Separator post

The posts above concern the reading for Nov. 17: pp. 187-284 from the Singer and Mason book.

Singer and Mason’s Anthropocentric Arguments

My discussion of Part II of Singer and Mason’s The Ethics of What We Eat will take the form of a kind of supporting point, namely, that if organized and presented in the proper way, their anthropocentric concerns alone would amount to a convincing argument for the abolition of contemporary factory farming practices. We think this to be worthwhile in light of some of the difficulties facing the argument that animals themselves are wronged by factory farming.

We will begin by considering how one might be unconvinced by the authors’ arguments relating to animal suffering. While much of what is written in the book is simple documentation of how animals are treated, there are also controversial claims made, such as those stating that animals “enjoy” things. Such claims, while not plainly wrong, are definitely controversial.

Even a sentience based theorist such as Peter Singer admits of some gray areas relating to which animals can and cannot, and when animals do and do not, suffer. The authors feel that in such unclear cases “if there is uncertainty about whether what we do will cause serious harm, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the being whom we might harm” (133). This is a possible course of action, but of course we must acknowledge the general fact that in all probability, some individuals will not be seduced by the charm of this principle. Following the question of which animals can feel pain, there are the further difficult questions of how great animal suffering is, how cognitively rich it is (if they can experience something like ‘mental anguish’) and finally, whether this suffering is morally relevant. So, generally speaking, the authors have a lot of work to do to convince their opponents that the animals themselves are wronged.

We will now consider some of their anthropocentric arguments. The authors argue that factory farming negatively affects humans in the form of ‘hidden costs’. Concerning shrimp farming in India, the authors write, “for every rupee the economy gained by shrimp farming, local communities lost at least two, and in some regions, four, through damage to fishing and other resources” (127). This is not special to fish, as factory farms on land have similarly negative impact on their communities. Because the landscape is degraded by millions of pounds of animal waste which comes from factory farms, people in the communities must ultimately pay for this, effectively subsidizing the ‘cheap cost of food’. Similarly, tax money goes to families of farm employees who live below the poverty line because of their low salaries. So, while factory farmed food seems to be cheap, this is made up for in other ways.

Another one of the authors’ primary concerns is the massive amounts of food which are fed to factory farmed animals, and the amount of energy which is required to produce this food. That is to say, we are feeding factory farmed animals such as chicken, fish, pigs and cows substantially more food than they will yield in meat (simply because we like the way they taste). This is a potential anthropocentric argument because, to speak crudely, if we did not have factory farms, we could instead use these crops to feed starving people of the world. Consider the way in which this argument, like the above one, only concern human well being.

Our fear is that these extremely convincing anthropocentric arguments might be obscured by a reader’s disagreement with the arguments from animal suffering. Of course we acknowledge that this would be no fault of the authors. We do not here object to their argument but instead wish to simply advance their anthropocentric arguments independently, as a means of addressing an audience which might possibly be concerned with these issues alone. Furthermore, we find the resulting argument to be convincing.

Food Choices, Political Action, and Class

Judy Wicks, owner of the White Dog Café in Philadelphia, writes on her menu that “eating is a political act” and also “likens food choices to voting for a better farm and food policy” (173). I agree with this point – and I really like the idea that our food choices should be understood as an empowering action made by informed citizens – however, I think that there is an objection to this model that isn’t discussed enough, namely how class determines whether the political nature of our food choices has any weight. Food choices are ultimately economic choices; when we spend money on certain foods we are supporting specific markets with their own set of values. At the same time, however, our food choices are sometimes restricted by our economic means. Some markets, like fast food chains, support factory farming, while others like the White Dog Café support local, fair trade, and organic products. But when one equates food choices (and by extension economic choices) to voting power, an undemocratic system emerges. If, in a local economy, there are considerable amounts of people who are morally opposed to factory farming but aren’t wealthy, and at the same time there is a smaller but much more affluent group of people who aren’t concerned with animal welfare, the significance of food choice as a political act seems mitigated. Easily, the wealthier people could continue to flood globalized, corporate, or factory farming markets with money while the less affluent members of the society are left fighting an uphill battle – the wealthy in this scenario get more votes. If we are to consider eating as a political and economic act, ultimately those who have more economic power are the ones defining the market and political system. It’s also plausible that many people will buy fast food because it’s cheaper even if they don’t ethically agree with factory farming. Again, in this scenario economic power defines the food choices we can and cannot make, and thus the food-choices-as-voting-power model is, in the end, undemocratic. I’m intending to argue that making strategic food choices is an ineffective political move, but only that it’s restricted by class and that reliance on free market capitalism and supply-demand models are not the best way to create political change.

The authors begin to identify what ethical food choices are, but it is hard to know whether to agree with them because the issue is so complex. This section makes it very clear that even if you are knowledgeable about the food industry and factory farms, and are disgusted by or displeased with the process it is still very easy to make the wrong decisions where food is concerned. Labels are often misleading and some products can be certified organic while still hindering the natural behaviors of animals. For example, some farms that sell organic eggs still de-beak their chickens and do not allow them significant time outside. How can anyone really know the conditions their food comes from if they cannot visit the farm itself. As the authors point out, this is what makes farmer’s markets and locally grown food so valuable; it is pretty simple in those situations to get to know the farmer and his practices. However, the authors also indicate that in some situations buying exports and supporting farmers in developing nations who need the money worse than poor American farmers is often a more ethically correct decision. In the current market, doing the right thing is a constant catch 22 and it is fairly easy for a person who thinks he/she is doing everything right to get it all wrong.
I agree that it is morally wrong to consume food that is produced in a manner that is harmful to animals, especially if a person is aware of the circumstances under which these animals live. This second family they do a case study of does a pretty good job in my opinion; they aren’t perfect, but they do well as far as food choices, especially for both having full time jobs and children. I guess in the authors’ opinion that isn’t an excuse, which makes some sense. However, I don’t see how the average person would have the time or the means to find out where all their food comes from, find out the organic/sustainable options in their area, weigh those options against each other (based on travel, growth methods, working conditions, etc), and end up making the correct decision. It’s a difficult endeavor that’s at odds with the system, which obviously doesn’t make it excusable, but I’m just unsure how a person would ever know if they’re making the right choices.

Issues with Cod, Commons, and More.

For the most part Singer and Mason seem to have decided eating locally is a poor idea. They shoot down the ethical arguments for eating locally provided by FoodRoute, with the exception of the part where you'll support endangered family farms. However, even here they seem to offer little backing besides the fact that one will lose some rural values. To counter this though, why not say that through this changing of the way our society is structured we are creating new values. Values come and go, as do the ways in which societies function. It is good not to forget about our roots, but if we want to really address the problems facing us because of big non-family farms we should first devote ourselves to it, so we can then move on from it. Instead of resisting progress and holding onto traditions we should be moving forward. There are obviously costs that come with progress like this, but a way to combat this problem is not to hold onto to outdated forms of farming that if we returned to would only lessen the amount of food in the world (thus heightening the cost from lack of supplies and inefficiency in production relative to a larger farm).

With this in mind they offer no real ethical incentive to support local farming. Another gripe I had with Singer and Mason is there occasionally use of statistics and facts. Though all I do not doubt are true, many times they seem only used to create a sense of urgency or fear in the reader. Other occasions such as the case of the Pollock fisheries ends up having no real weight to their argument. They list huge statistics but fail to actually explain the ill effects on the environment or fish (other than being eaten).

Finally a quick point I want to mention is how willing they adhere to the tragedy of the commons. They let it slide by without much of a defense and leave the reader to assume they must be right and all will starve. This has never really happened though. People are not stupid enough to do so, and on the occasions where it almost happens a person/group takes control through whatever means necessary. With fisheries there has been less of a sense of urgency because of the massive amount of commons. Eventually, people will recognize something must be done, and this will happen before humanity runs out of sea food.

Downfall of the Free Market and the Collision of Animal Rights and Human Rights

Mary Ann seems to believe in the free market and the ability of the people to influence the corporations to create more and more humane and eco-friendly options. I wonder how accurate her belief is due to a lack of transparency in the market and a general ignorance of consumers about what they are buying. I would think the market would demand a corporation to advertise its benefits, keep prices low (if lower than competitors even better), and to hide the negative side of their production from the public. What is the benefit in transparency in a market where the majority of corporations are not transparent yet still turn huge profits? This means that people are often unable or unwilling to learn about how their food is produced and so I would think that the invisible hand is rather restricted and so more responsibility needs to be placed on the corporations. Another reason for this is that the more organic products tend to pass on fewer hidden costs to consumers and their neighbor which increases the actual cost of their product; however other producers simply pass on these hidden costs while creating a much cheaper product. Without people being made aware of all the hidden costs it would seem illogical for them to buy other products allowing the unethical producers to prosper.
Another way in which the ethics of what we eat becomes confused is with the working families. The book makes it very apparent how differently fisherman and environmental groups view what is going on in the environment. Is it right to deny a family what has been their livelihood for a very long time? I think to the average person it seems sad to destroy that historical family fisherman; however at the same time it seems like sometimes it is necessary in order to save wildlife populations. It seems hard to distinguish where the line is between animal rights and human rights. Currently it seems if humans don’t intervene and stop overfishing and over pollution of the waterways nobody will be able to enjoy the bounty of the wild however it seems hard to decide who should be able to make such decisions.

