If you eat animal products, especially “higher welfare” products approved by the RSPCA, you are not an “animal abuser” — according to RSPCA (source: this essay)
An interesting feature of the animal welfare approach is that it depends on arbitrarily labeling some conduct affecting animals as “abuse” so that the vast majority of people who participate directly in other animal exploitation can feel good about themselves as they eat, wear, and otherwise use animals while condemning the “abuser.”
A recent example of this is found in the new bill pending before Parliament in Britain that will impose “tougher prison sentences for the worst animal abusers” and impose sentences of “up to five years in prison, a significant increase from the current maximum sentence of six months.” This will, we are told, strengthen “the UK’s position as a global leader on animal welfare.” The bill is being praised by none other than the RSPCA’s Chief Executive, Chris Sherwood, who is quoted as saying:
This reform is long overdue. Those responsible for extreme cruelty towards animals or those criminal gangs involved in organised animal crime will now face the tough justice they deserve.
We need to better protect our animals and the RSPCA hopes that this new Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill will give courts the powers they need to punish those responsible for the most unimaginable cruelty to animals.
We also believe this will act as a much stronger deterrent to others and help us stamp out animal cruelty once and for all.
Think about this for a minute.
The reality is that the treatment that is accorded to farm animals across the U.K and in the hideous slaughterhouses where virtually all of these animals end their lives, is just as bad if not worse than the treatment that the RSPCA has in mind for prosecution under the proposed new law.
The RSPCA has its own line of “higher welfare” animal products — the RSPCA Assured label — that takes the place of its previous “happy exploitation” label, “Freedom Food.” According to the RSPCA, its RSPCA Assured program guarantees that farm animals have a “good life” and are “treated with compassion and respect.”
The RSPCA charges producers to use the “RSPCA Assured” certification:
“Happy exploitation” is good business.
So the government tells people that by focusing on “abusers,” the U.K. can strengthen its position “as a global leader on animal welfare” while people continue to participate in animal exploitation. The RSPCA actually promotes the consumption of supposedly “happy” animal products and expresses delight that the “abusers” will finally be brought to justice.
The reality is that all animal exploitation is abuse. The idea that we criminalize some exploitation and consider other exploitation as acceptable — and even as indicating a virtuous character — should trouble anyone who cares about animals, morality, and justice.
And where there is no moral dilemma involved — where we are imposing suffering and death on animals simply because we enjoy the taste of animal products — our using and killing animals exposes our hypocrisy in saying that we believe that animals have moral value.
We do not need to eat animal products for optimal health. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics states that vegan diets “are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” The UK National Health Service says that a sensible vegan diet can be “very healthy.” Mainstream health care professionals all over the world are increasingly taking the position that animal products are detrimental to human health. Even large insurance companies are promoting veganism. And animal agriculture is destroying the planet. Our continued consumption of animal products is not only a moral obscenity; it is completely irrational.
Why can’t we just be honest and acknowledge what is really going on here? By focusing on the exploitation of animals engaged in by a very small number of people and labeling it as “abuse,” we get to pat ourselves on the back for being “good” people as we engage in conduct that is every bit as bad — if not worse — than what the “abusers” do.
If animals matter morally, the only rational response is to stop eating, wearing, and using them. If we are not vegan, then we are participating directly in the exploitation and abuse of animals. There is no way that animal products got to our plate or into our closet without the abuse for which the RSPCA would send others to prison. A law that designates someone else as an “abuser” can’t change that fact.
If we care about animals and believe that they matter morally, we should not fall for the ruse that animal welfare laws represent. We should be stopping the use of animals as commodities, not attempting to tidy up the industries that produce animal products, or giving ourselves a pass because we think of others as “abusers.”
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-05-18 15:13:582021-05-18 15:13:59Who Is an “Animal Abuser”?
Clothing-coordinated activists who stormed an Australian farm take a group photo for Facebook
The Australian state of New South Wales has introduced on-the-spot trespassing charges of $1,000 for each animal activist caught illegally entering private farmland. The penalties follow a series of recent demonstrations and instances of direct action staged by activists at private farms and slaughterhouses. There is apparently consideration of adding jail time and additional fines to the possible punishments. The NSW deputy leader has labeled those who engage in the prohibited activity as “domestic terrorists.”
In targeting farmers, animal activists have gotten it wrong. And I say this as an almost forty-year vegan who is a staunch advocate for animal rights.
The problem is not farmers. They fulfill a demand. The farmers would not be farming animals if there were not a demand for animal products.
The problem is not slaughterhouses. They fulfill a demand. There would be no slaughterhouses if there were not a demand for animal products. You can close ten slaughterhouses today and if the demand for animal products stays the same, ten new ones will open up tomorrow or ten existing ones will increase production capacity.
The problem is that most of us eat animals and animal products.
The only way that we will end the practice of eating animals is topersuade people through productive, non-violent education and engagement (i.e., not yelling at them; confronting them in adversarial ways, etc.) that they should stop fueling the demand that keeps the animal farms and the slaughterhouses in business.
When I say this sort of thing, many animal activists become upset with me and claim that what I am proposing — a widespread transition to veganism — will never happen because people will never give up eating and otherwise using animals.
There are two replies to these activists.
First, if people cannot be convinced to stop demanding animal products, then trying to stop the supply is a completely useless endeavor. If the demand is there, the supply will continue. That’s a simple and irrefutable fact. It’s called economics.
Second, the task of vegan advocacy and education, although certainly daunting, is not only not impossible, but it actually reinforces what most people already believe. Although some people do not care at all about animals as a moral matter, many — dare I say most — do. Indeed, it is part of our conventional moral wisdom that animals do matter morally. And just about everyone who does care about animals agrees that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on animals. If that principle has any meaning, it must exclude suffering that is imposed merely for pleasure, amusement, or convenience.
Football player Michael Vick was involved in a dogfighting scandal. But how is dogfighting any different from eating animals?
Because we reject imposing animal suffering for pleasure, we excoriate people like American football player Michael Vick, who operated a dog fighting ring; or Mary Bale, who tossed a cat into a garbage bin in Coventry; or Walter Palmer, the dentist from Minneapolis who shot Cecil the lion.
Our widely-held belief about not imposing suffering and death on animals for reasons of pleasure or amusement explains polling released in May 2017, which showed that almost 70 percent of British voters were opposed to fox hunting, and half were less likely to vote for a pro-hunting candidate in the general election. Opposition is not limited to fox hunting. A 2016 poll indicated that, in addition to major opposition to fox hunting, significant numbers of people in the UK were also opposed to deer hunting (88 per cent), hare hunting and coursing (91 percent), dog fighting (98 percent), and badger baiting (94 percent). Most Britons object to the fact that the Royals blow away scores of birds on Boxing Day (December 26) just for fun.
It is clear that we take seriously the idea that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals even if we do not all subscribe to the idea of animal rights. The key to getting people to stop eating animals is to educate them about how eating animals is no more necessary than hunting foxes or badgers, or fighting dogs, or throwing cats into wheelie bins or shooting lions.
We kill approximately 70 billion land animals every year for food. We kill an unknown number of fishes. The lowest estimate I have ever seen is one trillion per year. We kill more animals every year for food alone than the total number of human beings who have lived on the earth from the beginning of time. Think about that for a minute.
None of that killing and death is necessary. We do not need to eat animal products to be healthy. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics states that vegan diets “are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” The UK National Health Service says that a sensible vegan diet can be “very healthy.” Mainstream health care professionals all over the world are increasingly taking the position that animal products are detrimental to human health. Even large insurance companies are promoting veganism.
Eating animals is no less an instance of unnecessary suffering than is Michael Vick fighting dogs or Prince Charles shooting birds for amusement.
It is not only not necessary to eat animal products, it is clear that animal agriculture is causing an environmental catastrophe. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than all transport exhaust. According to Worldwatch Institute, animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gasses. And when you consider the other environmental effects — water use/pollution, soil erosion, etc., and the fact that methane is much more destructive than CO2 in a 20 year time frame, it becomes clear that reasonable minds cannot differ: animal agriculture is the biggest environmental threat to our planet.
One of the Oxford University researchers behind a recent study about climate change stated: “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.” He added that going vegan “is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.”
Another Oxford research team found that massive reductions of meat consumption was necessary to avert climate catastrophe. We are not talking about “Meatless Monday” or “vegan before 6.” We are talking about everyone eating 75% less beef, 90% less pork and half the number of eggs. And dairy also has significant adverse environmental impacts. Because it is unlikely that everyone will reduce their intake by that amount, those of us who do care need to reduce to zero on environmental grounds alone.
A recent study by Harvard University showed that the UK would be able to sustain itself and combat climate change by returning land used for animal agriculture back to forest: “[c]onverting land currently used for grazing and growing animal feed crops back to forest could soak up 12 years’ carbon emissions.”
The United Nations estimates that we have about twelve years to act to avert this catastrophe. We need to face a simple and irrefutable fact: a widespread transition to a vegan diet may not be sufficient to save the planet, but it is certainly necessary.
And then there’s the matter of human rights: The grain fed to animals in the United States alone could feed 800 million people. If we all ate plants, no child would have to go to bed hungry tonight or not make it to bedtime because they died of starvation beforehand.
We need to educate people about the morality — both with respect to nonhumans and humans — and ecological sanity of a vegan diet. I acknowledge that this is not an easy task. Eating animals is something we have been doing for a long time. Most people think of eating animal products as an entirely normal activity that they do not really question. Many feel uncomfortable about it but, despite the availability of information about the lack of need to consume animal foods, they still think that it is necessary to consume animals. We need to educate people about the fact that it it is not necessary to eat animal products.
“Direct action” against the farmer who produces the products that the friends and families of the activists consume
Many people have been misled into thinking that eating supposedly more “humanely” produced animal foods is morally acceptable. It isn’t. Because animals are chattel property, the most “humanely” produced animal products still involve treatment that is tantamount to torture — and all animal products involve death. If we really think that animals matter morally, we cannot justify killing them — however “humanely” — if there is no need to do so. And there isn’t. We need to educate people — really engage them in constructive ways — about why according moral value to animals means that we cannot use animal as resources. If animals are resources, then they are just things.
Environmental groups refuse to focus on animal agriculture. In an effort to construct their “big tents,” which can hold lots and lots of donors, they talk — at most — about reducing our intake of meat. Neither the Green Party nor the supposedly “radical” Extinction Rebellion promotes veganism. Indeed, they go out of their way to avoid doing so. We need to educate people about the ecological facts.
Targeting farmers and slaughterhouses for direct action not only fails to address the cause of the problem in a productive way, but it perpetuates the idea that those who do not eat animals are “extremists” and thereby frustrates our moving toward a social dialogue that we need to have. This approach gives people a reason to ignore the important issues at stake. There is also a certain absurdity to it: almost every activist who engages in direct action against farmers or slaughterhouses has relatives and friends — sometimes partners — who are not vegan and who are the very people keeping the farms and the slaughterhouses in business. Most of these activists would understandably object if their friends and loved ones were subjected to direct action.
These animal activists often attempt to justify their actions by citing the need for the public to see what goes on in large, industrial farms or in slaughterhouses. That is just silly. Anyone over the age of four knows that the animal products on their plates did not come from trees. They may not know the particulars, but they certainly know that animals suffered and died as part of the process of food production.
Moreover, there is a ton of graphic imagery out there about factory farms and slaughterhouses. No more is needed.
The problem is that discussion about animal ethics is often framed by professional “activists” who need gimmicks for fundraising purposes. And that is exactly what this direct action is about: fundraising, marketing, and branding. The primary target of these efforts is not the public that needs to be educated; it’s people who are already sympathetic to the message. Very few people who are not already sympathetic will think that direct action against farms or slaughterhouses is a good idea. And those who are sympathetic need to be engaged about why the only rational response to believing that animals matter morally is to go vegan. And then the farms and slaughterhouses close for good.
It’s not about animals; it’s about branding
Even when activists are not engaging in direct action against farmers and slaughterhouses, their efforts are often counterproductive and directed more at making them — rather than the issues — be at the center of attention. For example, going into a restaurant (wearing branded t-shirts) and yelling at people who are in the midst of eating a meal is not going to result in constructive dialogue. Standing in a square (or “cube” as they call it) wearing Guy Fawkes masks and holding laptops showing gory slaughterhouse footage, or gathering in large numbers to stand silently while holding the corpses of chickens or other animals, does little more than have parents with children walk in another direction and reinforce the idea that animal advocates are strange folk. Putting on animal masks and going into the local supermarket with a megaphone on hand is about creating a scene that helps groups to brand, not about a serious and constructive engagement with ideas. Some of these activists do not even promote veganism as a moral baseline. Indeed, some support campaigns for supposedly more “humane” exploitation. None of the large animal charities clearly and unequivocally promotes veganism as a moral imperative. Not one. Frankly, the modern “animal movement” is a terribly confused mess.
Those concerned about animal exploitation need to educate people so that they stop demanding animal products. If they do so, farmers will stop producing animal products and slaughterhouses will close. If they do not, there will always be animal farms and slaughterhouses. It’s that simple. Originally published on Medium.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-05-18 15:11:252021-05-18 15:11:26Animal Activists Get it Wrong: Farmers Are Not the Problem
Emma, a healthy dog, was brought into a shelter in the U.S. State of Virginia on March 8. Her human companion had passed away and there was apparently no one else to care for Emma. Although the shelter could have easily found a new home for Emma, who was a Shih Tzu (of the sort pictured above), they just held her because whoever brought Emma to the shelter did not have the authority to sign her over to the shelter.
So Emma remained at the shelter until March 22, when the executor of the dead woman’s estate came to the shelter and stated that the deceased had left a directive that Emma was to be killed and cremated , and that her ashes were to be placed in the dead woman’s coffin.
And that is what was done. Emma was killed. Notice that I did not say that she was “euthanized.” Euthanasia is when death is for the benefit of the being who is killed. If, for example, an animal is suffering from cancer and no longer has any quality of life, killing the animal would be described as an instance of euthanasia. But Emma was healthy. It was not in her interest to die. She was not euthanized. She was killed. She was cremated. Her ashes were placed in the casket of the dead woman and buried.
Many people find this to be outrageous. Emma was a healthy dog. What could possibly explain why it was alright to kill her?
The answer is simple: Emma was the property of the dead woman. The dead woman was her owner.
Most of us think that animals matter morally. That is, we reject the idea that animals are just things that have no moral value.
But the reality is that, despite what we think, animals are just things as far as the law is concerned. That is, they have no intrinsic or inherent value; like all other property, they have only an economic or extrinsic value. They have no value except the value that we, their human owners, accord them.
As property owners, we have the right to accord our pets a high value and treat them as loved and cherished members of our families just as we have the right to accord them a low value and use our dogs as little more than living burglar alarms or our cats as mouse catchers. As long as we provide minimal food, water, and shelter to the animal, we may treat the animal pretty much as we choose. We cannot inflict physical harm on the animal for no reason whatsoever but we may legally inflict physical harm incidental to a purpose of use. For example, physical force/punishment may be used to train a dog to be a guard dog. An owner may apply physical force/punishment to a dog who jumps on visitors. And owners can choose to value their pet’s life at zero and take the dog, cat, or other animal to a veterinarian to be killed. or to a shelter where the animal will be killed if another home is not found.
Make no mistake about it — many, many dogs, cats, and other pets are not accorded a high value by their owners. They have terrible lives and often very unpleasant deaths. The idea that most pets have loving homes for their entire lives is very wrong.
The status of animals as property is of such importance that the human owner gets to value the animal’s life even after the owner is dead and even when the animal could easily have been placed in another home. It is ironic that Emma’s owner probably had a strong bond with Emma. She wanted them to be buried together. But because the dog was property, her life was entirely within her owner’s control. It was the owner’s right to have her killed.
Every year, millions of people surrender healthy animals to shelters. They sign over ownership of those animals to the shelter. And every year, millions of those animals are killed if the shelters are unable to find new homes.
