Why Are Meat Industry Apologists Afraid to Defend Themselves?
As a vice president for PETA, I have debated animal protection issues around the world, frequently engaging with representatives from the meat, fur, animal-experimentation and circus industries.
But a funny thing started happening about seven or eight years ago: The other side stopped showing up. Although PETA is always happy to discuss and debate animal rights issues, the animal exploiters are no longer willing to. I believe their newfound timidity may have something to do with the fact that their positions are so transparently indefensible and that the public can see right through them.
One would think, however, that this reluctance would not extend to academia. Surely university professors should welcome an open and respectful forum to discuss the issues that they work on.
On numerous occasions, representatives of the Michigan State animal rights group, Students Promoting Animal Rights, attempted to arrange for a forum to include me and Dean Jeff Armstrong of the MSU College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. I was prepared to argue that animal use is not necessary and that modern slaughter methods and factory farm confinement practices are cruel, and he would have no doubt taken the opposing view, as he has for years as chair of the United Egg Producers Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and as an advisor to McDonald's on animal welfare issues. Considering that he lends his name and prestige (and his MSU affiliation) to these methods and practices, he seemed to be the ideal advocate for those who support animal use.
Sadly, Armstrong flatly refused to participate. The most remarkable thing was how he refused. Armstrong actually stated that "a holistic perspective that acknowledges the integrated relationships of many stakeholders" requires that PETA be excluded. He also said that he had spoken with others who might otherwise have been appropriate advocates for the pro-animal side, but that none of them were interested in participating as long as PETA was represented.
In fact, if Armstrong wanted to be honest with the students (and himself), he would have acknowledged that support for "a holistic perspective" that includes all stakeholders means support for hearing all opinions, not just the ones that he approves of.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should mention that PETA recently lifted its moratorium on its campaign against McDonald's (this happened after Armstrong had already rejected the forum invitation) because the company's suppliers cram mother pigs into crates that are too small for them to turn around in, cram hens into tiny cages that cause their muscles and bones to waste away from lack of use and kill chickens using a method that guarantees that every year millions of birds will still be conscious when they are immersed in tanks of scalding-hot water to be defeathered. Readers can learn more about the campaign at McCruelty.com.
All things considered, it's understandable why representatives of the meat industry would be afraid to hold an open and honest forum, but if Armstrong believes that he is doing honorable work, it's less clear to me why he refuses to participate. My father has been in academe for more than 40 years, and I have the deepest respect for university communities, which traditionally foster the free exchange of ideas. My respect for and knowledge of academic institutions makes Armstrong's bizarre rhetorical gymnastics -- on behalf of himself and anyone else he could think of who might be appropriate for this forum -- all the more difficult for me to understand.
Here's the reality: Animals living on factory farms and dying in slaughterhouses face abuses so severe that they would warrant felony cruelty-to-animals charges if dogs or cats were the victims instead of cows, turkeys, pigs and chickens. For example, chickens killed for KFC and McDonald's are bred to grow so large that they can barely walk, and they frequently suffer crippling leg deformities. At the slaughterhouse, they are dumped out of their transport crates and hung upside-down by their often bruised and broken legs, which are forced into metal shackles. Every year, billions of them have their throats cut while they are still conscious, and PETA investigations have proved repeatedly that sadistic abuse on the part of workers is the norm, not the exception.
Despite Armstrong's refusal to debate the issues surrounding factory farming, the event will go on. If the seven class talks I've given over the past few days are any indication, discussion and debate will be fast and furious. And just in case Armstrong changes his mind, we'll save him a seat in the front.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Great piece, Bruce! Please ignore the haters; they know not what they do. Obviously they feel a bit guilty, as they are compelled to comment! But it is heartening that many people are eating meat less often. I think if anyone saw footage from factory farms they would instantly give up all meat.
I am especially grateful to PETA for providing the dog houses each winter for dogs freezing outside in their backyards; I make a donation for one every year. You do great work.
The fact is that PETA and the other animal rights groups are not worth talking to. It is a waste of time that is better spent giving accurate information to the public and seeing our legislators about these problems.
There is also the fact that the animal rights groups depend heavily on terrorist activities to support their agenda, largely by making people afraid to speak. Bruce Friederich here has spoken openly about bombing restaurants. What do we do with terrorists? For one thing, we refuse to allow them to speak to our children. For another, we deny them everything that they want. That's just to start.