As soon as I began the reading in chapter six I immediately identified the Motavalli family as being similar to my own. While my dad is not a vegetarian, my family really tries to be aware and conscientious in our food choices for the sake of ourselves, the animals, and for the earth. As Mary Ann points out, it is more difficult to try and choose organic and locally produced products, for reasons such as cost, distance, and potential taste. Also, like Mary Ann, my family and I are “conscientious omnivores” in that we do eat meat, but only meat that is certified organic and that comes from “happy” animals. I am tired of hearing the arguments that people should not eat meat, because while yes it does take “eight pounds o grain to produce a pound of meat,” I stand by the argument that humans are naturally omnivores and should thus be able to eat the meat as long as it is organic and that the animals are treated humanely. I feel like we need to bring the focus off of trying to convert everyone to being vegetarian and rather focus our efforts onto making consumers more aware of their decisions and choices they are making while purchasing food. If more people knew what chemicals were going into their meats and that the animals that the meats are taken from were treated very poorly, I really do think that people would move to more nutritional and environmentally friendly products. Especially with the growing popularity of increasing dietary health and needs, I really do believe that we can turn this around, and force companies and producers to change/better their methods in order to reap benefits for everyone involved essentially. With locally grown foods there is a profit for smaller farms and companies and you actually end up using less fossil fuels and energy that would have gone into shipping the products to their farther off destination. I think the big thing is to find ways to do this that offer just as good tastes and costs for organic and environmentally friendly foods as the inhumane etc foods are offering. Once we can find a way to meet these needs and make them readily available to consumers I believe we will be able to seriously make a significantly positive difference. The world does not necessarily need more vegetarian’s, it needs more “conscientious omnivores.”

organic farming the end of the road?

In the past decade or so, the organic farming and agriculture market has grown exponentially. More and more consumers are believing that organic farming is better for them personally and their environment as well. Organic farming excludes the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and genetic engineering.

Organic farmers have taken the food industry to the next level. These farmers respect the land by enhancing soil structures and conserving water. This then helps to mitigate climate change.Organic farming takes an environmental ethic and takes low-intensity farming one step further by eliminating the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisms.

However, my one criticism is how Singer and Mason put the organic food industry on a pedestal. If the food industry, what we eat and the claim that our food choices actually really do matter, then why don’t we include other regulations on organic farming? Why not go full force? Because it’s not just food that impacts climate change, but a whole connection of differing forms of exploitation. So instead of putting the organic food industry on a pedestal, why couldn’t we raise the question of pushing the envelope even further in regards to regulations of organic agriculture? Shouldn’t tractors in organic farming have to or be required to run on biodiesel? Or even the trucks that then deliver the organic foods to stores? Singer and Mason seem to think that the organic farming industry is the solution and we are done. However, why shouldn’t their regulations be stricter too? If we really want to make an impact, then why not go all out? Why stop where we are? Organic farming is just a catalyst for more improvement in terms of sustainable and ethically ways of living.

conscientious omnivore

In the second reading assignment for Singer's The Ethics of What We Eat, an interesting family is introduced to us. Mary Ann and Jim, with daughters Maya and Delia, live in Fairfield, Connecticut. With both parents working and the children attending school, it seems a typical, hectic life many live...with one exception. This family is one of the most conscientious I have ever heard of. While still managing to get through their day, they take the time to do some research about the food they eat and purchase and take learned information into account when shopping. The wife and kids are omnivores (wife used to be vegetarian with husband before kids) and the husband is strictly vegetarian...sometimes eating an occasional fish (depending on its origins and treatment). What's great is that even the kids embrace this lifestyle of "awareness". They take pride in their gardens and seem to have a more complex palette than most children. (I want to try that chick pea recipe!) While their purchases are more expensive than the typical Americans, they balance the cost of products with the cost of the treatment and conditions experienced by the animals they are eating or the byproducts these animals produce.
The parents recognize a number of factors that affect their diets...including price, time, easiness (in preparation), and what their children like. I find these to be typical of the general population, but these obstacles don't keep this family from becoming more familiar with the food industry and the products put out on the market.
In a Utopian world, Jim's diet would be most favorable for all (environment, animals, humans...) but we will never find ourselves in such a condition. A combination of vegetarians and conscientious omnivores seems a more attainable combination for society. A shift towards self-education on the consumers-part needs to be pushed. This curiosity in food production should also be geared towards the youth; starting young with kids on what foods are good, and how theses products actually get to the kitchen table will carry on with them throughout their lives.
And there seems to be a number of reasons that will work for people to be more conscientious in their purchases...like the environmental impact of farms (runoff), the amount of grains used (and wasted) for feed (for animals that don't naturally consume grain), the poor treatment of the animals (while alive and in slaughtering process), the potential health risks for humans consuming animals and their products (antibiotics, diseases, hormones...), and the differences in quality/taste of the products. Perhaps it will be like Mary Ann says, "as more consumers get aware, they make demands and create new markets"..."[and] little by little there are more food choices available and affordable" (Singer, 91).

Buying Far-Awayally Won't Cure Poverty.

Mason and Singer argue that buying foods locally might not be any more ethical than buying foods transported from around the world. They argue that it does more to alleviate poverty to support developing/underdeveloped countries producing food for export with small percentages of purchase price than to pay full price directly to a local farmer. While I agree that the poverty faced by those in the underdeveloped world is more significant than domestic poverty, I disagree that this is the more ethical choice.

