Chances are, if you get into a conversation about the conditions in which animals are raised for food in the United States, you will hear the word "humane" sooner or later. This is true no matter whether a hunting enthusiast, conscientious omnivore or vegan is involved in the conversation. No one (well, unless they're a sociopath) is going to openly declare that the animals we use and ultimately consume should not be treated better. This is primarily because there's enough information now available about the terrible conditions in which animals live their short, miserable lives in factory farms. We're moral beings and can't possibly stand by and permit unnecessary cruelty to unfold before our eyes, so we buy humanely-raised animal products and we lobby for bigger cages, better slaughtering methods and a modicum of decency when it comes to the treatment and use of animals. But lets stop and think about what we are really changing.
The basic problem is this: food is a commodity and if animals are bred and raised for food, can we really blame factory farms for treating the animals in question as things? When meat and dairy industries look at animals, they're thinking, "profit"; when people stare at a delicious looking burger topped with melted cheese, they're thinking, "food." Moreover, when people head to the nearest supermarket to buy meat and dairy, they're generally thinking about quality and price, above anything else.
In recent years, however, there has been growing awareness about the devastating impact that factory farming is having on the environment, our health and the animals involved, which is leading people to buy products labeled "Cage-Free," "Humanely-Raised," "Certified-Humane," "Animal-Compassionate," "Free-Range," etc., in hopes of making more compassionate choices. Let's put aside the troubling questions regarding the true meaning of these labels and whether such products can be healthy, eco-friendly or sustainable.
Now, imagine a world in which we all do our best to buy animal products from farms that treat their animals like pets (until of course, the day they're slaughtered), and only frequent restaurants that support the same practices; what kind of change are we hoping to create? Are we trying to create a world in which our demand for humane meat turns all the factory farms into compassionate operations run by caring farmers (not corporations), where cows graze freely in idyllic green pastures and chickens and pigs get to have social lives? That's a noble goal, but in a free market economy, can we realistically expect appreciation for animals to suddenly trump the industrial efficiency required to meet the demand of billions of hungry omnivores? Or will these new-age "compassionate farms" collectively scale production to compete with their big, bad industrial counterparts (the factory farms), who raise 99.9 percent of chickens for meat, 97 percent of laying hens, 99 percent of turkeys, 95 percent of pigs, and 78 percent of cattle currently sold? Most importantly, let's assume the humane movement helps us achieve the Utopian vision of animal agribusiness, where the overall industry is well-regulated (including big, small, corporate and family-owned farms) and all farm animals have space to stretch their legs and wings, eat organic produce and are drug-free; will buying such "happy" meat and dairy somehow reduce the overall demand for animal products? You guessed it -- highly unlikely.
However, there's one thing we can be certain about -- buying "humane" animal products will help us feel better about our choice to consume the animals we care about, while distracting us from the root of the problem (our gargantuan appetite for meat and dairy). In addition, buying humanely-raised animal products (even if it's driven by the best intentions and as a solution for those of us who will never consider giving up meat/dairy), unwittingly encourages us to consume more animals with a lighter conscience.
No one can deny that it's better to be less cruel in the ways we confine and kill animals (if we are going to kill and eat them anyway), but if we're interested in long-term change, we can't look at killing with kindness or gratitude as a solution in itself, when a huge part of the problem is over-consumption and the ubiquitous nature of animal products. Of course, it's nobody's business what someone chooses to buy or eat. Further, we cannot ignore socio-economic factors that influence people's consumption choices in any discussion about what's better for animals or the planet. The ability to make better choices obviously assumes that one has the privilege to choose in the first place. But if we want to spend our precious time, energy and dollars to help farm animals, the simplest thing one can do is realize that we don't need to consume animal products to live healthy and happy lives.
Yes, animals are also incidentally killed in crop agriculture (due to machine tilling and harvesting). Yes, a plant-based diet does not guarantee that all our food choices will be sustainable or healthy (large-scale industrial monoculture and processed plant-based food are also problematic). Yes, sustainable and animal-free products could also involve the use of slave labor and terrible conditions for workers. We undoubtedly need to make all these connections, and that's the true meaning of conscious consumption. However, none of the above justifies (or is reason enough to deny) the simple rule of demand and supply, which makes it clear that the conscious decision to consume animal products contributes to the demand for more animals to be bred and killed.
