The Thanksgiving Day Massacre

As the Thanksgiving holiday approaches and millions of Americans prepare to dine on millions of turkeys, I sat down to write a blog post about the inherent cruelty involved in this annual turkey massacre. I'm always seeking opportunities to engage people about veganism, and I fully intended to put together a list of reasons why you should choose compassion and kindness this Thanksgiving and leave the turkey and other animal products off the menu. I thought, as Communications Director at the Sustainability Institute at Molloy College, I can easily compile a list of environmental reasons to forego the turkey this Thanksgiving. As an abolitionist vegan, however, I have a hard time making the case for veganism on strictly environmental grounds. Not that a compelling argument can’t be made from an environmental standpoint. Fact is, whether you are concerned by biodiversity loss, deforestation, fresh water scarcity and pollution, or that animal agriculture creates more greenhouse gas emissions than driving, environmental concerns absolutely compel some people to go vegan.

However, going vegan for environmental reasons alone is a basic misunderstanding of what veganism is at its core. The basis of veganism, I submit, is recognizing the inherent value of animals as individual beings unto themselves. For this reason, I want to recognize and understand that the environmental implications of raising animals for food are severe, alarming, and taking a growing environmental toll, but put them within the larger framework of exploitation.

I make this argument because I believe that our actions should be bolstered by theory. For example, someone who is vegan only for health reasons has no real reason to be 100% vegan all the time. One could eat small amounts of meat, dairy, eggs or fish and still be healthy. The only philosophical position that results in full-fledged veganism is one that recognizes animals as sentient beings. There’s absolutely no convincing reason not to be fully vegan if you accept the notion of animals having a right not to be treated as property.

Consider the following: 46 million turkeys will be slaughtered and eaten this Thanksgiving, with another 22 million birds killed and eaten for Christmas, and 19 million more at Easter. More than 219 million are killed annually. Before they are ruthlessly slaughtered in the name of tradition and palate pleasure they are kept in the most horrible conditions, the majority in tiny battery cages, (very often deprived of sunlight and exercise) where they are cramped together so tightly that they can't move or get away from each other. As you might imagine, there are numerous fights among normally peaceful birds and they suffer from immense injuries. To keep turkeys from injuring one another, their toes and beaks are cut off with hot blades and no anesthetic, and when their throats are ultimately slit many are still conscious. To prevent diseases, most turkeys are fed antibiotics to promote artificial growth and to control Salmonella, Listeria, Campylobacter and other diseases transmittable to humans. According to the Poultry Science Association, however, 72 to 100% of birds have Campylobacter despite all the drugs. Campylobacter is the leading bacterial cause of human food-borne infections in the United States. We know that it is an incontrovertible fact that turkeys value their lives, feel pain, suffer, and are just as sentient as the family cat or dog. Yet, I know no one who would treat their dog or cat the way turkeys are treated from birth to their horrifying road to death. 

Even if the practices described above are reformed, however, the treatment of animals in and of itself, does not address the underlying elements in which animal exploitation is considered acceptable. The exploitation and death of billions of animals exists because human consumers persist in creating demand for such things. To an industry that views sentient creatures as economic commodities – it is inevitable that such exploitation and violence will be viewed as acceptable. In a system where animals are considered property, even their most significant interests can (and are) overshadowed by the comparably trivial human interest of profit. Because the system in place is fundamentally unfair, you can't "balance" the interests of a piece of property against the interests of a property owner. 

And with 46 million turkeys slated to be killed for Thanksgiving tables alone the environmental toll is undeniable. All animal production is detrimental to the environment. The practice pollutes the air, water, and land. Further, it is unjustifiably wasteful of valuable and dwindling resources. About 75% of all water-quality issues in United States waterways are the result of animal agriculture. Animal agriculture accounts for a huge amount of our greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock production generates more C02 emissions (accounting for 52% of total emissions) than the entire global transportation sector. Much of the grain produced in the US is used to feed livestock, with more than 70% of grains being used for this purpose.

You can be a good environmentalist and a good vegan simultaneously. If you're not vegan, you should go vegan and take a strong animal rights position. It's the right thing to do and no other food choice has a farther-reaching and more profoundly positive impact on the environment and all life on earth. If you are vegan but not an environmentalist, you should consider that both animals and humans need a sustainable environment in which to live. Abolishing the property status of animals will eliminate animal agriculture as the driving force behind every major category of environmental degradation. If you're interested in learning more about the abolitionist approach to animal rights, head on over to www.abolitionistapproach.com.

Save Seals by Eating Non-Canadian Seafood?

The annual Canadian Seal Hunt is well underway in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and off Newfoundland. Hundreds of thousands of seals are being shot or clubbed to death. It's barbaric, pure and simple. With the hunt comes the Humane Society of the United States' curious annual call to boycott Canadian seafood until Canada ends seal hunting. The Humane Society doesn't care if you continue to eat seafood from other countries. And you can even resume eating Canadian seafood once their seal killing ends.

The Humane Society's message is clear. Some animals, seals in this case, deserve greater moral consideration than others. And by appealing to supporters with pictures of cute, baby seals they can rake in millions in donations. Sure, humans find seals cuter than say... fish, shrimp and lobsters, but which animals we perceive as cute should have no bearing on our ethical consideration of their interests. It is, of course, terrible that the seals are being killed. But it is also terrible that some use this tragedy to rake in donations, while encouraging the public to consume the less-favored animals in order to benefit the more-favored ones.

Too many animal protection organizations are promoting these sort of campaigns that actually encourage animal exploitation. Since 2003 for example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has called for a boycott of Kentucky Fried Chicken until KFC purchases chickens from producers that utilize controlled atmospheric killing (CAK). A method that amounts to gassing birds to death and one that PETA promotes as more "humane" and more profitable for chicken producers. When Kentucky Fried Chicken in Canada agreed to gassing chickens, PETA called off their boycott (in Canada). They then claimed a "historic victory" for chickens in their fundraising materials. The message they sent is clear: It is ethically acceptable to eat chickens that have been gassed to death.

Is it clear to anyone else that these mainstream groups are exploiting animals as a business model and none of it has anything to do with shifting the paradigm from animals as exploitable things to animals as sentient beings worthy of our ethical consideration?

Getting back to the seal hunt - the campaign against it has been going on for decades. It has not ended yet. Many mainstream groups, however, have made millions from the campaign over those decades.

Don't be misled. You can't make moral distinctions about different forms of exploitation and killing. There is no difference between seal fur or the skin of another animal. The Humane Society of the United States purports to be an animal protection organization. If they were truly interested in protecting animals, they should use their considerable resources and wealth to do something they have never done in all their 58 years in existence - make an unequivocal single message. That message should be:

Go vegan. Stop eating, wearing, consuming and otherwise using animals.

If you believe in promoting a peaceful, healthier, more sustainable and just world without the use of animals, support organizations who take a firm abolitionist stand against animal exploitation. Here are just a few:

Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary

Boston Vegan Association

Open The Cages Alliance

Peace Advocacy Network

Alice Springs Vegan Society

Animal Freedom

The Saddest Show on Earth

The Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus is making its way around the east coast at the moment. Having recently come through the New York area on their 11-month tour of the United States. It may be coming to a town near you very soon. Before you even consider buying a ticket to any animal circus, understand the magnitude of cruelty, exploitation and disregard for the interests of animals necessary to have them "perform" for your entertainment.

Tigers, lions, bears, elephants, and other animals do not willingly or happily ride bicycles, stand on their heads, balance on balls, or jump through rings of fire. This isn’t their natural behavior, nor do they perform these and other tricks because they want to; they perform them because they're afraid of what will happen if they don't.

Unsuspecting parents planning a family trip to the circus don't know about the constant confinement and violent training sessions with ropes, chains, whips, bullhooks, and electric shock prods that animals endure. Undercover footage and heartbreaking photos obtained from even a casual Google search demonstrate the reality of what circus animals experience. In addition, as recently as November 2011, the Ringling Brothers Circus was fined $270,000 by the United States Department of Agriculture for violating the Animal Welfare Act on at least 27 different occasions between 2007 and 2011.

Even if reformed, however, the treatment of animals in entertainment by itself, does not address the underlying circumstances in which such forms of animal exploitation are considered acceptable. Circuses and other forms of animal “entertainment” exist because human consumers persist in creating demand for such things. To an industry that views sentient creatures as economic units – it is inevitable that such exploitation and violence will be viewed as acceptable. In a system where animals are considered the property of humans, even their most significant interests can (and are) eclipsed by the comparably trivial human interest of profit. Trying to "balance" the interests of a piece of property against the interests of a property owner is like playing in a rigged card game. Because the mechanisms in place are fundamentally unfair, it simply can’t be done.

It's 2012, and entertainment for children or adults need not come at the expense of animals, so don’t take part in it. Refuse to support animal circuses and the use of animals in entertainment. And while you're at it... if you believe in taking the interests of animals as seriously as say... the family dog or cat, then go vegan. Animals are not our property to use, abuse or consume.