“For a mouthful of meat …”. A veterinarian student in a slaughterhouse. A report by Dr Christiane M. Haupt

Introduction

I have been vegan for 12 years. It’s been 12 years of discovery and despair, of grief and frustration. The one thing that hardens with every day that passes, however, is my resolve to advocate for the rights of our species’ defenceless victims, the victims of nonveganism, until my dying breath.

Over the years, a number of writers, articles, and advocates stand out as having been hugely influential at the start when I was just discovering the true meaning of veganism. This is one such article. The chilling, matter-of-fact description of a student undergoing an obligatory period of six weeks in a slaughterhouse in order to obtain their professional qualification left me shaken and with indelible images in my mind that still influence me these many years later. Grim, and indeed lengthy, as it is, I’m sharing it with you.

Sometimes we all need to strengthen our resolve and remind ourselves why we must fight relentlessly against the atrocity of nonveganism that pervades a violent and bloodthirsty species where most mistakenly consider themselves to be ‘animal lovers’. This is a completely unforgettable reminder of why we can’t give up.

A veterinarian student in a slaughterhouse

‘The inscription above the concrete ramps reads: “Only animals that are transported in accordance with animal protection laws and that are correctly identified are accepted”. At the end of the ramp lies a dead pig, pale and stiff. “Yes, some die already during transport. From cardiac arrest.”

Luckily I have brought my old jacket. At the beginning of October it is already freezing cold. That, however, is not the only reason for me to shiver. I bury my hands in my pockets and try to keep a friendly face as I listen to the director of the abattoir. He explains that for a long time there has been no complete health check on animals, only an inspection. 700 pigs per day – how else could they cope? “There are no sick animals anyway. They would be sent back immediately, and the supplier would face a stiff fine. They only try it once and then never again.” I nod obligingly – stay calm. Keep a stiff upper lip. You have to get through these six weeks somehow – and wonder what happens to sick pigs. “There is a special abattoir for them.” I hear about transport regulations and how important the protection of animals is these days. These words, pronounced in a place like this, have a macabre ring to them. In the meantime a double-decker lorry has pulled up at the ramp. Screams and grunts emerge from it. It is difficult to distinguish details in the dim morning light; the whole scene seems surreal and is reminiscent of sinister television reports from war zones – rows of grey train wagons into which terrified, pale-faced people are being driven by armed men.

All of a sudden I find myself in the middle of the horror. This is the stuff nightmares are made of, from which one awakes in a cold sweat, terrified – surrounded by fog and icy cold, in the dirty half-light of this repulsive building, this flat anonymous block of concrete, steel and white tiles at the edge of a frozen wood: it is here where the indescribable happens, that nobody wants to know about.

The cries are the first thing I hear when I arrive to start my practical training. It is obligatory; a refusal to participate would have meant five years of studies gone to waste and the end to all my future plans. Nevertheless, every fibre in my body, every thought in my head screams rejection. I am disgusted and shocked and feel utterly helpless. Being forced to watch, being unable to help. They are forcing me to participate, to soil myself with blood. As I get off the bus, even from a distance the screams of the pigs cut through me like a knife. For six weeks this sound will be in my ears, hour after hour, without respite. Stand firm. For me there is an end to this ordeal. For the animals, there isn’t.

An empty square, some refrigerated lorries. From a brightly lit doorway, half pig carcasses hanging from hooks are visible. Everything meticulously clean. This is the front. I am looking for the entrance, which I find at the side. Two cattle trucks pass, yellow headlights in the morning mist. A dim light shows me the way, brightly lit windows. A few steps – and I am inside. White tiles everywhere. Nobody in sight. A white corridor – there is the changing room for ladies. It is almost seven and I change: white, white and white again! My borrowed helmet is wobbling grotesquely on my straight hair. My boots are too big. I shuffle back to the corridor and almost run into the responsible veterinarian. A polite greeting: “I’m the new trainee.” Formalities before the start. “Put on something warm, go and see the director and hand over your medical certificate. Dr. XX will then tell you what to do.”

The director is a jovial man, who first of all tells me of the good old days when the slaughterhouses had not yet been privatised. Then, unfortunately, he stops and decides to personally show me around. I find myself on the ramp. On my right, some concrete holding-pens with iron bars. Some of them are already filled with pigs. “We start here at 5 o’clock in the morning.” The pigs are scrambling, a few quarrels here and there, a few curious snouts poke through the bars; smart eyes. Some animals are nervous and bewildered. A large sow insists on attacking others. The director grabs a stick and hits her several times on the head: “Otherwise there will be serious fights.” At the bottom of the slope, the loading ramp of the lorry is lowered. The pigs nearest to the exit are frightened of the wobbly and steep passage but the animals at the back are pushing because a worker is hitting them with a rubber hose. In [the] future I will not be surprised anymore when I see red marks on pig carcasses.

“It’s against the law to use electric prods on pigs”, explains the director. Some animals make the first steps, hesitant and stumbling. The others follow. One pig slips and its leg gets caught; the animal gets up and limps forward. All of them end up between iron bars leading them to the holding-pens. At every corner the animals get stuck and blockages result. The worker is furious and swears as he lashes out at the animals in the last rows. They panic and try to jump onto the backs of their fellow sufferers. The director shakes his head: “Brainless, simply brainless. How many times have I told you already that it’s pointless hitting the ones at the back?” While I stare at this horrible spectacle – this can’t be real, you must be dreaming – the director greets a lorry driver who has just pulled up next to the others and is getting ready to unload. This procedure takes considerably less time but with far more animal cries and I quickly see why: behind the stumbling pigs, a second man has appeared and when things aren’t going fast enough, the animals receive electric shocks. I stare at the man and at the director who shakes his head again: “Really, don’t you know that this is not allowed anymore for pigs?” The man looks incredulous but then puts the gadget in his pocket.

From behind, something nudges the back of my leg. I turn around and look into two intelligent blue eyes. I know many animal lovers who enthuse about the deep sentiments one can read in the eyes of a cat, or the unfailingly loyal and faithful regard in the eyes of a dog. But who has ever talked about the intelligence and curiosity in the eyes of a pig? Soon, I am going to see quite another expression in these eyes: quiet screams of fear, overcome with pain, empty eyes torn from their sockets, rolling on the blood-stained floor. A sharp thought hits me and it will continue to haunt me in the coming weeks: Eating meat is a crime – a crime: …

A tour of the abattoir follows, starting in the staff room that has an open window towards the slaughter hall, disclosing a never-ending parade of pale and bloody pig halves. Indifferently, two employees are having their breakfast: sandwich and cold meat. Their white gowns are covered in blood. A bit of flesh is stuck to one of their boots. Here, the hellish tumult is somewhat muted, but that changes immediately as I am led to the slaughter hall. I retreat hastily when a pig carcass swishes around the corner and hits another. It brushes against me, warm and doughy. This can’t be true – it’s absurd – impossible.

Everything hits me at the same time. Piercing cries. The grating of machinery, the metallic sound of tools. The penetrating stench of blood and hot water. Laughter, casual remarks. Flashing knives, hooks in twitching animal halves without eyes. Chunks of flesh and organs fall into a gutter where blood flows in abundance so that the disgusting liquid splashes over me. Slippery lumps of meat on the floor. Men in white, blood dripping down their clothing. Under helmets and caps, the faces are just like any other that you might see on the metro, in the cinema or in the supermarket. You expect monsters but instead you meet the nice granddad from next door, the funny young man in the street, the well-groomed bank manager. Friendly greetings. The director quickly shows me the hall where cattle are slaughtered. It is empty. “Tuesday is the bovines’ turn.” He introduces me to a lady and disappears; he is busy. “Feel free to have a look around in this slaughter hall.” It will take three weeks before I have the courage to do so.

I am allowed to enjoy one day of grace by sitting next to the staff room cutting small pieces of meat from a bucket, samples that a blood-stained hand from the slaughter room refills regularly. Each piece – one animal. Individual portions are chopped; hydrochloric acid is added and boiled – for the trichina test. The lady introduces me to the system. Trichina is never found, but the test is obligatory.

The next day, I find myself part of the gigantic killing machine. A rapid introduction: “Here, you remove the rest of the pharynx and cut knots of the lymphatic glands …”. I cut. I have to work fast because the production line keeps moving. Above me, other pieces of carcass are cut out. When my colleague works too fast or when the bloody mess blocks the gully, the broth hits my face. I try to move to the other side but there, an enormous water-cooled blade cuts the pig carcasses in two: it is impossible to stay there without getting soaked to the bone. Gritting my teeth, I continue cutting. I must hurry and don’t have time to reflect at all on this horror. Furthermore, I have to be damned careful not to cut my fingers off.

The next day, I borrow a metal glove from a colleague who has already gone through the ordeal. And I stop counting the blood-dripping pigs that parade before me. I do not use rubber gloves any longer. It is absolutely repugnant to plunge your bare hands inside still warm carcasses, but because you get soiled with blood up to the shoulders and the sticky mixture of corporal fluids seeps into the gloves anyway, they are useless. Why does anyone bother to make horror films, when all this is right here?

The knife is soon blunt. “Give that to me, I’ll sharpen it for you.” The nice granddad, in reality a former meat inspector, winks at me. Having handed me back my sharpened knife, he starts to chat about this and that, and he tells me a joke before going back to work. From then on he takes me under his wing a little and shows me a few tricks that make the work on the production line a bit easier. “You don’t like all this, do you? I can tell. But it has to be done.” I do not manage to find him unpleasant. He goes through a lot of trouble to reassure me. Most of the others also make an effort to help me. I am sure that they find the endless parade of numerous trainees amusing, to see that we are shocked at first and then grit our teeth in order to complete our training. They are well-meaning people, there are no petty squabbles. I must admit that I cannot consider the workers as monsters, apart from a few exceptions. They simply become indifferent, just like me, as time goes by. It is self-protection.

The real monsters are those who order this massacre each and every day, and who, because of their greed for meat, condemn animals to a miserable life and an appalling end, and force other humans to do a job which is degrading and which transforms them into rough, coarse beings.

Me, I am progressively turning into a small cog in this monstrous automatism of death. The hours seem like an eternity but at some point the monotonous movements become routine – and exhausting. In danger of being suffocated by the deafening racket and presence of indescribable and omnipresent horror, comprehension retakes the upper hand on the dazed senses and starts functioning again. Differentiates, tries to make sense. Impossible.

When, during the second or third day, I become aware that burned and torn animal bodies still move and tiny tails are still wagging, I freeze. “They’re … they’re still moving!” I stutter when a veterinary passes by, even though I am well aware that the nerves are bound to still be twitching after a while. He grins: “Damn, someone’s made a mistake, it’s not quite dead.” A spooky pulse makes animal halves tremble, everywhere. A place of horror, I am frozen to the very marrow of my bones.