See Bruce Friedrich's Profile
More than 200 people came to the event (every seat was filled; there were people standing in the aisles, out the door, etc.), including members of Dean Armstrong's faculty and many students in his department (more than 100, certainly). So I was able to speak w/o anyone on the other side. I would have preferred a debate, but this certainly wasn't a bad situation for us...
Get your facts straight, TomKi!
TomKi decides who is and isn't worth talking to - that's a productive approach which has a real history of success in solving conflicts and other problems! Second, how about that strategy of "denying terrorists everything they want". Is this a simple world divided between "terrorists" and "people who are right"? What if some people who aren't terrorists want the same thing as terrorists do? Terrorists tend to be people who respond to what they perceive as an injustice. They might be wrong about the injustice and they're always wrong about the method of fighting it but a blanket denial of "everything they want" is not an effective response.
PETA aren't terrorists by the most febrile stretch of the imagination and nor do they "depend heavily" on terrorist activities. It's an absurd claim that diminishes the reality and pain of victims of terrorism. So why make it? I guess because there aren't any effective, consistent arguments with which to defend the slaughter of billions of living beings who no one needs to eat. The rearing and slaughter of animal is, literally, the greatest act of sustained, institutionalised violence ever and each individual death is an act of needless, deliberate violence too. But somehow because the violence is inflicted on those who are not like us, or "inferior" to us, that makes it alright. Well, that sentiment has a history too. Look it up.
Perhaps PETA would be taken more seriously if they didn't propose such things as calling fish sea kittens or asking Ben and Jerrys to make their ice cream from human milk.
See Bruce Friedrich's Profile
We are taken very seriously; we do silly things to generate a discussion. See www.PETA.org to learn more.
Most people just care about how:
1. much their food costs
2. the taste
3. what ingredients are in there
4. where it comes from
5. fill in with what you want
6. fill in with what you want
127. (At the bottom). How the animals were treated before being killed.
Just as the consumer the business goes (if #1 is caused to be increased) support for #127 will be decreased.
As a strong believer in animal rights, I think the answer to the very first point you made in your post, regarding meat industry officials no longer talking to PETA, is that, frankly, PETA is almost impossible to talk to! There is no reasoning with the organization as a whole, and that hurts the entire movement, frankly. PETA is marginalized to the side of "whackos" when it could be a reasonable force for change in the meat industry, and the education of the rest of the country on how to humanely treat animals. What makes me personally angry is that PETA claims they are leaders and spokesman for the animal rights movement - I'm sorry, but you do not speak for me, and you are definately not my leader in the quest for humane treatment. In short, stop throwing red paint on people, put some clothes on in your commercials, basically start acting like rational human beings, and you may very well get to lead.
Agreed. "Sea kittens?" Really?
See Bruce Friedrich's Profile
Sea Kittens:
http://www.peta.org/Sea_Kittens/index.asp
"When your name can also be used as a verb that means driving a hook through your head, it's time for a serious image makeover".
Fair enough, Bruce. Fair enough.
Whenever I've butchered chickens I always have someone else hold up their legs while I chop off their heads. I also know other people who hang their chickens from a clothesline when butchering. For some reason, raising their legs above their heads puts them in a trancelike state. It also prevents them from running after their heads have been cut off. Just because a chicken is still moving when it's placed in a vat of hot water to loosen its feathers doesn't mean it's still alive. Most bodies will continue moving for several minutes after death has occurred. That said, I do agree that factory farming is cruel, which is why most of my meat comes from animals who have been raised and hunted on my own land or purchased from local farmers.
The hard cold fact is that animals are sentient living beings, and share with humans the experience of happiness, contentment, and joy; and also pain, fear, confusion, and desperation.
Knowing this, it is impossible to condone their exploitation and suffering to provide pleasure for some.
Knowing what we do, no sane argument can ever again be made defending animal abuse.
In your view, is killing an animal morally equivalent to killing a human being?
Jesus did not die for our sins, animals do everyday in everyway.
Easter Greetings PETA from myself, Ariaina and millions of other Greeks who are looking forward to our roast baby lamb next week!!
"Living Among Meat Eaters" by Carol J. Adams
mmmmmmm........mcnuggets........
Yuck, we are BBQing a nice steak and washing it down with Guiness Extra Stout.
Yummy.
Good luck with those arteries!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
