In Part 1 I described some of the background theory and premises of my journey to 50k (31 miles).  On March 23 I was able to complete the race just short of the cut-off time of seven hours. It wasn’t a race of speed, but attrition! In Part 2 I want to detail the work-outs and some of the issues I dealt with during the training.

[Note: Yes, a massive delay between Part 1 & 2. What can I say? Priorities change. If you want to see where most of my energy is going, please visit this Facebook page.]

Let’s start with some numbers, so you can get a handle on just the 12 weeks were like. A little background on my athletic ability, however, so you can understand what I was starting with (my “engine and suspension” did have a bit of tuning prior to the twelve weeks):

• 2005-2007: Recreational runner, 20-30 miles per week (5k time: ~22:30)
• 2008: Amatuer road cyclist (5-10 hours per week, non-competitive)
• 2009: Cat 5*, Cat 4 Road cyclist (10 hours per week, competitive)
• 2010-2011: Cat 3 Road cyclist (10-20 hours per week, competitive) (I also started weightlifting these years)
• 2012: Combo of weightlifting, running, rock climbing  (10-15 hours per week, non-competitive)
• 2012 (September): Started CrossFit (The Ville!)

It’s all relative: by some measures I was “that guy who always works out” and by other measures (often my own) I wasn’t doing enough. Such is the plight of the amateur athlete: when you see others around you training, moving up, getting stronger, you desire that too. Road cycling took its toll after 2011, so I tried mountain biking for awhile (it’s fun!) but slowly moved into weightlifting and got back into running, aided largely by the injury-free method of “barefoot running.” I run exclusively in minimalist shoes, preferring Vibram Five Fingers or super low-profile Merrells and by-and-large it’s kept my injury free. Sore calves and tight hamstrings are about the only real “issues” and that comes with the territory. Bring on the yoga and stretching!

So, those numbers I was talking about:

• Official training dates: December 31, 2012 to March 22, 2013 (12 weeks)
• Average time spent per week (CF & Running): 6 hours
• Average time spent per week (CF, Running, Yoga, stretching, planning): 10 hours
• Average mileage per week: 7.9 miles
• Longest run pre-50k: 6.9 miles (Feb 26)
• 1 RM** Back Squat: 305 lbs
• 1 RM Deadlift: 405 lbs
• 1 RM Clean: 185 lbs
• 1 RM Bench Press: 180 lbs

As I pointed out in Part 1, CrossFit will expose your imbalances: it will highlight your strengths and showcase your weaknesses. After three years of riding bikes and doing squats, guess what – I was pretty decent at doing squats! Deadlifts, too. Upper body strength? Not so much. Try doing thrusters (a front squat into a push press) at 135 lbs over and over and over again…ugh. My body shudders just thinking about it. But I have no qualms about becoming stronger in all areas, be it upper body, lower body, or overall aerobic capacity. The short, 10-20 min workouts that closer a CrossFit class (typically an hour long) are the sort of high-intensity intervals that athletes of all disciplines use, and trust me, they are high intensity.

So, the workouts! I have detailed logs for the 12 weeks that I trained for the ultra. There’s the Google calendar, which lists whether CrossFit or some sort of interval was on the agenda for the day (or both), and a training log, which lists the specific work-out (as dictated by my gym) and the interval prescription (as dictated by MacKenzie’s program in The 4-Hour Body).

• Ultra Training Calendar (GCal)
• 50k Training Log (Google Drive/Doc)

Those two files are public, so feel free to share them with whomever. A few important notes, however:

• I followed the plan as outlined in the two files, except for when there’s an “XX” in front of the workout on GCal, which means I skipped it. You can check the training log for a reason why (probably sick or fatigued).
• I didn’t follow MacKenzie’s plan from 4HB exactly, I modeled it based on what my own CrossFit gym prescribed, and what I was able to do that week. Most of the interval workouts are exact, but I sure as hell didn’t stay within “2-3 seconds” for each one…ain’t nobody got time for that! (Rather, that was just a level of discipline I didn’t adhere too.)

How was the 12 weeks, you ask? In a phrase: not easy. But not impossible. The first two or three weeks went by pretty fast, and I found myself getting into the “rhythm” of doing the three-on-one-off CrossFit model, plus various intervals throughout the week. Sunday quickly became a day to look forward to, where I knew I wouldn’t have to deal with any serious work-outs. I did find the model outlined in 4HB a bit confusing, and not always consistent. The terminology, apparently written by MacKenzie himself, was often cryptic and sometimes didn’t even make sense. There’s some chatter on the 4HB forum (though old) about this (see this post, too).

During the 12 weeks, I got sick, and had to take close to a week off, and also had a minor injury involving a kitchen knife and my thumb (guess I need to read the Four Hour Chef!) which caused some serious modification of the work-outs for a few days. I tried not to beat myself up over all this, even though I knew that each work-out had a purpose; minimum effective dose, remember? Another challenge was simply getting motivated to go out and do the runs: some of the running intervals would seriously last 10 to 12 minutes total (for example, 4×400 m…that’s no more than a mile!), and in January and February it was damn cold. But I did most of them (at least 80%! Again, think 80/20) and realized that if I wanted to have that engine to run for 31 miles, I needed to fire it up somehow.

Strangely there never seemed to be a penultimate 5k or 10k time trial in the plan, as described in the earlier chapters, so I’m honestly not sure if my 5k times improved. I felt faster, but as the race neared, I wasn’t doing many long fast runs for fear of injuring myself before the big day. After the 50k, I took a break from working out (and got sick, again…) so I can’t tell you the overall effects of the whole thing, except for the fact that I finished.

The race was in Chicago on a day that required running tights, a jacket, gloves, a even a hat to start with. The wind off the lake was quite cold, and after awhile we weren’t really moving fast enough to stay all that warm. You can see the race data from my Motoactv here, and here is a run down of the stats:

Total distance: 31.42 miles
Time: 6 hours, 59 minutes, 7 seconds
Average Pace: 13:20 min/mi
Total steps: 62627
Calories burned: 4204 (questionable)
Total elevation gain: 599 ft (a very flat 50k)

My best pace was at mile 17, surprisingly, at a relatively stable 10:07 min/mi. At mile 15 I hooked up my iPod and blasted some Deafheaven, which really helped me get me through that slump. Miles 0 to 10 were quite easy, and 10 to 15 wasn’t too bad either. The music helped 15 to 20, and then the real pain started…

Myself and Alan (a veteran ultrarunner) somewhere around mile 26.

Miles 20 to 25 were hell. Not hell in the “oh-my-god-this-hurts!” way, but in the “I-am-tired-and-want-to-stop” way. I was still moving, jogging, slowly, but it sucked. My legs cramped in ways I knew not possible, in particular, my hips. My hips became so sore, so inflamed, that by mile 25 I alternated between a slow shuffle at around at 12:00 to 13:00 min/mi, and a walk about about a 13:00 to 15:00 min/mi. Not much difference! As my running partner Alan said “If it hurts to run, walk. If it hurts to walk, then run anyway.” I certainly tried! Stretching, salt, food, music – nothing made a difference at that point, except will power.

That’s the one thing an ultra will teach you, and it will teach you will: how far are you willing to go? Not with intense, brutal, excruciating pain? But with a long, dull, slow pain that you have to deal with for hours. I was sore by mile 10, sure, but it didn’t get bad until mile 20. With 11 miles left, I had to make a decision: go on, or give up. And while all the physical fitness, CrossFit, and minimal training was cool to learn about and participate in, that was the big take away for me: finishing something like a 50k shows a strong dedication, a strong will. I wouldn’t have started the journey down that path if I didn’t think I had one, but doing so allows me to affirm many of the good, positive qualities about myself.

So what now? I had planned to train again for a 50 miler this summer, but haven’t found the time, or motivation to head back into that world of 2-a-day work-outs and such dedicated fitness goals. Along the way to my 50k goal I was able to set a PR on deadlifts: 405 lbs! And since I do love strength training, that might transform itself into another goal this year, deadlifting 500, or even 600 lbs! If that happens, keep an eye out for a video.

Lift heavy, run fast, go vegan!

*See a description of cycling categories here. In general, Cat 5: beginner, Cat 1: elite, with gradation in between.
**One rep max

Reviewing the last twelve weeks of training – a mixture of Crossfit in all its forms, running intervals, yoga, and recovery – makes me realize just how much I did put into training for a 50k (31 miles). It wasn’t easy. But in the end, I did it: I ran 31 miles within the race-imposed cut-off time of seven hours, was able to walk (poorly) the next day, and probably would have been working out the week after if I hadn’t gotten sick. Whether my illness resulted from the race, the weather, or simply traveling all weekend (Louisville to Indy to Chicago and back all within 3.5 days) I can’t say.

I was a disappointed that I didn’t get to test the hypothesis that a strong body would recover quickly – the aches and pains I got from being sick (still not sure if I was a cold, flu, or some weird virus thing) overrode the hip and leg pain from the race so by Thursday after the race I was still sore – but there will always be more races, more recovery, and more testing. What makes me happy is that 1) I am an ultrarunner (or ultramarathoner) and 2) I completed my goal of training for the race on less than 10 miles a week, with a lot of strength training, and minimal injury. Read on…

This plan, known to Tim Ferriss readers as “5k to 50k” is laid out in his second book, The 4-Hour Body, as being put together by Brian MacKenzie, a Crossfit instructor and teacher from California. MacKenzie runs the site (and wrote a book called) Crossfit Endurance, where he merges the aesthetic of Crossfit – varied, functional movement that isn’t specialized – with classical endurance sports like running, biking, and swimming. The idea is to take the uncommon approach of training for long, endurance events like a marathon, bike race, or triathlon by using a large amount of Crossfit and high intensity interval training (HIIT) on the sport(s) of choice.

So, for example, instead of running 30-40 miles per week with a long run or two on the weekend, you’ll do a ton of Crossfit – squats, snatches, kettlebell swings, burpees, rope climbs – and then several high-intensity runs such as 4x400m or 8x100m throughout the week. The typical schedule as laid out in The 4-Hour Body might look like this:

Monday: Crossfit in the AM
Tuesday: Crossfit in the AM, Intervals in the PM
Wednesday: Crossfit in the PM
Thursday: Intervals in the PM
Friday: Crossfit in the AM
Saturday: Crossfit in the AM, Intervals or Trail Run in the PM
Sunday: Off

Does this seem like a lot? I ask honestly, because at times this seemed overwhelming, and other times I really enjoyed it. Towards the end of the 12-week program I was able to “get in the zone:” I did Open 13.1 twice in one day (and had pretty consistent scores!), would run without injury, and increased the weight on almost all of my lifts.

Crossfit, for those who are unfamiliar, will showcase your imbalances. After taking a year and a half off from road cycling, my high-end endurance was nearly gone, so the WODs (Workout of the Day) that required a “Zone 5″ level for 20 minutes wore me down quick. On the other end of the spectrum, back squat days were a lot of fun. I learned how to front squat, clean, climb ropes, do the tortuous ”Glute Ham Raise.” These highlighted by strengths. Overhead squats, snatches, and handstand push-ups displayed my weakness exquisitely. I’ve been doing Crossfit since September 2012, and it still kicks my ass every day.

The model behind MacKenzie’s Crossfit Endurance approach is that one can lower the volume of endurance training (running, in my case) while upping strength and conditioning, focusing on excellent form, and correcting imbalances. This, according to the model, will accelerate gains in the chosen sport in a similar manner as traditional “low and slow” training would, while keeping injuries minimal, and time spent at a premium. Ferriss has represented this idea in each of his books with the “80/20 principle,” the 80% of the results come from the 20% of the training or input. So, the theory goes, find that 20%, and make it count. Much of this theory can be detailed on the – you guessed it – Theory page of MacKenzie’s website.

So, how did it all work out? In short, I finished. I trained for a 50k in 12 weeks and was able to cross the finish line. But, it wasn’t easy. In Part 2 I’ll detail the work-outs and talk about my experiences over the course of the three months.

In the weeks after the foie gras protest, I’ve had plenty of time to reflect on the issues, the protest itself, and of course the immense amount of controversy it generated both online and off. The internet – mostly Facebook – was abuzz with status updates about the protest, often from people who care little about the animal rights issues I post so frequently about. This signified something “different” about this particular issue.

From my estimation, the criticism could be characterized into one of three categories: 1) attacking Game was unethical because they’re a small, locally owned and operated restaurant, 2) attacking foie gras is inconsistent because either a) all meat is bad or b) many other restaurants in Louisville also serve foie gras and have been doing so for much longer than Game, 3) protesting people’s food choices is inherently unethical and shouldn’t be done.

Point 3 was often contorted into various condemnations of PETA (“Going to come picket and do their disgusting displays of blood, etc, and how evil everyone is that eats meat, and in particular hunters and their taste for wild game.” link) or how we (the activists) shouldn’t force our views onto others, and that people should be “free to eat whatever they want.” In general I agree with that, although I think the understanding and acceptance of just how food is produced should be a prerequisite before it is consumed. And really, that was the whole point of the foie gras protest: understand how foie gras is produced, and then make a decision. For Game, I felt like the logical choice was to stop serving it, especially after speaking with Adam. For patrons, I feel it’s morally necessary to abstain from eating it unless a plethora of carnistic beliefs are firmly understood within your brain.

To the gawkers and “trolls” that said “well, isn’t all meat bad?!” – Yes, and we addressed that (both Loyd, the co-organizer and myself). In fact, they betrayed their own morality by admitting that point and then not following it up by adopting a vegetarian diet. But that’s not surprising, and we work to educate and combat ignorance in that area every day. Animal lovers, even those who resonate with just dogs and cats, would most likely (with a very high level of probability in my opinion) not be okay with the way 99% of meat is produced in this country. The only consistent choice after that is to abstain from eating it.

The other points I will let Loyd address, in his remarks below. Louisville.com journalist Collette Henderson was on top of things enough to write both an pre- and post-protest piece about the Game debacle that generated some much-needed press for our cause. Wave3’s coverage was laughingly docile, but once again the cognitive dissonance bled through: a man justified his eating of antelope by claiming that even though they are cute, so are cows, and he eats them. Watch it for yourself if you don’t believe me.

Collette’s piece was cut short due to the website’s guidelines (not by her), so the full interview is below. My points made it online in their entirety, which you can read here.

Colette Henderson: What are you primary reasons for targeting Game?

Loyd Coy: Well, the timing was right. Some of our vegan friends who are normally not the protesting type became very up in arms at the presence of foie gras on the menu of this new,young, “hip” restaurant. We didn’t want to lose that momentum and I had been wanting to start a series of monthly protests/actions(second Saturday protests). With the young “hip” demographic of Game and their pricing introducing this cruel dish as well as others(lamb heart burger??) to people previously not very exposed to these types of culinary nightmares, it just made sense to take a stand against it and do our best to inform people of the fact that they are consuming diseased, factory farmed organs of an animal that lived a short life full of suffering and pain.

CH: Were there any attempts by the organizers of this protest to educate the proprietors of Game about the impact of Hudson Valley Farms? In your opinion, how did this conversation go?

LC: Sam did indeed reach out to them. They told us all about their efforts to provide food with “integrity.” when we pointed out with a private letter to them that foie gras is anything but, the only response we saw was a canned statement posted on Facebook from the factory farm provider(Hudson valley) that doesn’t really address the long history of animal abuse investigations, environmental fines, or the fact that so much of the treatment of these birds would be illegal if it were done to an animal protected under the humane slaughter act, which birds are exempt from. The lack of response led us to go ahead with the protest. And take the letter public.

CH: What are the long term and short term goals of this protest?

LC: The long and short term goals are the same in my eyes. To heighten awareness of the cruelty involved, to hopefully sway Game to take foie gras off the menu, to let other eateries and grocers that sell foie gras know that we will be coming for them as well, and to strengthen/publicize the local animal rights/liberation movement.

CH: Has PETA or any of the organizers of this event contacting or protested Hudson Valley Farms directly?

LC: We have not. PETA, Compassion Over Killing, and Animal Equality are at least three animal rights organizations that have conducted investigations at Hudson valley. Every time they have discovered a veritable horror house of animal suffering.  This has led to these organizations and others taking a stand against Hudson Valley.

CH: Aside from this protest, what are other things PETA or the organizers of this event are involved with locally? What would you say to someone who wants to get involved?

LC: PETA, as well as Mercy for Animals, and the Humane Society of the United States are continually involved in all sorts of animal rights business here. Everything from protests to education to legislation is touched by the every day activities of these groups as well as the local group Louisville Vegetarian Initiative. Sam and I both are involved as much as we can be with all of these things on both a local and national level. Sam also writes a pretty amazing blog, The Nail That Sticks Up. Another local activist runs waronanimals.org as for locals who would like to become more involved, a good place to start would be with the Louisville Vegetarian Initiative.

CH: What is your response to the criticism around the attention to Game/Hammerheads (which is reportedly tries to source locally as possible at Hammerheads and prioritizes pastured, free range products) in comparison to the many businesses who exclusively serve CAFO meats in the Louisville metro area?

LC: Well of course a pasture is better than a battery cage or a gestation crate, but to put it simply, there is no such thing as humane meat. All of these animals are looked at as commodities rather than sentient beings. They all end up in the same slaughterhouses. They all meet their fate at the blade or the bolt gun. In the end they all have the ability to live their lives for themselves taken away, for a simple meal. To quote a wise man named Morrissey,

the flesh you so fancifully fry
is not succulent, tasty or kind
it is death for no reason
and death for no reason is MURDER

This quote is true no matter how many buzz words meant to make consumers feel better about the blood on their hands are attached to the carcass.

Also, what’s local, natural, free range, etc about foie gras? Nothing. It doesn’t even go with the theme of this restaurant. To the best of my knowledge there isn’t anything local about kangaroo either.

CH: Any additional comments?

LC: For the readers, please think compassionately when making dining choices. When eating out, please consider one of the many local eateries that offer extensive and delicious plant based options. When shopping please consider if the convenience, entertainment, or taste a product will give you, is worth the suffering an animal put into it.

I want to close by mentioning the other restaurants in Louisville that serve foie gras (with verifying links). Surprisingly, the product is distributed by Creation Gardens which is likely where many of the restaurants are getting it from. It’s my hope that we can put pressure on these companies to stop serving this cruel “delicacy.”

• Creation Gardens
• Jack Fry’s
• Jeff Ruby’s (also serves veal)
• Corbett’s
• The English Grill/Brown Hotel (uses a “foie gras veal sauce” – wow)

Several resturants were mentioned that I haven’t been able to verify, including: La Coop Bistro (in NuLu), Varanese, The Oakroom (in the Seelbach), and Seviche. If you have info on these or any others, please leave a comment below.

If you haven’t heard the news on Facebook or elsewhere, a new restaurant called Game opened last month in Louisville. True to its name, it serves mainly “game” meats, including some more exotic ones including kangaroo, ostrich, and wild boar. As disgusting as this is, it’s also insane to me why people have an obsession with weird meats like this. However, the inclusion of foie gras on their menu is a point of contention between myself and the owners. After talking with one of them, Adam, and learning about their source of foie gras, I felt it necessary to write openly about the problems of sourcing and serving foie gras.

Many will condemn this approach for being too narrow: “why don’t you go protest McDonalds too?” they say. We do. “Well, don’t you think all meat is inhumane?” I do, yes. But foie gras is expensive, unnecessary  and supremely cruel. Far beyond raising animals for their flesh, ducks and geese are force-fed and tortured to put them in a diseased state where their liver becomes so fat that it is – for some twisted reason – considered a delicacy. This isn’t right, and I’m urging Game to stop carrying the dish. Read on for why:

Adam,

I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me the other day and explain about the menu items at Game. As we discussed, there are often ethical issues regarding the production of foie gras (fatty liver), and I have found numerous issues with your supplier, Hudson Valley Farms.

In 2007, the farm was fined $30,000 for environmental violations due to spilling manure and other contaminants into a nearby river.

Numerous undercover investigations at this farm have documented severe animal abuse and torture:

A 2008 investigation by Compassion Over Killing documented “…pipes being shoved down their [the ducks] throats and food pumped into their stomachs to being grabbed by their wings, shackled upside down, and their throats slit.”

The “cage-free” claim of Hudson Valley does little to alleviate the pain and suffering of the ducks and geese in question. A doctor of veterinary medicine, Holly Cheever, commented on 2011 footage from Hudson Valley: “Here you can see the animals’ feathers are just tattered…You can see that the feather pieces have come off of the main stem of the feather which indicates they are kept dirty, they’re crowded, their feathers are breaking, and this would be very unnatural. It certainly indicates a poor husbandry and not at all a natural state for ducks to be in.”

In 2009, a reporter from The New York Times documented not the conditions of the animals, but of the workers: “…the underpaid, overworked and often gruesomely exploited farmworkers who feed and otherwise care for the ducks”

In 2009, a distributor of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, D’Artagan Inc. was forced to modify the language of its description of the meat, after it was found that the claims “The liver is not diseased, simply enlarged” and “Animals are hand-raised with tender care under the strictest of animal care standards” were not able to be verified by a review of the relevant scientific evidence. This decision, by the National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau, exemplifies what many veterianarians and other animal welfare advocates have said for decades: foie gras cannot be produced humanely.

There is all of this, in addition to the large body of evidence that production of foie gras is simply inhumane. While Hudson Valley’s website may defend their methods, numerous veterinarians, doctors, and other industry experts disagree. The feed used, at Hudson Valley, for instance, is nutritionally deficient, and “designed to artificially cause hepatic lipidosis.” This “onset of liver stetosis” (fatty degeneration) can manifest as up to 50% or 60% fat content in the liver of the diseased, force-fed bird. By comparison, the liver of a healthy duck or goose is approximately 5%. This evidence is referenced extensively in a 2012 document prepared by the Humane Society.

This report also details other numerous problems with foie gras production, including injuries sustained during feeding, aversion to force-feeding in the ducks themselves, lameness in the birds, exaggerated mortality, and other issues. In addition, the report debunks all of the claims made by Hudson Valley on their website, such that the birds are not harmed in the process, or that they would eat that much naturally.

Adam, in our discussion on this week, you said that serving food with integrity was important to you, and that coming from a family of hunters, serving and eating game meats made sense. Foie gras does not fit this description: it is an antiquated “delicacy” from French culture that does not fall into the sportsmen-like terms of hunting and food sourcing that you refer to both with your family history, and with the title of your restaurant. Ducks and geese that are crammed into warehouses, force-fed unnatural amounts of food, and slaughtered well before their natural life span cannot possibly qualify as food with “integrity.”

In addition, you stated your disdain for factory farms and modern production methods of “standard” meats like chicken. While I share your concern about CAFOs and large scale agriculture farming, Hudson Valley is nothing more than a factory farm in disguise. The cruelty documented numerous times, along with the large body of evidence that foie gras production is hell on these sensitive birds puts no mincing of words around the fact that this is animal abuse.

With sincerity you told me that you are an animal lover, and it is with that sentiment that I’m asking you to remove foie gras from your menu.

Foie gras production has also been outlawed in the U.K., Germany, the Czech Republic, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Israel, Denmark, and most recently in our own state of California. In fact, California producers were given a full eight years to come up with an alternative to the cruel force-feeding (gavage). No method was found, and the ban remains today (see http://tnl.su/YEnvwr for more info).

In closing, I find most powerful a quote from Justice E. Rivlin, one of the justices in 2003 who moved forward Israel’s complete ban on the production of foie gras. He writes, in the verdict,

As for myself, there is no doubt in my heart that wild creatures, like pets, have emotions. They were endowed with a soul that experiences the emotions of joy and sorrow, happiness and grief, affection and fear. Some of them nurture special feelings towards their friend-enemy: man. Not all think so; but no one denies that these creatures also feel the pain inflicted upon them through physical harm or a violent intrusion into their bodies. Indeed, whoever wishes to may find, in the circumstances of this appeal, prima facie justification for the acts of artificial force-feeding, justification whose essence is the need to retain the farmer’s source of livelihood and enhance the gastronomic delight of others…. But this has a price — and the price is reducing the dignity of Man himself. (src)

Thank you for your time,

[signed]

For those of you who live in Kentucky, particularly the Outer Bluegrass or Cumberland Plateau regions, you know of Ale-8-One. It’s one of the few remaining “local” sodas, made from primarily from corn syrup & carbonated water, along with a secret recipe. Think of it as a unique kind of ginger ale.

Sadly, after all these years, Ale-8-One (“a late one”) is still not vegan. That is, the original formula, anyway. Diet Ale-8-One does not contain the offending ingredient: glycerine! Please see my update below! 

Oh, the bane of many vegans around the world. Glyercine, as you may know, can be both animal or vegetable derived and as evidenced below, is from an animal source when it occurs in Ale-8-One.

The following is an exchange between fellow vegan activist Loyd (who runs the totally awesome button company Button Badger!) and Ale-8-One’s PR rep, DeAnne Elmore. You contact e-mail her directly for more info.

Loyd: Is the glycerine in ale 8 animal derived?

DeAnne: The glycerine used in Ale-8-One is animal based. The company has explored the synthetic glycerine option but found two big problems. One, synthetic glycerine is in extremely short and supply; and two, even if we were able to purchase it, it is extremely expensive.

I hope this answers your question. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance.

No one wants synthetic glycerin, but why not switch to vegetable glycerine? Even if it is more expensive, vegetarians and vegans could actually buy your product then. Might make up for it. For instance, there is a vegetarian restaurant in Louisville selling ale 8. I emailed a couple years ago, and this email was just to check to see if anything has changed. Since it hasn’t, that restaurant will soon stop selling ale 8, because I will have to now inform them that it isn’t vegetarian.

I will check with our QC department regarding vegetable glycerin. I am not familiar with all the options, but was told when we researched it a couple of years ago that other options were in short supply and more expensive. More expensive is a is a big concern for us. As a family owned business we struggle to keep our costs in line to stay competitive. Our raw materials are increasing, utilities are increasing and Ale-8 doesn’t share the same purchasing power as national brands. We fight for shelf space at the retail level, and price drives position.

We understand the vegan preferences and respect their position, but changing the formula at any cost must be carefully weighed. I do intend to bring up the issue again with management.

I see what you are saying, but keep in mind that you are literally telling us that you don’t want our money. Also, I can’t think of any other sodas that even have glycerin in them at all.  Anyway, thanks for getting back to me.

What I’m saying is that our company can not offer vegans an Ale-8 that adheres to their principles right now — my hope is that in time, supply issues can be resolved and then cost issues will follow and that someday Ale-8-One will be acceptable to the vegan community.

I don’t know about other sodas honestly.  I do know that it is a binding agent and I’m happy to speak with you anytime.

Sounds like the Ale-8 crew needs the hook up on some vegetable-derived glycerine! Can anyone help them out? Until then, I’ll stick to regular old ginger ale, or Rockstar, which is 100% vegan!

Photo: eclectriclibrarian

Update 2/19 14:06: I received correspondence from Ale-8-One that this is untrue. Glyercine is present in the diet version as well, but in such minute amounts that it is not required to be labeled on the bottle. I appreciate the company disclosing this information to me when they could have easily not done so. Contact them and let them know you want a vegan Ale-8-One! Here is the e-mail I received today from DeAnne, above:

It is not [listed on the bottle], it is in the secret formula as a binding agent which falls under trade secret protection. Technically, those elements don’t have to be disclosed. The amounts are very small in a 12 oz bottle. However, I know that the amount doesn’t matter, it is the presence.

Additional glycerine is added to the process for creating Ale-8-One which is why it is listed on the panel. Glycerine is only present within the secret formula in Diet and Caffeine Free Diet. To give you an idea of the amount, a 100 ml test tube of the secret formula is just under a half cup measure, and it will flavor 600 bottles. Again, I know the amount doesn’t matter to you just the presence.

Above: a shot from the dusty US Grand Prix of Cyclocross, held annually in the fall, here in Louisville. The riders up front will be representing Team USA this weekend!

It’s the last week of January, and the UCI Cyclocross World Championships are upon us! What is all that gibberish, you say? Let’s break it down:

• UCI: Union de Cycliste Internationale / International Cycling Union (the group that oversees all world-class cycling events, from BMX to the Tour de France)
  
• Cyclocross: A “cross” between road and mountain bikes, gaining popularity rapidly, that engages riders on short courses over sand, grass, and mud. The racing season is typically early fall to late January
• World Championship: The race that decides who is the world champion for the 2013-2014 season; in other words, a big fucking deal!

Bike racing is great an all, but why it this suddenly so important? Because it’s being held right here in Louisville, Kentucky! In fact, less than 5 miles from my house, at our dedicated cyclocross facility, Eva Bandman Park. Preparations have been going on for, well, years (Louisville won the bid back in 2010), but in the last few months things have been moving fast. I spent the last two weekends helping set up the course, and in fact there are two distinct courses: the one at Eva Bandman for the World Champs, and a separate course just down the road for the Masters World Championships. “Masters” in cyclocross indicates a racer over 30, broken up into age groups of 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, etc. They’ll race on a different course, for slightly less time, but with a similar level of prestige.

The World Championships for “elite” men and women, are, however, of very, very high prestige. Consider the race in 2012 race held in the town of Koksijde, Belgium. An estimated 60,000 people turned out over the course of the two days, which is a lot even when you consider the fanaticism of Belgians and their love of all things cycling. Will we have 60k crazed fans? Unlikely. But the official Louisville 2013 twitter account claims upwards of 5,000 per day, plus the residual from Masters Worlds, and hey, who knows? There’s a giant buzz going around, and of course social media is leading the cause:

To be virtually part of the gigantic historic event that is 2013 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships use the hashtag #Louisville2013

— louisville2013 (@louisville2013) January 29, 2013

Among the crazy hubbub of the week, including the Belgian team heading to a Cards game (snapped by local cycling star and blogger John Mandrola) and the giant signs at the airport and on cars, the craziest by far is the phenomenon known as “Louisville 2013 Foam Party.” Perhaps you know it better by its title, #Louisville2013FOAMPARTY” as Twitter has been going nuts with that hashtag for several days now. A foam party is, by all accounts, a giant rave with foam (yes, like the bath kind) shooting everywhere, causing general mayhem and wetness, but mix into this the grittier, no-fucks-given, party-all-night attitude of cyclocross, and you have the makings of a sensation.

Beyond that, the team behind this party was able to craft together a short, professional quality teaser video, interlacing shot of sexy girls dancing in foam with cyclocross racers. Does this appeal to the demographic? Hell yes it does. See for yourself:

Beyond that, The foam party people have been able to get @ mentions, rewteets, and shit loads of chatter from some high influencing twitter accounts. If you know much about Klout or the spread of twitter, this can mean good things for event promotion:

The social spread of this intrigues me, hence the vast amount of tweets. Read on…

#Louisville2013FoamParty … Seriously: A foam party. At cyclocross Worlds. In February. You can’t be … bit.ly/TOvUQs #cyclocross

— Cyclocross Magazine (@cyclocross) January 29, 2013

All I plan to wear to @lv2013foamparty is my @louisville2013 ALL ACCESS credential badge. For obvious reasons.

— Adam Myerson (@AdamMyerson) January 29, 2013

Prepping for Louisville. What vaccinations are recommended for @lv2013foamparty?

— bill gifford (@billgifford) January 29, 2013

OOH the @lv2013foamparty looks to be a 5-minute walk from our hotel, laaaadies @starrwalker @kittenbat

— cindy (@acindysays) January 28, 2013

I don’t know if there’s a jersey for it, but I am pretty sure @lv2013foamparty won Worlds today. #louisville2013foamparty

— spencerhaugh (@spencerhaugh) January 26, 2013

Next week is going to put Derby week to shame. Fuck yeah @louisville2013 & @lv2013foamparty 

— Jimmy Flaherty (@fuckgas) January 26, 2013

Didn’t make the selection for the worlds team, but did make the selection for @lv2013foamparty

— Sup Cat (@supcat) January 26, 2013

An an interview, USA team member Jeremy Powers (think the cyclocross equivalent of, say, Peyton or Eli Manning) says he could potentially DJ at said foam party. This was all the group needed for a flyer:

In the age of social media, does one even need an official endorsement? How about just a “maybe” or “might?” The case is clear: get Jeremy Powers to mention your party, and you’re good to go. Having Cyclocross Magazine sponsor doesn’t hurt, either.

So rejoice, Louisville, for cyclocross is upon us in all its various forms. There’s a single speed “derby” race on Thursday night, Masters are racing all week, and parties abound. We’ve been told that the elite races Saturday & Sunday will be streamed live on the UCI YouTube Channel. I can vouch for the camera positions on course, as they’re in all the tight, slippery spots were racers will be struggling. Keep an eye on the Twitter and Facebook accounts for more info, or follow my personal twitter account (@sam_metal) as I update from the course over the weekend.

MORE COWBELL!

Update: here’s an interview with the co-creator of the foam party. Best quote: “it was the power of the internet.“

Update 2: The Louisville Sports Commission just released this short teaser video with a nice Euro accent.

Update 3: The landing page for the live stream is up now; here is the “channel” for the Men’s elite race. Apparently this is the first time the UCI will be streaming the race live. Let’s here it for American technology! 

If you haven’t yet seen the underreported story of the vegan refusing the flu vaccine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, the case is worth a glance. Essentially, vegan and ex-hospital employee Sakile Chenizra was fired from the hospital for refusing to get an employee-mandated flu vaccine at the request of her employers. It’s common for hospitals to impose this, as it is in nursing homes, schools, etc. If you’re not aware, the flu vaccine as it stands in 2012/2013 is not vegan: it’s egg-based and also tested on animals. A great dialogue regarding the ethics of this are located here at Choosing Raw.

Chenizra sued the hospital for religious discrimination under Title VII, claiming the veganism, or rather, her belief in it, is strong enough to be considered a religious belief. Surprisingly, the court is allowing her claim to move forward! They wouldn’t throw the case out, and it’s set for a July 9th date. This is good news! If veganism can be taken seriously as a belief “with a sincerity equating that of traditional religious views” (the court’s words) then our foot is in the door for taking animal rights seriously. Which means, well…I’ll leave that to your imagination! For a preview of that possible future, check out the Nonhuman Rights Project.

So, I’m very excited to see how all this develops. However, legal stuff isn’t my forte, so I had the privilege of getting the insight of a friend and longtime vegetarian Joe Dunman. He was kind enough to give some background on this issue, and other comments. His remarks are below. Enjoy!

Former hospital employee Sakile Chenzira, a vegan, has sued Cincinnati Children’s Hospital for religious discrimination after they fired her for refusing a vaccination with animal ingredients. The Hospital tried to get her case tossed out before trial, arguing that veganism is not a religion, but a federal trial court in Ohio will allow the case to proceed. Chenzira’s arguments raise interesting legal issues in American workplace discrimination law.

The Law of Religious Discrimination

Speaking very generally, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a federal law that prohibits most workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. Most states have similar laws that extend similar protection to individual characteristics that our society has deemed off-limits when it comes to making employment decisions. In other words, you can’t be fired, refused a job, segregated from co-workers, or otherwise penalized just for your natural skin tone, or for being Jewish, or for being Mexican, as just a few examples.

While skin color, race, sex, and national origin are easily defined and proven, religion is a more complicated matter. American courts don’t require religious plaintiffs to prove that their particular belief system is true or valid, only that they honestly believe, and those beliefs rise to a level that constitutes “religious belief.” In the words of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “the law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.”¹

Not all courts agree how to determine what constitutes a “religious belief” for the purposes of Title VII or other anti-discrimination laws. While a belief in a supernatural creator or god has been found to be unnecessary, there is still dispute whether “[p]urely personal, political, ideological, or secular beliefs” can qualify.² For example, communists, members of organizations like MOVE and the Ku Klux Klan, and Church of Marijuana practitioners have been denied protection under Title VII.

Of course, just proving that you adhere to a religious belief system isn’t enough to win a discrimination suit. In general, you also have to prove that you suffered an “adverse  employment action” like getting fired or  demoted, getting a pay cut, or being reassigned to lesser duties, and also prove that your religious beliefs or practices were the basis for that action. This can be a tough sell in the “at-will” world of American employment where any number of unprotected behaviors (like being tardy, insubordinate, unreliable, or just unlikeable) can be a perfectly legal basis for termination.

Employers get some additional leeway. While they must generally accommodate the religious practices of their employees (where they intersect with job duties), employers don’t have to do so if it would cause them “undue hardship.” According to the EEOC, “an accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”³

Veganism as a Religion

The legal argument that veganism, at least as part of a wider moral and ethical perspective, qualifies as a “religion” for the purposes of workplace discrimination law is not entirely new. The California Court of Appeal ruled on such a case in 2002.

Computer technician Jerold Friedman was offered a permanent job with California-based Kaiser Foundation Hospitals in 1998. As a condition of his employment, Kaiser required him to receive a mumps vaccination. When Friedman, a long-time Ethical Vegan, learned that the mumps vaccination is grown in chicken embryos, he refused to submit to the vaccination, but offered to allow his employer to give him regular health checkups and test for the disease. Kaiser’s management and human resources department refused his offer and terminated him.

Friedman sued Kaiser for religious discrimination under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a state law similar to Title VII. He alleged that his Ethical Vegan lifestyle and philosophy qualified as a religion for the purposes of the law. The trial court rejected Friedman’s argument, however, so he took his case to the California Court of Appeal.

Friedman contended that Ethical Veganism is the ethical and moral equivalent of a religious belief, though it lacks traditional supernatural or “spiritual” foundations. He argued that his veganism was more than a “trivial dietary preference.” The EEOC’s review of his claim offered support, suggesting that Friedman adhered to ethical and moral principles that transcended diet and lifestyle and qualified as a “religion” for the purposes of the FEHA.

Unfortunately for Friedman, the California appellate court disagreed. After extensive discussion of past decisions and tests to determine what qualifies as “religion,” the court found that Friedman’s veganism was just not enough. For example, because his beliefs didn’t include any position on “ultimate questions” (such as the origin of life), they didn’t quite meet the standard.⁴

Friedman petitioned the California Supreme Court for review of the decision but was denied. He then sought the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court but was similarly turned away. Today, the Court of Appeal decision ruling that Ethical Veganism (and by extension any similar vegan diet) does not qualify as a religion for the purposes of workplace discrimination law remains in effect.

Sakile Chenizra’s Case

First, it’s important to note that the case of Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. does NOT hold that veganism is a religion that is covered by Title VII. This ruling is largely procedural. What the court says is the defendant Hospital can’t have the case tossed out without trial (a process called “summary judgment”) simply by arguing that veganism is not a generally-recognized religion. The plaintiff, vegan Sakile Chenizra, can now proceed with her discrimination suit and argue her case before a jury. She may still lose, but at least she will have a chance to prove she was discriminated against.

Chenzira has chosen an interesting strategy. She has attempted (accurately or inaccurately) to connect her diet to traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs by citing the Bible as justification for her veganism. That’s easier than Jerold Friedman’s effort to create a new “religion” where the court has not previously found one.

However, the court must be very careful. It already seems as though the judge has allowed the parties to debate whether or not the Bible actually supports a vegan diet. Determining what beliefs are Biblical and which are not is dangerous territory, since the First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a state religion or interfering with an individual’s free exercise of religious practices. It is unconstitutional for our secular courts to rule on what does or does not qualify as “Christian,” or “Biblical.” They aren’t supposed to care at all. They should only care whether a person’s beliefs are honestly held and whether they meet the standards of our discrimination laws.

In the likely event that she loses at trial, an appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is almost a certainty. Those interested in civil rights in general and veganism in particular should keep an eye on Sakile Chenzira’s legal plight.

Joe Dunman is a Kentucky attorney who specializes in civil rights, employment discrimination, and tort law. He can be reached at joedunmanlaw@gmail.com.

As the year comes to a close, I’m a bit saddened by the lack of posts on TNTSU. I have no one to blame but myself, mind you, but it’s often hard to find the time and motivation to write, research, and coalate thoughts in a presentable form that one is happy with. You are your own worst critic, right? Still, I have hope for the blog and whatever form it may take in 2013, be it a more personal narrative, simply an archive of information, or a full-on vegan propaganda machine (ha!). But 2012 did give us some great posts, and below are the five that exemplify both my writing and the spirit of the blog. Read on:

#5 - Committed To A Wood Burning World

This post was inspired by Sam Harris’ incredible article about the perils of wood smoke, and how our reaction to such an “outrageous” claim is the same thing that believers feel when we state that there is no god, heaven isn’t real, or Mohammed wasn’t really a prophet. His post was widely received and I filled in a bit of the background research, along with some commentary of my own. Consequently, any bonfire I now attend is met with a high level of skepticism, much to the chagrin of my bonfire-loving friends!

#4 – How To Take Any Compliment

I’m continually inspired by Don Miguel Ruiz, author of The Four Agreements and subsequent books on Toltec wisdom. Religious aspects aside, the ideas he presents are pure gold: don’t take anything personally, always do your best, free yourself of emotion poison, etc. Along with not taking the negative side of life personally, we should strive not to take the positive too personally, either. This is most exemplified by our society’s vast inability to take compliments. They’re either downplayed, dismissed, scorned, or weakly returned. I tried to illustrate strategies for how to take any compliment, from the mundane to the sincere.

#3 - 5 Things You Should Post More Of On Facebook

I’ve often thought that there should be instruction manuals for some of the basic things in life. Not that Facebook is very basic, but when you signed up, did anyone ever give you precursor of what you should post? We sort of infer what to post based on what our friends post, and that can quickly turn into – to put it bluntly – a lot of “bitching and moaning.” In the post I cover five positive topics that I think people should post more of. The theme is the usual be-thankful-be-grateful motto, mixed in with some modern technology.

 #2 - Ask Me Why I’m Veg[etari]an (AR 2012 Guest Post)

I had my friend Ethan write about his experiences during the whirlwind that was AR2012. He did a much better job than I, and got this to me within just a few days of the conclusion of the conference. The National Animal Rights Conference showed me that we are heading towards a vegan society, and Ethan eloquently described all the ways we are going to get there.

#1 - Kindness is King: Interview with Philip Wollen

I’ll admit this is #1 partly because it’s one of the most popular articles on the blog, with quite a few shares, likes, and tweets. But it’s also powerful. Philip Wollen has a story to inspire animal rights advocates everywhere, leaving a life of wealth and power to concentrate on saving our earth and its species. His responses are genuine, kind, and real. He was brought into the limelight with a spellbinding ten minute YouTube clip back in May of this year. My favorite quote is this:

I am always perplexed when people question Sea Shepherd’s “direct” action. It seems a tautology. What is “indirect” action? I wonder what any of us would do if we saw a kitten or a puppy being beaten to death in the street. Indirect action?

See you in 2013, if the world doesn’t end before then!

Allowing an animal to live out its natural life, using up water, land, and feed is not a model that any savvy farmer would follow. It’s therefore quite logical that these animals are killed long before their natural lifespan. As one can see below, this is often exceedingly short: in chickens they won’t even live past two months. It’s hard to even imagine such a short, shallow life.

Fast Co. recently highlighted this pretty awesome hand-crank cell phone charger called the “BoostTurbine.” While hand-crank devices have been around for some time, this one actually looks slick, and has both USB and micro USB ports (presumably to charger the charger?). In the wake of Sandy and no power, this could come in quite handy in a disaster.

Fast and efficient, in one minute the hand  turbine power generator can produce enough  power for a 30-second call or a few critical  texts. When fully charged, BoostTurbine2000 fully charges most smartphones.

Imagine if you’re sitting around bored, watching things float by, and crank this thing for a few hours! Why, you’d have enough juice to power a whole game of Words With Friends. Of course, solar chargers are pretty swell too (when the sun comes back out), but they’re plagued by inefficiency. Consider the Revovle XeMini Plus, which can take up to 13 hours for a full charge! As the review points out, hot sun is bad for any phone, so you have to find a way to get direct sunlight, for a long time, without heat. Those Alaskans could benefit…

So what’s a disaster-prone, eco-conscious citizen to do? Well, if you’re willing to shell out $200 you can build up a charge just by doing, that is, walking, running, biking, or just moving around. The nPower PEG (Personal Energy Generator) claims to build up battery life by just hanging out in your backpack and converting the small kinetic energy shifts that occur from every day life into straight-up cell phone juice.

This YouTube review claims that after three days of heavy walking and bumping around in the car, the PEG could only deliver about 40% of the juice for a full iPhone battery. Wired echoed these sentiments in their review. Not very impressive. But, what if you took it jogging? Or cycling (in the jersey pocket)? Or attached it to the bottom of a drum head? Washing machine, outside of a blender, trampoline antics…the possibilities are endless! We waste energy constantly, and if you were able to salvage some of it for free, that’d be nice. With a $200 price tag (not to mention the adapter for your specific phone), I’m not sure it’s worth it, but I’d love to hear some stories from users.

Perhaps you heard Sherry Turkle on NPR last week discussing her book, “Alone Together,” about the on-going struggle of our youth to remain autonomous beings in an inter-connected society. I wrote about her findings over a year ago, mentioning how Facebook is one big “validation fest.” This was echoed with Bruce Hood’s comments a few months later, who said “[r]ather than opening up and exposing us to different perspectives, social networking on the Internet can foster more radicalization as we seek out others who share our positions.”

And so it is with enthusiasm that I try to expand my worldview, my positions, and my outlook, by seeking the alternative view. Today, it comes from BEEF Magazine – yes, the industry magazine of cattle producers – and I’ve found quite a slew of propagandizing articles. What interests me, however, is the angle. Here, animal rights activists are on the wrong side of the fence, even though they claim we take “moral high ground” most of the time (I think we do because we have it!). In a recent article “debunking” meatless Mondays, entitled “Six Reasons Why I Eat Meat Every Day — Mondays, Too,” beef advocate Amanda Radke writes:

I’ve got to hand it to the vegetarian and vegan activists, they know how to create a movement to rally around. Only a small segment of the U.S. population actually follows a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, but these folks have been able to take their ideas and make them mainstream. Universities across the country have adopted the Meatless Monday trend, and it seems like every time I pick up a consumer publication, there’s an article promoting meatless meals like tofu and bean burgers.

Then the author gives six – what I can only assume she feels are valid – reason to eat meat every day, including Mondays. These include “health” which amounts to the statement that beef contains vitamins, minerals, and protein; then reason #5, “it’s kind” which is sort of laughable as ethically, by definition, it is not kind to bring a being into existence to kill it; and some other paltry examples such as “it’s sexy” and “it’s environmentally friendly.” Basically all the reasons we give against eating meat, just spun 180 degrees, to appeal to the cattle producers so they have some argument to throw out there. But you can think through those yourself (I even felt compelled to leave a comment on the post).

The real “meat” of the issue comes in when the industry goes after what they call the “emotion of animal welfare.” Ah yes, emotion. It always gets in the way of things! Author Gayle Smith has some profound quotes about the mucking up of emotion and science that AR activists like to do. For instance…

Animal activists are successfully influencing the consumer’s view of animal welfare by appealing to the core values people believe in, such as compassion, justice, fairness and freedom, she adds. Activists also highlight issues easily grasped by consumers, like housing, handling and pain; they then develop modest appeals for change by adopting a high moral ground or even using religion. As an example, [Purdue University associate professor of animal behavior and well-being Candace] Croney points to farrowing crates to contain sows. “The activists say, ‘Can’t we give this pig just a little more room to turn around?’ That sounds completely reasonable, but the urban consumer doesn’t understand how a sow behaves. They don’t understand it’s not that easy. Their opinion is ‘What’s the problem? Just do it.’”

Just a little more room! Impossible, right? No. While I certainly don’t advocate farming pigs, here are at least two suitable alternatives to farrowing crates: Swedish Deep-Straw Farrowing (hey, pigs in straw! novel idea, eh?) and this Natural Farrowing System. Again, please note that this is not an endorsement of any sort of animal confinement, simply a counter argument to animal agriculture’s claim that “a little more room” is just too much.

Next, onto definitions:

Animal welfare has different definitions to different people. For many, particularly producers, it’s providing good animal husbandry, and taking care of the physical needs of animals for food, water and shelter. However, others feel the biological and behavioral needs of the animal should also be considered.

This is the same rhetoric I heard about KYLCSC meetings: animals need food, water, and shelter, period. A “healthy animal” will produce better than an unhealthy one. And when behavioral needs factor into it? Eh…

It’s clear to me that the majority of animal producers have a wall up when it comes to this front: they create the guise of caring about animals through their basic needs (Maslow’s lowest level), while ignoring the emotional toll it can take on the animals. If you repeat this enough times, and are born into a society that does this (as “nth” generation farmers so proudly state), it can become a sort of truth. But these animals feel both emotional and physical pain, and when either one is left out of the equation, there are disastrous consequences. The article goes on to advise producers what to do when confronted with the media, activists, or even (gasp) conscious consumers!

…Croney recommends explaining to consumers that today’s food challenges require maximizing the use of land and space. “We also need to mention that it requires us to grow and finish a lot of animals quickly. In the case of sows, we need to show the public how they are fed, and that they are housed in a way to protect workers and other animals,” she says. “The attention span of the American public regarding these issues is about two minutes, so we need to develop a quick and effective way to address these concerns,” she says. “Make sure people know no one is more concerned about our animals than us, and that we are committed to their health and welfare,” she says. “Develop a statement committed to animal welfare, and put it out there where people will read it. Actions speak louder than words, but words can be very effective when people don’t know you or what you do.”

If you get to define the terms “health and welfare” then you can certainly be committed to it, no? By advising the animal industry to “develop a statement committed to animal welfare…” you get exactly that: a statement. How about advising them to consider the claims of activists, that animals need to be taken care of on all levels? Or discussing the separation between mothers and their young “down on the farm?” These issues are glossed over in the name of a generic “animal welfare,” and of course, profit. By re-enforcing the point that we have “food challenges” – assuming that they can only be met by meat and dairy – and using this as a talking point, the animal agriculture industry continues to dupe the American public. It takes any option of a truly humane treatment of cows, pigs, chickens, etc. off the table by assuming that their sole purpose in life is to provide for us, not simply exist of their own volition.

Note: in doing some research regarding the farrowing crate debacle, I contacted Paul Shapiro of the Humane Society, who had this to say:

• Keep in mind that the entire debate going on in the country right now is about gestation crates, not farrowing crates. They keep the pregnant pigs in the gestation crates for four months, then move them to farrowing crates where they nurse piglets for four months, and then go back to the gestation crate where it all repeats for a couple more years.
• Nine states have passed laws banning gestation crates. Zero have laws relating to farrowing crates.
• About 35 major pork buyers in the country now have policies to phase out gestation crates. Zero have such policies for farrowing crates.
• The industry likes to purposefully conflate farrowing and gestation crates so they can make the piglet-crushing argument.

Photo: Twicepix

Arby’s claims they’re “slicing up the truth about freshness,” and their new logo attests to that. Design Shack has a good run down of the choices behind the new 3D hat and type face, along with the overall branding of the website and mobile apps. It looks fine, sure, but really: locally sliced meat? I mean, what’s next, locally flipped burgers? Ketchup squeezed in-house? What Arby’s chooses to gloss over, of course, is the confinement, slaughter, and consequent cruelty that these birds (and other animals) suffer. Turkey CAFOs are no pleasant place. A factory far, far away? How about a factory farm, far, far away?

Again, consider what’s not being addressed: the turkeys that are being “sliced up fresh” are fattened up using crops that could be fed to humans, in a cruel, ineffecient, wasteful process all across the United States, that these turkeys are transported, slaughtered, and processed (but not sliced!) in factories in states like Iowa (oh no!) or other agricultural regions. In fact, all the gruesome, gory stuff takes place so out-of-sight-out-of-mind for the consumer that seeing the meat sliced in-store might even freak them out a little bit! As one who doesn’t patronize Arby’s, I have no idea. Consider what would happen if Arby’s had its workers do more than just the slicing on an in-store level in the quest for “freshness:”

Probably wouldn’t turn out so well, even with a cool 3D hat. And yes, that is a real turkey slaughter picture, as evidenced by this Esquire article. For those looking to find more “humanely” sourced turkeys for your Thanksgiving dinner, well, think again.

Note: Even Iowans weren’t cool with the origin TV spot that Arby’s choose, as they tried to expose the “distance” between Iowa processing plants and the sandwich chains’ stores.

Photos: Esquire Magazine, Youth Voices

During my wonderful weekend at Animal Rights 2012, I had the pleasure of meeting Holly Noll, a fellow vegan straight-edger, who, along with Rebecca Bolte, hosts Vegan Shortcake: a “super awesome” cooking show that not only features delicious vegan recipes, but animal rights issues, and “mocktails” or alcohol-free versions of cocktails. I recently spoke with Holly about the show, AR 2012, and her food choices:

TNTSU: I think Vegan Shortcake totally what need in cooking shows right now: healthy, funny, and hip. What’s your goal with the series? Did you put a lot of thought into the “look and feel” or did it come naturally?

Holly: We do put a lot of time and energy into the way that our show looks though I think that process came totally naturally to us. We pride ourselves on having a show that’s relatable, easy to watch, fun and informative. A lot of the reason our show feels so solid, also, is because Rex [Ray] makes the editing/lighting/sound really high quality and spends a lot of time making it not feel so much like a [typical] “YouTube show”.

How did you end up working with Rebecca? She adds so much comic relief to the episodes; was it a natural fit or did you two rehearse any of the craziness?

Rebecca and I actually met, I believe, at an indoor water park and became quick friends. We originally started working on this rad idea she had:a sober drink bar at shows called Teetotal Babes, which I was really into and which bled into our show with the straight-edge drink additions as well. [T]he show idea was brought up to me and I mentioned it to her and Rex; shortly [there]after Vegan Shortcake was born.

We do think a little about the jokes ahead of time, in that we plan out story lines but honestly we’re really horrid when it comes to acting so the stuff that ends up on the final cut of things is the stuff that just came out as a result of hours of laughing over inappropriate jokes and to much coffee. [Rebecca] really balances my constant need for informing [the audience] about boring food stuff with the entertainment value of the show. [S]he also holds down the drinks and is killer at making sure all the behind the scenes stuff happens like getting our show out there and seen by people, [selling] merch, and what not.

Rex Ray’s camera work makes the videos looks really good. What’s it like working with him? What’s the post-production for Vegan Shortcake like?

Rex is incredible. Honestly, we couldn’t do it without him…we tried when he was on an extended leave, Rebecca and I had some attempts at trying to film shows on this little flip camera…results were disastrous! He is a total mastermind. Somehow he pulls off seeing the end result through all of Rebecca and I running around being crazy. He holds the whole show together and – in addition to making it sound and look good – he really creates those linear structures that make the show watchable. I don’t know too much about post production of the show [but] I know there’s a lot of editing and making things all line up, as well as cutting hours of footage.

I definitely appreciate the straight-edge versions of bar drinks, but what do you want viewers to take away from that?

Yay! I’m glad you’re into it! We want to promote a few different ideas with the xvx [vegan straight-edge] “mocktails”. First, we wanted to get across that sober drinks can be complex and interesting, not just sodas and stuff for children as it is often portrayed in mainstream culture. We also really wanted to promote the fact that xvx living is hella fun and doesn’t have to be super serious. Many people outside of straight edge think of going out to clubs and drinking or partying as their primary source of fun. Here we are trying to show that we’re totally sober and stoked.

When we met, it was in the middle of a high energy animal rights conference. What did you take away from AR 2012?

Wow. Yeah, it was high energy, huh? I took so much from that conference. The most notable being the friends and connections I made, with you as well as with many other dedicated and awesome folks. The conference renewed my inspiration to keep pushing forward and was a solid reminder that so many people in so many ways are promoting the same thing I am. Sometimes it’s nice to remember that you’re not alone with your small group of people you know, and that there are tons of ideas out there – so pushing forward with your [ideas] when you see gaps is okay – because there are others who have your back.

I know you personally eat a lot of raw foods, and a few of the recipes are raw or mostly raw foods. Would you comment on eating a raw vegan diet for health benefits?

I honestly believe that it’s best to eat 80% unprocessed, uncooked food; try your best to keep [the] processed food, sugar and processed carbs out of your diet. I think it’s all about balance though, how you feel about your food affects how you digest it as well as how much you enjoy life. It’s also about seasons: in the winter it’s more likely you’ll crave warm food, so reaching for solid options like a baked sweet potato, some sauteed greens with nutritional yeast and pumpkin seed pesto might be better as opposed to the warmer months, where, if you live somewhere with seasons, you might find yourself eating all raw and not even thinking about it.

Focusing on eating high nutrient content, easy to digest, tasty foods is really the primary goal – in my opinion – for optimal health. I also believe very strongly in juicing and smoothies, as they give you the option of eating huge quantities of raw fruits, veggies and greens, very quickly and easily, where many people find it difficult to fit [that] into their schedules. [Juicing] also skips some steps for your body so it can take that nutrition straight to the body as opposed to having to break it all down.

Rapid fire questions!

Favorite vegan restaurant?

SO HARD! Either Blossoming Lotus in PDX or Chaco Canyon in SEA. (I know answering with two is cheating !)

Best current, and past, XVX band:

Seven Generations, for sure.

Most calories ever consumed in one day:

Whoa. I lived in a co-op in Oakland for a while, and one day someone brought home a deep fryer and that night we had a huge garlic inspired deep fried potluck followed by a big game of “what dessert things can we deep fry?” If I were to pick out a day, it was almost definitely that one. Absolutely the worst I’ve ever felt.

Spiciest food you’ve ever made?

I’m a total baby when it comes to spice, honestly! I recently my dad made me this harrisa crumble over beets that had this insane spice but it grew with smokiness and was complex so I loved it. I like spice with flavor as oppose to just a kick in the face.

Are you a fan of the Vegan Black Metal Chef?

Yeah, I think he is funny and awesome, though I don’t really keep up with it too much. I think it’s a great niche and it’s exciting when anything promoting veganism goes viral.

What’s next for you and Rebecca? Will Vegan Shortcake continue on or do you have other projects planned?

Vegan Shortcake will absolutely continue! Look forward to episodes on [vegan] bacon, BBQ and greens! I am also building a protein bar business, writing a “cook zine” series, brainstorming a few other books, as well as a few ongoing columns for AMP magazine and Vegan Warfare. I’m also hoping to get back to school and get certified in nutrition soon.

Anything else you want to add, promote, or dis:

We just put out our latest episode on Bananas at veganshortcake.com, so check it out as well as my upcoming articles in AMP magazine [and] veganwarfare.com. I love feedback and hearing from people so feel free to email me at holly[at] veganshortcake [dot] com.

Photos: Vegan Shortcake YouTube & Facebook pages.

Hot on the heels of NPR’s interesting the discussion about food waste from Science Friday comes a story that could almost be pulled out of the Onion:

Sweet times for cows as gummy worms replace costly corn feed
Mike Yoder’s herd of dairy cattle are living the sweet life. With corn feed scarcer and costlier than ever, Yoder increasingly is looking for cheaper alternatives — and this summer he found a good deal on ice cream sprinkles. [...]

In the mix are cookies, gummy worms, marshmallows, fruit loops, orange peels, even dried cranberries. Cattlemen are feeding virtually anything they can get their hands on that will replace the starchy sugar content traditionally delivered to the animals through corn.

The article goes on to say that in addition to the junk food – truly a “waste” of food – that the cattle are being fed, they’ll get other by-products of ethanol production, cottonseed hulls, rice and potato by-products, and more. We’re already subsidizing the meat, dairy, and grain industries in this country: is the candy industry next?

Cows are natural grass-eaters – a fact that can get you in trouble, and they like to graze, eating grass, flax, shrubs: stuff that fills them up and gives them plenty of fiber (John Robbins has a good discussion of this, though I don’t agree with eating grass-fed beef). The whole idea of feeding them corn, soy, and other grain mixtures is that it fattens them up, or allows their caloric needs to be met very cheaply, compared to the enormous cost of allowing them to graze and roam freely. Especially with dairy, since they need to be corralled up to be raped¹, milked, and later “processed” (into low-grade meat, or veal if they are the unlucky male calves) it makes sense to keep them in a feedlot or stalls rather than roaming around.

The whole thing is just ridiculous. Producing corn to make junk food, which stores well, now being fed to cows, to produce milk, which we stupidly think is a health food, then eaten by the masses because it’s cheap and subsidized…ah! It’s enough to make you believe in government conspiracies. Stop the madness, quit breeding cows for milk and cheese, and go vegan.

Thanks to Ashley A. for the heads-up on this corn-based insanity.

Photo: Smudge 9000

1. For more on why I use this word, see this short video on “female exploitation” in the dairy industry. Rape is rape, regardless of the species.

Below is the infographic from LearnStuff.com:

This was sent to me by a one Sarah Wenger, but as blogger Mark Turner points out, this could be dubious!

Ah, Facebook. A place to share photos, silly photos of cats, and bash religion. While the Dalai Lama wasn’t necessarily “bashing” religion, his status update last week raised a few eyebrows and prompted this excellent io9 article, “Dalai Lama tells his Facebook friends that religion ‘is no longer adequate’.” When I shared the article on my Facebook, I garnered quite a few likes as well (though, admittedly, I have a lot of non-religious friends). The specific words of the Dalai Lama were, to be clear:

All the world’s major religions, with their emphasis on love, compassion, patience, tolerance, and forgiveness can and do promote inner values. But the reality of the world today is that grounding ethics in religion is no longer adequate. This is why I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

As io9 (who, if you are not aware, are basically the futuristic/sci-fi/transhumanist wing of Gawker/Gizmodo/Lifehacker) points out, this is sounds an awful lot like Sam Harris with his morality-should-be-decided-by-science approach. Hear, hear!

As the Alaska Dispatch (yeah, huh?) points out, tweets from the spiritual leader mirror this sentiment:

I am increasingly convinced that the time has come to find a way of thinking about spirituality and ethics beyond religion altogether.

— Dalai Lama (@DalaiLama) June 13, 2012

We need an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without.

— Dalai Lama (@DalaiLama) August 13, 2012

(Side note: WordPress did a damn good job of those tweet embeds! More on that here.)

So where do we go from here? Comments from my friend circle find the Dalai Lama’s remarks not altogether surprising, but I think that’s also because many of us in America typically look at him as a source good quotes, not a spiritual leader like millions of other Buddhists around the world. And at the same time, is Buddhism not a religion? By some counts, sure, by others it’s merely a philosophical practice, or a way of living. As The Onion so succinctly put, “No One Was Murdered Because Of This Image” which indeed includes the Buddha being “violated.” Sadly we cannot say the same for satire of Muhammed.

In light of the recent outrage about a mere comedic film, which included mass rioting, injuries, and death, how much longer can we tolerate extreme faith? Or any faith, for that matter; the moment we begin to criticize irrational, god-first-and-foremost, “praise be to him” thinking, the moment we can speak clearly about much of this violence, be it from an Islamic or other religious basis. From the NY Times article:

Raising banners with Islamic slogans and denouncing the United States and Israel, Iraqis called for the expulsion of American diplomats from the country and demanded that the American government apologize for the incendiary film and take legal action against it’s creators.

This is simply ridiculous, and highlights the continuing issue with Islamic politics and their faith-crazed viewpoints. Trying to be as unbiased as possible here: holding an entire country accountable for the offensive film created by a few within it, is just ludicrous.

At least some Libyans disagree, as evinced by these photos. And I think many of us see these events unfold as evidence that a portion of Muslims are just wacky, deluded into violence by some promise that it will bring them salvation in the end if they live up to the creed of following the Quran as they interpret it. But I think we need a broader picture: the same faith that they use to fuel these attacks is the faith that causes irrational belief in any god, be it Allah, Yahweh, or Jesus. We have to confront the source: that faith, and religion, are no basis to make these moral and real-world decisions when the teachings inscribed within their books are from an archaic time long ago.

Sam Harris puts it well in his TED Talk from 2010, where he drives home the point that we don’t tolerate “differences of opinion” in other areas of science, where facts are facts and bullshit is bullshit. So why should we do it with morality?

[T]here are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing. And morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals and even for whole cultures, to care about the wrong things. Which is to say, it’s possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliable lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about human morality. [...]

We can no more respect and tolerate vast difference in notions of human wellbeing than we can tolerate vast differences in the notions of how disease spreads, or the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give on the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers.

Photo: Wikipedia

That’s the theme of the Guardian’s Global Development series last week, with the headline “Food shortages could force world into vegetarianism, warn scientists.” Stockholm International Water Institute warned that there simply won’t be enough water to produce the meat we need, at the current rate of eating, by 2050:

Humans derive about 20% of their protein from animal-based products now, but this may need to drop to just 5% to feed the extra 2 billion people expected to be alive by 2050, according to research by some of the world’s leading water scientists.

[...]

Adopting a vegetarian diet is one option to increase the amount of water available to grow more food in an increasingly climate-erratic world, the scientists said. Animal protein-rich food consumes five to 10 times more water than a vegetarian diet. One third of the world’s arable land is used to grow crops to feed animals. Other options to feed people include eliminating waste and increasing trade between countries in food surplus and those in deficit.

“Nine hundred million people already go hungry and 2 billion people are malnourished in spite of the fact that per capita food production continues to increase,” they said. “With 70% of all available water being in agriculture, growing more food to feed an additional 2 billion people by 2050 will place greater pressure on available water and land.”

The Guardian’s Lagusta Yearwood followed up this piece with a great addition of her own, “Forget meat – there’s a world of vegetarian food out there,” where she writes:

 Particularly, we can look to what poor women from every corner of the globe have invented. Why? Because they have always created the tastiest dishes – so many of today’s classic, beloved dishes originated from women who had to put food on the table for their families, no matter what. When kings and queens were busy dying from gout because of their overly rich diets, housewives in Sicily were making luscious caponata from aubergines and celery in a sweet and sour marinade; women in Oaxaca were wrapping corn dough around roasted chilies, seeds, and vegetables to make tamales filled with mole sauces; cooks in Egypt were frying onions in precious olive oil and topping their lentils and rice with them to make koshari; women in Africa were pounding peanuts to make rich stews laced with fresh greens and spices. Vegetarian dishes are everywhere, if we look.

While Yearwood dismisses meat analogues as “expensive” and poor-tasting (which I both agree and disagree with, respectively), her point of not making meat the centerpiece is spot on. We pretty much have to do that, or we won’t be able to feed our booming earth’s population. Of course, we could stop having so many kids too…

Then there was the rebuttal of “Turning vegetarian will not solve the food crisis” by Priyamvada Gopal, who argues that, yes, factory farms are awful and we’re destroying the planet, but

Wealth concentration generates disparate purchasing power that allows richer nations as well as the better-off in every nation to consume – and waste – a disproportionate share of food, fuel, water and other resources. Arable land itself is put towards profit through speculation, mining, and logging, rather than feeding people. The predictable argument that overpopulation is the main problem remains a red herring. When one person can consume or waste between two and five people’s share at a time when per-capita food production has increased, inequity, not human numbers, and the richer, not the poorer, are still the problem.

Gopal argues against the overzealous vegan, pushing their tofu and expensive organic vegetables across the table, but can one get past the ethical implications? Not really. Meat is still murder for large portions of the world where it is simply unncessary, and now, as we see, wasteful and in dwindling supply. Does those buffalo getting slaughtered by the Indians as Gopal references, recognize their contribution to world hunger and lay down with a smile to get slaughtered? No – they simply do not.

Still, there are many issues at work. The goal, in my opinion, is to feed the world, while harming as little as possible. Respect for all life, not just humans, while taking care of the earth, and keeping us healthy. Are these lofty? Absolutely. But, we don’t really have a choice. As Paul Watson says, “if the oceans die, we die.”

Photo: niOS

Among the flurry of awesome people I met at AR 2012, Paul Shapiro stuck out for a couple reasons: 1) his presentation was so well put together, entertaining, and fun to watch, and 2) he was with the Humane Society of the United States, a group that some may not expect to be at a conference that included ALF supporters and talk of direct action. But I give props to HSUS for speaking and representing there, showing that they care about all forms of action that alleviates cruelty to animals. Paul got his start in activism way back in 1995, founding Compassion Over Killing and being instrumental in many of its campaigns until 2006, when he joined the Humane Society. Now he is their senior director of factory farming campaigns. Below is a conversation we had via e-mail:

Thanks so much for taking the time to do this, Paul. When we met it was in the middle of a huge animal rights conference. It would be erroneous to say that there wasn’t any controversy over HSUS being there, yet your speech on Sunday was one of the most invigorating. What are your overall thoughts on AR 2012, now that it’s passed?

Thanks, Sam. I appreciate your kind words about my talk. I was glad to speak there. The response to the three speeches I gave was overwhelmingly positive, and the same was the case for other HSUS speakers like Michael Greger and Jon Balcombe, too. I was glad to be there and see so many old and new friends.

I understand that some people may not exactly be card-carrying HSUS members there, but that’s the way it goes. We should just keep in mind that the animal agribusiness industry views HSUS as a major threat for a reason, and spends millions of dollars to combat HSUS precisely because we’re effective at creating a societal shift in where farm animals land on people’s moral compass.

I want to jump right into what I believe is the main source of contention between some AR activists and HSUS. While I was aware of your relationship with the United Egg Producers, it never seemed to be the grievous move that people like Bob Linden are calling it (a “hi-jacking” as he says).

I want to understand your position on this: why is your negotiation with the UEP important? And can it exist with the Humane Society’s other initiatives, such as the promotion of “humane eating?” For you and many other HSUS members (including Wayne Pacelle) I know this means a plant-based diet (and consequent vegan lifestyle).

In all honesty, this legislation isn’t the main source of contention—it goes back a bit more. I respect Bob, and I respectfully agree to disagree with him. In 2008, he campaigned hard to deride California’s Prop 2 ballot measure and now he’s doing the same with the federal hen protection bill.  Some others who don’t like the federal hen bill also didn’t support Prop 2 (such as the Humane Farming Association and Friends of Animals). This isn’t really new for most of them. The beef and pork industries are fighting hard to kill this legislation, and we shouldn’t make their job easier.

More to the heart of your question, though: All of the animal groups that spearheaded the Prop 2 campaign support the federal hen bill (Mercy For Animals has a good page about why that is), and virtually all of the major meat and dairy trade groups oppose the bill, with the beef industry’s lobby group calling its defeat the group’s “number one priority.”

The meat and dairy industry so vigorously oppose this bill because they say they’re concerned about the precedent of having federal legal protection for animals on factory farms. It’s hard to imagine animals in a worse situation that egg-laying hens. Hundreds of millions of them are essentially immobilized in cages for 18 months prior to slaughter. It’s miserable. Of course this bill is modest, and if enacted, it would certainly reduce animal suffering, and importantly, it’s the best realistic option these hundreds of millions of animals have for the foreseeable future.

Those who don’t like this bill fail to offer any alternative legislative plan for the hundreds of millions of animals the bill would help. They’re not suggesting another legislative way forward for hens, nor are they showing how this bill is worse than having no law at all.

Simply put, no realistic alternatives are offered because none of us in the movement are aware of any. The 280 million hens in our country aren’t just a statistic.  These are real animals who endure real suffering, and we have a chance to help alleviate some of their misery with this bill.  Without it, they will be significantly worse off.

Some have suggested that people should simply stop eating animal products. Of course, one can do that while also supporting this legislation; being vegan does not preclude also reducing the suffering of the countless animals who will be helped by this bill if it’s enacted. As a vegan of 19 years, I’m heartened to see the animal movement focusing more on ethical eating options.  At the same time, I’m heartened that our movement is making so many strides to gain farm animals more legal protection from the worst cruelties, and I would value both approaches if I were a battery hen.

Groups like HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, Mercy For Animals, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the ASPCA, and Compassion Over Killing have been waging legislative campaigns to help farm animals on a state by state basis. Now we’re in our best position ever to gain federal protection for hundreds of millions of animals every year.  This will improve their lives compared to what they are today, and compared to what their prospects will be without the bill.

Would you explain why HSUS chooses to call itself an “animal protection” organization – words which I’m sure were chosen carefully – as opposed to “animal rights,” “animal welfare,” or something else?

To the general public these terms are largely distinctions without difference. The bottom line, though, is that we’re for helping animals. One reason HSUS has been so successful – whether in shutting down dogfighting rings and puppy mills, passing laws to help farm animals, or getting millions more plant-based meals served every year through our Meatless Mondays program – is because we focus our efforts on the human responsibility to protect animals.

Back in your days at Compassion Over Killing you were instrumental in removing the “Animal Care Certified” label from egg cartons, showing that the treatment of said hens was anything but “humane.” Do you think that current labeling, such as Whole Foods “5-Step” system, are meaningful and worthwhile?

There’s a dizzying array of welfare-related labels and some are misleading while others aren’t. HSUS is taking on some of the more misleading labels in court (for example, see our case regarding Perdue’s “humane” claim). I think HSUS does a good job of explaining what the most common ones mean—and don’t mean—at www.humanesociety.org/labels.

In your speech at AR 2012 you discussed the decline of meat consumption, and we’ve recently seen Tyson, Cargill, and other meat producers witness a drop in earnings over the last two quarters. How does this relate to the animal welfare standards of these companies?

Good question—I’m not sure it does alter what they’re doing (or not doing) on animal welfare.

In Kentucky, as you may know, we have a very strange Livestock Care Standards Commission, which listened to testimony from your colleague Matt Dominguez and others (myself included) about their silence on policies like tail docking and gestation crates. Why are regulators so resistant to enforce these now-common standards?

First, thanks so much for testifying there! That’s awesome, man. Second, there’s often a resistance from those in the agribusiness industry to providing any legal protection for animals from abuse whatsoever. On principle, many folks in the industry oppose any agricultural regulation, especially when it comes to regulations to prevent animal cruelty.

You wrote Food Day’s blog, regarding eating fewer animals, that “Very few issues have such clear connections among public health, animal welfare and sustainability.” How do we get others to understand that? Many think that dietary choices are simple, uninteresting debates based purely on taste.

There’s no doubt that eating is a moral act. What we choose to eat has profound consequences not just for us, but for animals and the planet, too.

HSUS—like so many other animal groups—advocates both to reduce the suffering of farm animals who are going to be raised for food and to reduce the total number of animals who are raised for food. For example, in addition to our efforts to ban some of the worst abuses of farm animals, HSUS’s resources include the HSUS Guide to Meat-Free Meals, our Meatless Monday video, our free recipe of the week, our recipe library, and more.

As far as advice for how to help people make better dietary decisions, Nick Cooney’s “Change of Heart” is a great book to read.

Simply put, is a plant-based diet the future for America? Do you envision a day when the majority of Americans eat this way?

Meat consumption is declining in the US. Per capita consumption of meat has dropped by 12.2% in the past five years and is projected to continue falling. Egg and dairy consumption is also on the decline. We’re raising and killing more than a billion fewer farm animals today in the US than we were five years ago, despite an ever-increasing human population. The number of people cutting back on animal consumption continues to grow, and major food industry trade publications tout meat-free options as one of the hottest trends in dining. Add to that cultural icons (think Bill Clinton, Oprah, Ellen and more) who are touting the benefits of plant-based eating, and you see that an issue that was once very fringe is now firmly in the mainstream. I definitely see that continuing.