At home I lie down on my bed and stare at the ceiling. Hours pass. Every day. People near me get irritated. “Don’t look so miserable. Smile. After all, it was you who insisted on becoming a vet.” Veterinarian, yes. Not a butcher of animals. I am cracking up. These remarks. This indifference. This matter-of-fact murder. I want to, I need to speak out, to get it off my chest. I am suffocating. I want to talk about the pig that couldn’t walk anymore and was crouching with spread legs and was kicked and battered until it was in the killing box. I have seen the animal again when both its halves dangled in front of me: The muscles were torn on both sides of slaughter number 530 of that day. I shall never forget that number.

I want to speak about the days when cows are killed, their gentle brown eyes filled with panic. Their attempts to escape the blows and the curses, until the hapless animal is finally imprisoned behind iron bars from where a panoramic view shows where the cow’s unfortunate companions are being skinned and cut into pieces. A deadly shot. A chain on the hind leg pulling the wriggling body up while the head is severed. A stream of blood spurts in profusion from the headless but still writhing body and its kicking legs. I need to talk about the atrocious munching noise when a machine rips the skin off a body, the automated rolling movement of a finger which pulls and twists, a bloodied and protruding eyeball from its socket before it is thrown into a hole in the ground where “waste” disappears. There is the aluminium waste chute, where the internal organs torn out of huge headless corpses, with the exception of liver, heart, the lungs and tongue, which are all destined for consumption, slide into some kind of rubbish collector.

I want to report that again and again in the midst of these sticky, bloody mountains a gravid uterus is seen. I saw tiny calves, already fully-formed, of all sizes, fragile and naked, their eyes closed inside the uterine envelope which can no longer protect them, the smallest as tiny as a new-born kitten, but nonetheless a miniature cow, the biggest with a silky coat of brown-white hairs, with long silky eyelashes, only a few weeks away from birth. “Isn’t it a miracle, what nature creates?” remarked the vet on duty that week, whilst throwing the uterus with the foetus inside it into the gaping throat of the rubbish mill. I am now certain that no God can exist because no lightning came down from the sky to punish the crimes committed down here, crimes which will be perpetuated interminably.

There is no God to help the pitiful skinny cow that on my arrival at 7 o’clock in the morning is lying in convulsions in the drafty and icy corridor in front of the killing box. Nobody has enough compassion to put her out of her misery with a quick shot. First the other animals need to “be taken care of”. When I leave around lunch time, the cow is still [lying] there, twitching. In spite of several appeals, nobody has helped. I loosen the rope which was cutting into her flesh and stroke her forehead. She looks at me with her huge eyes and I learn then and there that cows can cry. The guilt of watching a crime without reacting is as difficult to bear as the crime one commits oneself. I feel immensely guilty.
My hands, my gown and my boots are soiled with the blood of her species.

I have been at the production line for hours, cut hearts and lungs and livers. I had been warned: “To cut up cows is a messy business.” I want to talk about all these things, so that I don’t have to carry this burden alone. But hardly anyone wants to listen. Yes, people had asked me: “What is it like in an abattoir? I couldn’t do it.” My fingernails cut into my palms so that I do not hit these commiserating faces or throw the telephone out of the window. I want to scream but the horror I have experienced each and every day suffocates me. Nobody has asked me if I cope. Embarrassed reactions to short answers show uneasiness: “Yes, all that is absolutely terrible. That’s why we eat meat only occasionally.” Often people encourage me: “Bite the bullet! Keep a stiff upper lip. It will soon be over!” This is one of the worst, most heartless and ignorant remarks! The massacre continues, day after day. It seems that nobody understands my problem is not to survive these horrible six weeks, but that monstrous mass-murder happens millions of times – on behalf of those amongst us who eat meat. Now I consider all those who pretend to be friends of animals and still eat meat as fakes.

“Stop, you’re making me lose my appetite!” More than once this remark stopped my report, followed by the escalation: “But you are a terrorist! Every normal person laughs about you”. One feels so terribly lost and alone at these moments. Now and then I look at the tiny cow foetus that I took home and which I put in formaldehyde. Memento Mori. Let them laugh, the “normal people”.

Perspectives change when one is surrounded by so many violent deaths; one’s own life seems infinitely insignificant. When I look at the anonymous rows of ripped up pigs being pulled across the hall the question springs to mind: “Would things be different if humans instead of pigs were hanging there?” In fact, the anatomy of the hind part of the animal, fat, dotted with pustules and red marks, reminds me strangely of what squeezes out of tight beach clothes in sunny holiday places. The never-ending screams that fill the slaughter halls when the animals feel death could also stem from women and children. Callousness is inevitable. At one point I can only think that I want it to stop. I want it to stop. Hasten with the electric stunning so that it stops. “Many don’t make any noise”, said one of the veterinarians, “others scream their heads off, without any reason”

I look at the scene – how they stand there and scream “without any reason”. More than half of the time of my course had passed before I finally ventured inside the slaughter hall to be able to say: “I’ve seen it.” Here is the end of the circle which started with the unloading ramp and the dismal corridor with capacity for 4 or 5 pigs. If I had to portray the concept of “fear” in images, I would do so by drawing the pigs huddled up against one another in front of the closed door, and I would draw their eyes. Eyes I shall never forget. Eyes that everyone who wants meat ought to see.

The pigs are separated with the aid of a rubber cudgel. One of them is pushed in the direction of a space enclosed on all sides. It cries, and tries to back up and escape from where it came, but there is no escape. At the press of a button, the floor of the pen is replaced by a kind of moving walk-way leading to another box. There the butcher – I secretly called him Frankenstein – activates the electrodes. A three-pointed stunning device, as the director explained to me. We see the pig bucking as the moving walkway is brusquely withdrawn and the twitching animal slides over a blood-covered slide. A second butcher plunges his knife under the front right of the pig; a flow of dark blood spurts and the body slumps forwards. A few seconds later, an iron chain closes around one of the animal’s rear legs and the animal is swung upwards. The floor is covered with a pool of blood at least a centimetre deep – a dirty, blood-spattered bottle of cola in the middle. The butcher grabs the bottle and has a drink.

I follow the carcasses that, swinging from their hooks, and bleeding abundantly, are directed towards “hell”. That’s how I denoted the next room. This one is high and black, full of smut, stench, and smoke. After several bends during which the blood continues to flow into pools, the row of pigs arrive at a kind of enormous oven. It’s here that the pigs’ bristles are eliminated. The animals’ bodies plunge into a crater in the interior of the machine. One can see inside. Flames flare up and for several seconds; the bodies shake and seem to perform a grotesque sort of jumping dance. They are then taken to the other side on a large table where butchers remove the remaining bristles, scrape the eye-sockets and separate the trotters. All this happens very rapidly: work on a conveyer belt. Hanging from hooks by the tendons of their back legs, the dead animals are then directed towards a metal flatbed containing a kind of flame-thrower.

In the deafening noise, the body of the animal is subjected to a jet of flames which, in the course of a few seconds, envelope it entirely. The conveyor belt then moves on again and transports the body into the next hall, the same one in which I found myself during the first three weeks. There, the organs are removed and placed onto another conveyor belt higher up. The tongue is examined, the tonsils and the oesophagus severed and thrown away, the lymphatic ganglions cut, the lungs put in the waste, the tracheal artery and the heart opened, the samples for the trichina analyses taken, the gall bladder pulled out and the liver examined for any sign of the presence of worms. Many pigs have worms and if their livers are full of them, it must be thrown away. All the other organs, like the stomach, the intestines, the genitals, are scrapped. On the lower conveyor belt, the rest of the body is prepared: divided into pieces; the articulations cut, the anus, the kidneys and the fatty parts surrounding the kidneys taken out; the brain and the spinal cord removed, etc., and finally a mark is imprinted on several bodies that are prepared, weighed and transported towards the cold room. The animals judged unfit for consumption are “provisionally confiscated”. The marking is a difficult operation for the newcomer because the warm, sticky carcasses hang very high up at the end of the line and care must be taken that the dangling animals don’t knock the workers out.

I can’t say how many times my gaze strays to the wall clock in the staff room. But it’s certain that there is no other place on Earth where the time passes more slowly than it does here. A break is granted in the middle of the morning, and with a sigh of relief I rush to the toilets and do my best to clean myself of the blood and chunks of flesh; it seems as if these stains and this smell will cling to me forever. Get out, just get out of here. I am unable to eat the smallest mouthful of food in this building. Either I spend my break-time, as cold as it may be outside, running around the perimeter fence, where I regard from afar the fields and the beginning of the woods and watch the crows. Or else, I cross the street and go to the shopping centre where I can warm myself up by drinking a coffee in a small baker’s shop. Twenty minutes later – back at the production line.

Eating meat is a crime. Never again will I be able to accept those people who eat meat as my friends. Never, never again. I think that all those who eat meat should be sent here, and be made to see what happens, from the beginning to the end.

I am not in this position because I want to become a vet, but because people insist on eating meat. And not only that: It is also because they are cowards. Their escalope, whitened, sterile, purchased at the supermarket, no longer has eyes that pour tears of fright before death, it no longer screams. All of those who consume these corpses of shame take great care not to face reality: “Really, I cannot watch things like that”.

One day, a farmer came and brought meat samples to be analysed for trichina. His small son who was with him pressed his nose against the window. I thought that perhaps if the children could see all this horror, all these animals being killed, then perhaps we could hope that things might change. But I can still hear the child call out to his father: “Daddy, look over there! What an enormous saw!” That evening, a television report talked about a “mystery still unresolved of the young girl who was murdered and cut into pieces.” I remember the general outcry and the disgust of the population in the face of this atrocity. I say: “The same atrocities, I’ve seen 3,700 of them in just one week in the abattoir.” Now, I am not only a terrorist, but I am also sick, up there, in my head. Because I feel not only terror and revulsion towards a murder committed upon a human being, but also towards those committed thousands of times upon animals, in one single week and in one single abattoir. Being human, doesn’t that signify saying no and refusing to be a silent partner in murder on a grand scale, for a piece of meat? Strange new world. It is possible that the tiny calves inside their mothers’ torn uteruses, dead even before they were born, had the best deal of all.

In one way or another, the last of these interminable days has finally arrived and I have received my training certificate, a scrap of paper, for which the price paid was so high. I have never paid so much for anything. The door closes behind me; a timorous November sun accompanies me from the heart of the abattoir as far as the bus stop. The cries of the animals and the sound of the machines fade. I cross the road as a large wagon transporting animals rounds the bend to enter the abattoir. It is filled on two levels with pigs, crammed one against the other.

I leave without a backwards glance because I have borne witness and, at present, I want to try to forget and to continue to live. It is up to others to fight now; myself, it is my strength, my will, and my joy of living that have been taken away from me and replaced by a sentiment of guilt and paralysing sadness. Hell is amongst us, thousands and thousands of times, day after day. There is one thing left however, and forever, for each one of us to do. Say, “No!”, “No, no and no again!”

(End of Dr Christiane M Haupt’s report)

Please note – I have been unable to link the original source or indeed the author, but will do so if I discover more info.

