2009 – Page 4 – Animal Rights The Abolitionist Approach

In Defense of Mark Bittman

July 31, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

In Spring 2009, New York Times food writer Mark Bittman announced that:

All day long, he eats a vegan diet. But after about 6 p.m., anything goes.

And then, in July 2009, Bittman announced that in training for the New York City Marathon, he was advised that he needed more animal protein so he:

started eating a “concentrated protein,” usually tofu, a can of sardines, an egg thrown onto whatever else I’m eating, or something equally simple, right after six-miles-or-longer runs.

And today, Bittman informed us that he had taken yet another step away from veganism (which was not veganism anyway) because in making an “almost-vegan” grain dish for breakfast, he added:

fish sauce (non-vegan, but one teaspoon, and I swear it made the dish – though it would have been okay without it).

Now there are animal rights people who are pretty upset about this. How can Bittman claim to be a vegan when it seems that he isn’t at any point during the day—before or after 6 p.m.?

I am sorry but I must come to Bittman’s defense here.

Creative, Non-Violent Vegan Education—Easy and Effective

July 31, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

I recently posted several essays (e.g.,1, 2, 3) on various creative, non-violent vegan education. I am interested in canvassing the range of things that people are doing. So I posted a note on Facebook asking for people to tell me about their efforts at non-violent, creative vegan/abolitionist education. In one day, I got dozens of excellent replies.

Here are some:

A Comment on “Blood and Guts” Advocacy

July 29, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

Animal advocates often debate whether to use gory materials in their educational efforts. For example, should advocates show videos of slaughterhouses or other brutal situations?

I am not sure that there is a right or wrong answer here but I do want to offer some thoughts for your consideration.

On Vivisection and Violence

July 23, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

In today’s Mail Online, the internet edition of the Daily Mail, a U.K. newspaper, there is a fascinating article about vivisection by Dr. Danny Penman, a former research biochemist who now does science journalism for New Scientist and the Daily Mail.

Penman makes it clear that he supports vivisection:

Like most people, I would sacrifice the lives of countless lab animals to save my fiancèe or other members of my family.

Putting aside that most people would, if in a situation which they were forced to choose, sacrifice the lives of countless other humans to save those close to them (so the animal issue is beside the point), Penman goes on to express concern that there has been an increase over last year of half a million animals used in Britain labs and that the number of animals used for research in Britain now stands at 3.7 million.

Penman maintains that some use of animals is necessary but he argues that vivisection may actually threaten human health. He quotes New Scientist as reporting that the results of vivisection are “no more informative than tossing a coin,” and although he, Penman, would not go so far, he does agree that “vivisection is, at best, unreliable and, at worst, lethal.” He cites several examples where drugs that were tested on animals without there being any adverse reaction caused humans to become critically ill and to die. He argues in favor of new technologies that do not involve animals and that are much more reliable.

Penman’s critique of vivisection is quite remarkable given that he supports vivisection. I cannot recall the last time that I saw such an essay.

“Truth, Love and Liberty”

July 23, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

Let me preface the following remarks with the observation that I am no way questioning the sincerity of the individuals involved in the event that I am about to discuss. The purpose of this essay is to focus on what I regard as the very confused and morally problematic message that such an event involves.

On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, The Humane Society of the United States held an event to encourage prominent chefs and restaurants to support the HSUS boycott of Canadian seafood as a means to pressure the Canadian government to end the commercial seal slaughter in Canada.

Some details:

A Revolution of the Heart

July 14, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

Many animal advocates assume that we need an organization–some organization–in order to advocate for nonhuman animals; that we need a leader–some leader–to show us the way.

I suggest that this is the wrong way to look at things.

The Religion of Non-Violence

July 7, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

This past weekend, JAINA, the Federation of Jain Associations in North America, held its 15th Biennial Convention. The Convention was held in Los Angeles at the Jain Center of Southern California, which is one of the most beautiful buildings I have ever seen anywhere in America.

The theme of the Convention was “Ecology: The Jain Way.” The selection of this theme reflects a central focus of the Jain tradition: that all life is bound together by mutual support and interdependence.

Is there anything that you want to eat that badly?

June 28, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

I never fail to be amazed when I hear people—including well-known promoters of animal welfare—claim quite remarkably that animals do not have an interest in continued life; they just have an interest in not suffering. They do not care that we use them; they care only about how we use them. As long as they have a reasonably painless life and a relatively painless death, they do not care if we consume them or products made from them. I have discussed this issue in a number of essays on this site (see, e.g., 1; 2; 3) and in my books and articles. It will be a central topic in my forthcoming book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, which I have co-authored with Professor Robert Garner and that will be published by Columbia University Press this fall.

Another Welfarist “Revolution” That Wasn’t

June 26, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

As you know, I do not believe that welfare reforms provide significant benefits for nonhuman animals even when these reforms are implemented. But they often are not even implemented. That is, there are campaigns and fundraising efforts and declarations of “victory” (accompanied by parties complete with celebrities) but the supposed reforms often never even come about.

A good example of this phenomenon is found in the announcement on June 24, 2009 that Smithfield Foods will delay the ten-year phase-out of gestation crates for sows for financial reasons. Although alternatives to gestation crates have been demonstrated by agricultural economists to increase production efficiency in the long term, the short-term capital costs of converting from the crate system are apparently causing Smithfield to delay the ten-year phase out plan.

A Disturbing Partnership

June 25, 2009/in Blog/by Gary L. Francione

Dear Colleagues:

In much of my writing, I have argued that the promotion of the “happy meat” approach has led not only to making the public more comfortable about consuming animal products but it has resulted in the creation of a disturbing partnership between animal advocates and institutionalized exploiters. This topic is one of the many issues debated by me and Professor Robert Garner, who defends the new welfarist or “protectionist” (as he prefers to call it) position in our book, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, forthcoming from Columbia University Press this fall.