I moved, y’all!

Not physically–Internetically!

Yes, you heard me right, poopies! My Internet home is now somewhere other than wordpress! And that somewhere is called: http://wherelaurinblogs.com

I’ve bought my own domain name, loaded up b2evolution blogging software, and now have the best website in the world ever! Ok, there are a couple of misleading phrases there… Sean uploaded the software. And maybe it’s not the *best* site out there, but it’s the only one you need to know about.

I have a few different blogs on the site, accessible by links at the top of the home blog.

I’m also in the process of moving posts (cause I don’t know how to import without wiping out what I’ve already done on my site… ), but this will not affect your browsing experience. Once everything is imported, I am planning on just getting rid of these wordpress accounts.

In any case, head over there and I hope you like what I’ve done with the place!

I apologize for not having written in so long. I really want to update this blog more frequently (daily if I can), but it hasn’t been working out that way.

But! This does not mean I haven’t come across lots of interesting newsworthy stuff…

• The first story I’d like to mention is this one I stumbled upon. It’s full of tips on how to live more cheaply. Well, saying it like that makes it seem like you should only follow the suggestions to save money, which isn’t the case. While many of them do result in money saved, the point as I see it is to live more simply and less wasteful. For instance, one of the suggestions is, “54. Rediscover the radical notion of the library. Imagine Internet access and thousands of books, CDs and DVDs for free!”. Just think about how much money and paper/trees you’ll save by not buying every book you want to read. It’s just practical stuff, really, but it all adds up!
• This is actually just plain weird… I don’t know what to make of it, and I am having trouble figuring out where I stand on this one. Anyone have an opinion? Envirovore also covers this story, and brings up arguments/concerns similar to my own (but they’re not exactly vegan about it :/ ). There are a lot of problems I can think of off hand:
  • This seems to be something that would occur in shiny labs in big corporations. Where does the small-scale farmer fit back into all of this? (Not that I am trying to support modern livestock farming at all)
  • However, one could argue that since eating this Frankenmeat would solve a number of problems: environmental stress caused by large-scale factory farms (and small scale to an extent), the issue of exploiting and killing an animal for its flesh (this would take the animal out of the equation), and possible health benefits (perhaps this Frankenmeat could be engineered to avoid the health consequences associated with eating actual animals.
  • It gives omni/carnivores a good excuse to continue eating meat. But like many welfarist arguments, it still does not address the (most important) issue that animal use=animal abuse. If we keep giving meat to people, even if it is Frankenmeat, then this reinforces the idea that eating meat in general is ok. This is the part that I do not agree with.

  All that aside, this still gives me the heebie-jeebies. *shudder*

• Another meat story came across my radar, too. This one is concerned with the trend of hunters who bring their recent kills to butchers/processors only to leave them there (i.e., not pick them up or pay for the services the butchers provide). What disturbs me about this story is the fact that these “hunters” are obviously not “hunting” to provide sustenance for themselves–which is what all hunters purport to do. No, these “hunters” are “hunting” to kill animals, plain and simple. Good Job!
• Yet another meat-related story, I suppose: “Silence Replaces Bids and Moos at Stockyards in Suburbs”. I came across this article on Monday via Animal Person. I think she really gets to the heart of the matter in her analysis of John Barber’s narration of the slideshow, in which he waxes romantic of the end of the era of animal auctions as we know them. Her final statements are particularly compelling: “As John Barber said: “Change is hard but we’ll make it through. Nobody’s died from change.”That’s not true. When people change their minds and decide to eat animals that do not come from factory farms, somebody dies for that change. For each meal made with animals, somebody dies.”Indeed, this reminds me of Compassion Over Killing’s Livestock Auction Investigations. I encourage you to read all of the links and to look at the picture gallery–but especially I encourage you all to watch the video in the video gallery.

  After reading through the entire New York Times article (including listening/watching the slideshow), then watching the footage from COK’s investigation, I can’t see how anyone would be reluctant to change. I can’t really see how anyone can get so romantic about treating animals in such horrible ways. Maybe it seems romantic when you can glaze over and distance yourself from the truth by constantly reminding yourself that livestock is a product, a commodity, and not a living, breathing, feeling animal.

  Oh, and then they mention that the whole operation is going online. Talk about making it even more impersonal…

• And as this writer so eloquently put it, “If you care about hunger, eat less meat”. While I don’t agree with everything that he says (he suggests people should eat tilapia if they have to eat meat so bad), the meaning behind the message is clear: livestock is not environmentally sustainable, and is actually a significant contributing factor to a slew of environmental problems, not the least of which a global hunger problem.
• Speaking of a global food crisis/shortage, this story popped up from Canada. So with all of these people starving out there, I guess it’s a good idea to “dispose of” 150,000 (or 112,500 (25%) if you want to give them the benefit of the doubt) pigs just to bring pork prices back up. Just “get rid of” a few thousand “units”. Urgh! (Those are all my words in quotations there–I’m a big fan of scare quotes)
• Here is a nice article written about defeating all of those common stereotypes that vegans have to face. I mean, I’m no pasty, pale-faced, emaciated, anemic, extreme, radical, etc etc, so I can definitely jive to what she’s saying
• And I don’t even know what to say to this. I mean, was she for real? Now her school is trying to say that she was never really pregnant during her “project”, which she claims is not true. I’m just a little weirded out.

And with that, I must away! Enjoy those tidbits and maybe I’ll come up with something to post for monday! (one can only hope!)

I found this article on one of the blogs I read, Animal Person (she discusses the story here and here), concerning the resurgence of what I call carni-foodieism. In other words, foodies who embrace carnivorous fare. As you might have noticed, the article is entitled, “Rediscovering the Joy of Meat”, and if you would indulge me by actually reading it, you’ll also notice the picture of the former-vege butchers proudly wearing dead animals. The man holding the dead, headless pig is especially revolting to me. So are their smug grins.
But this is not the issue. The issue is the content of the article, and what they (and the author) are trying to say about vegetarianism. The issue is further proof that all those proponents of animal welfarism who claim that vegetarianism will lead to a decrease/cessation of animal use are absolutely all kinds of wrong.

Allow me to explain. Highlighted in the article are the ideas that being a vegetarian used to be the hip, compassionate way–but that now being a “compassionate carnivore” is the new hip way. Thanks to animal welfare reform, people can now feel better about imbibing the dead rotting flesh of a once living, breathing sentient being that had every much of a right to live as you or I do.

But wait, I thought that welfarists say that animal welfarism leads to a decrease/cessation of animal use? Well, my friend, I regret to inform you that you have been misled. The welfare of an animal is what pulls the heartstrings of any omnivore, so when we’re told that the animal is treated well and has a good life we allow this to set our minds at ease. We allow this to justify further (and increased) consumption of those animals that we claimed we were concerned about.

I don’t think I need to get too into the point that, like Animal Person, I think the issue is not the welfare of the animal but the *use* of the animal. Use is abuse. And it’s very easy to reconcile with yourself that you’re doing better “for the animal” by eating organic, free range, grass fed, etc etc animals when you “know” that they are treated well. It’s easy to overlook that last little bit: the animal is still being slaughtered. The animal is still being used.

This is how animal rights needs to be framed. Animal exploitation is wrong–and so are those who think animal welfare will really lead to anything other than more “acceptable” animal exploitation.

I also thought what Animal Person had to say about “Compassionate Carnivores” was pretty good. Her article: Is Compassionate Carnivore an Oxymoron?

Colleen Patrick-Goudreau also has some apt things to say concerning “humane” eating in her article: From Cradle to Grave: The Facts Behind “Humane” Eating. That is, if you’re interested in what she has to say. She is one of my favorite vegans if that means anything, and what she has said (in her podcast) and blogged/written about has helped me to more clearly define my stance on being vegan. Her site: http://www.compassionatecooks.com.

This article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last week and I thought it would be worthwhile to talk about. It brings up a few issues that I think people don’t even notice when they think of ‘pet’ animals and ‘food’ animals.

What I’m talking about is compartmentalism. In terms of the animal rights movement, I’ve taken it to be the tendency for individuals to separate different animals into different categories depending on how their “use” is defined. For example, in Western culture a dog is considered a pet, an animal that is ‘part of the family’. We would never think of eating a dog. That is what cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, ducks, etc etc are for. These animals are considered “food animals”because we use them for food.

So why is there this need to separate these animals into categories? Meat is meat, right? Why do we not eat the cute furry animals like dogs and cats, but other animals that many people think are ugly or stupid, like chickens, are relegated to the “ok to be eat” category?

I won’t get into any psychological arguments here, because I don’t pretend to have that kind of insight. The point of bringing this up is merely that: I just think it should be brought up.

Now, you probably know where I stand in terms of animal rights: animals are not ours to use for food, entertainment, or otherwise. They are not objects, they are sentient beings. That being said, I of course am of the mind to be completely opposed to to idea of compartmentalism. It is another one of those strange things that people do to justify their horrible traditions/actions.

I just think it is completely ridiculous for someone to say they like animals like “pet animals”, but then sit there and munch on the flesh of another “food” animal.

In the article, it is mentioned that there are some dogs that are being sold as pets (little cute ones) that would never be thought of as food. But then there are dogs that are considered to be food. How can such a thing make sense? How can these people think it is any different to eat a Rottweiler versus a Shih Tzu? They’re both dogs, people!

This makes complete sense to us here in America, I would assume, because every person I’ve ever talked to about eating dog always get that disgusted look on their faces and insist that that is a cruel and unnatural thing to do (Because dogs aren’t food, silly!).

But the chinese are not alone in this schizophrenia–we do it here in America, too. Think about pet parakeets or parrots. Would you ever eat a parakeet? No! Cause it’s a pet! But you would eat chicken, right? Of course! It’s *chicken*!

But they’re both birds!

We as Americans would eat cows but not dogs, even though they are both intelligent animals, capable of feeling a variety of emotions that every person on this planet can identify with.

What we need to do is to view animals as one category: animals. Humans are included in this. Maybe if people would realize that humans are animals, too, and that non-human animals aren’t inferior to us this moral schizophrenia would go away. But that’s wishful thinking. I can’t expect everyone to think the way that I think, I suppose. However, one of the reasons I am writing in this blog is to hopefully educate some people. Or at least get people to actually think about what they’re eating (consuming might be a better word, since we don’t just use animals for food).

So, yes. People! Start thinking! It won’t hurt you!

“We know accurately when we know little, with knowledge doubt increases.”
-Goethe

Start questioning all that stuff that has been indoctrinated into you all your lives. Start to be a little more skeptical. That’s what I do! My dad always hated how damn inquisitive I was (I apparently asked too many questions as a child)–but how else was I supposed to learn anything about the world around me unless I asked some questions? So start asking questions! Be informed!

Go go go!

Before I became vegan I didn’t realize there was such a diversity of opinions regarding animal rights. I thought all AR activists believed that animals were not objects and had a right not to be exploited.

This was a little naive of me. Yes, many AR activists do believe in this, but there are a growing number of people who claim to be AR activists who are serving to undermine the main goal of AR activism. These people are called welfarists.

