culled by wolves or other predators.
My point, in any case, was that letting farm animals live to an old age makes no difference in terms of the amount of nutrients generated in dung. That is determined by how much biomass a farmer can produce for animal feed.
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
joeblueskies Posted 11:39 am
29 May 2008
But what if a person does not feel healthy, or is NOT healthy, without some animal products in their diet? Humans have a complicated evolutionary history, and a varied genetic background. We have different blood types, different allergies, different biologies, depending on background. South Asians have evolved for millenia on a complex vegetarian diet, while Innuit have lived mostly on meat and seafood for generations. I personally have never felt healthy on various vegetarian or vegan diets. I have heard this from many people. Yet, we all know people who naturally gravitate away from meat in their diet, and feel better physically for it.
Why is it that what makes one person feel radiant makes another fail to thrive? Some might say it is simply a matter of finding the right nutritional balance, of taking enough vitamins. Yet, food scientists are barely beginning to understand how foods nourish us, how the interactions among all elements in food build our bodies. It all looks like simple reductionist thinking. Look at the confusion around the last food pyramid, and the sad state of human health in this country.
People have a right to choose diets that lead them to health. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to forsee the absolutely predictable response I will get from some people here on this statement, but just because YOU have a constitution that thrives on a vegan or vegetarian diet doesn't mean that everyone does. Even if you avoid meat, but eat only eggs or dairy products, animals will die for that choice. What do you think happens to the 50% of calves who are born as males into dairy herds? Without them, the mothers will not freshen and give milk. Yet, the dairy farmer can't afford to feed them.
Human nutrition matters in this debate, along with soil science and ethics. When it comes to nutrition, one size does not fit all.
Bacon, the gateway meat.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 10:30 pm
31 May 2008
The global food and fuel crisis is resulting in more than just people going hungry. Rising grain and gas prices, as well as the closure of American slaughterhouses, have contributed to a virtual stampede of horses being abandoned -- some starving -- and turned loose into the deserts and plains of the West to die cruel and lonesome deaths. Horse rescue projects, which are mostly small, volunteer operations with limited land and resources, are feeling the consequences of this convergence of events. In the meantime, many now unaffordable horses are being sold to abbatoirs south of the border where inhumane methods of slaughter are practiced. [My emphasis]
These are only my personal opinions.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:44 am
01 Jun 2008
thanks for this. Abandoning dogs, in connexion with the housing crisis in California, has already received some coverage. But I did not know about this phenomenon.
I had written already a response, including remarks about the fascinating autistic animal-sympathizer Temple Grandin, but it got lost in the posting. VERY frustrating; and it happens every so often with Gristmill.
Anyway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Grandin.
I have a student coming over in a few minutes, so I cannot write more. Maybe I shall be able to return to this important topic later.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 8:27 pm
01 Jun 2008
While the movement to make the slaughter of feral and other horses for their meat illegal in this country received a lot of support from horse-lovers and more generalized animal-welfare activists, it could have been foreseen that the horses were not out of the woods. Long-distance travel to Canada and Mexico is itself stressful and dangerous for horses (as it is for other animals); and then the Mexican slaughterhouses have been described as particularly cruel. Temple Grandin is certainly right to deplore this development.
The abandonment of horses, though, is really a separate problem, and the Time article was either shallow or irresponsible, to suggest that the anti-slaughter-house activists are somehow responsible for the plight of those horses. It is a colossal misunderstanding, to judge it to be better for unwanted horses to be put to death in a "humane" slaughter house, than to let them run free and slowly starve -- as if those were the only alternatives!
We have an obligation to look after all our companion animals. Animal-welfare organizations ought to fund shelters for rescued horses much more generously than they do. The HSUS for example has been criticized for not doing enough by way of supporting local shelters.
But when the horses' original people, and the people who run the shelters, both say that the high price of feed makes it impossible for them to take care of their horses, that points to an endemic moral deficiency in our culture, which appalled many Native Americans when they came into contact with Europeans and their descendants: we do not look after one another; we allow our neighbors to starve.
This is a human-rights problem no less than an animal-rights problem. So long as food is sold in the marketplace for a price, and so long as that is the only way of procuring food, then poor people are going to go hungry.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink