Animal Person

Where Does Vegan Baby Sky Get Her Protein?

I'm constantly asked about the details of Baby Sky's life.

Where does she get her protein?

How are her bones going to grow without cow's milk?

You mean she's never eaten bacon?

Are you a communist?

At Baby Sky's 15 month checkup she landed at about the 75th percentile for height and weight. She comes from small stock, so I do see that decreasing a bit. It's already down from the 90th percentile. She was a gigantic baby!

She has been sick twice, once with a viral infection and once with a bacterial one (strep). We've been fortunate enough to have avoided the dreaded first trip to the emergency room, which is a tad surprising because the child is a fearless, avid explorer with a lot of energy. A lot.

Her nutrition came from Earth's Best organic soy formula for the first year, and since then she's been eating non-baby food supplemented by a bottle of Baby's Only organic soy formula (designed for toddlers and can be used until age 3). I use half water and half organic carrot juice and organic apple juice. I made some pureed food for her for a couple of months but she wasn't really that interested and I was a bit concerned until after her first birthday, when she decided to eat everything.

Her favorite breakfast? A plate of strawberries, watermelon, cantaloupe, blueberries and peaches, followed by banana ice cream. Banana ice cream = frozen bananas + ground flax seeds + raw cashew butter + raw almond butter + almond milk + Vita Mix. Plenty of fat, protein, omega-3s and yumminess. I eat it, too. Saturday morning is pancake morning. Spelt, oat bran, whole wheat, coconut flour. Blueberries and bananas. Or not. Maybe even some 80% dark chocolate (slavery-free, care of Equal Exchange--Panama's the kind we get). Of course she eats a bunch of batter first, then a couple of pancakes.

Her favorite lunch? Vegetable hummus + avocado on whole wheat pita bread. Dessert? Brown rice pudding (brown rice + a warm mixture of toffuti cream cheese, tofu and coconut butter). Her favorite snack? Roasted zucchini sprinkled with Daiya in a pool of marinara. She'll eat an entire zucchini. She loves kale chips. Ditto for vanilla soy yogurt. Steel cut oats? Yummy. Snow balls are a huge favorite (ground organic raisins, dates, almond and walnuts rolled in shredded coconut). As far as drinks go, she has one that looks and tastes similar to chocolate milk, made with almond milk and chocolate-flavored Amazing Grass Kidz Superfood. And then there's "fruit punch," or, orange juice + water + the wildberry Kidz Superfood. She doesn't walk around drinking straight wheat grass--Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Dinner? Sweet potatoes with navy beans. Garbanzo bean salad, mashed a bit (her molars are still giant blisters). Any kind of gardein, chopped, with sauteed asparagus, is always a great meal. Smoothies, complete with orange juice, raw fruits, raw nut butters and a handful of kale. Delicious!

On the non-food green front, we used cloth diapers and then practiced Elimination Communication since month 10, and Baby Sky now pees and poops in her potty and doesn't wear a diaper except at night (and that's probably about to change). She's napping right now, diaper free. During the diaper months, rather than wipes, I used receiving blankets cut up into smallish squares and a squirt bottle of water. We still use the cut up blankets as rags/in place of paper towels.

The toy rule is pretty much: Little or no plastic and no batteries. She has a lot of wood toys and I'm queasy about where the wood came from, so that's not ideal. Otherwise, her room looks very sparse. And yellow. Very yellow (we used a no VOC paint, at least). But that's another story.

For a short time, Sky slept in a crib (secondhand, from a neighbor) with a (new) coconut coir mattress, but now she sleeps on a full size futon on the floor (formerly of one of the guest rooms upstairs--so no purchase necessary!). It's a Montessori thing. And let me be the first one to say that bassinetts and cribs are a complete waste of money; all you need is a mattress on the floor and some firm pillows surrounding it (for the early months).

Sky doesn't have a lot of stuff and I don't have a lot of gear. She spends most of her time outside, naked (it's still nearly 90 degrees here), exploring the world. She has very few pieces of clothing (and most are secondhand) and many of her books and toys are secondhand (and we had to weed through them for animal use). There are several girls a bit older than Sky on the block who give us lots of goodies. And there's one younger. The younger one gets the loot as soon as that's appropriate, and/or I donate them to the local Foster and Adoptive Parents Association.

So far, no one has been interested in trying cloth diapers, and stores won't take them, so if anyone has any need for them, speak now before they become rags!

Sky's days wouldn't be complete without her constant companion, Emily Fokker (our chunky FIP kitty). They follow each other around all day and rub their faces on each other. It's adorable! Violet Rays, being nearly 12 and nearly blind, isn't as keen on the child. Or any other child. Or the cat. Or anyone else, for that matter. I think she likes me but that's about it. Plus, only the trained eye would be able to determine that she likes me.

I mention this because all too often people surrender their dogs--or even cats--once they have children. I'll refrain from ranting. But what I will say is that you work at it. I have taught Sky to stay away from Violet. If Violet approaches her Sky may touch her, but only with one finger. Sky gives her a wide berth when she walks around her, and yes, it's a bummer that Sky is a little afraid of dogs. But that's far better than Sky not respecting them and then having them feel they must defend themselves. The most Violet will do is bark and show her four teeth, but trust me when I say that her boney, old, alpha self can make a grown man jump in fear when she wants to, all without ever laying a paw on him.

There you have it: a rough sketch of Baby Sky's life. If you have any questions about anything we do or use, fire away! No matter what your beliefs are, when you're a parent you educate yourself about parenting style, nutrition (and Ginny Messina's fabulous Vegan for Life recently arrived and includes nutrition information as well as sample menus for kids!) and formal education options (if you're lucky enough to have options). I may be a vegan and an atheist, but I'm really just a parent doing the best I can to give my child the best life possible.

On "Imposing" Our Beliefs on Our Children

It's fascinating, how what 98% of Americans do with their children is called "parenting" and "guidance." It can also be referred to as "transmission of culture," with its handing down of the trappings, rituals, holidays and even mutilations of religion and ethnicity.

But what I do is "imposing" or "forcing" veganism and atheism on my child. It's not parenting; it's considered behavior that's irresponsible at best, and abusive at worst.