The main difference between the welfarist position and what is called the abolitionist position is that welfarists focus on the treatment of the animal rather than the use of the animal. Welfarists believe that not only is it not wrong to kill/eat animals, but because animals are not humans (i.e. they do not have minds like ours) that they are inferior to humans. And this, in turn, entitles people to use animals in whatever way they see fit (this is called speciesism, by the way). The goal of an animal welfarist is to obtain more ‘humane’ conditions for the animal during which the animal will be exploited. Basically, this is saying that more ‘humane’ exploitation is exploitation that is morally acceptable.

The author of Animal Liberation and so-called ‘father’ of the animal rights movement, Peter Singer, is a often cited by welfarists. He thinks that because animals are not ’self-aware’ then they do not care that humans are using them; but, he maintains, they (the animals) do care how we use them. So, we must treat animals as humanely as possible. The end result, according to Singer, is a so-called ‘conscientious omnivore.’(edit 3/19: It was brought to my attention that Singer was a proponent of Utilitarianism, which basically states that the greater good to the greatest number is the ideal. It should be noted that this is not an animal rights philosophy per se, but rather an ethical philosophy that sometimes extends into animal rights/advocacy)

Liken this to the idea of someone being tortured before they are murdered. Using welfarist logic, merely the act of murdering someone is more ‘humane’ and compassionate than if you had tortured them first. Or, say someone was raped. As long as they weren’t beaten up before being raped, then the act is still ‘humane’. Enter the ‘conscientious rapist’. This is completely illogical. The end result is still the same in either case.

In welfarism, what more ‘humane’ treatment often boils down to is simply a larger cage. But it is still a cage!

How does the welfarist ideology undermine animal rights? Well, for starters, animal welfarists tend to align themselves with big meat/dairy industries and become advisers to them. They assist these industries in identifying and implementing ways that they can increase their profits from exploiting animals. For example, PETA and HSUS (the Humane Society of the US) frequently use profit motive to entice industries to adopt animal welfare reforms, claiming that more humane methods will increase productivity or yield.

Why is this problematic? Because, as you can see, it does nothing to oppose the property status of animals. The language that PETA, HSUS and other animal welfare groups use only reinforces the idea that animals are economic commodities.

And people think that as long as the animals are treated better they can feel better about exploiting them as well, however indirectly. Unfortunately, this encourages people to continue using animals by making it more socially acceptable, and seems to have even increased the consumption of animals, as a result.

And while people waste their time and money on these “welfare” campaigns, less and less time and money is being spent on abolitionist campaigns. Some may argue that it is hard-assed to assume that these incremental, welfare-based changes would not lead to broader changes in animal use (i.e., a decrease in animal consumption). But time has obviously shown us that this is not the case. As I mentioned, animal consumption has actually increased over the years as welfarism has gained popularity.

And that’s not really the point, is it? If welfarists really had the welfare of the animal in mind, then their goal should be to abolish the idea that an animal is a commodity/object/product. It is obvious that welfarists feel extremely guilty about the treatment of animals that humans consume. Welfarism is their way of reconciling this guilt by saying, “It’s ok to eat this animal because it had a good life.” But this still does not have the animals’ welfare/interests as the primary concern. It has the welfare/interests of humans as the primary concern. Basically, welfarism is the answer to the question, “How can I still eat meat/dairy/eggs and wear leather/wool/fur, etc etc and still feel morally ‘ok’ about it?” This is where we get “free range”, organic, “Happy” meat.

And this is where abolitionism comes in. Abolitionists believe that animals (this includes humans) are not property and it is deemed morally wrong to treat them as such. Put in another way, abolitionists directly oppose the exploitation of all animals (including, but not limited to, exploitation in the name of human wants and desires). The goal of abolitionism is to end this exploitation. And the main vehicle for this goal? Why, veganism, of course.

I am going to quote an abolitionist, Bob Torres, author of Making a Killing, from an article he did for Satya in September of 2006, because he sums it up so nicely (my emphasis):

Veganism is living abolition in your daily life. Not only a consumptive practice, veganism is also an overt political act illustrating how the consumption and abuse of animals is unacceptable. Unlike welfarist measures, veganism is not at conflict with the ends of our movement: it is living what we want our world to be. On the up-side, welfarism turns us into advocates for people who would abuse and torture animals for profit, with the exception that these particular abusers are a bit more gentle in their abuse. Nice enslavement is still enslavement, and for all that welfarism has promised, we have little to show but more and more animals being consumed.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. Veganism is an end in itself when it comes to the abolitionist ideology. Welfarists, however, view veganism, not as an end in itself, but merely as a means to reduce the suffering of animals. I should add what welfarists don’t to that statement: Veganism is merely a means to reduce the suffering of animals to the extent that their exploitation is deemed socially and morally acceptable.

As if it weren’t obvious where I stand at this point, I’m a vegan and my veganism, my veganity if you will, is how I am protesting the common/modern view that animals are commodities or products that humans feel they are entitled to exploit. It is my opinion that humans should stop using animals altogether.

In Bob’s words, “welfarism is justifying slavery by asking for longer chains.” This does not sound like the kind of movement I want to align myself with. The focus of the animal rights movement should be on animal rights. And the most effective way that anyone can begin to affect change and benefit the animals is to become a vegan and send the message that animals are not “ours” to consume. That’s called being a ‘conscientious herbivore.’

I was at Ho Foods the other day with Sean when I saw the March 08 issue of National Geographic. The cover caught my eye, a cute as all hell, black and white Border Collie. Turns out the cover story, Animal Minds, is about how smart animals are.

As if I didn’t know! I have always thought that animals were amazing creatures; smart, complex and generally just pretty awesome. When I was younger (ok, maybe I still feel this way now) I used to wish that I could talk with animals, find out what they’re thinking, learn their likes and dislikes, etc etc.

I also loved the Redwall books by Brian Jacques. You know the ones; the gentle animals (mice, mainly, and otters and badgers) that live at Redwall Abbey and have to fight against mean animals (like rats or foxes). Watership Down is also another one of those personified animals novels that I loved. It’s about a bunch of rabbits that escape from their warren to go find a better life somewhere else (it’s actually pretty disturbing the shit they have to go through).

There are countless other books that deal with animals behaving like humans–consider The Bernstein Bears, The Cat in the Hat, Aesop’s Fables is full of talking animals, etc etc. We all grew up with these stories, but somewhere the message didn’t completely get through. Somewhere we all left it at that they were stories and that’s it. Animals are really just that: animals. I mean, that’s the word we use to describe something that is inhuman or primitive, right?

In my opinion, some people don’t give animals enough credit. This National Geographic story is too long in coming. It never ceases to amaze me when I hear people describe animals as unintelligent. (And then, of course, I always assume that they are the unintelligent ones. :p) Sure, animals can’t talk like we do (aside from birds), and people assume that since animals can’t talk that they aren’t intelligent (they really just don’t have the linguistic apparatus to make the noises we can.. but that is not the point ). Because they can’t tell us how they feel, because we think they can’t reason, simply because they don’t communicate the same ways that we do, we automatically relegate them to some lesser category.

Now, I’m not trying to say that animals and humans are equal. What I am saying is that in the grand scheme of things, all animals deserve our respect and our awe. I think that each and every animal in this world is special and unique and deserves to be treated with respect. What I am saying is, let them live their lives, and we will live ours, and hopefully a symbiosis can emerge in which people no longer exploit animals as lesser beings.

I’m not going to go all AR and ranty on y’all here. My main point of writing today was to share the article, which is a very good read and possibly quite humbling to some of you. I also suggest that in addition to reading the article you check out the photo and video galleries that accompany the article.

So anyway, read the article and share it with any and everyone who professes to be an animal lover. And if you want to read more on animal intelligence, there’s lots on the web, just google it! Also, I found this site, http://www.animalintelligence.org/, which contains news stories about smart animals. Right now the second story is just a (cute) video of a kitten playing in a bathtub–a bathtub full of water, that is! So cute! Dammit I love animals!

(And lemme just say this before I quit–I’m completely jealous of the NatGeo photographer, him being able to work with all of those animals–what a lucky bastard!)

You might be thinking, what is so cruel about consuming dairy products? I mean, the cow doesn’t die; cows need to be milked!

It kills me how naive some people can sometimes be, but I’m here to inform all of you that the dairy industry is just as cruel as the meat industry. In a nutshell, the veal industry is a direct result of the dairy industry, dairy cows are sent to slaughter along with the other cows and dairy cows are forced to endure truly deplorable conditions throughout their unnaturally short lives. It is my aim with this post to show you all just how intelligent cows are and how the dairy industry cruelly uses these cows then discards them when they have surpassed their usefulness.

How they live

The California Meat Advisory Board (CMAB) would like us all to believe that their cows are happy. Their current campaign claims “Happy cows come from California,” and show (animated) cows having fun, frolicking in green pastures, flirting, playing football, etc. What the CMAB does not mention, is that these are not the conditions that the majority of California’s cows are kept in.

Most of California’s cows, if not kept in factory farms, are kept in what are called ‘dry-lots,’ which are essentially tracts of fenced-in land that has been tramped into a combination of mud and excrement. The cows must stand in this filth (oftentimes their udders are dragged through it) for almost their entire lives, crammed in with several thousand other cows. They are typically out in the open air, so they are not protected from the elements (including severe weather conditions) and they do not have bedding or proper (sanitary) places to rest.

This type of environment is a breeding ground for infection and disease. As I mentioned in Dairy Dilemma: Health, dairy cows (in the US) are given Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) in order to increase their milk production. Because of this, their udders become painfully inflamed and infected, a disease called mastitis (roughly 30-50% of dairy cows suffer from this, according to the industries own figures). The mud/feces soup they must walk around in only makes these infections worse. To combat this, they are given high doses of antibiotics (which have the potential to end up in their milk and meat).

Dairy cows also frequently suffer from Lamintitis (foot/hoof rot), Johne’s Disease, Milk Fever, Bovine Immunodeficiency Virus and Bovine Leukemia Virus. Johne’s Disease, according to Wikipedia, “is a contagious, chronic and sometimes fatal infection that affects primarily the small intestine of ruminants” caused by “a bacterium named Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis.” Milk Fever, also according to Wikipedia, is “characterized by reduced blood calcium levels” which “interfere with muscle function throughout the body, causing general weakness, inappetance, and eventually heart failure.”

In order to produce milk at all, dairy cows must be pregnant. They are artificially inseminated every year so they can deliver a calf every nine months. Thy produce milk for seven out of nine months (their gestation period). Again, to amp up this production, they are given BGH, which causes them to produce as much as three times as much milk as they would normally produce. This is extremely taxing, and often results in some of the diseases mentioned above, but mainly calcium depletion in general. Because these cows are forced to stand almost constantly, are almost constantly pregnant and are milked several times a day, they eventually become lame from the strain.

These are the cows that are frequently described as downer cows when they reach slaughterhouses. After living only 4-6 years, when their average life expectancy in the wild is 25 years, dairy cows are taken to the slaughterhouse. And because of the quality of life, their meat is relegated to soup, companion animal food, even food for cattle and other factory farmed animals. (We’ve all heard by now of the massive recall of beef from the Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co in California as a result of an investigation by the Humane Society of the US that revealed downer cows being treated cruelly and making it into the meat supply).

Veal: “Byproduct” of Dairy Industry

As I mentioned, dairy cows are impregnated on a yearly basis in order to produce milk. Veal cows are merely the male calves born from dairy cows (and the females are fated to become dairy cows). We all know that eating veal is bad because of the cruel conditions these baby cows are forced to endure. But what exactly are these cruel conditions?

From birth, calf and mother are forcibly separated, typically within a day of being born (I’ll get into the effects this has on the mother momentarily). They are then sold at auction as veal calves, and are taken to their new homes, small crates in a dark (unlit) factory farm. They are chained by the neck so that they are unable to stand (and use their leg muscles), and are generally kept from moving at all. They are fed an iron-deficient diet, usually liquid, with little nutritive value. All of this is done in an attempt to keep their flesh tender and white, which is evidently what people prefer (how they ever discovered this, I don’t want to know). Needless to say, veal calves suffer from anemia, diarrhea and pneumonia. They are slaughtered after roughly 16 weeks of “living.”

Cows have feelings, too

Mother cows are just like any other mother mammal. They form a bond with their child/young while they are in the womb and will stop at nothing to keep their child protected. To be forcibly separated from your own child is an intense emotional ordeal for any mammal, and the cow is no exception. There are countless cases of cows grieving the loss of their calf; they will frantically wail and search for their calf long after they are gone, have been known to cry over their loss and some have even escaped to find their baby.

The author, Oliver Sacks, MD once visited a dairy farm with a cattle expert Dr Temple Grandlin. Upon their arrival, they heard several of the cows bellowing, to which Grandlin responded: “They must have separated the calves from the cows this morning…It’s like grieving, mourning–not much written about it. People don’t like to allow them thoughts or feelings [my emphasis]” (The Hidden Lives of Cows).

Not only can cows grieve, but they are also very intelligent animals. They can have distinct personalities, interact in socially complex ways, enjoy intellectual challenges and have good memories.

Cows have been shown to feel excitement at solving intellectual challenges, such as in an experiment/investigation by Donald Broom, a professor of animal welfare at Cambridge University. The cows were challenged to learn how to open a door for a food reward. Their brainwaves were measured using an electroencephalograph, showing their excitement upon accomplishing the task. Their heart rates went up and some of the cows actually jumped into the air when they figured it out.

This and other experiments show that cows understand cause and effect relationships, including staying away from things that they learned cause them pain. This can include an abusive owner, an electric fence or even just another cow they don’t like. The intelligence of cows is ranked pretty high–higher than a cats, and comparable to a dogs. This recognition ability also extends to spatial recognition, as cows frequently return to particular locations while grazing, indication a good spot to eat.

Cows also demonstrate a high level of social hierarchy. They can easily recognize up to 100 herd-mates, and they even choose their own leaders based on things like intelligence and good social skills, while traits like bullying and selfishness are not considered good for a leader (and interestingly enough, neither are strength or size).

Just like humans, cows form cliques, and (not like humans) they like to groom and lick one another. The amount of time they spend licking/grooming indicates the level of the relationship, as well. Social hierarchy even determines the order in which the cows can lie down for a nap.

So now what?

As you can clearly see by this point, a cow’s natural social inclinations are severly hampered (if not negated) by their forcible confinement on ‘dry lots.’ This way of living in such close contact with thousands of other cows upsets their hierarchy, causing extreme distress because the cows are unable to find their niche.

Compare this to how any human would feel if kept in similar conditions and it is easy to see how this is cruel treatment. Cows are individuals, capable of complex emotions, and are even able to express a wide range of these emotions (through posture and vocal sounds), and can have their own individual personalities. If this sounds familiar, it should, because this cats or dogs are also described in these terms. You wouldn’t subject Fido to these conditions, so why should cows be treated so much differently?

Just somethin to chew on.

P.S. In case you were wondering how CMAB could get away with such blatant false advertising, allow me to share this little tidbit with you: government agencies are exempt from false advertising. And since CMAB is a government agency, they aren’t accountable to anyone (except maybe the ones who are paying them (off)).

Referenced:

“Dairy Industry Report” http://www.insidedairyproduction.com/wst_page2.html

“Happy Cows? You Decide” http://www.unhappycows.com/

“The Hidden Lives of Cows” http://www.goveg.com/f-hiddenlivescows.asp

“The Real Life of Dairy Cows” http://www.unhappycows.com/dairycows.asp

So, I was in the middle of researching to write my next post (it will be about the aspect of cruelty in the dairy industry), I stumbled across this article on Veg News about carnism. Rather than try to summarize it, I decided it would have more of an effect if you all read the whole thing. It really gets at the whole subconscious mindset that people have about eating meat. Enjoy:

(found at: http://www.vegfamily.com/articles/carnism.htm)

Food for Thought: Carnism and the Psychology of Eating Meat
Melanie Joy, Ph.D., Ed.M.

“…I mean, there are so many mortifying things in our culture and society. But that [killing animals for food] certainly is one of the worst and people ignore it the most because they think that animals don’t matter…I feel a lot for these animals. Just the thought is really upsetting…I’m crying.”

While many VegFamily readers likely identify with the above quote, what may come as a surprise is that this statement was made not by a vegetarian, but by a meat eater. Perhaps even more surprising is that the sentiment expressed in the statement appears to be more the rule than the exception. Research suggests that eating other animals brings about an inner discomfort, or inconsistency, that people are generally unaware of. The question, then, is how can the average American, who very likely considers her- or himself nonviolent toward other animals, eat their bodies and experience no apparent discomfort?

