Time To Put Factory Farms Out To Pasture?

by: Living Liberally

Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 07:16


Eating Liberally Food For Thought
by Kerry Trueman

The way we treat farm animals in this country is a crime - well, actually, it's not, because our animal cruelty laws don't apply to farm animals. This is really convenient for the livestock producers who cram their cows and chickens into those industrialized concentration camps known as CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations) and force them to live out their short, miserable lives in pain and filth.

You can't imagine how awful the lives of these animals are, and if you're a fast food aficionado, you don't want to. But I'm determined to penetrate that deep-fried crust of complacency that's coating your tender, inner self like some kind of karmic Chicken McNugget. So I'm asking you to please take five minutes to watch "Overlooked: The Lives of Animals Raised For Food," the latest video from The Humane Society.


Narrated by James Cromwell, who played the farmer in "Babe," the video poignantly documents just how oxymoronic the term "factory farm" is. Back in the day, a farm meant acres of open pasture where animals had unlimited access to sun and fresh air. A factory is the antithesis of a farm, with its hard concrete floors, fluorescent lights, and--in the case of the CAFOs--stalls or cages so confining that animals are restricted within an inch of their lives for their entire lives.

Before the advent of industrial agriculture and its economies of scale, lambs and calves got to gambol and graze; chickens could roll in the dust and fluff their feathers; pigs could go rooting around in the soil; in short, they led a natural life right up till their unnatural death at the hands of man.

A factory farm or CAFO's very design denies the fact that these animas are living, breathing creatures capable of feeling both physical and emotional pain.

People sometimes ask me, "Why does it matter how we treat animals if we're just going to kill them and eat them, anyway?" You can argue that we shouldn't be eating animals at all, and treating them well doesn't mitigate the wrongness of slaughtering innocent creatures because we like the way they taste.

Here's the thing, though; the vast majority of Americans, something like 95% of us, are meat-eaters. And, as Mark Bittman noted in Sunday's New York Times, we eat an awful lot of it, to the detriment of our bodies and the planet. But many folks just can't imagine giving up their beloved burgers or bacon.

"Overlooked" encourages people to shift to a plant-based diet, but the Human Society's strategy is ultimately about harm reduction. PETA's militant anti-meat advocacy may persuade some people to go vegan, or at least vegetarian, but the Humane Society's campaign to educate consumers about the barbaric conditions in factory farms has the potential to get a far wider group of people to stop buying factory farmed meat, poultry, dairy or eggs and seek out more humanely raised alternatives.

Living Liberally :: Time To Put Factory Farms Out To Pasture?

The success of this approach has been born out in Britain, where celebrity chef Jamie Oliver raised a ruckus-and consumer awareness--with an expose on factory farmed chickens for his tv show "Jamie's Fowl Dinners." Since the program aired, along with a show by another well-known British chef, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, who compared an industrial poultry farm with a free-range operation, sales of organic, free-range chickens have shot up dramatically in Britain. Animal rights activists have been heartened by the response, as the Daily Express reports:
Dr Julia Wrathall, head of the farm animals department at the RSPCA Science Group, told trade magazine The Grocer: "When it comes to the chickens we eat in Britain I am beginning to think we may be on the verge of a revolution."

There's no reason to think that American consumers wouldn't react the same way, if, say, Rachel Ray decided to use her star wattage to shine a light on one of the darker aspects of our food chain. But look at what happened to Oprah when she badmouthed burgers. Who wants to get flayed by the meat mafia? They'll defend their inhumane way of doing business by any means necessary. Still, I'm holding out for a Ray of hope. Maybe someone can get Rachel Ray to give "Overlooked" a look? Anyone who can watch this video and still eat meat from a feedlot must have a heart hardened by clogged arteries.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Give me a break (0.00 / 0)
You can argue that we shouldn't be eating animals at all, and treating them well doesn't mitigate the wrongness of slaughtering innocent creatures because we like the way they taste.

Or you could keep your vegan bias out of an otherwise clean argument and argue that willfully inflicting suffering on living things is inhumane and unacceptable.  Raise the animals humanely and kill them humanely when the time comes.  That makes us better than other animals, which unfortunately is still something of a challenge for our race.


Re: Give me a break (0.00 / 0)
Maybe you should take a deep breath and... read the next paragraph.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
and? (0.00 / 0)
I read the entire post before I commented on it.  The paragraph after the one I quoted doesn't change my point - the entire article is pro-vegan but the author grudgingly accepts that improving farm factory conditions will have to do.  My point is that improving those conditions should be the end game, and conflating the issue with veganism makes it a much more difficult goal to achieve.

[ Parent ]
Your criticism makes no sense (4.00 / 1)
1) The accusation of "vegan bias" is grating and absurd, as is the assertion that you know what "the end game" should be, and the implication that other moral positions are therefore invalid. You don't have to adopt those positions, but your apparent loathing for people who believe animals have a right to life (and I don't consider myself among those people) is down-right bizarre. That said, it's not really relevant because
2) You're completely misunderstanding the above article. Two paragraphs above the one you site she favorably describes conditions on pre-CAFO farms. The articles thesis is about how the Humane Society's strategy is better than PETAs, a view you apparently share.  The passage you cited can only be read as an attempt to convince other vegetarians, vegans, or animal rights activists focusing their attacks on CAFOs is in fact a better strategy for improving the lives of animals.
3)Based on what you've said, I think you share the goal of convincing vegans to attack CAFOs, not meat eating in general, so I'll go out on a limb and give you a piece of advice.  Her strategy; accepting the possibility that that argument is right, but explaining why it is impractical, is a hell of a lot better than your strategy of making unfounded accusations of bias and dismissing their deeply held moral positions.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
OK, here's the next 'graph: (0.00 / 0)
Here's the thing, though; the vast majority of Americans, something like 95% of us, are meat-eaters. And, as Mark Bittman noted in Sunday's New York Times, we eat an awful lot of it, to the detriment of our bodies and the planet. But many folks just can't imagine giving up their beloved burgers or bacon.

"[T]o the detriment of our bodies and the planet."

"[M]any folks just can't imagine giving up their beloved burgers or bacon."

The video was helpful.  The author revealing her stance about eating meat (it's horrid and unhealthy) and then making a patronizing value judgement about those who disagree with her ([sigh] they just can't seem to give up their burgers and bacon in order to save the world and themselves!), was most definitely not.

I reiterate my position from the thread where Bowers complains about Boehner's posturing about the Congress cafeteria:  Boehner wasn't really complaining about new food choices being presented, he was complaining (effectively) about food choices being taken away.  Kerrey made it pretty clear that taking animals off the table entirely is her preference, which is a non starter for those of us who like the occasional burger or bacon.


[ Parent ]
I know that at "Eating Liberally" your focus is on the ingestion (4.00 / 1)
But rural Americans, who for the most part don't care all that much about animal rights, don't care much for CAFOs either. They don't like the way they stink up the surrounding area, they don't like the way CAFOs poison groundwater, and they don't like the diseases that are spread.

We've got a whole series on CAFOs in Missouri about how coalitions between environmentalists, family farmers, hunters, fishers, and people who live in the vicinity of CAFOs are springing up to battle these behemoths.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!


Humanitarianism is an effective strategy, because things are more tasty that way (0.00 / 0)
I think the "don't eat meat" advocacy is doomed to failure. I think they have a long way to go to convince people that eating a vegetarian diet is a healthy alternative. I have not looked into the science deeply myself, but i suspect that the science behind the debate is far more inconclusive than what the right wing would have people believe about global warming. eg the vegan only alternative is not convincing. I also personally know may vegetarians, and I would say that vegetarians on the whole generally look far less healthy than meat eaters. i'm not comparing fast food junkies to vegetarians here - fast food is obviously horrible for people. 

I think the humanitarian advocacy is a better more effective one in this. But even so, i don't think its effective for its humanitarian appeal. I dont think people really care if cows get to play with other cows before they are turned into a delicious steak. I think the really effective part of that video, and that the humanitarian advocacy defacto includes, is that it is very disturbing to people to see depressed, sick, dead, nasty looking animals as part of their food supply. And really, as a meat eater I would say thats the only thing I personally care about as well. I'm not really concerned how much play time the cow gets - sad but true. But seeing a cow chained in a cage and chickens walking around on other dead chickens is viscerally unappetising. A cow playing with another cow looks more delicious. to the extent that helps the humanitarian agenda, then more power to them.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare


Not Healthy? (0.00 / 0)
"I have not looked into the science deeply myself, but i suspect that the science behind the debate is far more inconclusive than what the right wing would have people believe about global warming. eg the vegan only alternative is not convincing."

Well, those wacky scientists at the American Heart Association seem to think it's healthful (the American Dietetic Association has a similar position). 

From the AHA:

"Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They're also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer."

Link: http://www.americanh...


[ Parent ]
Worth a read: (0.00 / 0)
The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals
by Michael Pollan

Explores Industrial v. Organic v. Industrial Organic v. Sustainable


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox