Archive for the 'Animal Rights' Category

Unattainable perfection versus the attainable good: of cruelty, veganism, and the lamentable Wesley J. Smith

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 24, 2008
in Animal Rights and Veganism
. 20 Comments

I’ve debated, over the last forty-eight hours, whether it was worth responding to this risible National Review article (is that a redundancy, I wonder?): Veganism is Murder. Wesley J. Smith, who is apparently writing a book about the animal rights movement, opines:

Listening to animal-rights activists bray on about the wrongness of slaughtering animals for food — summarized in their advocacy phrase “meat is murder” — one would think that the choice we have is between a diet in which animals are killed and a strictly vegan diet involving no animal deaths.

But life is never that simple: Plant agriculture results each year in the mass slaughter of countless animals, including rabbits, gophers, mice, birds, snakes, and other field creatures. These animals are killed during harvesting, and in the various mechanized farming processes that produce wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, and other staples of vegan diets. And that doesn’t include the countless rats and mice poisoned in grain elevators, or the animals that die from loss of habitat cleared for agricultural use.

Smith is hardly the first to point this out; indeed, serious environmentalists (Smith is neither) have gently made that case to some of the more naive members of the animal rights community. It’s absolutely true that no respirating, masticating, clothes-wearing consuming human can ever claim that the life they live is entirely free from the stain of death. Plant-based agriculture takes lives. A squirrel on the motorway can be crushed as easily by a Toyota Prius as by a Ford Expedition, and the chemicals released by companies making synthetic shoes can do nearly as much harm as is done by those who use real leather. No thoughtful, educated vegan believes the myth of his or her own absolute personal purity. We know, better than most folks, how complicit each of us is in the ongoing Great Crime that human beings are perpetuating against our fellow creatures. Continue reading ‘Unattainable perfection versus the attainable good: of cruelty, veganism, and the lamentable Wesley J. Smith’

Cruelty-free means humans too: some thoughts on a more holistic veganism

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 2, 2008
in Animal Rights, Class, Food, Politics and Veganism
. 9 Comments

On some feminist blogs, there’s been good discussion about veganism and larger issues of race and class. Here’s Elle, BFP, and BFP again. The last of these posts deals with the much-ballyhooed “three-week vegan challenge” that Oprah Winfrey recently completed. There’s a lot of PETA-bashing that goes on, but that’s all-too-common on feminist websites, and I’m not interested in dredging up that old issue once more.

What is valuable in these posts is the discussion of whether or not veganism is, inherently, a cruelty-free lifestyle. Those of us who, like myself, don’t consume animal products in any form (food, clothing, etcetera) tend to describe our modus operandi as “cruelty-free.” When my wife and I were buying our new cars, we went out of our way to special order vehicles without any leather in the interiors whatsoever, a request that led to several months wait and not-inconsiderable expense. Of course, not only was our ability to make that choice rooted in privilege, in some sense it was imperfect — animal byproducts end up in tires and other places. We spoke to the car dealers about our desire to be “completely cruelty-free”, but we both knew as we did so we were pursuing an imperfectly attainable goal.

A vegan lifestyle, of course, doesn’t automatically mean an absence of connection to death. When even organic farms are tilled, little field mice are not infrequently cut to pieces. Most organic vegetables are grown with animal manure, usually collected from farms where animals are raised for meat. Trying to avoid all complicity with the machinery of death is, alas, nigh on impossible. Most vegans know all this, of course. They don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, however, and with the limited options at their disposal, they seek to exercise the best possible choices available in any given situation, recognizing that few if any choices they do make will be truly “cruelty-free.” Continue reading ‘Cruelty-free means humans too: some thoughts on a more holistic veganism’

Hugo’s back pages: of charity galas, sophomoric cynicism, veganism, PETA, socks, and the very real sense that the world can be changed

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 19, 2008
in Age, Animal Rights, Veganism and Youth
. 9 Comments

I’m bleary-eyed at my desk this morning. United flight 33 from JFK to LAX landed at midnight, but it was just five or six hours ago that I finally got into bed. And today is my long day, one which will see me on campus thirteen hours. On the other hand, I am entirely the architect of my own adversity in this regard, so there will be no whining.

We were in New York this weekend to participate in Farm Sanctuary’s annual gala. I wrote a couple of weeks ago about our visit to the Orland farm; we had a very different but nearly-as-enriching experience in Manhattan.

