An Animal-Friendly Life

Vegan education: The new BVA video kiosk

2009-03-12T00:55:00.005-04:00

Due to all the components and construction materials, the Boston Vegan Association's new "OVED" (outdoor video educational display, or "faunette") was neither cheap nor easy to build, but I'm pretty excited to see what kind of effect it has on our weekly tabling in the community. The video isn't quite done yet, but we at least have enough footage to get the idea across for now. Take a look:

FYI, we'd been using a poster (below) while developing and building the OVED. Though that turned out pretty well, it simply doesn't have the impact of an audio/video presentation. I have to thank everyone in and out of the BVA who has contributed ideas, time, footage, and so forth to help the OVED come together.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Guest post up over at Paw-Talk

2009-03-01T09:23:00.004-05:00

Paw Talk: Love animals? Why aren’t you vegan?

Like Mary, I was invited to write a guest post over at the blog for Paw Talk, a site that is very much developed and promoted from the traditional welfare view. In other words, the animals of concern there are all "pets" and the issues that affect them are those of welfare and the law. The invitation came almost exactly two months ago, and at first I wasn't even sure I'd be able to offer anything. I certainly don't want to reinforce the notion that animals are means to our ends, rather than ends in themselves (the notion of a "pet" or a "companion animal" is rooted in our conception of that animal's relationship to us, rather than that animals' autonomy).

After pondering the matter for a bit, I decided that the only type of post that would make sense for me to provide was the sort of discussion found at the heart of the Boston Vegan Association's "Respecting Animals Means Going Vegan" pamphlet, which addresses people's concern for cats and dogs and extrapolates that to animals beyond those generally considered "pets". I connect to this discussion on a personal level because my own veganism was facilitated by making the connection between animals I had considered family and those I had considered commodities and realizing that my behavior toward animals was inconsistent. Once I had the idea, it took me a couple of months to find time to adapt the pamphlet's base argument into something resembling a blog post, but it was finally published today. Here is a link to the entry if you'd like to check it out. Let me know what you think.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Animal Rights 101, part seven: New Welfarism (cont'd)

2009-02-17T15:25:00.006-05:00

Introduction[1]

In my previous post, I introduced new welfarism, a term coined by Gary L. Francione to describe an ideology that pervades the work of the modern global animal protection movement, commonly known as the 'animal rights movement'. New welfarists hold as their goal the abolition of animal exploitation (or animal 'liberation') but, understanding that abolition will not occur overnight, they pursue a strategy of welfare reform to incrementally achieve this end while fulfilling our duty to today's animals.

While it is true that abolition will not occur overnight and that we have a duty to avoid harming today's animals, new welfarism is a morally and empirically flawed ideology. Though it differs conceptually from traditional welfarism in being ideologically opposed to all institutionalized animal exploitation, in practice new welfarism offers nothing new at all, and so it should be rejected.

New welfarism at work: An example

In order to illustrate this claim, I will refer throughout this post to Proposition 2, a California ballot measure that was heavily promoted and backed by many activists and organizations guided by new welfarist ideology. After a long, costly campaign, voters overwhelmingly approved Prop. 2 last November, and now it is scheduled to become law in 2015.

In brief, the law will require that, for the majority of each day, calves, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. Note that law will not abolish confinement systems; it will merely regulate how certain animals may be confined. Also note that the regulation includes numerous exemptions, including a seven day period prior to a pregnant pig's expected date of delivery, as well as the use of animals for 4-H programs, rodeos, fairs, research, veterinary purposes, slaughter, and transportation.

The defects of new welfarism

With the foregoing in mind, let's critically examine the three key new welfarist beliefs I identified in my previous post, AR101, part six.
1. The new welfarist believes that legal and institutional welfare reform campaigns offer animals increased protection and reduce animal suffering today.
Welfare reform does not lead to meaningful protection for animals' interests

While it's conceivable that a given welfare reform could meaningfully protect the interests of nonhuman animals, the record shows that hundreds of years of welfare reform have generally failed to achieve this goal. In Animals, Property, and the Law, Gary L. Francione examines the record in great detail. In short, he concludes that as long as animals are property they will lack any basic legal rights and their interests will count for less than those of their owners. Recalling AR 101, Part 4:

Without legal rights, even an animal's most significant interests cannot be protected from being traded away in favor of any trivial human interest so long as that human interest is in some recognized end.

For example, a scientist who harms an animal in the recognized institutional end of seeking knowledge is legally justified in doing so, while a sadist who harms an animal for pleasure is not justified.

Some argue that the property status of nonhuman animals cannot prevent us from achieving institutional or legal reforms on animals' behalf. But as long as animals are property, welfare reform will fail to protect their interests beyond measures which are cost-justified, stymieing attempts to reduce their suffering. As Francione puts it:

[B]ecause animals are property, animal welfare standards will generally only protect the interests of animals to the extent that the protection facilitates economically efficient exploitation.

Example: Prop. 2 fails to meaningfully protect animals' interests

Prop. 2 was an attempt by advocacy groups to bypass agribusiness interests and lawmakers in order to force various animal-using industries into following regulations that are not cost-justified. Taking their case directly to the public, new welfarist advocates succeeded in passing that bill into law. But despite all the acclaim for this legislation, Prop. 2 does not provide any meaningful protection for animals' interests.

First of all, despite its language, the measure will have no impact on the interests or welfare of calves and sows. The "veal" and "pork" industries in California were already voluntarily moving away from crate confinement systems before Prop. 2 was approved.[2] This leaves us to examine whether Prop. 2 will meaningfully protect the interests of hens.

Prior to Prop. 2, the egg industry in California had not made any overall shift away from intensive confinement operations. One can point to a variety of reasons for this, but with regard to protecting animals' interests, the industry generally refers to research that demonstrates certain welfare advantages battery cages have over enriched cage, cage-free, and free-range operations. Indeed, an expose of RSPCA's Freedom Foods welfare scheme reveals that 'cage-free' systems cause hens much suffering.

"Stocking density" in cage-free operations is still rather tight (just over one square foot per bird by the RSPCA's standards); the rate of injuries are higher than with battery cage systems; hens are more liable to live in the waste that gathers on barn floors, leading to diseases that produce higher mortality rates; and birds may have diminished access to water and food, particularly less aggressive hens who are pecked away by more dominant hens (click through the links in the previous paragraph for specific references).[3]

However, this may all be moot. Rather than converting their facilities to cage-free systems, California operators are generally expected to exit the business. But because "national egg demand [will] not change significantly," egg 'production' will continue. Other states will step up to meet the demand.[4] This means that hens will still find themselves confined to standard battery cages-just not cages located in California.

So, while Prop. 2 was sold as a just "modest measure" to reduce suffering, we can see that it won't even do that much. In effect, by 2015 Prop. 2 will have merely redistributed the business of the U.S. egg industry.

In the long run, as the human population grows and the demand for eggs grows with it, the number of exploited birds will grow, too. By prolonging animal exploitation rather than curtailing it through vegan campaigns, welfare reform could well be responsible for more animal suffering.

2. The new welfarist believes that, by raising public awareness of the cruelty caused by institutionalized animal exploitation, reform campaigns will prompt people to reduce or even eliminate their use and consumption of animals and products derived from animals. Under this belief, new welfarists support and promote non-vegan vegetarianism as a way to reduce one's contribution to animal suffering.

New welfarism misleads the public and it does not reduce animal exploitation

While new welfarists certainly do present the suffering of exploited animals to consumers and voters in their calls for reform, they leverage this awareness in ways that mislead the public. Welfare reform perpetuates the belief that animal use and consumption are morally acceptable. Promoting 'humane' animal products and non-vegan vegetarianism further reinforces this belief.

Misleading the public

Welfare reform perpetuates the belief that, though some practices may be unacceptable in the course of exploiting nonhuman animals, there are acceptable ways to exploit them. This reinforces arbitrary moral distinctions between animals and how they are exploited, ignores their right not to be used as property in the first place, and directly conflicts with the rights view-that animal exploitation is morally unjustifiable.

Prop. 2 offers a text-book example: Apart from being deliberately misleading[5], the campaign in support of the measure misled the public by suggesting that chicken eggs are acceptable products for human consumption so long as they come from hens who can spread their wings and stretch their necks, that calf flesh is morally acceptable so long as calves are able to turn around during their lifelong confinement, and so on. This is entirely consistent with the traditional welfare review that regards animals as property, not with the rights view.

While it might be 'better' not to confine nonhuman animals in cages so small that they can barely move (and it might not), such a debate completely misses the underlying point: we have no moral justification for purpose-breeding nonhumans into lives of mutilation, confinement, and slaughter in the first place.

Welfare reform facilitates acceptance of animal exploitation

When the public is misled into believing that the central moral issue with respect to our relationship with animals is that we should treat them better, it doesn't hear that exploiting animals is harmful to the animals. It doesn't hear that nonhuman beings deserve the same moral consideration for their interest in avoiding pain and suffering or that they have a moral right not to be used as property in the first place. The public only hears the vague admonition that it should reduce its contribution to animal suffering, the idea being that "everyone can agree that farmed animals should be treated with kindness."

Remember that though traditional welfarists believe that the animals who 'sacrifice' themselves 'for' us deserve 'better' treatment, they have no moral issue with using animals as resources. Because traditional welfarists are inclined to change their behavior in ways that fit their current view of nonhumans, and because welfare reform fails to challenge this view, we should not be surprised when most people respond to reform campaigns by continuing to consume animals and their products.

Indeed, welfare reform reassures people that it's acceptable to consume animals and their products because it creates the impression that pigs, hens, and calves are being treated more 'humanely'. Is it any wonder that consumers think they are doing animals a favor by voting for welfare reforms like Prop. 2?

'Humane' animal products and vegetarianism

Though the abolition of animal exploitation requires at its very basic level that we abolish our personal use and consumption of animals (i.e., we must be vegan), even vegan advocacy organizations pitch veganism merely as "a tool to reduce suffering" rather than the least one can do to respect the moral rights of nonhuman animals. We also commonly find veganism downplayed as difficult, "extreme", and even optional. 'Humane' animal products, non-vegan vegetarianism, and 'flexitarianism' are hailed as "a step in the right direction", undercutting the essential message that use is the problem and further misleading the public into believing that the use and consumption of animals and their products is morally acceptable (it only has be to done 'right').

Under the same misguided belief that these are 'steps in the right direction', we find certain animal advocacy organizations partnering or otherwise collaborating with animal-using corporations and slaughterhouse designers. Out of these relationships we've seen the emergence of 'humane certified', 'sustainable and humane certification', and 'Freedom Foods' programs, which amount to a sort of 'greenwashing' that allows people to feel good (or at least "less bad") about purchasing and consuming products that are deeply problematic. They obscure the fact that animals exploited under these programs are still molested, artificially inseminated, mutilated, confined, transported, and killed to produce products that serve only our trivial interests, again reinforcing the idea that animals can be used and consumed without causing them harm.

Certainly some people will boycott certain animal exploiters or animal products from time to time, especially when information about specific forms of 'egregious' animal cruelty comes to light, but this is not due to any fundamental objection to animal exploitation. Consumers who boycott Pilgrim's Pride because its workers were caught inflicting "sadistic abuse" on birds still purchase bird flesh from other companies guilty of "routine, standard cruelty," and they have no reason not to return to Pilgrim's Pride products after the workers are fired and measures are put into place to supposedly avoid similar incidents occurring in the future. Similarly, they support reforms like Prop. 2 but they continue right on eating eggs, satisfied that they are fulfilling their obligation to treat hens 'humanely'. We also find that, once reassured that 'foie gras', 'veal', and so on are being 'humanely' produced, people return to eating these previously taboo 'foods', too.

But what of non-vegan vegetarianism? Why isn't that 'a step in the right direction'? Veganism and vegetarianism represent two entirely different ideologies. Veganism holds that all animal exploitation is unjustifiable while non-vegan vegetarianism holds that using animals is acceptable (e.g., for their eggs and milk). Far from being a step in the right direction, vegetarianism perpetuates a morally arbitrary distinction between consuming the flesh of animals and consuming their eggs and milk, which are produced in ways that arguably cause more suffering than flesh products[6]. Even a vegetarian who consumes the smallest amounts of animal products accepts the belief that it is acceptable to exploit (and thus harm) animals for trivial purposes, which is consistent with the traditional welfare view, but not at all consistent with the rights view. We should not be so stunned, then, to find that vegetarians are returning to eating animal products. Selling veganism as a tool to "boycott cruelty" is problematic for similar reasons. Given that cruel treatment was regarded as the fundamental problem all along, and not use, we meet "cheating" vegans, "flexible" vegans, and even those that have slid back into full-blown carnism.[7]

Demand for animal products will not end as long as advocates keep asking the public to replace one form of exploitation with another, perpetuating the belief that animal exploitation is morally acceptable. Abolition will not come as long as advocates continue to focus on how animals are treated and leave the discourse over use off the table, as long as ovo-lacto-vegetarianism, "cage-free" eggs, and "humane meat" are regarded as morally viable options, and as long as adherence to veganism is presented as being extreme, unnecessary, too difficult, or even "fanatical." Animal rights advocates need to ask themselves what they are doing perpetuating any of these views.
3. The new welfarist believes that reform campaigns will damage the animal-using industries.
Welfare reform causes little financial impact, if any

Though it is quite easy to find industry complaints about the cost of complying with new regulations-and, in some cases, smaller operators do indeed have trouble staying in business-welfare reform campaigns fail to fiscally damage agribusiness overall and, in certain cases, may even immunize exploiters from financial harm (the foie gras 'ban' in California is one example of the latter[8]).

Let's return to California's Proposition 2 to understand how welfare reform fails to damage animal exploiting industries. First of all, though touted as a "monumental victory for farm animals," this particular measure will not have any impact on the 'veal' and 'pork' industries, despite how the bill is worded (as previously discussed). But what about the egg industry? Prop. 2 will effectively bar California's $336 million egg industry from confining hens in battery cages as of 2015.

Assuming there is no reversal or delay before then, Prop 2 will no doubt have some fiscal impact on California's egg industry, the 6th largest in the United States, which relies primarily on battery cage systems and would be forced into costly retooling or shutting down their operations entirely. Though it might be tempting to view this as an example of an industry being forced to accept a measure that is not cost-justified[9], the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) itself, the main proponent behind Prop. 2, released an economic report suggesting that California's egg industry could well survive Prop. 2 to become the "nation's prime producer of cage-free eggs." As it was, California's egg industry had been in decline (54% since 1970), so this sort of move could actually have a positive long-term impact if California's new "humane" egg industry finds itself the go-to source for 'cage-free' or 'free range' eggs.

Even if this is not the case, the national egg industry will absorb California's demand for cheap, battery-caged eggs, and so we will see no meaningful impact on the institution of egg production (or on consumption) as a whole. Thirty percent of shelled eggs (non-liquid egg product) sold in California are already produced in the Midwest, for example, and businesses outside the state will continue to meet California's demand for eggs.[10] We should therefore expect "little, if any, cost increase and no substantial impact on prices to California consumers."[11]

One might argue that, if bills like Prop. 2 are enacted all over the United States, it would destroy the national egg industry, too, but that is short-sighted. If laws like Prop. 2 pass were enacted in all 50 states, the U.S. egg industry would of course incur the costs of re-equipping in the short run, but rather than destroying the industry as a whole, we should instead expect increased corporate consolidation as deeper-pocketed egg producers survive and smaller egg 'farms' are bought up or shut down. Further, unless legislation is passed banning the importation of eggs from other countries, there would still remain the possibility of obtaining eggs from battery caged hens.

There is simply no reason to believe that welfare reform will impact the demand for eggs in the long run, since the consumption of eggs has not itself been challenged.[12] A slight increase in the price of eggs will at best cause only a short-term impact on purchasing habits, and this is to say nothing about whether some people will eat more eggs or return to eating eggs because now they think doing so is less harmful to hens. And of course the U.S. population continues to grow, growing the U.S. egg industry along with it as people continue to demand eggs.

Welfare reform economically enhances exploitation

I noted above that despite the widespread belief (and message) that Prop. 2 would fiscally harm the egg industry, HSUS identified the potential for Prop. 2 legislation to economically enhance hen exploitation. We don't have to look far to find additional corroboration for the notion that welfare reform economically enhances exploitation. Ironically, that evidence is often provided by the new welfarist animal advocacy organizations themselves, including the world's largest 'animal rights' group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

These organizations work directly with corporations pitching various reforms as economic enhancements. In support of the controlled atmosphere killing of chickens, for example, PETA prepared a report for the industry that stated, "CAK increases product quality and yield." HSUS also produced a report, concluding that "a plant processing 1 million broilers per week with an average dressed carcass weight of 4.5 pounds and wholesale price of mce_marker.80 per pound would increase annual revenue by $1.87 million after adopting CAK." One look at the long list of industry endorsements for CAK and CAS (Controlled Atmosphere Stunning) reveals that PETA and HSUS's 'adversaries' agree with them.

