animal consumption is not neutral

[Guest guest]

Another brilliant essay from Colleen Patrick-Goudreau,

from Compassionate Cooks " Food for Thought " Newsletter

- February 12, 2008

www.compassionatecooks.com

 

 

Essay - This I Know

 

ANIMAL CONSUMPTION IS NOT NEUTRAL

 

Several months ago, a podcast listener wrote to me asking me to

take a look at an article that was in her local paper that attempted

to " objectively " examine the ethical issues surrounding the

production of animal " products, " particularly foie gras. The

writer of the article wanted to look at all sides of the issues and

proceeded to present the arguments of some animal welfare groups as

well as those of the animal [exploitation] industry (except, it wasn't

called that in the article). The writer made reference to a New York

Times article in which several " experts " were quoted as

saying that they saw " nothing wrong " with the practice of

force-feeding animals to make their livers so enlarged that they

sometimes burst.

 

I wrote a letter to the newspaper and forgot all about it, but

apparently it was printed and generated further discussion about these

issues. I thought I would share the letter with you, because I think

it's important to shine light on the truth when we have the

opportunity, and we have the opportunity every day we encounter

another person or read an article or hear a news story on the radio. I

also think it's important to call attention to the fact that the

consumption of animals is not a neutral position. Vegans and animal

advocates are often accused of having a " bias, " as if

meat-eaters don't. If someone eats animals, they are bias to that

position, and their opinions should be judged accordingly.

 

I also think it's important to call attention to the fact that

the consumption of animals is not a neutral position. Vegans and

animal advocates are often accused of having a " bias, " as if

meat-eaters don't. If someone eats animals, they are bias to that

position, and their opinions should be judged accordingly. It's simply

false to act as if we're in neutral territory when we promote animal

" products " but skewed or biased territory when we talk about

veganism.

 

That is the intention with which I wrote this letter. I hope it

inspires some " food for thought. "

 

Dear Editor,

 

I read your article on foie gras and appreciate your attempt to

work out the " controversy, " but there was a fundamental

problem with your desire to seem unbiased: you eat animals. You look

through a particular lens that enables you to eat animals (and their

organs, as you attest to), which renders you unable to really truly

offer an unbiased picture of animal cruelty. The truth is all of us

our biased, but some of us need our biases more than others when we

want to justify our behavior. The scales that weigh the opinions of

people who kill and serve animals for a living against those who seek

to protect animals are inherently tipped to begin with. Animal

advocates have nothing to gain by opposing cruelty, and citing a few

large national organizations does not a " gain " make.

 

Animal advocates don't get into this work for the money. But

suppliers, processors, butchers, and sellers of " delicacies "

such as foie gras have everything to gain. Even the journalists from

the NY Times who saw nothing wrong with the practice HAVE to see

nothing wrong if they don't want their entire world rocked. As a

meat-eater, to admit there is something unethical about breeding and

killing animals for human consumption is to question the very

foundation of people's comfort zones. Tradition and culture are just

excuses, as we now oppose many things today that we once thought were

acceptable - slavery, child labor, women viewed as property as their

husbands and fathers.

 

The highest expression of human beings is that which compels us

to remain open, willing to learn, willing to do better once we know

better. There is no justification for breeding, force-feeding, and

then killing another living creature just so we can enjoy a

" delicacy. " We have no nutritional requirement for animal

flesh, and certainly you would agree we have no need to consume the

fattened livers of ducks and geese. To do so is to close our eyes to

that which makes US uncomfortable and which continues to desensitize

us to the needless suffering of living, feeling beings who, if they

had a choice, would never put themselves in such a predicament.