On Whole Foods and Kangaroos
Two recent stories brought to us best (for those of us with a twisted sense of humor) by Grist are "Meat Wagon: Whole Foods Edition" and "I’ll Have the Marsupial of the Day."
The Whole Foods story is quite embarrassing, though not as embarrassing as this:
Acquaintance of Mary: Look, I’ll never stop eating meat. I don’t want to know what they do to the animals and if I did it still wouldn’t make me stop. And I’m not traveling 100 miles to some farm or ordering stuff every week that’s gonna show up in some freezer box and I have to be home to take deliver of it. What can I do?
Mary: Well, if you insist on eating animals, at least shop at Whole Foods. There’s one opening two miles away and they only sell free-range animal products. It’s probably more expensive, but the guy who started it is a vegan and is dedicated to reducing harm to the animals and the environment.
This was over two years ago, so I don’t recall the exact verbiage, and I’m probably being kind to both parties. I probably used the word "humane" in there somewhere.
So there I am/was, not only being dishonest by neglecting to point out that humane slaughter is an oxymoron, but essentially making her feel a sense of relief that there’s a place she can go to buy animal products and not feel guilty about it.
Nice work.
And now that it appears Whole Foods’ suppliers includes one that uses Nebraska Beef to
slaughter its cows (and they can slaughter up to 2,600 cows per day,
which is a pittance compared to Tyson’s 36,000), their small-farmer
friendly, focus-on-sustainable image has been badly damaged. And it’s
also clear that smaller doesn’t mean safer.
Smaller companies struggle to survive, and that struggle often
includes cutting corners. When you look at it from an economic
standpoint, it was only a matter of time before something like this
happened with the animal products at Whole Foods.
Now, though I mock myself and my ridiculous response to Acquaintance of Mary, what should I
have said? She’s buying dead animals no matter what. And she was
semi-interested in getting "clean meat" (her words) because she’s the
one who did the research and found out where the farms were locally and
how she would obtain her "clean meat." I say "semi" because once she
found out how inconvenient it all was, her interest level plunged.
These days, I usually begin with: "I’m probably the wrong person to
ask about this, because I really don’t think there’s such a thing as
humane farming or humane slaughter," and I explain a bit more if
they’re interested, and send them over to HumaneMyth.org.
If they have a dog or cat, I toss in the ol’ list of similarities
between "pets" and cows, and talk about sentience for a moment. But most people
don’t care, and simply want to feed their children the "safest" or
"cleanest" food they can.
What do you say to such people?
Next, the kangaroo story. Kangaroos emit less methane than sheep or
cattle, and don’t harm the soil as much because they don’t have hard
hoofs, so a new study is recommending that Australians eat them.
"While
some farmers think of ‘roos as pests, getting most Aussies on board
would require ‘large cultural and social adjustments and reinvestment,’
says the study, noting such wee potential problems as ‘protective
legislation and the status of kangaroos as a national icon.’"
The
aspect of this story that is most striking to me is that the
researchers are suggesting that climate change trumps
culture, but not animal-eating culture–just the speciesism within it. It’s as if Michael Pollan and his ilk promoted the consumption of bald eagles or horses as an alternative to happy meat.
If the speciesism in Australia is anything like it is here, getting Aussies to eat kangaroos could be more difficult than getting them to go vegan. But then again, people are people, and when they want their "meat," it’s not easy to keep them from it.
What would an American choose–bald eagle flesh, horse flesh or no flesh? I’d love to say no flesh, but I’d wager they’d manage to get used to the other two in no time.
Wow. I’m extra cynical today. And the sun isn’t even up yet.
I did the same thing once, in my early days, and it felt so wrong, I decided I would never give that kind of advice again. I'm not sure there's a great answer, overall.
The only thing I've ever known to do in these situations is to encourage people to eat less meat. A good friend went raw to try to take care of her high blood pressure without meds, and while she was eating vegan (I didn't know until a year later, but her plan had been to go raw-meat-eating, and because of me, she went raw-vegan, purely as a diet at the time) she was able to think about the ethics of it all. So once she was already eating a vegan diet, she was able to consider and then decide to go vegan for ethical reasons. (And, she found out a few months after that, her sky-high cholesterol completely turned around in six months of eating vegan.)
So I always have that in my mind…some people will only be able to think about the ethics of their animal products when they're not actively partaking in the consumption of animal products. Even though I might appear to be going along with their claim that they will never give up meat (I'm pretty sure we all made that claim), and encouraging them to just eat less of it, I know that it might be the best way around their self-imposed obstacle.
And if I accomplish nothing, at least they know that I don't believe any meat eating is ethical.
I had some coworkers ask me about organic milk once. I tend to know a lot about health/food/environment issues, so I get all kinds of weird questions (like, what's wrong with splenda? as if I even knew what splenda was!), and they thought the organic milk thing would be just one more. I shocked them by insisting that I didn't know anything about the issue, since there wasn't a damn thing that could ever convince me to drink it. It took them a few minutes to accept this from me.
I can't claim that it had any real impact on them, but I think it was more clear where I stood, at least.
Here's what I say…..
"I'm probably the wrong person to ask about this, because I don't think there's such a thing as humane farming or humane slaughter," and I explain a bit more if they're interested, and send them over to HumaneMyth.org. If they have a dog or cat, I toss in the ol' list of similarities between "pets" and cows, and talk about sentience for a moment.
The next conversation usually goes like this: "We're eating at "free range meat" from Chipolte's….. or "we're only eating chicken(s) now".
Unlikely, but if another opportunity for an opinion would appear – I'd tell of my basic worries to flesh consumption…. I'd speak of the plethora of chemicals (even when these animals "graze") – They must be innoculated against many ills in nature and protected from parasites, ticks and worms. Pesticides are sprayed close by to control flying insects. Certain invading species of grasses are kept at bay with weedkillers which of course are ingested by these "naturally raised" animals. All flesh contains injuries, infections, tumors, growths and disease. At the start there is no "clean-meat". The "processing" gets worse with terrorized animal hormones, adrenalin and epinephrine "the fear chemistry". Dead animal parts are then laced with nitrates, preserving agents, Carbon Monoxide gas: http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/pubs/reports/carbon-monoxide
various "solutions" and lastly "irradiated" to maintain it's pretty-pink "fresh" color (for a long time). The "clean-meat" must then be cooked to x degrees to kill any nasty "poop" bugs . Finally, if my listener is still on the way to the grill with "clean", "healthy", "wholesome" meat in hand I'd direct them to this PCRM study: http://pcrm.org/health/reports/worst_grill.html and say: "Bon Appétit"
And on kangaroos and horses? "people are people, and when they want their "meat," it's not easy to keep them from it." A realistic assessment. I do not doubt that the murder for it.
I minimize contact with persons like “Acquaintance of Mary” as much as reasonably possible. Life’s too short to waste time on the less morally evolved. Elitist? No more so than refusing to hang around anybody else you think isn’t worth the time.
"What do you say to such people?"
I say everyone can eat less meat. I tell them they can try going vegetarian or vegan one day a week. If that's too much right now, maybe they can do it one meal a week. And I offer them recipes and URLs. I say, "Google is your friend. There's TONS of info on the web to help you go vegan part-time." If I'm talking to a friend, family member, or someone I may do business with, I'll often offer to buy them a vegan cookbook.
Like Dan, I try to avoid talking to idiots unless I'm doing some sort of vegan outreach type of thing (which I do rarely, but occasionally). But I can't live in a bubble. Besides, lots of people are really great in many, many ways except they just don't 'get it' when it comes to animals.
Elaine said:
“Besides, lots of people are really great in many, many ways except they just don't 'get it' when it comes to animals.”
This is something that has confused and fascinated me for a long time: Why or how is it that one can be apparently (often very) empathetic with humans *and/or dogs* and be so damn detached and disconnected, almost like a psychopath, with respect to (other) nonhumans?
Some thoughts:
Arthur Schopenhauer believed, and I mostly agree with him here, that only a small minority of people behave morally out of primarily genuine empathy. The (vast) majority behave morally for three primary reasons, and empathy *isn’t* one of them: 1) for social approval/approbation (the herd instinct); 2) to avoid negative legal consequences; and 3) to avoid negative religious/superstitious consequences in an afterlife. This would explain a lot with regard to most people “not getting it” with regard to animals and is very cogent; however, just because it explains the data doesn’t *necessarily* mean it is the main reason. Rather, it has a high probability of being the main reason.
Not to compare those who don’t “get it” with regard to animals to Nazi soldiers and guards, but many, many of those soldiers and guards, as horrific as they treated concentration camp victims, were really great people to their friends and relatives. All it takes is categorizing beings as things, and look out! You are now disconnected and detached and cruel as hell! (Especially if your peer group accepts the atrocities as good or “necessary” – back to Schopenhauer and the herd instinct, above.)
I think the above two paragraphs very briefly sum up my assumptions with regard to those who it seems should know better, but show little or no signs of “getting it” when it comes to animals.
Dan…. categorizing beings as "thing" or "the other" is certainly the first step to the dis-connect. It starts with language.
Here is an essay: ‘The Powers That Be’:
Mechanisms that Prevent us Recognising Animal Sentience
http://www.humboldt.edu/~essays/linzey.html
Although it has some overtones of Christian Ethics, it's an interesting read and closes with this:
‘We need another, and wiser, and perhaps more mystical, concept of animals’ wrote the enlightened conservationist, Henry Beston, ‘they are not brethren, they are not underlings, they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.’
I have argued the "herd concept" before as well (though I refer to the herd as "sheeple"). The majority of humans will follow what their neighbors (peers) do simply to fit in and not suffer the social consequences – it makes for an easier existence. I have posed the question that if you perform an experiment by placing the average meat-eater in an all-vegan community, how long will it take for the omnivore to go vegan? I suspect not long. When in Rome…
The answer to this poses more interesting questions regarding methods of animal advocacy. If what I said is truly true, what is the best way to shift the perspective of mainstream society to understand the message of veganism? I mean, is veganism to become a "trend" in order for it to become mainstream and eventually accepted as the moral way to eat and live? Must a trend come first, and later, collective understanding and enlightenment?
It is interesting how Al Gore's movie became so popular…it was very chic to go see his movie for a while there. Even my parents were talking about it, and they are very far from being environmentally savvy. Suddenly people were talking about recycling and how to become more green. I suspect many people were/are not really understanding the full force of the effects of their behavior. But rather it suddenly has become very "cool" in the past few years to own a Prius and to shop for green products. Meanwhile, they throw away all their old stuff and replace it with "green" stuff. It starts with small products like cleaning products but can go so far as refurnishing one's whole home to seem more eco-friendly in an effort to appear and feel green. Which really rather cancels out their efforts because they don't understand the very important concept of reducing consumerism and living simply. They are creating more waste by throwing out perfectly good items and creating more consumerism by what they needlessly buy. The point was and is missed by many. But perhaps it is just a seed that will grow to become something more substantial as time goes on. Or not.
I guess my question is, can we, as vegans who passionately uphold our beliefs (and well-thought out theories), as well as feel and express true empathy for all animals, accept veganism initially into the mainstream merely as a trend, on the condition that it will eventually become a more genuine established way of life?
Sorry if I got sidetracked from the original blog entry…Dan's comments just spurred further thoughts.