Anything else you would like to add:

The animal movement has taken impressively important steps in recent years, especially when it comes to farm animal protection. This is progress we should celebrate for sure. Of course, the longest journeys begin with single steps, and we can’t forget that we’ve still got a long way to go. History proves that progress tends to beget progress, yet this doesn’t happen in a self-executing type of way. Laws don’t pass themselves. Campaigns don’t wage and win themselves. This progress our movement is making is only because of the tireless work of so many dedicated animal advocates who are working for tangible advancements, and it’s because of their continued efforts that we’re going to continue moving the ball forward for animals.

I want to thank Paul again for his generous time and explanations of the issues. Regardless of what lean of activist you may be, it’s important to recognize that HSUS is doing some effective work. I’ve ask Paul to check the comments to respond to any follow-up questions you may have.

I had the pleasure of rooming with Ethan Dussault during the four-day weekend craziness of AR 2012, and we experienced a lot of what the conference had to offer together. Ethan was able to attend quite a few more talks than I, however, and writes below about his experience. Ethan is a long-time vegan an animal rights activist from Massachussetts who first came on to my radar as part of Will Travel For Vegan Food back in March. I sincerely appreciate his time in writing this:

Greetings, friends. I write to you from my hometown of Allston, MA, while sitting in the new fully vegan ice cream parlor at what we locals have now dubbed ‘Vegan Corner.’ FoMu Alternative Ice Cream is a neighbor to Peace o’ Pie Vegan Pizza and a longstanding Pan-Asian Vegan restaurant called Grasshopper. Pretty Rad. I love Allston, but I also love getting out of town. I often wonder what people from elsewhere are thinking and doing. I went to the 2012 Animal Rights Conference in Washington, D.C., to find out. I don’t think I could fully do justice to these three days in one blog post so I will merely attempt a thorough scratching of the surface. As a newcomer at the conference, it was especially intense on the senses. Bear with.

I have been vegan almost 7 years now and I have been to many vegetarian/vegan food festivals but the Animal Rights Conference is a different story. If you have been to a Veg Fest, chances are you have seen tables from Mercy For Animals, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Compassion Over Killing, The Farm Sanctuary, Vegan Outreach, PETA, HSUS, Compassion Clothing Co., Tofurkey and more. Although the faces are the same, the focus is not on food and other vegan products, but on a different part of the vegan lifestyle: Activism.

Veganism is being embraced more and more each day. In the United States alone, a staggering increase in people identifying themselves as vegan over the last three years has turned the heads of statisticians and more. The trend doesn’t appear to be slowing either. This exponential growth is happening for a few reasons. Activists are more effective than ever at spreading the word about speciesism, discrimination based on species, and its negative impact on animals and the environment as well as human society and health. Meanwhile, entrepreneurs with their crews are creating an abundance of vegan food options and products. While attending a Rap Session mediated by Vegan Outreach’s co-founder, Matt Ball, he recalled a moment at the Tofurkey table when a representative of the grain and legume meat company asked, “What more can we do?” Ball replied, “Continue to do your part to create the supply and we’ll create the demand.”

Vegan Outreach is known mostly for its large leafletting campaign and promoting a brand of effective advocacy. And here is where the conference gets interesting. What is the best approach to advocating for the animals whose voices go largely ignored at present? How is the demand for vegan food and other products most efficiently grown in our society? This is why activists from all over come to assemble. Much debate occurs over the role of direct action, in its many forms (e.g. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the Animal Liberation Front are both direct in action but also approach interpreting laws differently), versus less direct, awareness raising techniques such as leafletting (and T-shirt wearing… cute). Peter Young, most known for his direct action, began his plenary address by showing his solidarity with the animal rights movement regardless of the differences of opinion in tactics. He then passionately went on to express his support for direct action techniques, highlighting the immediacy of the lives saved and the social statement made as a result of this style of activism. In essence, the majority of the people in attendance all want to bring speciesism to a halt. A major point drilled home this weekend was to have your differences yet remain united. Sound familiar?

The heart of this movement is to spread compassion to all, regardless of species, race, gender, class et al. If we didn’t debate tactics, I would argue the movement to be dysfunctional. However, allowing the debate to break the many types of activists apart would be devastating and would play right into the hands of those who oppose our strides toward justice for the oppressed, namely profiteers of animal suffering.

Exactly who are these oppressed? Ethology, the study of animal behavior, is a branch of science which aims to answer this question. Jonathan Balcombe has written a number of books on this matter, (e.g., Second Nature: The Inner Lives of Animals) and was kind enough to share some of his findings in a light hearted talk. We left his presentation reaffirmed that animals are persons. That is, they are individuals with personalities; they are not automata. (Not) Sorry, Descartes. Some are honest. Some are cheaters. Some are jokers and some are very stern. They have memories and relationships; friends and families including even adoptees. They know fear and fearlessness. They know pain and they know pleasure. They know sorrow and joy. They know sharing is caring. Their lives matter to them. Remember, humans are in fact animals. We can relate.

These academic moments continued. Ryan Shapiro is a historian and animal rights activist who has been chronicling significant events which have brought us to where the movement is today. He begins his talk with an attempt to ban Bull-Baiting in England, 1800, and weaves a tale through the birth of the anti-vivisection movement throughout WWI and WWII. Shapiro then denotes the beginning of the modern Animal Liberation movement and the subsequent reaction by profiteers to put a stop to the liberators actions. Highlights of the divisive tactics include entrapment schemes and myths perpetuated by the media. The most recent attempt to dissuade and or persecute certain activists can be seen in the legislation known as the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act (AETA). This pertinent history (can’t wait for Shapiro’s first book!) acts as a great set-up for the presentation given by “Green is the New Red” author, Will Potter. Will gives a detailed description of tactics used to dismantle social movements and touched upon current events where these tactics can be seen in use; namely in the attempts to break down the Occupy movement and Animal Rights movement. These two presenters leave the attendees with a message of fearlessness and conviction. Our value of compassion is nothing to be ashamed of and nothing to hide. Know you are a caring individual and do not be afraid to stand firm. At least that is how I felt. Bravo, gentlemen.

On a philosophical note, I was pleased when activist, Bruce Friedrich used Socrates as an example of effective communication. I recently was nose deep in some Plato. As I read, ideas of how the Dialogues related to animal rights swirled in my thoughts. I agree Bruce; the Socratic Method is effective.

In a “rap session” moderated by Bob Lucius of the Kairos Coalition, a non-profit focusing on Humane Education of the youth, we debated the breadth of our individual ethics. It was too short a session to draw conclusions but it was provocative and I even brought the debate to the carpool ride home to Boston from D.C. (Thanks Humane League and crew for having me!) Is it ethical for an undercover activist to maintain their cover by engaging in animal abuse if the result of the investigation saves more lives?

And then there was Melanie Joy, authoress of “Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism.” When I was first introduced to the word ‘carnism’ on the cover of her book, my interest was immediately piqued. The definition of and hopefully the demise of the world’s dominant ideology, carnism, is the centerpiece of her work. This talk was a summary and preview of the evolution of her ideas. In concise and compelling fashion, Melanie inspired us to embrace our veganism and to understand the trappings of the carnistic tendencies we have within us.

We all have tendencies. Don’t we? Those little habits, leanings, word choices that are just below the surface of our consciousness which are a product of our upbringing, and our privilege or lack thereof. A panel and topic I hope to see garner more attention at next year’s conference, although it was certainly well attended this year, was the Commonalities of Oppression talk. This panel focused on the common points seen across the social justice spectrum between women, minorities, animals, workers, etc.

A major point of this panel, the nail that stuck up [thanks, Ethan -Sam], was the position of privilege many AR activists come from. This was not meant to tear down the cause but to raise awareness of the biases that often come from being privileged. For example, I am a white male living in the United States of America. Whether I know of a specific occurrence or not, I have benefited thro.ghout my life based on my gender and race, and likely will unjustly continue to do so. Whether I like it or not these experiences have bred biases into my patterns of behavior. Also, privilege exists at varying degrees. Those who are less privileged than myself may be more privileged than others. Being sensitive to privilege will only strengthen the communities and the causes through improved communication.

More could be and will be said about this conference. I left with a saturated mind. I learned so much of human interaction and being a better activist. Though much of the facts, the who’s who and the what’s what, I already knew, I am still more inspired and more informed. If you are like me, a vegan of many years looking to do more. I urge you to head to the next conference. As I look forward to returning, even more importantly, I look forward to the rest of today and tomorrow and the next day. I look forward to the next year of wearing my new messaging shirts and the conversations that will begin with the question, “Why are you veg[etari]an?”

Justice is a single strand. It is one issue. No one or group has a monopoly on the pursuit of justice. The animal rights movement must not lose sight of this. Animal Rights are Human Rights. The basic goal, to reduce suffering, must be applied to all causes needing to be mended by the thread of justice. Go, Vegan. Go.

You can contact Ethan via e-mail at e…@g…l.com.

Photos from FARM.

From PETA:

Air France claims to be “Making the Sky the Best Place on Earth.” But in reality, the airline is making the sky a dangerous and scary place for many of its passengers. Air France continues to ship monkeys to laboratories, despite the fact that nearly every other major airline in the world has ceased sending monkeys on these horrific one-way flights.

Many of the animals being flown to laboratories have been snatched from the wild, ripped away from their homes and families. Crammed into tiny wooden crates in the cargo holds of passenger flights, they endure a dark and terrifying journey. Passengers above often have no idea how much pain and panicking is occurring beneath them.

Each year, tens of thousands of monkeys are flown to the U.S. from countries such as Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Mauritius, and Vietnam. Upon arriving in the U.S., the animals are transported to facilities such as Shin Nippon Biomedical Laboratories and Covance—the U.S.’ largest importers of primates—to be imprisoned and tormented in experiments.

While pressure from PETA and our supporters caused Air France to cancel at least one scheduled shipment of 60 laboratory-bound monkeys, the company remains one of the largest traffickers of primates in the world. In fact, Air France is the only airline servicing the island of Mauritius—one of the largest exporters of monkeys for use in experiments—that is still willing to ship primates to laboratories.

Fortunately, almost all other airlines—including Aer Lingus, Air China, American, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, China Southern, Delta, Lufthansa, and Qantas—have shown great compassion by refusing to transport monkeys to laboratories.

What can you do? Well, if you’re a bunch of animal rights activists, you target Patton Boggs, the chief US lobbying firm for Air France, as myself and about 30 other activists did on Monday, to cap off a successful animal rights conference. What’s crazy is that Air France gave PB a measly $20,000, whereas some of their other clients gave upwards of a million! Shouldn’t this “reputable” law firm drop a small client and stop supporting animal cruelty?

You can also e-mail Air France-KLM directly, at mail.customerservice.cdg@airfrance.fr. Tell them to follow suit of other airlines, like those listed above, and stop helping this unscientific vivisection of conscious, sentient beings. PETA’s action alert, with a pre-filled letter, can be found here. Note that back in January, a campaign similar to this worked, halting a transport of 60 monkeys from from Africa to the United States. It’s time to put the pressure back on!

Photo: airsouffrance.fr