UPDATE with thanks: The author Dr Christiane M. Haupt is a German vet who runs now the amazing Swift Clinic in Frankfurt / Main. I don’t now the original source, but her article has been printed in German and Swiss media, for example here: https://www.emma.de/artikel/mein-praktikum-im-schlachthof-263625

Posted in Awakening to veganism, slaughter, Transcript | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 7 Comments

We wish you a merry….cheeseboard?

Image of a vegan charcuterie board. See https://makeitdairyfree.com/how-to-make-the-perfect-vegan-charcuterie-board/ for recipes and ideas

In recent times, I have written fewer blogs while concentrating on the Facebook page. There are however, some particularly long posts that lend themselves to to WordPress and this is one of these.  I’ve recently been focusing on dairy, particularly cheese, and the misunderstandings and propaganda that led so many of us in our past to mistakenly consider this most vile and offensive of all slaughter industries to be ‘harmless’ and ‘humane’ to the extent that it is still a staple of ‘vegetarian’ diets.

This post grew out of my idle musing about the phenomenon of the ‘cheese board’ (and its close relative, a charcuterie board). which although not exclusive to the festive season, is definitely ‘a thing’ here in my home country of Scotland and most likely in many other places too. 

The festive season is a time of year when ‘luxury’ goods are promoted. It’s just the way it is. Cashmere and angora, foie gras and caviar, chocolates and cheeses that would usually be thought too expensive, are widely advertised for festive tables and gifts. So, on that note let’s talk about ‘cheese boards’. We see them on restaurant menus everywhere and they’re a staple for a fancy festive meal at home. And as an added ‘bonus’ they’re labelled ‘vegetarian’. Yes?

Just to recap, industry propaganda promotes the notion that after being weaned from their own mothers, humans need to switch species and continue breastfeeding from other species of mother mammals throughout their lives. Most consumers have a vague industry-driven fantasy that cheese is often made from the breastmilk of cows, but few have any idea of the extent to which other species are also exploited for cheese. Take a look at the different species – and the numbers – in this list. The fancy cheese market is booming and the breastmilk has to come from somewhere.

FAO statistics for 2020 show:

  • 268 million cows;
  • 257 million sheep;
  • 220.5 million goats;
  • 70 million buffalos; and
  • 8.5 million camels,

are used each year for human breastfeeding (which includes milk, butter, ice cream, yogurt, chocolate. And cheese.) These numbers take no account of the males sexually violated to provide sperm for artificial insemination or the millions of infants of all species sent to slaughter after their birth has triggered lactation in their mothers.

Dairy is a slaughter industry in a massive way.

Refusal to eat dead flesh doesn’t change that fact – those who drink milk, eat cheese etc. are personally responsible for millions of broken mothers and infants facing slaughter every year. In fact, realising this sickening truth has caused more people to become vegan than almost any other. Among the most common things you’ll hear almost every vegan say are, ‘I was vegetarian until I found out about dairy’, and ‘I wish I had become vegan sooner’.

Anyway. Cheese Boards. When we’re composing one for a special meal, we browse the shelves of ‘exotic; cheeses and make choices based on names we recognise or flavours we’ve liked. More than half the time, shoppers have no idea the species of mother and infant whose lives have been torn apart for each one. Would it matter? I guess not. Because nonveganism is like that; once we’ve accepted the notion that other lives are ours to use and ours to take, we seldom differentiate. We don’t even see these grief-stricken innocents as our victims’ although they most definitely ARE and we reinforce that with every penny we spend on their misery.

So today, here’s info about who is persecuted for which type of cheese.

  • Goat milk cheeses

    These are the faces of cheese made from goat milk – new-born infants heading for sale and/or slaughter because they are no use to the industry that uses their grief stricken mothers.

  • Sheep milk cheeses

Image by Lukas Vincour for We Animals Media. ‘A ewe looks out from the narrow stall where she is immobilized while being milked at an industrial sheep farm. Czechia, 2020.’ Her infant was taken from her at birth. She is the face of cheese made from her milk.

This is a bereft water buffalo mother – her infants are taken from her soon after birth so that the breastmilk she produces for them can be pumped out by machine and turned into mozzarella cheese for humans to use to make pizza. When her supply of milk is no longer profitable, she will be slaughtered. This is the face of dairy pizza – remember it if you’re tempted to pay for her torment.

  • General list of cheeses including Camel, Yak, and Donkey milk cheese

    Image from a dairy farm by Andrew Skowron https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrewskowron/albums/ This is the face of a traumatised and bewildered new-born. If male they will soon be slaughtered for veal or meat. If female they will be fed on substitute ‘milk’ to take their mother’s place at the suction pumps. As it does with all new born mammals, nature designed this tiny creature to seek the warmth and the nurturing comfort of the mother whose toiling body just brought her treasured infant into the world. Before she has even had the chance to dry her baby, they are whisked away and they will never be together again. Her breastmilk will be made into the cheese that humans claim to ‘need’ and her baby was the way that the supply of milk was triggered. He’s the poster child of vegetarianism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Camel breastmilk is a new snake oil, with all sorts of human health benefits attributed to it and gullible devotees literally lapping it up. Every supplier website read exactly like a cow/ goat/sheep or other mammal breastmilk promoting page – using all the buzz-words, professing tender devotion to their herds, extolling the virtues of free range and pasture feeding, glossing over the bits that they don’t tell consumers about; the inconvenient bits like repeated impregnation, traumatic separation of mothers and new-borns, and slaughterhouses. But even if camel milk turned out to be the elixir of youth, that would still be missing the point. The reproduction of any mother is not ours to take,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you associate the festive season with love, peace, joy or goodwill, a cheese board represents none of these things – unless it’s a plant-based one. Why not make the words real? When we stop living in a way that shows our contempt and disrespect for the innocent, veganism is simply what’s left.

Posted in dairy, Festivals | 1 Comment

Victims in the shadows: donkey fur and skin

Image by Evan Price / We Animals Media: A donkey harnessed to a cart waiting to transport people and goods in the Republic of Gambia, Africa. In The Gambia, donkeys are the primary means of transport for both people and goods, typically hauled on these flat carts.

Honesty forces me to admit that whilst I appreciate that in many countries the use of donkeys and other equines for haulage and heavy lifting currently has no obvious alternative that I can suggest, as an animal rights advocate I find this a deeply upsetting situation and long for the end of the dreadful suffering that is its consequence.

So, I wouldn’t be surprised if, like me, when you think of donkeys you think of these gentle, biddable, individuals being pitilessly used for hard labour, overworked, beaten, starved and broken.  And that was a sufficiently horrific image for anyone to have in their head. Now, I find that’s only part of the story.

A page follower recently drew my attention to the fact that donkeys are under increasing persecution for their skins and fur – something I had been completely unaware of. I hate when I find out something new about nonveganism because it’s NEVER anything good.

Now before I start, I can anticipate how this may unfold when many read that the country driving this particular demand is China, but racism and xenophobia are unhelpful. They’re also inappropriate in the extreme. If blogging about animal rights has taught me anything at all, it’s that not ONE SINGLE COUNTRY is in any position to point fingers of blame at any other when it comes to the brutal and unnecessary persecution of the innocent individuals with whom we share this planet that our hubris is rapidly destroying. 

Furthermore, it must be pointed out that there is a GREAT deal of similarity between this trade that persecutes donkeys in particular, and the brutal and destructive supply mechanisms that meet increasing nonvegan demand for collagen ‘beauty’ treatments much, much closer to home.

And so, back to donkeys

Donkeys (Equus asinus) are facing a global crisis as  demand for their skins increases. This demand is driven by the need to supply raw materials to produce ejiao, a Traditional Chinese Medicine made from collagen extracted from donkey skins.

In an excellent and thorough analysis of the trade, Frontiers in Veterinary Science summarises as follows:

Since there is no productive chain for donkey skin production outside of China, the global trade is an entirely extractive industry that has resulted in the decimation of some local donkey populations. The donkey skin trade is demonstrably unsustainable, from the ethical issues associated with poor welfare, to the biosecurity and human health risks the trade poses; and it violates both legal frameworks and moral expectations at both a national and global level.Increased levels of personal wealth in China is fuelling demand for luxury products including ejiao, a product made using donkey skin. A traditional medicine, ejiao’s popularity is largely due to its reported ‘anti-aging’ properties. Demand for donkey skins to produce ejiao is conservatively estimated at 4 million per year. This represents a significant proportion of the global donkey population of 44 million. China’s own donkey population has nearly halved in the last 20 years and entrepreneurs are now looking worldwide to satisfy a growing demand.

General observations about sustainability, welfare and regulations

Obviously as an animal rights advocate, my perspective differs slightly. It may seem pedantic but words that strike me are:

  • Sustainability: From the perspective of an individual living creature, few words describing their needless slaughter for the nonvegan indulgence of our violent species, have ever been so meaningless and ridiculous as ‘sustainable’;
  • Welfare‘ in respect of the victims of nonveganism, is a word rarely used with victim wellbeing in mind: it’s an exploiter’s word. Read the link to find out more.;
  • Legal and moral frameworks: as for the lack or absence of regulation, that’s another term that usually sits alongside ‘welfare’. In many western countries, the nonhuman incarceration, use and slaughter industries are ‘regulated’ up to their ears but because the exploiters make the rules, the dice are always loaded in their favour and their priority is profit. Always. If proof were needed, I’ve spent years illustrating posts and blogs with images of standard regulated practice that provoke outrage, disgust, disbelief and demands for ‘more’ laws, ‘more’ enforcement. Who do you think makes the rules? People who care about victims as individuals worthy of the right to live unharmed and in peace? No. Such people would not create victims in the first place. Such people would create a vegan world. As long as exploiters write the rules, the victims of nonveganism will continue to lose out every time.

Having said that, one thing that ‘regulation’ does do with extreme efficiency, is keep track of those nonhumans who are considered to be business resources; they are, after all, profit on legs. Because so often, the donkeys who fall prey to this trade are stolen from small establishments and individuals and slaughtered in the bush, or else purchased untraceably and rounded up for transport to slaughterhouses of dubious provenance.

Unseen in the shadows

Frontiers in Veterinary Science further notes:

The invisibility of the legal and illegal markets is compounded by illegitimate export practices and criminal gangs. Due to the lucrative market for skins intensive farms are present in China and are likely to expand to other countries, such rearing creates significant welfare concerns for a species poorly adapted to intensive practices. Even if awareness of this trade improves, in the short term donkey owners are facing donkey prices that have increased up to tenfold within a few years and they are without the means to replace animals they depend on.

This emerging trade is, essentially, a fur trade with animal skins being sourced for human beauty. However while furs are visible, the role of donkey skins in ejiao products is invisible to the end user, mirroring the invisibility of the trade and donkeys themselves.

I was particularly interested to note the above definition of the trade in donkey skins as ‘a fur trade with animal skins being sourced for human beauty’. A popular focus for nonvegan outrage is the fur trade, amongst humans who would spew vitriol about someone with the audacity to wear a fur coat, before walking home in their sheepskin boots and having a burger and a milkshake on the way. 