If we want to bring about true change, the most humane first step we can take is to choose plants and not animals when we eat.
About One Green Planet: One Green Planet is an online destination for the ecologically ethical generation. We deliver insights into the world of ecology, environment & vegan living. To find out more about us, visit One Green Planet and join our growing community on Facebook and Twitter. If you are a business or expert interested in becoming a contributor, supporter or collaborating with our independently-run platform, please contact us.
Follow Nil Zacharias on Twitter: www.twitter.com/zachariot
Cheers!
I know it's hard to have informative and enlightening discussions if you get silenced every time you dare to dissent from the opinions of an article's author. But I guess the site belongs to them, not us. It WOULD be nice if we could count on the stated comment policies to be applied consistently, though.
My best wishes are with you.
And his statement that advocates for humane treatment of farm animals not "try to buy animal products from farms that treat their animals like pets" is pretty patronizing. I don't know anyone who conscientiously looks for producers of meat from animals that were raised humanely expects that the animals were treated like "pets," but that doesn't mean we don't care whether they are mistreated or forced to live in conditions that are abusive.
Cont'd.
Nor does humane treatment of farm animals lead to people consuming MORE of them just because one's "conscience is clear." Nils refers to "our gargantuan appetite for meat and dairy" (and links to an unfocused and error-filled article by Mark Bittman in the NYT), but do you know what we, in the U.S., REALLY have a gargantuan appetite for? What we are REALLY eating more of? Not meat or dairy, the overall consumption of which has not risen much in the last 40 years. No, it's refined carbohydrates, largely in the form of refined grains, up 40% since 1970; added sweeteners, a HUGE percentage of which are corn-based; and added fats/oils, which have increased overall by 60% in the last 40 years, even though consumption of most animal fats (like butter) went down - but that decrease was more than made up for by a 90% increase in the consumption of VEGETABLE oils (e.g., soy and canola).
Of course I'm more of a homesteader or hobby farmer. ;-)
He argues that we conscientious omnivores have no real long term solution to the problem of factory farming. The truth is our solution just doesn't jibe with his ideology that states a "huge part of the problem is over-consumption and the ubiquitous nature of animal products." This begs the question: What were humans eating before modern agriculture? The answer is animals.
He even goes so far as to list all of the problems with vegetarianism from a socio-economic standpoint (including the potential for slave labor and unsustainability) and then dismisses them outright as a problem that can be solved in the future. This is the worst kind of apologetic! That the short term gain of vegetarianism is worth "animals [who] are also incidentally killed in crop agriculture," "no guarantee that all our food choices will be sustainable or healthy," and "sustainable and animal-free products could also involve the use of slave labor and terrible conditions for workers."
But who cares? You vegetarians are, by definition, more conscientious than omnivores. People who eat meat never consider the ramifications of their consumption! We are blind and ignorant of our effects on the planet. Otherwise we wouldn't be eating meat! QED
man has a covenant with livestock: man will feed, shelter, and protect cattle from predators and in return man will eat them.
If cattle were not property, animal populations would decline. Tyson could slaughter all chickens today, but what to sell next year? Tyson wants more chickens, and the chickens want to exist.
How humane is it for a chicken to be devoured alive by a coyote? Or a calf taken down, screaming as its organs are ripped apart by packs of blood-lust predators. The agony can last 30 minutes.
In just the last minute that same fate has befallen thousands of animals; those to old to escape, stragglers from the pack, injured/sick, those too young to defend themselves, those who took the wrong path.
Compared to a slaughterhouse, where cattle are stunned, then bloodlet, the pain is minimal and the animal unconscious. While considering the objective value of pain, which fate is preferable?
But man has gamed the covenant with grain feed--he has rigged the cow's weight, caused digestive diseases and shown a clear lack of hygiene at CAFOs.
Any steps to minimize these conditions is encouraged.
"buying humanely-raised animal products...unwittingly encourages us to consume more animals with a lighter conscience"...
....as it should be!
Who decided this covenant exists? Human beings. Who set the terms of the covenant? Human beings.
How can a "covenant" (or "contract" or whatever) possibly be fair if one party gets to set the terms unilaterally and the other party has absolutely no choice about whether or not to participate in the covenant?
the social contract is often used as a basis for justice (though I prefer Rawls' veil of ignorance), but neither of these contracts was ever agreed to by some set of primary people...so if my description of a covenant is flawed then these are as well, and they may be, but it's not to be dismissed out of hand because a cow never signed a contract...
but maybe I'm wrong, let the cows roam free, set them loose, open the gates, would they last long (assuming they'd ever leave) and their genes want to increase the species...but what of those free cows, would they hunger, would they freeze, can they find water, can they outrun that cougar?...
on a farm, even a CAFO, cows don't worry about food or water, they have calves and are free from predators, and when their end comes how can one easily dismiss a relatively painless death in favor of a brutal, agonizing one?
One problem I have with several plant-based acolytes is that they seem to ignore these issues, they seemingly think there were no problems for cows before domestication...
There is a very young, very skinny stray cat that appeared at my house last week and has been following me around every time I go outside and nagging me to the point that I finally got some kitten chow and have been feeding it. Once he gets fat enough, I will hopefully find him a home. I feel so exploited.
Sadly enough, I think you are in agreement with the majority on this topic, but for some reason, huffpo has handed over the reins to a minority that doesn't care for thoughtful exchange of any sort, imo.
A the risk of being redundant, I'll restate the idea that anyone (vegan, conscious omnivore, or anywhere in between on the dietary spectrum) who is concerned about how their food was raised should visit a farm. Better yet, visit a bunch of them. Unless you're raising all your own food, you're either supporting the industrial food chain, or a local food chain, and visiting either one would likely be instructive. For me, sourcing local, sustainable, orgranic, pastured fruits, veggies, meats, dairy and eggs has been central to my coooking, health, and environmental concerns. We support a CSA, and buy direct from farms and at farmers' markets. Some of these poor country bumpkin farmers are ex-engineers or tech people who bring ingenious new ideas to old methods, and whose acumen on a range of subjects is instructive. There's so much to learn, and it's a great way to spend a nice sunny day out in the fresh air.
As far as saying thanks, that's something that you can attach religious thankfulness according to your own beliefs. But regardless of deistic concerns, I think people today forget that their food is a precious thing. (Cont.)...
We should value our food, whether vegan or omnivore, rather than DE-value it (fast food, food from a box). We should value the people who care about how it is raised, rather than dehumanize the process (Monsanto, Kraft, Cargill, Tyson). Americans tend to obsess with and fight their food rather than savoring it and making it a rich part of life's experience.
Thank a farmer for what they do. Enjoy your food in good health, whatever you choose to eat.
As if they don't do enough many of the local farmers I purchase from often have an end of harvest shin dig that they invite loyal customers to. It's a blast. Taking home gallons of unpasteurized apple cider that you help make is pretty cool.
Vegans don't like animals in your experience? I'm really surprised by this latest development in these discussions. Well latest for me anyway. I read something like this recently,that vegans should rescue animals and strays as if they don't and wouldn't want to. Nearly every vegan I know and I've known many, is involved in animal rescue to some degree. There are the occasional vegans that don't have much interest in interacting with animals and I do find that weird to say the least but in my experience they are few and far between. My profession involves helping animals and most of my hobbies involve animals so I'm very much in the loving and liking animals camp. Animals have always been my greatest friends.
Judy is a vegan, a nurse to humans, and she works tirelessly to care for hundreds of pigs, as well as turkeys, chickens, horses, cats, dogs, llamas, and sheep.
http://pigspeace.org/main/index.html
Pasado's safe haven is also run by vegans. They are involved in all sorts of animal rescue operations, investigation of animal cruelty cases and animal rights legislation.
http://www.pasadosafehaven.org/
More vegans
http://preciouslifeanimalsanctuary.org/about.php
Vegans that run a sanctuary for chimpanzees used in medical research.
http://chimpsanctuarynw.org/
I've been involved with all of these groups and come across hundreds of vegans that are there because of how much they love being around animals. So, I hope that helps give you a more accurate understanding of vegans. It's really disheartening and confirms for me that these online discussion are very damaging to the AR movement because I never thought I'd have to be discussing whether we like animals or not but in my opinion is YES, we Do! :)