Asymmetrical Information

I didn't realize cows had defendants.

Good for you.

I make the argument that PETA causes more harm to animals than good, because they cause reactions against their position.

There is another group that should be promoted: the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

I'd like to propose that any time someone mentions the destructive and stupid fools at PETA, they mention the SPCA instead. That's a good organization that does good work.

I love the concept of cows forming a democratic commune. What a lovely thought. And I agree with Jane, I can see where PETA does have a point, when I took the train cross-country a few years ago, while traveling through Nebraska we passed cattle farm after cattle farm. Most of these seemed free-range, with happy cows eating and eating and eating and occationally going to the bathroom (not the most intertesting part of the journey obviously).

But then we hit upon the factory cattle farm. The cows were stuffed into feed lots, virtually unable to move. The hygine was awful, and as we sat watching pen after pen of filthy cows (some of whom did not look well) the kid sitting next to me said, "Look Mommy, a meat factory."

It put me off meat for, oh, a good three hours or so. But more to the point, it made me come to the realization that at happy cow is a tasty cow. Now I only buy free-range or farm raised meat.

Um-yum.

Ted Nugent (biiiiig hunter) on Fox News was asked about PETA. He said, "Everytime one of them opens their mouths, I go out and kill a dozen of something."

Same basic philosophy.

PETA's campaigns are so incredibly stupid and counterproductive. Are we certain they are not a front for the meatpacking and poultry raising lobby?

Ooh, that just went into the bookmarks folder I use for found recipes.

Thanks, Megan!

Most cattle raised for beef, as opposed to dairy duty, are born on pastures, stay with their mothers on pasture for 210 days or so, are weaned and spend another 150 days or so on pasture, and then go to the feed lots to be fattened on grain.

The reason that there are feedlots is that grain is a cheap, subsidized commodity. It makes cattle fat that have most of their growth and their frame (bone structure) is mature. This is called finishing.

A grain diet changes cattle in more ways than making them fat. It is an unnatural food lacking fiber and is incompatible with their normal digestive processes. It screws up their blood chemistry and changes the character of their flesh in ways that are bad for cattle and bad for the humans that eat them (or drink their milk). It is comparable to the famed twinky diet of mass murderers. The kind of fat produced by a grain diet is high in Omega 6 fatty acids - the bad ones - and low in Omega 3 fatty acids - the good ones. Such meat is lower in vitamin E, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and has a greasy texture. It even smells funny.

There is a growing segment of the cattle industry that finishes their animals on grass rather than sending them to feed lots. There are proposals wending their way through the federal government now to establish labeling standards for 'grass finished' beef, lamb, poultry and hogs. Eggs and dairy are involved too. Animals raised this way are healthier, requiring less medication, since they have a better diet and are not crowded into filthy conditions where disease and stress induced immune deficiency can harm them.

There is a wealth of information available on the net about this subject, with practitioner and university web sites and email lists available to communicate theory and practice. The American Farmland Trust web site, http://grassfarmer.com/, is one example and it has links to other resources.

It is worth noting that those who grain finish their cattle in feedlots are not just bad people. Grain subsidies skew practice toward using these cheap feeds. From a business perspective it is the obvious way to go. University and government advocates of industrial agriculture have trained generations of farm youth to use these practices to implement a cheap food policy. We are living with the consequences of this policy. Americans are fat and unhealthy, livestock agriculture is the subject of protest and worst of all our farm lands are degraded by heavy metal subsidized agricultural practices.

You can help by seeking out grass finished and pastured products. They are more expensive but not unfairly so, Food is important. It is wrong that people should be too poor to buy food but the idea of making food cheap is the wrong solution when it also means that food is less healthful and the environment, the ability to produce food, is diminished. You can also help by understanding and opposing agricultural subsidies to grain farmers (as well as cotton etc.). There are economic, political, health and environmental reasons to reform these practices.

back40, do you know if grain is ever used to finish buffalo? Generally speaking, I much prefer buffalo (along with elk) to beef, but have noticed wide discrepancy in the tatse, which leads me to think that their might be large differences in dietary practices, or perhaps in the age of the animals slaughtered. I've always thought that the reason buffalo is so much more expensive is because the herd is so much smaller, and because they take longer to gain weight. Do you have any insight into this?

Cows also fornicate. No little cows without that ;-)

back40, why stop with grain and cotton, how about peanut, sugar, milk et al.

back40, why stop with grain and cotton, how about peanut, sugar, milk et al.

Try as I might, slaughter and confinement photos do nothing for me. I love intelligent animals but cannot help being dispassionate about honest factory farming. The animals involved are among the stupidest of Mammalia. Domestication has been their lot for longer than anyone cares to recall; the beasts couldn't survive on their own by any stretch of the imagination.

Most of the revulsion, I'd guess, is drawn from the vast majority of consumers who are provided no insight as to where their burger came from. But this is where I'm lost - slitting a pig's throat is the same act long ago as it is today, machines notwithstanding. We can curse modern population sizes necessitating industrial meat-making; or we can advocate vegetarian living provided we don't run afoul of biotech politics (but then I've always been confused by the "speciesism" inherent in preferring the death of a plant organism over that of a mammal; once that first hair is split, baby, it's off to the races). Or we can implement half-measures that attempt to shed guilt foisted upon us by people more involved with the welfare of food animals than they are about human crises.

I anthropomorphize just as much as the next Disney-fed American. Yes, the poor cow looks a bit like Daisy, minus the earring. But that's emotionally driven; beyond individual acts by factories of outright unsanitary conditions that cause widespread disease or dangerous end products for consumers, I don't think this is an ethical issue from the standpoint of animal protection. I really don't.

Back40 has made an excellent point - that the ethics should be concentrated from the human perspective. Grass-feeding, apparently, is the smart thing to do; not the nice thing to do. Any fallout from unsanitary conditions must be considered from our end; not the animals'. Veal is veal because - well, if you don't know, don't ask.

For what it's worth, up to my father (who ran the store at times in his youth but ended up an engineer) the Ubaldis were butchers. Salt the meat.

The moment when PETA transcended normal stupidity and passed over into a state of truly epic idiocy was when they started an advertising campaign on college campuses telling students that drinking beer was more healthy than drinking milk. Predictably, M.A.D.D. tore them a new one, and the PETA representatives remained unapologetic when challenged on their position by interviewers who apparently could not believe that anyone with active brain cells could be quite this stupid.

What's even funnier is that, in the holocaust/animal juxtaposition, the animals don't look that bad off. Now, maybe they are. It's entirely possible. But you'd think they could come up with more convincing pictures?

I have a post about this here.

By the way, I'd buy free-range chicken if I could - does anybody know how I could find such chicken when my local grocery store seems to carry nothing but Tyson and Perdue? Are some of the mega-brands better than others?

The problem that I have with PETA is in their name -- saying that they care about the ethical treatment of animals is misleading. As far as I can tell, they only care about animals that moo, squeak, meow, and bark. What about fish? Sure, they like dolphins and whales, but what about flounder? I don't see a whole lot being done on their part to speak out on the evils of commercial fishing. Strange isn't it?

I'm just saying the PETA boys and girls might want to change their name to people for the ethical treatment of cows, dogs, cats, dolphins and whales or simply PETCDCDW.

Posted by Will Allen:

"I much prefer buffalo (along with elk) to beef, but have noticed wide discrepancy in the tatse, which leads me to think that their might be large differences in dietary practices, or perhaps in the age of the animals slaughtered."

All true. You are what you eat. The flavor of meat and dairy products varies with diet, age and handling practices. In the past this was well understood and resulted in regional as well as varietal brands, just as there is for wine or olive oil. Danish ham and French wine are examples of these older insights. New York cheddar is another though cultured products are affected by the strains of bacteria used as well as the base dairy product.

Australia is currently implementing a system which catalogs regional varieties of soil, climate and forage species to distinguish such regional differences in the resulting food products, especially beef and lamb. The use of grains, agricultural byproducts (spent brewers grain, beet pulp, stale potato chips, cotton seed from gins, almond hulls from packing houses etc. etc.) all affect flavor.

Age of slaughter affects flavor, tends to become more robust with age.

Stress affects flavor. Dr. Temple Grandin (an interesting story, she was autistic as a youth and claims her insights into animal handling and stress derive in part from her special world view) has done much research and design of handling facilities and practices to reduce stress and stress toxins. Stress makes us all sick, even cows.

Post-slaughter handling and packaging affects flavor. Meat is aged for a short while to allow natural enzymes time to function. The time and method of aging affects flavor and tenderness (shear force required to cut).

Bison and Elk do taste different than domestic cattle, but there are also many breeds of domestic cattle. English breeds such as Hereford and Angus tend to be fatter, smaller and mature more quickly resulting in fat, tender beef many prefer. Continental breeds such as Charolais and Simmental are bigger, leaner, tougher and have a flavor less preferred. Dairy breeds such as Holstein and Jersey are leaner and flavorful. There are also special breeds such as Piedmonmtese and Belgian Blue which have an interesting mutation sometimes called 'double muscled'. They are well muscled but the muscle fibers are fine so that they are both lean and tender. They are similar to callipygous (literally, beautiful buttocks) sheep in that respect. There are also Asian breeds (Brahman) and African breeds.

Commercial ventures use a lot of crossbreeding to gain hybrid vigor so these pure strains and their characteristics are seldom found in the market. The exception to this is Angus which has a strong certified Angus program to produce a consistent product and brand loyalty. Another notable exception is in gourmet foods such as the Italian 'slow food' products which promote Piedmontese beef.

Bison and Elk are not domestic ruminants. They lack the natural character traits that allow close association with humans. That's why native Americans never domesticated them though they did domesticate goats. They knew how to do it but Bison and Elk just aren't domestic. Bison are interesting in that their genetics allows them to thrive on less nutritious forage and their meat is healthful for humans,

Timmy the Wonder Dog posted:

"...why stop with grain and cotton, how about peanut, sugar, milk et al"

Don't stop. Soybeans, wool etc. markets as well as the ones you mention are all deformed by subsidy. Farmers are said to 'farm the government' more than the land in that you have to be stupid not to maximize your business through strategies to make effective use of subsidy, tax and regulation. Such policies offer incentives without fully understanding the consequences and our food supply and environment are negatively affected. There are strong economic and political arguments against subsidies as well.

Posted by Michael Ubaldi:

"... slitting a pig's throat is the same act long ago as it is today...
Grass-feeding, apparently, is the smart thing to do; not the nice thing to do..."

Stress is an issue, one long understood. The slaughter and handling practices of Jews and Moslems, Kosher and Halal, are not just holy, they are sensible agronomic practice. Animals were to be kept calm, killed with a knife so sharp it gave less pain, and fully exsanguinated by the pumping of a beating heart. There are rules based in respect for how and when these foods can be sold and consumed. Cleanliness, kindness and respect resulted in more healthful food and a more healthful relationship between humans and livestock. Ethics are an issue for many humans, we can't simply ignore them. Different humans have different ethical systems and none are philosophically supportable except by recourse to belief systems, but still they matter and have consequences. I find that I can respect the beliefs of others while not necessarily holding similar beliefs.

Kate,

Regarding "free range" cows...have you ever actually seen a free range? And where do you think "free range" cows are processed? At their own processing center?

*sigh*

back40 - buffalo also taste differently because ranchers haven't been able to develop growth hormones for buffalo yet. Additionally, on a per acre basis, they get a lot more range than cows because well, without growth hormones there just aren't that many of them.

This is why buffalo meat is more expensive than regular cow meat. But they all get slaughtered in the same place. Also another reason for the extra cost...the cow cabal won't allow buffalo to be processed side by side with regular cattle, so the entire factory has to shut down, completely sanitized and sanitized again after the buffalo are run through.

It's like Ford shutting down production on Taurus so they can run Mike's Car or Bob's car and then starting it back up again.

Meghan,

Good recipe. However, when I make strada I always jam in lots of sausage and bacon.

I am a proud member of PETA-"People for the Eatin' of Tasty Animals"

"back40 - buffalo also taste differently because ranchers haven't been able to develop growth hormones for buffalo yet."

All animals have growth hormones, that's why they grow. Free-range, grass finished animals make do with the hormones they make for themselves since without the hot diet of feed yards it is not economical or useful to inject them or feed them extra hormones, however natural they may be. It's not about development, it's about economics and feed strategies.

"...have you ever actually seen a free range?"

Yes, every day.

"And where do you think "free range" cows are processed? At their own processing center?"

Yes, there are specialist processing facilities that cater to the grass finished producer. They emphasize low stress handling and track the animals from beginning to end by owner. In many cases the slaughter is done at the farm in the lowest stress situation possible and the halves are then transported in refrigerated vans to the locker where it is aged, cut and wrapped.

As the size of the market increases more facilities are offering these services. Some use mobile facilities such as described above and others dedicate fixed facilities. This is also a premium market so there is incentive so long as there is sufficient volume. They all are regulated, hygienic and have excellent safety records.

There has been a recent increase in gourmet restaurants in New York and San Francisco which serve grass finished products. As more people come to understand the issues and appreciate the dining experience gourmet restaurants, already a premium market, are incented to offer such meals. It can be expensive to offer such meals all during the year but like some seafood meals seasonality adds to the experience for discriminating diners.

back40 -- thanks for clarifying free range processing. I got my info from a radio show on the local public radio station called Coloardo Matters in which they interviewed a buffalo rancher. Of course it was over a year ago and I've been known to have a fuzzy memory from time to time.

So in your experience, you've never heard of cows being injected with growth hormones that help them mature faster? Or the cost issues related to sanitizing processing centers to accomodate limited runs of buffalo?

As a farmer (married to a 4th generation family farmer in Indiana) I *used* to raise free-range chickens and organic eggs. Now, however I don't raise any because the *protected* coyotes kept killing them. I live 1 hour and 30 minutes southeast of the Chicago loop, and coyotes killed our chickens. We aren't allowed to shoot them, of course, and 24 hour vigilence is impractical anyway. I have stood with a hose and a water bucket, not 10 feet from a chicken happily scratching away, and seen it taken in a flash. There are many, complex reasons why all animals are not free-ranged.
Also, to address the "beak-chopping", etc. There are always in any flock, however small, chickens that will attack and kill others, and the amount of space they have to run around in has nothing to do with it (free-range chickens do it, too). A chicken that has been pecked to death is not a pretty sight. It takes a long time and gets the others in a blood-lust frenzy. They eat just fine with sheared beaks. Otherwise, how would they get fat enough to slaughter or to produce an egg every 24 hours? That is one argument I never hear addressed. If these animals are so very "stressed" how do they get to a weight where they can be processed in such a short period of time? One of the first ways any animal reacts to illness or serious stress is to stop eating. It's one thing to "visit" a farm, it's another thing to live your entire life on one and know animals intimately.
America decided not to support its family farms,so shortly most animals will be raised and processed by companies such as Swift-Premium in a cradle-to-grave system. My husband and I have had enough (farming 30 years). We will sell the farm the minute his parents are gone (we are only waiting so that they don't watch their legacy being destroyed. In our area, tract houses will be built on the land). We have encouraged our children to look elsewhere for careers. We are not the only ones. We are now America's smallest minority - leass than 1% of the population. We have no voice. Any single agricultural policy the government has instituted in the years since WWII has moved the family farmer one step closer to extinction. For those who immediately cry, "subsidies", the price of corn this morning is the same as it was in 1945. Tractors cost a little more, though.
Sorry, didn't mean to turn this into a rant. We have bigger fish to fry right now (oops! sorry PETA!).

Matt Johnson,

I often enjoy you're insightful posts, but in this case, you need to rent a sense of humor.

When I go to my excellent butcher who sells me only the finest cuts of meat which he gets from indenpendant organic, holistic, beer and soybean feeding, cow massaging farms, I am fairly sure (not 100% sure mind you) that they don't send these cows to Nebraska to live in overcrowed feed pens while they eat crappy grain and pee on each other. I have no doubt, however, they are slaughtered in just the same way and that's just fine with me.

Just a hunch. I could be wrong.

I'm not getting down on the farmers; as it happens, I come from dairy farmers on one side, chicken farmers on the other. They produce what consumers want. But I see nothing wrong with persuading consumers to pay an extra buck a dozen for eggs to keep the animals in better conditions. I'm not saying that debeaking isn't occasionally necessary, but I don't think it's necessary to trim the whole flock unless you're cramming those birds in too tight. If the consumer would pay for eggs that give the birds decent treatment, you wouldn't have to. It's a trivial cost to the consumer, and a big boon to both birds and small farmers -- I have several cousins who, like you, are waiting for their parents to pass so they can sell out.

Back40, your explanation about handling is sensible though I'd like to defer to Gail's statement.

Care towards the sensitivity of slaughter animals shouldn't be taken beyond their value as quality food; sensible actions should be taken towards their well-being, but no room for the kinds of morality plays coming from the quarters of "animal rights" organizations.

I agree with you, Michael -- my point is that given how little most of us spend on food these days, we can afford to buy a little peace of mind. ;-) Plus, free range really are tastier. Although, Gail, I certainly sympathize with your plight; my grandfather's enjoying the same phenomenon with the deer on his little acreage.

"So in your experience, you've never heard of cows being injected with growth hormones that help them mature faster?"

Yes, it is common in feed lots. They also use 'probiotics', which are a class of antibiotic, to alter intestinal flora in ways that reduce some disease but mainly increase feed conversion efficiency. They also use bicarbonates and other digestion aids to counter acidosis and other diet related distress.

Hormones and probiotics are of minimal or no value though without a hot, grain based diet so grass famers don't use them. Besides, even those who are not organic like to make marketing claims consistent with organic practices, a sort of health nut check list of dos and don'ts. Marketing is about perceptions, feelings and prejudices not amenable to reason.

frankly, its a little disturbing that you dismiss this debate: "It's stupid on two levels: one, for expecting people to equate the suffering of people and animals, as if abuses committed during the inevitable process of killing to eat were the same thing as the senseless slaughter of 11 million people; and two, for trying to appropriate someone else's tragedy to dress up the seriousness of your own cause."

first, animal rights activists (PETA being one segment of it) hold a broad range of views. clearly, you are no fan of peter singer and his arguments. if you were, then the claim of not equating human and animal suffering would be put to one side with such effortless ease by you, and you might entertain the notion that animals suffer to some extent. if you grant that, you might be more willing to consider the argument about whether the pleasure of some people is outweighed by the suffering of many animals (in the way they are raised, treated, then killed). all you do here, in your post, is ASSERT your claim, you do not argue for it or prove it--basic kantian assumptions? (human supremacist? who knows, you don't put out a clear argument to follow). as to the second claim, PETA would not be the first or the last to do that. but, so what? this seems to me to be an argument about (excuse the pun) the tastefulness of one's position, rather than an argument about the rationality of one's position. so, i remain unconvinced by your post.

http://www.retrocrush.com/babes/aaababes/peta/

The link represents just about the only PETA activity that didn't fill me with loathing for PETA itself. This is a bunch whose founders say with a straight face that it would be best for the human species to just go extinct and leave the biosphere to its own devices. My reply to that is to suggest they go first and we'll keep a lookout to see if it improves anything. In the meantime, burgers up!

The whole nekkid models ad campaign is baffling in its intent. Who are they trying to reach? What men besides the notably unconcerned with the suffering of others pimps buy fur, other than in the cause of getting laid? Most of the women I've ever known who expect expensive gifts are the sort who might demand a mink coat just to punish the guy for drooling over the nekkid model ad.

The Traci Bingham 'cuts' ad doesn't make any sense either. Seeing her like that just makes me want a steak in addition to her. Isn't that counterproductive to their cause?

Amusing relate item: Yesterday the Parade magazine in the Sunday paper had their recurring "What Do people earn?" article, with lots of photos on the cover of people along with their profession and earnings. In the lower left corner was a guy listed as a PETA Coordinator pulling down $25K a year. He practically had 'Ineffectual Wimp' tattooed across his forehead. Next to him was a more self-confident looking man who was listed as a mink farmer. His income? $68K a year.

The mink farmer probably loves it every time the idiots 'coordinated' by the other guy ruin somebody's coat. It just encourages a defiant need to get another coat and driving the market for the wrappings off the evil little rodents.

Long, long ago, when I shared a cave with smilodont, PETA was for the ethical treatment of animals. In those days, they agitated for better living conditions. I recall several cases of laboratories changing the keeping of their rat colonies - and finding the improved conditions also led to more consistent results.

Even then, there were some who wanted to just stop "using" animals, but by-and-large the grown-ups were in charge.

Alas, the extremists slowly took over. PETA no longer wants animals treated well, they want them not to be treated at all. Well, unlike Bill Maher, if I have to choose between using a dog to develop medicine to cure my father's cancer and letting my Dad die a slow and agonizing death I will choose Pops. And I'll continue to eat meat, keeping alive a number of breeds that would otherwise be found only in zoos (if lucky) or text books.

But it may someday be possible to grow meats without nervous systems: I feel ambivalent about that possibility, and admit I don't know if I would agitate to keep using traditional sources.

"Nor am I under the impression that if we didn't raise them for food, the cows and chickens would be able to run free in the wild."

.....and the reason for this is thousands of years of selective breeding by humans. The implication that the animals would just all instantly die in the wilderness without us is a bit off.

"I'm even less enthralled by the vegans who've told me that death was better than "slavery" for farm animals -- anthropomorphizing is a form of speciesism, you know."

That's not the complete argument. The full argument is that the choices are a) no more cows or b) lots more cows, all of which live a short life of pain and suffering before they're killed for food. Do non-existant animals suffer?

"But this is where I'm lost - slitting a pig's throat is the same act long ago as it is today, machines notwithstanding."

There's a line of thinking that disagrees; I'm not sure I entirely agree with it, but there's a distinction between killing and eating an animal in the old days - by hand, after it'd lived on your farm its whole life, and you knew it by name (as Truman famously did), and killing and eating an animal which is effectively a semi-intelligence meat factory. Pollan covers this a bit in his NYT review of Dominion a while back.

I'll have you know I'm a vegetarian who grew up in rural Texas, so there. :D

Oh, just a question: why the outrage? Any time PETA comes up there's a real seething undercurrent, for no reason that makes sense to me.

Kate,

I still have a sense of humor -- hence my earlier post that PETA should change its name to PETCDCWD. :)

My comment on "have you seen a free range" was also intended to be humorous. I don't know about you, but I can't tell a free range from a not so free range (of course I did come across a stretch of road in Utah once that came with a warning that it had no fences and cows could be in the road -- perhaps that is a free range?).

Finally, what I meant to suggest by responding to your post is that even though a cow might enjoy a wonderful life on his free range with purple mountain majesties, my guess is they all get slaughtered at the same place so what does it matter?

And as we've seen from back40's comments, my guess ain't always the correct guess.

Posted by Matt Johnson:

"My comment on "have you seen a free range" was also intended to be humorous."

Literalist! But it's true, range isn't free (it's expensive) and everything is fenced if you go far enough. The term free range only refers to the lack of close confinement and is used to distinguish CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) from pastoral operations. It is the imprecision in labelling that is being addressed by regulations now being formulated. It is a contentious subject, like national organic standards, and will inevitably offend some interests.

Posted by John Anderson:

"But it may someday be possible to grow meats without nervous systems:"

It is already possible to culture flesh. It's similar to growing bacteria or fungi in a fermenter but uses a different nutrient bath. It's not yet commercially viable and it is not certain that the public is interested in such foods... yet.

There are also strains of bacteria and fungi that have properties much like flesh. Quorn is one recent example. Some are worried about these foods because they contain proteins (there are zillions of proteins) not previously part of the food chain.

I suspect you are right that the day will come when we vat culture all human food or synthesize it directly from chemical components. Nanotech and biotech (which are becoming more difficult to distinguish from one another) will provide alternative methods to farming.

Posted by Jason McCullough:

"The full argument is that the choices are a) no more cows or b) lots more cows, all of which live a short life of pain and suffering before they're killed for food. Do non-existant animals suffer?"

This isn't the full argument, or if it is it is defficient.There are excluded middles for example; the 'life of pain" assertion is not supported, not the only option. But more importantly a robust debate must include the whole system, the whole biosphere, since human food needs dominate the planet. Most ethical arguments, and naive philosophical arguments, fail when the scope and time frame are enlarged to useful, realistic dimensions. How can humanity be fed while doing least harm to the biosphere, including all the things that live here with us? Is the pain of a cow slaughtered for food more important than the pain of an elk driven to extinction by grain farming? Is their pain more important than that of other creatures starved by disruption of their food web by field and row cropping? Is it sensible to rank pain or even consider pain above existence? Is the life of a worm or a ground fungus worth less than a soybean, the growing of which kills the worms and fungi?

There is a robust debate, often divided into modern and post-modern camps, about biosphere level issues. Both camps fail to think in terms of whole systems or long time frames since they derive their arguments from musty old philosophies and counter-philosophies devoid of ecological insight. It is not because those insights are unavailable. There have been philosophers for thousands of year that have noted the destruction of ecosystems by cropping. Plato notes that Critias complained of this. They didn't have the science we now have to enumerate the sins of cropping, but they had the evidence of empires rising and falling on soil fertility, of wars of conquest to gain new lands not yet ruined by agriculture. Greek and Roman experience are well documented and prior ecological degradation is now known by archeological methods.

If we wish to include all life, all creatures, and all pain into our ethics then we have to think at the level of biospheres and centuries rather than make ultimately sterile arguments so limited in scope that they conceal much more than they reveal. When all life is considered it is not possible to eliminate pain. We can choose, to some extent, which creatures will have pain or cease to exist but the loss of existence and the experience of pain is not diminished when we ignore it. Do worms scream when they are diced up by plows and harrows? Do bacteria experience loss of community when their genetic clones are killed in their billions by row cropping? Are the creatures that starve or are never born due to environmental simplification and degradation of cropping worthy of our concern?

The answers are not easy or obvious. Every choice causes death and pain. This I know from long personal experience: my pastures are more alive, more exuberantly productive, filled with pulsating, ululating, buzzing, shrieking life than any corn field. The presence of ruminants in those fields is an integral part of that life, they increase that life through their participation in the food web. The least harmful way for me to live too is to capture and eat some of those ruminants...and pick a salad from their pastures for flavor and variety. The pain I cause with their death is compensated a million fold by the life that continues to exist there because I do not plow that pasture and mono-crop it. If we do some day, as John Anderson suggests, gain the ability to feed ourselves without killing anything I will do so. But I don't rank the life I destroy with my existence, favoring some while ignoring others, I seek to increase life of all kinds. It's the ecologically sensible thing to do and if I was a spiritual sort, a quality I lack, I'm sure I could bless that activity on those grounds too. What god, or even musty old ethicist, could fail to appreciate an increase in life?

Any time PETA comes up there's a real seething undercurrent, for no reason that makes sense to me. - Jason

Because it's fun to sear them with the burning hatred from our coal-black hearts before turning into McDonald's for a double cheeseburger. Mmm. ;-)

I'll have you know I'm a vegetarian who grew up in rural Texas, so there. :D

Back in college I moved to soy milk in the face of some bouts of lactose intolerance with the provided cow's milk. Curious (and surrounded) by the antics of my hardcore/punk/vegan/etcetera acquaintances, I tried to see how long I'd last on a no-meat diet; no go. After about a day, I sold out big time with a hot dog. Two and a half in one sitting, actually.

I agree with you, Michael -- my point is that given how little most of us spend on food these days, we can afford to buy a little peace of mind. ;-) Plus, free range really are tastier. - Megan

I suppose I worry that such good nature can be twisted by the antimeat effort into shaming consumers - needlessly. My concerns on the topic are more academic than anything since I've never been accosted, my grandfather has passed, he was known professionally almost as well as a cook (taught at the New School!); and nobody bothers the old butcher shop.

As for free range, I'll have to investigate.

"Oh, just a question: why the outrage? Any time PETA comes up there's a real seething undercurrent, for no reason that makes sense to me."

The letter from the PETA spokesmoron to Yasser Arafat complaining about use of a donkey by a suicide bomber (and unapologetically *not* complaining about the human lives lost in the incident) epitomizes why I despise PETA--the bottom line is that they care more about animal lives than human lives. I used to think that Tom Clancy was being grossly unfair in his portrayal of radical environmentalists as would-be genocidal maniacs in "Rainbow Six," but seeing PETA at work over the past few years has made me wonder if that conclusion was hasty. The PETA ad urging college students to drink beer instead of milk comes to mind, too.

" I tried to see how long I'd last on a no-meat diet; no go."

What'd you eat? I'm curious, as there's lot of people who say this, but you can't just casually switch and expect it to work out.

"The letter from the PETA spokesmoron to Yasser Arafat complaining about use of a donkey by a suicide bomber (and unapologetically *not* complaining about the human lives lost in the incident) epitomizes why I despise PETA--the bottom line is that they care more about animal lives than human lives."

I find it hard to believe anyone would be happier if PETA choose sides in that, or any other, political debate. It has a single mission, and it sticks to it pretty scrupulously.

"The PETA ad urging college students to drink beer instead of milk comes to mind, too."

Uh.....why?

I find it hard to believe anyone would be happier if PETA choose sides in that, or any other, political debate. It has a single mission, and it sticks to it pretty scrupulously.

Oookaaayyy...and if that position includes holding animal rights and needs as superior to human rights and needs, and not uncommonly makes displays as gratuitous as the one cited, BUT that position is not widely popular -- should an observer be surprised if the mainstream reacts hostily to that position's proponents?

What'd you eat? I'm curious, as there's lot of people who say this, but you can't just casually switch and expect it to work out.

Oh, rest assured, I'd been privy to watching numbskills make themselves anemic by simply cutting out everything but garden salad. At the time I was still in a dorm and so was easily able to switch over to everything in the dining hall I needed to make complex proteins. A modest vegetarian section, I seem to recall, was available for the less creative.

But then the dogs called me. Christ, the baying. Overwhelming.

"I find it hard to believe anyone would be happier if PETA choose sides in that, or any other, political debate. It has a single mission, and it sticks to it pretty scrupulously."

It's symbolic of their single-minded idiocy. Dead animals (hell, mildly *inconvenienced* animals) = apocalyptic horror. Dead humans = "not my problem." North Korea could nuke Tokyo to ashes, and PETA would be issuing press releases wailing about the fact that resources weren't being diverted from the human survivors to pay for placing the surviving animals from the Tokyo Zoo back into their natural habitats.

""The PETA ad urging college students to drink beer instead of milk comes to mind, too."

Uh.....why?"

The ads were targeted at college campuses. Do you really think it's a good idea to encourage increased alcohol consumption among college students as an alternative to milk? M.A.D.D. certainly didn't seem to think so. Typical brain-dead PETA thinking.

"Oh, rest assured, I'd been privy to watching numbskills make themselves anemic"

Heh, ok.

"The ads were targeted at college campuses. Do you really think it's a good idea to encourage increased alcohol consumption among college students as an alternative to milk? M.A.D.D. certainly didn't seem to think so. Typical brain-dead PETA thinking."

Oh lord, as if college beer intake was affected in *any* noticable way by PETA. Pull the other one.

"It's symbolic of their single-minded idiocy. Dead animals (hell, mildly *inconvenienced* animals) = apocalyptic horror. Dead humans = "not my problem."

Bullshit. "Why, that Sierra Club/NRA, they're just single-minded idiots! They care more about trees/guns than human lives! They don't have an opinion on taxation distribution, or the death penalty, or....."

Oookaaayyy...and if that position includes holding animal rights and needs as superior to human rights and needs

I think PETA has stated that animal rights and needs are equivalent to those of humans, but I don't think they've ever stated they're superior.

Jason, I disagree with you about PETA. Obviously they're one issue, but so's the SPCA. The problem with PETA is that they have repeatedly said that they prefer animals to humans, as with their stance on medical research. As I said, I agree with some of their positions. But their ideology alienates people.

i'm human... i care about humans...

i don't give 2 shts about animals, insofar as t doesn't affect humans...

as for the deep ecology sht: crops are bd, people kill the environment... screw it, i need to eat... if people really are disgusted by the human race, off yourself and stop whining...

but no, what you want is the rule of the anointed... and you wonder why greens and commies get along...

tom clancy is just one of many to understand the green menace (like the vail attack, and long island house burnings). these people will try to kill us all... they're next on the list after the islamists, and i do mean on the list

As a side note, these links went around a few months ago, but they are still good, and this seems a good time to revive them.

This company is selling t-shirts with quotes from PETA (and others). My favorite, which refers to the hoof-and-mouth desease stories of the time: "I openly hope that it comes here."

Also, when I think of PETA, I usually think of this. (Warning, this link is a 985Kb picture.)

""The ads were targeted at college campuses. Do you really think it's a good idea to encourage increased alcohol consumption among college students as an alternative to milk? M.A.D.D. certainly didn't seem to think so. Typical brain-dead PETA thinking."

Oh lord, as if college beer intake was affected in *any* noticable way by PETA. Pull the other one."

So, you're saying that it's unreasonable for people to be offended by the advocacy of a position that would have unwanted results if followed, even if the advocacy seems unlikely to have results? Interesting position. Morally vacuous, but interesting.

""It's symbolic of their single-minded idiocy. Dead animals (hell, mildly *inconvenienced* animals) = apocalyptic horror. Dead humans = "not my problem."

Bullshit. "Why, that Sierra Club/NRA, they're just single-minded idiots! They care more about trees/guns than human lives! They don't have an opinion on taxation distribution, or the death penalty, or.....""

What planet are you living on? The NRA *is* widely disliked by a lot of people for single-minded advocacy, but it still finds the effort to express regret when human lives are lost using guns. The Sierra Club simply does not issue the same kind of moronic nonsense that PETA does on a regular basis--they didn't write a letter to Yasser freaking Arafat complaining about a dead donkey or burnt landscaping when there were widows and orphans left by the same suicide bomber. PETA prefers animals to people in the most aggressive and nonsensical way possible, and that makes them worthy of contempt, in the opinion of myself and many others.

Jane Galt:

You call the PETA campaign "dumb," but it provoked you to write at some length on the horrors of factory farming. You might not have bothered, or even noticed, if their campaign had been more genteel. Sometimes, you have to be outrageous just to draw attention to your cause. That is why the suffragettes chained themselves to railings, why civil rights activists staged sit-ins at segregated lunch counters, and why AIDS activists blockaded the entrance to St. Patrick's Cathedral. One generation's despised agitators may be the next generation's crusading heroes. For all the scorn PETA attracts, it has probably done more than any other organization to bring attention to the appalling ways in our society treats animals.

But that's not true, Dave R -- any of my friends can tell you that I often rant about the horrors of factory farming, and not because I heard anything from PETA. It would have come up sooner or later regardless.

You write, with assymetrical anthropomophizing specisism:
"Nonetheless, I'm somewhat sympathetic to their crusade against horrible animal living conditions. The fact that we eat meat doesn't mean we have to make their short lives miserable, and the fact is that industrial farming practices often mean that the animals spend their entire lives in horrifying conditions."

Well, I'm not! Since when do these creatures care about me? Until they do, I'm not sympathetic to their "needs"--nor can I claim to know what "their" needs might be.

I think your sympathy is horribly misplaced: there are starving human beings in the world to "sympathize" about and buy products for--why do so much for animals unable to rerutn the favor? We may as well "sympathize" for the brain dead!

--Orson

Well, I'm not! Since when do these creatures care about me? Until they do, I'm not sympathetic to their "needs"--nor can I claim to know what "their" needs might be.

I think your sympathy is horribly misplaced: there are starving human beings in the world to "sympathize" about and buy products for--why do so much for animals unable to rerutn the favor? We may as well "sympathize" for the brain dead!

So every time you buy, say, eggs -- do you buy the ones that were likely produced in an overcrowded hen house, compare the price to that of the "free range" variety, and then promptly mail the difference off to an international children's fund?

Reminds me of the mother telling her kid to finish eating dinner because there are starving children in Africa who would be grateful for such good food, and the sassy little tart snaps back, "then send it to them."

Anyone who has ever spent much time around any sort of animal knows that they DO experience, very keenly, emotions and pain. I do not subscribe to the philosophy that animals have "rights" equal, or superior, to those of humans. But I also find it amazing that a society could have an attitude that genuinely cares about other human beings while treating the animals it exploits like compost. They're both moral positions; just not morally equivalent positions.

It's good to be concerned about other people who have less than a good life, but putting the animals that make your own life good in awful situations is a little discomfitting, and the resources that can be invested toward improving the quality of life for commercial animals are not necessarily wasted just because a human somewhere else is starving.

Understand I think we SHOULD help the latter (starving human), but it doesn't need to be mutually exclusive of addressing the former (mistreated animal).

The other problem with that is that we've reached food sufficiency -- we produce more than enough food to feed everyone. And most people would -- and do -- gladly pay a few cents to give the starving what they need. The problem is the rotten governments that steal the food or prevent its distribution for political reasons, not the cost of the food.

First of all, www.fishinghurts.com , a PETA website, exists, for anyone who cares to only appear intelligent but doesn't wish to do a bit of research.

Jane, that recipe of yours is easily veganized. =o) Thank God for soy.

You state that the killing of nonhuman animals for food is inevitable. In that way, you contradict yourself, for *you* don't eat them.

Both the well-known Holocaust and the philosophy that nonhuman animals are lowly and only here for us to use and abuse them are horrid. As a Jew, I've been studying the Holocaust for my entire life. What bothers me more than human life being so devalued as it was is the simple suffering I can feel when I read or hear accounts of the Shoah. How could mostly innocents be made to suffer in such a way? How terrible it must have been for them! How lucky *I* am not to have experienced that for myself, even though I feel a fraction of their pain when I observe their accounts. Every time I see a Holocaust movie, or read a Holocaust book, I'm disgusted... and inspired. I'm disgusted at the sheer cruelty of it and I'm inspired to do all that I can to reduce current needless suffering in the world. Right now, in Hebrew High, I'm taking "Holocaust I." It's almost the end of the semester, and I have to write a paper on what I got out of the book Night by Elie Wiesel. I will write that I am lucky enough to know of the suffering and genocide that still abounds, and that I can do something about it, if nothing more than a boycott. I will write that Elie Wiesel shouldn't have had to go through what he did, and Anne Frank shouldn't have had to experience the horrors of Auschwitz and hiding, and all the other lesser known Jews and other minorities didn't deserve what they got. I'll write that the domestic cow doesn't deserve it, and that the intelligent pig doesn't deserve it, and the social chicken doesn't deserve it. They feel and suffer just as much as you and I, and they just don't deserve it, especially when their suffering only serves two purposes: to harm the consumer's body and to harm the earth.

I'm not an "extremist" and I'm not a hippy, and I'm a happy person. I just have made a simple move to do what I can to reduce some suffering in the world. It's easy to go vegan, and it makes you feel good; physically, emotionally. Have a nice day. =o)

-Stephanie, 14, U.S.

First of all, www.fishinghurts.com , a PETA website, exists, for anyone who cares to only appear intelligent but doesn't wish to do a bit of research.

Jane, that recipe of yours is easily veganized. =o) Thank God for soy.

You state that the killing of nonhuman animals for food is inevitable. In that way, you contradict yourself, for *you* don't eat them.

Both the well-known Holocaust and the philosophy that nonhuman animals are lowly and only here for us to use and abuse them are horrid. As a Jew, I've been studying the Holocaust for my entire life. What bothers me more than human life being so devalued as it was is the simple suffering I can feel when I read or hear accounts of the Shoah. How could mostly innocents be made to suffer in such a way? How terrible it must have been for them! How lucky *I* am not to have experienced that for myself, even though I feel a fraction of their pain when I observe their accounts. Every time I see a Holocaust movie, or read a Holocaust book, I'm disgusted... and inspired. I'm disgusted at the sheer cruelty of it and I'm inspired to do all that I can to reduce current needless suffering in the world. Right now, in Hebrew High, I'm taking "Holocaust I." It's almost the end of the semester, and I have to write a paper on what I got out of the book Night by Elie Wiesel. I will write that I am lucky enough to know of the suffering and genocide that still abounds, and that I can do something about it, if nothing more than a boycott. I will write that Elie Wiesel shouldn't have had to go through what he did, and Anne Frank shouldn't have had to experience the horrors of Auschwitz and hiding, and all the other lesser known Jews and other minorities didn't deserve what they got. I'll write that the domestic cow doesn't deserve it, and that the intelligent pig doesn't deserve it, and the social chicken doesn't deserve it. They feel and suffer just as much as you and I, and they just don't deserve it, especially when their suffering only serves two purposes: to harm the consumer's body and to harm the earth.

I'm not an "extremist" and I'm not a hippy, and I'm a happy person. I just have made a simple move to do what I can to reduce some suffering in the world. It's easy to go vegan, and it makes you feel good; physically, emotionally. Have a nice day. =o)

-Stephanie, 14, U.S.

Stephanie,
Just because you say" I am not and exteremist" doesn't mean it is true. If you believe that raising, killing, and eating animals is the equivalent of the Holocost, then you you most definately ARE an extremist. Such an ideology is far from the mainstream. I don't know if you are a Hippy, but you may be a happy, naive, extremist.
The health risks associated with excluding animal products from your diet are greater than you probably realize. Nutrient deficiencies are are common among all vegitarian groups, especially growing children. Vegitarians also have lower life expectancies. Noone who has ever lived to be 100 has ever been a vegitarian. The secret to a long productive life is moderation in everything, an active lifestyle, and positive outlook. I hope you live long enough to learn a little moderation.

Comments are Closed.