My partner and I live with several dogs we rescued from shelters where they would have been killed if homes were not found. We have one dog who is blind and deaf. He is the product of a breeder who bred two merle shelties in an effort to produce a “white” merle, which can fetch a hefty price. The problem is that about one in four double merle puppies is born blind, deaf, or both. But it’s perfectly legal to breed these animals knowing these disabilities will result. After all, they’re just property.
It’s not just our pets who have the status of property. Just about all the animals we interact with are someone’s property. The approximately 70 billion land animals we eat every year are the property of the farmers who raised and killed them. These animals are then sold to stores, who own their slaughtered carcasses, and then they are sold to us.
If you want to know why food animals are so badly treated, the answer is the same: they are property. It costs money to protect their interests. Farmers generally protect those interests only to the extent that it is economically efficient to do so. Providing greater protection will result in a product that costs more to produce. And someone has got to pay for that increased cost. There are places that sell supposedly “higher welfare” animal products but the reality is that the most “humanely” produced animal products involve treatment that would, were humans involved, constitute torture. It’s a simple matter of economics.
I suspect that we will hear the opportunistic animal welfare groups call for laws — “Emma’s Law “ has a good fundraising ring— to prohibit including pets in the burials of deceased humans. These groups have a real talent for tinkering with campaigns that keep donations coming in but do nothing to change the status of animals as property. Even if “Emma’s Law” passes, it won’t make any real difference. Human owners will still be allowed to have their animal property killed or to dump them at shelters.
If animals are going to matter morally, we must stop treating them as things. And as long as animals are property, they cannot be anything more than things. But if we recognize the right of animals to not be property, then we must reject animal exploitation. We cannot justify eating, wearing, or otherwise using animals for human purposes, particularly in situations in which there is no plausible claim of necessity. We don’t need to eat animals to be healthy. That is clear. But we must also reject the institution of pet ownership. If animals are property, then, as a practical matter, they will be at risk being killed in a shelter or otherwise having their interests discounted or ignored.
And even the ones we love may end up being killed and placed in our coffins.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-05-18 15:08:412023-08-13 11:11:53You Can Kill Your Pet
Over the past few weeks, I have written several essays about how the Green Party and various environmental groups, including Extinction Rebellion, are continuing to ignore that we about twelve years left and we need to be promoting a widespread transition to a vegan diet in order to avert climate catastrophe.
I have discussed how the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has estimated that animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than all transport exhaust. And the U.N. estimate is lower than most others. The Worldwatch Institute claims that animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gasses.
I have discussed recent work at Oxford that has made clear that a vegan diet is the single most significant thing we can do to avert climate catastrophe. Other recent work at Oxford found that a massive reduction of meat consumption is necessary to avert climate catastrophe. We are talking about everyone eating 75% less beef, 90% less pork and half the number of eggs. Because many people won’t reduce to that level, the obligation falls on those who do care about the issue to eliminate animal foods entirely.
I have discussed a recent study by Harvard University showing that the U.K. would be able to sustain itself and combat climate change by returning land used for animal agriculture back to forest: “[c]onverting land currently used for grazing and growing animal feed crops back to forest could soak up 12 years’ carbon emissions.”
All of this points in one very clear direction: although a widespread shift toward a vegan diet may not be sufficient to avert climate catastrophe, it is certainly necessary as a practical matter given the time in which we need to act. A transition toward a vegan diet is the only thing that we can do that does not require technological innovation, which is very uncertain, or government action which, by attempting to compromise in the way that will best serve corporate interests, usually makes matters worse.
I have been disappointed that people who claim to be environmentalists ignore the issue of veganism as a general matter. It seems, however, that Extinction Rebellion not only does not promote a widespread transition to a vegan diet, but is hostile to those who point out the fact that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster.
On May 2, XR posted this on its Facebook page:
In the article posted, chocolate production and mining are identified as causes of deforestation. Deforestation can be driven by various things depending on the area. But there can be no doubt that animal agriculture is, as a general matter, the leading cause of deforestation in terms of loss of land mass.
So on May 4, the role of animal agriculture was pointed out to “DW Croft,” who posted a comment expressing surprise over the role of chocolate to which he received a straightforward, accurate, and respectfully stated reply by “Jet Volare”:
And Extinction Rebellion agreed with the indisputably accurate statement of Jet Volare, right?
Wrong.
XR reprimanded Jet Volare:
“Shame”? In what way did Jet Volare “shame” or attempt to “shame” DW Croft?
That is a rhetorical question. Jet Volare very clearly did nothing of the sort.
XR takes positions on all sorts of things: fossil fuels, air travel, fracking, etc. If Jet Volare engaged in shaming, then so does XR — pretty much all of the time, starting with the opening post, where, if presenting facts constitutes “shaming,” they “shamed” people who like chocolate.
The cognitive dissonance is ringing loud and clear. The corporate givers that fund the big environmental NGO’s are very nervous about any shifts in the buying habits of “consumers” (formerly known as people). Neo-Liberal groups want to keep everyone in the marketplace as defined by them. A shift in food habits would not only produce huge positive environmental results but would also start an enormous shift in the world food web (the biggest single financial sector). The sponsoring funds that support all the big environmental NGO’s do not want the system to change and they don’t want people to really act on their own buying habits — they want controllable solutions like carbon trading, high tech energy solutions and fake meat.
Tara’s comments are spot on.
It seems that these days, expressing a position, however civilly and however well documented, can be met with the silly claim that the person promoting the position is “shaming” anyone who disagrees but has nothing of substance to say in response.
And that is exactly what happened here. XR has nothing to say to the claim that we need to be promoting a widespread transition to a vegan diet as a central part of our strategy to avert climate catastrophe. So they claim that those who present the fact that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster are “sham[ing]” those who disagree but have no substantive grounds for their disagreement — except, perhaps, that promoting a vegan diet may have a negative impact on fundraising and support from the NGO/corporate community.
It’s a shame. And it’s shameful.
Postscript added May 6, 2019: I watched a video of an XR founder, Roger Hallam. Hallam stated that XR was a group that “really wanted to get stuff done” but that there are those who sacrifice “political effectiveness” for a “pure approach” and “don’t want to get things done.” They just want perfection. They will “grind…down” the supposedly politically effective efforts of groups like XR. He identified “extreme vegans,” “the hard left,” and “extreme intersectionalists” as in the problematic category. He claimed that “extreme vegans” take the position that “you can’t have a movement until everyone is vegan in the movement.”
First of all, Abolitionists do not maintain that we cannot have a movement until everyone is vegan. Abolitionists maintain that the animal movement ought to take the position that if animals matter morally, we cannot justify exploiting them, however “humanely” we claim to do so. If animals matter morally, we have a moral obligation to be vegan. The movement is a movement to promote that idea in creative, nonviolent ways.
Second, Hallam’s position is no different from the large animal charities, which claim that we need to promote “happy” exploitation or “reducetarianism” (or whatever) to be “effective” rather than be “purists” who promote veganism. That is nonsense. It not only does not work as a matter of moral theory; it does not work as a matter of practicality. A movement that promotes “happy” exploitation is never going to get beyond that.
It is clear that XR is all about greenwashing with respect to climate change. I am not surprised that Hallam promotes humane washing where animals are concerned.
The bottom line XR is hostile to veganism on different grounds, none of which is valid. If you take veganism seriously for moral reasons or ecological reasons (or, hopefully, both), you should be aware that XR doesn’t.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-05-18 15:05:072021-05-18 15:05:09Extinction Rebellion: Shame
Caroline P. Lucas Member of Parliament Jonathan Bartley Siân Berry Co-Leaders of the Green Party of England and Wales
Dear Caroline P. Lucas, Jonathan Bartley, and Siân Berry:
We are facing a climate catastrophe. The United Nations estimates that we have about twelve years to act to avert this catastrophe.
I know that you appreciate the urgency of the situation. But I do not understand why the Green Party is not advocating a widespread transition to a vegan diet as necessary to avert climate catastrophe.