I like events like this, and it’s not because I enjoy running around in black tie and getting goodie bags. (Okay, I do like both of those things, but in moderation.) What I find so exciting and inspiring is the chance to spend an evening in the presence of people with whom I share the same passionate commitments. As any vegan will tell you, spending a lot of time in debate and argument with folks who don’t share those same values can be exhausting and dispiriting. It’s the same thing with feminism, or any other ideological commitment that involves a holistic transformation of how one lives, thinks, acts, and consumes. Being in the presence of those who do what you do, and have often done it longer and more publicly, is galvanizing. Continue reading ‘Hugo’s back pages: of charity galas, sophomoric cynicism, veganism, PETA, socks, and the very real sense that the world can be changed’

Tender-hearted in Tehama County: a weekend at Farm Sanctuary

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 5, 2008
in Animal Rights, Traveling and Veganism
. 5 Comments

My wife and I spent the weekend up in Northern California. (Parenthetically, we really were in Northern California this time, up in Butte, Glenn, and Tehama counties. Like most southlanders, I tend to refer to the Bay Area as “Northern” California when that region is, clearly, closer to the center. My childhood homes in coastal Monterey and rural Alameda counties are almost as close to Mexico as they are to the Oregon border.)

We went up north to attend the spring hoe-down at Farm Sanctuary, which has rapidly become one of our favorite charities. I’ll get pictures up tonight or tomorrow of some of the pigs, geese, goats, sheep, turkeys, rabbits and cows with whom we bonded. We also got to meet vegan animal activists from all across the West, enjoy some delicious food, and hear some inspiring and moving speeches about the next steps for both Farm Sanctuary in particular and the animal rights movement in general. Continue reading ‘Tender-hearted in Tehama County: a weekend at Farm Sanctuary’

Where the Blind Horse Sings

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 28, 2007
in Animal Rights
. 0 Comments

A reader named Anne introduced me to Kathy Stevens’ blog: Where the Blind Horse Sings. Kathy runs an animal shelter in the Catskills, and I’ve just ordered her book. Kathy has a lot to say about animal rights, the cruelty-free lifestyle, and anthropomorphism.

I have a hard time with the concept of anthropomorphism. I work with animals every single day. They arrive at Catskill Animal Sanctuary broken and fearful, and over time, we watch them blossom–often into enormous and unforgettable characters. Interestingly, the process is similar from animal to animal: first they trust their caretakers–those who give them food, shelter and love day after day. Then we watch in delight as they generalize to visitors. Indeed, there is no greater joy than participating in the transformation of these broken spirits, and watching them evolve as dark memories are replaced by consistent positive experience.

How is it that so many people use the term “anthropomorphism” so freely? The impetus for my book Where the Blind Horse Sings: Love and Healing at an Animal Sanctuary was the startling similarity in the emotional lives of humans and animals. Ask anyone at Catskill Animal Sanctuary or come visit or volunteer and discover for yourself: we’d be hard-pressed to name an emotion that animals don’t possess. They display love, tenderness, joy, curiosity, impatience, anger, jealousy, grief and a host of other emotions generally considered the domain of humans. The greatest among the animals display things like courage and compassion…

It is surely true that animals process many things differently than humans do. It is also true that all of the great emotions are genuinely universal. It is not wishful thinking that causes us to believe that the animals in our lives feel pleasure, feel joy, feel grief. And the more aware that we become that other living creatures are sentient and have feelings, the greater our responsibility towards them.

Ingrid Newkirk on Bloomberg and some thoughts on direct action

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 14, 2007
in Animal Rights
. 6 Comments

Last night, I watched a terrific interview with one of my heroes, Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA. She was a guest on Bloomberg television’s Night Talk program, and a clip of part of the interview is available here. Like many feminists, I have criticized certain of PETA’s tactics in the past, but I am deeply committed to PETA’s overall goals. PETA and my favorite charity, PCRM, are closely related and share many of the same board members — even though they rarely employ the same tactics to achieve their goals.

Newkirk is the subject of a new HBO documentary, and has a charming book out just this fall, Let’s Have a Dog Party. She gives a great interview on Bloomberg (as hard news vanishes from the airwaves, I find myself watching that cable business channel more and more often), and deftly answers the question of “extremism”. Suffrage wasn’t won in Britain, Newkirk points out, until “extreme” suffragettes chained themselves to parliament railings; slavery wasn’t ended in the United States until one side was willing to take up arms; civil rights did not come to the south without violent confrontation.

Newkirk’s calm, civil, charming call to direct action reminds me of MLK’s famous Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where the great minister rebukes his fellow (white) pastors who find his direct action and civil disobedience distasteful. King writes:

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

Bold mine. Substitute in “speciesism” for racism, and you’ve got a compelling case for PETA’s direct action in confronting the appalling everyday reality of animal cruelty.

May the good Lord give Ingrid Newkirk many wonderful years on this planet, may He strengthen her in her holy work, and may He give her the words and the tools to help all of us see that all of Creation is equally blessed, equally valuable, equally worthy of protection, dignity, and rights.

Evangelizing for the Animals

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on November 6, 2007
in Animal Rights, Christianity, Faith and Veganism
. 19 Comments

A happy story in the Los Angeles Times this morning: Evangelizing for the Animals.

On Wednesday, clergy from 20 faith traditions — including Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic — will sign a statement declaring a moral duty to treat animals with respect. At a ceremony in Washington, they will call on all people of faith to stop wearing fur, reduce meat consumption, and buy only from farms with humane practices. The Best Friends Animal Society, which brought the group together, plans to recruit volunteers to bring that message into at least 2,000 congregations nationwide.

The evangelical community “is expanding its definition of values to include work on poverty and the environment. We hope to insert concern for animal welfare as well,” said Christine Gutleben, who directs the new “animals and religion” program at the Humane Society of the United States.

That program, funded at $400,000 a year, aims to persuade faith communities to take a series of small steps: offering a vegetarian entree at a fellowship meal, or insisting that the coffee cake set out on Sundays is made with free-range eggs.

The Humane Society is also seeking to enlist religious leaders in its political campaigns. In California, for instance, the group has been pushing a ballot measure to ban certain confinement systems for farm animals. Promotional ads show photos of hens in crowded cages and ask: “Is This Faithful Stewardship of God’s Creatures?”

I’m a member of the Christian Vegetarian Association, and they provide an excellent FAQ about issues of stewardship, dominion, and diet. I’m excited to see even some very conservative evangelicals (the Times article refers to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University) becoming open to issues of conservation and justice for animals. While most traditional Christians are not willing to place animal life on par with human life, it is encouraging to see so many engaged in critical reflection about justice, compassion, and conservation. Real change often needs to happen incrementally, and evangelical openness to animal rights issues is an exciting first step.

My wife went from eating red meat to being completely vegan in the space of a weekend. Pun intended, she gave up a carnivorous lifestyle “cold-turkey.” I went more slowly, surrendering first red meat, then poultry, then fish, then dairy and eggs. (We’ve both felt terrific on our vegan diets, and my wife’s doctors assure her that she will be able to remain vegan throughout any future pregnancy and while nursing a future child.) Asking all Christians to consider veganism may be imposing too much too fast. Asking them to buy meat that has been raised and slaughtered humanely, asking them to include vegetarian and vegan options at social events, and asking church communities to reflect on good stewardship may be the best way to begin.

A helpful and little-known bible passage: Proverbs 12:10. Good people are good to their animals; the “good-hearted” bad people kick and abuse them. The Old Testament world had no concept of “pets” as we do; the animals referred to here are working animals, livestock. If you’re going to raise animals for slaughter, you are required to treate them with kindness. Making that biblically sound point is a vital part of the battle for the hearts, minds, and palates of Christians.

And the Times article contains a tidbit I didn’t know:

Before he became pope, Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) spoke against force-feeding geese to produce foie gras and packing hens so closely “that they become just caricatures of birds.”

Would that he had spoken on the matter ex cathedra. Perhaps soon.

Against “Bambi environmentalism”: a long post on hunting, veganism, cruelty, and the commitment to pleasure

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on October 10, 2007
in Animal Rights, Environmentalism, Favorite posts 2007 and Veganism
. 19 Comments

The latest issue of Sierra, the magazine for Sierra Club members, showed up in our mailbox on Saturday. One article in particular stood out: “Life Itself Is a Risky Process” , an interview with Mary Zeiss Stange, professor of religon and women’s studies at Skidmore College. Stange is a feminist, an environmentalist …and an avid hunter. When she’s not teaching at Skidmore, she and her husband run a bison ranch in Montana.

It’s an interesting interview. Take Stange’s views on women and hunting:

Sierra: How do you explain the differences between men’s and women’s approaches to hunting?

Stange: Even before I became a hunter, I was fascinated by the Greek goddess Artemis, whom the Romans called Diana. One thing that struck me was that the goddess of hunting is also the goddess of childbirth. What do taking life and giving birth have to do with each other? They put you immediately in touch with the fact that everything that lives does so because other things die. Life itself is a risky process. Certainly one of those moments is childbirth. Another is the decision to take the life of a big, beautiful, sentient animal so that you can feed yourself and your family.

Stange gets point for candor, and of course, that last sentence (bold emphasis mine) left me indignant. It’s true that death and life are woven together, and that the survival of many creatures is contingent on their ability to kill and consume other living beings. But the fact that death is inevitable and, in some instances in the animal world, crucial for the survival of species, doesn’t mean that those creatures who have free will and have the means to exercise it shouldn’t do all in their power to struggle to minimize death. Stange and her family don’t need to live off the flesh of another sentient creature. For a 21st century middle-class American, the killing of living beings isn’t a survival imperative — it’s a decision to which there are legitimate alternatives. To pretend otherwise is foolish and cruel. Continue reading ‘Against “Bambi environmentalism”: a long post on hunting, veganism, cruelty, and the commitment to pleasure’

“No, I won’t sponsor you in the Run for Life, but here’s a nice gift certificate for some shoes”: some thoughts on medical charities, athletic events, and being cruelty-free

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 30, 2007
in Animal Rights and Money
. 29 Comments

Just within the past year, my wife and I have become strong supporters of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. After spending a long time flirting with becoming strict vegans, she and I made the final commitment to eliminating the last vestiges of animal product from our diet this past spring, after returning home from the PCRM gala in Washington DC.

One of PCRM’s chief campaigns is to end the use of animals in medical and scientific research. I’ve written about the anti-vivisection movement before. And our growing commitment to the cause of cruelty-free research has led to an interesting and ongoing problem.

Hardly a week goes by in which we are not contacted by friends, former students, colleagues or distant relatives with a request to sponsor one of them in a fundraising event for a medical charity. Because I’m a marathoner and my wife is a triathlete, we regularly hear from those who have made the commitment to train for their first endurance event — and are doing so as a fundraiser for a health-related cause. Even before we got together as a couple, my wife and I were loyal individual contributors to groups that fought AIDS or Breast Cancer or Crohn’s Disease or Leukemia or Multiple Sclerosis or what-have-you. We sponsored friends with amounts small and not-so-small, and threw in as much helpful advice about training as we could.

But now, the obvious dilemma. We are mutually committed no longer to give a single penny to medical research that involves animals. And, sadly, a great many of the leading “disease organizations” sponsor animal-based research. Though many of these organizations do some work that is wonderfully free from cruelty, there exists — in most cases — no way to ensure that no part of a donation will go to any kind of animal-based medical research.

The only medical organizations to which we feel safe donating are those that have received the “Humane Seal” from PCRM. The list is here. It’s interesting to see who’s on it: The American Breast Cancer Fund, for example, is cruelty-free and safe for donations; The Susan B. Komen Foundation (which mainly fights breast cancer and is closely linked with many athletic fundraisers) still sponsors animal research.

Most of the requests we get these days to sponsor a niece, cousin, co-worker or friend would require a donation to a charity that does still fund animal experiments. And so, when we’re asked, we politely decline, explaining our reasons. And we also offer to fund some of the training that is being done. For example, one of my cousins recently did a triathlon in Hawaii to raise money for a medical organization that participates in animal research. We told him we couldn’t sponsor him — but we gave him a goodie-bag filled with gear, gels, socks, and hydration tools. The amount we spent was at least equivalent to what we would have contributed to the medical charity on his behalf.

In other cases, I’ve simply started giving small gift cards to be used at the local running or cycle store. Anyone training for their first big race or endurance event will need lots of stuff, and we are happy to support our loved one in that aspect of helping him or her reach her exciting goal. In this way, we can show our commitment to our friends — and to defenseless creatures.

I’ll admit we’ve had what diplomats call “frank and candid exchanges” with some people who’ve asked for our support. A few have been genuinely outraged (perhaps especially in light of my own father’s death from cancer last year). But when you ask for money for your cause, you’re going to be told — gently and kindly — why we may not be able to support it. But we will offer an alternative.

Oh, and on the vegan/health front: anyone who knows me knows how frequently I get colds. Well, folks, I’m sure I’m about to jinx myself, but since knocking out the last vestiges of dairy products from my diet earlier this year, I’ve been healthier longer than I can ever remember. My body is bouncing back from running-related soreness faster as well, and for someone now in his forties, that is good news indeed…

Justice is not a zero-sum game: some thoughts on Michael Vick, feminism, and animal rights

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 23, 2007
in Aggression and violence, Animal Rights, Feminism and Sports
. 32 Comments

I haven’t blogged about the Michael Vick case yet, largely because I haven’t been sure I had anything I wanted to add to the conversation. I get e-mail updates from just about every animal rights organization you can think of, so I’m following the story both in the mainstream media and through those charities.

On Tuesday, Sandra Kobrin wrote an interesting piece at Women’s E-news: Beat a Woman? Play On; Beat a Dog? You’re Gone. (Hat tip: Feministing.) Excerpt:

…just wish the NFL had the same outrage toward spousal abuse and other forms of domestic violence. But they don’t. Not by a long shot.

Scores of NFL players as well as players from the National Basketball Association and Major League Baseball have been convicted of domestic abuse, yet they play on with no fear of losing their careers. Most pay small fines, if that, and are back on the field immediately.

The message is clear. Beat a woman? Play on. Beat a dog? You’re gone.

Well, to be fair, Vick did more than beat dogs. He tortured many of them to death. That’s more than physical abuse. For those of us who care profoundly about animals, Michael Vick’s case is more like O.J. Simpson’s than, say, Jason Kidd’s. And O.J., despite his acquittal, has been justly ostracised.

But I understand Kobrin’s frustration. The double standard is real. Our cultural tolerance for violence against women — especially when committed by male athletes –is much too high. Much of that is rooted, I think, in the reality that the majority of sports fans and sports writers in this country are heterosexual males. And though most heterosexual men in this country don’t physically abuse their girlfriends and wives, a great many of them are frequently very, very angry at women. On a visceral level, far too many men may empathize with a celebrity athlete who strikes his female partner, assuming that she “made him do it”. Most men don’t condone domestic violence (or won’t do so publicly, particularly in mixed company), but many, I suspect, “understand” how a “normal guy” might “just happen to strike his wife” in the course of a heated argument.

On the other hand, very few men or women in this country regularly murder dogs. Dogs are thought of as members of the family, and rightly so. And because so few men can (thank Goodness!) imagine themselves electrocuting or drowning Spot and Rover, they have no empathy for Michael Vick and the appalling crimes to which he has apparently agreed to plead guilty. It’s this cognitive gap that lies at the heart of the different response to Vick than to those athletes convicted of domestic violence: most men can’t “get” what the Falcons quarterback did in the way that they “get” hitting a spouse when one is exasperated.

Kobrin:

Vick has already lost most of his sponsorship deals worth millions of dollars and he deserves to lose a whole lot more.

But the disproportionate punishment of Vick–while athletes who commit violence against women are let off the hook–has to be wondered at.

Might it be that domestic violence and spousal abuse is so pervasive in sports that it’s simply too costly for leagues to suspend so many men? What would happen after all if those poor dear teams couldn’t fill their rosters?

I wince at Kobrin’s use of “disproportionate.” As an animal rights activist, there’s nothing excessive about Vick’s suspension and loss of endorsements. Indeed, if his jail sentence is in the range of a year or two, it’s woefully inadequate in light of what he did to so many precious, sentient animals. (I’m assuming Koprin meant Vick’s punishment was disproportionately harsh in the light of what is meted out to those who abuse women, and that she didn’t intend to minimize cruelty to animals. At least, that’s my sincere hope.)

It would be very sad if the historically strong alliance between the animal rights community and the feminist movement were to be weakened by the Michael Vick case. I understand completely feminist outrage at the “slap on the wrist” that most male athletes who abuse women receive. But the answer doesn’t lie in minimizing the horror of dog-fighting. Calling Vick’s punishment “disproportionate” and mentioning only that he “beat” dogs (rather than drowning and slaughtering them) minimizes his crimes — which, of course, is exactly what far too many people do in cases of domestic violence. Saying Vick only “beat” dogs is comparable to saying that breaking your wife’s jaw is just “keeping her in line.”

We live in a culture that teaches many men that women are still property. We live in a society where many young men — particularly privileged athletes — are allowed unfettered access to women’s bodies. Sexual assaults and acts of domestic violence are excused or punished very lightly. (I wrote about this a long time ago.)

We live in a culture where the horrific abuse of animals is also tolerated. Michael Vick killed animals that most folks identify as pets; plenty of other equally intelligent animals are slaughtered in barbaric conditions every day for our food. We raise our children to believe that animals exist for their pleasure (just as we raise many men to believe women exist for theirs) and when our kids ask how the Easter ham came to the table, we tell them “don’t think too much about it.”

Justice is not a zero-sum game. Taking animal abuse more seriously does not mean ignoring violence against women. We need stiffer penalties for these crimes, and we need to hold our celebrities equally accountable. As the Michael Vick case dominates the news cycle this steamy August, feminists are right to demand an end to the pattern of excusing the violence that male athletes commit against women. But we can demand more substantial penalties for those who hit their wives and girlfriends without minimizing the horror of Michael Vick’s crimes.

Those who struggle for animal rights and for women’s equality ought to be natural allies, partners in a great coalition seeking justice and demanding protection for the vulnerable and the exploited. It would be very sad indeed if this case were to widen a rift between these two vitally important movements.

A note on my first vegan marathon

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on August 3, 2007
in Animal Rights, Athletics and Fitness, Food and Veganism
. 9 Comments

The San Francisco Marathon I ran this past Sunday was the first marathon I had trained for as a strict vegan. I’ve been flirting with veganism for years, but it was only at the beginning of 2007 that my wife and I made the decision to remove all animal products (including dairy, eggs, honey) from our diet.

When I started “ramping up” my training in May in preparation for the marathon, I was curious to see how my body would respond to 50-60 miles a week of running while eating vegan. I was encouraged, of course, by the example of a variety of other vegan athletes — especially Brendan Brazier, the Canadian 50K champion. I began to use his product, Vega, and I was able to have a long chat with him as we jogged the Mall in Washington in April.

But Brendan, as amazing an athlete and animal rights activist as he is, is more than a couple of years younger than I am. He’s also a professional, and I’m little more than a middle-aged weekend warrior. I hit 40 just as I began this now-concluded training season, and worried that my ageing muscles wouldn’t get replenished on plant-based nutrition alone. Of course, there was no way to find out if an average guy like me could train and run on a vegan diet without trying… so try I did.

After this past Sunday, with another slow-but-steady 3:52 in the bag, I can now say definitively that eating and training vegan is possible. (I wish I could say that eliminating all animal products from my diet made me magically as fast as I was in the late ’90s!) Because I was eating lighter, I was able to sleep less and feel rested — as my body didn’t have to work so hard to digest animal fats. That meant I could get up at 4:30AM, do a middle-distance run, and then give seven hours worth of lecture without feeling utterly exhausted. In that sense, eating vegan did enhance my performance.

I drank my Vega and my hemp protein supplements, but didn’t live on bars and processed “vegan junk” food. I ate a lot of nuts, a lot of dried fruit, a lot of whole wheat pasta. I began to eat vegetables I had once scorned, developing a genuine passion for kale. (I still don’t love broccoli.) I dropped some body fat, but kept my weight at a healthy level. No one told me that I looked gaunt, and I didn’t feel as if I were in a constant state of self-denial. My cravings for meat grew fewer (though every once in a while, I would still feel a pang of longing as I drove by my favorite taco stand). Those cravings are almost gone now.

And here’s the kicker: our household food budget went down. Yes, we bought a lot of organic veggies at Whole Foods (and when we could, at the local farmer’s market). But I also ate out less — instead of buying lunch, I packed it. A packed lunch made up of plant-based food bought at Whole Foods was still cheaper than a processed meal purchased on campus. When people tell me “I can’t afford to be vegan”, I note that my savings off being vegan this spring and summer were enough to (almost) pay for a very nice hotel room in San Francisco this past weekend.

Yes, I’m proselytizing. For reasons of human health and animal rights, I’m a passionate believer in veganism. It ties in to my feminism and my Christianity; long before I embraced a cruelty-free diet, my faith and my belief in women’s rights had convinced me that I am called to do justice and mercy in every action I take. Training for my fourteenth marathon as a first-time vegan was an opportunity to match my language and my life. And saving money in the process was a terrific bonus.

The Winsome Vegan: some long thoughts about judgment, ethics, family dinners and “Hell’s Kitchen”

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on July 17, 2007
in Animal Rights, Faith, Food and Veganism
. 46 Comments

I don’t watch a lot of television, but last night made a happy exception: the last few innings of the championship match of the world cup of softball and back-to-back episodes of “Hell’s Kitchen.” I’m still unhappy about the decision of the Olympic Committee to take softball out of the Games starting in 2012. (Sure, the USA’s women are absolutely dominant. But Manchester United is pretty darned dominant in the Premiership too, and that doesn’t mean that the likes of Sunderland don’t get excited about playing them. Softball ranks just behind American college football and soccer as my favorite team sport to watch, so I’m biased.)

Even when I ate meat, I was never what you’d consider to be a “foodie.” As I’ve written before, in my pre-vegan bachelor days, I could consist for days, even weeks, on food-related products purchased at the local 7-11. Being vegan does force me to be more thoughtful about what I’m eating, but it’s a thoughtfulness born more of necessity rather than pleasure. That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy my food, I do. But I’ve never had much interest in contemplating exciting new meals. Cooking shows — at least the sort where you are shown how to make something — are stunningly dull.

I do like fashion, and care much more about clothing than food. Hence, I do enjoy “Project Runway.” But I can’t explain why I’m so fond of “Top Chef” and the positively sadistic “Hell’s Kitchen”. Perhaps I just like watching people who are passionate about what they do struggling to perform under intense pressure. I know I’m at my best under pressure, and perhaps it’s empathy born of experience in other areas of life that makes the competitors on these shows so interesting to me. Lord knows, it’s not the food that they’re actually making.

And this brings me back to veganism. In the last four or five months that I have been much more strictly and actively vegan, I’ve been acutely conscious of my own dangerous tendency towards self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is the pit into which many adult converts tend to fall, and those of us who have “prodigal son” narratives (in my case involving a decade and a half worth of drugs, alcohol, multiple divorces and a lot of very unhealthy sexual acting-out) are all the more likely to become tiresomely prudish as we move to amend our way of life. Of course, in our zeal to promote the new “clean livin’” we’ve just discovered, we end up alienating everyone around us. I know I’ve slipped into the role of the prig many times, and as I grow in Christ, I’m all the more determined to not let that censoriousness characterize my thinking or my words about other people’s behavior.

At the same time, when it comes to veganism and animal rights, it’s hard. As someone who does believe that all sentient beings — not just humans — do have inalienable rights to life and dignity, it’s often difficult to find a way to live in loving community with those who find that view preposterous and silly. Watching “Hell’s Kitchen” last night, I saw one group of chefs preparing “bacon-wrapped rabbit” as a special dish. Looking at the strips of bacon wrapped around the little chunks of rabbit, I thought about the animals from which those morsels came. I thought about the hogs I’ve been around and the rabbits I’ve played with. (Lest you think I’m a purely urban vegan, I’ve spent a lot of time in my life on ranches and farms. I grew up around 4-H and FFA and have been to countless livestock shows and auctions. I’m not an urban sentimentalist totally ignorant of the realities of farm life.) I thought about the capacity of pigs to nurture and to protect, and the clear and obvious ability of rabbits to experience fear and pain and pleasure. And in order to continue watching the show, I had to shut down that part of me that wanted to scream “How dare you!” at the aspiring chefs.

I have vegan acquaintances who won’t go to family holidays where meat is served. I know some vegans who have severed all of their close ties with those who continue to eat animal products. They find it too painful to sit at family meals while those whom they love consume the flesh of creatures equally deserving of protection and care. I’m far too committed to my friends and family, far too interested in far too many different types of people to ever cut myself off from someone over their dietary choices.

With my family, we’ve reached a clear understanding. When we come home for family holidays (such as at Easter this year), we’ll bring our own food. No one will beg us to try “just one little bite” of ham or omelette. In turn, we won’t begin to hector our loved ones with the usual lines: “Do you have any idea how that was made? Would you be willing to eat it if you saw how that animal was slaughtered?” My wife and I not only sit next to meat-eaters, we even help in preparing dishes filled with animal product (as at the Fourth of July, where I spent over an hour cranking out ice cream I would never taste). We’ve made a conscious decision to strike a balance between our desire for loving, harmonious relationship with our families and our own commitment to no longer consume animals in any form.

It’s not as easy as it sounds. Sometimes, the meat eaters around me feel as if they’re being silently rebuked. As they slice their steaks and I spoon in my quinoa and broccoli, they look uncomfortable. I make a conscious effort not to stare at their food, I don’t make disgusted expressions, I don’t use passive-aggressive tactics to communicate disapproval. Nevertheless, I see some folks getting antsy. Often, they’ll ask if I’m “okay” with what they’re eating; I’m always careful to be reassuring.

At the same time, my veganism is not a value-neutral lifestyle choice. Being a feminist and being anti-racist isn’t morally equivalent with being a misogynist bigot. Those of us who fight for justice for women and ethnic minorities want to change hearts and minds and behaviors; we want men to stop abusing women, we want full inclusion for people of color in every aspect of public life. Most of us draw a distinction between someone who says “having toast with peanut butter in the morning is better than having cornflakes, and you can’t judge me for that view” and someone who says “raping women is something I prefer to not raping them, and you can’t judge me.” The latter involves tremendous harm to living beings whose lives have innate value, and so we feel comfortable and right in judging it. So if I believe that pigs and rabbits and cows have a similar innate value to that of a human being, am I not contradicting myself if I reassure my meat-eating friends that they’re “okay with me” when I would never offer that same reassurance to a rapist or a racist?

Yes, I do want a world where we’ve minimized the suffering of sentient creatures. I do want a world where we are all surviving and thriving on a plant-based diet, and I am eager to play a role in helping to create the economic systems and the policies that can make veganism as affordable and pleasurable and easy as carniverousness. The cost to the earth (in terms of water and protein, for example) to “factory farm” cows, pigs, sheep, and poultry is colossal and likely unsustainable. The cost in physical suffering is unspeakable, and I do wish those who eat meat would, at the least, imagine the face of the creature whose thighs or hindquarters they are eating. There can be no virtue in deliberate, willfull denial.

At the same time, I’m aware we live in a world trapped in the famous tension between the Already and the Not Yet. I am Already aware, at least I trust I am, of what it is God is calling me to be. I am Already convinced that I am called, and indeed, we all are called, to eat and drink and drive and make love and buy morally. I am Already convinced that to follow Christ is to live a life of courage and radical compassion; I am Already convinced that to live as an authentic feminist is to see that the exploitation of other living creatures for my pleasure is fundamentally unethical. I am Not Yet at the place where I can live this life perfectly, without the occasional small compromises that expose me and others to the charge of hypocrisy. I am Not Yet at the place where I can make the case for Christian feminist veganism without coming across, at least to many, as a charlatan or a fraud or a deluded prude swept up in religious enthusiasm.

So I’ll keep on keepin’ on; that means being cheerful about an undressed salad at an elegant restaurant while those around me nosh on chateaubriand. That means being unapologetic about animal rights while being warm, engaging, and non-judgmental with those who are unwilling to consider my position to be practical or desirable.

And it means I’m gonna work on another book proposal one of these days. Working title: “The Winsome Vegan: How to Live Cruelty-Free and Love those Who Don’t”.

Dodger dogs

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 6, 2007
in Animal Rights
. 25 Comments

Just passing through the house today, I turned on Fox News (a rare event indeed). Saw a story on the attempt by animal rights activists to get the Los Angeles Dodgers to stop selling the eponymous hot dog made by Farmer John; the pigs who are slaughtered to make the franks are kept in tiny cages that are considered more than unusually inhumane.

One Dodger fan was interviewed as he munched on a “dog”; he was entirely unrepentant:

“I’m going to keep on enjoying these”, he said. “Because if you started thinking too much about it, you’d be vegetarian.”

Word, my dear brother, word.

All I ask people to do is think about how what they are eating was made. If they could cheerfully kill and butcher the meat themselves, that’s one thing. But if their enjoyment is contingent upon willful ignorance or denial, that’s something else altogether.

“Death by Veganism”: cheap alarmism at its most repugnant

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on June 4, 2007
in Animal Rights, Food and Veganism
. 21 Comments

Two weeks after people first started sending it to me, let me respond to the infamous Nina Plancke op-ed in the New York Times, Death by Veganism. Commenting on the report of vegan parents in Georgia arrested after the death of their infant son, Plancke opines:

I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.

Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.

The breathtaking lack of logic in the last sentence reminds me of classic anti-feminist arguments: there are no truly egalitarian societies (and never will be) because women are, in the long run, inferior to men.

Who is this Nina Planck person with her sweeping arguments about nutrition? Well, she has no medical degree or nutrition degree. Here’s her website, and there’s no mention of any professional certification in any health field. She writes cookbooks and advocates for farmer’s markets, both worthy activities — but she writes with the authority of someone who ought to have initials after her name. She doesn’t.

Who does say you can have a healthy vegan pregnancy? The medical advisory team at Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which includes pediatricians, nutritionists, and gynecologists on its board. Here’s a letter to the Times from vegan nutritionist Dr. Amy Joy Lanou. An excerpt:

I am a nutritionist who testified as an expert witness for the prosecution in the criminal trial of the parents of Crown Shakur. As the lead prosecutor in this case told the jury, this poor infant was not killed by a vegan diet. He was starved to death by parents who did not give him breast milk, soy-based infant formula or enough food of any kind.

Well-planned vegan diets are healthful for pregnant mothers and their infants, as well as for older children, according to a large body of scientific research. Contrary to Ms. Planck’s assertions, there are healthy plant-based sources of docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA; calcium can be absorbed about as readily from soy milk as from cow’s milk; and soy does not inhibit growth.

Studies have found that vegan children are within the normal ranges for weight and height, and I personally know vegan mothers and vegan children who are healthier than many of their omnivorous peers.

When my wife and I attended PCRM’s gala fundraiser in D.C. in April, we met several couples with young children who are being raised vegan. The children laughed and played and ran around, looking slender and healthy and cheerful. One woman we talked to had been vegan throughout her two pregnancies, with smashing success. Though I may not know as many folks as Dr. Lanou, I can certainly — anecdotally — think of many kids who are growing up vegan and healthy and happy and fine.

I assume Nina Planck is not a shill for Big Ag. But her misrepresentations of the vegan lifestyle (which she suggests is fine for adults but irresponsible for children) has already done serious harm. Those who are committed to veganism as a multi-generational way of living, those who are committed to raising children from conception without food sourced from any animal other than a human mother, deserve to have the full story told.

My wife is committed to a vegan pregnancy. We are committed to raising vegan kids, with careful medical supervision from doctors and nutritionists who are committed to the welfare of children and the well-being of the earth they will inherit.

For more on vegan pregnancy and children, go here.

Killing Kangaroos and rejecting Beckham

Published
by
Hugo Schwyzer
on May 30, 2007
in Animal Rights and Sports
. 10 Comments

I’m saddened to learn that shoe manufacturer Adidas has successfully lobbied the California State Senate to permit the importation of kangaroo skin for use in the production of soccer (football) boots. Here’s the Los Angeles Times story

After years of assertive lobbying by Adidas, the California Senate voted Tuesday to legalize the import and sale of kangaroo skins so that soccer players can buy shoes made from the marsupials’ coveted leather.

Of the 55 species of kangaroos in Australia, six are commercially harvested and exported, and would be allowed if the bill is approved by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Those species include red and eastern and western gray kangaroos.

Animal activists are fighting the proposal, which they say will lead to the deaths of endangered kangaroos because hunting is done at night and the species are difficult to differentiate. They also object to the rules of kangaroo hunting, which dictate that if a mother is killed the baby must be killed as well.

PETA’s press release is here, and it notes that David Beckham chooses to wear synthetic leather rather than anything made from animals. After being contacted by animal rights organizations, Beckham (who had not realized his Adidas Predator boots were made from kangaroo hide) chose a different shoe to wear.

The Times article notes that Beckham’s new team, the Los Angeles Galaxy, joined Adidas in lobbying the state Senate for passage of the kangaroo skin bill. Given that their future star has rejected kangaroo hide, and has gone on record explicitly against other footballers wearing kangaroo kit, this seems a poor choice on the part of the Galaxy.

The bill, SB 880, now goes to the state assembly. Californians, please contact your assembly member. (Contact info, and info on how to figure out who represents you, is on the left hand side of the page.)