Because welfare reforms like these are "cost-justified', they are accepted by the industry, resulting in 'victories' for both advocates and corporate animal exploiters. For example, last year KFC Canada's president, recognizing that he and PETA "had no differences of opinion about how animals should be treated" and not wanting anything "negative attached to [KFC Canada's] brand," agreed to "[p]hase in purchases of 100% of its chickens from suppliers that use controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK)"[13] In exchange for this 'concession', PETA dropped a 5 year-long pressure campaign against the chain.

The failure of welfare reform to damage the animal-using industries reveals the fundamental flaw of attempting to effect social change through legal and institutional reform: trying to eliminate demand by reforming the supply is completely backward. California's Proposition 2 exemplifies the problem with this approach. When it comes into effect in 2015, Californians will not suddenly stop eating eggs, nor will they suddenly start paying more for eggs laid by hens confined in cage-free facilities. They will still be consuming cheap eggs sold by companies based outside of California, because nothing will have fundamentally changed.

Conclusion: We can't walk toward abolition by walking away from it

The abolition of institutionalized animal exploitation is a revolutionary goal that depends on a sweeping societal shift away from the traditional welfare view-that animals are mere resources-toward a view that regards animals as right-holders. Of course, no one expects abolition to occur overnight, but new welfarism takes this observation to the extreme and untenable conclusion that abolition is an "all-or-nothing" "hypothetical future goal" devoid of incremental possibilities.

New welfarists seek to "ease the suffering" of animals, in large part by reforming the 'low-hanging fruit' of animal agribusiness (a direct critique of which can be found here). Though this strategy derives not from the reasonable belief that we ought to try to help today's animals, it also relies on the unfounded belief that reform campaigns will systematically eradicate the animal-using industries' 'worst' abuses one by one, protecting animals' interests to a greater and greater degree until there are no more 'worst' abuses to eradicate.

But because welfare reform obscures (and even contradicts) the message that using nonhuman animals as mere resources is the fundamental problem, it is incapable of bringing about abolition. Rather, welfare reform is fully consistent with the traditional welfare view we've had for hundreds of years. It is incoherent to suggest that we can precipitate a shift away from the traditional welfare view by reinforcing that view.

What about the claim that welfare reform fosters a climate that is conducive to abolition? It's hard to see how reinforcing traditional welfarism could be conducive to abolition, but 'evidence' is usually presented in the form of vegetarians who later become vegan or those new welfarist vegans like myself who eventually became abolitionists. It's suggested that surely this is a path to abolition offered by new welfarism. But this is no 'proof'.

In effect, those 'converts' that new welfarism does win over to veganism amount to a collateral, sometimes even ephemeral, win. As I described above, there are serious problems with promoting veganism as 'merely a tool to reduce suffering'. It perpetuates the traditional welfare mindset-that cruel treatment is the problem-and runs the very real risk of even vegans 'cheating' or sliding back into consuming animals and animal products. I don't mean to suggest that all vegans are at risk of going back to using and consuming animals, but we know of highly prominent 'vegans' who see no problem with "indulging" in the "luxury" of animal products (some of them are more discreet about it, such as the noted animal advocate who asked me how 'strict' I am in my veganism before going on to eat animal products in front of me).

There is no empirical evidence to support the belief that non-vegans are less willing to listen accept an abolitionist view than a welfarist view, and there is no evidence that vegans who are never exposed to the rights view will come around to this view on their own. So it's wrong to suggest that new welfarism leads to abolitionism. Rather, abolitionism leads to abolitionism. So, as people who are supposedly hoping to build a social movement capable of shifting the dominant paradigm to one that respects animals' moral right not to be treated as property, shouldn't we stop misleading people about what's at stake? Shouldn't we stop perpetuating use? Shouldn't we as animal rights advocates be encouraging people to go vegan for abolitionist reasons?

Taking the rights view seriously means rejecting new welfarism in favor of an incremental approach that is morally and logically consistent with the end goal of abolition, and I will discuss just such an approach in the next installment of AR101.

Next: Abolitionism

Previous: New Welfarism

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For more on the defects of new welfarism, read Gary L. Francione's blog entry, The Four Problems of Animal Welfare: In a Nutshell at Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach.

[2] Egg producers at odds over Proposition 2, San Diego Union Tribune by way of San Diego Farm Bureau (September 28, 2008).

[3] We should also not forget that whether a hen is confined to a battery cages or another system of confinement, her life before and after those 18 months of captivity are pretty much the same. She is still bred to produce eggs at the debilitating rate of 300 per year, her bones are still depleted of calcium (leading to breaks that prevent her from accessing food and water), and she is still captured and killed if she survives all of that long enough to be ground into food.

[4] Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egg-laying Hen Housing in California, University of California Agricultural Issues Center (July 2008).

[5]A few quick examples:

As mentioned above, California's small "pork" industry was already phasing out gestation crates. Still, images of pigs (both confined and "happy") were used to mislead activists, donors, and voters into believing that Prop. 2 would have a direct impact on the well-being of sows.

Likewise, campaigners asserted that calves would be treated better if the measure passed (images of calf confinement were also utilized), though California's even smaller "veal" industry was already phasing out crating systems under the American Veal Association's resolution to convert the entire industry to 'group housing' methodology by December 31, 2017.

The one California industry that Prop. 2 has the potential to affect is its egg industry. Prop. 2 supports were misled into believing that they would improve the wellbeing of hens even though eggs will still come from the same sorts of operations as before when the measure goes into effect in 2015 (examined in response to Belief 3).

Furthermore, the campaign conveniently left out that the Prop. 2 does not explicitly ban all confinement systems (such as enriched cage systems), and the campaign ignores the welfare problems veterinarians observe in other sorts of operations, including 'cage-free' operations.

[6] Unlike steers bred for their flesh, for example, cows purpose-bred for their milk spend their entire lives in confinement and are exploited intensively until they are 'spent', at which time they too are sent to slaughter to become ground 'beef'. Adding to the suffering, despite the toll it takes on their bodies (calcium depletion, infections, and more), 'dairy cows' are kept continuously impregnated in order to maintain a high volume of milk production. Calves are a natural byproduct of this artificial insemination, and those that are not retained to become 'dairy cows' are shipped off to become 'veal'. The vegetarian's demand for eggs also ignores the 260 million one day-old male chicks that are discarded, ground up, or suffocated at hatcheries in the U.S. every year [Metheringham J. Disposal of day-old chicks-the way forward. World Poultry 16(11):25, p. 27 (2000)], along with the inevitable "depopulation" of "spent" hens, who are by that point best suited to be processed into animal feed.

[7] See this AAFL entry regarding a Good Magazine article that highlighted a former PETA-supporting vegan who delights in the benefits of "humanely raised" beef, calling the transition from activist for the animals to someone who cares for then kills her own animals a 'transformative experience.'

[8] The California 'foie gras' 'ban', which wasn't a ban on 'foie gras' at all. It merely regulated how birds may be fed. In terms of immunizing exploiters against fiscal damage, it nullified any pending lawsuits against 'foie gras' producers. Sonoma Foie Gras, California's only 'foie gras' producer, hailed the new law as a victory. The company's president, Guillermo Gonzales, said the interval before the law goes into effect would be used "to demonstrate that foie gras production is safe and proper." Even if this research and lobbying effort fails to cause the law to be repealed, Sonoma could adopt a 'humane' process for producing 'foie gras' that would meet the standards set by the law. This would in effect shield the 'foie gras' industry in California and protect its continued profitability.

The case studies go on and on. For example, another strong precedent is the Animal Welfare Act. The act did not end vivisection, of course, nor did it meaningfully protect animals from harm. It has allowed researchers to use the AWA as 'proof' that animals are well cared for even as it shields them from legal action. For more details on this and other welfare reform failures, see Animals, Property, and the Law (Part III), by Gary L. Francione.

[9] Among other financial advantages, battery cages offer the industry greater "stocking density" and reduced feed costs over other confinement methods.

[10] Following Proposition 2: Where do we go from here?, wattpoultry.com (Nov. 17, 2008).

[11] Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egg-laying Hen Housing in California, University of California Agricultural Issues Center (July 2008).

[12] For example, in May of 2004, Austria banned battery cage systems (battery cage operations were to have been shuttered by January 1, 2009), but there the production of eggs between 2004 and 2007 has actually gone up. There is no empirical evidence to indicate that it will go down.

[13] KFC Canada and PETA reach agreement, WorldPoultry.net (June 2, 2008).

Free abolitionist vegan pamphlets announced

2009-02-12T23:10:00.007-05:00

I'm pleased to announce that, thanks to the support of a kind and generous donor, the Boston Vegan Association has launched a major new initiative. Effective immediately, the organization will fund the printing and distribution of its full-color abolitionist vegan outreach pamphlet to qualifying advocates throughout North America.

To learn more about the program and how to apply, visit the pamphlet application page.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Uploaded: Interview on local Boston radio show

2009-01-31T15:17:00.004-05:00

Click here to listen to an archived copy of my radio interview this morning on WZBC's "Expanding Awareness" (right-click to download to your computer and listen to it on your iPod or whatever).

Note: I'm still working at this whole radio interview thing, but overall it went fine, and I have been asked to come back some time, so hopefully I'll get a chance to talk more about foundational stuff and less about people's health concerns.

Feel free to share your thoughts as a comment below.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Upcoming BVA interview on call-in radio show

2009-01-27T23:56:00.002-05:00

This Saturday, from 10a to 11a, tune in to WZBC 90.3 if you're interested in hearing an interview with me regarding the connection between animal rights and veganism, as well as my organization, the Boston Vegan Association. I will appear in-studio with the host of "Expanding Awareness," Victor Venckus. WZBC is sandwiched between WGBH and WBUR on the FM dial in Boston, MA. If you that station is not broadcast in your area, you can listen in online at wzbc.org.

FYI, the second half of the show is a call-in segment: (617) 552-4686.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Our Daily Bread finally available on DVD

2009-01-21T07:26:00.001-05:00

In my VegNews Magazine review of Our Daily Bread a while back, I called it "an unflinching depiction of the of widely-used, little-known practices formulated by modern agricultural businesses in response to our unceasing demand for plentiful, inexpensive food."

The word "unflinching" still resonates with me. This movie literally does not "blink." Rather than using music and editing as tools to manipulate the audience, director Nikolaus Geyrhalter skips the score and simply locks the camera off for long takes, treating the each scene as a different window into the world of industrial agriculture. That isn't to say that the shots are boring. The compositions are, dare I say, artful, and the lighting is excellent. There is plenty of disturbing footage, indeed, but the facilities are so sterile and mechanized that the shock comes less from disgust than from the mundanity of death--as if the animals on these assembly lines are no different from the produce seen packaged in the fields in another scene--and from the complete absence of warmth and humanity, even in the scenes involving human beings. The workers we see disassembling pigs seem no different than the workers you might see assembling a car in an auto factory.

Our Daily Bread has been called the "2001: A Space Odyssey of modern food production. It's definitely worth a look. If you'd like to purchase a copy, the distributor has offered AAFL readers 15% off the $29.98 price when ordering from them. Just reference "An Animal-Friendly Life 15% discount" in the notes when checking out.

When you see the film, or if you already have, please share your thoughts in the Comments area below.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

"I'm Vegan" interviews at Animal Voices and VegNews.com

2009-01-20T00:28:00.005-05:00

As "casting" for I'm Vegan starts to wrap up, news about the project is likely to come more frequently, though I don't plan to post too many updates for I'm Vegan here. Work is underway on the production version of the official website, which will include its own blog. I plan to use that to share news, photos, and even behind-the-scenes videos once it goes live.

In the meantime, feel free to check out this archived radio interview with Animal Voices' Lauren Corman. It went live late on Friday afternoon, so I had a chance to give it a listen in the background while working on casting stuff that night. From what I could tell, I managed to avoid sounding like a blathering idiot for the better part of the broadcast, so perhaps you'll think it worth your while. (FYI, the interview starts about 10 minutes in, after the news). Also, if you're short on time, this online interview at VegNews.com is a quick read.

That's it for now. Weird to not post for two months, and then to post 3 times in less than a week (and there's more to come soon). Which reminds me: Don't forget to read the latest AR101 installment. I split it off from a longer post I've been working on periodically over the last couple of months, minus vacation and various commitments. I hope to post the next installment as soon time permits, preferably a lot sooner than the last interval! It's tough finding quality time to work on these types of posts between prepping the documentary and my various commitments with the BVA. but I do plan to conclude the series before I leave town to shoot I'm Vegan, so stay tuned!

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Chocolate pudding, plus bonus food pr0n!

2009-01-19T00:06:00.008-05:00

I get the late-night munchies like anyone else (and I have a notorious sweet tooth), but I don't often have something in the fridge or cupboards that really calls out to me, so I end up prowling the kitchen, unsatisfied. Well, tonight some silken tofu I had bought for just such an occasion finally came in handy.

I found an interesting-looking recipe for chocolate pudding that incorporated peanut butter (on this old page, but you have to scroll down to find it), which sounded about right. I was out of peanut butter, though, so I went for cashew butter instead. Turned out tasty, so I thought I'd share the recipe. After all, it's been ages since I've posted about food, and I figure some of you might appreciate having another easy snack recipe on hand. Let me know what you think!

Silky chocolate pudding

Ingredients

12 oz. silken tofu (I used a 1 lb. package and saved 4 oz to blend into a smoothie in the morning)

1/3 cup + 2 tablespoons unsweetened cocoa powder

1/3 cup + 2 tablespoons pure maple syrup

2 tsp. pure vanilla extract

2 tbsp. natural cashew butter

Instructions

Dump everything together in a food processor or blender and blend until smooth

Pour into individual serving dishes, if desired (or one big bowl just for you!)

Chill for about a half an hour or so in the fridge, if you can wait that long

Eat!

Oh, and below is the bonus food pr0n, a Chickpea Casserole I made last week from page 96 of Isa Chandra Moskowitz's Vegan With A Vengeance:

Excellent stuff. I swear I can barely cook without directions, but as long as people like Isa keep writing books, I'll keep eating tasty food.

What do you think? Share your comments below.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Animal Rights 101, part six: New Welfarism

2009-01-16T16:39:00.004-05:00

Introduction

In order to respect the basic moral rights of nonhuman animals, we must abolish their use. Once we’ve done this in our own lives by becoming vegan, we are left with the question of how to abolish the use of animals in society at large. Given that the use of animals will not end overnight, and that we have a duty to help today’s animals, the question can be more specifically framed as, “What sort of advocacy leads incrementally to abolition?”

Much of the modern global animal protection movement’s advocacy work is grounded in the belief that we can bring about abolition--or at least animal “liberation”--by focusing on how nonhuman animals are treated by humans. Broadly speaking, the idea is that advocating welfare reform and educating the public about animal suffering will incrementally reduce that suffering, eventually leading to the abolition of animal use or to greater consideration for the preferences of nonhuman animals. In his work, professor Gary L. Francione calls this ideology new welfarism.[1]

New welfarism

There are at least two major strands of new welfarism recognizable within the modern global animal protection movement.

The first is comprised of people who consider themselves abolitionists. Their objective is to eliminate animal use. The second strand includes those utilitarians who, like Peter Singer, seek as their objective the equal consideration of interests or preferences, not abolition. Because utilitarianism is not inherently opposed to animal use, this position can be difficult to distinguish from traditional welfarism, which holds that it is acceptable to use nonhuman animals as a means to human ends. But unlike most traditional welfarists, Singer-style new welfarists believe that humans and animals are equal and that their preferences must always be weighed equally.

Regardless of their differences, what all new welfarists share in common is that they focus their efforts primarily on improving the welfare of exploited animals—i.e., their treatment—rather than directly challenging the notion of animal use.[2] They believe that that their objective can be achieved through welfare-based reforms and by educating the public about how animals are treated. Below are some key beliefs characteristic of new welfarist ideology. A new welfarist need not hold all these beliefs, nor should this list be seen as exhaustive.

The new welfarist believes that legal and institutional welfare reform campaigns offer animals increased protection and reduce animal suffering today.

The new welfarist believes that, by raising public awareness of the cruelty caused by institutionalized animal exploitation, reform campaigns will prompt people to reduce or even eliminate their use and consumption of animals and products derived from animals. Under this belief, new welfarists support and promote non-vegan vegetarianism as a way to reduce one’s contribution to animal suffering.

The new welfarist believes that reform campaigns will damage the animal-using industries.

In the next installment of AR101, I will examine these beliefs in more detail to determine whether they are well-founded or whether we should look to another incremental approach to abolition.

Next: A Closer Look at New Welfarism

Previous: Utilitarianism

1. See Chapter 2 of Gary L. Francione’s Rain Without Thunder for a more thorough introduction to new welfarism.
2. For an extended discussion of use versus treatment, read Gary L. Francione’s “Introduction / The Abolition of Animal Use versus the Regulation of Animal Treatment” in Animals as Persons.