The scientific evidence is about as clear as it could possibly be. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than all transport exhaust.
According to Worldwatch Institute, animal agriculture is responsible for 51% of greenhouse gasses.
These figures do not take account other environmental impacts of animal agriculture, such as the amount of water required to provide animal products relative to the amount required to produce plants. A study from Cornell University states that one kilogram of animal protein requires about 100 times more water than does 1 kilogram of grain protein. According to another, more recent study, one kilogram of beef requires 15,415 liters of water; sheep meat (lamb and mutton) 10,412 liters; pork 5,988 liters; and chicken 4,325 liters. A kilogram of apples requires 822 liters of water; bananas 790 liters; cabbage 237 liters; tomatoes 214 liters; potatoes 287 liters; and rice 2,497 liters. Between 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of water are needed to produce a gallon of milk.
Recent work at Oxford has made clear that a vegan diet is the single most significant thing we can do to avert climate catastrophe. One of those involved in that work, Dr. Joseph Poore, stated: “A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.” He added that going vegan “is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car.”
A recent study by Harvard University showed that UK would be able to sustain itself and combat climate change by returning land used for animal agriculture back to forest: “[c]onverting land currently used for grazing and growing animal feed crops back to forest could soak up 12 years’ carbon emissions.”
I understand that you might be inclined to say what many environmentalists say about this issue: “Of course, we must reduce our intake of meat.” You might then discuss the importance of “reducetarian” efforts.
But that can’t work.
First of all, it’s not just meat that is the environmental culprit. Dairy also has significant adverse environmental impacts. Second, we are not talking about “reducetarianism” as that term is normally used to support measures like “Meatless Monday” or “Vegan before Six.” Another Oxford research team found that massive reductions of meat consumption was necessary to avert climate catastrophe. We are talking about everyone eating 75% less beef, 90% less pork and half the number of eggs.
Now when you consider that many people aren’t going to reduce at all, much less reduce by those sorts of percentages, it becomes important that those of us who do care and want to avert climate catastrophe to eliminate completely these ecologically devastating products and try to persuade everyone we can to do likewise.
I may be missing something and, if that is the case, I apologize sincerely. But when I went to the Green Party website, I was unable to find your promoting veganism as any sort of necessity. In the sections on animal rights and food and agriculture, you talk about reducing the consumption of animal products, eliminating intensive farming in favor of more “sustainable” farming, and making “vegetarian and vegan” food more available. But there is no statement that I was able to find informing people that a widespread transition to veganism was, in effect, necessary to avert climate catastrophe and calling on people to transition to a vegan diet as a crucial part of a survival strategy.
Intensive farms are, indeed, an environmental nightmare for many reasons. But “sustainability” solves nothing. “Sustainable” grazing animals may consume less grain but they drink more water because they are more active; they still produce methane gas; and they require more grazing land. Locally produced animal products have a much greater environmental impact than plants that have been grown somewhere else. According to a study in Environmental Science and Technology, transportation accounts for only 11% of the carbon footprint of food with 83% attributable to production. So the idea that you’re doing more for the environment by eating animal products produced locally rather than imported vegetables is just wrong.
We really can’t get away from a simple fact: if we want to avert climate catastrophe, we are going to need a widespread transition — sooner rather than later — to a vegan diet.
Let me say that I think that there are other compelling reasons to go vegan that follow from Green Party policies. For example, social justice is an important part of your philosophy. The Cornell study found that livestock in the United States consume 7 times as much grain as is consumed by the entire U.S. human population and the grains fed to U.S. livestock could feed 840 million humans who had a plant-based diet. How can we justify consuming animals and animal products when we could feed many, many more people if we consumed the plants directly rather than feeding them to animals? How can we possibly justify animal agriculture as a practice when, in addition to the ecological destruction it causes, it involves such a horribly inefficient — and unjust — use of resources?
The Green Party opposes the the exploitation of animals for human pleasure, such as in zoos, circuses, or racing. I assume that is the case because you accept that it is wrong to impose unnecessary suffering and death on animals. But how is palate pleasure any different morally from any other pleasure? We do not need to eat animals for optimal health. Indeed, The U.K. National Health Service says that a sensible vegan diet can be “very healthy,” while mainstream health care professionals all over the world are increasingly taking the position that animal products are detrimental to human health. In any event, using animals for food is no more “necessary” than using them for sport or other “entertainment.”
But these involve other considerations. For right now, I am focusing on one and only one thing: the fact that we are facing a catastrophic situation and we have little time left to find a solution. We simply don’t have time to find, test, tinker with, and implement some “magic bullet” technological solution, such as a solar shield.
The idea that the government is going to empower “Citizens’ Assemblies” is as implausible as the idea that “Citizens’ Assemblies” will figure out a solution in time to avert catastrophe. Moreover, the fact that Extinction Rebellion is deliberately not promoting veganism based on the very confused idea that veganism involves the “personal” and they seek a “political” solution is compelling evidence that they just don’t get it. In any event, the idea that government is going to do anything significant in a fairly short period of time is fanciful at best.
The best hope we have is for entities like the Green Party to educate and to lead an effort to shift the paradigm. Nothing less is needed.
I am asking that the Green Party take the lead here and launch an educational campaign to explain to people that, if we want to avert a climate catastrophe, we have to eliminate animal products from our diet. This campaign should emphasize that this move is necessary to avoid climate catastrophe. Yes, people ought to do more; they ought to limit transport, recycle, etc. But they need to stop ignoring the elephant in the pantry as a primary matter.
I recognize that this will be unpopular with the public at first. But if the Green Party presents the facts and makes the case for necessity clearly, and emphasizes the already readily-available information to show people that a vegan diet can be varied, delicious, easy to prepare — and invariably cheaper than a diet that includes animal products — public opinion will change. Yes, the large corporations that profit from animal agriculture, as well as farming interests small and large, will object, and this may have a political downside. But isn’t survival worth the political cost?
The Green Party has a unique opportunity to lead in a situation where the cost of the absence of leadership will be disastrous. And if the Green Party takes the lead, the large environmental groups will follow. They will have no choice. The scientific information is clear: a widespread transition to veganism may not be sufficient to avert disaster, but it is certainly, in effect, necessary — and it is the very best shot we have.
We are at a crossroads. We need to decide now whether we are going to allow our continued anthropocentrism to result in an unfathomable disaster or whether we are going to stop the violence once and for all.
Thank you for your consideration of my views, which are my own. I would be pleased to help you in this effort in any way that I can.
Respectfully,
Gary L. Francione Board of Governors Distinguished Professor, Rutgers University Visiting Professor of Philosophy, University of Lincoln (UK)
Originally published on Medium
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-05-18 14:58:272021-05-18 14:58:29An Open Letter to Caroline Lucas, M.P., Jonathan Bartley, and Siân Berry
We are facing an imminent climate catastrophe. A recent study from researchers at the University of Oxford concluded that avoiding meat and dairy is the most effective way to reduce our inflicting harm on the earth. According to an article in The Guardian about this research:
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.
This is not new news. We’ve known for a while now that animal agriculture is an ecological disaster. But it can no longer be doubted:A massive shift to veganism may not be sufficient to avert climate catastrophe but, as a practical matter, it is certainly necessary.
Adopting a vegan diet is the one thing we can do right now. It does not involve any technological innovation. It does not involve any legislation or government regulation.
So are serious environmental groups promoting veganism or, at least a vegan diet, as necessary? No. For the most part, these groups (1) criticize factory farms and promote “sustainable” and “local” animal products; and (2) promote reducetarianism.
Let’s be clear: both of these strategies — “sustainable” animal agriculture and reducetarianism — will not succeed in averting climate catastrophe.
Factory farms are, indeed, an environmental nightmare for many reasons. But “sustainability” solves nothing. “Sustainable” grazing animals may consume less grain but they drink more water because they are more active; they still produce methane gas; and they require more grazing land.
Locally produced animal products have a much greater environmental impact than plants that have been grown somewhere else. According to a study in Environmental Science and Technology, transportation accounts for only 11% of the carbon footprint of food with 83% attributable to production. So the idea that you’re doing more for the environment by eating animal products produced locally rather than imported vegetables is just wrong.
What about reducetarianism? Any reduction that is going to be meaningful from an environmental perspective is going to have to be severe and represent something much more approximating complete elimination. That is, “Meatless Monday,” “Vegan Before 6,” “flexitarianism,” and all of those other gimmicks are not going to cut it.
Moreover, preliminary data indicate that reducetarians don’t seem to reduce very much anyway. And even if many people really seriously reduced their intake of animal products, we know that many people won’t. Therefore, those of us who completely eliminate animal products are helping to deal with the deficit caused by the non-participation of others in that serious reduction.
But wait, what about the Extinction Rebellion (XR) folks? They’re “radical,” right? Surely, they’re willing to go vegan and to promote veganism? Apparently not. Like all of the other environmental groups, XR rejects veganism as any sort of imperative.
How can this be?
I have seen many comments from XR people to the effect that XR is deliberately not focusing on asking individuals to do anything other than make demands directed toward the government. For example, in response to one of my Facebook posts on the matter, someone who claims to be a full-time volunteer at Extinction Rebellion, and who admits to not being a vegan, replied:
XR resurrects the personal/political distinction that we all thought was rejected in the 1960s.
So it would be a “distraction” for people who are concerned about climate change to do the single most important thing anyone can do to reduce their impact on the earth? That is nonsense. It is analogous to saying that we should demand that government end discrimination but that it would be a “distraction” to ask people who are concerned about discrimination to stop engaging in racist, sexist, etc. behavior. XR apparently embraces the “personal/political” distinction that every progressive movement for the past 50 years has rejected because common sense tells us that you cannot ignore the role of the individual in creating and perpetuating social problems.
Let’s be clear: the personal is the political. The idea that we don’t see as relevant our own obligation to do the most effective thing that we can do and do easily as individuals because that supposedly isn’t “political” is beyond absurd. Going vegan and promoting veganism are political acts. Veganism is disruptive. It is not, as is claimed, a “distraction.” What is a distraction is claiming to be an eco-radical when, as a non-vegan, you are refusing to do the single best thing you could do to address the problem.
Moreover, even if we assume (unrealistically) that the government will respond favorably to XR demands and will do so before it’s too late, it makes no sense to say that we should ignore a strategy that represents the single biggest thing we can do to reduce our environmental impact.
It is wrong to analogize promoting a massive shift to a vegan diet with corporate or governmental attempts to deflect finding solutions to the public. Such a massive shift would be the exact opposite of what the government and corporations have promoted historically.
XR apparently wants to have the government recognize a “Citizens’ Assembly” that will democratically identify what steps need to be taken. We no more need an Assembly to tell us that veganism is necessary than we would need an Assembly to tell us that not smoking cigarettes is a necessary step to achieving healthy lungs.
The bottom line is clear: we are facing imminent disaster. If we really want to save the planet from climate catastrophe, we must promote a grassroots effort with a clear normative directive: stop eating animal products and adopt a vegan diet.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-05-18 14:48:002021-05-18 14:48:02Vegan or Die: The Importance of Confronting Climate Change
It is becoming clear that we are facing an imminent climate catastrophe. The United Nations says that we’ve got about 12 years left to avert that catastrophe which, in case you haven’t noticed, is already rearing its ugly and deadly head.
It is time for the Green Party, Extinction Rebellion, and anyone else concerned about averting that catastrophe (shouldn’t that be everyone?) to stop ignoring the elephant in the room: a massive transition to a vegan diet is necessary for us to survive.
Let me say upfront that I have been a vegan for 36 years because I believe that we cannot justify exploiting animals for food, clothing, or other reasons. So I believe that veganism is necessary for moral purposes. In this essay, I want to argue that a vegan diet is necessary for ecological reasons as well.
We have known for a while that animal agriculture is ecologically very unsound. There is no question that animal foods represent an inefficient use of plant protein in that animals have to consume many pounds of grain or forage to produce one pound of meat. For example, in 2003, Cornell University Professors David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel showed that it takes 13 kilograms (a kilogram is 2.2 pounds) of grain and 30 kilograms of forage to produce one kilogram of beef; 21 kilograms of grain and 30 kilograms of forage to produce a kilogram of lamb; 5.9 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of pork; 3.8 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of turkey; 2.3 kilograms of grain to produce a kilogram of chicken, and 11 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of eggs. Livestock in the United States consume 7 times as much grain as is consumed by the entire U.S. human population and the grains fed to U.S. livestock could feed 840 million humans who had a plant-based diet.
Likewise, animal agriculture involves an inefficient use of water. The Pimentel study states that one kilogram of animal protein requires about 100 times more water than does 1 kilogram of grain protein. According to another, more recent study, one kilogram of beef requires 15,415 liters of water (a gallon is 3.78 liters); sheep meat (lamb and mutton) 10,412 liters; pork 5,988 liters; and chicken 4,325 liters. A kilogram of apples requires 822 liters of water; bananas 790 liters; cabbage 237 liters; tomatoes 214 liters; potatoes 287 liters; and rice 2,497 liters. Most estimates vary between 1,000 to 2,000 gallons of water needed to produce a gallon of milk.
A recent study from researchers at the University of Oxford concluded that avoiding meat and dairy is the most effective way to reduce our inflicting harm on the earth. According to an article in The Guardian about this research:
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions.
If I had a penny for every environmentalist who told me that they weren’t vegan but they did not fly, or they had an electric car, I’d have tons of pennies.
One would think that, in light of all of this, serious environmentalists would be campaigning for everyone to adopt a vegan diet. One would be mistaken. The environmental movement has not promoted veganism. It has, instead, focused attention on factory farms and has promoted a whole new industry of “sustainable,” “local,” and “free-range” products.
Factory farms are, indeed, an environmental nightmare for a number of reasons. But the “sustainability” approach is nonsense. Putting aside that the animals who are killed for human consumption might regard “sustainability” in a jaundiced way, from an ecological point of view, it solves nothing. “Sustainable” grazing animals may consume less grain but they drink more water because they are more active; they still produce methane gas; and they require more grazing land. Locally produced animal products have a much greater environmental impact than plants that have been grown somewhere else. According to a study in Environmental Science and Technology, transportation accounts for only 11% of the carbon footprint of food with 83% attributable to production. So the idea that you’re doing more for the environment by eating animal products produced locally than vegetables transported in is just wrong.
In sum: “sustainable” animal agriculture will not — cannot — save the planet.
The environmental movement also supports a “reducetarian” approach.
Greenpeace calls for a 50% reduction of meat and dairy by 2050. Sorry — that’s way too little way too late.
The UK Green Party states: “A reduction in the consumption of animal products would have benefits for the environment, human health and animal welfare. The Green Party will support a progressive transition from diets dominated by meat and other animal products to healthier diets based on plant foods, through the use of research, education and economic measures, coupled with support for more sustainable methods of production such as organic and stockfree farming.”
A reducetarian approach will not be sufficient. Any reduction that is going to be meaningful from an environmental perspective is going to have to be “huge” and represent something much more approximating complete elimination. That is, “Meatless Monday,” “Vegan Before 6,” and a general and vague “reducetarian” directive are not going to cut it. The idea that “every little bit less consumption is a good thing” might be a plausible way of looking things if we had another 100 years to address the problem of global warming. We don’t. And preliminary data suggest that reducetarians do not seem to reduce too much.
Some claim that we can couple reduction with other technologies so as to avoid the necessity of going vegan. Yes, we might couple significant reduction of consumption with other technologies but, again, we simply don’t have the time to develop those technologies and even if all of the technologies are available now, we do not have the time to work out what combinations of strategies will work, and what numbers of people are required to participate in what strategies to achieve what could be achieved if there was a massive shift to a vegan diet.
Moreover, even if a severe reduction in consumption were to be sufficient, we know that not everyone will participate in that severe reduction. Therefore, those of us who completely eliminate animal products are helping to deal with the deficit caused by the non-participation of others in that severe reduction.
How about those radical Extinction Rebellion folks? They’re willing to get arrested for the planet. Surely, they’re willing to go vegan and to promote veganism? Apparently not. I went to the Extinction Rebellion website and spent about 30 minutes reading it. I found much of it pretty vague in terms of what concrete things it is advocating that people do other to attend ER events and to make demands of government to be transparent about climate change, act to deal with carbon emissions, and provide citizen oversight. Forgive me, but I am a tad skeptical that these laudable political goals are going to be recognized much less achieve success in the near future and certainly not in time to avert catastrophe. I found nothing on the ER website about the necessity of veganism. Indeed, I was unable to find any mention of veganism on the site.
I have seen comments from ER people to the effect that ER is deliberately not focusing on individual action but only on collective demands directed toward the government. This reflects the “personal/political” distinction that I thought we all recognized as illusionary a few decades back. Apparently not. The personal is the political. The idea that we don’t see as relevant our own obligation to do the most effective thing that we can do as individuals because that supposedly isn’t political is beyond absurd, and is a transparent way to let ourselves off the hook while we go out and have a good time at a demonstration or student strike. Moreover, even if we assume that the government will respond favorably and will do so before it’s too late, it makes no sense to say that we should pursue a strategy that has a very small chance of prevailing while ignoring a strategy that could work if we aggressively an unequivocally promoted it. Unfortunately, ER appears to be more about appearing to be radical than being radical.
I have also seen comments from some prominent ER people to the effect that ER does not want to judge anyone’s lifestyle or tell people what to do. But that makes no sense. It’s analogous to a doctor saying that the doctor isn’t willing to tell you to stop smoking because the doctor does not want to judge your lifestyle or tell you what to do. It’s not a matter of making judgments or giving normative directives. It is a matter of what one ought to do if one wants to maximize the chances of surviving.
The bottom line is clear: we are facing imminent disaster. Adopting a vegan diet is the one thing we can do right now. It does not involve any technological innovation. It does not involve any legislation or government regulation. If we really want to save the planet from climate catastrophe, we must promote a grassroots effort with a clear normative directive: stop eating animal products and adopt a vegan diet.
We need to see adoption of a vegan diet as necessary. It may not be sufficient — we may have to do other things to reduce our impact on the planet, but adopting a vegan diet is, as a practical matter, necessary given the imminence of disaster. Will those who adopt a vegan diet for ecological reasons “cheat”? Yes, probably. But from an environmental point of view, consuming animal products ought to be considered as something that one does, if at all, as “cheating,” rather than patting oneself on the back because one has consumed just dairy, eggs, and fish on Meatless Monday.
I am not saying that we ought not to engage in political action as well as promote a grassroots vegan movement. I am, however, skeptical to the point of incredulity that government will provide a timely solution. Government will act, if at all, only when it’s too late. I do think that political action has a symbolic value and it helps to educate people, but it is clear that an environmental movement that raises the alarm about global warming and does not aggressively and unequivocally promote a vegan diet is just engaging in hollow rhetoric and grandstanding. Animal-based diets play a major role in climate change and in the mass die-off of species. Animal products provide the common denominator. To not promote a vegan diet as the central focus of environmental activism makes no sense whatsoever.
The time is short. The consequences are catastrophic. We need to act. Now.
This essay was originally posted on Medium on 28 February, 2019.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-01-06 13:52:312021-01-06 13:52:42Green Party, Extinction Rebellion, and Others: Stop Ignoring the Vegan Solution
I am an advocate for animal rights. I have been a vegan for 36 years. I do not eat, wear, or otherwise use animals. Karl Lagerfeld, who died on February 19, 2019, was, perhaps, the most famous fashion designer in the world. He used fur and other animal skin in his designs. That was, without question, morally wrong. And Lagerfeld’s sexist, misogynistic, racist, and Islamophobic comments were insidious.
There is no morally coherent distinction between fur and any other animal products. Indeed, leather is animal skin with the hair removed. Fur is animal skin with the hair still on. The animal is dead in both cases. Meat involves dead animals. Milk and eggs involve dead animals. All of these “products” involve animal suffering.
So if you are not a vegan and you object to fur, you really need to rethink your position. If you think that fur is morally wrong because it involves imposing unnecessary suffering and death on animals, the very same thing could be said about using animals for food or for other sorts of animal clothing. We eat animal products because we like the taste. There is no necessity. We wear leather and other animal clothing because we like the look of it. There is no necessity. Indeed, if you believe that animals matter morally and you are not a vegan, you need to ask yourself why you are not a vegan.
Animal welfare groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), are celebrating Lagerfeld’s death. At the same time, PETA relentlessly promotes a ton of non-vegans. For example (one of many), PETA promotes Paul McCartney. McCartney is not only not a vegan (listen here at 12:55), but he promotes the consumption of animal products through his promotion of Linda McCartney foods, 22% of which contain animal products.
What sense does that make? That’s a rhetorical question. It makes no sense. But McCartney supports PETA. So his animal exploitation is okay. Lagerfeld’s exploitation wasn’t. PETA’s promoting McCartney and other non-vegans while seeking headlines to condemn other non-vegans such as Lagerfeld reveals what a cynical and hypocritical entity PETA is. But PETA is not alone here. Most, if not all, of the large animal welfare charities praise and promote non-vegans — when it is their financial interest to do so.
It is not uncommon for people who are not vegan to have no problem criticizing those who wear fur. But that is like someone who eats beef criticizing someone who eats pork. Or someone who eats meat generally criticizing someone who eats foie gras. Wait. Some people do exactly that!
We should never celebrate anyone’s death. But there is something very troubling when “animal lovers” who are not vegan rejoice at the death of some animal exploiter. They fail to recognize that, if they are not vegans, they are participating directly in animal exploitation.
Originally published on Medium, 21 February 2019.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-01-03 13:04:592021-05-18 15:20:56Karl Lagerfeld Had a Point: If You Are Not Vegan, Why Do You Protest Fur?
Pope Francis chose his name to reflect St. Francis of Assisi, author of the Canticle of the Sun, a prayer in which St. Francis praises God for creation, talking of “Brother Sun and “Sister Water,” and referring to the earth as our “Sister” and “Mother.” In 2015, Pope Francis published his second papal encyclical, Laudato si’. An encyclical is a sort of papal letter. Laudato si’, unlike most papal letters that are addressed to leaders of the Catholic Church or to Catholics only, is addressed to everyone. Although not without problems, such as the Pope’s failure to recognize the environmental impact of population growth, Laudato si’ is, without doubt, a radical statement given the extremely conservative nature of the Catholic Church.
In Laudato si,’ Pope Francis raises the alarm about the devastating effects of anthropogenic climate change, and talks about how climate change and “modern anthropocentrism” are having negative effects for all, and particularly for the poor. He criticizes our obsession with consumerism and mindless development, and rejects our “tyrannical anthropocentrism unconcerned for other creatures.”
The implications of Laudato si’ are obvious. As an environmental matter, it is clear that a plant-based diet is the single biggest way to reduce our carbon footprint. And, unlike other measures to reduce global warming, adopting a plant-based diet is something we can all do right now. It is the only thing that we can do that is effective and requires no technological innovation, legislation, or governmental regulation. As a matter of morality, we simply cannot justify using nonhuman animals as human resources, particularly in light of the fact that most of our animal use cannot plausibly be described as “necessary.”
It is imperative that those who see the Pope as a spiritual authority take seriously the very clear implications of Laudato si’ irrespective of whether the Pope has spelled out those implications. It would, of course, be wonderful if the Pope came out and announced that he had decided, for reasons of our moral obligations to nonhuman animals and concerning the environment, to become a vegan. Maybe that will come.
One way of not maximizing the chances that will happen is by offering the Pope money and attempting to turn him into a reality TV star.
Source: Million Dollar Vegan
On February 6, 2019 a massive PR campaign was launched by a group called Million Dollar Vegan. The campaign has a 12-year old child named Genesis Butler making a “challenge” to Pope Francis to adopt a vegan diet for Lent. If the Pope goes along with this request, Million Dollar Vegan will donate $1 million to a charity of the Pope’s choice.
This “challenge” is accompanied by a Petition, which people are being asked to sign and that asks the Pope to adopt a vegan diet for Lent in light of environmental and health concerns, and because of objections to factory farming.
It is not clear what the goal of Million Dollar Vegan is. Although the group uses “vegan” (including in its name), it is not promoting veganism, which involves not using animals for any purpose. The group purports to be promoting a “plant-based diet” as a “sustainable and benevolent” choice. Their recommended reading list has some non-vegan sources that promote a reducetarian/flexitarian approach and support campaigns for the supposedly more “humane” exploitation of animals. Virtually all of the news reports about Million Dollar Vegan and this campaign state the goal is to “get people to eat less meat and dairy in order to fight climate change.”
Some of the supporters of Million Dollar Vegan are very clear in not calling for the end of animal exploitation. For example, one supporter listed is Animals Australia. When asked by ABC, “Does Animals Australia have a policy of opposing the rearing of livestock for human consumption?,” Lyn White of Animals Australia answered: “No, we certainly don’t. Look, our vision, our work is towards ensuring that all animals, that — especially in human care, have protection from cruel treatment and are treated with compassion and respect. That is what we work towards on a daily basis.”
Million Dollar Vegan is supported by a number of celebrities. The first one listed is Sir Paul McCartney, who is described as “vegetarian.” After 41 years as a vegetarian, McCartney is still not a vegan. That gives “baby steps” a whole new meaning! In this 2018 interview (at 12:55), McCartney says he is not a vegan. And, according to the website, 22% of Linda McCartney Foods are not vegan. So the Pope should adopt a vegan diet but it’s okay for a non-vegan who is also involved in promoting the consumption of animal products to “challenge” the Pope to adopt a vegan diet? Really? A number of other supporters are not vegans or are downright hostile to the idea of veganism as a moral imperative. So it seems that Million Dollar Vegan is yet another group that promotes a reducetarian approach and that rejects the idea that veganism is a moral imperative for reasons either of animal ethics or the environment.
Putting aside whatever else could be said about this group and this campaign, I would like to offer several observations.
First, it seems a very bad idea to offer people — anyone — money (whether as a direct payment or as contribution to their favorite charity) with the goal of changing their behavior on a moral issue or with the goal of getting others to change because the person given the money has changed. That is a very cynical way of looking at morality. And I do not know why anyone thinks it is an effective thing to do if one wants any sort of sustained change.
Moreover, I recognize that, because I view veganism as a moral imperative and as a matter of justice for nonhuman animals quite apart from the importance of a vegan diet for the environment — although I think we have a moral obligation to go vegan for environmental reasons as well — this “challenge” has a distasteful aspect. Morality is not something you dabble in or do for a month or for some period. You don’t make a resolution to stop harming others physically for Lent.
Second, it is particularly problematic to do this sort of thing with the Pope. If he wants to make a $1 million contribution to a charity, he can sell the least valuable piece of art that hangs in the Vatican and probably have more than $1 million to contribute to whatever cause he likes. Moreover, my guess is that the Pope will probably find this “challenge” and the crass attempt to “buy him off” to be less than appealing. And he is also unlikely to want to have Lent — a time of serious reflection for Catholics — to be turned into a reality TV show for the supporters of Million Dollar Vegan where he will be the star. The FAQ section of the Million Dollar Vegan says, in response to the question as to whether it is “bribing a religious leader,” that “bold action” is necessary and that “[t]he offer is made out of respect” for Pope Francis.
From Million Dollar Vegan
Respect? I missed that. It appears rather clearly intended to embarrass the Pope. After all, no one really thought that the Pope could respond favorably to this sort of “challenge.” I would have thought it transparently clear that this was a rather cheap shot intended to use a religious leader and a holy time of year for that religion as an opportunity to embarrass that religious leader — and get publicity and a visible position in the hierarchy of groups who are in a constant struggle to see who can engage in the most outrageous and often offensive antics in order to favorably compete for donations. In a sense, Million Dollar Vegan is simply the latest iteration of a “movement” (actually more a collection of businesses) that will use anything — racism, sexism, misogyny and joking about physical violence to women — to get attention and donations. You start with “I’d rather go naked than wear fur” and you get to “challenges” to the Pope accompanied by offers of money. The result, of course, is that the extremely important issues raised by animal exploitation have been trivialized and turned into cheap entertainment.
A PETA ad. This really helps animals, right?
I confess I may be wrong about how the Pope will react. I was raised a Catholic but to say that I am a lapsed Catholic would be a hyperbolic understatement. I would have thought that anyone who took the Pope and the Catholic Church seriously would be mortified by all of this. But maybe I have called this wrong. I see that Catholic Concern for Animals is listed as one of the organizations supporting Million Dollar Vegan. They are undoubtedly closer to the Church and the Pope than I. Maybe they know something I don’t. Maybe this “challenge” is the first of many. After all, the Church has a number of issues plaguing it. Maybe they can all be solved with a series of million dollar “challenges.” Perhaps next we could have a campaign devoted to “challenging” the Pope to allow women to be ordained priests for a month to get people used to the idea. It could be called Nunanuary. (UPDATE 2/12/2019: Catholic Concern for Animals is no longer listed on the list of supporters of Million Dollar Vegan and claims that it never supported Million Dollar Vegan or the “challenge” to the Pope.)
Third, many of us spend a great deal of time trying to convince people that veganism is not a “sacrifice.” So why couple a vegan diet with Lent — a season of sacrifice and deprivation? Enough of the population already thinks that a vegan diet is the culinary equivalent of a hair shirt.
I quite agree that we ought to be encouraging people to stop consuming animal products for environmental reasons in addition to the animal rights reasons on which I generally focus. Indeed, as I said above, I believe that we also have a moral obligation to adopt a vegan diet for environmental reasons. It is clear that animal agriculture is destroying the planet and the science is crystal clear that a vegan diet is the single best thing we can do for the planet. It is bewildering to me that environmental groups are not all vigorously promoting a vegan diet.
I maintain that adopting a vegan diet is, in effect, necessary for environmental reasons in that, given the short time we have to address the problem of climate change, it is the only thing that we can do without technological change, and without legislation or regulation. Yes, we might couple reduction of consumption with other technologies but, again, we simply don’t have the time to work out what combinations of strategies will work, and what numbers of people are required to participate in what combinations of strategies to achieve what could be achieved if there was a massive shift to a vegan diet. Telling people to reduce their intake of animal products is vague — and too little too late. Telling people that we must stop is not only a clear message; it is, as a practical matter, the only sensible message to promote if we want to survive. From an environmental point of view, consuming animal products ought to be considered as something that one does, if at all, as “cheating,” rather than patting oneself on the back because one has consumed just dairy, eggs, and fish on Meatless Monday.
The science that points in the direction of a vegan diet is getting a great deal of traction without yet another group with a “donate” button promoting a hopelessly confused and inconsistent message. I understand that advocacy groups often avoid taking an absolutist position for what are, in effect, business reasons — they want to keep their donor pools as broad as possible. But we are killing approximately 70 billion land animals and one trillion sea animals annually for food alone.
The moral and environmental crises are just that — crises. We need an absolutist message for both moral and environmental reasons.
I hope that the Pope, leader of the 1.2 billion Catholics in the world, will decide not only to adopt a vegan diet but to go vegan in terms of recognizing that we ought not to eat, wear, or use animals as resources because it is immoral and unjust with respect to nonhuman animals, as well as inconsistent with planetary survival and food justice as far as humans are concerned.
It should be noted that in Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, we are told that God created the world and gave “dominion” over it to humans but — and here’s the surprise — no one was eating anyone in the beginning. God told humans “I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”(1:29) And then God told all the animals and birds, “I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.” (1:30)
So in the beginning, before Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree and were driven from the Garden of Eden, everyone — humans and animals alike — ate only plant foods. It was only after God destroyed the world with a flood that he told Noah that humans are allowed to eat “[e]very moving thing that liveth.” (9:3)
We started off in harmony with God as beings who consumed plants. When we fell out with God and were driven from Eden, God permitted us to kill animals as an accommodation to our imperfect state. The Old Testament at least suggests that we should be moving in the direction of getting back to the ideal state.
When the prophet Isaiah talks about the coming of the Messiah and the re-establishment of God’s kingdom on earth, how does he describe it? First of all, there will be peace between humans, who will “beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” (Isaiah 2:4) But peace will also extend to and amongst nonhumans: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.” (65:25)
I think that the Pope is heading in the direction of promoting a plant-based diet for environmental reasons if not primarily for reasons of animal ethics. I hope that this sort of cheap gimmickry does not delay his move in that direction.
Originally published on Medium, 10 February 2019.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-01-03 13:02:042021-05-18 15:21:39Morality in the Age of Reality TV: Bribing the Pope to Adopt a Vegan Diet for Lent
You may think that it is peculiar that some people are vegans — that is, they don’t eat, wear, or use animals. You may even regard veganism as extreme.
But, if truth be told, what is peculiar and extreme is that, given what most of us believe about our moral obligations to animals, more of us aren’t vegan. To put the matter another way: what most of us already believe should make veganism the normal position.
Before you dismiss as extreme my claim that veganism is not extreme, think about what it is that you think about animals. You probably don’t think that animals are just things that do not matter morally at all or you wouldn’t be reading this essay.
You probably subscribe to the view that is so common and uncontroversial that we might call it our conventional wisdom about animals: animals matter morally, but they don’t matter as much as do humans, and we may use animals for human purposes as long as we do not inflict unnecessary suffering and death on them. Part of this view is that, if “necessity” is going to have any meaning in this context, it must be the case that pleasure or amusement cannot justify inflicting suffering and death on animals.
Because we reject imposing animal suffering for pleasure, we excoriate people like American football player Michael Vick, who operated a dog fighting ring; or Mary Bale, who tossed a cat into a garbage bin in Coventry; or Walter Palmer, the dentist from Minneapolis who shot Cecil the lion.
Our widely-held belief about not imposing suffering and death on animals for reasons of pleasure or amusement explains polling released in May 2017, which showed that almost 70 percent of British voters were opposed to fox hunting, and half were less likely to vote for a pro-hunting candidate in the general election. Opposition is not limited to fox hunting. A 2016 poll indicated that, in addition to major opposition to fox hunting, significant numbers of people in the UK were also opposed to deer hunting (88 per cent), hare hunting and coursing (91 percent), dog fighting (98 percent), and badger baiting (94 percent). Most Britons object to the fact that the Royals blow away scores of birds on Boxing Day (December 26) just for fun.
If you are in agreement with the position that it is morally wrong to impose unnecessary suffering on animals and you are not vegan, then, I have a simple question for you:
Why not?
We kill 70 billion land animals and an estimated one trillion sea animals annually for food. And the only justification for that is that they taste good. We get pleasure from eating animals and animal products.
There is no necessity.
Although, in the not-too-distant past, we thought that we needed animal foods to be healthy, there was never any medical support for that position and, in any event, no one any longer maintains that it is necessary to consume animal products to be optimally healthy. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics states that vegan diets “are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.” The UK National Health Service says that a sensible vegan diet can be “very healthy.” Mainstream health care professionals all over the world are increasingly taking the position that animal products are detrimental to human health.
We don’t have to settle the debate about whether it is more healthy to live on a diet of fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, and seeds (although the empirical evidence certainly points in that direction). The point is that a vegan diet is certainly no less healthy than a diet of decomposing flesh, cow secretions, and chicken ova. And that’s the only point relevant to the issue of whether suffering and death are necessary or not.
Moreover, animal agriculture constitutes an ecological disaster. It is responsible for more greenhouse gases than the burning of fossil fuel for transportation, and results in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. The grain fed to animals in the United States alone could feed 800 million people. Against this background, what is the best justification we have for inflicting suffering and death on animals?
The answer is simple: we think they taste good. We derive pleasure from eating them. Eating animals and animal products is a tradition, and we have been following it for a very long time.
But how is that position any different from the justification offered for animal uses to which most of us object? How is palate pleasure any different from the pleasure that some people derive from participating in blood sports? Fox hunting, badger baiting and dog fighting are all traditions. Indeed, almost every practice to which we object — whether involving animals or humans — involves a tradition valued by someone. Patriarchy is also a tradition that has existed for a very long time, but its longevity does not mean that it is morally acceptable.
Many people oppose hunting foxes because they can see no morally significant distinction between the dog they love and the fox who is chased and killed. But what is the difference between the animals we love and those into whom we stick a fork and a knife? The dogs and cats we love are sentient — just as are the chickens, cows, pigs, fish, and other animals we exploit. They all feel pain and experience distress; they all have an interest in continuing to live.
So, if you believe that we should not inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals, and you object to dog fighting, fox hunting, and other blood sports, why aren’t you a vegan?
There are four responses that I usually get at this point.
The first response is to note that people who engage in fox hunting or who enjoy watching dog fighting or bull fighting are participating themselves in the harmful conduct whereas the person who simply consumes animal products innocently goes to the store and purchases those products.
There is no moral difference between the person who fights dogs or hunts foxes and the person who purchases chicken at the local supermarket and roasts it. In all three cases, the suffering and death of the animals is unnecessary. In all three cases, the only reason for the suffering and death is pleasure. Those who fight dogs or hunt foxes do what they do because they enjoy it; it brings them pleasure. Those who buy and eat chicken do so because they enjoy it; it brings them pleasure.
There may be a psychological difference in that the dog fighter and the hunter enjoy participating in the lethal activity — just as there is a psychological difference between the person who pays to have another person murdered and the person who actually commits the murder. But, in the latter case, both the person who pays for the murder and the person who commits the murder are punished as murderers because the law recognizes no moral difference between them.
The second response goes something like this: “yes, I see what you’re saying but I only buy the more ‘humanely” produced animal foods, such as cage-free eggs or crate-free pork.”
That response is both delusional and substantively unsatisfactory.
It is delusional because the most “humanely” treated animals are still treated in ways that would easily qualify as torture were humans involved. If you are eating supposedly “happy” animal products and thinking those animals had reasonably pleasant lives and relatively painless deaths, you are kidding yourself.
The response is substantively unsatisfactory because the moral principle that most of us embrace is that we should not inflict any unnecessary suffering and death on animals. Sure, less suffering is better than more suffering but that misses the point. No one who objects to dog fighting says that it would be an acceptable activity if the dogs were treated better before the fight. No one who objects to fox hunting would think it okay if the amount of time that dogs were permitted to attack the fox were better regulated and limited in duration.
If animals matter morally, we should not be imposing any unnecessary suffering on them.
The third response is that animals are killed in the cultivation of plant foods.
It is certainly true that animals are incidentally and unintentionally killed when, for example, crops are harvested. But humans are incidentally and unintentionally killed in the process of manufacturing things. That does not mean that we cannot distinguish incidental and unintentional human deaths from murder. Moreover, if we all consumed plants directly, there would be many, many fewer acres under cultivation and many fewer unintended and incidental animal deaths.
The fourth response is to claim that plants, like animals, are alive and, therefore, sentient.
Plants are certainly alive and they have developed often complicated reactions to their environment. They react; they don’t respond. In this sense, plants are like cancer tumors. No one maintains that that plants have any sorts of minds that result in their having interests. Indeed, no one even thinks to raise this until they are at a dinner party with a vegan and they don’t think the “Hitler was a vegetarian” argument is going to get much traction.
In sum, if we really believe that animals matter morally and that we are morally obligated not to impose unnecessary suffering on them, it makes no sense not to be vegan. Given what most of us claim to believe, it is not being vegan that represents the extreme position.
Originally published on Medium, 26 December 2018.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.png00Gary L. Francionehttp://www.abolitionistapproach.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/aa_logo.pngGary L. Francione2021-01-03 12:58:452021-05-18 15:21:33If You Are Not a Vegan, I Have a Simple Question for You: Why Not?