As far as atheism goes, I'd rather my child have a healthy skepticism that is fact driven and science driven. I'd rather stress personal responsibility and the realistic notion that life isn't fair and owes you nothing. And that we have the ability to change our lives and circumstances (and that that is a statement of privilege). You know what would be irresponsible? For me to tell my daughter that there's some invisible being who, if he desires, can control anything in the universe he wants to control. Including her life. That she needs to respect that being, or else. Or even worship that being, who may or may not exist. That she might suffer tremendously in her life, and that the Being With Ultimate Power is actually doing her a favor by making her suffer. By choosing her to suffer in the manner in which she suffers. He has his reasons.

My parents did their best to raise my sister and me. They did nothing controversial and my sister and I grew up more or less just like most of our friends on suburban Long Island. We were presented with animals to eat and wear. We ate and wore them. We were presented with animal bodies to celebrate over at holidays. Animal skin to wear on our feet.

When my husband and I first adopted Baby Sky, several friends and relatives asked, "are you going to make her be a vegan? And what happens if she decides to eat meat later on?" Essentially, my parents made me eat and wear dead animals. I grew up respecting dogs and cats, but not other animals. Animals existed for my entertainment in zoos, water parks and at circuses. It wasn't in the consciousness of my parents that the values they were transmitting were marked by disrespect for others. They were simply raising us as best they could within the mainstream culture.

One could also say, however, that they were imposing their beliefs on us. They were forcing us to be consumers of animal exploitation industries. I'm not sure if it technically takes a level of intent to force or impose beliefs, or if you can do it by default by not offering other options or not encouraging critical thinking. Saying, "we eat animals, because that's what we do" may make no sense whatsoever, but it's the reason many people continue to eat animals. To do or think otherwise, to acknowledge the absence of logic or empathy in that reasoning, is to open a door that cannot be closed, regardless of the behavior that follows.

When I was in my teens, I told my dad (who was driving the Catholic bus, while mom drove the bus headed toward Buddhism) that I wasn't going to go to church until girls could be priests. I'd been thinking about the set-up of The Church and didn't like it. I had good reasons, which were listed, listened to and respected, and I stopped going to church. And when I discovered what animals went through on their way to becoming our meals, I made appropriate changes in that direction as well.

I'm raising my daughter with a clear, stated ethic: Respect other beings, as no one exists for your benefit. I'm forcing that on her just as much as the omnivores next door are forcing their ethics on their children, through their words and deeds.

It's transmission of a culture that I'm proud of.

If Sky reaches her teens and decides that animals do indeed exist for our benefit, and that there is a god whom she'd like to worship (and furthermore, that her name is spelled Skye), we'll deconstruct those notions together and she will do what she will do. But I won't feel like I had done her a disservice by raising her with a heart for justice and a mind for inquiry.

Hal Herzog's "Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat"

Hal Herzog’s “Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat” (Harper 2011), though fascinating, is ultimately depressing for vegans and animal rights activists. Over at Animal Rights and AntiOppression, we’ve been discussing tactics and sharing our thoughts and experiences about what works and doesn’t work when it comes to advocacy. In a manner that’s Malcolm Gladwell meets Freakonomics, which is the fascinating part, Herzog investigates our beliefs and actions regarding nonhuman animals (anthrozoology). He pairs conventional wisdom with actual research on such wisdom and speaks to experts who’ve been pondering the issues from the perspectives of their various disciplines. The research, much of the time, doesn’t support the conventional wisdom (which is not to say the case is closed on any issue). For instance, dolphins don’t actually have the curative powers some claim they have (22); there’s no evidence that pet owners have different personalities than non pet owners (28); having to kill and cut up an animal does not stop one from eating meat (189); the majority of people who abused animals as children do not grow up to be violent (30); and 80% of serial killers do not have a known history of cruelty to animals (31). Herzog states, “The awkward fact is that most wanton animal cruelty is not perpetrated by inherently bad kids but by normal children who will eventually grow up to be good citizens” (34).

 

Most interesting for me was the mental lock most people have that we vegans are always looking to break or find the key to: Why do good people who understand what happens to animals for unnecessary products such as “steak” or eggs, continue to consume such things? The answer, throughout the entire 300 pages, essentially is: Because they do. People believe one thing and do another. All day long. If slaughterhouses had glass walls? Well, as it turns out neither a trip to a slaughterhouse nor killing an animal yourself is powerful enough to make people go vegan. “The bottom line is that there are many reasons why human-animal interactions are so often inconsistent and paradoxical. Thousands of studies have demonstrated that human thinking about nearly everything is surprisingly irrational” (65).

 

Much of the book deals with topics vegans have likely pondered, likely frequently. We understand the importance of being cute for other animals, we’ve realized that the decision who to eat or wear or value is largely based on culture. Many of us have difficulty with the idea of keeping “pets.” On that topic and a few others, Herzog doesn’t include what for lack of a better term is “vegan thinking.” When it comes to pets, the only reasons he considers for keeping pets have to do with the enrichment of the lives of people. He doesn’t seem to have met anyone who considers keeping pets to not be ideal, yet necessary out of a feeling of responsibility or obligation due to our part in their plight. And by the way, he debunks the idea of dogs and unconditional love, as well as the idea that pet owners are less lonely than people who don’t own pets. At least his research on pit bull-types of dogs demonstrates the injustice they face.

 

Herzog, unsurprisingly, uses “it” to refer to animals, eats and wears them, and “[does] not feel particularly guilty about it” (P.S., page 6). He is an unabashed speciesist, putting humans on “a different moral plane from that of other animals” (11) due to various reasons, such as our “vastly greater capacity for symbolic language, culture, and ethical judgment” (11). He watched cockfighting and killed and skinned animals, but won’t eat veal. And this is partly what’s so disappointing about the message of this book: Herzog amasses the research, and sees and does things that involve tremendous suffering and injustice. And yet he’s perfectly content to lump himself in with the vast majority of people who claim to care about animals but act like they don’t. My frustration is evident in the comments I’ve carved across the pages that make it impossible for me to now donate the book to my local library.