The answer to this question may be explained, at least in part, through an understanding of carnism. Carnism is the word I began using several years ago to denote the ideology of meat consumption. Ideologies are social belief systems that have enormous power to shape people’s attitudes and behaviors. Ideologies are often so embedded in society that their influence is mostly unconscious-and therefore unquestioned. Typically, ideologies are only recognized when are an exception to the “normal” way of thinking (what we call the “dominant ideology”). This is why there is a name, vegetarianism, for the ideology that considers the consumption of other animals inappropriate or unethical. The dominant ideology in our society maintains that eating other animals is normal and even necessary. However, there is no name for this ideology. We therefore tend to view eating animals not as a choice, but as a given. This way of thinking makes society view the consumption of animals as normal, natural, and legitimate.

Ideologies can hide contradictions between people’s behaviors and their values. They allow people to make exceptions to what they would normally consider ethical, without even realizing it. This is how we can understand carnism. If we consider carnism to be an ideology, then we can explain why it is possible to love some animals and eat others. We have been so socialized to believe in the legitimacy and necessity of carnism that most people do not even think of their meat as having once been an animal. Indeed, most people begin eating meat before they can even talk, and the process of maintaining the invisibility of the animals who become food continues for the rest of our lives.

In my own research, I found that certain ways of thinking support carnism. Interviewing carnists (meat eaters) and meat cutters, I learned that, in order to eat or process the bodies of other animals, individuals needed to use a degree of “psychic numbing”-the separation of thoughts from feelings and of beliefs from practices. This psychic numbing was expressed through a variety of defense mechanisms. Among the most notable are:

• denial (“animals don’t really suffer when being raised and killed for meat”)
• justification (“it’s acceptable to eat certain animals because they’re bred for that purpose”)
• avoidance (“don’t tell me that; you’ll ruin my meal”)
• dichotomization (“I think of some animals as companions and some as food”)
• dissociation (“when I look at meat, I don’t connect it with an animal-if I did, I would be disgusted and unable to eat it”).

One might ask, then, if such defenses are necessary for the consumption of meat, why continue to eat meat? Why not just go vegetarian? The answer to this is complex. In a nutshell, though, carnists often continue as carnists due to a number of factors, perhaps the most prominent of them being fear. A comprehensive list can be found in Carol Adam’s wonderful book, Living Among Meat Eaters (2003). Since ideologies tend to perpetuate themselves, it should be no wonder that the carnistic system works quite hard to ensure that its members remain loyal, using fear as an effective tool toward this end. For instance, many of us have been led to believe that if we stop eating meat, we will become unhealthy, seen as antisocial, weak or less “manly,” flaky, and a host of other stereotypes. These notions are communicated through the mass media, in which vegetarians are often portrayed as strange or radical. They are also conveyed through carnistic “education” campaigns and marketing, where meat is associated with health, strength, community, and normalcy.

While an understanding of psychic numbing may help us better relate to carnists, it can also help us better appreciate and value our own choice to be vegetarians. Psychic numbing, when used to enable violent practices such as carnism, is, arguably, psychologically unhealthy. Unfortunately, though, the field of psychology has typically supported, rather than challenged, the status quo, and so the use of massive psychological defenses to enable participation in violent practices that are contrary to one’s deeper value system is generally not considered psychologically questionable. Instead, those who resist the dominant ideology (i.e., vegetarians) tend to be either ignored or pathologized-for instance, a psychologist might assume that one’s vegetarianism is simply a mask for an eating disorder.

Thus, what may be one of the most important points to remember as vegetarians is that mental health comes not from unquestioningly participating in what we have learned is normal (consider the average German in Nazi Germany), but from practicing we believe is right. It comes from living in accordance with our deepest values, values such as personal authenticity, integrity, empathy, and compassion for all beings. What better model for a peaceful planet? What better lesson to teach our children?

References

Adams, C. J. (2003). Living among meat eaters: The vegetarian’s survival handbook. New York: Continuum.

Joy, M. (2001). From carnivore to carnist: Liberating the language of meat. Satya, 8(2), 26-27. Joy, M. (2003). Psychic numbing and meat consumption: The psychology of carnism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School, San Francisco, CA.

Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York: Basic Books.

Rostler, S. (2001). Vegetarian diet may mask eating disorder in teens. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29, 406-416.

Melanie Joy, Ph.D, Ed.M, is a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts, Boston. She has studied the psychology of speciesism for a number of years and wrote her doctoral dissertation on the psychology of carnism. Melanie has published several articles on animal and human rights issues and is currently writing a book on carnism. She lives in Cambridge, Mass.

Do we need dairy products to be healthy?

All of our lives we were taught that we needed to drink milk in order to have strong bones and teeth. So we gulped the hell out of that shit. We wanted to be healthy and strong! That’s a no-brainer. Or so we were taught.

Nowadays, there are people questioning this age-old lesson. What are we really getting from drinking milk and consuming the myriad of dairy products? Is it necessary for humans to drink the milk of another animal (be it cow, goat, etc)?

The Dairy Industry would like for us to think so…

We all remember “Milk: it does a body good.” Everyone has seen the “Got Milk?” ads (unless you’ve been living under a rock) which began when I was only in 3^rd grade; and most people have seen the latest “Milk your Diet”/“24 Ounces in 24 Hours” campaign. All of these campaigns push milk as necessary for healthy bone and teeth function as the provider of essential calcium. The Dairy Industry also claims that consuming dairy products (to meet daily calcium intake requirements) prevents osteoporosis, are good for the heart, and that milk isn’t bad for cholesterol (1). They spend a lot of money on large-scale advertising campaigns every year to tell all of us how necessary dairy is in our lives. They’ve spent $200 million on the “Milk Your Diet” campaign alone since 2003; compare this to the $2 million the US has spent on the “5 a Day” fruit/veg campaign and you get the picture (2). They’ve spent countless millions promoting the food pyramid and other dairy propaganda to schools (I’m sure all of you can remember getting your carton of milk in kindergarten and in the lunch line—in fact, it’s “required by law as part of the federally assisted meal plan” and it must be served with school lunch, according to USDA guidelines (3)).

You didn’t think anything of it. No one did. We also didn’t think anything of the fact that these dairy industries had a vested interest in making sure that everyone believed that they needed dairy—because they are in the business of selling dairy.

Such is the nature of indoctrination. Drinking milk (and consuming dairy products in general, for that matter) is a very powerfully ingrained habit. We were kids and we trusted our teachers and our parents. They grew up consuming dairy products and were told how necessary they were.

How necessary is dairy?

The Dairy Industry wants us all to believe that we need calcium for healthy and strong bones and teeth. This is true! But dairy is not the only source of dietary calcium. Just like the Meat Industry has led us all to believe that meat is the only source of complete proteins, the Dairy Industry has successfully hoodwinked us all into thinking that the calcium in dairy products is superior somehow. For example, in their “Milk Your Diet” campaign, they tout the weight-loss benefits of milk and dairy calcium (as opposed to supplemental calcium in studies—there was no mention of other sources of calcium, like vegetable calcium) as part of a low-calorie diet. (Riding the coattails of the success of various fad diets?) They’re even calling it a part of their “Campaign for Healthy Weight”.

The Good … and the Bad

What’s in it?

Well there’s got to be something good in milk for people to be so adamant about its necessity, right? Well, sort of.

On their website, www.whymilk.com, one can read the Industry’s “Key Vitamins and Minerals in Milk” fact-sheet, in which they list what is in milk: Calcium, Protein, Vitamins A, D & B12, Potassium, Riboflavin, Niacin and Phosphorus (what they don’t mention is that milk is usually fortified with Vitamin D, but that’s a non-sequitur), and these are all touted as beneficial nutrients that can all be found in this “wonder-drink”. Indeed, they are all important and necessary nutrients. I’ll briefly discuss calcium for now, since all of these nutrients could constitute an entire post of their own.

Calcium is a mineral—it comes from the ground. Cows get their calcium from grass. And in case you didn’t know, most dairy cows in the US are not even fed grass; they’re fed grains supplemented with calcium. I’m sorry but that seems a little backwards to me. We’re ostensibly supposed to drink cow’s milk for its calcium, but cows get theirs from grass. I’m not saying we should all eat grass, but wouldn’t it make a little more sense if we went to the source and got the calcium ourselves without the middleman, er, cow? (And in case you were wondering, the cows you see grazing are usually beef cattle, so don’t try to argue).

Ok, so what else is in milk? Lactose is a sugar found in milk. I was aware that many (some say up to 85% of) humans are lactose intolerant, but I never made the connection that maybe this was somehow significant. I never thought that humans were intolerant to lactose for a reason, and I likened it to other food allergies. There is, in fact, a scientific reason for this intolerance: lactase. Lactase is an enzyme that babies make in order to digest lactose. Children stop making this enzyme by the time they are 5 years old, at which point they should be completely weaned off of their mother’s milk. In other words, as adults, we lack the physiological capability to effectively digest lactose—which is found in all dairy products (unless it has been chemically removed somehow, as in the case of “lactose-free” milks) (4). Lactase breaks lactose down into glucose and galactose, which are digestible to humans. But when lactose isn’t broken down, it causes the symptoms of lactose intolerance.

I can’t give the exact date that I really sat down and thought it through, but one day I realized, cows milk (and goats’ milk, and any other milk that humans consume, aside from human breast milk, for that matter) was not designed for human consumption. A cow makes milk for her baby (just like any other mammal), and that milk is loaded with the essential nutrients and hormones and antibodies that baby cows need. Not baby humans. And definitely not adult humans. We are the only species that drinks the milk of another species. And we are also the only species that drinks milk as adults. Doesn’t this seem weird to anyone else?

Aside from the weird factor, how about the gross factor. People don’t realize there is something else lurking in cows’ milk: somatic cells (5). In other words, pus from cow udders, leaking from infections stemming from the use of bovine growth hormones. These growth hormones cause dairy cows to produce more milk than they are really equipped to produce or store, resulting in engorged udders. These udders are usually dragged on the ground (through fecal matter, mind you), causing painful infections know as mastitis. The pus from these infections contains bacteria, including paratuberculosis bacteria, which many researchers believe to be the cause of Crohn’s Disease. In order to attempt to combat the amount of somatic cells that end up in the milk supply, farmers give cows large doses of antibiotics—which also end up in milk.

Another thing that is artificially given to cows is rBGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone. This hormone causes the concentration of Insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) in cow’s milk. This is a problem because IGF-Is in cows and humans are identical. Research has shown that these growth factors stimulate the proliferation of various types of cancer. There is also a link between rBGH treated milk and early puberty/early menopause. Milk treated with rBGH is indistinguishable from real milk, and it is also not required to be labeled that it contains rBGH (6).

And cows are also frequently given steroids to bulk them up.

Tasty tasty

As for taste, I won’t lie, I consumed dairy almost my entire life and I loved the hell out of it. Cheese, milk, butter (butter was my favorite food, no lie), yogurt, cream cheese, ice cream, cottage cheese, etc etc. I loved all of it. It tastes good.

There’s a scientific reason for that. Casein, one of the proteins found in milk, has been shown to be an addictive substance. (Cheese, especially so, since it is more concentrated with casein). Casein breaks down into casomorphines, which are similar to morphine (they have an opiate effect). These types of substances are found in all milks in order to encourage young to return for more milk. There is also the idea that high-fat foods, “comfort foods”, like dairy products/cheese, are also extremely addicting (7).

Connections between dairy and diseases (of affluence)

Lactose intolerance causes diarrhea, nausea, abdominal cramps, bloating and gas (8).

Other intestinal maladies are strongly correlated with consumption of cow’s milk, such as Chron’s Disease (9) and IBS (10).

But consumption of cow’s milk is also linked to a host of other diseases, including anemia, breast cancer, diabetes, early puberty, heartburn, heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, kidney stones, lymphoma, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, (early) menopause, migraines, Multiple Sclerosis, obesity, osteoporosis, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, sinus problems, stroke, testicular cancer, tuberculosis, uterine cancer and even acne (11; 12; 13; 14).

The Big Calcium Question

So, where do we get our calcium from, then, if not from milk? Like I mentioned before, cow’s get their calcium from grass. Dark, leafy vegetables are excellent sources of calcium. This is a table of the calcium content of various (vegan) foods: Calcium Table. As you can see, there are many sources of non-dairy calcium.

You might have noticed that the chart included the amount of calcium in certain serving sizes. So, another question is, how much calcium is enough? The World Health Organization says they recommend 400-500mg of calcium per day. However, Japan and Korea both recommend 600mg/day and the US government recommends 1000mg for adults (1200 for those over 51). Who is correct? Why does the US government recommend so much more (more than twice the daily recommendation of the WHO)? Since in the US the primary source of calcium is dairy calcium, a higher amount is necessary due to the calcium-leaching affects of the protein found in dairy. Without getting too technical, animal protein causes an increase in the acid quality in blood. Calcium is used to neutralize the blood, and it is leached from the bones to do so (this is a cause of osteoporosis, by the way) (15). So in other words, the US Government recommends more calcium because the American diet is so heavy in animal proteins, resulting in a need for more calcium to replace that lost by acid-causing animal protein. (Another silly cycle, if you ask me. Why not just avoid the animal proteins altogether, then you don’t have to worry about getting twice as much calcium as you actually need?)

Ok, now what?

Well, now that we all know just how lame, er, unhealthy, consuming dairy products is, the next logical step is to stop consuming them! Unless you like to live dangerously or something. In which case, I would recommend doing something that wouldn’t potentially cause you to suffer from a debilitating disease when you get old.

How many people do you know with any of the diseases I mentioned above? How many people do you know who do not have high cholesterol or high blood pressure? Or are overweight? Personally, my mom has MS, her mom has diabetes and her dad died from a heart attack. Is dairy really the common thread? I really think so.

Sources:

(1): http://www.vegansociety.com/html/people/health/dairyproducts.php

(2): http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Health/dairyads.htm

(3): http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A44863-2002Apr13?language=printer

(4): http://www.compassionatecooks.com/podcast.htm – calcium podcast 3/17/2006 – Colleen Patrick-Goudreau

(5): http://www.milksucks.com/pus.asp

(6): http://www.notmilk.com/g.html

(7): http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_2_15/ai_n6126307

(8): http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/lactose-intolerance/DS00530/DSECTION=2

(9): http://www.notmilk.com/c.html

(10): http://www.notmilk.com/forum/487.html

(11): http://www.notmilk.com/

(12): http://www.milksucks.com/more.asp

(13): http://www.pcrm.org/health/Info_on_Veg_Diets/dairy.html

(14): http://www.vegansociety.com/html/people/health/dairyproducts.php

(15): http://www.notmilk.com/o.html

Other sources I consulted:

(16): http://www.vegsource.com/articles/milk_pyramid.htm

(17): http://www.vegsource.com/articles/breast_cancer.htm

(18): http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1104740,00.html

(19): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050805064340.htm

(20): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Got_Milk%3F

(21): http://www.pcrm.org/news/commentary040608.html

I thought that I should write a post going through the reasons why I am a vegan. This will not be some kind of long-winded manifesto. One of the aims of this blog is to reserve those long explanations for different blog entries so that I can fully address one topic at a time instead of half-assedly addressing all of them in one giant manifesto.

So, basically, I’m one of those weirdo people who’s decided to not consume animal products, or anything that is the product of animal cruelty. If you’ve read my Introduction, then you’ll know that I was a vegan for a brief period of time during high school and college, but since fell off the wagon. It took a little while for me to find my way back, but here I am! (And I have been welcomed back into the fold by some very enthusiastic people over at the Vegan Freak Forums, too, which really helps me establish a sense of community/belonging).

There are three basic reasons why I am a vegan (in order of importance):

1. I love animals and I cannot condone the needless suffering of them any longer. I do not think animals should be viewed as products, objects or commodities, and have every right not to be exploited or used by humans (this goes for all manner of ways we use animals, from eating them and their secretions, to using them for our entertainment in circuses and zoos).

2. I care about my health, and through my research I think the best diet/lifestyle I can adopt is one free of animal products.

3. Modern agricultural/factory farming practices around the world contribute to various environmental problems and also have a hand in promoting needless world hunger.

And it is for these three reasons (and the varying degrees of detail involving each that I will surely get to at some point or another) that I will no longer knowingly consume anything that has resulted in the suffering of another sentient being. And when I think about how many animals whose suffering I have already contributed to, it turns my stomach. So I’m going to be good to them and myself and let them live the lives that they were meant to–ones in which they are not vehicles for our desires! We don’t need to do what we do to animals, but we do it to them anyway because we want to. I for one can’t allow myself to be that selfish anymore :/

S o I hope this helps clear the air a little bit about where I stand and if you want to ask me anything about anything, don’t hesitate to. Just don’t be nasty cause that’s not nice. And I can be a real bitch if you’re nasty