I hope you're finding this series useful. I've enjoyed the reading comments I've been receiving so far, so please continue to share your thoughts by commenting below.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below. To support my work, please consider making a small donation using the button in the navbar above. Thanks!

Still here...

2009-01-08T14:44:00.004-05:00

Hi there. Apologies for not posting more often. I'm still hard at work, focused on creating rather than merely commenting, so I'm barely able to stay abreast of what's going on in the blogosphere myself, much less what's going on in the news.

I have a draft of the next AR101 waiting for my attention, so that should hopefully be up within a couple of weeks. I hoped to finish it before vacation, but there's a lot I couldn't get done in time for that deadline. Since returning, I have hit the ground running on various other responsibilities, like handling a ton of Boston Vegan Association stuff (including preparing to officially announce some good news regarding our abolitionist vegan outreach pamphlet) and behind-the-scenes work on my documentary project, which has about another week of open "casting" to go, so visit the link and submit your profile today.

Lauren Corman discussed I'm Vegan with me for CIUT's Animal Voices radio show a couple of days ago. That interview should be archived soon.

UPDATE: Here's a page for the show. The interview starts roughly 10 minutes in. Special thanks to Lauren for having me on the show and asking the kinds of contextual and intersectional questions she's known for.

Vegans needed for documentary interviews

2008-11-20T18:40:00.003-05:00

Casting for I'm Vegan has now begun!

I'm Vegan is a series of short documentary profiles that will feature vegans from all walks of life, perhaps including you! The project is is intended to address preconceptions about vegans and veganism, which may increase normalization of and appreciation for veganism. It is also expected that I'm Vegan will be a catalyst for some viewers to go vegan. Completed profiles will be distributed for free over the web so that anyone can share the videos with family, friends, and visitors to their own sites. A full-length documentary is also in the works.

To be considered as a potential profile subject for I'm Vegan, please send me the following before January 15th:

2 recent digital snapshots, one close-up and one full-length.

Your city, state, and zipcode.

Answers to the following questions:

I'm Vegan

Our route will take us all over the U.S., so if you live in a smaller town but are still highway accessible your submission will be considered.

Become a fan of I'm Vegan at Facebook
Become a friend of I'm Vegan at MySpace

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Should Animals Have the Same Rights as People?

2008-11-17T13:53:00.006-05:00

I was invited to participate as an "Expert" over at Opposing Views, a site that sets up debates on various topics by asking "Experts" to weigh in with their arguments (OV's About page). I mentioned the site previously in a post on California's Proposition 2.

The topic I was asked to take on was Should Animals Have the Same Rights as People? As of now, Bob Torres and I represent similar viewpoints, while two other viewpoints are set forth by Tibor Machan and Paul J. Fitzgerald, S.J..

I've laid out only three arguments at this point, mainly to pick apart the question and to support my views with very basic posts regarding animal rights (you may recognize some of the content from the AR101 series I'm running here). Please take the time to visit and read them:

What Are Rights?

Sentience is Sufficient for Basic Rights Protection

Making Sense of the Question

You may offer your thumbs-up under each argument as a recommendation if you like, or even offer comments in support of or against. Please let me know if you feel there's something else I ought to be arguing, either here in comments or via email by using the "Contact" link above.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Help Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary expand

2008-11-14T22:41:00.005-05:00

UPDATE 2 (12/08, 11:14pm): Apparently the competitor's deal fell through, and PPS was able to secure the land after all! More at Animal Person.

UPDATE (11/18, 11:06pm): Apparently Peaceful Prairie was outbid by an unnamed competitor. More at Animal Person.

In case you haven't already seen this elsewhere, Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary is urgently attempting to acquire property to expand the sanctuary by 35 acres. They need a total of $115,000 to purchase the property from Fannie Mae. As of Mary Martin's post they were still seeking $15,000 in donations (JustGive.org) to purchase property that was originally listed at $255,000.

This request is urgent for at least two reasons:

1) There is a very limited window of opportunity for PPS to acquire this property. The closing date is December 17th, and PPS needs to show Fannie Mae that they have the funds to purchase the property. If you donate using the JustGive link above, it should be viewable as soon as the payment processes.

2) The area is zoned for agricultural use, so if they don't acquire the land, it will end up being used instead to exploit animals.

PPS is an abolitionist sanctuary that promotes veganism, and this purchase will allow them to convert a 4,000 sq. ft. home into an Education Center, complete with volunteer and visitor housing.

Credit card donations can also be made through PayPal from the left sidebar on PPS's home page.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Announcing new abolitionist literature

2008-10-30T16:35:00.004-04:00

The Boston Vegan Association:
Respecting animals means going vegan

The BVA's 8-page abolitionist vegan outreach pamphlet is now ready and available for viewing online and sharing. I have also had a "generic" version prepared so that you can include your own information on the back cover instead of the BVA web address and logo (pictured). If you would like to receive copies for distribution, please get in touch.

I like to hear from you. Comment on this post below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Animal Rights 101, part five: Utilitarianism

2008-10-09T19:28:00.009-04:00

Utilitarianism

In a nutshell, utilitarianism holds that the consequence of a given action is what determines its moral worth. According to the principle of utility the right action is that which maximizes "utility." Under hedonistic or classical utilitarianism, utility is defined in terms of pain and pleasure. The morally correct action to take in any given situation, then, is the one that leads to the greatest pleasure for the greatest number of individuals affected by that action.

In counting the pleasures and pains of all those affected, each individual must "count for one and none for more than one." Because nonhuman animals can also be affected by an action (i.e., an action can cause them pleasure or pain), their pleasures and pains must also be taken into consideration when deciding whether an action is wrong or right.

Peter Singer

Peter Singer, probably the most well-known modern proponent of utilitarianism, defines utility in terms of preferences rather than pleasure and pain. Preference utilitarianism holds that what is intrinsically valuable in any given scenario is not pleasure, per se, but the satisfaction of preferences (i.e., desires or interests).[1] Of course, these preferences might include avoiding pain and seeking pleasure, but preference utilitarianism might be seen as a more nuanced or graded approach.

In addition to the principle of utility, Singer advocates even more forcefully a principle of equal consideration for other beings' interests. In determining the consequences of our actions, he argues that we must accord equal consideration to equal interests, even going so far as to say that nonhuman animals have a right to this consideration. He describes at length how excluding nonhuman animals from equal consideration (or otherwise disregarding their interests) is speciesist, an arbitary bias in favor of one's own species membership that is analogous to excluding humans from equal consideration on the basis of their race or sex.[2]

Singer later expressed regret at allowing "the concept of a right to intrude into [his] work so unnecessarily." Though he is often called "the father of the animal rights movement," this stance is not all that surprising when you consider that his views do not and cannot lead to a respect-based animal rights view given his adherence to the principle of utility.[3]

Issue: Tension between equal consideration and utility

The principle of utility is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the tension between considering like interests equally and maximizing utility.

Despite his belief that we ought to determine what will maximize utility on a case-by-case basis, Singer holds that animals' interests must always be given equal consideration. Though this insistence also informs the egalitarianism of rights theory put forth previously, it creates problems here because taking all interests equally into consideration may well fail to maximize utility, at which point we would no longer operating in the realm of utilitarianism.

The corollary here is that the principle of utility conflicts with the principle of equal consideration when maximizing utility would require us to ignore the interests of some individuals or otherwise allow them to be harmed if doing so serves the "greater good." In other words, utilitarianism’s emphasis on the consequential benefit of a potential act favors the majority and allows for exploitation of the minority.

As Tom Regan writes, “The modest point being urged here is that, for all its emphasis on equality, utilitarianism would sanction recognizable forms of sexism and racism, if the facts happened to turn out a certain way.”[4]

Issue: Treats interests as tradable

The rights view protects interests even when it would benefit others (or the greater good) to violate or ignore them. "[T]he defining characteristic of a respect-based right is that the interest that it protects cannot be compromised for consequential considerations alone."[5] Utilitarianism, on the other hand, treats interests as tradable. If ignoring the interests of certain individuals maximizes utility overall, then utilitarianism would say that the right thing to do in that situation is to ignore those interests in favor of the interests of the many, effectively treating interests as tradable, not inviolable. Such a view "is consistent with animal exploitation if the consequences justify that exploitation and if the decision to exploit is not based on species discrimination."[6]

Indeed, though Singer advocates vegetarianism, it is not certain how he can prescribe this measure on a utilitarian basis. An appeal on consequentialist grounds would suggest that vegetarianism maximizes utility, but the principle of utility could well come down against vegetarianism if the consequences of everyone becoming vegetarian actually turned out to have less utility than if everyone continued to eat at animal products.

