Your Food Choices Matter
Print This Post
The focus on food choices as part of the vegan lifestyle is so essential that many people conflate veganism with diet. Much to the ire of ethical vegans (who abstain from animal products as much as possible in all forms including food, clothing, cosmetics, and so forth) dietary vegans (aka strict vegetarians) simply avoid animal products in food. The “true” vegans will correctly proclaim that veganism is “more than a diet” but anyone seriously involved in animal advocacy must acknowlege the fact: food choices matter the most.
Most of the animals who are killed by humans are those who are killed in order to become food for humans to eat. Moreover, the number of animals who LITERALLY suffer to death as a result of animal agriculture dwarfs the number of animals killed for fur, killed in shelters AND killed in laboratories combined. Your food choices matter MOST.
Over at the nerdy blog Counting Animals, the author has taken a close look at the number of animals who suffer to death as a result of animal agriculture. These are the animals who don’t die as a result of slaughter, they literally suffer to death as a result of factory farming methods.
The analysis begins:
“There is no dispute over the fact that well over 95% of the animals that die at the hands of humans are those that are killed for food. But, unfortunately, it is also true that they receive a smaller share of human compassion than that warranted by either their numbers or the intensity of their suffering.”
I added the emphasis above (bold) while the Counting Animals blogger did the other addition. The numbers came out to be these below.
Animals killed for fur, in shelters and in laboratories: approximately 19,523,000
- Fur: approximately 3,873,000 animals killed for fur each year. Some are wild animals like foxes caught in traps but most are minks raised on fur farms.
- Shelters: an estimated 4,000,000 animals are killed in shelters each year. These animals are mostly cats, dogs, and rabbits.
- Labs: about 11,650,000 animals are killed in research facilities every year. Most of these animals are rats and mice.
Animals who suffer to death: over 137,831,000
- Chickens: each year about 7,533,000 hens suffer to death as a result of battery cages in the egg industry, about 98,014,000 chickens suffer to death as a result of leg deformities in the meat industry, and approximately 32,284,000 chickens suffer to death during transport from farm to slaughter adding up to approximately 137,831,000 chickens who suffer to death before slaughter.
- Other farmed animals (turkeys, pigs, cows): not counted in this examination.
Check out the whole article for details on how the numbers above were crunched. The link is http://www.countinganimals.com/is-vegan-outreach-right-about-how-many-animals-suffer-to-death/
Looking purely at the issue of animal death and disregarding suffering, Animal Visuals has created a useful tool that compares various food sources and the related numbers of animal deaths each food causes. Take a look:
There, the creator Mark Middleton concludes:
“A diet of plants causes the fewest animals to be killed. Leaving chickens and eggs out of our diets will have the greatest effect on reducing the suffering and death caused by what we eat.”
For the complete analysis by Middleton, read his detailed examination at http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc
Clearly, the numbers indicate that the largest abuse of animal welfare and animal rights take place in animal agriculture. You can “save” more animals simply by refusing to eat them and by encouraging others to do the same than by virtually any other form of animal advocacy.
Despite all the above, Ward M. Clark has published a rant against veganism based on the unlikely possiblity that a very carefully planned omnivorous diet consisting of meat sourced from either farmed animals who graze purely on land unfit for any other more environmentally-sound purpose or animals who have been hunted in an environmentally-friendly* manner might cause fewer animal deaths than some vegan diets:
“A pound of wild venison (net cost in animal death: about 1/120th of one animal) almost certainly causes less ‘death and suffering’ than a pound of rice (net cost in animal death: including rodents, insect, reptiles and amphibians, number of deaths may range into the hundreds).”
Clark compares apples to oranges, ignoring the primary reason that the majority of Americans do not hunt or work in slaughterhouses: there is a difference between intentionally and needlessly killing an animal versus accidentally causing the death of an animal. For example, if we are unable to stop our car just as a squirrel runs into the road that accidental death doesn’t give us license to breed, confine, mutilate, and slaughter rabbits to make fur hats.
Consistent with his bias, Clark doesn’t address the fact that most people who eat meat do not eat meat that could be described as humanely sourced; most people eat animal products that come from factories:
“For each food animal species, animal agriculture is now dominated by the factory farm - 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat, 96 percent of laying hens, 99 percent of turkeys, 95 percent of pigs, and 78 percent of cattle”
source: Eating Animals
But the most compelling argument against Clark’s claim is that even if the diet he imagines is possible for some people, it’s still the case that most people will not have that possibility. There simply isn’t enough land to feed everyone in a way that is both “humane” and omnivorous. The math on that is easy: if everyone ate wild venison (aka Bambi’s mother) then there would quickly be no more deer.
The truth is undeniable: anyone who thinks that animal suffering and animal deaths matter will embrace a plant-based diet. Whether they should go 100% vegan or not may be debateable depending on their particular circumstances, but there is simply no ethical justification whatsoever for consuming factory farmed animal products.
—
*Environmentally-friendly hunting is usually an oxymoron. See why in this article >>
Hat tip to Marcus for drawing my attention to these articles.
Totally agree:
“there is simply no ethical justification whatsoever for consuming factory farmed animal products”
Really enjoyed this post. As an ethical vegan myself and environmentalist, people always bring up examples like Ward M. Clark, especially in regards to over all energy efficiency. Raising a pound of protein-yielding vegetables is always more energy efficient than raising protein-yielding animals. If anyone’s curious, Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation Reissued is a wonderful place to start.
My question for you, Eccentric Vegan, is how you view such agricultural methods as slaughter-free milk (there is now one in Kent), or raising chickens as pets for eggs, and keeping them as pets past their egg-bearing years?
KM -
Here’s how I generally answer those questions…
My first thought is that my opinion on “humane” milk and eggs doesn’t really matter since those products are such a rarity that any stance (pro, anti, neutral) at the moment is virtually inconsequential. The major problem is factory farming and that’s where I focus my attention.
When pressed further I will simply ask what the plan is for the males? And I will ask why bother since we have no need for animal products. And I will ask some other general questions like:
Why not eat eggs from sparrows or turtles?
Why not drink milk from dogs or cats?
Those questions are to get them thinking about the issue a little more deeply. I will assume that anyone who wants “humane” animal products is someone who is not yet ready to accept an anti-exploitation message so I probably won’t deliver one. But if they seem genuinely interested then I might explain that animals are not our tools and they shouldn’t be used for food or other purposes. We have better alternatives.
“My question for you, Eccentric Vegan, is how you view such agricultural methods as slaughter-free milk (there is now one in Kent), or raising chickens as pets for eggs, and keeping them as pets past their egg-bearing years?”
not to be rude or demeaning or anything but “agricultural methods” as it applies to animals is a blatant unforgiving oxymoron. just some transparent, shallow, hopeless, see-through feel good terminology employed by the Madison Avenue suits and willfully and gleefully deemed and ever-accepted at face value by the one dimensional DUMBYist drones.
slinging paperthin rhetoric is no substitute for commonsense and rational interpretation IMHO.
stealing eggs from a chicken or any other sentient farm animal or peaceful being is unacceptable and clearly is not vegan.
that much should be abundantly clear.
Eccentric Vegan: I’ve been pressed pretty far. Here are some examples I get: The farm does not dispose of males, the cost of maintaining them on the farm is factored into the price of the milk. And I guess because most cats and dogs I know are neutered, I don’t know where to get sparrows eggs, and there are no turtles where I live. There are, however, an obscene amount of chickens who need homes (Farm Sanctuary is always trying to place rescues) and many people in my neighborhood adopt rescues.
Veejayblox, I understand your frustration with how insensitive the word agriculture may be to those animals brutalized by it, but it is not an oxymoron. In the strictest translation from latin, it means tillage of fields, agri being derived from the latin ‘ager’ (a field) and culture derived from cultura (cultivation). Animals are undeniably tied to the word by history, ie, who tilled those fields?
I think it is important as vegans to engage emerging methods as a thought experiment for one, and also to include those of different ethical codes into discussion. The farm in Kent I was referring to is not run nor marketed by ‘Madison Avenue suits’ but people subscribed to a Hindu philosophy of peace and non violence toward animals or otherwise. Here is their website if you are at all curious: http://www.ahimsamilk.org/who-we-are/
So, instead of just labeling something unethical because it is not vegan, we become better advocates by having better arguments. When something like Ahimsa emerges, I can say, well that’s great but completely unnecessary and appears to be really inefficient. Or I can also choose to adopt a chicken and not eat its eggs because it has the same moral status as my dog and cat, who I do not expect a product from.
there is no such thing as humane animal agriculture, in spite of what you choose to believe. for example your idea of “emerging methods” seems to be to engage in some mind-bending childish pursuit and pointless charade of pretending to take the moral highground, pretended malicious redefinition the terms vegan and veganism, your shallow interpretations notwithstanding. and to not recognize the fruity and erroneous redefinitions/misuse and use of the term agriculture when it applies to the cruel methods of factory farms, feedlots and the barbaric and sadistic insanity of slaugterhouses is nothing short of criminal. contrary to what you have stated here, using the term “agricultural methods” to apply to modern day factory farms and the sadistic and brutal treatment of peaceful, sentient farm animals is nothing less than a cheap copout and is definitely a point blank oxymoron.
think of the animals.
http://www.humanemyth.org/
KM, I would further question how the unslaughtered males are kept. Do they have enough floor space to be comfortable? Do they have amenities? What do they eat?
Surely the cow dairy does not keep the males as bulls, so they must undergo castration to
live. Which is more painful to the calf: dying a quick death while still young and clueless possibly without being excessively handled and while calm or endure the early pain of castration and the lifelong health risks being castrated before maturity (or conversely the intense pain of being castrated post-maturity) along the with lifetime risk of urinary tract and bladder issues? Farm animal guidelines indicate the humane choice may be death.
For the most part, even the female cows don’t have enough space or amenities. This is why I don’t use their products. Although I agree more with humane animal rearing than intensive, I’ll allocate my share of the less-intensive, lower-suffering animal products for people who are still blocking themselves from abstaining completely.
KM – My aim is not to change anyone’s entire worldview so that they agree with veejayblox. That’s not my goal at all. I honestly do not care what you think. I only care about actions. Your motivations are irrelevant to me. Likewise, they’re irrelevant to the animals.
To that end, in our common fight against factory farming – which is cruel to animals, destructive to the environment, and dangerous for human health – we ought to emphasize the importance of avoiding factory farmed products. The alternatives that we propose instead may be different but we can agree that anyone who is consistently avoiding factory farmed products is someone who will be eating a lot of plants.
Regardless of our different views of ideal agriculture, we can agree that ALL humane and environmentally-sound solutions REQUIRE that most humans adopt a plant-based diet.
drink fortified soy milk or rice milk. problem solved.
“Were we slaves to tradition, Rosa Parks would still be riding in the back of the bus.”
Gary Francione
veejayblox
It’s worth remembering that Rosa Parks wasn’t the first African American to stand up against segregation on busses. It’s worth remembering that her role was influential because she strategized with larger organizations: the NAACP and the Women’s Political Council.
Source: http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/parks-rosa-1913-2005-0
It’s worth remembering that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was successful due in part of leafleting AND that creating the momentum for change required some illegal activity.
source: http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/montgomery-bus-boycott-1955-56
Eccentric Vegan
very insightful comments, point accepted. errrr…. that comment, it was meant as an anti-cliche statement, i feel that Franciones statement is very insightful. and relevant. i agree there’s a revolution hiding within every oppressed peoples and marginalized person here on this planet waiting to see the light of day. segregation has been and always will be a blight on humanity and free thought. racism, hatred and speciesism all come out of the same bag.
a revolution has to start somewhere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5Td2KPEfY
I totally agree!
And to add to the argument of how could eating some meat be more “sustainable” than all vegan:
We have to raise grains to feed chickens, cows, pigs…. so we’re raising the grain anyway, and it takes way than one serving of grain to add up to one serving of meat. So no biologist (and I’m a biologist) would argue that the most sustainable thing to do is to eat low on the food chain, and the lowest item on the food chain that humans can eat is primary producers: AKA PLANTS!!!
yes JJ that argument suffers from the same defects that most non-vegetarian gurus offer, horribly twisted non-logic. and predefined conclusions.
and the term sustainable should not be defined in only eating the flesh of brutally tortured and sadistically slaughtered innocent non-human animals. period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd5Td2KPEfY