 

On page 172, when Herzog writes, “I am conflicted over many moral issues involving animals,” I respond, “No kidding!” When he spends what seems like an eternity discussing cockfighting and the people who participate, mostly to set up the comparison to how the chickens we eat are treated and the lack of outrage over that, I respond, “What is wrong with you? You’re right, it is horrible! So why the hell do you continue to participate in the killing of chickens for food, yet cockfighting is no longer on your list?” But I’m merely making his point. People are irrational and conflicted and make a show of taking a stand but manage to still do whatever they want in the end. When Staci, an ex-vegetarian who now eats raw meat, writes to Herzog that she thinks it takes bravery to kill animals (she says “butcher) and talks about “reverence” and “completing the cycle” and that “taking responsibility is somehow the balm that soothes the horror,” I wonder why Herzog isn’t disgusted by that and doesn’t want to call her out for her ridiculous verbiage that means nothing to the animals she kills. What about their horror?  In response, I can only underline these phrases with seven-page deep gashes.

 

Most informative for a discussion about vegan advocacy is the section about the animal rights movement (and unfortunately he alternately calls it “animal protection” and also refers to welfare, perhaps because of the Humane Research Council’s study that people prefer the word “protection”). “The campaign to moralize meat has largely been a failure. . . . Ironically, the efforts by animal protectionists to improve the well-being of farm animals have made the consumption of flesh more, rather than less, morally palatable” (191).

 

Finally, regarding actual animal rights, Herzog is aware of Singer and Regan and appears to have respect for them despite the fact that he says they “[take] moral consistency too seriously” (259). (Yes, you read that right.) Joan Dunayer is a different story, however, as Herzog thinks she “lives in a moral universe that should cause even hardcore animal activists to shudder” (255). He evidently has no idea that abolitionists exist and thinks Dunayer is an outlier. Of course I was appalled, but out there in the mainstream world, she is an outlier. He merely reminds me of how little I have in common with the average person who claims to care about animals. Meanwhile, throughout the book he does describe people who would likely call themselves abolitionists. They are vegans, and he has the utmost respect for them. They are superheroes for being able to think about all of these issues so thoroughly and have the will power to do something about them. They are extraordinary. But him? He prefers to take the stance that because moral consistency is impossible (i.e., no one is 100% vegan), you “do what you can do.” If that means volunteering at a dog rescue or giving money to PETA, all while eating and using animals, at least you’re doing something. Of course that can be debated. But also, it’s such a low, low bar—such a disappointing expectation. We should demand more.

 

The Animals We Use

After failing miserably at a long pamphlet in 2007, I decided to shorten it by 50% and focus on a different audience: people who use animals. I think part of the original work's problem was that it was too ambitious--not to mention expensive to produce--and everything suffered. I wanted to reach people who use animals, but also people who don't, yet who nevertheless advocate for the regulation of the use of animals or give money to organizations that do.

This pamphlet, by the way, is the same one I gave to someone whose response was: The argument for using animals isn't the problem. The argument's flawless. It's just not gonna stop me from eating a steak if that's what I want to eat.

So we already know that, at least for some people, words aren't going to make them care. Words, apparently, do not engender empathy. Or a desire for justice. For that, we need images, I'm afraid. We need to see individual animals and read/hear their stories.

And we need support. I don't know what the effectiveness of online support is, but I do know that talking to people, eating with them, shopping with them, surfing the Internet with them, sharing cooking tips with them, cooking for and with them, and making yourself available for sharing the emotional and social difficulties of a transition from using animals to using them less, does work. That's what I do, and it works, as in--people go vegan and stay vegan.

Thinking Critically About The Animals We Use can be printed on one 11 x 17 sheet and folded in half and isn't designed to make anyone into an activist. But it is designed to help its readers face their own rationales for continuing a behavior that they themselves probably don't agree with. Like part of the original, it traces the conversations I have over and over again, with good people who simply aren't educated about what's involved in the use of animals, or they are, yet they continue to not align their actions with their knowledge and what they believe to be right.

And that disconnect is deadly and reeks of injustice.

----

I thought about calling the pamphlet Thinking Critically About The Ways We Use Animals, but liked the current title because I wanted to bring attention to The Animals first. I did create a but of a grammatical issue, but I'm not sure if it's a distracting one. What do you think?

To My Friends at Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving 2010 will be Baby Sky's first, and our opportunity to introduce her to the notion that our family doesn't eat animals (not to mention that other historical story we'll be correcting). There will be no greyhound corpse on our table, no turkey corpse and no pig corpse. There will be no pies or cakes that were made with milk that was meant for calves, or eggs that represent dead male chicks, forced molting, debeaking and other mutilations and cruelties.

When in the position of having the choice, which so far is always, I'd rather choose not to have someone killed for me. Perfectly delicious and nutritious plant-based food is available for anyone who wants to make that choice this Thanksgiving. I think the biggest obstacle is that most people don't see themselves as choosing to hurt anyone. They would say they love animals. Yet their actions, at least three times a day (and when they put their clothes and shoes on) tell a different story.

The two objections to a vegan Thanksgiving that I hear most often are: It's our tradition and Because it tastes good.

It's our tradition.

Traditions are decided upon. They are consciously, intentionally repeated. And new ones can be created at any moment. I choose to opt out of traditions that cause harm and are the direct result of the exploitation and commodification of beings just like Charles, but who look a little different. And I want Baby Sky to grow up in a home where there is just as much respect for chickens and calves and fishes as there is for greyhounds and cats and people. Of course, the world outside of our home tells a different story. But we can bring our story to that world.

Because it tastes good.

This is a tough one to even dignify as I think it's the most offensive reason for killing someone. In addition, I've never heard it said in anything but a sarcastic or otherwise mocking tone. The conclusion I'm left making is that the person saying "Because it tastes good" thinks that it's funny that a sentient being was raped (in the case of cows), mutilated (chickens, pigs and others) and slaughtered (everyone) because people find them tasty. The other possible explanation is that these people do indeed feel uncomfortable that Because it tastes good is their honest answer. I think that's the case much of the time, but the conversation is too painful and causes so much cognitive dissonance, and sarcasm is the quickest way out of the situation.

Though this Thanksgiving is special for us, it is the opportunity for anybody to decide that this Thanksgiving will be a kindler, gentler, more compassionate one. This Thanksgiving can be a just one: Justice for beings who are like us in the most important of ways. Justice for beings who look very different from us but who, like us, experience pleasure and pain, boredom and frustration. Justice for beings who want to live their lives--who should be able to lives their lives--without being taken from their families and their homes to become a meal. Justice for beings whom we create for the sole purpose of killing, but who nevertheless want to live. We can do many horrible things to them and we can take a lot away from them. But they always have their desire to not be killed.

All it takes is a decision. Decide to choose justice over whatever reason you give for using other animals as food. It might not be easy, given family and societal pressures, but fortunately there are scores of books and websites and podcasts and videos and online vendors--and even restaurants--that can provide guidance (and delicious food). It's never been so easy to have a Just Thanksgiving.

Happy Mother's Day!

Check out "On Motherhood and Pizza" at Animal Rights & AntiOppression, by yours truly, and have a Happy Mother's Day!

Operation Nix-the-Petting-Zoo, Part Deux

Coincidentally, last night was a board meeting for our homeowner's association, and though I wasn't on the agenda there's always time for homeowner comments about, say, the petting zoo and pony rides that are scheduled for the spring "BBQ" (here's part one of this story).

I printed pages of information about petting zoos from the Internet, mostly about health risks but also about animal treatment. Of course none of them come close to the most important reason for my objection: that we have no right to use animals for entertainment or other reasons that are not necessary.

I knew that if I talked about the Center for Disease Control's recommendations about washing stations or proximity to food (which is ironic, considering many of the nonhumans in the petting zoos are also considered "food"), I'd just get a rehearsed statement about the practices of the vendor being in full compliance. And there's not much from the health angle for pony rides. Most important, the event will require scores of dead animals to nosh on, so objecting to using animals for entertainment is a less-than-optimal approach.

The event will also have a bounce house and a handful of other activities for children. Basically, it's for children who eat animals and their parents. There's really nothing there for people like my husband and me; we're not the target market. And realistically, availability of a vegan burger isn't going to make me want to participate.

As for the creation of the picnic, there was no event committee. The board made the decisions based on what other communities have done (uneventfully and successfully, by their standards).

Here's what I learned and will do:

• Though I recently ended a complete nightmare of an experience on a couple of boards of directors and have sworn off them, I might have to get involved, perhaps at the committee level. At the very least, I can keep informed about the activities that are being chosen and always send a letter or comment at the meeting from the vegan perspective.
• I touched on all points, focusing on the petting zoo, and will investigate the vendor in case there are any complaints against them. But I should have presented a stronger use argument. When I uttered the words "not everyone in this 350 home community eats and wears animals or believes in using them for entertainment," all board members looked at me as if I was not speaking a language they understand and I think I lost them.
• I couldn't help but ask what kinds of animals were in the petting zoo, where they came from, where they are housed, and whether the kids would get the opportunity to pet the same kinds of animals they would be eating at the event. Is the point a before and after scenario? The reason they gave for the petting zoo and pony rides was that other communities have done them and seemed to like them. Clearly, not a lot of thought went into this decision and it wasn't by consensus of the community. That's what happens when people don't participate.
• Our clubhouse is a large house, complete with a kitchen made for entertaining and I'm going to survey the neighborhood for interest in a vegan cooking class.
• I'm going to send a letter to the board and request that it be added to the minutes, stating my position more clearly.

Did I accomplish anything? That depends. If my goal was to present a perspective the dominant culture isn't used to hearing about, maybe. From the looks on their faces, everything I said was a surprise to them. They should never play poker. If my goal was to nix any part of the event, no chance did I succeed. But at least I showed up and was one tiny voice for the voiceless.

Operation Nix-the-Petting-Zoo

After my long weekend up North I returned to a message from our neighborhood association announcing a picnic on April 11 on the Village Green. We paid a heap of extra money to live on the Village Green, so anything that happens there is basically happening in our front yard. Like a "BBQ, pony rides and a petting zoo!" Naturally, upon reading such words, my stomach turned and I immediately thought of making plans to be away from the house that day so I wouldn't have to see any of the festivities or try to negotiate walking the dogs around them.

When I started thinking about trying to get the association to cancel the pony rides and petting zoo (which are often part of one business as a quick Google search of "traveling petting zoo" will demonstrate), my several-year vegan husband said, "What's the use? It's not like these people care about animals. It's a barbeque for heaven's sake. Their kids are probably gonna be petting the animals they're eating and they might not even know it." Though I don't disagree, I guess my thinking was to at least take some business from the places that use living animals for profit because trying to affect the ones that have already killed the animals is not as urgent at that point, not to mention there's no way that would work. I might be able to nix the petting zoo, and maybe even the pony rides, but the "BBQ" will remain untouched. (Here's a factsheet about petting zoos, which at least in Florida have been a public health threat, to say nothing of the exploitation and suffering of the animals.)

I'm fairly confident that I don't know anyone who won't say that they don't approve of animal cruelty. Everyone claims to like animals and want the best for them and be against cruelty. Many will say they "love" animals. Meanwhile, most eat them, wear them and "love" the Kentucky Derby, yet don't approve of dog racing. It boggles the mind. Actually, it boggles my mind. But it shouldn't because it makes perfect sense. Their values are simply a reflection of the dominant culture, which they have either consciously or otherwise chosen not to challenge.

What would you do? Is it silly to go after the petting zoo when the event will likely require hundreds of pig, cow and chicken corpses?

I'm thinking leave town is the best answer.

On Honoring Living "Things"

William Horden's, "The Sacred Space of the Shared Heart" is exactly the type of piece I am talking about when I express frustration over "spiritual" people who kill nonhuman animals or who have them killed for a meal.

"My father once explained to me that he felt the profoundest guilt for having to kill other living things in order to survive, so much so that he never took more that he needed and he always apologized to the spirit of the animal or plant for cutting its life short. He always promised to use its life wisely and never waste it on trivial pursuits. In this way, he had come to hold sacred everything he encountered in life--and come to have a sense of his own sacredness. It took a while before I really began seeing everything the way he did, but now that is the view and those are the feelings that I carry with me all the time.

. . .

The big change, of course, was my realizing that I didn't feel any remorse for having to eat animals and plants to live.

On The Respectful Emperor

I've been having a difficult time blogging both here and at Animal Rights & AntiOppression lately because I feel like my thoughts are like "Groundhog Day." Not the day, the film, where Bill Murray experiences the same day over and over again.

There are few animal rights stories in the news. We are not people who are interested in discussing animal rights, as in, the right of sentient nonhumans to not be used by humans for potential profit, for sport or for lunch.

That leaves us with animal welfare, which I do think we are genuinely interested in, mostly because of the myriad videos, documentaries, books and websites that have made it tough to avoid over the past few years. People are talking. And acting. Of course, what they are talking about and how they are changing their behavior is very frustrating for someone who doesn't believe we should be using animals at all. Most of the talk and the action is about treating animals differently---better, allegedly--while not addressing what is of paramount importance to all living creatures: staying alive.

When I think about the language that has been used by people who kill animals or have someone else do it for them, a couple of years ago the "compassionate" trend began. Farmers were bragging about how much they "loved" the animals they would soon betray and slaughter, and many omnivores who had discovered how animals are treated wanted to assuage their consciences a bit by "at least" giving the animals a better life prior to their untimely slaughter. I wrote often about such farmer/authors and found their rationalizations quite creepy. (Here's "On THE COMPASSIONATE CARNIVORE" from September of 2008.)

In short order it was clear that The Compassionate Emperor had no clothes, however. You didn't have to think too deeply about that one before you reached its fatal flaws. It wasn't long before The Humane Emperor came on the scene, and is still around, telling folks that with a little mental acrobatics you can include forcible breeding, captivity, separation of family, killing of day-old chicks, and of course, untimely death in the definition of "humane." The Humane Myth debunks any definition of humane farming you can create though, and it would help animals enormously if we coached more people in the deconstructing of the notion of humane.

Maybe "humane" is already on its way out for the folks trying to convince themselves and others that humane killing isn't an oxymoron. Yesterday I saw what could be the next such attempt in The Atlantic's "Last Clucks: The Death of a Chicken," by Sara Lipka. Lipka introduced me to the idea of killing "respectfully." There's so much to deconstruct here, but after this lengthy intro I'm feeling the need to go in the opposite direction and just provide the highlights. And by highlights, I mean sentences that made me want to scream.

• "Our friend Miranda had her eye on Tina, the only bird distinctive enough to be named." That one left me speechless.
• "My boyfriend, Daniel, wanted to kill his hen, quietly and respectfully, and eat it." Wanted? His? Respectfully? It?
• "Our friend James caught our hen and put it in a hay-lined waxed-cardboard box. It calmed down and sat quietly in the box, on the floor of my car's backseat." Our. It.
• "the chicken waited with me, its head sticking through a gap in the top of the box. It was funny, maybe even cute." Its. It.
• "We took the chicken to Daniel's parents' house and left it in the box in the garage overnight." It. Okay, I can't keep doing this. There are more than 15 more "it"s.
• "Blood splattered on my pants and on Daniel's face, which made him, in a hooded sweatshirt, look like a murderer." He had indeed just murdered a chicken.
• "Feathers: animal. No feathers: food. I didn't feel sentimental anymore." That's an honest observation.
• "I'm still glad we did it. I confirmed my weird personal right to consume chicken." I find it sad that Lipka views the killing as some sort of right of passage that gives her permission to pay to have others kill other chickens and who knows what other animals when she in fact does not need to eat (or wear or otherwise use) them.
• "Our little chicken was very much on my mind as we ate her." What was on her mind, I wonder?

The stories we humans create for ourselves to justify--or even glorify--our behavior are fictions. If we really want to respect chickens, and if we really want to be "mindful" of them, we would remove them from the table and allow them to live their lives. That's respect.

--Photo from Flickr user gunp0wder

Roger Cohen Realizes Dogs=Pigs, Sort Of

"Dog Days in China" is a small piece with no gruesome slideshow. But it's also remarkable in that Roger Cohen, a 50-something man who writes for the New York Times, wonders:

But do pigs have any more or less of a soul than dogs? Are they any more or less sentient? Do they suffer any more or less in death? Are they any more or less part of the mysterious unity of life? I think not.

There is a rational, and for some people a spiritual, case for being a vegetarian: Killing animals is wrong. However I cannot see a rational argument for saying eating dogs or cats is barbaric while eating pork or beef is fine. If you eat meat you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (I’m setting cannibalism aside here.).

I repeat: If you eat meat (I'd say: products that come from animals), you cannot logically find it morally or ethically repugnant to eat a particular meat (i.e., product that comes from an animal).

The theory is sound. There's no way out.

But as Cohen experiences, humans don't live "in theory." The theory that the mind finds inescapably well-formulated is often overwhelmed and overturned by human emotions.

I must confess I’ve been having a hard time. My bout of anguish began a few weeks back on a wintry night in central China, in the restless megalopolis of Chongqing. I was cold, wet and seeking refuge.

His "anguish" leads him to a dog restaurant where he dines on dog. His "refuge" could easily taken the form of the Sichuan noodles he likes, sans dog. Or pig, or duck, or fish. "Dog was not easy for me," he writes. "The memory has proved hard to digest."

When it comes to the legislation (which may or may not mean anything for dogs and cats), Cohen sides with the people who recognize that cats and dogs are no different from chickens and geese. He writes, "I’m not happy that I ate dog. But I’m happy China eats dog."

This is a good news/bad news story. It's great that someone realizes that there is no real difference between dogs and cows. However, remember that he understands that emotion ("the heart") is what ultimately governs what most of us do, and certainly what he does, so he won't be eating any more dogs.

And, presumably, he will continue to eat other animals. And that's the bad news.

Stay tuned tomorrow as I question setting aside cannibalism.

On "Cheating" and Cookbook Authors

There was nothing surprising about Oprah's most recent show about food. It was full of Michael Pollan, Food Inc., the way we treat animals, and the way we turn food into food facsimiles with unusually long shelf lives. Recommendations included: know the people who produced your food, get out of the supermarket (go to a farmer's market), and cook at home more (especially junk food, as if you had to make your own french fries you'd eat a lot fewer of them). Nothing wrong with any of that.

You wouldn't expect Pollan or Oprah to deliver a vegan or animal rights message and they didn't. Fine.

Alicia Silverstone was on the show as a spokesperson for the health benefits and other benefits of veganism. She had one perfect opportunity to present herself as pro-animal rights when Oprah (laughingly) asked: But what if the cows and the chickens are treated really, really nicely . . . (would you eat them)?

Alicia (laughing): Well, I'd have to see the cows and the chickens.