Singer thinks that the negative consequences for the animals involved in factory farming outweigh the benefits, but as Regan points out, "[t]he animal industry is big business," and although "[i]t is uncertain exactly how many people are involved in it, directly or indirectly, . . . the number must easily run into the many tens of thousands." Those involved in animal agriculture "have a stake in the animal industry as rudimentary and important as having a job, feeding a family, or laying aside money for their children's education or their own retirement." . . . The problem is that once the preference satisfaction of everyone involved in factory farming (humans and nonhuman) is deemed relevant and counted equitably, Singer's assumed result appears to be much more controversial than he recognizes.[7]

In light of these complications, the utilitarian impact of becoming vegetarian is not at all clear, particularly on the individual level. Because utilitarians must make the moral calculations on a case-by-case basis, they cannot demonstrate that becoming vegetarian will always maximize utility, which means that utilitarianism can make no standing argument for vegetarianism at all, much less veganism.

More consistent with the utilitarian view is his assertion that it may be morally justifiable to eat animals who "have a pleasant existence in a social group suited to their behavioral needs, and are then killed quickly and without pain."[8]

Issues: Fails to offer normative guidance

The vegetarian question points to a lack of normative guidance (i.e., guidelines for standard, everyday behavior) offered by Singer's views. In Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance, Gary L. Francione reveals utilitarianism's lack of normative guidance by focusing on three components of moral theory that he identifies as the ideal level, the micro-level, and the macro-level.

The ideal level asks what ideal state a theory aims to achieve. The clarity of a theory's ideal state is important because it helps guide micro- and macro-level components of moral decision-making. The micro-level component of a theory guides our personal behavior. The macro-level component examines whether a theory prescribes how to effect incremental change in order to achieve a theories ideal state of affairs.

Under the rights view, it may be said that the ideal state is the complete abolition of institutionalized animal exploitation, a fairly clear, measurable objective. Knowing that this is our ideal state, it becomes rather plain that our personal obligation on the micro level is to avoid participating in activities that, at the very least, contribute directly to animal exploitation (i.e., we ought to be vegan). On the macro level, a coherent prescription for incremental change guides us to a strategy of spreading rights-based ideology and veganism.

Singer's ideal is much more vague, requiring as it does that offer nonhuman animals equal consideration for their interests while maximizing utility. How do we describe or measure this objective, much less know when we have reached it (assuming it is a place one could even "reach")? This view offers no practical guidance for making decisions, ultimately leading us to make best guesses about what is likely to "reduce" suffering to some indeterminable extent.

The calculations required to follow this rule for micro-level decision-making are stunningly complicated. Among our variables are every individual who might be affected by what we choose to do, the preferences those individuals have, and the varying weights of these preferences. Assuming it was possible to gather all this data, we would then have to make comparisons of these prefrences between individuals and across species, and we would have to determine which satisfied preferences maximize utility, which don't, and so on. As if this wasn't burden enough, we must perform this complex calculus for every considered action, and there's still a chance our estimates could be wrong due to our lack of perfect knowledge, our inability to predict how other involved parties might behave, much less our general inability to predict the future.

On the macro-level of decision-making, the admonition to do whatever we think might best reduce suffering is equally unhelpful. Already ourideal state is vague, so this sort of guidance makes it hard to know where we're headed incrementally as a group. Nor do we always know whether and how much our actions will reduce suffering, which is perhaps what leads certain animal advocates to focus on what some new welfare advocates call the "low-hanging fruit."

This approach to advocacy involves welfare campaigns that are problematic for a number of reasons that I will analyze in my next AR101 installment. Suffice it to say for now that the macro-level component here fails to meaningfully distinguish our incremental actions as a movement from those who exploit animals (none of whom believe we ought to, say, increase suffering). It is hard to see how animals will be liberated if we are merely reinforcing the existing paradigm that it is acceptable to use animals, so long as we minimize their suffering.

Conclusion

Compared to a rights-based approach, which simply tells us that equal consideration means equal protection for those interests that are equal (leading to veganism), utilitarianism is unclear and could possibly even lead to immoral results. In my next installment of AR101, I will examine the new welfare approach of the modern "animal rights movement," which is informed by utilitarian thought. As we shall see, utilitarianism's vague, conflicting, and difficult-to-fulfill prescriptions offer little, or worse, confusing guidance for our advocacy.

Next: New Welfarism

Previous: Property

1. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 14.

2. ______, Animal Liberation, Ecco paperback, first edition (New York: Harper Collins, 2002), 6.

3. Much is made of the influence wrought by Animal Liberation on the "animal rights movement," though its author distances himself from rights theory, calling his use of the term a concession to popular moral rhetoric (Peter Singer, "The Parable of the Fox and the Unliberated Animals," Ethics 88, no. 2 {January 1978}, p. 122). Despite this, the utilitarian's groundbreaking 33 year-old book continues to be recommended by a number of prominent advocates, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, as the "animal rights 'bible'." PETA's merchandise catalog states, "If you read only one animal rights book, it has to be this one."

I want to be clear on a few things. Animal Liberation does raise some important philosophical questions regarding our treatment of animals. It is not a trivial work, and it obviously influenced a new movement on behalf of animals that, in some form, is still around today. However, its own author has disavowed rights, and Animal Liberation does not promote any sort of rights theory whatsoever. It is not an animal rights book. As such, it does not provide any clear guidance for rights advocacy.

If you want to read an animal rights book, and you can read only one for some reason, then allow me to recommend Gary L. Francione's Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Within that book, you'll find a concise and easy-to-understand discussion of animal rights theory, along with a coherent prescription for a rights-based approach to abolishing animal exploitation.

4. Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1st ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 227-28.

5. Gary L. Francione, "Equal Consideration," in Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), 168.

6. ______, Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996), 49.

7. ______, "Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance."

8. Singer, Animal Liberation, 229-30

I hope you're finding this series useful. I enjoy the reading comments I've been receiving so far, so please continue to share your thoughts by commenting below.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below. To support my writing, please consider making a small donation using the button in the navbar above. Thanks!

Links for 2008-10-28 [del.icio.us]

2008-10-29T00:00:00-07:00

On Human-Nonhuman Relations: News Flash. The 'Difficult Pet Issue’ Resolved.
I intend to address the subject of "pets" after I conclude my AR101 series. In the meantime, Roger Yates has what appears to be a half serious, half cheeky suggestion. I think it kinda works on both counts.

Links for 2008-10-22 [del.icio.us]

2008-10-23T00:00:00-07:00

The Failure of the Single Issue Campaign — Vegan Freak Blog
Bob Torres on PETA's Zappos 'victory'
Free range fiasco
another example of the humane myth

"I'm Vegan" fully funded

2008-09-22T01:05:00.003-04:00

I am very pleased to announce that I'm Vegan is now fully funded! Please click on the "imvegan" label below this post to learn more about the journey so far. Thank you to everyone who helped make this possible!

This is only the beginning, though. As I move forward, I will be blogging more on the project here. I have yet to decide whether and when I will establish a separate site for the project. If you have web skillz, please get in touch and we can talk about it.

One of my next major steps will be to "cast" the vegans I'd like to use in this project, and I will solicit that information here and elsewhere once I am ready.

On a side note, my apologies for how long it is taking to get the Utilitarianism AR101 post together. I wrote around 4000 words on the topic, but I have been very busy with a variety of projects so I have not had time to work this unwieldy subject down into 1200-1600 words. I think I will be able to start editing it this week, and will aim to post something in no more than 7-10 days.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

I'm Vegan: Only 6% to go!

2008-09-08T17:03:00.005-04:00

The next installment in my AR101 series, Utilitarianism, is in progress. In the meantime, I wanted to post a quick update on my documentary project, I'm Vegan. As of today, I only need to come up with $1,600 more in pledges or donations in order to start putting together I'm Vegan!

For those just who have only recently started reading AAFL, I'm raising funds for the project through The Point, which I first announced back in April. I've been keeping readers here posted in case they want to chip in any amount, no matter how small.

The project is relatively low-budget and is being funded through a non-profit, which means the donations are tax deductible. Unlike traditional fundraisers, The Point does not charge your credit card until enough other people also pledge to bring the campaign to its funding goal, or tipping point, including the offline donations I have been receiving. Thanks to everyone who has committed funds since my last update!

As a reminder, I'm Vegan is a series of short documentary profiles that aim for long-term impact as an online series normalizing veganism, and is intended to serve as a form of ongoing advocacy. It's personal, intimate and busts stereotypes. For more details on the project, or to donate now, please visit its campaign page. Thanks in advance for your support. Share this post (or the campaign page) far and wide!

UPDATE: As of Tuesday night (9/9/08), the balance needed to "tip" I'm Vegan is only $925. Thank you to everyone who pledged since I first published this post. You helped cover nearly half the distance to the target! If you would like to pledge now, click here.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Links for 2008-09-02 [del.icio.us]

2008-09-03T00:00:00-07:00

Japanese Firm Discloses 'World's Largest' Plant Factory
The future of the local vegan farming?
In Dealing With Death, Are Animals Just Like Us or Pretty Much Unaware? - NYTimes.com
Discussion ranges from primate to insects.

Proposition 2 and online debates

2008-08-27T14:21:00.004-04:00

California's Proposition 2 has stirred up plenty of controversy, both between the animal exploitation industries and the animal protection industry, and between animal advocates.

Proposition 2, a ballot initiative that will be voted on this November, is intended to eliminate certain confinement practices used by animal agribusiness, albeit with some exemptions. Basically it would require that, for the majority of each day, calves, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that would allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. In other words, it doesn't eliminate confinement systems; it merely modifies some of them to be slightly less restrictive (in the case of California, this mainly affects egg production). Exceptions are built in for seven-days prior to a pregnant pig's expected date of delivery, and for 4-H programs, rodeos, fairs, research, veterinary purposes, slaughter, and transportation. Violations of the regulations would be misdemeanors, restricting the potential fine to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 180 days.

Recognizing the disagreement between different types of animal advocates over Proposition 2, Doris Lin, the host of About.com's new animal rights topic, is hosting a debate on Proposition 2. Professor Gary L. Francione, author and abolitionist animal rights proponent, represents the con argument, while the the pro argument is offered by animal welfare proponent Paul Shapiro, the Senior Director of the Humane Society of the United States' Factory Farming Campaign. Shapiro calls the ballot measure Making History for Animals, while Francione calls it A Losing Proposition. Of course, it's a strange debate because there's no real back and forth between the two debaters, not to mention the fact that HSUS's mission is modifying animal use, not abolishing it.

While you're off reading online debates, you might be interested in some other topics hosted by Opposing Views. The site asks a lot of controversial questions, not just animal-related issues, and it seems to be fairly well designed and easy to navigate. In addition to calling on "experts" (mostly special interest groups) to debate the subject, Opposing Views invites your comments, involving you directly in the debate. The issue of "pet" ownership finds Francione and HSUS in opposition once again. You can also read their arguments and the arguments of other "experts" on a variety of related topics, including using animals in research, keeping animals in zoos, and "meat"-eating. There's no debate on Proposition 2 over there as of yet, but they do take suggestions for topics, and maybe Opposing Views would provide a better format for that debate than the statements offered at About.com, seeing as how it allows for counterpoint and objections.

Back to Proposition 2, of course the animal exploiting industries are totally opposed. They don't want animal advocates making any inroads on regulating how they use animals. They see the measure potentially leading to other regulatory reforms around the country, so they have more or less united in their opposition to it.

Seems intuitive how an animal-friendly person might vote, right? Well, consider that this measure does not come close to questioning animal use; it merely modifies how animals are used in such a way as to make it seem somewhat less objectionable. Also consider the following:

1. Veal crates and gestation crates (for pigs) have already been phased out or are being phased out by the industries in California as this debate goes on. At this time, there is no indication that doing so is harming the industries or reducing consumption of flesh products from calves and pigs.

2. Proposition 2's regulations apply only to producers in California. It is not a ban on products produced using these methods. Stores seeking less expensive eggs to sell their customers may buy them from out-of-state producers, and egg companies that don't want to follow the new regulations can move their operations out of state.

3. Proposition 2 does not end the confinement and torture of animals from their artificially-induced births to their untimely killings. If successful, sustained, followed, and enforced, Prop 2 will only allow certain animals a bit more space to move and adjust their position while they are being confined, and for only part of the day. Even then, all bets are off during transport and slaughter. It does not address the myriad other harms caused to animals throughout the production process.

4. Egg production systems in Europe have gone cage-free, and the barn systems they are using there have even received a seal of approval from the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, which leads consumers to believe that the animals' welfare is being given top priority. The video below shows that there are plenty of problems inherent in cage-free systems.

What do you make of all this debate over Prop 2? What do you make of the proposition itself? Share your comments below

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Book Review: Vegan Lunch Box

2008-08-25T16:16:00.003-04:00

You know, it's bad enough that I wasn't raised vegan. But now Jennifer McCann comes along with Vegan Lunch Box to rub it in. Vegan Lunch Box is delicious proof that vegan kids can actually have more exciting (and healthier!) lunches than all the other kids their age, so long as their parents are willing to pick up this book and follow its easy recipes (and maybe pack one of these delightful lunches for themselves while they're at it).

Considering how far veganism and vegan cookbooks have come in just the past decade, moms and dads from a generation ago may be forgiven for foisting Oscar Meyer on us, I suppoooose. Even then I can only let that slide because veganism was practically unheard of by most American parents until relatively recently, and of course this book did not exist back then. However, today's parents have no excuse to send their kids off to school with mediocre lunches (or worse, to eat cafeteria food), so Vegan Lunch Box should be considered a required parenting text.

All 130 enclosed recipes were vetted by McCann's son, James, who rated every meal she packed up for him to take to school in clever, bento-inspired lunch boxes. Only five-star meals made the final cut, so you and your kids are in for the very best of the many recipes McCann concocted to keep James eating healthy and, remarkably, to make him the envy of other kids at school. No scorned, deprived vegan here! It's nice to have a parent that cares so much, isn't it?

Vegan Lunch Box offers up full lunch menus, as well as the recipes to make these menus a reality (included in back is a thoughtful allergen-free index). Meals range from those designed to be quick and easy to creative inspiration for special occasions. Along the way, McCann has included lots of little tips and bits of advice on topics such as keeping sandwiches interesting, vegan cheese, and getting kids to eat salads, as well as a collection of full-color vegan lunch photos.

I don't have any kids myself, but I can certainly remember being at that age where I suffered through school lunches and unimaginative packed lunches. If you are raising kids, I highly recommend buying this book and putting it to good use. I'm sure your children will be much happier exploring these options than settling for what is typically available to them--the deprived kids will be the ones eating the same few lunches over and over again--and they will be learning to eat healthier at a younger age, too. It certainly speaks well of veganism to have such fun, tempting lunches out there in front of all the other kids at school. Maybe they'll want to ask their own parents for a vegan lunch box, too. Lunch box advocacy, anyone?

Even if you don't have or don't plan on having children of your own, you now have a perfect gift to give to people who do, vegan or not. Frankly, I'm looking forward to trying some of these recipes for myself. I think they'll be fun for picnics, lunch breaks on a weekend hike, or even for those occasions when I'm traveling long distances without a healthy vegan meal to be had anywhere along the way (I'm glaring at you, airports of America).

Do you have kids? Are they vegan? What do you feed them? Have you made any recipes from Vegan Lunch Box? If so, how'd it go? Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

AR2008 Recap

2008-08-21T02:13:00.002-04:00

I was very busy this past weekend at the Animal Rights 2008 National Conference. However, I don't feel that my time was spent just being busy for the sake of "busyness." For the most part, it seemed like a productive use of my time. I could probably spend hours attempting to gather together my thoughts on everything that I experienced, heard, learned, did, and didn't do. Since I don't have that kind of time, I will just write what comes to the top of mind in one sitting.

No conference is perfect--I could probably spend hours on this subject, too--but, while I would prefer that the AR conferences were more focused on the core issues of animal rights, particularly AR education, instead of welfare advocacy (aren't there plenty of conferences already that focus on reforming animal husbandry?), there's something energizing about being among so many different people gathered together to discuss various aspects of animal advocacy, and I did have a number of constructive conversations in that vein with various attendees over the course of the long weekend.

Compared to previous years, I detected a general shift from the escalated welfarism vs. abolitionism debate to a sort of fatigue on the subject. A lot of people I spoke to did seem interested in gaining a better understanding of what abolitionism is about (there are some real misconceptions). One person in particular seemed really eager to learn more about abolitionism, dialoguing with me on and off throughout the weekend. He plans to read up on Francione now.

A lot of other conversations on the subject transpired one-on-one and in social settings after conference events had ended for day, which gave me more of an opportunity to advocate the abolitionist viewpoint. I saw a lot of nodding heads and, at one point, someone came up to tell me they had heard good things about what I was saying at the conference. It's hard to quantify the impact, but based on my intuitions about receptivity versus resistance and conflict, things seemed to go rather well, encouraging me to keep coming back to promote rights-based vegan advocacy.

Within my speaking roles, I didn't really have quite as much of an opportunity to make an extensive or complete case for abolitionism, but the theory served as a compass to guide my work every step of the way, whether introducing the Boston Vegan Association (which I founded and run) as an abolitionist vegan advocacy group at the Newcomer Orientation and Running a Local Group panel (allowing me to elaborate a little on what that means), discussing how my abolitionism stems from the principle-centered leadership approach I follow and advocated during my talk on the Developing Leadership Skills panel, and discussing on the Perceptions of Animals panel how language can be used to help people see other animals as ends in themselves rather than perpetuating their status as a means to our ends.

The What Rights? Which Animals? rap session I facilitated came out pretty quickly toward abolitionist rights-based advocacy once the basis for rights was identified, necessarily including all sentient animals. This gave the group time to discuss the problem of the property status of animals and the need for vegan education (though the turnout was a bit lighter than I would have hoped for, given the widespread lack of education regarding animal rights theory).

Despite my penchant for talking, I also did a fair amount of listening, which led to some learning. One key reminder this weekend was that many people in animal advocacy strongly promote one view over another as the most effective in large part because of their own initiation into animal advocacy (a pamphlet at a concert leads one to do leafletting, an experience with a marine mammal leads another to focus on marine animal protection, etc.). There's a passion for that which made such a major impact in their lives, along with a certain presumption that what worked for them is what will work best for others, which is telling. Of course, this isn't true for everyone (including myself), but it seems fairly common, and is useful when determining whether or not it is worth it to try and convince someone to consider a other approaches, because those advocates tend to be pretty entrenched in their own idea of what is best. To that end, the conference largely serves as an opportunity for advocates of various sorts to recruit newcomers to their own mission (and for authors to promote and sell books).

Talking to people whose focus was different than mine also reminded me how helpful it can be to have people driven to work on other issues that are complementary to rights advocacy and vegan education, such as exposing government repression of activists and providing access to plant-based foods for economically disadvantaged communities. As long as they don't work against abolition, it seems that they could help advance it by easing other key obstacles.

On a related note, some long-time conference participants with anti-racism experience were kind enough to take some time to answer questions I had. Veganism is a rather white movement, and I was recently reminded how far I have to go to better understand how my lifelong privilege as a heterosexual white male in a system fraught with institutionalized racism affects those around me, much less my ability to work with people of color as allies in vegan advocacy and other social justice issues.

I think more white vegan advocates need to deeply explore this issue (the conference itself needs to do some work to better facilitate this) and work together to promote anti-racism in our movement so that we can be more effective in eliminating oppression of all beings. Our exploitive system is itself a major part of the reason other animals are oppressed, not just their status as property (which comes from a sense of human entitlement that connects rather obviously to white privilege once you start becoming aware of it).

Thanks to pattrice, lauren, and other conference participants for the advice you gave me and for pointing me in the right direction. As I steep myself further in this subject (thanks to Breeze for the reading list!), I may write about it here at AAFL.

Finally, I also did some promoting at the conference, raising awareness of AAFL, The Boston Vegan Association, soliciting funding for I'm Vegan, and distributing a couple hundred or so copies of The Abolitionist Approach pamphlet. It was good to reach people that might not otherwise have heard of these projects.

In sum, though I don't exactly endorse the conference, I am glad I went. I learned a lot, got to know some really good people, deepened some friendships, had plenty of fun, and I feel like I contributed something valuable. I intend to go again next year so that I may continue to advocate for positive vegan advocacy based in the abolitionist approach to animal rights.

Thank you to the conference organizers for involving me.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Vegan brunch

2008-08-10T22:18:00.003-04:00

I had brunch at a new Boston area restaurant today, Vej Naturals, and very much enjoyed my Southern Platter...

(Pan-fried seitan cutlet served with Home-style Gravy, scrambled tofu, grits, and greens)

...and the bites of French Toast my friend (the photographer, Laureen) was kind enough to share with me:

(Sliced bread dipped in a sweet cashew milk, grilled then topped with fresh fruit and whipped "cream")

Just a brief reminder how, ahem, "deprived" vegans are.

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Super-quick-FYI-update

2008-08-09T01:43:00.006-04:00

Hi, all. I have been pretty busy prepping for the conference, which I leave for on Wednesday. As mentioned previously, I'm on four panels--in addition to hosting a plenary session, a luncheon, a public speaking workshop, and a "rap session--so I have had some prep to do (I'm sure I'll be doing it right down to the wire). Plus, I've been very tied up with a few deadlines and a new project for my organization, the Boston Vegan Association, and those deadlines are not looking so realistic right now.

On top of all this, it's looking more and more like "I'm Vegan" will go forward this fall (only $2,575 more to go!), so my schedule is getting pretty scrambled (don't get me started on spraining my wrist, auditions that eat up half my day, being a reasonably available spouse, and participating in BVA events).

All of this is not to ask for your pity (believe it or not, I enjoy being this busy most of the time), but to explain why I've been pretty quiet here lately. I did take a little time today to quickly sketch out an outline and some notes for my next AR101 installment, Utilitarianism, but I doubt that I'll get the piece finished and posted before the conference.

I may post here while at the conference, but that seems unrealistic, too. If anything, I might tweet from there now and again, as I finally try to get the hang of micro-blogging. That link takes you to my personal Twitter page, FYI. I may set up an AAFL Twitter account at some point, if I get hooked on it. It would be nice to embed a micro-blog in the sidebar for those times when the big posts are few and far between.

So, stay tuned! Thanks for hanging in (especially through all the parentheticals).

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

"I'm Vegan" 89% funded

2008-08-01T12:37:00.003-04:00

For those just tuning in, I'm raising funds for I'm Vegan, a project I first announced back in April. I'm Vegan is a series of short documentary profiles that aim for long-term impact as an online series normalizing veganism, and is intended to serve as a form of ongoing advocacy. It's personal, intimate and busts stereotypes.

The project is relatively low-budget and is being funded through a non-profit, which means the donations are tax deductible. I'm using The Point to gather pledges and reach my online goal of $22,000, and I've been keeping readers here posted in case they want to chip in any amount, no matter how small. The Point's recent upgrade from beta to 1.0 totally destroyed the nifty badges that they were using to promote our campaigns, so I don't have sexy graphic to update my fundraising, I'm sad to say.

In my previous update, I thanked an anonymous donor (a complete stranger) who mailed in a $9,000 check. I'm pleased to announce that, in the wake of that generous donation, another donor I know mailed in a $5,000 check. You can probably understand why donors want to remain anonymous. If you don't, in large part it has something to do with not receiving a zillion solicitations for donations every year.

My total funding goal for the project is $25,000, $3,000 of which was donated before I set up my campaign at The Point to raise the remaining $22,000. Between all the offline donations and the online pledges, I have raised a total of $22,150 so far. That means I only need to drum up $2,850 more in pledges at The Point in order to start production on I'm Vegan! We're getting close, which means I may actually be able to shoot this fall.

I know a few people out there have said you plan to pledge, so now's the time. In fact, only another $350 will put the total funding at exactly 90% of the budget. Remember, unlike traditional fundraisers, The Point works in such a way that your pledge is not cashed until enough other people pledge to reach the campaign goal, including the offline donations I am receiving. Once the tipping point is reached, your funds will be donated to the non-profit that will fund the project. Thanks to everyone who has committed funds since my last update (Like Will, and thanks for "finally" getting off the couch, Mindy; it was worth the wait!).

For more details on the project, or to donate now, please visit its campaign page. Thanks in advance for your support. Share this post (or the campaign page) far and wide!

I like to hear from you. Comment below or email me.

Enjoy AAFL? Use the permalink icon to share this entry with your friends or to link it from your blog, submit to a service using the share button below, and consider making a small donation to support this site and my work. Thanks!

Links for 2008-07-31 [del.icio.us]

2008-08-01T00:00:00-07:00

Why Should Apes Have Rights? (Why Shouldn't They?)
Testing Delicious blogging. If this goes through at AAFL, I will probably delete it after verification, but may start using the feature to keep up with the occasional story I've skipped posting about due to time constraints. Ahhh, technology.

Letter published in the Washington Post

2008-07-26T13:37:00.001-04:00

I wrote a letter to the Washington Post in response to Wednesday's article, A Dish That Gets a Fuzzy Reception. That letter, which they called Those Rabbits: Friend or Food?, was published today, FYI.

From the article:

Chef Stefano Frigerio braces himself when he puts rabbit on the menu at Mio. It's only a matter of time before someone complains.