Animal Person

On PF Changs and Vegan Authors

The PF Chang update, in case you haven't seen the response from the restaurant, is thus, once you incorporate the actual experiences of vegans who have gone through something similar with the restaurant: If you don't eat non-vegan sugar, there aren't many options. If you don't consider the sugar a major transgression, you have many choices. Everyone has their line in the sand. Also, ask to speak with the chef (my information, even about most of the tofu not being vegan, came from the chef via the server, by the way).

The slightly-larger question is every other restaurant. I feel bad that I picked on PF Chang's, as the Italian restaurant I frequent most likely uses sugar in its marinara, even if just a bit. And I doubt they use beet sugar, date sugar or agave nectar.

And the much-larger question is the idea of animal ingredients versus non-animal ingredients that were processed using animal ingredients, and that of course expands, ad infinitum, into every area of our lives (e.g., municipal water).

Face it, we'd like to avoid all products with animals in them but we can't even do that realistically, and to expect ourselves to also avoid non-animal products that have been processed with animal products is a bit much. Now, if you happen to know that non-vegan ingredients or processing took place, and you can easily avoid it, great! If not, don't flog yourself over it. Removing the flesh and secretions of sentient nonhumans from your diet, and removing their skin and hair from your clothing, and buying household products that don't have animal ingredients and weren't tested on animals, and refusing to participate in entertainment that involves animals, are the major issues. You are preventing untold exploitation and suffering by tackling them.

As for vegan authors, in response to Deb's query about bloggers, here are a couple of things to think about:

• Book deals get canceled for all kinds of reasons, and sometimes they have nothing to do with the author or the book. Sometimes the person who championed the book goes elsewhere. Sometimes the publisher decides to switch gears. Sometimes it's about money. Sometimes there's word that some celebrity is about to write a similar book, thereby eclipsing any potential audience you ever had. Sometimes the publisher's attorney says the book is too risky for some reason.

Of course, everyone takes it personally when their Yes turns into a No, and I can say that I have had clients who were so devastated by this that they stopped writing. But that's a borderline silly reaction, as things happen that we have no control over and if you got one Yes you can get another. Publishing is a numbers game.

• If a publisher is purchasing your words and you are already making the same ones available for free on your blog, why should they buy them? Books based on blogs have to have a significant amount of new information/posts/concepts in them.
• Many book deals are made after an article or two is published, and in fact agents will tell you that writing for magazines is a great way to build your platform and credibility. However, you can't simply say that the content of your book is all of the articles you've written. Again, a book must have a significant amount of original content to be salable.

If enough people care, I can write about self-publishing, which used to be a dirty word but isn't so much anymore. Let me know.

On Vegan Devastation at PF Chang's

From VegCooking, courtesy of PeTA:

The vegan-friendly attitude of P.F. Chang's is largely due to the number of requests that management receives for meatless cuisine. Vegan dishes are among the bestsellers. One manager told PETA Eats that most people prefer the vegetarian lettuce wraps over those with chicken. Wok-seared tofu, red onions, and water chestnuts with hints of mint and lime and served with cool lettuce leaves are a combination that few can turn down.

Balderdash, I tell you!

Oh, the humanity! There I was, going to lunch with newbie vegan, Cristy, who is terrified of restaurants since going vegan.

M: Oh, but you don't have to worry at PF Chang's! Not only do they have vegan entrees, but they will substitute tofu for any meat in any dish, so you can eat just about anything on the menu!

C: What a relief. It would be great to go to a place and not feel like a freak and have them understand and also have plenty of stuff for my (non-vegan) husband.

The server (S) comes over and I brag to the server about Cristy's newfound veganism and what a relief it is to go to a place that has so many options.

S: There's only one thing on our menu that's vegan. Vegans are people who don't eat any animal products, and that includes foods that have been processed with sugar that is made with bone char. All of our sauces have sugar with bone char as does all of our tofu except the silken tofu. Our soy sauce has sugar with bone char, so even that wouldn't be acceptable to a vegan.

M: (long, long pause) So the spring rolls, the vegetarian lettuce wraps and the Ma Pa Tofu I've been eating for years are not vegan?