The authors allude to the idea of commodity chains, which link the purchase of a final product by a consumer through each individual that had any sort of role in its production, all the way back to (in the case of food) the farmer. The trouble I have with buying non-locally (far-awayally?) is that these commodities tend to have the longest commodity chains. The further away a product originates, the more people have opportunities to dip their hands into the pot. Buying directly from the people who produce your goods is ethical because it ensures that they make a fair profit and prevents others from taking advantage of the production. While it could be argued that longer commodity chains create more jobs, an ethical goal, the possibility of buying directly proves that those jobs are unnecessary to the creation of that product and thus should not be rewarded. If local products and imported products cost the same, more of the purchase price is being redirected away from farmers to unnecessary middlemen.

I also argue that buying far-awayally doesn't really do much to cure poverty. While it might bandage it a bit for individuals who have managed to get themselves into a position where they can produce for export, the systemic causes of poverty go much deeper than Singer and Mason allow. These farmers aren't poor because not enough people are buying their goods: they're poor because our economic structures make them that way. Yes, the two cents the farmer in Kenya earns from my purchase helps, but if it weren't for all the middlemen in the commodity chain, he could be making close to the dollar that the local farmer might. In this sense, buying far-awayally supports the transnational corporations that continue to glean their money away from farmers by connecting us to far-away producers.
(Buying far-awayally and fair trade might be a solution to this.)

In class the question was raised as to whether this book was stronger than the previous piece we read from Peter Singer. I felt absolutely that the answer to this was yes and I was trying to pinpoint the reason. I came to the conclusion that the strength of the book was rooted in the vivid ans specific examples given to express the authors' facts. The examples of cruelty to animals stand most profoundly for strengthening and verifiying the truth behind the facts and the reasons for people to change in accordance with the book's points. The examples that concerned animal slaughter cruelty made me a vegetarian again! I mean that has to stand for something. If they made a change in me then they can do it for others. Vegetarianism is the most extreme change. But if it can do this for me then it can most definitely make people at least be smarter in their purchasing of food according to some standards for anti-cruelty and enviromental concerns. Reading this examples could make so many people see the truth. They will make smarter choices because of the book. The issue is getting people to pick up the book and read it. We have to get people to take the first step and learn. They can't change until they allow it to be an option. They have to want to know the truth. Enjoying food can't always be the priority. People have to confront the horrors and injustices that accompany the enjoyment they are solely concerned for.

I believe there is a real important lesson to be learned from the portion of book concerning "If consumer demands change, then the business will change to please them". This seems really important to me. What needs changing is the business itself, and the way it does things. But the business won't change until the source of its revenue forces it to change. They will do whatever it takes to get our money. If we decide we want the cruelty to stop and refuse to buy their food that does not comply to this anti-cruetly (environment harming)method then they will not get business and will fail as a business. Its on the consumers to start the change. The problem is, enough consumers have to contribute to the cause for it to have an effect. 10% of the population isnt enough because 90% are giving them the current business under the wrong policies and standards and they care about the majority.

On page 133 there is a reference to giving animals the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to pain and suffering. The story about the chicken being put in boiling water (unstunned) came out mutilated from its own effort to escape (broken bones and such). Some call this responsive/reflexive efforts to stimuli, and say it is not proof of suffering or cognitive response. But doesnt this intense effort on the part of the chicken to escape a seemingly painful situation earm it the "benefit of the doubt"? What exactly is it that people require in the way of seeming pain to consider giving animals the benefit of the doubt without the proof? What does it take for people to care and consider the repercussions of their choices and desires?

the facts arent enough

It seems through the book that lack of knowledge isn’t as big of a hindrance to getting people to change to more ethical diets that convenience. Many people believe that knowledge and awareness in the public of the problems with animal injustice in the food industry will evoke change in the way people buy food. However even with this knowledge, change isn’t a given. Jake was aware of some of the environmental and animal injustice caused by big agri-corperations as explained by Peter Singer and through her prior knowledge, but it hasn’t changed her shopping habits; “Isn’t it a sad thing when are morals become so dispensable” Jake. The argument for Jake and Lee is that they are of the blue collar working class and are so occupied with making a living to support their family, they have little time to think about ethical choices. They also don’t have the money to purchase the expensive food where animals. On the other hand, Jim and Mary are highly aware of the injustice of animal treatment in the food industry, Jim edits an environmental online journal. They both have high paying jobs and have money to spend. But because of their busy lives, they only buy a limited amount of animal friendly foods. “I have so much work that I need convenience, if I had more time I’d probably make better ethical choices” Mary Ann. This evidence shows that in order to create a change in the way we eat, we need to do more than just expose the agri-corperations because people won’t easily change their lifestyles.

Environmental Concerns of Eating Meat

When Peter Singer and Jim Mason visited Jim and Mary Anne Motavalli and discussed their food choices. One of the topics that was discussed was during the visit was what the family's view on eating meat and animal products was. Jim chose not to eat meat more because of the environmental concerns rather than the concerns regarding animal welfare. He was concerned about how wasteful producing animals for consumption is and how damaging the waste products produced by these animals can be. I agree with Jim that these concerns are definitely important. Our environment cannot continue to be treated in this fashion if we expect to be able to continue to live as we do now. The run-off of excess nutrients from animal waste that is not properly treated can disrupt entire ecosystems. In addition, the land and energy spent producing grain to feed livestock could be instead used to produce more food for humans.
This does not mean that we have to stop eating meat entirely. We instead need to find better ways to maintain the animals used for consumption. Using natural food sources instead of artificial ones would be much kinder to the environment and to other people. If cows were allowed to graze normally instead of being fed unnatural corn, that corn could instead be used to feed people or the space used to grow the corn could be used to grow other types of food.
In regard to the waste produced by the animals, new techniques need to be used to dispose of it. Ideally, the waste would be subjected to some sort of treatment to remove excess nutrients that would disrupt the environment as is done with human waste. Doing this could prove to be costly, but there is one method that would work effectively without being being too time consuming or costly. The waste could be pumped back into the ground in a location that would naturally filter the waste as it worked its way through the different layers of soil. Microorganism's found naturally in the soil will break down the waste and use up the excess nutrients similar to the process used by many house-hold septic systems. This is an example of how working with nature rather than against it as we all too often do can be used to benefit us and the environment simultaneously.

Separator post

The posts above concern the reading for Nov. 12: pp. 83-183 from the Singer and Mason book.

My blog post requires us to accept that animals are in fact treated inhumanely (and one could even say unlawfully, although technically the American justice system does not acknowledge such) in factory farms, and that American factory farms are, in general, detrimental to animals, humans and the environment. Although this seems obvious after the portion of Singer and Mason’s book we have read so far, I mention my presupposition in case some people are still resistant to fully agreeing with these findings.

The main problems, then, are how to alter an entire country’s diet so that less meat is eaten, and how to alter the production of meat so that it is less damaging to the environment, animals and humans. These two dilemmas are interrelated – consumer demand drives the factory farms’ desire for increased productivity.

As Singer and Mason have repeatedly acknowledged, increased productivity usually leads towards increasingly unsafe measures within factory farms. Factory farms avoid allowing the animals “amenities” (for instance, shade in 90 degree weather, euthanizing downed animals, anesthetic before painful operations, more effective stunning before being killed) in order to preserve themselves against competing factory farms. In this way, quantity of the meat consumed (and I suppose also quality of the meat’s taste – consider the purpose of malnourishment for making “tasty” veal) is more important than the quality (ethical treatment of animals, proper disposal of waste) of factory farms.

In order to change this, consumers must demand for better quality of factory farms, even if this does mean an increase in food prices and a lesser abundance of meat. Singer and mason realized that “the system seems to recognize animal suffering only when it interferes with profitability” (54). Pressuring for better life conditions for animals with factory farms, society could make it such that profitability of a company’s animal products depends upon their just treatment of animals. We need to ask ourselves why this demand is not more prevalent in society. One reply may be that consumers are not informed about the effects of factory farming. This is indeed extremely true. Singer and Mason acknowledge that factory farms are “invisible to the public” (47). It was at this point they compared factory farming cruelty to zoo cruelty. While I agree that “public disapproval helped persuade” zoos to rectify these cruelties, I think there are some fundamental differences between zoo cruelty and factory farm cruelty which will hinder the efforts to rectify factory farm cruelties. People go to zoos to look at animals. A pleasant zoo experience involves people enjoying what they are seeing, and most people do not enjoy looking at beings suffer. It seems obvious that people would complain and express public disapproval, because they are not reaping enjoyment from the animals’ suffering. On the other hand, a pleasant meat-eating experience is gustatory in nature, during which people enjoy the meat they are consuming. The animal cruelty and environmental detriment necessary to create meat does not affect the tastiness of the meat. Should someone be informed about factory farms and upset enough to consider the experience of eating meat ruined, I should hope that they become vegetarian! But the majority of meat eaters either is fully informed as to the nature of factory farms and just does not care, or chooses to make animals invisible so that guilt will not affect the enjoyment of a tasty meaty meal.

Overall, I am still left wondering what will inspire the masses to act against factory farms. Despite some opinions to the contrary from others in class, however, I do think that it is possible to create great strides for better conditions of factory farms. Extreme measures are not necessary for this to happen (ie. that everyone must become a vegetarian), but as Spira noted, “If McDonalds moves a millimeter, everyone else will move with them” (70). Perhaps Halverson is right, and not much will be gained by making minor improvements in a “fundamentally bad system” (72), but given the present state of America’s dependence on factory farms, I think this is our only option.

The main issue from the first section of this book seems to boil down to the capitalistic way that the factory farms are run. The general theme is that the farmers, whether they are chicken, cow, or pig farmers, they all agree that more humane methods would be better but more expensive. “We can be more environmentally sound if we want to pay more for our food. Right. But what mechanism is supposed to bring about that outcome? Even if Jake and Lee were willing to pay more for their meat in order to protect the environment in Nebraska, how could they be sure- or even reasonable hopeful- that the extra dollars they were spending were having this effect?” (65).

This, I think, is the major dilemma. They go on to talk about major corporations like the fast food industries that took steps to make their businesses and the food that they sell more environmentally sound. However, these steps are small, and although they are on a large scale, they may not be enough. The real changes that have to happen are large changes happening on large scales, changes happening in the way McDonalds and Wal-Mart buy their food. These changes, unfortunately, do not seem to be likely to happen.

These large scale changes would mean that they would have to implement severe changes in the way that animals are treated and slaughtered. This would not only mean that the prices would go up on meat sales. This would then mean that the basic idea of both of these corporations would be in danger. There would be no more ‘Dollar Menu’ not more ‘Every Day Low Prices’. Neither of these institutions is going to risk profits for animal welfare, unless the government declares it illegal first. While the idea of these corporations being pressured by civilians and then forcing change onto farmers seems like a way to avoid the government getting involved it does not seem like it is the true fix, just a band-aid.

Ethical Intervention

It seems that Singer and Mason see the way in which we treat animals in the food industry to be abhorrent, and they provide very disturbing evidence as to why our practices need to change. I agree with the position of Singer and Mason, and believe that large-scale changes are called for. To observe this society, one may come to believe, and perhaps not wrongly, that what this culture values most are material assets or money. Among numerous others, one problem with a value system venerating money or material belongings, prizing these things above nearly all others, is that the values that might, perhaps rightfully, be at the top of the list trickle downward, the whole natural value system becomes skewed, and society malfunctions. I would contend that a group of beings needlessly suffering would be a malfunction of the society, and I believe that the way that we produce food is evidence of this malfunction. Our food is produced in such a way that is revoltingly harmful to the animals, to humans, and to the environment. Singer and Mason seem to call for a change in the way that people consume, and in the way that people produce. They point out hideous wrongs committed in the poultry, egg, pork, beef, and dairy industries. One might ask why all is so awry. The problem could be our motivation. Those in the meat, egg, or dairy industry are motivated to save and earn every dollar possible, which is at odds with seeing to the welfare of their animals, which can be costly. The very mindset ingrained in such producers is that if something is profitable, then it should be done—no further ethical discussion is required, particularly given the lack of laws in this area. Some might be led to believe that as long as it is not illegal, it must be alright. For meat, egg, and dairy producers to run their businesses in any sort of ethical way, either our set of cultural values must be restructured, or there must be some other sort of motivation to get the industry to change. It seems that the easiest course of action to take to change the treatment of animals in the food industry would be to enforce a nation-wide law dictating the minimum standards of animal treatment, as determined by those with scientific knowledge of animals and their behavior. The current ways of the United States in the treatment of animals are anthropocentric, inhumane, rapacious, and intolerable, and if people will not change of their own accord, then an intervention is necessary.

Education is the staple

I already knew that big meat factories produce a lot of runoff which in turn creates Eutrophication, pollution of streams, illness to locals, a whole lot of animal cruelty, etc.. I have already had my world shattered when I read ‘Fast Food Nation’ and already know how egg, cow, pig, and chicken industries get to their final product. Along the lines however I, and society, become sheltered from the process and how rapidly these millions of animals are dying. Not until I read the exact statistics and quantitative data was I completely in shock. Anything from stating the number of turkey’s that are inseminated, which is one every 12 seconds, to the fact that the natural lifespan of a cow is around 20 years, but are usually killed at five years of age. Once the statistics are on the table is when I truly feel the affect. I do believe education is the “best defense against the animal rights attack on the… industry (pg. 47).” Education is the staple in reducing animal cruelty. The reason I say reducing is because no one will ever be willing to give it up entirely. It is a convenience for the public, and no matter what is said and shown to shut this down, the number of people willing to purchase these products overpowers the morality of the situation. For instance, I read the part about the Turkey’s and literally felt like I was reading about something getting sexually abused. However, I finished my reading, went to dinner and got a turkey burger. Awareness is important and can certainly have impact on the nation and these industries. Not only the industry but the nation should be conscious of where the food is coming from and how they are extracting it. McDonalds, which was hard for me to believe, have cleaned up their act. Not as much as I would like, but changes have been made. For instance, McDonalds has funded research aimed specifically at animal welfare and devising farming methods which offer better animal welfare. Without such activism people forget these animals are alive. I would love to be as far along as Europe seems to be, but we are where we are. At this point, the only way to go is up.

Looking at Animal Cruelty Through the Lens of Child Labor in U.S. History

I support Singer and Mason’s avocation of federal law in the indictment of CAFO’s and the market dynamics encouraging them with the example of Child Labor in U.S. history (45, 54). The market in the 19th and early 20th century exploited children because they were profitable, and had little-to-no power politically. Currently, animals are treated poorly for similar economic and legal reasons at the detriment to our environment, health, and morals. Child Labor represents a child working “adult” jobs in factories, mines, textiles, etc. where they are often exploited by their bosses. Factors that influence child labor include poverty, limited education, subjugated workers, and inadequate enforcement of child labor laws. Eventually the labor and reform movements, that often combined the problem of child labor with that of other working peoples resulted in the decline in child labor and Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938.

I believe that the market exploits animals much like it did child laborers through the reasoning of profit and market dynamics. Children workers in the U.S. were generally treated as legal non-entities until the Fair Labor Standards Act was created which defended them from labor-exploitation. Although children are not farmed animals, I believe that their similarity lies in their economic exploitation, their “lack of legal standing” and shared suffering. The pre-child labor laws market exploited children and denied them their health and humanity because it was profitable and legal, just as the current market exploits animals and denies them their sentience for the same reasons. Federal regulations for animal cruelty can be fought alongside rules for agricultural pollution, worker’s rights, and our health; much like children's labor rights were fought alongside rights for other working peoples. Much like the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law defining and enforcing rules regarding animal cruelty would shut down modern CAFO’s in favor of more ethical animal farming practices that respect animal sentience, and the effects of animal agriculture on our environment.

SOURCES:

http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_history.html
http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/causes.html

Causes of Our Unethical Treatment of Farm Animals

In the book The Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer and Jim Mason expose the cruelty in the way that animals such as chickens, pigs, and cows are treated on factory farms in the U.S. According to the information that Singer and Mason have provided in this book, it seems as though the major reason (or at least one of the major reasons) why this cruel treatment persists despite its immorality is the fact that factory farms are run by profit-driven industries that are more concerned with making money and running the most productive and profitable businesses possible than with ensuring that the animals involved in their businesses’ operations (which are not treated as animals at all but rather as insentient commodities) are treated with care and in an ethical manner.
What Singer and Mason could have clearly stated in their book that would support their effort to expose what’s wrong with the way American factory farms operate is that our capitalist economic system is at the root of the environmental, health, and animal welfare problems that factory farms create. The need to outcompete other meat production businesses and the need for money that capitalism creates are the causes of farm workers becoming “desensitized” to animal suffering and ignoring any innate ethical tendencies they may have to treat animals kindly. These same drives produced by capitalism are what possess farm workers to use environmentally harmful chemicals (e.g., pesticides) that can help increase crop productivity.
Even if we didn’t abolish capitalism or alter the way it functions in our society, we could at least follow Europe’s example by implementing stricter regulations that ban artificial hormones and antibiotics that pose risks to human, animal, and environmental health. Singer and Mason do devote much of their book to discussing the implications of market competition on animal welfare and the environment and the tighter regulations that exist in Europe, but specifically defining solutions to these current problems associated with factory farming would have strengthened their analysis.

The lies on egg cartons!

I think this book, already in the first 83 pages, has taught me more about the food I consume than any other source ever has. I am so happy to be assigned to read this book; I can now be an informed consumer. Because of the “Enter the Chicken Shed” section on pages 24-27 I will no longer buy Tyson meats. However, what I really want to focus on in this blog is how deceiving this market is. Like Jake, when I buy foods in the supermarket, honestly, if I saw two cartons of eggs next to each other and one had a stamp on it reading “Animal Care Certified” I would most likely choose these eggs thinking that these eggs came from chickens that have been raised in a more natural environment, or at least have not been mistreated to get the eggs I am buying. However this is not the case. This stamp actually means nothing. As the book explained it is false advertising and it leads people to believe that the hens that laid these eggs were in good conditions and were well taken care of. But, I now know that this is not true and actually the eggs with this stamp were probably treated no better than the other carton of eggs I didn’t choose. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How can they even try to claim that these eggs are “Animal Care Certified”? Do they consider having no space to turn around in, breaking legs in wire cages, causing pain to the birds when they chop off their beaks, and starving the birds to get more eggs out of them, care for animals? I would think not. They wanted to sell more eggs by looking like the better producer, but instead of changing their ways to actually become the best producer, they let people just think they are! That’s not only horrible, but illegal. And the best part about it is, instead of changing their ways after being caught, they changed the stamp! Which is still misleading. It now reads “United Egg Producers certified: Produced in the compliance with UEP animal husbandry guidelines.” This could mean anything, but to the unknowing consumer, they will most likely think that these conditions are better, safer, and healthier than other producer’s eggs, when this again is just blatant false advertisement. I think they should not be able to put any type of misleading stamp or packaging to boost their sales, unless they put what those requirements are under that claim. Such as “United Egg Producers certified: This means we starve and cut the beaks off of our birds, give our birds minimal space to live in, and many of our birds suffer from broken or injured legs from the wire crates we keep them in!” I think that would definitely affect their sales, but at least it would be true and the consumers of the world would not be misled into thinking one thing when reality is much different. I think the company would then opt to not have this stamp placed on their carton, and consumers would no longer be falsely persuaded into buying certain eggs.

Singer will only be happy if Humans convert to veganism

Peter Singer is a firebrand. Singer enjoys attacking industry and pushes for small farms. On the small farms he encourages animals to be treated ethically. One example of Singer’s relentless dissatisfaction is exhibited as he takes tours and works at the various farms. He first visits a mass production farm in which chickens had little room to move. He argued that a higher area: bird ratio should have been met. When he visited a farm that provided their chickens with three times as much room as industrial farms, Singer then moved on to attacking the birds’ need for a “natural habitat.” For example, he gives the second farm little credit for reducing their mass output to ensure the chickens have three times as much room as an industrial farm, but instead attacks the absence of natural light within the chicken’s enclosure. When Singer finally does find a farm that allowed chickens access to an open range in which to breed and feed, he complains about chicken’s beaks being seared. At every farm that meets Singer’s expectations of space allotment, Singer presses these farms further, stating that animals are denied of their “natural habitat”. When a natural habitat was provided, Singer moved further to attack other farming practices like putting a ring in the nose of a pig or cutting their tail off; however, even when all of Singer’s criteria are met for “ethical treatment of animals,” he states that farms practicing in this manner (the manner that he prescribes) won’t be productive enough to supply the current demand for meat. To this, he concludes that humans should enact a more vegetable and fruit ridden diet.
Singer asks for an inch only to take a mile. One can only ask what he will demand next. It shouldn’t be hard to imagine that if Singer was to be successful in restricting all meat production to come solely from free-range farming techniques that he would press for complete turnover to vegetarian and vegan food choices. Singer’s quick transition to vegetarianism will be met with a great deal of resistance; however, if he slowly attacked the industry, his radical ideas may become reality. Singer inadvertently has belittled all progress in the industry, and if I was a mass producing farmer I would refuse to partake in the transition. Singer may refute this argument by saying that the consumers choose the trend not the farmers, and will do so by choosing the product that they wish to put on their tables. As this is true with higher end families, those that shop for deals and for easy availability may never move away from mass produced meats.

Upon reading the first part of Singer and Mason’s The Ethics of What We Eat, two main questions consumed my thought the entire time. The first by its nature is directly related to the second but never the less they address two spate issues. The biggest question I had involved consumers and what drives them to act in relation to what they eat and the ethical implications there in. It seems that Singer and Mason feel that this is a vital question that needs answering. Through examining the food consumption trends of the Hillard-Nierstheimer, it seems that to the average American cost and ease are the two most influential forces in pushing them to purchase certain foods. While this suggests that many Americans are concerned about cost both in dollars and time, they are still susceptible to the ethical conditions in which their food is produced. Jake said that the label on the bacon she purchased suggests the producers were using ethical practices. It good enough for her to think that it was in some way more ethically run than its competitors. This was enough evidence to get Jake to buy the bacon, but as the authors point out the packaging is misleading and often a downright lie. What the authors go on to say is if Jake could see past that deceiving label she would be less inclined to buy that bacon and maybe even bacon at all. The authors give a great example to illustrate this point of consumer trends.
On page 47 they give the example of the inhuman treatment animals in zoo’s once had to endure. What changed those practices was the outcry from the Zoo’s patrons. This seems to suggest hearing about the atrocities of animal cruelty isn’t enough; rather people need to see and more importantly feel something in order for them to act. Who can care about a chicken though? We care more about dogs in this country because of the human qualities they possess. We can see and feel when they are happy or sad, but when it comes to chickens their mental state never enters our mind. This mainly occurs because they are out of our mind, on the whole we never interact with these animals and therefore have almost no inclination to view them as having value other than the value we get in eating them. So it seems that as human consumers we respond mostly to what evokes emotion. How can animal rights groups achieve this on a large enough scale? Although the authors don’t say this explicitly I wonder if they discount a free market approach all together. This leads me to the second question that consumed me through out. The authors seem to demonize the free market for the corporate greed it produces but don’t really think twice about the change it can bring about in consumer trends.
On page 75 the authors note an example which serves to answer in some way my question of the role the free market could play in curbing or changing consumer trends. The example of McDonald’s veggie burger being better for the consumer and the environment suggests that there is room for the market to help improve the environment. Erika Frank, a professor at Emory, says the McVeggie burger tastes similar to the regular burger at McDonalds. While I doubt this is actually true, what if McDonalds was to improve the taste of this burger. If people started buying this burger after seeing that it was better for their health and the environment on top of it tasting the same as the regular burger this would force other chains create a similar burger. This may result in an improved environment while utilizing consumer trends instead of trying to combat them!