World Vegan News - April 4 2007
|
Section Four, "The Week in Review," of the Sunday, April 1 New York Times has two articles of interest to animal advocates. There is an editorial (the paper's official opinion) about whaling, and an article about free-range meat.
The editorial, headed, "Japan's Whaling Obsession," (Pg 11) opens with:
"Humans should be careful when criticizing other humans about the industrial slaughter of animal species. It is hard to find moral ground.
"There was one small, bright spot of global consensus: whales. It took a very long time, but most of the world agreed that these wonderful, sociable mammals, at least, should be granted a stay of extinction. Most of the world, but not all. A few outlying countries continue commercial or dubiously scientific whale hunts, notably Japan, which clings to its whaling ways long past the expiration of any defensible reasons for doing so."
You'll find the whole piece on line at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/opinion/01sun2.html.
The same section holds a piece by Paul Vitello, headed, "Being Nice to the Bacon, Before You Bring It Home." It tells us: "When Burger King announced last week that it would favor producers who treated their animals more humanely it was welcome news to animal welfare advocates. But it also served to remind the rest of us that if we are meat eaters, we are slaughterers, too. At least by proxy.
"To farmers and ranchers who raise animals for food, the feeding, housing and killing of livestock is an unbroken continuum that delivers a product to people far removed from its production - city folk who work in advertising, or whatever it is that city people do.
"Animals are for petting, not killing. Meat, unrelated, is for eating. And never the twain shall meet."
The article discusses the growing interest in the welfare of farmed animals, to where Temple Grandin, renowned in that field, says, "I feel we're at a tipping point now."
And it discusses the recent Burger King announcement:
"Beginning in the 1990s, animal welfare advocates like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals began virtually force-feeding the consuming public on certain realities of so-called factory farming.
"For the sake of production efficiencies and a low-cost food supply, they explained, cows, pigs and poultry are often condemned to sunless, sometimes squalid lives, only to die with needless cruelty. These advocates led protests against the largest hamburger chains, beneficiaries of the factory system.
"After initial resistance, in 2001 the chains agreed to some improvements. McDonald's and Burger King imposed some guidelines for their meat and egg suppliers: extra water, wing-room and fresh air for egg-laying hens; mandatory electric-shock stunning of pigs and cattle before slaughter.
"Last week, Burger King went further. In an agreement that PETA and other advocates called 'a historic advance,' it said it would favor suppliers who did not confine their chickens and pigs in cages and crates, and who used gas rather than electric shock to knock out chickens before slaughter.
"Perhaps this is more than you want to know about the life and death of the creatures who made that ham and eggs on your plate possible. But by most indicators, many Americans are increasingly interested in asking...."
The article raises some interesting questions:
"It might seem hypocritical to address the quality of life of a creature being raised exclusively to be killed for food. Mr. Waldau, who has degrees in law, religion and philosophy, said that the issue was not meat eating per se, but one's responsibility for one's choices as a consumer. Whether to eat the meat of animals treated abysmally during their lifetimes or to buy so-called blood diamonds or clothing made in sweatshops, become parallel questions, he said.
"Both Mr. Waldau and Ms. Grandin see the animal welfare movement in the context of 50 years of American political evolution, and the profound shift of attitudes that accompanied the civil rights and women's movements."
You'll find the whole article on line at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/weekinreview/01vitello.html.
Both pieces present great opportunities for letters about the way we treat other species. Those who don't eat them can take this opportunity to sing the praises of plant-based diets.
The New York Times takes letters at letters@nytimes.com.
(DawnWatch is an animal advocacy media watch that looks at animal issues in the media and facilitates one-click responses to the relevant media outlets. You can learn more about it, and sign up for alerts at http://www.DawnWatch.com. You may forward or reprint DawnWatch alerts if you do so unedited -- leave DawnWatch in the title and include this parenthesized tag line. If somebody forwards DawnWatch alerts to you, which you enjoy, please help the list grow by signing up. It is free.)
