My Confusion Continues...and Will Never End

I donned my game face and decided to read another post from "Mark's Daily Apple,"a glowing review of the book The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. As much as I find exposing oneself to opposing arguments important, it is understandably difficult to accept an argument against something which one finds fundamentally obvious. This is my situation.

I try, I really do. I hear people's arguments through. I think I have the capability to digest them in a rational manner, even if they frustrate me. But after hearing the same arguments over and over again for nearly twenty years now, I begin to get a little tired.

I assumed that, after reading this book review, I would have something novel to respond to (well, I kind of do...haha, get it? Novel. Anyway...). Unfortunately, this is not the case in the slightest. Keith's argument is exactly the same as Barbara Kingsolver's--industrial agriculture kills thousands of animals anyway, so what the hell? Let's just gorge ourselves on meat. Yes, I'm exaggerating, because I know that Kingsolver at least is a "responsible" omnivore, meaning she only eats family-farmed animals, but that's the logic. And that logic, to me, makes no sense. Yes, I am aware of the devastating effects of industrial plant agriculture. I know that I step on bugs every day without realizing it and swallow spiders in my sleep. I have accidentally hit a bird with my car. I don't abstain completely from refined sugar processed with bones. I'm willing to take a chance on datem, mono- and diglycerides, and "dough conditioners." Keith used to be vegan and knew all the same things that I do, except she couldn't handle it. She couldn't stand the thought of killing anything, so she switched her diet to one of...more killing? I'll use this graphic again because I like it.

Ah! So this is the answer to all the world's environmental problems. If this is the case...USA! USA!

Right! I forgot. More death equals less death. Brilliant! Totally against any sort of logic ever used. That takes courage.

Forgive me. I'm not trying to snort-laugh in my chair while I sit and type this post (which I am), but there are fundamental, indisputable errors in this argument. There is some sort of idea among omnivores that eating fewer or no animals means eating more plants. It does, on the surface. But, as I've stated before, animal agriculture is ridiculously unsustainable. This is a clear and proven fact. Figures are different depending on where you go for the information (The National Cattlemen's Beef Association might say 4.5 pounds of grain per pound of beef, while some vegan you meet on the street would probably say 26 pounds of grain). However, the true number, according to the USDA, is approximately 16 pounds of grain per pound of beef produced. This number is true with all factors of meat production accounted for. So let's assume that 10 animals are killed per acre in the USA due to grain harvesting. There is no actual number on this that I could find, which surely is convenient for this guy, who wrote an article quaintly titled "Veganism is Murder" (murder implies intent, by the way, which I suppose is easy to forget. Words are hard). Anyway, 10 animals are killed per acre in the US, for the sake of argument. About 61.5 million acres of grain are harvested each year in the US. So, that would be about 615 million animals killed each year as a result of grain harvesting, which would be about 395,000 animals per pound of grain. Now, the average beef consumption in the US in 2007 was about a quarter pound per day per person, which would be a little over 90 pounds per year per person. And if it takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef, that would be 1,440 pounds of grain per year per person used to feed the cows they eat. And if we go by our initial assumption of 10 animals per acre, that's an extra 569 million small animals killed, plus the average fifth of a cow per person that Americans eat each year.

Phew.

My point is, after that long-winded series of calculations, that no matter how you slice it, omnivores still kill more animals than vegans do. I'm not saying that vegans kill no animals at all through their eating habits, but they kill far fewer (even though, as a vegan, I obviously think that I've never killed anything ever, as the stereotype goes). Keith has a valid point and obviously knows what she's talking about, but, like Mark's other argument, her argument is irrelevant. There aren't any reasons not to be being vegan or any reasons to eat meat in her argument. It's the same argument that I've always heard, just under a different name. And I will always be confused.

An Intelligent (but Irrelevant) Argument

My faithful reader Gabe recently sent me this article. It's called "In Defense of Meat Eaters." Naturally, I was interested.

Mark, the author of the blog, gives a compelling (and well-researched) argument about how humans evolved eating meat, and uses this, presumably, as a defense for modern-day meat eating. I've been hearing a lot about evolutionary stuff recently. Just yesterday, my boyfriend Eric told me about a girl in his class that used to be vegan but now follows a 'Paleo' diet, meaning she only eats things that were available to ancient man. I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean--is she hunting down sabertooth tigers? How are you supposed to know exactly what was available then anyway? As senseless as I think this is, it's interesting...sort of. It's more just something you would tell someone you're trying to pick up at a bar that's 'unique' about you. And I guess it could be kind of sexy, the whole 'primal' thing. Anyway...

The way Mark started the argument was a huge turn-off. Vegans are always stereotyped as being sentimentalists, and Mark makes the same accusation. If a vegan can control his or her palate for the sake of reason, fairness, and compassion, but an omnivore eats whatever he or she feels like at the moment, who is the sentimentalist? Some of the world's greatest thinkers were vegetarian, such as Albert Einstein and Mohandas Ghandi. Are they overemotional whiners?

From there on, however, Mark makes excellent points. I have to say that I don't know so much about the evolution of man, but he cites his sources and I find him credible. I respect his opinion in that sense.

However, is that really a defense for eating meat today? Ancient humans lived much shorter lives than we do today. Why on Earth should we ever follow their ways of doing things? Should we then abolish hospitals and modern medicine, televisions and credit cards? I doubt anyone would make the same argument that we should revert to ancient human methods for other modern necessities and conveniences in the same way they do about diet.

And, of course, there's no evidence that humans still need to eat meat. In fact, according to the American Dietetic Association, those who lead a meat-free life are at lower risks for certain cancers and other diseases, and tend to have lower body mass index. They also state that a vegetarian diet is completely nutritionally adequate. You can check out their entire position statement here.

I totally respect Mark's argument, and I wouldn't say I oppose him on the evolutionary facts he provides (though I do think the scientific community is quite divided over whether humans were meant to eat meat, based on the research I've done). However, I don't think there is any decent defense for modern, developed-world meat consumption. We can talk all we want about evolution, and people in developing countries (as Kingsolver did), but ultimately everyone is merely trying to justify that whatever they do is morally right. I don't think there can ever be a moral argument for meat consumption in the modern, developed world, whether that meat is from a factory farm or a small farm. There is something inherently wrong with needlessly killing other living beings. As judgmental as that sounds, just think about it for a second. All the justifications might stop making sense.

Factory Farming in the Developing World

I recently wrote a research paper for my composition class on the presence of factory farming in the developing world. I used an article by Danielle Nierenberg of the World Watch Institute for this paper called "Factory Farming in the Developing World: In some critical views, this is not progress at all." This is Nierenberg's account of her time in the Philippines spent investigating animal farming.

Most of us vegans know the problems associated with animal farming in the US—from Farm Sanctuary to PETA, we have plenty of sources keeping us up to date on what’s going in the horrific world of factory farming. However, few of us (and few people in general, for that matter) are aware of animal farming practices in less developed countries. This is something I had thought mildly about before, mostly taking the position that less developed countries just didn’t have the same food options that we have in the US, so I would never judge them for the way they ate. But at some point I wondered, just how do developing countries farm their animals? I had assumed that their practices were strictly small farms closer to the seemingly unattainable farming ideals of the US. However, Nierenberg's article turned that idea on its head, showing how factory farming has taken over developing countries such as the Philippines nearly to the extent that it rules American animal farming. The article was shocking, to say the least. 


Currently, the Philippines has three domestic corporations who produce animal foods, and several US corporations manufacture and/or sell animal foods in the Philippines. These corporations include Tyson Foods and Purina Mills, two western supergiants of factory farming. Both the US and Filipino corporations have bought out numerous small farms in the Philippines, destroying not only the lives of these farmers, but also destroying the traditional farming methods that have been passed down for so many generations. In addition, while producing cheaper meats, factory farming reduces food security for rural villagers because so many of them relied on the local meat of other family farmers in the community, farmers that are now out of business.


The environmental effects of factory farming are as apparent to Filipino villagers as they are to those living near Smithfield's pig shit lagoons, if not more so. One major river in the Philippines has become so polluted that nearby villagers refer to it as the River Stink. In another village, factory farm waste was piled into a huge hill that at one point collapsed, killing over 200 villagers.


If that's not enough, the increase in animal food consumption in the Philippines has led to higher rates of obesity and the appearance of more fast food establishments. In the developing world, eating a lot of meat is equated with status and wealth because of our ridiculously high meat consumption in the developed world. But there is nothing high-class or glamorous about factory farming, as the Filipinos are finding out.


So if you're one of those people who is genuinely concerned with what happens to others in the developing world, if those commercials about starving children in South America, Africa, or Asia make you cry, consider reducing your meat consumption. Contributing to the factory farming industry is allowing money to be taken out of the pockets of families in the developing world and food away from children. 


Source used: 
Nierenberg, Danielle. "Factory Farming in the Developing World." World Watch 16.3 (2003): 10-19. 360 Link. Web. 31 Oct. 2011.

Vegan Crazy Cake!

Hey, all! Here's the recipe for the crazy cake that I brought in with the cream cheese icing. Enjoy!

Chocolate Crazy Cake:
- 3 c. flour
- 2 c. sugar
- 6 tbsp. cocoa
- 1 tsp. salt
- 2 tsp. baking soda
- 2 tsp. vanilla
- 2 tsp. vinegar
- 10 tbsp. (2/3 c.) oil
- 2 c. cold water

Mix together and bake at 350 degrees for 45 min if using a 9"x13" pan, or 35 min if using a 8"x9" pan.

Paula Deen's Cream Cheese Frosting--Veganized!
- 1 lb. of vegan cream cheese, softened (Tofutti is my favorite)
- 2 sticks vegan margarine, softened (check the ingredients! Willow Run and Earth Balance are both vegan)
- 1 tsp. vanilla
- 4 c. confectioner's sugar

Mix cream cheese, margarine and vanilla until smooth. Add the sugar on a low speed intermittently. When everything is mixed, beat on a high speed until light and fluffy.

Enjoy, folks!

The Epidemic of Anthropodenial

I am separate from all other living beings on earth. I am a rational being far superior to others. I can do anything I want to the lesser beings on the planet.

Sounds horribly selfish, no? But that's how most humans on this planet think. Humans are special. We're not animals. This mindset is called anthropodenial, and it runs rampant throughout most of the world. We were discussing this today in class. Some of us 'buy' anthropodenial, and some of us don't. This usually depends on the degree to which we're involved in an organized religion. The Christian Bible is a textbook (literally) example of anthropodenial: man shall have dominion over all creatures of the earth. Therefore, we have the right to do essentially whatever pleases us to animals and the earth. There are more contemporary interpretations of this idea (see Matthew Scully's book Dominion) that claim that this "dominion" really means responsibility. Since we were granted higher reasoning and morality abilities, we have the responsibility to care for and not abuse these 'lesser' beings. Of course, the former idea is more comforting; we don't have to do anything or be responsible for any decision we make concerning animals or the environment. They are ours to do with as we please.

Of course, you can see how this extreme anthropodenial has led to environmental problems. Do we not routinely torture and slaughter animals for non-essential food, and cut down millions of trees for non-essential paper products, and burn billions of gallons of oil for non-essential plastic products? We do every single one of these things to, well, make money, but also because we believe we have the right to, because we want to, and because we can. We see both animals and the environment as lesser beings unworthy of our care.

I can understand feeling superior to trees and grass (I do not feel this way, to be clear), but how can anyone separate themselves so severely from animals? Gene Baur, the founder of Farm Sanctuary, in his book Farm Sanctuary, questions this while observing people looking at one of those "Body Worlds" exhibits of the anatomies of dead human beings. He heard comments about how "That one looks like steak, Mom!"If you'd prefer a visual, here's a short video of a scan of a human body from above starting at the top of the head. I'm sure you'll see a lot of things you recognize from your plates.

Not only do we barely differ from animals in anatomy, but also in mental functioning. A pig can reason at the level of a three-year-old child. A dog can reason at the level of a two-year-old child. Newsflash: your bacon was probably smarter than your dog. How about that?

Factory farming is just one of the products of anthropodenial. By the time that humankind figures out that we're not so special, it may be too late. We may have finally done the irreversible damage that will lead to our downfall as a species. Try thinking of yourself as just a spare rib, just a shoulder for someone to enjoy, just a flank steak to be grilled. Because really, that's all you are. If you keep that in mind, your views, diet, and negative impact on the earth just may change.

The Only Way Out

I've been hearing a lot of folks talking about the idea that if we just go back to small-scale, humane methods of farming animals, we will solve the problems associated with factory farming. Michael Pollan, Barbara Kingsolver, and many other animal welfare advocates support this ideology. Sounds quaint, but does it work?

Well, first, let's look at it from an animal welfare viewpoint, my personal favorite, of course. Is it humane to bring something to a premature death for the sake of one's taste buds? Pigs are killed at around the human equivalent of twelve years of age, before they are even teenage pigs who rock out to hard metal and hate their parents for a few years.

F the PoPo!

It's simply unfair, and there can be no standards for welfare in this system. As one PETA employee interviewed in Eating Animals puts it, that would be the equivalent of legalizing child labor and simply trusting that each employer would treat its child employees humanely and fairly. It just doesn't make very much sense. It's still needless killing.

I know that not everyone shares my viewpoint. But even if you can dismiss the inhumanity of raising animals for food in principle, small farming of animals on a large scale is logistically impossible. For example, (and, unfortunately, I can't recall the source of this information, so I apologize) based on the amount of chicken Americans consume, all of the chicken raised on small farms in the entire country at this moment would only be enough to sustain Staten Island. That's an incredible figure, but it's a fact. So please, explain to me how our country's small farmers would ever be able to sustain the appetites of an entire country, let alone a largely obese country. They could not.

As professor James McWilliams argues in this article, the only way we will ever truly end factory farming is to make meat socially unacceptable. And really, with the amount of problems that factory farming causes for humankind and the environment, it should be socially stigmatized. Think about the reasons for the US working to make smoking socially unacceptable--it is hazardous to the smoker's life and to the lives surrounding him or her. And meat is different, how? It contains carcinogens, it creates disease for everyone, whether someone eats it or not. I was struck with swine flu in 2009 (which has been essentially proven by geneticists to have come from a hog factory farm in North Carolina), but I've never had pork in my life. I don't think that's very fair. And I'm not just complaining because I was stuck on the couch for a week; this is a real problem. We're going to keep creating epidemics and pandemics like swine flu, mad cow disease, and avian flu if we don't change our behaviors. And, to make matters even worse, the antibiotics fed to animals make human antibiotics less effective. So, when everyone becomes horribly ill from these diseases we create through our farming practices, the only ones who will be able to be cured are people like me; those who abstain from antibiotic-infested animal products.

Arguably, eating meat is even worse than smoking cigarettes for your health, it's just that meat kills you more slowly than cigarettes. It is far worse for the environment and other people than smoking could ever be. So, will we start combatting factory farming by stigmatizing meat now, or will we wait until it's too late? How much longer should we have to be 'tolerant' of lifestyles that include meat? You can say that the diet is personal, that each person should just do whatever works for them. This is no longer an option. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If we are going to solve this environmental, human health, and animal rights crisis, stigmatization is truly the only way out.

Population, Food, and Sustainability

This post is in response to the two videos and article for this past Tuesday's class.

We have seven billion human beings on this planet. Seven billion. That is a ridiculous number--an unfathomable number. Some people (who I believe are truly sick) celebrate this fact as some sort of accomplishment of humankind. Really, it's not. I promise.

(More than) a few issues arise with this sort of population growth, the most significant, in my opinion, being the ability to sustainably produce food for this amount of people. This is especially a problem in the US--with obesity rates so high, there's no question, even without looking at the facts, that we consume more than any other country in the world. The average American consumes forty-three times more resources and food than the average African, according to Jason Clay's speech.

The two videos we watch offer different solutions for the same problem. In the "Tribal Natural Resources" video, the Native Americans living on the reservation claim that the key to sustainability is small farming and hunting--living off the land, essentially, as their ancestors did. In the other video, the speech by Jason Clay, Clay claims that sustainability in food production can be achieved through working with the largest production corporations. Since they have such a monopoly over the industry, farming practices in general will be far more sustainable even if we can only get the top one hundred corporations to agree to sustainable practices.

Both Clay and the Tribal Natural Resources group offer valid solutions. However, I believe that the Tribal Natural Resources group's solutions are idealistic and unrealistic. Now, don't get me wrong; I have an indescribable respect for that way of life, and I think it's a way of life that would work well for an individual reservation or community. However, I could never see it working on a global scale, especially with the way Americans consume food and resources. We would need to consume far less and reduce our population significantly if we would ever wish to remotely attain that life of small farming.

Another problem that arises is that there are too few small family farmers, and the amount of farmers is decreasing in general in the western world. We can't expect people, with the amount of educational and career opportunities that exist in the developed world, to stay at home and farm. There are people who both have careers and farm, but this is unrealistic for many working people. It is a noble idea, but it simply will not work on a large scale.

In order to truly make food production more sustainable, we need to work with what we have now, as Clay says. The corporations aren't going to disappear. Our desires for processed foods are not going to disappear. We have to work with the large food producers and consumers. However, I do think it is essential for humans to work as hard as we can to reduce further population growth and our consumption alike. One thing that we need to reduce is the amount of food that gets turned into non-food. For example, potatoes to potato chips, soybeans to tofu, okay; corn to high fructose corn syrup and soda, not okay. Another wasteful use of resources is, of course, animal food production. Putting in 26 pounds of food such as soybeans, corn and grain to obtain one pound of beef is just about the most unsustainable and inefficient practices in the world of modern food production.

Fortunately, this is where we have the power as consumers. Try to buy the simplest, most efficient form of food, locally if you can, and make your own meals and foods. We need food to live, and there is no way we can avoid contributing to the industry in some way, but if we are more selective with the food that we buy, perhaps we can change the industry for the better.

National Conference to End Factory Farming--Finally!

Folks, I am shocked.

After years and years of farm animal rescue, animal cruelty education, and legislation to improve living and slaughter conditions for farm animals, Farm Sanctuary organized (and made widely publicized) the National Conference to End Factory Farming.

Since I'm usually not as up to date on national news as I'd like to be, I didn't hear about this conference until last week while half-watching the news. My jaw hit the floor. I was surprised enough to see that national dialogue about factory farming was even taking place, but the real bombshell was the fact that footage taken undercover from factory farms was being shown on the news. With the power of the meat and dairy industries, it would have never seemed possible that this would be shown publicly by a powerful, corporate news source. This was more out than factory farming had ever been.

The conference was held in Arlington, Virginia, starting last Thursday, October 27th, and ended yesterday, October 29th. Sponsored by organizations and companies as varied as Whole Foods, the ASPCA, the Government Accountability Project, PlanetSave, and the Doctors' Prescription for Healthy Living, the goal of the conference was to comprehensively address the negative effects of factory farming, including the public health risks, animal welfare, consumer rights, waste management and climate change, and tips for animal-free living. The diversity of these sponsors and issues shows how many aspects of our daily lives factory farming impacts, from the air we breathe to the water we drink to the food we eat.

These conversations are long overdue, and these issues are becoming harder to ignore. It's not just environmentalists and animal rights activists talking anymore; it's regular consumers, doctors and public health officials. Unfortunately, the US is behind many European nations in the fight against factory farming (the European Union banned the use of antibiotics that could be useful to humans on animals raised for food in 1996 and outlawed all growth-promoting drugs in 2006). As much as regular Americans are beginning to discuss these issues, many are still unwilling to take the steps necessary to combat them. Hopefully, as time goes on, more Americans will involve themselves in these discussions and take action accordingly. We will have to wait and see the outcomes of this conference. Regardless, the existence of the conference itself is a huge step for humans, animals and the environment.

You'd Think We Would Get Along...

I hope this doesn't come off as a rant...I really have thought about what I am saying.

I'm reading this book for Advanced Composition (only chunks of it, thankfully) called Animal, Vegetable, Miracle by Barbara Kingsolver. Kingsolver and her family decide to spend a year eating only food they could grow themselves or get from a very local source, with one exception (coffee, tea, chocolate, etc.). That's definitely an extremely respectable goal. Upon picking up this book for class, I was misled into thinking I would enjoy it. And I did, at first. I was swayed into the world of local foods. Granted, I've only made one trip to the farmer's market, but I'm trying. As a college student, it's a bit difficult to make it to a farmer's market on a Saturday morning when you're inevitably at home or hungover or hungover at home.

Not really the time for fresh produce

But then things started to get a little irritating. It started with Kingsolver's daughter, who is my age and majoring in nutrition at college. Firstly, she stated that she only ate 'free-range' meat, which is a completely bullshit label. There is no 'humane' meat--how can slaughtering someone in their adolescence ever be humane? 'Humanely raised' pigs are still slaughtered when they are at twelve years old in human years. Kingsolver Jr. then went on to warn of the dangers of vegans not getting enough vitamin B12 and calcium supplements. Oh, lordy! There's certainly not a store in town that sells those! Except for the fact that they cost less than 10 bucks a month, and are sold virtually anywhere that sells vitamins. Yeah, that's definitely a risk...

I'll ignore the fact that the family slaughters some of their own animals. Better than getting them from somewhere else. But really, if you can look a living, feeling, social creature in the eye and slaughter it completely unnecessarily, that's just...perverse.

Things get worse from there. In chapter 14, which I read through but thankfully do not have to read for class, there is an essential mockery of veganism and arguments that I have heard way too many times. One of the points Kingsolver makes is that vegans think that their lives are completely cruelty-free. Now, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't think most of us are really that thick. Everyone steps on bugs without knowing it. Some people accidentally run over animals with their cars. And every vegan uses something containing animal products sometimes, and most are aware of it. Do you have the patience to ask every restaurant you go to if the datem in their bread is animal-derived? I doubt it. And even if you did, barely ever would anyone in the restaurant know the answer. The worker in the Academic Forum today couldn't even tell me whether or not there was cheese in the roasted vegetables. And yes, animals are killed for the mass production of produce because of the machines involved. But I wouldn't be surprised if many of them were able to get away. And is that really a defense for eating animals? Oh well, you know, animals can die when produce is harvested, so let's kill more. That makes sense.

Far superior to veganism

Another argument Kingsolver uses that I literally rolled my eyes at was the whole "Well, you kill plants!" argument. I literally have not heard that since middle school. Why? Because it's stupid. There is very little, if any, respected scientific proof that plants can feel pain. However, we can know without any tests at all that animals feel pain. They scream, they try to escape, they lose their minds. Pigs can rationalize at the level of a three-year-old child, according to PETA. At the very least, they understand how mirrors work.

What made me the most annoyed, however, was the good old argument that not everyone in the world has the privilege of being vegetarian. Well, no shit. Kingsolver cites people living in mountains and other places where food cannot grow, who must live primarily off of livestock. Therefore, it's not realistic for every vegetarian to expect a vegetarian world (we don't). That's a fine argument, but that's not our society. In fact, it's not even close. In the US, almost everything is available to us in a convenient manner. I'm not saying that this is good or bad, but it's reality. Sure, you can harp on all day about what other cultures do, but your argument's not going to hold water if it's not applicable to our society. Should I then make the argument that, because cannibalism works for other cultures, that it can work for us, even if it's not necessary? Or, more appropriately, that because we have the privilege of having high technology in hospitals, but other countries don't, that we should begin amputating limbs without anesthetics? Sounds unrelated, but is it? Our culture is more technologically advanced than others, and because of this we have more options. People on the plains in Mongolia may only be able to eat cow for dinner, but there's no reason we have to. We have more humane options than that. In our society, there is absolutely no good reason to eat meat. Period.

Try a veggie burger, shirtless. They sell those in the Filipino mountains, right?