So where are the lines?

Today’s thoughts have highlighted to me just how impossible it is to draw clear lines between one type of exploitation and another. Fur is linked to skin is linked to beauty/alternative medical treatments and so it goes. If we oppose the use of fur, we can’t justify stopping at that because there is no line to draw.  Our OWN standards of basic decency must surely lead us to the conclusion that embracing veganism is the only way that we can withdraw our personal consumer demands from the web of horror that supplies nonveganism. Do it today.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.849193/full

 

 

Posted in donkeys, Leather and skin, Victims in the shadows | 1 Comment

The minefield of careless words

 

Selene Magnolia / Essere Animali / We Animals Media

There are things that we all need to know and remember when we set out to effectively advocate for the rights of our species’ victims. 

  1. The majority of humans have been indoctrinated into nonveganism from an early age. They use or pay to use (which is the same thing) the lives and bodies of others as clothing, transport, ‘entertainment’, food, laboratory test subjects, ingredients and many other purposes while scarcely even giving it a thought.
  2. Most users of lives and bodies have virtually no knowledge of the realities that turn their victims into disembodied products on their plates, in their wardrobes and as ingredients in consumer goods. Many still harbour fuzzy notions of Old Macdonald’s Farm amid bucolic scenes of sunny fields with the word ‘humane’ hovering in their consciousness. The same soft focus fantasy applies to all the other nonvegan uses that are made of lives and bodies – it’s drilled into unchallenging audiences, beamed out of the pervasive media from cradle to grave.
  3. Most humans have little knowledge of nutrition and long ago fell for the lie that eating other individuals is necessary for humans. Even many health professionals have never looked further than the industry propaganda that pervades all sources of information to support and encourage their own personal preferences as well as that of their patients. 
  4. Most nonvegans don’t want to change. Their habits are long established, ingrained, supported by propaganda from every screen, magazine, and fast food joint, and conform to the expectations of their peer group. To step out of line is mocked and/or frowned upon.
  5. And finally, the one that none of us can afford to forget – most of us were once nonvegan. I wasn’t born vegan and I’m not personally acquainted with anyone who was. This is a double edged sword. It carries with it a huge burden of guilt, but it also provides insight to a nonvegan mind. Like me, many of us used to have one.

A brief note about point number 5

I have been accused of being an apologist, often in vitriolic terms, for admitting that I was not always vegan, and for asking fellow advocates to reflect on their nonvegan pasts as I do, to find insights as to how best to reach a nonvegan audience. I have found honesty to be one of the most powerful weapons in advocacy. 

Advocacy is about fighting for justice for the victims of nonveganism, fighting for respect for their right to live free of the persecution of our species.  Added to this, there’s a huge and increasing overlap between animal rights and the unfolding climate catastrophe. When considering the big picture, it’s not possible to speak of one without the other any more. The world we are destroying belongs to our victims every bit as much as it ever belonged to us.

WE OWE THEM.

Words as tools for advocacy

Recently my focus has been homing in on the damage that can be done by using the wrong words in the wrong place. Words paint images that are every bit as impactful as the photographs we share. Today I’ve been thinking particularly about point 4; People don’t want to change.  The result of this is that – consciously or not, once we succeed in finding an audience for information about animal rights, each nonvegan member of that audience will almost inevitably be on the lookout to inwardly reassure themselves  that what we’re saying doesn’t apply to them. And the words that provide that reassurance can frequently be found in the words that we unthinkingly scatter through our conversations. 

I greatly admire the words of Tom Regan, one of the greats of the animal rights movement and an undeniably powerful speaker. He talks of rights, of justice, of respect and of fairness. He never leaves room for misinterpretation, for grey areas or ambiguity. He’s straight and to the point.We could all do a lot worse than to learn from him and from the words that he chose with such care.

Less can be more

Often less is more. The more concise we can make our written advocacy, the greater the chance that our words will be read and the lower the risk of our being misunderstood. Connected to that point, and most important of all, we should never be tempted to pad out sentences with unnecessary words; always questioning whether we are helping or hindering our cause, editing ruthlessly. That’s how important words are and I can’t over-stress that. (Yeah, okay – I admit that I struggle to write short blogs – but you should see how they start out!)

Words as wedges

Here’s one of the most important things of all; we should NEVER use subjective words. Subjective words are words that mean different things to different people; words like ‘kindness’,’compassion’, humane‘, ‘cruelty‘, ‘love’ and ‘welfare‘. They’re words that really mean whatever their user wants them to mean. To use these words in advocacy is to open the door wide to every single nonvegan listener looking for a get-out and for reassurance that none of what you say applies to them, and to prop open that door with a massive wedge. If words are tools, these words are wedges.

One reason for this is because EVERYONE thinks these words apply to them so readers will naturally assume that whatever horror you’re describing doesn’t apply to them and will very often switch off as soon as they see them. As a nonvegan I would have sworn that I had kindness, compassion and the rest in abundance. I didn’t. All the proof that was ever needed lay in the fact that I wasn’t vegan.

The perils of talking the same language as exploiters

But there’s an even WORSE consequence of using them. All of these words have long since been co-opted by the victim supply industries that selectively breed, enslave, use, and slaughter other individuals for profit. They feature in their glossy ads for dead flesh and cow cheese and bird eggs and the PR shamelessly scattered throughout a complicit mainstream media by their shills, spokespersons and advisors (like whichever XYZPCA holds sway in your area).

When we use any of the words listed above, we are actually talking the SAME LANGUAGE as the industries that breed, use, mutilate, torment and slaughter over 3 trillion individuals annually (including aquatic victims) to supply the dietary, clothing, furnishing, laboratory testing, entertainment, transport, and other frivolous habits of our own species of persecutors. I’m referring to organisations that claim to promote ‘highest welfare’, by advising on stocking densities, methods of slaughter, methods of confinement, permitted mutilations and so many horrors besides, as well as the industries that maximise their profits by following such rules and guidelines.

To use the same language as the oppressors of those whose rights we defend, is more harmful than I could ever hope to explain. It literally does their dirty work for them, soothing consumers into ignorance of the needless horrors that their cash is driving.  Any nonvegan listening could be forgiven for thinking that since we’re using the same words, we’re ‘on the same side’. I’m sure you can see the flaw there. 

Opening the doors for those looking for a get-out

So finally, I’d like to mention just a few of the problematic words and terms that we see so frequently. Bearing in mind that nonvegan listeners don’t want to change, as soon as we provide words that give a possible get-out, the result will be all sorts of efforts to reassure themselves that they’re not doing anything wrong if they just carry on doing what they do. Original thinking isn’t even necessary – there are hordes of anti-vegan sources with ready followers for the unscientific nonsense they regurgitate under the guise of ‘debunking veganism’.

  • The first one of course, is where there’s any mention of ‘suffering‘ in connection with our use of the lives of others. ‘Avoidable suffering’ instantly suggests that some kind of UNavoidable suffering exists and can set listeners off righteously trying to promote tighter legislation. We’ll be swamped with buzz words like ‘free range’,’organic’, ‘high welfare’, and more besides. Each one is a different way of saying, ‘What I do is okay. I don’t need to change.’ Apart from the fact that the word ‘suffering’ is subjective and I defy anyone to define it in terms of nonvegan use, we need to be clear that ALL nonvegan use is unnecessary and so is avoidable.  The real issue is whether we use others or not. ‘Don’t use the lives and bodies of others,’ is crystal clear. 
  • If we say something happens in ‘factory farms’, readers will frequently decide to avoid what they think or are told are ‘factory’ farms. We’ll see talk of ‘local farms’, ‘family farms’, ‘backyards’ and more.  The size and scale of the establishments actually depend on the level of nonvegan demand for the bodies and lives of nonhumans. The problem is the concept of ‘farming’ lives and bodies, not where it happens. I always put the word ‘farming’ in quotes. The author and writer Joan Dunayer takes the ‘farmed animal’ point a step further by referring to ‘animals enslaved for food’ or ‘animals exploited for food’.
  • If we mention ‘battery eggs’ or ‘caged eggs’, we will be inundated with rhetoric about ‘free range’, ‘organic’, and ‘backyards’ from those who don’t realise that the environment of exploitation does not affect the universal selective breeding that has made the body of every hen everywhere who is used for her eggs, into a genetic time bomb; a designer victim programmed to self destruct. There is no such thing as a humane egg. We need to be specific.
  • If we say ‘eating meat’ is a problem, it will be assumed that eating eggs and cheese is not. And where does that lead? Vegetarianism and the uncounted billions of annual deaths it causes.
  • If we say a practice is ‘cruel’, our audience may assume that whatever it is doesn’t apply to them because they ‘love animals’ Or they will protest that the law should be changed to somehow eliminate ‘cruelty’, not realising that the core of nonveganism – the use of the lives and bodies of others – would in fact be the very definition of ‘cruelty’.  Many ‘welfare’ businesses that falsely claim to represent victim interests, raise millions in funds from nonvegans on the strength of the ‘cruelty’ tagline all the time. It’s an easy heartstring to pull and another word that I’d challenge anyone to define in terms of nonvegan use. The fact is that every single aspect of nonveganism is deeply unjust and represents the height of contempt for every single victim. 
  • If we talk about ‘reducing harm’ – what does that even mean? Victims are not a quantity that we can cut down on like our sugar, fat or alcohol intake. We are talking about individuals here. Does it mean slaughtering fewer nonhumans? Slaughtering in some ‘different’ way? Violating reproductive systems in some other manner? What? Because I honestly don’t know – I can’t even hazard a guess. As a term it’s meaningless.
  • What about ‘live export’? When we rail against it we have to be extremely careful. We risk nonvegan listeners making an assumption that slaughter in the country where persecution began is somehow preferable to slaughter after an extended journey. If I had a pound for every time I’ve heard the mantra about ‘the laws we have here’… Such listeners have no concept of slaughter which is sickeningly violent and terrifying everywhere, and indeed no understanding of the severe limitations of all legistation.
  • If we talk about ‘veggie’ – what even IS that? Seriously?
  • Fortunately few advocates I know would even mention ‘humane slaughter’ – but no. Just no.
  • And lastly for now, we can say until we’re blue in the face that ‘animal agriculture’ is every bit as bad for the planet as fossil fuels and the ONLY bit of that sentence that will register is ‘fossil fuels’. I seriously don’t have any suggestions for that one except repetition.

I’ll add more as they pop into my head, but once you start to notice these terms, you’ll see them everywhere. Most of the time something far more concise can be said and missing them out will make for a far more impactful piece of writing. Don’t chuck in words that open the door for a nonvegan audience member to decide you’re definitely not talking about them.

Posted in Advocacy, Terminology, words | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Seeing through the hype

Calves in transport Photographer/Filmmaker: Jo-Anne McArthur

Today I’ve been thinking of the way those who seek to justify continued exploitation of other individuals  – including industry supporters who promote themselves as ‘representing victim interests’ – habitually grasp at any available straws, and the way in which, as advocates we have to be aware that diversionary tactics are ultimately not tackling the root of a problem. So here’s a spoiler. When it comes to the exploitation of nonhumans, that root is always ‘speciesism’ and the solution is to end all exploitation of other individuals. If an article doesn’t point that out, it’s not ‘representing victim interests’. 

So – that all sounds a bit obscure, doesn’t it? Well I’ll explain. Recent posts about the plight of calves exploited by the dairy industry have provided several examples of what I’m talking about.  Now don’t get me wrong, what’s done to calves is utterly shocking, brutal, sickening, barbaric and many other adjectives besides. BUT. They are not the only victim group who undergo unspeakable abuse – unspeakable abuse is the subtext for every single type of nonhuman exploitation. Animal agriculture IS unspeakable abuse. 

Points that have provoked outrage include:

  • The fact that calves and their mothers are separated within 24 hours
  • The fact that calves face lengthy journeys by road and sea, starving and thirsty;
  • The fact that calves are roughly handled;
  • The fact that so many calves are male and this deemed surplus to ‘dairy’ requirements.

So we see ‘solutions’ proposed by some who claim to represent the interests of these hapless infants; solutions grasped at eagerly by the milk drinkers and cheese eaters who absolutely do not want to change their own behaviour and in fact see nothing wrong in it. Somehow it’s claimed that changed procedures, more laws and better enforcement will fix all the issues. It’s as if the heading ‘Treatment of calves‘ can be extracted from the overall ‘Dairy’ industry and solved as an academic exercise without inconveniently touching on any other aspect of a much MUCH bigger and financially lucrative picture.

Using imagination

Apart from the fact that the trauma for the mothers and calves is WORSENED the longer they remain together after birth, a mother/child bonding common to all mammals including humans, I find myself wondering what else this proposed scenario looks like. It could apparently include slaughter close to the place of birth to avoid the misery of transport and sexed semen amongst other things. Other proposals call for tightening up of existing regulations that limit journey times, set down feed requirements in transport, methods of handling etc. 

It’s all too easy to see articles getting carried away with proposals for feeding schedules and journey times but we need to keep in mind the individuals who are impacted by this barbaric trade. So for the avoidance of doubt, we’re talking about infants; so new that many are still wet from birth with their umbilicals trailing from their little quivering bellies. Male or female, they want and need their mothers in the same way newborn humans want and need their mothers.

Imagine the distress of a human infant taken from their mother at birth and set aside with a whole load of other newborns to be segregated into ‘males’ and ‘females’ and disposed of, with a nice legal feeding schedule, a regulated journey time limit, and laws against beating, kicking or throwing them. Would we find that reassuring? Would we hell. Most of us would find that idea far too distressing to even contemplate. And THAT – right there – is our speciesism talking. This is the bit where some will be firing up their keyboards to announce that humans are not the same as cows. Granted, we look different but as sentient mammals we share many of the same characteristics as science has proven time and again. 

The infant victims are terrified and they are panicked and desperate, and the one thing they need, is the one thing that is – and will ALWAYS be – denied to them, the love and nurturing of the grieving and anguished mother who gave birth to them. She will never be theirs because her body is a profit-generating commodity in an industry that keeps milk drinkers and cheese eaters supplied.

So where does that leave us?

Well it’s the dairy industry and it’s ALL about profit so even if all the current talking points are addressed  in some manner:

  • Mothers will STILL be restrained and physically violated with this sexed semen to ensure a good chance that their infants will be female and thus able to be abused for breastmilk at the earliest opportunity;
  • Newborns will STILL be taken from their mothers which causes unbearable distress to both mothers and infants whenever it happens;
  • Female calves will STILL be raised on milk replacement because their mothers’ milk is required to generate profit.
  • Male infants (and there will no doubt still be some), distraught and crying for their mothers, may face local slaughter and their corpses will travel in freezers. Or else their journey time limits will be enforced.

And the industry will go on with business as usual, mothers violated for annual pregnancies that leave their bodies and spirits exhausted and broken while they are still only young themselves. They will then be slaughtered for cheap meat. The fathers (who are never mentioned)  will still face an existence of repeated forced or electro-ejaculation to provide semen for sexing and the resultant artificial insemination. Exit route – the slaughterhouse.

But the REALLY disturbing aspect of all this furore is that the milk drinkers and the cheese eaters of the population will recall that there has been an uproar about the ‘Treatment of Calves’ and will be reassured that ‘something has been done’ to resolve the situation. Reassured, they will continue to fund the whole disgusting industry with their consumer cash while congratulating themselves that they signed one or two petitions in the wake of an exposé that swept the REAL issue under the carpet.

When the dust settles will anything have been solved?

The REAL issue is the atrocity that is ALL animal agriculture including ‘dairy’.  It all needs to stop for every reason there is, causing millions of deaths each year, damaging the planet and harming human health. It can’t be done piecemeal. Neither our victims nor the survival of planet Earth have time for that.

The REAL issue is where we need to keep our focus and until such time as that is tackled head on, points of contention will result in regular exposes, and the unscrupulous advertising of the industry will continue with the ease of long practice, to distract consumers with side issues.  These have the twin aims of maintaining consumer ignorance of the reality that their cash is paying for, and reassuring them that it’s all perfectly ‘humane’ so they can feel good about themselves as the horrors continue.

In reality the exploitation of other living beings is neither ‘humane’ nor necessary. To end with the words of Tom Regan;

‘The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us – to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals – as our resources – the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable.’

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Addressing resistance to change, dairy, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Veganuary – is it a game changer?

Animals as entertainment. Image by photojournalist Andrew Skowron from Delefinarium Nemo – Odessa Ukraine from a series at https://andrewskowron.org/delefinarium-nemo-odessa-ukraine/

Note: For the purpose of this blog, the term plant-based is used to describe items composed entirely of plants. This is to differentiate from those unscrupulous suppliers that disingenuously use the term to describe products which contain animal derivatives but which are comprised MOSTLY of plants.

Veganism – it’s not a diet

In the month of January, a massive capitalist food festival takes place in Britain with a breath-taking array of plant-based food items flooding the shops. They call it ‘Veganuary’. Over the years this extravaganza has provoked me; not because of the plant-based food selection because let’s be honest, food fascinates me as much as it does the next person, but because of the way it’s marketed and promoted. It irks me that all the promotion is very suggestive of the idea that veganism is a faddy lifestyle requiring highly processed and costly specialist food items. I’ve been doing this blogging thing long enough to know exactly how much of a gift that is for the anti-vegan pro-animal-exploitation lobby who use this false premise to sow confusion and misinformation at every opportunity.

To get straight to the point I have always considered it to be a deeply flawed concept, a capitalist food festival that masquerades as ‘vegan’. It’s not vegan. It’s a plant-based diet promotional campaign. A plant-based diet is a part of veganism but no way is it even close to the whole story. Particularly when 4 trillion annual victims are quietly sidelined without a mention. 

As a blogger who repeatedly explains why veganism is not a diet, this annual circus feels like the biggest insult I can imagine,  trivialising the ones who really matter in this whole sorry debacle of human hubris and entitlement. And before anyone starts to contradict, to tempt potential participants, the campaign advertising lists a celebrity cookbook, plant based meal plans, access to a support group, nutrition planners, tips advice and recipes; every single one targeted at humans, human convenience, human health. Oh and human celebrity worship, let’s not forget that. The brutal injustice of 4 trillion needless deaths every year and uncounted others persecuted and abused for our indulgence? Not so much as a mention. 

A deep dive into the festival website reveals the biggest collection of media and marketing people I’ve ever seen in one place. Keep digging and you’ll eventually find a heading labelled ‘Blog’ where finally – FINALLY – animals get a mention. The articles I looked at link back to what you can eat instead, which rather tells you all you need to know about the focus.

I recently even spotted one celebrity being given a headline spot for saying that this is the third year they’ve tried Veganuary and how great it is to try all these new foods. Wow. Please explain to me how a ‘celebrity’ who clearly has absolutely no concept of veganism (as evidenced presumably by their dietary and all other habits outwith the month of January), is an appropriate headliner to provide promotional ‘information’ about veganism? And this is not unique. Every year they have headliners who’re not vegan. Apparently it’s no impediment whatsoever.

So there we have it. This is not by any stretch a campaign to address the ethics of veganism, to challenge the brutality and violence that stem from our relentless persecution of the innocent. It’s a marketing campaign with supermarkets and product brand names on board and a lot of people are making a lot of money from it. Google ‘Veganuary salaries’ for a start and that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Am I being too subtle?

Every year at this time, I launch a series of posts reminding readers that veganism isn’t a diet, as do a number of other pages whose unwavering focus on the victims of our species is the same as that of the Elephant. These posts are an oblique reference to the fact that, as a food festival, Veganuary is NOT about veganism whatever they choose to call it. However our planet is spiralling rapidly to ruin, with climate collapse, species extinction, zoonotic disease, and pollution all driven by animal agriculture while the blame is conveniently shoved onto fossil fuel.  When people think about how to change their behaviour in an attempt to ameliorate the effect they have on the natural world, most of them consider taking shorter, fewer showers, recycling packaging, reducing the temperature on their central heating, travelling less, or if they can afford it, buying an electric car. What few consider are the wide ranging impacts of their needless consumer habits that persecute all other forms of life. So maybe I’m being too subtle. This year I’m resolving to talk straight.

So, Veganuary

I decided it’s time I sat down and tried to draw some positives from the mis-named food festival because apparently it’s not going away any time soon. So how could it be improved?

Well, if the word ‘vegan’ were dropped and the more honest term ‘plant-based diet’ was substituted, it would still be a capitalist food festival but few changes would be needed. Human diet, human health, human nutrition plans – all the existing focus fits with the concept. They could obviously consider taking a financial hit by mentioning that a plant-based diet is not necessarily one that lines the pockets of the supermarkets and big brands, but surely that would be possible? Clearly ‘plant-based diet’ doesn’t have the same ring to it but with all those marketers and media experts involved I’m sure someone could come up with something catchy.

Why would that be an improvement? Well because 4 trillion victims wouldn’t be being thrown under the bus for the sake of a catchy title as is the case at the moment. Veganism is about them. Miss them out and whatever you have, it’s not veganism. 

But to continue to seek positives about the campaign, it has built up quite a head of steam as far as publicity is concerned. And it IS absolutely essential for us all to adopt a plant diet if life as we know it on planet Earth is to continue. So another improvement would be to add in a more honest dimension on the environmental impact of our current habits and continue to take advantage of the existing publicity machine to give participants a more holistic view.

Neither of these suggestions are ever going to happen though. Why not? No money to be made from them. Supermarkets and brand names don’t want to throw their weight behind a campaign to make people into nicer, more aware, human beings. They just want to make them buy loadsa stuff to boost their profits. Again – no apologies for being blunt but that’s just the truth.

And what about the celebrities?

Those whose nonveganism is not seen as any kind of impediment to their appearing as poster people for ‘veganism’, seemingly have no scruples at all, ignoring the rights of the defenceless creatures whose relentless use they themselves refuse to relinquish. They are aided and abetted in this utter betrayal by hordes of adoring fans uttering platitudes about ‘raising awareness’; while raging against any who point out that their heroes have no right to talk and lack the knowledge to do so.

No. Far from ‘raising awareness’ about the victims of our species, a completely different message is being proclaimed by nonvegan, ‘nearly’ vegan, ‘part time’ vegan, annual ‘veganuary’ participants etc to a non-vegan world only too happy for the reassurance. That message is that all you need to know about veganism is the most convenient dietary substitutes for your favourite animal foods. It’s a food thing. Ethics are strictly optional.

As Go Vegan World says so succinctly;

Without understanding how veganism is rooted in the philosophy of animal rights, attempts at behavioural change are highly likely to flounder and discussion of veganism will be forever rooted in the mundane discussion of how to replace animal use with vegan friendly alternatives. That is why we refer people who enquire about veganism to our website and our free vegan guide, so that they have access to the information that is crucial to staying vegan, information that is our right to know as well as our responsibility to act on. That is not to say that people who are thinking of going vegan or have just gone vegan are not more than welcome to ask for advice on how to be vegan. But how to be vegan is far easier when we understand why we need to be vegan in the first place.

So where does all this leave us?

So where does that leave those of us who campaign for animal rights, and for veganism which is the only way that recognition of these rights can be put into practice? Well for a start, we have to be realistic and see Veganuary for the plant-based food festival that it is. We have to stop hailing it as some ‘great advance for veganism’. That’s naive and simply untrue.

Admittedly, if all participants shifted onto a permanent plant diet, some of the calamitous impacts that animal agriculture is having on climate collapse, species extinction, zoonotic disease, and pollution, would definitely be lessened and it could potentially buy planet Earth more time. Time is something we’re running out of fast.

But instead of pointing people in the direction of the food festival, hailing it as a game changer and assuming that’s going to change the outlook of nonvegan dieters, I’d say we have to work twice as hard as usual to enforce the message about how veganism is NOT a diet.

Someone has to focus on the victims and it’s NOT going to be the supermarkets – they all sell body parts as well as plant-based foodstuffs and they have no desire to change that situation –  it’s not going to be the big brands and it’s not going to be a catchily (but misleadingly) titled campaign that that pursues its own agenda with a foodie extravaganza.

That someone that focuses on the victims, has to be us. It has to be every single one of us who understands that veganism is an ethical stance driven by respect for our fellow creatures and the desire for justice for them against a violent and entitled species that has persecuted all others to the brink of planetary collapse.

The whole world is at stake here and we all have a part to play. Remember veganism is about our victims.

Miss them out of the centre stage and whatever you have, it’s not veganism. 

 

Further info via The Cranky Vegan’s video entitled Does Veganuary Work?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l8ePZVsAuU

 

Posted in Advocacy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments

Human insect use and consumption – a compilation

Acheta domesticus or House cricket

I was shocked to read recently that around 1 TRILLION (1 trillion = 1,000,000,000,000) individual insects are currently raised for consumption and killed on farms every year. It’s a staggering number, all the more so for the fact that it’s almost never publicised. Despite over a decade living vegan, I was previously completely unaware that the exploitation of insects is so extensive. And that exploitation is booming.

The INFOODS program at Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome has published the Food composition database for biodiversity with the aim of making nutritional values of wild and underutilized foods available. In the latest version (2017 version 4.0) of this database, a total of 471 entries of edible insects were included. Looking more closely, I discovered that there are six common commercial edible insect species at present, including cricket (Acheta domesticus), honeybee (Apis mellifera), domesticated silkworm (Bombyx mori), mopane caterpillar (Imbrasia belina), African palm weevil (Rhynchoporus phoenicis) and yellow meal worm (Tenebrio molitor). And yes – in response to a question I asked too – honey bees and silkworms ARE eaten in some places.

What do we know about how insects experience life?

Whereas there are vast reservoirs of information about the use and exploitation of mammals, marsupials, birds, and other land based individuals, as well as fishes and other aquatic individuals, we come across less information about insects. Along with our knowledge of our commonest victim species, there is a wealth of scientific information to confirm their sentience, the way they experience their lives and living, along with copious medical evidence of the needlessness of our species’ use and consumption of their lives and bodies. 

However, concerning insects, many humans experience generally unjustified, but fairly widespread, feelings of revulsion towards some of them, so it’s hardly surprising that it’s rare to see articles questioning the morality of using insect lives and bodies, or examining the way in which they experience their lives. Even some of the sources linked here, included because they are informative, examine insect flesh consumption only in comparison to the flesh of other animal species.

As with most nonvegan works, there’s that screamingly obvious barrier to true appreciation of the facts; while articles weigh the relative merits of one type of immoral animal exploitation against another type of immoral animal exploitation, the question that always goes unasked is, ‘Do we need to use and/or eat animals at all?’ to which the answer is invariably, ‘NO.’  When the use of the life and body of any individual is unnecessary – and it always is – then we have a moral obligation not to inflict avoidable harm on them. As far as my own conscience is concerned, the precautionary principle must ALWAYS apply. 

Despite scant information in the popular media, common sense should suggest to any of us who are paying attention that it’s extremely likely that there are many similarities between the insect’s experience of life and the experience of members of almost every other species that science has examined.  For this reason, in the same way that I’ve compiled collections of credible information about cephalopod exploitation, zoos, and bee exploitation, I decided that the same type of compilation on the subject of insect exploitation is long overdue. I’ll add to it as time goes by.

The use of insects for food

‘Given the criteria for considering whether a being is sentient, in particular the presence of a centralized nervous system, it is reasonable to conclude that a great number of invertebrate animals, including insects, are sentient. This makes practices that cause them harm, like exploiting them for use as food, incompatible with an attitude of respect for others. The situation is made worse by the fact that their small size means the number of animals used in such practices is enormous.’

‘The consumption of these animals has been defended from environmentalist points of view. This is an example of the disagreement between environmentalist positions and those centered on the defense of animals. Farming and eating invertebrate animals harms them, and this will continue while their interests are not taken into consideration. In fact, as already mentioned above, due to their sheer numbers, they may be the animals most greatly affected by human exploitation.

Do Insects Feel Joy and Pain?

2023

This first article runs counter to the usual pattern of such ‘discoveries’ and actually does examine the ethical implications of insect sentience. Please read this one if you don’t have time to read the others.

‘If at least some insects are sentient and can feel pain, as appears to be the case, what are the implications of that revelation?’

‘Insects are used on a far grander scale in the feed-and-food industry. More than a trillion crickets, black soldier flies, mealworms and other species are killed annually, and the sector is expanding rapidly. Often touted as a replacement for some or all the vertebrate meat in people’s diets, insect farming is considered an environmentally friendly alternative to the conventional farming of livestock such as cattle or chickens. Another perceived advantage of insect farming is that there are supposedly no ethical concerns with insects like there are with cows and chicken. In fact, some insect-farming companies specifically promote the notion that insects lack any capacity for pain.

This claim is demonstrably incorrect for all insect species tested so far.’

Insect Farming Is Booming—But Is It Cruel?

April 2023

‘[T]he fact that scientists have found multiple indicators of sentience in certain insects is reason enough to argue that these animals can have unpleasant experiences. Chittka puts flies and bees in this category, but it’s not at all clear whether findings can be extrapolated to other species. The most commonly farmed insects include crickets, beetles, and flies, and we know a lot less about their lives than those of bees or ants, which are pretty well-studied in insect terms. Even fewer studies have been done on insects when they’re still larvae. This adds another problem because mealworms and black soldier fly larvae are usually killed before they are adults. Are insect larvae less capable of feeling pain than adults? We really don’t know.

This is the problem with the insect sentience question: It’s one big fractal unknown that breaks down into a thousand smaller unknowns. Everywhere we turn, there’s another question. That’s partly because sentience research has tended to focus on animals a little closer to humans along the evolutionary tree. Non-fish and non-mammalian sea creatures are also overlooked, says Kristin Andrews, a professor of philosophy at York University in Toronto. The same is true of nematode worms, microscopic parasites that are among the most abundant creatures on Earth. When it comes to studying sentience, we need to cast a much wider net. “We should be studying sentience in organisms like this as well. And it’ll be a cheap and easy thing to do because scientists are already working with them.”’

The Surprisingly Sophisticated Mind Of An Insect

5 May 2022

‘However, a growing collection of new experiments is challenging the old consensus. Far from being six-legged automatons, they can experience feelings akin to pain and suffering, joy and desire. When Chittka gave bumblebees an extra jolt of sucrose, their favorite food, the bees buzzed with delight. Agitated, anxious honeybees, on the other hand, responded with pessimism when researchers shook them to simulate a predatory attack. Other researchers found that they “scream” when under threat. Ants display rudimentary counting abilities, can understand the concept of zero and make tools. Fruit flies learn from their peers. Cockroaches have complex social lives. Fruit flies drown themselves in booze when deprived of mating opportunities. Some earwigs and other insects play dead when threatened by a predator.

In other words, insects have thoughts and feelings. The next question for philosophers and scientists alike is: Do they have consciousness?’ (NB – an informative article despite the reference to Singer (a nonvegan and a utilitarian) in the later part of the piece.)

On the torment of insect minds and our moral duty not to farm them

27 July 2021

‘Proponents of insect farming are right to call traditional animal agriculture a crisis for public health and the environment. In addition to harming and killing more than 100 billion (non-insect) farmed animals per year, factory farms are leading consumers of antibiotics, which makes them ideal breeding grounds for antibiotic-resistant pathogens. They are also leading consumers of land, water and energy, and leading producers of waste, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, according to one standard estimate, traditional animal agriculture is responsible for 9 per cent of global carbon emissions, 37 per cent of global methane emissions, and 65 per cent of global nitrous oxide emissions, which adds up to 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, any industry that can displace traditional animal agriculture is, to that degree, good.’

‘[I]nsect farming is not the public health or environmental saviour that it claims to be. The reality is that insect farming and traditional animal farming are mutually reinforcing systems. Industry insiders know that selling insects for human consumption is not profitable at scale. Thus, the new insect farms are selling their product primarily to huge aquaculture operations in which ground insect powder is added to fishmeal. The industry is also lobbying hard to allow chicken and pig factory farmers to use insects as feed. By reducing the cost of animal feed, insect farming might enable an expansion of factory farming systems.

The environmental benefits of insect farming are thus misleading. Farmed insects are not replacing other farmed animals; they are being fed to them. The emergence of insect farming thus reinforces another already inefficient supply chain. Plant-based supply chains – including for plant-based meats – are generally much more sustainable than the animal-based supply chains to which insect farms are contributing. And humans can produce plant-based proteins without bringing into existence trillions of possibly sentient beings each year, all so that we can then confine them, kill them and eat them either directly or, more likely, indirectly, via other farmed animals.

The biggest problem with eating insects isn’t the “ew” factor

19 June 2021

‘For me, the most sobering finding of Rethink Priorities’s research is that around 1 trillion insects are already raised and killed on farms every year — a staggering number, since we’re still at the start of the insect-food boom. Because insects live very short lives, that annual total encompasses many generations; only between 79 billion and 94 billion farmed insects are alive at any given time.

I don’t know for sure whether those insects feel pain — but if there’s even a small chance they do, the scale of the suffering that would imply is massive. I’m not categorically against insect farming, but I do hope we can learn more about what insects’ lives are like before we start farming them at an even greater scale.’

Invertebrate sentience: a review of the behavioral evidence

30 May 2021

‘Invertebrates are animals that do not possess or develop a spinal column, including insects, mollusks, and corals. Although the exact number of invertebrate species that exist on Earth is not known, estimates repeatedly find them to comprise 95% of all animal species1 and greater than 99.9% of all individual animals. Because of the enormous number of invertebrates, if invertebrates matter morally, they are also of enormous moral importance.

Food for thought.

 

Posted in insects, Uncategorized, Victims in the shadows | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Thoughts on avoidable harm and being veganish

Image by Andrew Skowron of 4-week-old hens destined for an existence as egg machines.

I can’t count how often I’ve seen declarations from people who claim to be vegan despite indulging in some form of avoidable use of members of other animal species. However before I go any further I must stress the word ‘AVOIDABLE’.

Living in a nonvegan world, completely surrounded by a regime of oppression that runs almost entirely on the exploitation of other individuals, I sincerely can’t imagine how anyone can claim that they have absolutely no involvement in exploitation either directly or indirectly. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not some controversial claim that veganism is impossible – far from it. I’m only mentioning this because I’ve seen so many vegans attacking or sniping at others as if they, themselves, were completely free of the taint of corruption that nonveganism brings. Examples of this sniping are when people are condemned for shopping in supermarkets, or taking life-supporting medication, or any one of a number of other activities that personal circumstances mean they are unable to avoid.

Even if every actual vegan had been born and raised vegan – which only a miniscule percentage were – let’s take as an example, buying goods in a vegan shop. I refuse to believe that every single human involved in the growing, harvesting, production, importing, package design, manufacture etc of the stock goods was vegan. The premises to sell these items – designed, built, owned, maintained by, leased from vegans? The transport of goods, including vehicle design, manufacture, maintenance, oil extraction/fuel refinement, petrol station employment etc? The creation of adverts? The ownership of the media where the adverts appear? No way – not even close. Examine all the associations in ANY situation and we will ALWAYS find nonvegan connections, and hence links to exploitation. We are ALL tainted to some degree.

BUT.

The word ‘avoidable‘ is the critical one.  Defined more precisely, it’s even covered in the actual definition of veganism.

‘Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practicable – all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.’

When we are not vegan, we use members of other species for our own interests at the expense of their right to own their bodies and live their lives. Vegan is who we are, not a lengthy checklist of do’s and don’ts. However if we knowingly carry out non vegan actions and activities which we are able to avoid, even just occasionally, then we have simply NOT grasped what veganism actually is.

Accusations of purity or ‘gatekeeping’?

Now at this point, while some will no doubt be still maintaining that they are utterly free of any taint of corruption, many will be readying the ‘purist’ card to try to shut down what is increasingly viewed as heresy – the promotion of the animal rights ethic that drives veganism. Believe me, I’ve seen and heard that one times without number and it’s always from people who are seeking to excuse some level of  violence and needless harm, either in their own actions or those of someone else. It puzzles me that accusations of ‘purity’ are even a thing – I’ve already stated openly that we are all tainted to some degree. If veganism was a difficult, complicated concept that took years to learn about and master, I could maybe see the point. But it’s nothing like that at all.

If we do our absolute best not to harm members of other species, we call ourselves vegan. If we do avoidably harm members of other species or promote harm to them, we are not vegan no matter what we call ourselves. That’s it. End of. How hard is that to grasp? It’s black and white, with no middle ground to get lost in, no complexities to study and learn, no grey area.

Yet for some unfathomable reason, many people seem desperate to call themselves ‘vegan’ despite the fact that they clearly aren’t. Why is that? Why is it that some like to adopt the word but fail to grasp the breathtakingly simple principle behind it? How could it be any clearer? But the question is – are they doing anyone any harm?

‘Vegan’ but not vegan – what’s the problem?

If we are not vegan but we represent ourselves as vegan to others who don’t know any better, this is where problems start. Some of the most harmful reinventions of ‘veganism’ involve celebrities hungry for publicity. While some turn ‘veganism’ on and off like a switch with as much sensationalist coverage as they can drum up, others are mouthy in the press about ‘cruelty to animals’, covering topics like fur and dog exploitation, but suspiciously silent when asked outright if they’re vegan. Because they’re not, which by definition means that they are perpetrators of the most sickening atrocities imaginable. 

I’ve seen too much sensationalist press and social media where any calling out of misinformation or false ‘vegan’ claims by much-adulated ‘celebrities’ invites hostility like ‘How dare you criticise’, ‘They’re famous and doing more good than you’, ‘They’re raising awareness’, ‘We can’t all be perfect’, and that absolute gobsmacker of anthropocentric complacency, ‘Everybody’s journey to compassion is different’. As I said earlier, it’s nearly always from people seeking to justify their own lack of consistency by comparing themselves with said celebrities.

The first problem

So there’s the first problem; Someone who harms other animals or promotes harm to other animals, is saying ‘I’m vegan and this is what veganism is all about.’ And people look at them, listen to them, observe their actions and think, ‘Oh right. I wondered what veganism was about. Well I’m not doing much that’s different from them, and they say they’re vegan or anti-cruelty. So probably I’m sort of veganish too.’

And then, reassured that what they’re doing is ethical, they carry on doing whatever they do, carving a bloodbath through the innocent and defenceless with their choices as consumers with a quiet conscience. They most likely won’t feel the need to find out the real facts about animal use. Why should they? They think they’re ‘nearly’ vegan already. I’ve run across so many people like that and it breaks my heart every time. So many wasted opportunities!

Pretending to be vegan (or thinking you are when you’re not) is a betrayal of the most heart wrenching and tragic kind. Let’s be clear, it’s not betraying me and it’s not betraying other vegans as if there’s some exclusive club as per the ‘purist’ accusations. What it is, is an utter betrayal of the only ones who really matter in all of this blood-soaked debacle. Our victims; the uncounted millions whose lives are being wiped out every second, the persecuted, the unwanted and lost, the broken and alone; each individual misery, each individual terror and each individual agony, all caused by our violent, vicious and predatory species.

The second problem

And the second problem? I have to believe there are genuine people out there, sincere people who don’t realise the harm that they’re doing each time they spend cash to keep the machines of death turning for the defenceless ones of this world. They’re people like I used to be, maybe people like you were before you found out about veganism. They’re the people that I reach out to every day, hoping that they can see in my words that I’ve nothing personal to gain, no money to make, no glory to seek. Like so many advocates, all we have is a deep commitment to truth and honesty, sharing facts on behalf of the innocent and persecuted creatures whose planet we share.

Our audience deserves the truth no less than our victims. Yet when someone who harms other animals or promotes harm to other animals, says ‘I’m vegan and this is what veganism is all about,’ their listeners are being DENIED the information that they need to live true to the values that they hold.

In fact, it’s a lifelong regret that I was one of these people; falling for the sensationalist issues and horrific imagery of an ‘animal welfare’ organisation that claimed to represent the interests of other animals while not even promoting veganism as the essential starting point for our concern. In the end it became clear to me that they were a profiteering business using the misery of our species’ victims to pull at the heartstrings and the wallets of a nonvegan audience that included me.

I’ve long believed that the dearest wish of anyone working in an animal rights capacity, should be to find themselves out of a job. It’s hard to be sincere about that as a ‘career activist’ with a family and a mortgage. By typing into a search engine any welfare organisation, followed by the word ‘salaries’ you’ll quickly realise that there’s plenty money to be made off the backs of the suffering billions of innocents who are being thrown under the bus for ‘welfare business’ profit every year.

Being true to those who need us so desperately

It’s sadly true that even when we do our absolute best, we are still tainted by the regime of oppression that pervades our society and our planet. However as long as we avoid every aspect of nonhuman exploitation that we possibly can, then we are fulfilling the letter and the spirit of veganism. If we continue to indulge ourselves in avoidable harm, then it doesn’t matter what we call ourselves, not only are we NOT vegan, but the harm we are causing is immeasurable.

Veganism is the absolute least we can do for our uncounted innocent victims; anything less is a betrayal.

Posted in Advocacy, Celebrity culture | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Professor Tom Regan: A Case for Animal Rights Speech

 

Here, with what is still seen as one of the greatest animal rights speeches of all time, is  Professor Tom Regan  (1938 – 2017) who opened the debate “Does the Animal Kingdom Need a Bill of Rights” at the Royal Institute of Great Britain in 1989.

I have lost count of how many times I’ve listened to this over the years. The talk is as spellbinding as it is quotable, but I couldn’t find an accurate transcript. I therefore decided to transcribe it myself, so the punctuation and emphases are mine. 

This blog was updated on 31 July 2023 to replace the original video with an enhanced version created by NotyourMum NotyourMilk . I’m very grateful to them for preserving this timeless speech.

It is truly astonishing and also rather tragic to find just how timeless it is. Sadly, as we go through his ‘question and answer’ responses to the opponents of Animal Rights, we find the same tired old justifications are STILL being used. The difference is that the sheer number of our species’ victims is escalating year on year, so as advocates we can’t afford to relax even slightly. Let us draw inspiration from those like Professor Regan whose life’s work paved our way. 

**************

‘The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of other ways have a life of their own that is of importance to them, apart from their utility to us. They are not only in the world they are aware of it and also of what happens to them, and what happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares experientially better or worse for the one whose life it is. Like us they bring a unified psychological presence to the world; like us they are somebodys not somethings.

In these fundamental ways, the non-human animals in labs and on farms for example, are the same as human beings, and so it is that the ethics of our dealings with them – and with one another – must rest on some of the same fundamental moral principles.

At its deepest level an enlightened human ethic is based on the independent value of the individual. To treat human beings in ways that do not honour their independent worth, to reduce them to the status of tools or models or commodities for example, is to violate that most basic of human rights; the right to be treated with respect.

The philosophy of animal rights demands only the logic be respected, for any argument that plausibly explains the independent value of human beings, implies that other animals have the same value and have it equally; and any argument that plausibly explains the right of humans to be treated with respect, also implies that these other animals have this same right, and have it equally.

Also, as a result of selective media coverage in the past – to which this evening’s debate is a notable and praiseworthy exception – the general public has tended to view advocates of animal rights in exclusively negative terms. We are ‘anti-intellectual’, ‘anti-science’, ‘anti-rational’, ‘anti-human’. We stand ‘against’ justice and ‘for’ violence.