S: No. But you can get the Buddha's Feast, without the sauce, and with steamed silken tofu instead of the five-spice tofu. That's the only thing that's suitable for vegans. Everything else has chicken stock, oyster sauce or non-vegan sugar.

Now, of course, we have confirmed Cristy's fears--that she will likely be eating animals and not know it. The server clearly knew what she was talking about, but all of that only came out because of what I said. Meanwhile, PF Chang's (http://twitter.com/PFChangs) got a steady stream of tweets from yours truly yesterday. Here's their Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pfchangs and here's the "Contact Us" form that's easy to fill out and submit. It's probably more powerful if you were just there and have something to say about your "Dining Experience" (they ask which franchise and at what time you visited).

And it might not be so great if you draft your comment while angry, and end up with:

I was shocked and dismayed to learn that your menu is not vegan friendly. I have been dining at PF Chang's for years under the impression that your Ma Pa Tofu, spring rolls, and vegetarian lettuce wraps were all vegan. And in fact several websites that serve the vegan community mention how friendly you are to vegans.

I understand that the most prominent ingredient that is not vegan in your sauces and tofu is sugar made with bone char. Surely there is another source of sugar and tofu that would make your restaurant a place vegans would frequent again. But until then, unfortunately, the vegans that I am in contact with through my blog and through twitter and other venues online and not, will be dining elsewhere.

Reminds me of how my mother used to say: Write a letter to the person you're upset with, but don't mail it until the next day.

My favorite PF Chang's feature was that it was a chain. I could go to Princeton and there it was. Asheville? Check (it's a newer one). Northern Virginia? Check. Long Island? Check. No need for happycow.net, and friendly to non-vegans.

But I was misinformed.

I'm over it already. I'm good like that--devastated for an hour or two, then pretty much neutral about anything. It's the Buddhist in me, I guess.

But if it's important to you, give PF Chang's a holler and let them know how you feel.

Gluten-Free Coconut Almond Cookies

By popular request, here's the recipe I tweaked from one on the back of a flour package. Veganized it, almonded it up a bit, and then made half the batter with dark chocolate chips and half with raw almond slivers.

1 cup sugar (hey, it's a holiday weekend)
1/2 cup Coconut Butter (or Earth Balance, I suppose)
1/3 cup Coconut Milk (as in milk from the carton, not the canned product. Used Regular Unsweetened. I suppose Vanilla Unsweetened Almond Milk would be just fine, too.)
2 tsp vanilla extract
1 tsp almond extract
3/4 cup White Rice Flour
1/3 cup Coconut Flour
2 Tbsp Potato Starch
1/2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp baking soda
1/4 cup raw, sliced almonds
1/4 cup dark chocolate chips

Preheat oven to 350. Cream together butter and sugar. Add vanilla and almond extracts and coconut milk. Separately, mix dry ingredients (except almonds and chips). Add dry to wet. Cut batter in half (or not) and mix almonds into one half and chocolate chips into the other (or not). Bake in lightly greased mini-muffin pan for 10-12 minutes according to the original recipe, but it took 15 minutes for my oven to produce perfection.

Enjoy!

On Compassionate Carnivores and Betrayal

Stephanie's post about "The Compassionate Hypocrite" on Saturday reminded me of what Catherine Friend and other "compassionate carnivores" are doing in addition to twisting the definition of compassionate beyond recognition. Their claim is that what has become the customary way to take sentient nonhumans from babyhood to untimely death is not humane. It's cruel. There's no "compassion" in the process. It's impersonal and hideously ugly and the animals suffer greatly.

No argument here.

However, the solution they have created, which harkens back to before industrialized agriculture, is simply to still raise animals for their flesh and secretions, and for profit, but to do it the old-fashioned way. No factory farms, no large-scale operations where animals are crammed together under a roof, never to see the light of day. No hormones, no "feed" that is unnatural for them and/or genetically modified.

I'd say no argument here if this were some kind of sanctuary situation, and the animals were in need of a loving home for the rest of their lives. But the entire purpose, which cannot be glossed over with any amount of creepy love letters, is that Friend and her ilk are being kind to the animals because they believe animals who are less stressed are tastier, and because, just like the CAFO owners, they will profit from their efforts (and perhaps more, as they charge a premium).

Yes, I do think it's better to have lived a comfortable life and then be slaughtered than to have been tortured the entire time and then be slaughtered.

But looking at it that way is allowing Friend and others to distract you from a far more important issue: none of this is necessary or justified. No one needs to eat sentient beings, so it's not as if these "farmers" are providing a valuable service to humanity. And regardless of how you treat someone when they're live and regardless of how you kill them, if you don't need to kill them and you're doing so merely to please your palate, how do you justify what you're doing? You can't (at least not in a meaningful way).

Getting people to move their focus from the final chapter of the story of the animals--and I don't mean how they died, but that they died--allows you to appear to be the good guy. It allows you to swoop in with an alternative to the disgraceful human behavior that is factory farming and provide a kindler, gentler way to partake of the flesh of others. And if those whom you're addressing are willing to drink the KoolAid you're serving, plenty of profit awaits.

But the real good guy is the one who, like Cheri and Jim and Howard and Harold says (and this is my paraphrasing of everyone): Yes, I have profited from the lives and deaths of sentient nonhumans. And now I regret that because I realize there is simply no way to raise an animal with the intent to kill that animal and call it anything but betrayal. I wouldn't do it to a dog, and I shouldn't do it to a chicken/sheep/cow/pig. It's just not right.

Betrayal, according to the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. A treacherous giving up to an enemy. (Here, that enemy being Death.)

2. A violation of trust or confidence, an abandonment of something committed to one's charge.

Interesting definitions of betray include:

2. a. To be or prove false to (a trust or him who trusts one); to be disloyal to; to disappoint the hopes or expectations of.

4. a. To lead astray or into error, as a false guide; to mislead, seduce, deceive (the trustful).

There is no question about the motive here: seduce the sheep into believing you care so that they are easier to deal with and easier to lead to slaughter. At least CAFO owners don't use that kind of deceit--of their customers, the animals and themselves.

On the Eating of Seafood

"We are fighting a war against fish, and we are . . . winning."

The End of the Line opens (limited release) next week. That brief trailer could be a gift in the disguise of paradoxical message about how we can still kill and eat fish, yet not be at war with them. I guess war is defined by death count.

It might be a gift because those pescetarian holdouts we all know who are convinced that for some strange reason eating animals from the sea is not as bad as eating those who live on land, might be convinced that their decision is a bit misguided.

As a way of taking the situation into your own hands and not being a part of the problem, the film's site offers you this widget:

Now, I haven't seen the film, but here's the message: There's something rotten in the state of the fishing industry. We are overfishing, over-trawling, and mutilating and slaughtering bycatch by the millions of tons (17-39 million tons/year, not including marine mammals, sea bids and some invertebrates). Oh, and this is a war we've declared and we're winning.

To then present a widget that helps you eat seafood is strange. That tells me that we're still at war, as we are going to continue to kill fish because we can and we want to. That tells me that, yeah, it's bad that our behavior can actually lead to "the end of seafood by 2048" (and notice how they don't say the end of fish), but that's because it'll lead to the end of somebody we want to eat, and we can't have that!

What about that most obvious of solutions, that requires no cognitive dissonance at all. What about the way to end the war we've waged and save the fish and the oceans is to stop the war! Stop eating fish and other sea dwellers and this problem goes away (and yes, I am over-simplifying). If you don't want to be complicit in the war, don't be complicit in the war.

You don't need a widget to do the right thing.

Go vegan.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Call for 20-year fishing ban in a third of oceans (guardian.co.uk)
• An Inconvenient Truth for Fish (telegraph.co.uk)
• World Oceans Day: Imagine a World Without Fish (greenskeptic.blogspot.com)

Will You Check Out Food, Inc.?

Food, Inc. was at the Delray Beach Film Festival last weekend, about 30 miles south of me. But I wasn't. Nothing about its "Alliances" (or it's "Issues") screams vegan, or even whispers it, but I shall reserve judgment. If more people eat actual food as a result (i.e., less processed food and more fresh, organic fruits, veggies, grains and legumes), than I'm thrilled. If it steers (sorry about the pun) people toward animals raised in places other than factory farms, where they will still be killed, I'm not thrilled.

My guess is I'll get some of both.

If you've seen it at a festival, let us know how it was!