Expanding on that idea, Kingsolver is always advocating for local food, but since veganism is unrealistic for other cultures, we shouldn't do it. What about our culture? I think in many areas of the country it is far more realistic to live a vegan lifestyle than a local one. Sure, the ideas conflict (we need our tofu, soymilk, etc, which can usually not be bought locally). But that doesn't mean that eating meat in an all-local diet is necessarily better than being vegan. How many people in cities do you think have access to local food? What is more socially sensitive--going over to someone's house for dinner and telling them that you're vegan or that you only eat local and free-range food, which requires explanation? Veganism is realistic for almost anyone in our culture--local food is not. I know that I certainly can't just grow food in my apartment. And someone in a city can't grow all their vegetables in a five square foot yard. But they can follow a vegan diet with little difficulty. And, better yet, why not just encourage people to do their best at both? It's much easier to get close to perfection in a vegan lifestyle than a local one, but one can certainly try. Just eating local meat is still selfish, still cruel--you're still telling something that its life is less important than your taste buds. And let's not forget that people who harp on about family farmed animals--Michael Pollan, for example--still regularly eat factory farmed animals. Most of the time, there's just no easy way to know. And I would much rather take my chances on a minuscule amount of datem than an entire chicken.

One particular quote that has no decent basis was about farm animals: "We breed these creatures for a reason. Such premeditations may be presumed unkind, but without it our gentle domestic beasts in their picturesque shapes, colors, and finely tuned purposes would never have had the distinction of existing," followed by some sentimental quote about Charlotte's Web. Give. Me. A. Break. That's a pretty ignorant statement for someone who works on a farm. Most prominently, it ignores the fact that, no matter how much people like Kingsolver want to idealize, more than 99% of animals are factory farmed. People like her are the exception, not the rule. The rule is cruelty, disease, and death. Let's say that everyone on earth went vegan tomorrow. What would happen to all these animals? Well, let's think about what we would really be losing. Kingsolver is thinking of the animals she raises--real animals. The animals that are raised on factory farms are anything but. They are atrocious Frankensteinian creations who can barely walk because of their sizes and are not meant to live past a few years. They are diseased and are kept alive-barely-by endless antibiotics. They often suffer from horrible disfigurements and many cannot sexually reproduce. If all the factory farms shut down, right now, yes, many would die. But evolution would phase them out. It would be a positive thing--no creature should ever have to suffer that much just by living, and no creature would ever again have to. Even on family farms, it's not as if the animals are living naturally. Cows raised for their milk are constantly impregnated, and that's not a fair life for anyone, especially for the sake of a completely unnatural (for humans, at least), unhealthy and unnecessary product. That milk is meant for their babies. Just as a woman's breasts are relieved when she nurses her child, a cow's udders would be similarly relieved upon her calf drinking her milk.

Preeeety sure Wilbur would still exist if he was never turned into bacon...

Lastly, the thread of anthropodenial that runs through the book is just disgusting. The idea that we are so far above animals and that they are not like us in any way is flawed. They were here before us and they will be here after us. Just because they cannot communicate in any of our languages doesn't mean they cannot communicate. As Jonathan Safran Foer says, "If we were to one day encounter a form of life more powerful and intelligent than our own, and it regarded us as we regard animals, what would be our argument against being eaten?" Would we have one? And what would stop that higher species from constantly impregnating women, taking our babies away and then stealing our milk? Or killing us in our adolescence? If nothing can stop us, surely nothing would stop them.

I am not saying anything against local food or against Kingsolver's efforts to be a more responsible consumer. I am trying to make it a bigger part of my life and respect Kingsolver for advocating it. But these arguments are ridiculous, insulting to my intelligence, and overused. And, most importantly, not a single one of them justifies why her and her family eat meat. Because there is no justification. The only realistic one, however silly, is, "It tastes good." I will not be sad to part with this book in the slightest; in fact, I greatly look forward to it. For poetic justice, maybe I'll feed it to a goat.

The Environmentalist Hunter?

A few weeks ago, our Rhetoric class read some speeches and letters of Teddy Roosevelt. In these pieces, Roosevelt expresses his reverence for nature and his love of birds. His presence alone in the anthology American Earth reveals his conservationism. It is also widely known that Roosevelt was an avid hunter. Throughout his lifetime, he hunted and killed numerous bears, geese, rabbits, deer, ducks, buffaloes, skunks, beavers, cougars, and even African animals, such as lions, rhinoceroses, Cape buffaloes, and elephants. This puzzles me...how can one kill what he or she loves? I hear it all the time. "I love animals!," as he or she scarfs down a chicken sandwich.

But what really are the environmental effects of hunting? I can personally find hunting sadistic and unsportsmanlike, but do I have the responsibility to oppose it as an environmentalist? 

Heheheeee...

Okay, I'm done...let's move on.

The most common argument that I hear from people who support hunting is that it helps to prevent animal overpopulation (I usually hear about deer, an animal that is, perhaps, overpopulating southeastern Pennsylvania). And wouldn't it be better to just shoot them than let them die of starvation? I take two issues with this argument; firstly, the only reason the deer are 'overpopulated' and there's not enough for them to eat is because we use all their land for roads, farms, buildings and shopping centers. What do we expect to happen? We laugh at them and think them stupid for running out into the streets that we put in the middle of their homes. That would be like a track being built through your kitchen with a train that comes through every sixty seconds. And then when you are inevitably flattened by said train, the last words you will hear are "Hahahahaha! Stupid!" Is that fair? Secondly, this argument shows a grave double standard. Children in Africa starve to death every day, but no one suggests shooting them to put them out of their misery. For an even more relevant analogy, dogs and cats suffer from overpopulation as much as deer, and strays starve to death every day, but no one is hunting them. The most we do is spay and neuter our pets (efforts to spay and neuter deer, anyone?). So, even though controlling populations may make sense from an environmental standpoint, it's not really a fair argument.

Even if you take animal rights out of the equation, the facts show that deer hunting is not at all the most effective way to control populations. In fact, it can do the opposite. Typically, more bucks are killed than does, as doe hunting is limited by law. In most areas there are currently eight does to one buck. Since deer are not monogamous, one buck may impregnate many does, and this fact, in combination with the disproportion between males and females, leads to a huge increase in population. And even though hunting can help control populations, this is only immediately after a hunt. The amount of time when there is more food for all the deer is minuscule. A tactic that would really make sense would be to introduce natural predators like wolves into the deer's environments, but that would probably be too 'uncivilized' for most people. However, if we did that and just left the deer alone, their population would be controlled naturally.

What about other animals? Well, we have all heard the stories of species being hunted to extinction or almost to extinction. Of course, the tragedies of these extinctions cannot be denied. Many of the more recently extinct animals (recently being in the last 100-200 years) were killed out greed for fur, hides and skins (the Toolache wallaby and the Quagga), were predators killed mainly by farmers because of perceived threats to their sheep flocks (the Tasmanian tiger and the Falkland Island wolf), because of ridiculous superstitions (the Zanzibar leopard) or, most sickeningly, just for fun (the Passenger pigeon and the Atlas bear). These are the more well-known examples of extinct animals, but few people are aware that 2.7 to 270 species go extinct every day. It is believed that half of the species in the world will be extinct by 2100, and, according to a poll by the American Museum of Natural History, seventy percent of biologists believe that this mass extinction will be catastrophic to human life. The natural world is an intricate web of millions of species of plants, animals and microorganisms that are all connected in some way. When this natural order is disturbed to too great of an extent, the chain of organisms falls apart and humans cannot survive, just as a spider cannot survive if a stick is swung through her web. 

Obviously hunting of any animal is not the most significant cause of this eventual mass extinction, but why contribute? Leaving on a light in an empty room, driving a Hummer, or running the water while you brush your teeth aren't the main contributors to global warming, but that doesn't mean you should do them. Punching someone in the face isn't murder, but that doesn't mean you should do it. As with almost all other issues society faces, passivity is the culprit. Hunting without thinking about the implications is irresponsible, as is ignorantly driving an SUV or leaving an unused light on. And that thought process that most people (even you might) have--that "Oh, well it's just one lightbulb, what harm can it do?" mindset--is partially what got us in this environmental hole we're now in. How about a little personal responsibility? The American excuses of fun or convenience are getting old.

The #2 of the #2 White Meat

Sorry for the delay, folks! It's been a busy couple of weeks.

Recently, I completed a project for Rhetoric class in which I did a rhetorical analysis of the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer. The section of the book I analyzed was entitled "Pieces of Shit," and focused on massive lagoons of pig waste surrounding the factory farms of pork production megacorporation Smithfield. These poisonous lagoons have caused atrocious damages to the surrounding areas and people.

What exactly are these 'lagoons'? What makes them so dangerous? Picture a lake about 3 acres in area, and around 30 feet deep. Now, instead of water, imagine that lake is filled with pig shit. That's a lagoon. And not just shit, mind you, but stillborn and dead piglets, afterbirths, vomit, blood, urine, antibiotic syringes, broken insecticide bottles, hair, pus, and body parts, among any other kind of wastes produced by factory farming (Foer). The pig feces alone contain "ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide (think sewage gas), carbon monoxide, cyanide, phosphorus,  nitrates and heavy metals." The combined waste hosts over 100 microbial pathogens that can be extremely harmful to humans, like salmonella (Tietz). The worst part is that there can be over a hundred of these lagoons in one place, typically around a slaughterhouse. And when a lagoon becomes too full, the waste either leaks out into the local water supply or is sucked out and sprayed either onto a nearby field or just, you know, into the air (fuck it, why not?).

Three lagoons next to a pig factory farm

In 2010, Rolling Stone published an article by Jeff Tietz called "Boss Hog," a piece that revealed Smithfield's practices, including these lagoons and their effects. Tietz tells the following horrific story that illustrates just how dangerous these lagoons are to humans:

"A worker in Michigan, repairing one of the lagoons, was overcome by the smell and fell in. His 15-year-old nephew dived in to save him but was overcome, the worker's cousin went in to save the teenager but was overcome, the worker's older brother dived in to save them but was overcome, and then the worker's father dived in. They all died in pig shit" (Tietz).


Most people that have heard anything about factory farming know of the terrible pollution caused by the industry. What most of us fail to remember, however, is that people actually live near, sometimes almost on, these factories. The suffering of those living in these areas is, in my opinion, the most well-hidden aspect of factory farming. The costs that corporations such as Smithfield externalize onto other people and the environment are enormous. Remember how the lagoons can leak into water supplies? That's not regulated by the government at all, and is perfectly legal. Just as legal is the spraying of shit into the air and onto fields. And that liquified shit finds its way very easily into the lungs of local citizens, who consequently suffer from "persistent nosebleeds, earaches, chronic diarrhea, and burning lungs" (Tietz). In addition, over half the children that grow up on the factories suffer from asthma, while those living nearby are twice as likely to develop asthma (Thicke). People in these surrounding communities have protested and have even managed to pass some laws that restrict this noxious pollution, but because of the power of the industry, the regulations are rarely, if ever, enforced (Foer).

All that mess is on a good day. Imagine if one or more of Smithfield's lagoons flooded or spilled. Oh, wait...it did. In 1995, 20 million gallons of lagoon waste spilled into the New River in North Carolina, a spill twice as large as the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. I couldn't find a picture of the Smithfield spill (which should tell you something), but here's the Exxon spill for reference:

Remember, this is half the size of the Smithfield spill

My point is, it's easy for some of us to ignore the unimaginable hell that factory farmed animals go through. But I seriously doubt that most people could ignore these communities, that Michigan worker, his nephew, cousin, brother, and father, with similar ease. And even if we can ignore human suffering, how much of it can we ignore? What about when the lagoons become so full that shit is being sprayed into our backyards, into our lungs and our children's? When will public health win the race against applewood smoked bacon?

Is Environmental Responsibility Classed?

This post is not, by any means whatsoever, an attempt to advocate racist and classist findings such as Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve. If I were really as obtuse to think that people of certain races or classes were inherently more or less intelligent than others, one would hope I would not know how to use a computer. In fact, I am trying to do just the opposite here--my true aim is to examine social forces that inhibit people of certain socioeconomic statuses (SES's) toward or away from eating in which are environmentally responsible, focusing on meat- and animal product-free diets. Unfortunately, I had trouble finding any statistics whatsoever on the SES-based makeup of the vegetarian/vegan, etc. communities; so, with lack of direct information, I will do the best I can to reason out and support my claims effectively.

(Note: This information is examining only issues facing those of poorer SES in the USA.)

Jonathan Safran Foer, author of my favorite (and frequently cited) nonfiction book, Eating Animals, was invited to be on Ellen Degeneres' talk show to speak about his book. Ellen asks him, "What if people can't afford to live this [vegan/vegetarian] lifestyle?" He responds, "You can't afford not to." Below, you can watch the entire interview.

Ain't he a cutie? Mmm mmm MMH! 


Anyway...

I think Foer makes an excellent point. While a vegetarian or vegan diet may be more expensive (debatable) or less convenient for the time being, higher rates of cancer have been reported in those who include even a reasonable amount of animal products in their diets. Not only have animal proteins alone been suspected of being carcinogenic, but nearly all beef produced in the US is treated with ammonia, and much processed chicken absorbs feces during the cooling process (Eating Animals). That's not to mention the obvious fact that higher fat and cholesterol intake contribute to rampant heart disease, the number one killer in the US. Around age 50, someone who is in 'good health' will usually have a health insurance premium half the amount of that someone in 'poor health.'

But what about the day to day costs? Some of us don't have the luxury of worrying about our health; some of us are lucky to have any food at all. And aren't veggie burgers, like, 4 bucks a box?

Well, yes, they are. But who made the rule that vegetarians/vegans had to eat processed soy foods? Living on staples (like canned fruits and vegetables, rice, beans, even tofu) can be much cheaper than even the cheapest meats. However, that brings up the issue of convenience. I don't think most people buy Big Macs because they can't or won't cook. I think it's just a very easy, fast way to get cheap food that will fill you up quickly. And as much as I do believe these people have the option of healthier meals that they could cook at home that might be every bit as cheap, that's not always realistic. Many people of poorer SES work at least two jobs, have children and a home to take care of, and sometimes there's not enough time for even those tasks. Can we expect someone of that lifestyle to have an easy time resisting convenience foods?

Another huge problem with expecting people of poorer SES to maintain a more environmentally responsible diet is lack of education. I don't mean lack of schooling when I say that; in fact, schooling can be a discouraging place for budding or lifelong vegans/vegetarians. When I was in grade school, I was constantly teased by other children for being a vegetarian, and told I was unhealthy by too many football coach/health teacher hybrids who probably all had cholesterol levels off the charts. We live in a pro-meat culture, and that absolutely comes through in public education. Unfortunately, it also comes through in advertising, much more heavily than in the classroom. Think about Tyson chicken, "Beef-it's what's for dinner," countless McDonald's commercials, and Perdue. Commercials for all these products, and others, are crafted to make you think that the meat you feed your family is healthy and humanely raised, and, moreover, a responsible choice. On the contrary, meat and other animal products have been linked to the recent spikes in food allergies and autism in children (Eating Animals). Here's a particular Perdue commercial that pisses me the hell off:

"It makes me feel like a better mom. How precious, reassuring and gendered am I to you right now?"

So, assume that you're in the 30% of people in this country with no internet; but you have a TV. You are constantly exposed to these commercials, such as the one above, and have very few resources in your home with which to receive quality information about the world. More importantly, you don't have the time to do any sort of research at all, due to the aforementioned two jobs, kids and home. What do you think you're more than likely buying your family tonight for dinner? That's right, shit-laced chicken.

To finish off, I am not saying that everyone who is poor is ignorant; many people, rich and poor, make decisions to have an environmentally responsible diet, and many in both SES' don't. We have a system set up that purposely keeps people ignorant, that makes sure that a Big Mac is their best option for their next meal. The environment dies. Ours is a system of cures, not prevention. And if you can't afford the cures? You die right along with it.

Vegan Snickerdoodles

Okay, so this isn't an "official" post, but I've gotten a few requests for the recipe for the vegan snickerdoodles I brought in last week. And since I LOVE sharing my vegan food with others, I obviously obliged. So here it is, the recipe for vegan snickerdoodles!

1 c. (2 sticks) margarine (Willow Run and Earth Balance are the only brands of vegan margarine on the market--Willow Run is cheaper and better for baking)
1 1/2 c. sugar (if you want to go all out, get organic sugar. Regular sugar is processed with animal bones)
2 eggs (I use Ener-G brand egg replacer)
2 3/4 c. flour
2 tsp cream of tartar
1 tsp baking soda
1/4 tsp salt
*Tip: If you want your snickerdoodles to be thicker, like mine were in class, add a little extra flour. I think they're fine with or without the extra flour.

Cinnamon/sugar topping:
3 tbsp sugar
3 tsp cinnamon

Cream margarine, sugar, egg replacer
Add dry ingredients
Roll dough into balls and dip into cinnamon-sugar mix
Bake at 350 degrees for 10 minutes

Happy baking! Let me know how they turn out in comments, if you try them!

All for One: The Issue of Bycatch

Okay, so as much as you might love sushi, tuna salad, or any other seafood, I think you could say, with a decent amount of confidence, that you would never eat a dolphin. Because, well, dolphins are dolphins. They're just awesome. Their visible presence in the ocean alone is enough to steal the attention of hundreds of beach goers at once. What if I told you that, in eating virtually any kind of seafood, it is almost certain that a dolphin was killed in order to put that meal on your plate?

Firstly, I think it's important to explain the idea of bycatch. This term refers to any sea creatures unintentionally caught in nets and thrown back into the ocean. Virtually every animal caught in these nets is killed. Dolphins are the most well-known victims of bycatch.

A graphic explanation of the bycatch process.

In 1988, various environmental and animal rights groups called for a boycott of three US-based brands of canned tuna on the grounds that tens of thousands of dolphins were being killed each year from becoming caught in fishing nets: Heinz's Starkist Tuna, Ralston Purina's Chicken of the Sea, and Pillsbury's Bumble Bee Tuna. Two years later, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act was passed. This policy was meant to ensure consumers that the tuna they were buying came from a company that had made a conscious effort to avoid killing dolphins during the fishing process--'dolphin-safe,' as the labels read.

Of course, if you know anything about food labels that advertise some sort of humane treatment of animals (examples being 'free-range,' 'grass fed,' and 'cage free'), then you should know that they are, to be frank, utter bullshit. For example, egg-laying hens who are 'cage free' are simply on an extremely crowded floor instead of a tiny cage. They have the same amount of, if not less, space as they did when they were caged. A standard chicken cage is about 67 square inches--less area than a piece of paper (Eating Animals). This 'dolphin-safe' label is hardly different.

Cage free chickens

The main reason why these labels are useless is because these industries are barely regulated. The USDA simply does not have enough budget to go to slaughterhouses regularly, let alone to a fishing boat in the middle of the ocean, often not even in US waters. Therefore, it is very, very easy for corporations fishing for tuna to get away with excessive dolphin bycatch; if they don't report it and no one of consequence sees it, no one will ever know.

Furthermore, dolphins are certainly not the only sea creatures killed when fishing for tuna. 145 different species of sea life are regularly killed in large quantities when they become caught in nets, including great white sharks, manta rays, hammerhead sharks, killer whales, humpback whales, green turtles, several breeds of dolphins, among many, many other types of fish, whales, sharks, sea birds and sea turtles. Shrimp are hardly different; shrimp trawling accounts for 33 percent of global bycatch, and 80 to 90 percent of any one catch consists of bycatch--much of it endangered species. In the case of shrimp caught in Indonesia, an average of 26 pounds of other sea life are killed as bycatch for every pound of shrimp caught (Eating Animals).


It would be extremely difficult to deny the environmental effects of these fishing processes. Marine life habitats, particularly beautiful coral reefs, are destroyed in part by overfishing and processes called cyanide fishing and blast fishing. Overfishing, of course, depletes marine life population, which detracts from the diversity and ultimate health of reefs. Cyanide fishing, a process in which cyanide is used to stun fish to make them easier to catch, kills microorganisms that help keep reefs alive. Blast fishing destroys the structures of the reefs by blasting portions of the coral in order to make fish easier to catch. The destruction of coral reefs causes numerous problems for humans, such as water contamination and increased levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Hence, the death of coral reefs contributes directly to global warming and the overall death of our natural world.

As with many other environmental exigences caused by the ways in which humans interact with animals, the solution is extraordinarily simple: don't support the industry. If you care about and love whales, dolphins, sharks, sea turtles or any other sea life, it is absolutely hypocritical to eat seafood. Even if you couldn't give a shit about marine life, the destruction of the environment affects everything and everyone. Inarguably, the best way to solve a problem is to boycott the machine causing it. That is where our most important power lies as consumers: to reject the cruel processes of bycatch, the destruction of marine life and habitats, and, ultimately, the destruction of our own species.

In Vitro Meat: Growing Tonight's Steak

Recently, there's been an increasing amount of talk about "in vitro meat." "Eating babies?" you might ask. No, of course not.

Not your recent order at Chick-fil-a

I'll try not to get into all the scientific riffraff, but, essentially, in vitro meat is created by taking a small amount of muscle tissue from an animal and "growing" chunks of meat in a lab through what I assume is a process similar to cloning. Animal rights organizations such as PETA and Farm Sanctuary have advocated this type of meat, as it would greatly reduce the suffering of billions of animals raised for meat production. PETA has even offered a one million dollar reward to the first scientist to develop and market in vitro meat. I personally support the development of in vitro meat on these grounds because reducing suffering is the most important thing when it comes to food production.

So, what does in vitro meat mean for the environment?

While many people understand that animals are literally physically and psychologically tortured during the meat production process, fewer understand the environmental effects of factory farming. This extreme style of farming takes a toll on almost every aspect of our environment. It takes about 2,500 gallons of water (that's half of the water consumed in the US!) and 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. According to a report by Britain's Food and Agricultural Organisation, raising livestock contributes 18% of the world's greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, which includes the production of fertilizer, clearing land, producing the meat, transporting it, burning of or fumes from animal waste, and, animals, ahem...breaking wind. Meat production contributes more greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere than all forms of transport in the world combined.

The face (well....you know) of global warming

Through in vitro meat, we could essentially avoid most, if not all, of these environmental problems and emissions associated with meat production, which would greatly, greatly reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses being emitted into the atmosphere. As of right now, the only problems with in vitro meat are removing certain antibiotics from it (which are found in nearly all forms of meat anyway) and cost. Because of the methods of production used by factory farming, the price of meat only increased, in some cases, twenty cents from 1980 to 2004, with no meat increasing more than two dollars over that period of time. Competing with these prices will be difficult for producers of in vitro meat, not to mention competing with multi-billion dollar meat production corporations, who have far more influence over the government and the market than any scientist. Hopefully, however, these challenges will be able to be met and a "humane" meat will finally be available for all.

Before I go, I'd like to reference a viral e-mail from a few years ago. The claims of this e-mail have been proven to be false, but it makes an excellent point about the issue of in vitro meat:

"During the space race back in the 1960's, NASA was faced with a major problem. The astronaut needed a pen that would write in the vacuum of space. NASA went to work. At a cost of $1.5 million, they developed the 'Astronaut Pen.' The Russians were faced with the same dilemma. They used a pencil" (www.snopes.com).

My point here is, why spend millions of dollars developing a better non-essential food item? I completely support in vitro meat and what it is attempting to do, but no one needs to eat meat in our developed world. There are only one or two vitamins unobtainable from a plant source, and they are readily available in multiple supplements and vitamins. I understand that it is unrealistic to expect everyone to go vegan, but it is certainly a much simpler solution. And if there's anything our modern world could use once in a while, it's simplicity.