First of all, I don't see what's so funny. But I get that this is entertainment and the mood was light. And people often giggle when speaking of things that make them feel uncomfortable. It's true that there was a tiny opening for a real message, and we'd all like to think that in a similar position, we'd be able to articulate one. Silverstone let the moment pass her by.

The more controversial moment was when Oprah asked Silverstone if she ever cheats and Silverstone admitted to eating some cheese. Why is that an issue? First of all, she's not evil because she eats some cheese. That's not the point. And I won't say she's not a "real vegan," as I'm not the vegan police. (Also, her response seemed  like the eating of cheese was sort of an accident anyway--she didn't order something with cheese.)

This moment was significant because if you "cheat," it is presumed that it's either very difficult or very unappealing to be a vegan. There's so much sacrifice or bad analogs or whatever that lead you to crave and succumb to "the real thing." It's largely about willpower, cheating tells me, and once in a while it's too much to expect yourself to not want to eat (fill-in-the-blank) while you're on the diet known as veganism. And that's not a message I want to send the millions of people who watch Oprah.

In addition, talk of cheating creates a space for omnivores to pounce, "A-ha! I knew she couldn't do it! Even the great vegan cookbook author/actress can't go without cheese!" And a similar pouncing has come from some vegans. It was all just an unfortunate moment in an unscripted interview.

I enjoyed every recipe I tried from Silverstone's The Kind Diet and though I might not be a fan of the way she does her activism (PeTA, etc...), a book by a vegan that helps other people go vegan (she recommends taking baby steps and calls it "flirting," which I suppose could be viewed as an innocuous, fun way of easing into veganism) can't be a liability for vegans or veganism. Or can it? I'd imagine that the more resources available to the mainstream about going vegan and cooking/preparing vegan food, the better the odds that more people will go vegan.

I am aware that many vegans won't buy Silverstone's book because they don't agree with her on some important issues. 

What do you think? Are there vegan cookbooks you won't purchase or vegan food bloggers you don't support because you don't agree with them on issues other than veganism?

On the Banning of Eating Cats and Dogs in China

I've been blogging here less partly because I've been blogging at Animal Rights & AntiOppression (check out my latest post "On Corporate Personhood and Animal Rights" and the better-than-the-post comments) but also because I've been feeling like a broken record and I don't want to bore anyone.

It seems like the answer to most questions/responses to most issues is one of these:

• Speciesism.
• It's just another excuse people have concocted because they like the taste of cow/pig/chicken/fish flesh.
• It's not difficult once you get the hang of it--it's just different at first.
• We can care about animals and people at the same time; they're not mutually exclusive.
• If you don't have to enslave, rape, dominate, or kill someone (or have someone else do it for you), why would you? Why choose enslavement, rape, domination and slaughter?
• Just because you did something for years doesn't mean it has some magical inherent value and you should continue to do it today and tomorrow.

Sometimes an article has a couple of the above, as in the case of "Chinese Legal Experts Call for a Ban on Eating Cats and Dogs."

Let's deconstruct:

• Legal experts in China are proposing a ban on the eating of dogs and cats.
• Many people support this, particularly affluent types, who have become dog and cat people and now own them as "pets." This is what I hear: The wealthier people become, the more likely they are to want to own others for their pleasure.
• The reasoning is fascinating: "We are proposing that all dog and cat eating should be banned because it is causing many social problems." So the ban isn't being suggested because eating cats and dogs is wrong, but because it's creating conflict. No one will propose a ban on eating chickens because there's no conflict there.
• Here's an interesting combination of great sentiment and horrible sentiment that involves two responses from the above list: "Online critics said it was hypocritical to protect only dogs and cats, and that the government should focus on human welfare before protecting animals." Yes, it is hypocritical (speciesism), but who said that we either protect humans or animals? Where do people get that idea?
• Let's just say the ban was meaningful. Notice how the story ends: "The focus has now been narrowed to prevention of animal abuse, which is defined as inflicting unnecessary pain and brutality." So we went from a ban to a vague statement about the prevention of abuse that clearly doesn't consider slaughter abusive. And I'm sure it will be claimed that what is done to the dogs and cats is necessary and isn't brutal. Or if it's brutal it is necessary. I think we all know where this is going. It sounds like it might not even help cats and dogs in a meaningful way.

Now, I haven't heard from Chris, who lives in Beijing, regarding this issue. He often has insight into why something might be different in action than what I think in theory when it comes to China. But my initial reaction is that this is like Americans giving up "red meat." All they do thereafter is replace cows with chickens and pigs and fish.

What do you think?

On Talking With Veterinarians About Vegan Food

We have a request, and it's an issue I've written about a handful of times but never had this particular question answered by readers: How do you talk with your vet--who is against feeding your dog vegan food--about your choice to do so? What do you say?

I'm fortunate to have a regular (non-specialist) vet who has no problem at all with a vegan diet for dogs. I've never discussed that Emily the kitty eats one meal of Ami vegan kibble on most days (and one of canned, animal-based food). She is doing fine with that. No change in anything about her, though I do think she's a bit perkier.

Violet the diabetic greyhound does very well as a vegan as her recent blood work demonstrated. Charles the lame greyhound doesn't process grains well at all. He never has. He fares best (as evidenced by poop, energy, licking, scratching, and severity of limping) on food with no grains whatsoever and very high animal protein--almost carnivore level.

Home cooking for Violet was difficult because her carb/protein/fat ratios need to be consistent in order for her blood sugar to be predictable. I had to make exactly the same meal for her every day, so I moved to using Natural Balance Vegetarian kibble (note that the canned version is not vegan due to the animal source of Vitamin D3). I did try other vegan dog foods, but I like the ingredients in Natural Balance best. There are plenty of vegan treats on the market, but my hounds prefer bananas, strawberries, blueberries or broccoli.

Because Violet and Charles are chock full of medical issues, they have a handful of specialists. There's the acupuncturist/chiropractor, opthamologist, orthopedist, neurologist, physical therapist and the trainer. None of those approve of a vegan diet and all it took was one conversation, and me hearing that "they have to eat meat" from people who believe people "have to eat meat" to know that the issue wasn't ever going to be resolved.

My regular vet is a curious guy who doesn't think he knows everything and when something happens that he hasn't encountered (e.g., Charles had a corn on his pad), he's happy for me to bring him some research and for us to tackle the issue together (we did this with the corn and removed it together--and no charge, by the way). If he didn't know about feeding dogs vegan food, I might have brought him some of these articles and I would have referred him to Vegan Dogs: Compassionate Nutrition or to VegetarianDogs.com.

I'd question whether the vet needs to know what my dogs are eating or is in a position to judge as long as they are healthy. I recently told my osteopath that I'm a vegan and got all kinds of grief. Then she saw my fantastic blood work and vitals and didn't say another word.

Meanwhile, my husband, who has been vegan for less than 2 years (straight from omni), takes supplements sporadically, and had very low B12. I take fewer supplements and my B12 was high. The message here, like the message with the dogs, is that everyone is different and we don't respond uniformly to the same food or supplements. The ideal scenario is to establish a baseline, whether it's your blood work or your dog's, or other observables such as behavior, scratching, poop, breath, energy level, and then make the change (supplements, food, whatever) and retest in three months and six months to see the direction and progress. For all we know, my husband was B12 deficient as an omnivore. His levels are fine now, but if we didn't check them (and those of the creatures), we wouldn't have figured all of this out.

Back to the questions: Do you arm yourself with research and go to the vet to educate him/her? Do you not say anything at all or lie when they ask you what the animal eats? (My vet asks every time I go.) Do you politely say that you've done the research and are convinced that a vegan diet is perfectly appropriate for most dogs and has the added bonus of not putting you in a position where you're supporting the needless slaughter of other animals?

Which One Cookbook Do You Recommend?

A gaggle of people have asked me this question recently. They all have some sort of holiday list, money is tight, and if they could buy just one cookbook to help them in their conversion to veganism from their current omnivorous state, what should it be and why.

The why part is important, as some cookbooks are a bit junk food vegan-ish. And some people want that; they don't necessarily want to change their current calories or fat or sugar or gluten or cooking process. They want to eat what they used to eat, just sans animals. Others, such as raw vegan books, are likely to be quite alien. Then again some people are curious about raw food or agree that it's the only way to go and want to jump in.

Unfortunately, though I can find out more about the askers of this question, they are in a bit of a time crunch because people are buying gifts for them in the next couple of days. If I knew more, I could ask you a more specific question.

With all that said, which cookbook do you recommend to someone who is going to get only one, and why do you recommend it? My hope is that there will be enough suggestions that the askers will find themselves in the suggestions, and put the appropriate book on their list.

If there are any cons about the book you recommend, please let me know.

Thanks!

All-Purpose Salad-ish Dressing

In my efforts to veganize my friends and family, I've found several things almost everyone wants and that kick start their process. One is vegan dessert. But when I look at my Facebook "Scrumptious Vegan Fare" album, it looks like all I eat is dessert.

And pizza with Daiya vegan cheese.

In fact, an old friend asked for recipes with veggies and I realized I didn't have any photos of veggies! So here's a recipe with veggies that also includes something many omnis enjoy: Vegenaise.

I never liked animal-based mayonnaise or Miracle Whip. But I do enjoy vegenaise. Meanwhile, my omnivorous friends and family tell me it tastes just like mayonnaise and that's why they like it. Go figure.

I mix Vegenaise with:

• Whatever mustard I have lying around
• Sweet relish
• Dill, or not
• Pepper, or not
• Red Star nutritional yeast

I use equal parts of vegenaise, mustard and relish, but I've seen several recipes where vegenaise is the main ingredient. It all depends on what you like, and I've made this dressing a dozen times, never the same way, and it's great every time.

The salad part is usually:

• Carrots
• Celery
• Zucchini
• Yellow Squash
• Cucumber
• Red onion
• Green leaf or romaine lettuce
• Black olives
• Whatever else is lying around that's good in a salad.

If I want to give the salad chunks of something other than veggies, and add more protein, I toss in mashed garbanzo beans, chopped Gardein, tofu, seitan or tempeh. Not necessary, but fun.

Whether over a bed of lettuce or in a pita or a sprouted grain wrap, it's perfect for lunch or dinner, low fat (as long as you don't heap in the vegenaise, and they do have a low-fat version), high fiber, great protein and very filling.

Here's lunch from today. The orange tinge is due to my love of nutritional yeast. I used one can of garbanzos and one tablespoon each of vegenaise, mustard and relish, and probably 4 tablespoons of nutritional yeast. This is one quarter of the total bowl of vegan goodness.

Delectable!

A Win-Lose Proposition for Farmers and Consumers

From the website of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture:

Washington, DC - The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) this week released a proposal to address the critical economic situation of American dairy, pork, and poultry producers, while simultaneously providing much-needed nutritional assistance to Americans facing hunger due to job loss and other economic hardships.

People whose careers involve creating, fattening, transporting and slaughtering sentient nonhumans whose parts and secretions will then be used as food are having some financial difficulties.

Along with the rest of the country.

To "help these industries survive this economic downturn and gain a solid footing for the future,"  NASDA is proposing a "bold solution: a plan to take extra inventories off the market to reduce supply, all while providing vital nutritious, protein-rich foods to those who are unable to afford them, which is in more demand now than ever before."

Translation? First let's deconstruct:

• The recession has caused a decrease in demand for animal products. I say stop right there, as Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman and Jonathan Safron Foer could be behind the decrease. We don't really know. We do know that a feature of a recession is that all sectors are affected in the same direction, and I don't see anyone proposing a bold solution for writers or editors.
• What if consumers have genuinely been paying attention and have realized that animal products aren't that healthy, are an environmental disaster (the way most are produced) and not sustainable and are a blatant, direct signs of the largest and longest injustice in human history? What if Meatless Mondays and all of the messages about decreasing consumption of animal products have made a difference and consumers have spoken? What if this has nothing to do with the recession or less than one might think (nothing's a tough sell)? Why the rescue plan? The market has spoken; this is supposed to be capitalism, not corporate socialism.

But all of that aside, the bold solution is: Americans who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would be the targeted consumers of the surplus (in addition to military food assistance programs in places like Afghanistan).

"By removing these excess products off the market, and placing them into food assistance programs, we will quickly stabilize the prices for these products, allowing the producers to break-even, or perhaps even make a profit on their farms.  Simultaneously, our fellow citizens struggling to put food on their table will find themselves with more opportunities for healthy, protein-rich meals.”

So people with lower incomes, who already have higher incidences of obesity and diabetes and already don't eat as well as people with higher incomes, will be the intended consumers of exactly the type of foods they don't need to be eating. And that's being done as a favor of sorts, a gift to them by the benevolent NASDA.

Perhaps just as ironic is the mission of the NASDA, which includes "protection of animal and plant health, stewardship of our environment, and promoting the vitality of our rural communities."

Preparing for the Onslaught

My husband has two friends (a male/female couple) who are transitioning from vegetarian to vegan and I also have two friends (both women) who are transitioning from omnivore and all are dreading Thanksgiving. The conversations with family and friends have already begun about "Turkey Day." And of course if you correct someone and say "Dead Turkey Day," you're "buzzkill," or imposing your beliefs or being judgmental.

Here's today's question: When a group of omnivores begins the inevitable round of jokes about veganism and even about slaughter ("I love turkeys--with sweet potatoes," or my cousin this week on Facebook, "I love the cow, therefore I eat her cheese," or something equally insensitive and ignorant), what do you do?

I've had family members ask me to refrain from "proselytizing" to not "spoil the day" for everyone and to "give it a rest" and let everyone eat in peace. Everyone clearly doesn't include the turkey and the other animals on the table. I haven't had a Thanksgiving with family members in years.

But what do you say to those friends at a table of say, 10, who deliver every cliche as if they're the first ones on the planet to think of them. I note the size because many people find it easier to have a serious conversation one-on-one, but in a larger group the dynamic is different. You can't play to everyone in a large group (unless it's homogeneous), so many people don't try.

I have a terrible habit that I developed as a child of stopping a conversation or argument with the worst possible thing I can say. To me, it's efficient and effective because I don't like long, drawn out fights. I'd rather make my point and end things. So I might say, "I fail to find humor in the enslavement, rape, torture and slaughter of anyone. Not humans, not animals." And though my response might initially be met with silence, I usually get a question or two ("What? Rape?"). I doubt anyone has gone vegan due to my response at dinner parties, but I do know that I don't get mocked as often as I used to (except by family members . . . lovely). Now I'm called "hardcore," though.

Is anyone proactive? Does anyone walk into a room or sit at a table and request a moratorium on jokes about what we do to animals? I imagine people I know then calling me "paranoid" or "defensive." How could I even think they'd do something so insensitive? I don't know, maybe 20 years of experience.

It certainly is odd that people who are concerned for justice in some areas are respected, yet in others they are mocked.

Finally, it unfortunately must be said that people mock what they don't understand. And they also lash out with humor in defense of their own practices. Meanwhile, they don't want to be reminded of either of those facts.

Interesting predicament for us: how to be most sensitive to them while they're being completely insensitive to us.

On Changing Tastes

Our guest this weekend, Jackie, is transitioning to veganism. Her hurdle, you might not be surprised to learn, is cheese made from the milk of cows. She eats cow cheese daily.

Wrongheadedly, I was excited to make her nachos-her favorite snack-with Daiya cheddar cheese. I was completely confident that she'd instantly get over her desire for cow cheese. But my effort backfired and was met with either a "yuck" or an "ew" - I'm trying my best to wipe the disappointing moment from memory.

The texture apparently is "slimy" (which is true, mid-cook, which it wasn't when she tried it. Prior to that it isn't slimy, and after that it does congeal almost like cow cheese) and she says it doesn't taste like the cheese she eats daily.

In retrospect, and after Tweeting a bunch about it and getting some great thoughts from fellow tweeters/twitterers, going the route of replacing someone's favorite food with a vegan alternative designed to replicate it might not be a great idea. Instead, I probably should have made some food with nutritional yeast and other unlike-cow-cheese-and-having-a-completely-different-taste combos. Or just stayed away from the topic of cheese. That way, Jackie wouldn't be comparing what she was eating to what she ate 24 hour hours prior.

Later in the afternoon in the Twittosphere someone asked who likes nutritional yeast and I responded that at first I disliked it immensely, and now I have a shaker full of it (with ground walnuts and sea salt) in my refrigerator and I use it daily (it's cheaper than buying Parma, which I'm knocking off). This led me to research taste and taste buds a bit and unsurprisingly discover that they change with time.

I started thinking about what I used to think was tasty, and what repulsed me. Avocados, for instance, made me gag as a child, as did any type of olive. And I now have a dozen recipes, raw and not, that feature avocados, and I'm not above eating half an avocado smeared on a slice or two of Ezekiel toast for breakfast. And I thought about tofu, many vegetables, seaweed, and even grains that are staples of my diet now but I didn't enjoy them when I first stopped eating animals.

My tastes (and taste buds) have changed and now I look forward to the food I eat and can't imagine eating any other way. Food is enjoyable and makes me feel good. Meals aren't events I have to recover from or take a nap after. But they look and taste very different from my meals of 25 years ago.

There's no substitute for the time it takes to acquire the taste for foods you don't like or are just so different from what you're used to that you don't know what to do with them (mentally), which was the case for me with nutritional yeast. This isn't to say I consciously approach veganism as acquiring tastes--I hadn't thought about most of this until yesterday. But time certainly has worked in favor of my vegan diet, and I now know that not liking the taste of something the first time you try it doesn't mean you won't like it the second or third or twentieth time. Then again, after nearly 43 years I still can't stomach raw tomatoes and I do try them every couple of months.

Fortunately, this weekend we also made roasted vegetable baked ziti and not only did Jackie enjoy it for dinner, but she ate the leftovers for breakfast. And we made a cheesy, beany, guacamole dip from Alicia Silverstone's The Kind Diet, in addition to Silverstone's chocolate peanut butter cups (above), and no one (not even the omni who popped in for a visit) complained about the taste or texture of either.

Yes, those are black olives in the guacamole dip. I bought them at the olive bar at Whole Foods (in other words, they weren't canned and sliced and pitted) and I thought they tasted great.

And yes, I put chopped tomatoes on only half of it. Some taste preferences may never change.

New Factual Table for Vegans

Check out this new table by Factual that helps you instantly locate vegan restaurants in the US, and includes mapquest links as well as links to reviews. Would you use it? What do you think about the idea and how it is executed? (I am not involved in any way other than I was asked to post it for feedback.)