Finally, are you convinced that there's nothing in it for you and the message you live by? Will you not check it out?

On Flourless Cakes and Injuries

This, dear readers, is my new obsession. Though I have never had an issue with gluten, I have decided to lower my intake of it as an experiment, just to see if I feel any kind of difference.

I began my journey by discovering something you all probably know, which is that you can substitute cooked black-eyed peas or adzuki beans for flour, like in the recipe for the above vegan flourless chocolate cake. I may never use flour again. In fact, I'm going to make either cookies or scones later today because I cooked way, way too many black-eyed peas and I don't want them to go to waste.

If you follow me on Twitter (http://www.twitter.com/mary_martin) you know that I've had an interesting combo grande of physical issues, afflicting both me and my creatures.

• Violet was hopping into the Honda Element to run errands with my husband. Any excuse to go in the see-ay-are is fine with her. Even a trip around the block is fun. Her front legs were in the car but her back feet never made it and somehow were under the car while she slipped slowly backward and onto her back. I wasn't there and my husband isn't great in a crisis--he stands, mouth agape, completely frozen, and watches whatever train wreck is occurring rather than jumping in to try to help. And so we ended up with this--

And after a $250 vet trip it became this--

What we couldn't see until her leg was shaved was that next to the deep wound is a large bloody bump of a wound. But she galloped and pranced this morning and as long as the bandage stays on she'll be fine.

• I was leaving the house on Friday and slipped on a filmy, shiny substance on the tile next to the ironing board, and my feet flew out from under me and I landed, cartoon-style, right on my tailbone. And the iron fell off the board and headed straight for my head, so I blocked it with my arm. I lay there for minutes, in full-on Munchian Scream--

I could scream only to myself as I was in so much pain that I couldn't muster up the energy to make any noise.

Oh, and I forgot to tell you that I had been so run down that I was coughing and had lost my voice (no, not swine flu) and then developed a fever.

• Charles Hobson Booger, III has been to I believe 4 vets (some several times) and hasn't been able to use his back right leg for 5 months (and yes, atrophy has set in). He has had various diagnoses and treatments, and none have made a difference. We will drive about 3 hours north tomorrow morning at 5am for our 8am appointment at Affiliated Veterinary Specialists for an MRI and/or bone scan and soft-tissue scan. He may have a nerve sheath tumor, which is inoperable but can be tackled via radiation. All I want is for my poor boy to be able to use his leg properly. And obviously to not be in pain.

So after the corn removal, it wasn't the corn. After the ligament medication it wasn't the ligament. After all of the x-rays and injecting pain blocker into his knee joint (and him screaming in pain), it wasn't the knee joint. After all of the groin talk, it wasn't the groin.

Frankly it all began when his pinky nail was removed, and my husband thinks perhaps a nerve was damaged or the pinky nail on a greyhound is far more important to balance and gait than you might think. We'll see . . .

Thanks for all of the well wishes. We deal with difficult times with humor, so though it might sound depressing at my house, it's actually pretty funny. And the dogs' spirits are high, as they get plenty of attention and stimulation. And of course, Emily is just as opinionated and irritable as ever, and still shows no sign of dying from her FIP. It's all good, and we'll get through this just fine. A lot lighter in the bank account, but it's worth it!

Huffington Post Posts Vegan "Projects"

Because there are only 5 comments, it might be nice to go on over to Huffington Post's "Vegan Holiday Baking Projects" article and have a say. Why the heck they're called "projects," I'll never figure out. If they were nonvegan, would they be called "projects?" They're all desserts, so why not call them that? In fact, I think I'm going to go over there right now and mention that.

Here's my comment: As a vegan who bakes weekly, I must say that it's not half the big deal it's made out to be. It's easy, it's not expensive, and the food is delicious and far healthier (with zero cholesterol) than the nonvegan varieties. Calling the desserts "projects" merely sets up the reader to have an expectation that what's ahead shall be "work" and maybe even difficult or treacherous (and in need of being tackled), and who knows how it will all end!

It's just dessert. And it involves ingredients. Some are different than the ones you're used to using. They can all be found in my local grocery; I rarely go to Whole Foods or a health food store. It's a "project" as much as baking any other dessert is a "project."

On Vegans in Minnesota and Pigs in Florida

It's currently 19 degrees Fahrenheit but "feels like 10" in Minneapolis, MN according to weather.com. My brother- and sister-in-law and my adorable niece Gracie Pants live nearby, as does Colleen and the rest of the wonderful people at the Animal Rights Coalition.

"I heard there's rumors on the Internets" that last week brought the premiere of Meagan Holtgrewe's new cooking show "Rhymes With Vegan" for us all to enjoy from the warmth and comfort of our own homes. The first episode brings seitan and tofu kabobs with chipotle barbeque sauce, mashed potatoes with chives and edamame with toasted sesame oil. I like the production because it's fun and varied and has funky music and editing. Meagan talks about veganism, explains ingredients, and makes it seem easy and not at all exotic to be a vegan in your backyard cooking on a grill.

The website is filled with recipes and also recipe cards, which I'm going to vote for more of because their easily printable. I'm thinking about Grandpa Earl's Stuffing for Thanksgiving if I go back to a more traditional menu (nothing like planning a whole 48 hours in advance!).

Check out Rhymes With Vegan, and stay tuned for more . . .

Entirely unrelated, except that the message came from vegan Michele at PPS, is that Pig Tales Sanctuary in North Florida (about four hours from me), which I didn't know existed until yesterday, is in dire need of help. Here's all you need to know about founder Lory Yazurlo:

Lory Yazurlo, paralyzed since her truck accident in 1991, took it upon herself to create a Farm Sanctuary devoted to saving pigs from eventual abuse and slaughter. At present she houses nearly 500 pigs, including PotBellies, on her 20 acres of land. Yazurlo, with the help of family members and friends, turned a flat, weed laden piece of land into a protective area where pigs can live out the rest of their lives in natural surroundings. “I consider this land holy ground”, said Lory. “Nothing gets killed or sold for slaughter”. One would wonder why someone would accept financial difficulties when all they need to do is sell a few pigs to a slaughterhouse for thousands of dollars in return. Lory Yazurlo’s answer is simple: “I’m a vegetarian because I don’t believe in killing, even for food”. Lory refuses to partake in any foods that come from animals, including eggs, milk or animal oils.

From the e-mail I received, I think there are currently fewer than 500 pigs (I was told "a few hundred"), but one's enough for me.

The situation is that Lory doesn't have enough help or money, some of the pigs are indeed suffering, and the local "Humane" Society is about to round up all the pigs and haul them all off to slaughter (you know, the "euthanasia" kind). Michele writes: "The solution to this problem is really not that difficult or insurmountable if enough people - even just 5 or 10 to start with - pitch in and help out.  Since the sanctuary already exists, the hardest part,  finding a place for the pigs to live out their lives, is already done."

Here's the need: volunteers to save the pigs and reorganize the sanctuary so it isn't closed and the animals aren't killed or displaced, and donations. Note that other sanctuaries are filled to capacity, so displacement isn't as likely as death for the pigs. The How You Can Help page has contact information on it. If you know anyone in North Florida who might be able to volunteer for any amount of time (but I'm sure regularly is desperately needed), please contact them. Pigs are probably the creatures most vilified by humans, and if this sanctuary were filled with horses or dogs I'm sure that help would be more plentiful.

Unfortunately.

On "Food" Prices and Veganism

Reuters' "Steep Food Price Increases on Way: Experts" (yes, that really is the title) does something I haven't seen before, and I wonder if the reporter, Charles Abbott, even realized he was doing it. He equates animals with food, but in a different way than we're accustomed to.

Let's deconstruct:

• The first sentence is: "U.S. food prices will rise by at least 7 percent in 2009 because of higher feed costs for chickens, hogs and cattle, said a group of food-industry economists on Thursday." That tells me that products made from animals will be more expensive--what we call "meat" will be more expensive. "Dairy products" and eggs will be more expensive. But those products are not equivalent to "food." They're subsets of food (remember Venn diagrams? Animal products would be inside the larger circle called "food").
• You're being unreasonable and presumptuous, says my conscience. Just wait, broccoli's about to skyrocket, too, and Charles Abbott is about to tell you why. Abbott continues: "Although grain prices have declined since summer, this year's corn, wheat and soybean crops are forecast to fetch prices at the farm gate that are double their 2005 levels. Corn and soybeans are major ingredients in feed rations."  Again, back to "meat" and such.
• The people Abbott spoke to are: a representative from the National Chicken Council and Thomas Elam from Farm Econ, who has been named a Poultry USA "Top Gun" consultant to the US Poultry Industry. So Abbott consulted the animal exploitation industry only, which is fine with me. What's not fine with me is the "meat" equals food assumption. What's not fine with me is saying you consulted "food-industry economists," when you spoke with people who kill animals for a living or consult for people who kill animals for a living. There's more to food than the death of sentient nonhumans.
• Elam, by the way, says that "poultry, hog and cattle producers would cut production in coming months because of feed costs, meaning less meat on the retail market but at higher prices."

Here's a tip for anyone who complains about their increasing grocery bill: eliminate the most expensive part. Animal products are more expensive than ever, are not particularly healthy, are far more responsible for climate change than Al Gore will admit to (even now--in today's NYT--what is wrong with him?), and they require the unnecessary exploitation, torture and killing of beings as sentient as the goldendoodle Barack Obama is thinking of buying for his daughters. It's never been a better time to go vegan.

On Cat Colonies and Kids Who Mimic Their Parents' Diets

It's official. "Kids Mimic Parents' Diets From an Early Age.

In a study of 120 young children who were allowed to "buy" food from a play grocery store, researchers found that even 2-year-olds tended to mirror their parents' usual food choices. . . .

The findings, reported in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, suggest that even very young children do not indiscriminately reach for candy when given the chance. Instead, they seem to already be forming food preferences -- potentially lasting ones -- based on their parents' shopping carts. . . .

That, the researchers say, means that the grocery store can be like a classroom, where parents teach their children that foods like fruits, vegetables and whole grains take priority over snacks and desserts. . . .

"Nutrition interventions for children most often begin with school-aged children," Sutherland [Dr. Lisa, of Dartmouth Medical School] and her colleagues write. "This study suggests that preschool children are already forming food preferences and are attentive to food choices made by their parents."

This of course makes sense, as most kids will mimic the behavior and choices of their parents.

The update on the cat colony is that while the cats are quickly multiplying (climate change is helping to "fuel the kitty birthrate explosion"), the City of West Palm Beach says it's not their job to help in any positive way (they will trap and kill the cats, which I wasn't putting under "desirable outcome"). All but one local shelter won't sterilize ferals, and the one that will is right near me, which is great. The only problem is that the cats aren't near me--they're about 15 miles away.

Oh, and the shelter charges $55, which is outrageous.

Animal Care and Control's Spay Shuttle isn't in service and won't be for at least a month ($15/cat), and their satellite office in another part of the county (45 minutes away) isn't operational yet.

Oh, and the local TNR group has no funds (which isn't a problem, as I'll pay and fundraise) and isn't a 501c3 yet so evidently many people won't donate to them, which I find ludicrous.

I was referred to several people by Alley Cat Allies, but they either didn't return my calls and e-mails or never called me back after they said they'd call around. I was told by a woman with the TNR group that people keep rounding up the kittens and putting ads in the paper to adopt them, thereby preventing cats in shelters from being adopted (and surviving), and she prefers to return the kittens to the streets, which I thought was odd. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

I've spoken to a dozen people, and none said they would be able to help (I wasn't asking for them to do everything, just to help). When I said I would pick up the cats and bring them in and pay for them, suddenly the stories changes and there were people available to at least trap the cats. Maybe. But I might have to do it all myself, they said (which is logistically improbable given my schedule).

It must be exhausting and depressing dealing with the enormous cat overpopulation problem we have here in South Florida, because everyone I spoke with sounding annoyed, devoid of hope and sad. That's one of the reasons why I don't do a lot of direct rescue work with animals--I don't think I could take it. I think I'd become despondent and misanthropic having to deal with the apathy (not to mention cruelty) of the human race. I have defined parameters for my activism based on the maintenance of my emotional and mental health, which might sound selfish, but it keeps me productive.

There's nothing more frustrating than identifying a problem and trying to find the most effective and efficient way to help, and getting turned down left and right--by the people who are supposed to be on your side.