The truth, as it happens, is quite the reverse. The philosophy of animal rights is on the side of reason, for it is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination against nonhuman animals is demonstrably arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings – especially those who are lacking in normal human intelligence – as tools or models for example. It cannot be rational therefore to treat other animals as if they were tools, models, and the like, if their psychology is as rich as, or richer than, these human beings.

The philosophy of animal rights is pro- not anti-science. This philosophy is respectful of our best science in general, and all evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin’s words, ‘Humans differ from many other animals in degree and not in kind.’

Questions about line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure, or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is not fantasy. This is fact, supported by our best science.
The philosophy of animal rights stands for not against justice.

We are not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit; slavery allows this, child labour allows this, all unjust social institutions allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights whose highest principle is that of justice. The philosophy of animal rights stands for peace and against violence. The fundamental demand of this philosophy is to treat humans and other animals with respect. This philosophy therefore, is a philosophy of peace. But it is a philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the boundaries of our species. For there is an undeclared war being waged every day against countless millions of nonhuman animals. To stand truly for peace, is to stand firmly against their ruthless exploitation.

And what, aside from the common menu of media distortions, what will be said by the opponents of animal rights?

Will the objection be that we are equating animals and humans in every respect, when in fact humans and animals differ greatly?

But clearly, we are not saying that humans and other animals are the same in every way; that dogs and cats can do calculus; or that pigs and cows enjoy poetry.
What we are saying is that, like humans, many other animals have an experiential welfare of their own. In this sense we and they are the same. In this sense therefore, despite our many differences, we and they are equal.

Will the objection be that we are saying that every human and every animal has the same rights? That chicken should have the right to vote and pigs the right to ballet lessons?

But of course, we are not saying this. All we are saying, is that these animals and humans share one basic moral right; the right to be treated with respect.

Will the objection be that because animals do not respect our rights, we therefore have no obligation to respect their rights either?

But there are many human beings who have rights and are unable to respect the rights of others; young children and the mentally enfeebled and deranged of all ages. In their case we do not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them as tools or models or commodities because they do not honour our rights. On the contrary we recognise that we have a duty to treat them with respect. What is true of cases involving these human beings is no less true of cases involving other animals.

Will the objection be that if other animals do have more – even if other animals do have moral rights – there are other more important things that need our attention; world hunger and child abuse for example, apartheid, drugs, violence to women, the plight of the homeless. After – after – we take care of these problems then we can worry about animal rights.

This objection misses the mark. For the rank-and-file of the animal rights movement is composed of people, whose first line of service is human service; doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals, people involved in a broad range of social services from rape counselling to aiding victims of child abuse, or famine, or discrimination; teachers at every level of education, ministers, priests, rabbis. As the lives of these people demonstrate, the choice thoughtful people face is not between either helping humans or helping other animals.

One can do both. We should do both.

Will the objection be, finally, that no one has rights; not any human being and not any other animal either; but rather that right and wrong are a matter of acting to produce the best consequences, being certain to count everyone’s interest and count equal interests equally?

This moral philosophy, ‘utilitarianism’, has a long and venerable history. Influential men and women past and present are among its adherents, and yet it is a bankrupt moral philosophy if ever there was one.
Are we seriously, seriously, to inquire into the interest of the rapist before declaring rape wrong? Should we ask the child molester whether his interest would be frustrated before condemning the molestation of our children?
Remarkably a consistent utilitarianism demands that we ask these questions, and in so demanding, relinquishes any claim on our rational assent.

With regard to the philosophy of animal rights, then, is it rational, impartial, scientifically informed? Does it stand for peace and against injustice?

To these – to ALL these questions – the answer is an unqualified ‘yes’.
And as for the objections that are raised against this philosophy, are those who accept it, able to offer rational, informed, answers?
Again, the answer is, ‘yes’.

In the battle of ideas, the philosophy of animal rights wins, its critics lose.
It remains to be seen which side emerges as the victor in the ongoing political battle between what is just and what is not.

Thank you.’

Posted in Advocacy, Transcript | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Let’s talk about mutilation

A piglet with notched ears which is a standard and permanent way that individuals at catalogued in the animal exploitation industry.

A recent post on Facebook was illustrated by the image below which is the work of the highly acclaimed animal rights artist and advocate, Jo Frederiks. The text read;

Image by Jo Frederiks, Animal Rights Artist
https://www.facebook.com/Jo.Frederiks/

‘The distinctions we make between the species that we love as family and those we persecute as resources are completely artificial. ‘Farm animal’, ‘food animal’ and ‘pet’ are all made-up terms, invented by humans, just like the laws that we invent to let us do what we want to them. Our victims get no say in the matter, yet they all  share with us the quality of sentience, experiencing the world with minds and memories, through their environment, their senses and their interactions with others.

It is vital to understand that individuals whose lives and bodies are ‘farmed’ are not regarded as feeling beings; if they were, they would NOT be ‘farmed’ in the first place. To use any individual as a commercial resource automatically denies any and all rights that each has as an autonomous, feeling individual. They are kept alive as economically as possible and used to make as much money as possible until the ideal time for the sale of their corpses. Profit is everything.

We would never dream, even for a moment, of doing to humans or the cats and dogs who share our homes, the things that we readily accept being done to the victims of our demands as humans who refuse to be vegan. What we accept and condone without conscience when we are not vegan, is the essence of the ugly prejudice known as speciesism.

All it takes is for us to say ‘Enough. Not in my name’. Why not stop refusing to be vegan today?

Jo Frederiks’ image of a cat reflects standard procedures in the animal agriculture industry and was intended to illustrate how shocking it seems to us for some species to have this inflicted on them, while when the exact same things are done to the victims of nonvegan consumer demand, the majority turn a blind eye. Judging by the reactions, it seems that many have either no idea that it happens, or else fall for the official line that it ‘doesn’t hurt’ and it’s ‘for their own good’. It’s rarely pointed out that the atrocity that is all animal agriculture has evolved conditions where the unnaturally close confinement of vast numbers of victims causes them severe distress and can result in their hurting each other. But it is not their distress that the industry is concerned about, rather that by hurting each other, damaged bodies hurt profits. The industry sees the solution as ‘cutting off body parts’ where an animal rights advocate will point out that the solution is to stop farming victims as it’s completely unnecessary.

Image by Andrew Skowron is of a bowl of piglet tails. https://andrewskowron.org/

The post drew a vast amount of attention with about 12K reactions and 1.2K shares in a matter of days. The most remarkable thing, however, was the number of trolls it attracted. It’s a long time since I’ve witnessed so much hate and derision, or indeed such a display of ignorance about both the logistics of animal agriculture, and human nutritional requirements.  In addition, if I had not previously known about the diversionary tactic known as ‘whataboutism‘, this would have taught me all I needed to know. Even more disturbing was the number of people who declared themselves prepared to eat any individual with a pulse and thought the whole idea of objecting to needless brutality towards innocent creatures was hilarious. It was as if COP26, with the dire warnings about the end of fossil fuels and a vital shift to plant cultivation and consumption had never happened!  Nevertheless, provoking strong reactions is definitely better than the apathy that greets many animal rights posts and articles. Clearly it touched several nerves and since the post was simple truth, that can only be seen as a positive thing.  

 Mutilation as standard practice

It occurred to me that perhaps for many, particularly those who had never considered the subject before, the references to standard practice shown in Jo Frederiks’ image might not be clear, so I decided to do this blog just to clarify. In her image of a cat, we see ear tagging and notching, branding and tail docking, and shocking as most people may find this, it’s mild compared to what is inflicted on many of our species’ victims.

On these hapless innocents, a vast number of mutilations take place and if those who inflict the procedures are to be believed, they all are for the ‘benefit’ of the victims(!) Not all mutilations are inflicted in every case or in every country; some occur in large-scale establishments, some in so-called ‘backyard’ or ‘hobby’ environments, but in the vast majority of cases, the mutilations listed are not conducted by vets, are inflicted without anaesthetic and include:

  • Pigs: tooth clipping, castration, tail docking, ear clipping, ear notching, ear
    tagging, micro chipping, tattooing, nose ringing;
  • Calves/ cows/ bulls: de-horning or dis-budding, castration, ear clipping, ear notching, ear tagging, micro chipping, tattooing, teat removal, udder flaming, nose ringing, tongue reshaping (yes, without anaesthetic), tail docking;
  • Sheep: tail docking, ear clipping, ear notching, ear tagging, micro chipping, tattooing, castration, mulesing;
  • Chickens: Debeaking aka ‘beak trimming‘, de-spurring, dubbing, toe clipping, pinioning;
  • Ducks: pinioning, beak trimming;
  • Geese, guinea fowl, quails, pheasants, partridges: beak trimming;
  • Goats: castration, de-horning or dis-budding, ear clipping, ear notching, ear tagging, micro chipping, tattooing;
  • Turkeys: Debeaking aka ‘beak trimming, de-snooding, de-toeing;
  • Rabbits: tattooing;
  • Deer: ear clipping, ear notching, ear tagging, micro chipping, tattooing; antler removal.

It should be noted that this list is not exhaustive, either in terms of species or procedures.

In particular, it does not include the catalogue of horrors that is permitted under the regulations that govern animal testing and vivisection. The link here is an excellent one by Go Vegan World who in the face of a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority, successfully defended the assertion that it is unquestionably appropriate to use the word ‘torture’ to describe all animal testing.

Not does it include artificial insemination procedures that are routinely conducted on most species. This procedure is generally NOT carried out by a vet, and in fact in the case of cows, insemination trainees frequently ‘practice’ on live individuals who are about to be killed in a slaughterhouse, such is the risk of agonising internal damage by unskilled humans. Again, for any who is unaware, the customary method of inseminating a cow is to tether the victim. An arm is thrust into her rectum to hold her uterus steady so that the other hand inserting the insemination rod in her vagina may be targeted accurately with a shot of semen that has been masturbated from a bull. 

Are we really so easy to fool?

I am 100% certain that no one who shares their home and their life with a dog, cat or other nonhuman family member would believe the ‘doesn’t hurt/for their own good’ line for even a second. Like all who advocate on our victims’ behalf, I always hope that the honesty and sincerity of my words will allow the truth of the message to shine. But no one has to take my word for it. We have Google at our fingertips. Provided we are discriminating in our investigations and always question whether the author of any article has a vested financial interest in deception – which is sadly very common particularly in matters relating to the use and consumption of our fellow earthlings (as in, ‘doesn’t hurt/for their own good’) – it’s a treasure trove of information that no other generation has ever had at their fingertips.

So, when you look up the terms used here and read about the reality of animal agriculture, please be outraged. Be very outraged. Be outraged enough to stop paying for it, and stop refusing to be vegan.

 

 

Miscellaneous links: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40105680_Mutilations_in_poultry_European_poultry_production_systems
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5943685/
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2007/1029/schedule/1/made

Posted in Advocacy, Imagery, Mutilation, Nonhuman family members, Terminology | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments