Farmed
Animal Watch
A Project of Animal Place
November 13, 2002
(To Search This Page Press Ctrl F)
Issue #93
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/readersopinions/index.html
}
CONTENTS
1. "AN ANIMAL'S PLACE" CONSIDERED
A. Pain, Suffering & Moral Consideration
B. Factory Farming
C. "The Whole Moral Question.... in a Different Light"
D. Predation, Existence & Species Rights
E. Greater Vegan Harm?
F. Human Animality
G. On Killing and Respect
2. "VEGETARIANISM VS. MINDFUL MEAT EATING"
1. "AN ANIMAL'S PLACE" CONSIDERED
"An Animal's Place" is the current cover story of the Sunday New
York Times Magazine. Author Michael Pollan's previous cover story, "This
Steer's Life," followed the life of a male calf from pasture to feedlot
to slaughter ( http://www.farmedanimal.net/Newsletters/Newsletter61.htm
) The current article begins with Pollan reading Peter Singer's "Animal
Liberation" ( http://www.serve.com/ecobooks/animalib.htm
) while eating a steak. He explains significant developments regarding animal
status that have occurred in the U.S. and Europe since the book was published
in 1975, and the contradictory ways animals continue to be treated.
Pollan debates with himself Singer's utilitarian philosophy. He notes that the
interests of both human and nonhuman animals deserve equal consideration. The
avoidance of pain is identified as "the one all-important interest"
that sentient beings share. Pollan argues that, in contrast to nonhuman
animals, humans deserve moral consideration ("rights") even if they
are unable to reciprocate it (see: http://sztybel.tripod.ca/dances.html#obj8
) because, in addition to being human, they have relatives who are interested
in their well-being. He acknowledges that this is speciesist [but fails to
note that nonhuman animals also have relatives who are interested in their
well-being]. He goes on to claim: "human pain counts for more than that
of a mouse, since our pain is amplified by emotions like dread; similarly, our
deaths are worse than an animal's because we understand what death is in a way
they don't." [No evidence is offered in support of the assertion that a
mouse cannot experience dread, or to support his perception of animals'
perception of death.]
B. FACTORY FARMING
The article next looks at intensive animal agriculture. Pollan explains:
"To visit a modern CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) is to enter a
world that, for all its technological sophistication, is still designed
according to Cartesian principles: animals are machines incapable of feeling
pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this any more, industrial
animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the part of the
people who operate it and a willingness to avert your eyes on the part of
everyone else." Conditions for animals in CAFOs are graphically
described. Pollan concludes the section by declaring: "More than any
other institution, the American industrial animal farm offers a nightmarish
glimpse of what capitalism can look like in the absence of moral or regulatory
constraint. Here in these places life itself is redefined – as protein
production– and with it suffering. That [italicized] venerable word becomes
"stress," an economic problem in search of a cost-effective
solution, like tail-docking or beak-clipping or, in the industry's latest
plan, by simply engineering the ‘stress gene' out of pigs and chickens.
‘Our own worst nightmare' such a place may well be; it is also real life for
the billions of animals unlucky enough to have been born beneath these grim
steel roofs, into the brief, pitiless life of a ‘production unit' in the
days before the suffering gene [is] found."
C. "THE WHOLE MORAL QUESTION.... IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT"
Alternative production practices at Polyface Farm are described. The Virginia
farm raises cattle, pigs, chickens, rabbits, turkeys and sheep in
unconventional ways, many with access to pasture. Pollan says, "In the
same way that we can probably recognize animal suffering when we see it,
animal happiness is unmistakable, too, and here I was seeing it in
abundance." (See pages 4-8 of PDF file: http://www.info.usda.gov/nrcs/eregion_tech/SustainableAgriculture/images/pdfFiles/Susagtechnote1Polyface.PDF
) He continues, "For domesticated species, the good life, if we can call
it that, cannot be achieved apart from humans – apart from our farms and,
therefore, our meat eating." Pollan denies that domestication is a form
of enslavement or even exploitation but contends it is instead a form of
mutualism. He speculates that opportunistic species formed an alliance with
humans, receiving food and protection in exchange for their milk, eggs and
flesh, eventually losing their ability to fend for themselves. (See PDF FILE:
http://www.ag.usask.ca/academic/notes/agric112/AGRIC%20112-Mod%232.pdf
)
Using population numbers as criterion, Pollan estimates that the
"bargain" has, at least until our own time, been a success.
"Nor," he states, "does their loss of autonomy seem to trouble
these creatures....Liberation is the last thing such a creature wants."
Pollan claims the caged chickens at Polyface Farm prefer their confinement
-and eventual death by human predator- to the risk of death from wild
predators. Referring to death in the wild, Polyface owner Joel Salatin is
quoted as stating, "As a rule, animals don't get ‘good deaths'
surrounded by their loved ones." [Nor do the vast majority of
domesticated ones.] Pollan claims, "The very existence of predation –
animals eating animals – is the cause of much anguished hand-wringing in
animal rights circles" (see: http://sztybel.tripod.ca/dances.html#obj24
). He further claims not only do individual chickens depend on human predators
for their well-being (see: http://www.upc-online.org/ethics_questions.html#4
) but that the species would go extinct were the birds granted "a right
to life" (see: http://www.upc-online.org/ethics_questions.html#3
& http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/02/10/wchik10.xml
).
E. GREATER VEGAN HARM?
Animal scientist Steve Davis (OSU) hypothesizes that if America adopted a
vegan diet, the number of animals killed would actually increase as pasture
was instead used for row crops. Davis speculates that to kill the fewest
animals possible, people should eat the largest animals who can live on the
least intensively cultivated land, namely, grass-fed cattle (see: http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2002/Apr02/davis.htm
& http://www.veganoutreach.org/spam/20020715.html
). Subsequently, Pollan twice mentions "the vegetarian utopia." Joel
Salatin (Polyface Farm) says that, in areas where adequate row crops can't be
grown, a vegetarian diet would cause people to rely on food transported from a
distance. Pollan adds that the lack of manure for fertilizer would further
increase our dependency on fossil fuels and synthetic fertilizer (see: http://www.ifplantscouldtalk.rutgers.edu/fact_sheets/vegetables/cover_crops.htm
& http://www.agroecology.org/cases/humanmanure.htm
& http://www.milorganite.org/companyinfo/companyhistory.asp
). He concludes, "If our concern is for the health of nature – rather
than, say, the internal consistency of our moral code or the condition of our
souls – then eating animals may sometimes be the most ethical thing to
do."
F. HUMAN ANIMALITY
Citing evolution and cultural history, Pollan cautions "Granting rights
to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will
entail the sacrifice of part of our identity – our own animality. Surely
this is one of the odder paradoxes of animal rights doctrine. It asks us to
recognize all that we share with animals and then demands that we act toward
them in a most unanimalistic way. We should at least acknowledge that our
desire to eat meat is not a trivial matter, no mere ‘gastronomic
preference.'" http://hallnature.com/nature_ecology/72.shtml
& http://www.coyotenation.com/feature.html
G. ON KILLING AND RESPECT
Pollan e-mailed Peter Singer with a description of Polyface Farm and asked
about his position on "the Good Farm – one where animals got to live
according to their nature and to all appearances did not suffer." Singer
responded: "I agree with you that it is better for these animals to have
lived and died than not to have lived at all." He added that this doesn't
negate the wrongness of killing an animal who "has a sense of [their] own
existence over time and can have preferences for [their] own future."
Pollan interprets this to mean, "In other words, it's O.K. to eat the
chicken, but he's not so sure about the pig." Singer notes that food from
such farms would be more expensive with only the more affluent being able to
afford it. He doubts such farms could be practical on a large scale due to
market forces leading owners to cut costs at the expense of the animals. He
also points out that killing animals is not conducive to treating them with
respect yet notes "I would not be sufficiently confident of my arguments
to condemn someone who purchased meat from one of these farms" (see: http://sztybel.tripod.ca/dances.html#obj27
).
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/10/magazine/10ANIMAL.html
2. "VEGETARIANISM VS. MINDFUL MEAT EATING"
The cover story of the current issue of Conscious Choice magazine also
addresses meat consumption. Editor Rebecca Ephraim comments, "The subject
of vegetarianism versus meat eating is one of the most divisive issues that
this magazine confronts." She explains, "We, as a magazine, promote
the idea that the life forces of our planet are a precious commodity that must
be embraced and handled in a judicious manner." The author notes that
"humanely raised meat" still entails putting animals to death, even
if they live "comfier" lives in comparison to those who are factory
farmed. Alternatively, vegetarianism is regarded as "not easy,
convenient, or –to some– even satisfying." Vegetarians are faulted
for not helping to boost the market share of less inhumane farms.
Michael Appleby, vice-president of the farm animals and sustainable
agriculture section of HSUS, who is described as "not a vegetarian but an
eater of ‘very little meat,'" states that most people who are actively
concerned about the treatment of animals will still continue to eat meat. He
argues, "If everybody who is concerned about inhumane conditions stops
eating meat, the farmers who are trying to be humane can't succeed." [A
similar argument could be made for companies that produce vegetarian
products.]
http://www.consciouschoice.com
"The National Organic Standards: Myth or Reality?" The Humane
Society of the United States.
http