>
Tag Archives: animal welfare

Study Shows Vegans Are More Empathetic, Neurologically Speaking

6 Jun

    I’ve been a vegetarian since I was 15, and it breaks my heart hearing stories of animal cruelty. One video I saw on the PETA website stays with me to this day; I couldn’t sleep for days after seeing it. If you’ve seen films like Food, Inc., or read Fast Food Nation, or any other books on the subject, it baffles me how one could continue to eat animals, or meat from industrial farming practices. I am grateful for the farmer’s markets I have access to almost every day of the week, and the year-round growing season we have here in California. I know everyone doesn’t have access to this, but we all have the ability to think and to be aware of what we are eating, and how we treat others we share our lives with.

~ JB


from CARE2

Does it baffle you how some people—even seemingly kind, caring people—can watch heart-wrenching videos like “Meet Your Meat,” read sobering accounts of dairy farm cruelty, and look at disturbing photos of hens in tiny, crowded cages, yet still eat meat, eggs, and dairy products? Many people seem so indifferent to animal suffering, and even believe that cruel farming practices are justified. Are they horrible people, or are they just not “wired” to feel as much empathy for others?

According to a new study by European researchers, meat-eaters have less empathy—for both animals and people—than vegetarians and vegans do. The researchers recruited 60 volunteers—20 meat-eaters, 21 vegans, and 19 vegetarians—and placed them into an MRI machine while showing them a series of random pictures. The MRI scans revealed that, when observing animal or human suffering, the “empathy-related” areas of the brain are more active among vegetarians and vegans. The researchers even found that there are certain brain areas that only vegans and vegetarians seem to activate when witnessing suffering—animal or human. The vegetarians and vegans also scored significantly higher on an empathy quotient questionnaire than the meat-eaters did.

Now, I’m no neurologist and I don’t know anything about brain chemistry, but every article I’ve read on this subject seems to imply that people who choose to eat a vegan diet do so because they are more capable of making compassionate choices. I’m not bringing this up to make vegans or vegetarians feel self-righteous or superior, but it is something for everyone to keep in mind when you’re accused of—or accusing someone of—caring more about people than animals

We all know someone who insists that animal advocates don’t do anything to help people. Usually, the people who make this claim don’t do anything to help anyone. They might find the results of this study interesting. While it can be difficult to devote the same amount of time and passion to all the worthwhile causes out there—and we all must put our energy towards the ones that touch us the most deeply—that obviously doesn’t preclude us from caring about other issues, especially when making a difference can be as simple as what we choose to eat or where to shop or buy our gas.

As far as animals are concerned, I’m not sure if this study has good or bad implications for them. While it’s hardly conclusive, I can’t help but worry that perhaps there are some people who will never be particularly sensitive to animal suffering, because they’re just more inclined to be self-centered. It sounds like a convenient “excuse,” but maybe it is actually something that’s difficult for them to “overcome.” Could it be like showing a blind person photos of egregious animal abuse and saying, “look, see how horrible this is?”

I just can’t believe that, though. Even if some people aren’t “programmed” to have as much empathy as others are, most everyone is still capable of compassion. (There may be exceptions though—we all knew that Michael Vick was “wrong in the head” to do what he did, and maybe had he undergone a brain scan, it would have proved it—and shown if he is truly capable of changing.)

But, hopefully sooner rather than later, more meat-eaters will realize that farmed animals deserve empathy and kindness. Most vegans have a “suddenly it hit me” moment; I like to think that non-vegans (or pre-vegans) just haven’t had their “aha moment” yet.

If you think of yourself as an empathetic-type—always volunteering at animal shelters, donating money to help earthquake victims, collecting clothing and blankets for the homeless, giving games to “Toys for Tots,” or just crying at sad news stories—but you haven’t yet gone vegan, or even vegetarian, these tips might help you make the transition, and these amazing animal facts might help remind you that animals are fascinating individuals, who have a lot in common with us, and should be treated with respect and empathy.

Eating Animals

4 Dec

by Tyler Falk

[I heard an interview with this author on the radio about three weeks ago, and found it really satisfying. Get the book, preferably from you local library. ~ JB]

If you’re a meat eater, don’t read Jonathan Safran Foer’s new book Eating Animals. Unless, that is, you are a meat eater curious about the health of your body, the planet, or the animals you consume.

The acclaimed author of Everything is Illuminated and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Foer, has been an on-again, off-again vegetarian since age nine when his herbivore babysitter explained to him why she wasn’t eating chicken. Years later, as a first-time father-to-be, Foer set out on a three year journey to learn where the meat that we eat comes from. The result is Eating Animals.

But Foer isn’t the only one doing the talking. An animal activist and factory farmer have monologues, along with a vegan who builds slaughterhouses and a vegetarian rancher, among others. Then he weaves their stories into his own philosophical ponderings about the morality of supporting an industry that has produced some sickening statistics of late.

But wherever you fall on this issue—staunch meatetarian, longtime vegan, or back and forth vegetarian like Foer himself—you won’t look at the meat industry in the same way again—and you might even find yourself advocating for changes.

Foer talked with Grist about his book, why environmentalists haven’t done enough to address meat, and his Thanksgiving dinner.
—————

Jonathan Safran Foer Photo: Gianluca Gentilini

Q. Some people might look at your book and think, it’s just some vegetarian trying to tell me to not eat meat or preach to me. How would you describe your book to someone skeptical about reading it?

A. There are things in it that people really want to know. I, of course, understand the impulse not to want to look, because I had that impulse many times a day with all kinds of issues. If something comes on the TV about starving kids and I think, “oh god I don’t want to look because I’m not doing what I maybe should be doing.” You know all of the reasons why we can’t face certain things. I’ve heard from a lot of people who’ve read the book who frankly don’t care that much about animals, but for whom the human health stuff was just really shocking. I’ve talked to a fair number of parents who said I don’t want to feed my kids this stuff. Unfortunately, conversations about meat have historically not really been conversations but arguments. You know my book. I have strong opinions and I share them but I don’t think of my book as an argument. I think of it as a kind of story that I’m telling—about my life, the decisions I’ve made, why having a kid changed my mind about some of these things—but also a conversation. Many many people have their own voice in the book—farmers, activists, nutritionists—and I wanted it to capture what a complicated and also what a first-person oriented topic meat is.

Q. You make a powerful moral argument against eating meat. With so many other moral injustices and inequalities in the industrial food system, why did you focus solely on meat?

A. A number of reasons. One, it would take many, many books to write about the entire food system in a way that it deserves, comprehensively. I had to leave so much out just in my conversation of meat in the interest of having a book that could be useful, readable. So yes, there are many injustices in the world. This is a special one. In the food system, [meat] is unique because the food is sentient where carrots aren’t and corn isn’t. [Meat] also happens to be the worst part of the food system when we talk about the environment and the worst part when we talk about human health. It deserves special attention.

Q. Did you see a lack of conversation about the meat industry, especially when we talk about the food system? Did you see a lack of information there for people?

A. Definitely. I think every book is written because the author wants to read it, whether it’s a novel or nonfiction. And as somebody who has thought about this issue for a long time, there was a certain kind of thing I wanted to read. And it didn’t exist. Omnivore’s Dilemma sort of approaches some of this but doesn’t get into it. And the same could be said of Fast Food Nation. And then there are books that are, of course, very directly about meat but they tend to be more rigidly philosophical rather than, as I said before, a conversation or a story. If such a thing had existed, man oh man, I would have been so happy not to work on this. I really like writing novels. This felt important.

Q. Food has such a strong sentimental value. You talk about your grandma’s chicken and carrot dish in the book. Do you think this is the reason people and our society in general tend to ignore discussion about where meat comes from?

A. There are many, many reasons. One, it’s just unpleasant to think about and talk about. Two, yes these emotional, psychological personal history reasons. Three, it tastes good and it smells good and most people want to continue to do things that feel good to them. But four, there are many forces that suppress a good conversation about this. It’s impossible to go to the kinds of farms that produce 99 percent of the meat in America. There’s labeling, very manipulative labeling, that discourages us from having a conversation because it makes us feel that things are more okay than they actually are. But I think it’s a conversation that people are not only willing to have, but want to have. We don’t want to eat foods that aren’t good for us. We don’t want to eat foods where environmental destruction is built into the business model. We don’t want to eat foods that require animal suffering, require insane kinds of modifications to animals’ bodies. These are not liberal or conservative values. Nobody wants this.

Q. When I first considered becoming a vegetarian, I kind of freaked out and thought, “This is going to change my life by not eating meat! I’m going to have to make a lot of changes.” How can someone who is considering becoming a vegetarian overcome that hurdle?

A. I would say don’t think about it as becoming a vegetarian. Think about it as a process of eating less meat. And maybe the process will end with eating no meat. But if Americans lose one serving of meat a week from their diet it would be like taking about 5 million cars off the road. That’s a really impressive statistic that I think might motivate a lot of people who feel they can’t become vegetarians to remove one serving of meat. So, we need to move away from this kind of dichotomous, absolutist language and towards something that just reflects where people are in this country. Once people start caring they care about more, not less.

Q. You’re very honest about your struggle to stick to a vegetarian diet. Was that your purpose, with talking about that in the book, going back and forth in your struggle?

A. It was just the truth. And that truth can be really helpful because again a lot of people get turned off by the prospect of some sort of an absolute end they think they’re not going to be capable of achieving. If the conversation were just more flexible. Of course certain things are wrong. They’re just wrong, wrong, wrong. There’s no way around it. But the goals that most people who care about this issue have are reducing animal suffering and having a food system that is respectful of the environment. If those are really our goals, then we should have an approach that better reflects that.

Q. You focus a lot on personal choice when it comes to eating meat—the moral dilemma between choosing to eat meat and to not eat meat. What about government policy? If the government regulated the meat industry more strictly, wouldn’t change happen more quickly? Is personal choice enough and where does activism come into play?

A. Well, it’s all part of a picture. The government is going to lag behind everybody else because they have to endorse American industry and 99 percent of American industry is factory farming. There have been some very successful referendums around the country. Like, California’s Prop 2 is the most famous one and also the threats of referendums which have encouraged certain states like Michigan to make changes on its own. So those are really effective and we’re going to see a lot more of them.

Q. One of the reasons you wrote this book was to become an informed parent. The food industry in general, not just Big Meat, spends a lot of money on advertisements aimed at children. How do you protect your son from influential food advertising, especially from the meat industry?

A. Well, it’s a non issue so far. But, we’ll have conversations, not just pretend that there isn’t an issue. We’ll talk about it. He might reach different conclusions. He might want to try certain things. Of course he will, if he’s at all like every other kid who has ever lived. We also need to get this crap out of schools. Definitely we need to get posters from lobbying organizations, profit driven lobbying organizations out of schools, whose incentive is not to make our kids healthier. But, we also need to reform the school lunch program. It shouldn’t be depository for all the meats, the factory farmed products, that America isn’t buying. And we spend five times as much on factory farmed products than we do fruits and vegetables in high schools.

Q. Explaining how factory farms work would be enough to give anybody nightmares. How are you going to approach that with your son?

A. Well, it only gives you a nightmare if you’re participating. To say no to it lets you sleep at night.

Q. You discussed the link between factory farms and large pandemics, Spanish influenza, swine flu. The mainstream media is always talking about swine flu. Why do you think they shy away from linking factory farms and H1N1?

A. I don’t know. You tell me. I mean, we could assume there’s some pressure from the meat lobby I guess, the pork lobby, but I don’t really know. I find it very strange.

Q. You write in your book, “someone who regularly eats factory farmed animal products cannot call themselves an environmentalist without divorcing that word from its meaning.” Do you think environmentalists have done enough to make the connection between meat production and climate change? And what more do you think could be done?

A. No, they obviously haven’t [done enough], and they know it’s the elephant in the room. They haven’t because they fear that addressing it is going to risk losing people. And I appreciate that. I don’t think that that’s stupid. I’m not one to get on Al Gore’s back for not talking about it enough because he’s doing amazing work and he serves a function in the world and it might very well be that if he got too deeply into this issue people would treat him, and the cause perhaps, less seriously. That having been said, we have to get serious. This is the number one cause of global warming—and not by a little bit but by a lot. The most recently revised estimate was that animal agriculture is responsible for 51 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, so that’s more than everything else put together. If we’re going to seriously think about this stuff we might have to risk the discomfort.

Q. Are you going to eat tofurky for Thanksgiving dinner this year? [Note: This interview took place the week before Thanksgiving.]

A. No. I don’t really get into the whole tofurky business. We’re going to just have really the kinds of food that everybody has—just no turkey. We’ll have stuffing and green beans and sweet potatoes and yams and all of that stuff. I guarantee everyone will go home full. I’m really looking forward to it actually this year.

Animal Welfare Touches the UN

23 Oct

posted by: alicia graef, at Care2

Animals undeniably touch the lives of people around the world. Billions of animals are used for sports, entertainment, therapy, protection, food, clothing and to some they mean a livelihood. To others they are merely possessions, and to the rest of us they are our fur babies and cherished members of the family. We love them and yet exploit them and there is currently no universal recognition of the rights and welfare standards they deserve.

The World Society for the Protection of Animals is working to urge the United Nations’ General Assembly to adopt international policies on animal welfare with their Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare (UDAW) campaign.

“Animal welfare is not some unaffordable luxury. It’s an essential part of solutions to some of the most pressing problems facing us today,” said Mike Baker, WSPA’s director general. The UDAW campaign intends to bring the significance of animals, animal welfare issues and the need for sustainable development at a global level to the attention of individuals and governments around the world.

A UDAW would mean that nations would agree that animals are sentient beings that can suffer, that they have basic welfare needs that need to be met, and that steps need to be taken to put a permanent end to animal cruelty.

At local and national levels a UDAW would also:

  • Encourage governments to improve their national animal welfare legislation.
  • Provide a basis for animal welfare legislation in countries where it does not currently exist.
  • Encourage those industries which use animals to keep welfare at the forefront of their policies.
  • Mobilize and unite the animal welfare movement behind a common goal.
  • Provide a useful framework to link humanitarian development and animal welfare agendas.
  • Inspire positive change in public attitudes towards animal welfare.
  • A UDAW would include both companion animals and livestock, in addition to making inclusions for animals in emergency relief plans. Improving animal welfare and management plans can also benefit the environment through responsible land use, improving conservation efforts and protecting biodiversity.

    Some governments have already stepped up to support this effort, including New Zealand, Cambodia, Palau, the Seychelles, Fiji, Switzerland and 27 EU member states, but the UN’s support is critical to moving these efforts forward.

    Help the WSPA reach their goal of 10 million signatures and add your name to the petition supporting the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare.
    amtm_120x120

    San Francisco Considers a Ban on Declawing Cats

    14 Jul

    San Francisco may consider banning the declawing of cats based on a plea from an animal welfare advisory board to San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. Opponents of the ban, including the California Veterinary Medical Association, argue that the decision should be left to cat owners and their veterinarians. However, San Francisco’s Commission of Animal Control and Welfare are on the other side of the debate with the opinion that declawing is cruel and should not be done for cosmetic reasons, i.e. keeping the couch in one piece.


    What’s the big deal anyway, they’re just nails right? Well, not so much. Declawing isn’t a simple procedure that merely removes a cat’s nail. Rather, it involves a painful surgery that removes the last joint in a cat’s foot, to which the nail is attached. According to Dr. Nicholas Dodman, Professor of Behavioral Pharmacology and Director of the Behavior Clinic at Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine:

    “The inhumanity of the procedure is clearly demonstrated by the nature of cats’ recovery from anesthesia following the surgery. Unlike routine recoveries, including recovery from neutering surgeries, which are fairly peaceful, declawing surgery results in cats bouncing off the walls of the recovery cage because of excruciating pain. Cats that are more stoic huddle in the corner of the recovery cage, immobilized in a state of helplessness, presumably by overwhelming pain.

    Declawing fits the dictionary definition of mutilation to a tee. Words such as deform, disfigure, disjoint, and dismember all apply to this surgery. Partial digital amputation is so horrible that it has been employed for torture of prisoners of war, and in veterinary medicine, the clinical procedure serves as model of severe pain for testing the efficacy of analgesic drugs. Even though analgesic drugs can be used postoperatively, they rarely are, and their effects are incomplete and transient anyway, so sooner or later the pain will emerge.”

    Declawing is considered inhumane by many and has been banned in 23 countries, and in West Hollywood, Calif. and Norfolk, Va., in the U.S.

    For more information on declawing and alternatives to the procedure, visit declawing.com and stopdeclaw.com